Life on a materialist view is absurd. There is a mismatch about what we feel should be, and what the materialist believes.
Many materialists have noticed this, and they usually go one of three ways: either they kill themselves, they embrace absurdity with a sort of bravado or humour, or they start trying to convince themselves that materalism is false for personal gain.
I want to suggest a fourth reaction: why don't we see this absurdity as something that can't be true? Isn't the definition of absurdity that it doesn't make sense? Don't we actually have a proof by contradiction for materialism?
>>1359016
That's a whole lot about nothing.
So stuff isn't as you though it would be? Big whooop. You don't care so much after a while. And I don't get why call it absurd.
>>1359037
>You don't care so much after a while.
I would say you are taking the second path. And I know what you mean, the frequency with which you think about it certainly decreases.
But every time you DO think about it, it's just as baffling as the first time.
>>1359016
How are 2 and 4 incompatible?
>>1359053
If you embrace absurdity, you are basically saying "Yeah, it's weird, isn't it? But I guess that's how it is."
But I think it's not just "weird". It's actually self-incoherent.
Freedom of the will is a good example. Can I really think "my choices are predetermined or random"? I mean, I can say it. I can imagine what the words mean. But can I really think it? It seems like a betrayal of my most fundamental knowledge.
If you believe that there is no existence outside of our physical finite existence than you are a materialist.
You are then asserting that the nature of existence itself is finite and limited.
So ask yourself, is existence infinite or finite?
>>1359016
>Life on a materialist view is absurd.
This implies a teleology which is not inherent or necessary to materialism, despite the implicit teleological statements of many materialists.
>they usually go one of three ways
Oh boy, let's make shit up time!
>either they kill themselves
Okay
>they embrace absurdity with a sort of bravado or humour
Maybe a certain brand of existentialist, but okay, let's see what the third one is, this is obviously going to have to be the vast majority of mate-
>or they start trying to convince themselves that materalism is false for personal gain
Okay you're just making up bullshit now. You're saying that materialists either kill themselves, put on a stiff upper lip, or aren't materialists. Uh huh. Okay.
>I want to suggest a fourth reaction
Okay! Seems like there are many other different kinds of materialists than those who are suicidal, comedians, or not materialists (a contradiction in terms). Lets hear what it
>why don't we see this absurdity as something that can't be true?
So, why don't we do like category #3 and be materialists who aren't materialists? O-okay.
Did you really think you had some kind of actual idea here?
>>1359422
As if a religious person has never committed suicide.
Anyways he's either too stupid to justify with attention, or desperate enough to look like it.
It's not difficult to avoid thinking about death as some void. There's no real need to ponder it in any way other than your own leisure. Nor is it difficult to go about my life believing in materialism without feeling some emptiness about it. If any religious person thinks that I must, because I don't have a faith similar to theirs; it just goes to show that they can't project outside of their own theological mindset. So instead of suspending their own beliefs to try and understand in some unbiased way (as many religious people clearly expect atheists to, if only they -understood- this incredibly specific sect of religion at this one point in human history) people like OP would have to affix people like me to their own worldview to make any sense of it. So yeah, essentially they're making shit up to deal with cognitive dissonance, if they aren't outright trolling.
>>1359473
in what sense? you mean as in eternal life? no. matter having an infinite existence in time moving forwards? sure
Living a virtuous and pleasant life is what you should strive for, buddy. Freedom from anxiety, cultivating friendship, gratitude, and making sure your desires are simple and easy to attain is the best way to do it.
It's not that hard.
>>1359484
Yes human lives are not infinite, this is not a doctrine in most religions by the way.
Be careful with how you understand infinity, matter is finite and so is time, matter and time should be treated as if they are one in the same.
Infinity is that which is undefinable, no beginning and no end, no physical forms and no time, these are finite and everything finite descends from the infinite.
So do you think that there is an infinity? Or only this physical finite reality that we are immediately conscious of?
>>1359016
How is materialism absurd?
You seem to be assuming it as a premise in your "proof by contradiction".
>>1359016
Being a materialist doesn't always mean you're selfish or greedy. Some people will confuse materialism with nostalgia, which is not the case. I so certain had a collection of old, antique computer parts back from the 60's which I later on destroyed because I was bored. Some people are materialistic for some amount of time and later decide their taste for nostalgia has either "grown away" or vanished due to the absurdity of the Person's spouse or relative.
>How is materialism absurd?
Simply put, we are built to seek the permanent and the absolute. But when we look at the world, we see nothing permanent or absolute at all.
It doesn't happen to all materialists, but many experience moments in their life where this mismatch between what they are built for and what they find is shocking to them.
All of this could be true even if materialism is true. It just means that we evolved with desires that can never be sated. For example, evolution makes us want to live forever, because that's a good desire to have in order to avoid danger. But it isn't actually possible.
>>1359016
Hrm... Spirituality still exists with materialism. I've done enough drugs to know chemicals can get you closer to whatever god you want to believe in.
>>1359589
>We are built to seek for the permanent and the absolute.
Wrong.
>>1359589
What if instead of "absurd", it's "sublime", because we can never grasp our desires or some other poetic thing.
Here's another turnabout: Suppose Materialism is not true, that actually we are spirits in a mindscape or whatever. Now it's just as "absurd" that we all share this consistent idea of an observable physical world that works according to fundamental principles, even though it's not real! How absurd, why can't we dismiss it as obviously untrue since it doesn't make sense? Don't we have a proof by contradiction for spiritualism?
>>1359614
No, non-materialists usually believe in the material world plus other stuff. They just have a strictly larger ontology.
>>1359598
If you make a list of all the things that people find unacceptable about materialism, you end up with the exact intersection of all successful religions.
It's obvious that this discontent is everywhere.
>>1359635
It's there because people are scared of dying, that's pretty much it.
>>1359558
Not OP, but I thought absurdity was a natural corollary to materialism. Or maybe im just assuming too much.
It's the fact that materialism can create such an elaborate and accurate view of the world and yet still not explain some fundamental aspects of it is what's absurd. That everything can seem like it makes sense when it doesn't, or that we can follow generally accepted physical concepts to their logical extremes and have them lead nowhere.
If alternatives to pure materialism were more substantiated (although maybe that itself is impossible) then maybe the absurd would be given less weight. But it's the materialist's complete inability to explain certain concepts while adhering so tightly to a system that so efficiently explains the world is what's absurd. Because if materialism didn't make sense, why would it work so well? But at the same time, if it works so well then why don't we have answers to arguably some of the most fundamental questions about existence?
>>1359802
>>1359635
I just don't think angst is "important" enough to undermine materialism.
We are highly social primates with sophisticated brains, so once we are done getting calories and mates we are left to wonder about nature, paint pictures or write symphonies, maybe invent spears or televisions or nuclear reactors. Ah you get it. Anyway I don't see emotional confusion as being a dealbreaker.
The problem I see is that suppose you go Dualism or some "spiritual" angle. Ok, now what? What facts and conclusions can you reach? And how do you know you found that mystical mystery "right answer" that your heart of hearts was missing with materialism? You can't prove there is a soul or god or magic or whatever else comforting non-materialistic thing you dream up. Now you opened pandora's box of imagination and you are worse off than you started because now the sky is the limit about what you accept as true. Worse yet you are prone to believe what you want to be true.
>>1359016
Why do you assume there is something other than material?
>>1359802
>It's the fact that materialism can create such an elaborate and accurate view of the world and yet still not explain some fundamental aspects of it is what's absurd.
That's how I see it.
As far as I know (for example) neuroscience will just keep getting better and better at explaining my behaviour in terms of material law. But will I ever accept that I am not free? No, of course I won't.
It's like the world is a trick. That's how I would put it.
>>1359824
>it is incomplete, VERY incomplete
While I agree, I also think that plays directly into the absurd. What is incomplete exactly? Doesn't that imply there is a missing puzzle piece to a broader scheme? How would we find that piece when the piece is missing from the very system we use to look for more pieces? It implies some form of teleology, which is also not a necessary idea if going on materialistic principles alone.
>>1359473
Depends if you mean human existence or existence in general. If the former, finite. The latter it's hard to say. I'm inclined to say infinite, mostly because I have a hard time imagining what the beginning of existence itself would have been like.
