How do materialists even define "truth" as a property? "That which is material"? I'm guess their conception of truth is not falsifiable?
>>764545
Truth probably precedes matter for most materialists. The reason they're materialists is that they think materialism is the most likely fit for truth, not because it's some axiom from which even truth is derived
>>764555
Then materialists see truth as a metaphysical property?
>>764545
materialism is not necessarily the rejection of idealism. It's the conjecture that the material reality has more weight.
Compare Kant's idealism in which the entire material world is reduced to an abstract thing-in-itself which can never be accessed or interacted with.
>>764545
As with everyone else, they define it based on the theory of truth they hold.
>>764670
Kant wasn't necessarily saying the material can't be interacted with. In fact, I would say he was suggesting the opposite, the *essence* can't be interacted with.
>>764545
Truth is not a property that exists like spaciotemporal and causal objects do but an isomorphism between the world and our theorizing about it.
>>764545
> How do materialists even define "truth" as a property?
There are many materialists out there. *hint* *hint*
> "That which is material"?
Do you even understand what "materialism" means?
> falsifiable
Popper's ideas are inherently flawed, you know.
>>765866
Then materialists think truth doesn't exist independently of perception?
>>765891
> Then materialists think truth doesn't exist independently of perception?
How are you going to define truth, if you do not have anyone percieving the world (and forming an opinion about it)?
>>765899
Isn't that conception of the truth idealist though?
It depends on which materialist you ask and literally nothing else.
>>765899
Under the correspondence theory which I defined, yes it would: if a philosophical zombie or somesuch wrote "a book of the world" consisting of accurate statements describing the universe, those statements would be "true" regardless of whether anyone would be around to consider them such. Not all materialists agree on a single theory of truth, however.
Oh look, another raid of christfags
>>765901
Idealists would consider truth to be independent from the obsever, no?
Also this: >>765913
There is a lot of Materialists (or people claiming to be one).
>>765921
> those statements would be "true"
In what context? If there is no one to ascertain the veracity of statements, how are you going to determine if the statements are true?
>>765931
>Idealists would consider truth to be independent from the obsever, no?
No, just the opposite.
>>765931
There's no need for a "context", the conformity between the statements and the state of affairs isn't mind-dependent.
>>765930
>implying the plebbit fedora diaspora to 4chan isn't a raid
>implying we weren't here first
>>764545
Materialists are retards. Their whole philosophical construct permeates the material, and yet they still hold to materialism. Their philosophy is inherently spiritual in nature. It is spiritual atrophy, but it is still spiritual.
>>765959
> There's no need for a "context", the conformity between the statements and the state of affairs isn't mind-dependent.
You cannot interpret the statements without an observer.
>>764545
The idea of truth is not necessarily truth itself, just as the idea of a circle is not an actual instance of a circle.
>>765994
>Materialists are retards. Their whole philosophical construct permeates the material, and yet they still hold to materialism.
How does it permeate the material? Nothing I believe in exists without the substance I'm composed of.
>>766102
So what?
What is the opposite of a "Materialist"?
"Immaterialism"?
>>764545
Truth is opinion, but one that I'm going to have no matter how many fits someone else has. I think that pure logic goes highest, with good science that tries to be free of bias second.
Even though I think this, in practice I still have things like morals, and that what I think as true will be held about as stubbornly as you cling to absolute truth.
You are free to believe in truth as a metaphysical property if you want. You have already been accounted for.
>>765959
Maybe not mind dependent, but you do need the context of the language, script, and other encoding the statements are in.
>>766322
But again, the statements would still retain their truthfulness even without anyone to interpret them.
>>766303
Asceticism?
>>766303
Either idealism or dualism I suppose.
>>764545
their whole thing is that truth is not a principle, but a conglomerate of physical facts supported by empiricist reductionism and the physicality of their experimentations, justified by as the subjectivity of personal perception.. the "materialists" ITT are trying to save face by claiming not all materialists are so blithely bereft of philosophical depth in their thinking by not directly denying the metaphysical or causal property of ultimate reality, or truth.
Materialists shouldn't waste their time with abstract spiritual concepts like truth.
>>766552
>take that thing we all like
>claim it is exclusive to your philosophy/religion
>blame other people for "not getting it" and it's "too deep for you"
Dank as fuck.
>>766552
>spiritual
>>766333
Not anymore than scribbles and gibberish
>>766593
What makes think he's not a materialist?
>>766303
idealism
The basic question is are we dealing with a physical reality or something non-physical.
The real answer is 'both' but in some cases one school of thought is preferable to another. For instance when looking how philosophy, religion, and culture evolved idealism is very strong. While materialism is very good for things like physics and engineering. Than you have subjects like math where we you sort of have to take both
>>767188
Christianity isn't idealist, George Berkeley aside. It believes that things can be materially factual, regardless of perception.
>>767211
What does Christianity have to do with any of this?
Idealism and Materialism are not religious concepts. And Christianity has had flirtations with both of the schools of thoughts.
>>767294
When you're talking about the evolution of religion.
Christianity doesn't really have anything to do with either school, because it conceives the spiritual and the material as intersecting dimensions.
>>765899
>if a tree falls in the woods...
>>764592
hehehehe
>>765899
Truth not existing independent of perception is perceptionism which is compatible but not identical to materialism.
>>767508
The thing is does anyone give a shit about a tree in a forest that they don't perceive? Even to ponder about the tree involve a type of mental perception.
Any possible statement about the tree, the forest, or sound involves having some sort of perspective.
>>767579
>he thing is does anyone give a shit about a tree in a forest that they don't perceive?
What has that got to do with its truth?
>>767659
It has to do with the idea that truth is contained inside of perspective. That's perspectivism which can be either materialistic or idealistic.
If you want your truth to exist outside of perspective that's closer to modernism which is compatible with both idealism and materialism
>>767686
I think that perspective is the very definition of idealism.
>>767686
>If you want your truth to exist outside of perspective that's closer to modernism
Uh, sounds like Christianity to me, since it posits truth as a "mystery" frequently.
>>767703
In a way modernism sort of started as a way of taking all the rational aspects of Christianity and trying to secularize them.
Descartes believed in an immaterial material soul only because he had an (at the time) very logic argument. As more science advanced the ideas were dropped.
>>767812
Modernism comes from Scolasticism, which is a product of Islamic rationalist theology. But you are right, of course. Nonetheless, saying the idea that truth exists apart from perception is "modernist" is not really accurate, since modernism also gave rise to systematic idealism.
