Is materialism the final stage of metaphysics?
Is the universe just a giant machine functioning according to the laws of physics?
I'm finding myself returning to more "fedora" like beliefs when it comes to ultimate truths, after dabbling for a while in Christianity/occultism/perennialism.
When I looked at what Plato and Aristotle were trying to achieve, I realized they would have come up with completely different ideas if they knew the laws of physics and encountered Descartes' skepticism.
Was Bacon right? Were the greeks the "childhood" period of philosophy? I haven't read Pythagoras, but it sounds like he was the only one with the right idea.
I know religion is "extra-rational", in that whether or not it's entirely rational isn't important. I'm also aware of the millennia of tradition packed into the allegories of the bible, and even of the seemingly practical effects of occultism.
But from a strictly metaphysical perspective, how do you rise above materialism? The functions of our universe are being mathematically proven as we speak.
materialism isn't really fedoric, and if you pay attention to fedoras you might notice they don't exactly follow through with their materialism and don't accept hard determinism
there's lots of idealist edgy rightwing fedoramen on this website right now too
i think they like to post those naked marble aryan men so you can identify them easily
>>7867218
Materialism was already a well-known view among the Greeks before Plato and Aristotle, with advocates such as Democritus, Leucippus, and Empedocles. Arguably Thales was a materialist. It was not a lack of exposure to modern physics or Cartesian skepticism (pyrrhonian skepticism, anyone?) that made Plato and Aristotle hold their views.
For now, maybe try AJ Ayer and Wittgenstein, that would prepare you to see past "ultimate truths" in terms of materialism or idealism or whateverism.
>>7867321
None of the ancient skeptics had found the formulas the universe abides by. You really think they (especially Aristotle) would come up with the same philosophies and accept the pantheon of gods as a given if they had Newton's Principia?
>>7867336
You will understand a lot more if you assume the ancients are smarter than you. Right now you sound like you read a couple articles from infidels.org and called it a day.
Bump, I'm having the same dilemma as OP
>>7867232
Couldn't resist
>>7867576
Fuck you.
>>7867336
>and accept the pantheon of gods
what?
have you actually read Plato or Aristotle?
No, materialism is just another metaphysics, not necessarily "final" (I think what you mean is "true"), since we can't seem to attain a definitive conclusion on the problem of sense data (Look at your hand. Do you see a physical object or your sense data or your sense data of a physical object? If it's the third, then how do you know there are physical things at all, if everything that you perceive is via sense data? Materialism vs. idealism vs. dualism summarized).
Don't forget that the Universe obeys logical laws too which are far more fundamental than the laws of physics. But asking this implies that you're not really sure or convinced about the matter. If so, how then can you exclaim that "materialism the final stage of metaphysics"? Perhaps you should read and study more and develop a position that you can actually argue for and defend.
>The functions of our universe are being mathematically proven as we speak.
You see, you assume that everything is material (this is what materialism entails) yet any talk of mathematics implies a realm other than the material: an abstract one. In other words, if you're a materialist and you have not the slightest clue about how mathematics and the physical world interact (acquiring a sufficient background to this philosophical problem alone could take years) you can't have your cake and eat it too: materialism implies denial of abstract objects. But they are indispensable in the physical sciences. Do you have theory that explains this?
>>7869574
That's a good point, I hadn't even thought about mathematical concepts existing in abstraction.
But this feels vulnerable. Isn't math itself just the laws of the universe being condensed to their simplest possible abstractions for the sake of practical application?
Read Heidegger, then Levinas, then reread Aristotle
>>7870042
no, math is a system of nigh-unlimited flexibility that maps onto reality.
reality is itself, not math. math is a symbol system which more-or-less describes reality, like english.
>>7869574
>>7870042
There is no abstract realm, idiots.
"abstract ideas" exist in reality in human skulls, and no-where else.
>>7869574
>how do you know there are physical things at all, if everything that you perceive is via sense data?
it's really a question of probability.
it's more likely that we perceive things because they're really actually there than any other explanation.
also, even "sense data" is physical.
