Quick one

Chen on how reductionist materialisms presuppose not only a naive concept of matter but also of existence. « Matter » seen through the eyes of a diachronic ontology, where process is included not only in the beings it premises but also in the theorising itself, looks very different to matter as seen by a synchronic ontology. Given that such synchronic ontologies tend to base their concept of matter on the sciences, which are neither consensual nor stable, their very effort to establish a non-dualist materialism produces the very sort of bifurcations that it pretends to eliminate.


Are only « subjects » « minds » hypostatizied? Or are ‘bodies’ and ‘matter’ just as much hypostatizations? There is a growing irritation in me while re/reading and trying to come to grips with the varying reductionist materialisms out there. In essence, even from folks that are nuanced in their thinking on it seems that the background idea of what is real is a fixed, stable « substance » tangible ‘matter.’ Say, the door you run into or a rock. The problem then is to account for the non-real things, things that lack being like ‘beliefs’ and ‘reasons.’ The general line of thought, it appears, is that the latter are « hypostasized » in thought ( which thought does to itself as well) and leads into confusion. But in contrast to what? Lots of ink is being spilled on how the self for example, is an abstraction thought fallaciously to ‘have’ being. But say it doesn’t ‘have’ being?…

Voir l’article original 342 mots de plus

Cet article a été publié dans Uncategorized. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

2 commentaires pour Quick one

  1. Chen dit :

    Thanks, Terence. You sum up what I’m getting at better that I do. 🙂


    • terenceblake dit :

      I doubt it. Keep up the good fight. The monologue persists only because its advocates just ignore even simple and obvious flaws, when they are pointed out, and go on repeating the exact same errors. It is always right to resist!

      By the way, an interesting sociology of the blogosphere could be made to show how seemingly separate blogs that « impartially » find merit in various flawed positions and arguments are linked historically, socially, and careeristically.


Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s