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.

Off-Kilter

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?…

View original post 342 more words

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Quick one

  1. Chen says:

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

    Like

    • terenceblake says:

      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.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s