[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 411x387, 1408838236618.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12910667 No.12910667 [Reply] [Original]

I'm not a Phil major so feel free to make fun of me but is metaphysics settled on realism and materialism by now? All the idealism of Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel, what happened? Early modern thinkers like Hume feel more contemporary than them!

>> No.12910676

>>12910667
>thinks metaphysics can be settled

Anon..

>> No.12910717

What exactly do you mean by "realism"? Do you mean Platonic realism? Because that is, of course, at odds with materialism.

>> No.12910726

>>12910717
What's the difference between realism and materialism?

>> No.12910740

>>12910667
That's because Hume was actually reasonable and didn't wildly invent stuff. The Hume position has been around since men first learned how to reason about things, and will always exist for anyone to rediscover themselves by just being honest and sensible.

>> No.12910765

>>12910740
based

>> No.12910774

>>12910676
Be more specific

>> No.12910844

It just boils down to personal opinion so no it's not settled

>> No.12911382

bump

>> No.12911396

>>12910726
Materialism says all that exists is matter (without necessarily specifying what matter is, but that is a different question). A metaphysical realist can be a realist about many things: numbers, universals, colors, spacetime, qualia, so on and so forth. Global metaphysical positions like "idealism" and "realism" refer to the world and not objects within or without it.

>> No.12911483

>>12910667
I feel like idealism will make a bit of a comeback. It's never settled anon, if you got a small understanding of the history of philosophy you'll know this. I myself think materialism doesn't go far enough and philosophy is all the worse for it.

>> No.12911493

>>12911483
>I feel like idealism will make a bit of a comeback.
How could it when all the branches of physical sciences are only entrenching themselves even further into regular life?

>> No.12911497

>>12910667
Idealism is what is vogue right now

>> No.12911502

>>12911493
You question the autism of a genius. Some kant or hegel-level sperg will come along eventually and it'll be glorious.

>> No.12912484

>>12910740
Hume is literally the radical centrist position, the only reason it's been around consistently since the beginning of the universe is the same reason that retards represent a primitive form of man

>> No.12912501

>>12911493
https://youtu.be/m0YIm8p30aU

>> No.12912826

>>12910667
idk but materialism will never explain consciousness

>> No.12913281

>>12912826
Nothing else does either.

>> No.12913295

>>12911493
physical sciences never proved materialism

>> No.12913454

>>12911493
Because modern man is in search of a soul.

>> No.12913742

Land settled metaphysics. We are just simulations within a future AI programmed by Capital. It's all the best theories of philosophy combined into one irrefutable system.

>> No.12913764

>>12913281
Kant's synthetic a priori reasoning
The Upanishads
Carl Jung
Quantum Physics

Off the top of my head...

>> No.12913799
File: 111 KB, 960x797, 1474512493457.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12913799

>>12913764

>> No.12913822

>>12913764
How is quantum physics not materialist? (Don't give me some instrumentalist bs, you know what I mean)

>> No.12913853

>>12913742
the simulation hypothesis is the intellectual poop of the century

>> No.12913856

>>12913822
I didnt mean that its not materialist, but that it has explanations for consciousness. although Ive just watched youtube clips, not weirdest stuff that we know or whatever that gay documentary is. David Bohm mostly

>> No.12913949

>>12913856
Consciousness is a hard problem. Quantum theory can't address it. In fact nothing in science can answer any of the skeptical problems. Science just accepts they exist and moves on. (Scientists though often make a bunch of naive statements then claim they've solved philosophy. )

Also kant was wrong, jung was crazy and I haven't read the Upanishads but I wouldn't hold out much hope.

>> No.12913953

>>12913949
how was Kant wrong?

>> No.12914051

>>12913949
>I havent read the Upanishads
So you've read Kant and Jung?

>> No.12914500

>>12914051
Yes, I have read the wikipedia articles.

>> No.12914826

>>12914051
Yes, I have. Kant for my philosophy degree. Jung just because.

>>12913953
Sorry, am crappy phoneposter. In short, am a skeptic still. Unfortunately.

>> No.12914856

>>12910667
Bro, after Cognitive Nueroscience advanced further, idealism will be the only reasonable option. The world is nothing but representations. Also, you forgot Schopenhauer.