Answer to both theist and to reductionist.
- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You’re talking about the eternal life of the “self” or “soul”, the eternal life of your personality – which is a nonsense when there is no proof of any such entity: not even in your conscious life now.
What is one’s “self”? Is it your brain, your nerves, your other organs, your blood, your skin, your eyes, your limbs, etc? Are any of these your self?
No. Self is the name you give to the consciousness of your existence. But this consciousness is itself just the functioning of your body, of the matter you consist of. Consciousness is an effect of matter in motion. Consciousness is a quality of matter itself, and the type of consciousness a being has is typified by that being’s material organisation, and also that being’s society.
There is no entity “self.” “Self” is merely a convention, one of many terms we use in order to socially function.
From the time we are conceived and begin to develop in the womb, we are part of a material metamorphosis (with a species-specific society becoming an integral part of that metamorphosis from the time we are born) entailing reproduction and death.
That being said, matter is indestructible and (motion being as much a property of matter as are thought and feeling) the metamorphosis does not end with death. Life and death are integral to the eternal metamorphosis of matter.
There can be no non-material entities inside of us operating the controls, just as there can be no non-material author of the universe – simply because non-material implies non-entity, and only matter can move matter.Belfast Bax put the same sort of argument in his article “On Immortality” (against its possibility) in 1888:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1888/04/immortality.htm
The “no-self” stuff is also famously in Hume and Buddhism.
My tuppence worth is that it probably makes more sense to think of the self and consciousness as a process rather than an object or entity.
Also, the final paragraph about matter is completely wrong. I’d be careful saying things like “there can be no non-material things acting upon us” – energy, time and gravity all act upon us, but are definitely not matter. It would be better if you used the word “physical” perhaps.
But then, when it comes to arguing for and against socialism, does any of this really matter!
Was going to ask if some of the great anti religious arguments (memes) I heard as a kid from members could be repeated here. I’ve forgotten most of them.
” “there can be no non-material things acting upon us” – energy, time and gravity all act upon us, but are definitely not matter. It would be better if you used the word “physical” perhaps.”
But these are all properties of matter. They are not non-material, although not what we commonly think of as matter. Energy is propulsion, time is ageing, and gravity attraction. These are but terms for properties, emanations and functions of matter. Similarly, mind is a function of matter, not distinct from it.
But the theist sees it as a non-material property, i e. “soul.”If this is irrelevant to us, then let us welcome theists as members, for what would be the objection?
Yes, the non-existence of self was hammered out during Buddhism’s Personalist Controversy, and negates the popular belief in reincarnation, since there is no “self” to “transmigrate.”
Most humans’ desire for self-perpetuation meant that this insight was never adopted by Buddhism as a religion, nor was it of any use to the rulers of regions adopting Buddhism. So the insights of real Buddhist thought were reserved for the monks of the universities, and the labouring folk chloroformed with the religious dross.
“But these are all properties of matter.”
I fully admit this is not my speciality, I am not a trained physicist. But what you are describing here is the old Newtonian physics. In modern physics, gravity is the curvature of spacetime. But if you want to build a bridge, Newtonian physics works just fine.
I’m more familiar with the distinction between ‘materialism’ and ‘physicalism’ from a philosophy of mind or philosophy of language background. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#Term
The question of whether the SPGB should admit religious people is a separate one from the question of whether the possibility of socialism turns on the question of the existence or not of god.
I thought the SPGB didn’t want to admit religious people because it had chosen to explain socialism from a naturalistic perspective. Having religious people on board would open up the organisation up to the possibility of an endless derailment.
Yes. Obviously fanatics like fundamentalists, with their talk of “God’s plan” etc., are out.
It’s just that a lot of people are only nominal in their religious beliefs, which they really don’t think about much, and they also despise the “religious nuts.”
These nominal believers aren’t interested in philosophy or dialectical materialism, or the history of atheism etc , but they might support the idea, practically, of a socialist society. On the other hand, telling them they can’t join us unless they become materialists is bound to put them off.
We don’t tell them they have to ‘become materialists’. We simply ask them to accept that religious belief is irrational.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.