It seems like a fallacy 1: Is palm reading materialism?
2007-04-08 10:37:38
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/48c5bb42010009el
For many years now, there have been many muddled notions popular in China that need to be cleared up slowly. For example, many people regard reading palms to predict fate as idealism and criticize it. Whether predicting fate by palm reading is accurate and effective, I have not studied it, so I dare not offer a verdict. The information on the palm may be able to reflect fate; in theory that is not easy to accept and is hard to reconcile with modern science. But even if it is superstition, nonsense, and utter rubbish, does it therefore become idealism?
The term “idealism” has a strict meaning in philosophy; it cannot be vulgarized into a word for abuse, turned into a synonym for nonsense or falsehood. I remember that in the past I would always see people, after doing something wrong and making a mistake in their understanding, reflect on themselves by saying that they had committed the error of idealism. What on earth is that supposed to mean?
If materialism, in ontology, means that matter is primary, consciousness secondary, and the world is ontologically material; if, in methodology, it means explaining phenomena through material causes and explaining natural phenomena from nature itself, then I cannot see how the activity of palm reading violates materialism. Are phenomena such as palm lines not material, not natural phenomena? To use them to predict fate—if it is absurd and laughable, it is not because it is idealism, —— it is not even qualified to count as idealism, it is on a much lower level —— on the contrary, it is precisely because it is an extremely crude materialism, one that reduces fate entirely to material phenomena and ignores social factors as well as the individual’s spiritual factors.
The same goes for fengshui and the like.
Typical idealism should be things like Hegel’s philosophy, Schopenhauer, and such. To say that palm reading is idealism is simply a tremendous insult to idealism!
Comments(15)┆Quote┆Read(104)┆Circle┆Print┆Rewarded report
Article comments
The following netizens’ remarks represent only their personal views and do not represent the views or position of Sina.com
[Anonymous] Jin Li
2007-04-08 20:08:33
I think it should be phrased as: a manifestation of idealism. —— Palm reading is a manifestation of idealist fatalism. (This is the wording I’ve organized according to the general view; it does not represent my own view, though.)
Other similarly problematic expressions include: qigong is science, or pseudoscience, and so on.
Dr. Yang
2007-04-09 02:24:56
Palm reading is not crude materialism, of course, but it is not refined materialism either.
Materialism and idealism form a continuum. Palm reading originally lies near the materialist end, but from the perspective of complete materialism, anything not on one’s own end is called idealism. The tail of idealism has not been completely cut off, so it counts as idealism.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-11 00:21:19
At bottom, the distinction between materialism and idealism is just a by-product of Cartesian dualism of mind and matter. Marx originally aimed to transcend the traditional distinction between materialism and idealism; Marx’s materialism certainly is not ontological in meaning. But textbook explanations either lump all dissenters together as idealists, or else get tangled in the ontological question of whether matter or spirit came first, whether the world is made of matter or created by spirit, while self-contradictorily opposing “metaphysics.” In fact, to keep droning on about whether matter comes first or spirit comes first is precisely the “metaphysics” Marx was protesting against. What is more, textbooks still keep using that low-level, childish rebuttal of kicking a stone with your foot to see whether it hurts, as if idealist philosophers were all idiots and couldn’t even understand that kicking a stone would hurt. In fact, belittling one’s opponent often simultaneously belittles oneself; the greatest opponents of the greatest thinkers are often themselves the greatest thinkers. If anyone who can be an opponent of a certain person is automatically an idiot, then I’m afraid that person is probably also a simpleton. Secondary-school philosophy textbooks need to be completely rewritten (they should not be abolished; Marx’s critical spirit toward modern technological civilization is worth carrying forward), and even the name should be changed: so-called “ideological and political” education is unquestionably something Marx opposed. Communism is to abolish politics, and communism absolutely does not engage in moral preaching—so how can a textbook on Marxism be called ideological and political? “General Social Studies” or something like that would be more appropriate.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-11 00:33:58
I remember that back in high school, in politics class, I asked the teacher what exactly metaphysics was. He replied: “Metaphysics means isolation, stasis, and one-sidedness.” I said I wasn’t asking for the characteristics of metaphysics; I was asking what metaphysics is. He said: “A mode of thinking that is isolated, static, and one-sided is metaphysics.” I said, so the definition of metaphysics is isolated, static, one-sided—after all that talk, the textbook’s argument was “an isolated, static, one-sided mode of thinking is isolated, static, one-sided,” in short, “metaphysics is metaphysics”? The teacher was speechless… In the end, the teacher still didn’t give an answer, so I started looking for books to read on my own. At that time I read a lot of books on idealist metaphysics, and from then on I fell in love with philosophy, haha~
[Anonymous] Old Jiang of Xinzhai
2007-04-11 09:01:53
When I was in middle school, I once asked my politics teacher: “Is the sentence ‘practice is the sole criterion for testing truth’ itself true?” He said yes. I went on to ask, then what is this truth tested by? By practice again? He suddenly realized the dilemma here and said, “Now that’s getting profound!”
As for the argument about kicking a stone, the level of some of the most famous graduate advisers on scientism in China is about that high too. Once, at an academic seminar, I asked him about the question of realism, and he used the fact that the Earth existed long before human beings appeared as evidence, leaving me both amused and exasperated. But I suspect many fellow philosophers would still consider this a thorny problem…
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-11 09:47:59
Actually, saying that “practice is the sole criterion for testing truth” is itself still tested by practice—this may be a way to make it consistent. Marx’s “testing” probably was not verification in the positivist sense, not experiments, hypothetico-deductive methods, and the like. I suspect it may be closer to Hegelian dialectical circular argument: the end proves the beginning, knowledge constitutes itself within a circular structure, and a certain circularity in inference is not a predicament at all but a necessity. Only, Marx did not spin in circles in spirit like Hegel; he spun in circles in practice. I’m just guessing wildly, but in any case the textbooks’ understanding of “practice” and “testing” according to a positivist line of thought is definitely wrong, and they even interpret Marx’s “dialectics” as Mr. Proudhon’s childish idea that “things have a good side and a bad side; preserve the good side and eliminate the bad side,” which Marx mocked and satirized.
[Anonymous] Jin Li
2007-04-11 10:13:47
to Old Jiang:
🙂 That’s why they say your thought is sharp! 🙂
I thought almost all scientistic thinkers cannot recognize this issue.
On the Xinhua forum someone once stirred up a debate on this issue. Through text messages (which others couldn’t see), I told the person who started it that now was not the time to discuss this. The issue is too big, and it easily affects politics. I oppose discussing it.
Take the simplest proposition: do you regard it as truth? How do you test it through practice?
1+1=2 🙂
Xinzhai Old Jiang
2007-04-11 11:01:10
Brother Gu’s line of thought is reasonable. For the old Marx, he certainly would not have turned the testing of truth into something purely logical like proving a proposition.
Marx’s thought was so revolutionary that, after such large-scale popularization by us, it still did not cause any trouble—of course some vulgarization was necessary. On this issue, we too need a sympathetic understanding.
Recently I read a book, Science, Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis, by Barry Barnes, David Bloor, and John Henry. It boldly declares that even mathematical and logical propositions like 1+1=2 are socially constructed. Quite impressive, very interesting. I greatly appreciate this!
But I suppose Brother Gu and Brother Jin may not necessarily agree.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-04-11 14:22:52
Logic is socially constructed—that really is not easy to understand…
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Old Jiang
2007-04-11 22:34:19
Brother Someone: actually, the key lies in shifting one’s line of thought.
ssk has never been talking about objective objects; it has always been talking about subjects’ beliefs, the experiences and practices, operations, and actions that actually take effect in society.
Reverse the process of abstraction in scientific research, and through examining the actual process of operation, sociality is everywhere in the process of “de-abstraction”!
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-12 00:54:09
I have actually read the part on mathematics in Bloor’s Knowledge and the Social Imaginary, and I really cannot quite accept it. But Teacher Jiang should not underestimate how radical I am~ My main difficulty is with the arguments of SSK, but I do rather agree with the proposition that mathematical and logical propositions are also human constructions. I have gradually come to accept this idea through the path from Kant to Poincaré to intuitionism, namely that mathematics and logic may also be constructions of the human mind/culture/society. So the claims of SSK are not all that surprising.
Fudan Press has a book called The Mathematical Roots of Postmodern Thought, which argues that just as the logicist school in the foundational debates over mathematics influenced the development of modern Anglo-American philosophy, formalism and intuitionism also had a major impact on the development of continental philosophy, and they also affected the whole postmodern trend of thought. I do feel that after reading some expositions of intuitionism, some of the more exotic claims in postmodernism no longer seem so sudden.
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Old Jiang
2007-04-12 10:51:37
I haven’t read The Mathematical Origins of Postmodern Thought; thanks for the tip!
It is said that some of Wittgenstein’s later ideas were also produced under the influence of intuitionism.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-12 11:31:57
Wittgenstein decided to return to philosophy after attending Brouwer’s lecture at Ramsey’s urging. And the influence of intuitionism on Wittgenstein surely was not limited to a single lecture, because Ramsey himself, who had a major influence on Wittgenstein, also began to turn toward intuitionism in his later years. My term paper is on this very topic.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-12 20:02:32
I used to read books like Mathematics Begins and Foundations of Modern Mathematics, and I was also left with the impression that mathematics is constructed. I even discussed it online before.
Recently, as I’ve been reflecting on issues like experience, knowledge, and science, my line of thought has changed a bit.
On the day of Qingming, for some reason I couldn’t sleep all night, and wrote some things on this topic. I’ll organize them in a few days and ask Old Jiang to correct them.
[Anonymous] Someone
2007-04-13 16:55:33
Thanks, Teacher Jiang, and Brother Gu as well. Seeing the words “intuitionism,” my mind suddenly became clear…
Discussion on the teachers’ blogs: Is palm reading materialism? (update)
Posted by Gu Chu on 2007-04-27 13:01:48
http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/48c5bb42010009el
I had thought this thread had already finished discussing the matter, but I didn’t expect the interjection by the owner of Wuchizhai to trigger a long argument between me and yxy. Of course, if one is willing to argue with the other side, that means there must certainly be mutual respect. But once everything that should be said has been said and one still cannot persuade the other side, then so be it. I mainly took the opportunity to sort out my own thoughts on materialism, idealism, and the use of terminology.
2007-04-21 04:28:33
Haha, why is academic work nowadays always like this? Judging things one doesn’t understand in a random way??
How can you say palm reading is crude?
Material things all have their meanings; for example, the trajectory of planetary motion is mainly governed by gravitation. Of course there are many complex factors constraining it, but astronomy can calculate it.
The manifestations of living things all represent their meanings. What zoology studies is nothing more than the meaning of the evolution of fur and horns to living things. Genetics is only going as deep as the gene level to highlight the role of change. Ecology is purely explaining effects on appearances from appearances and making inferences.
Why is it that when one studies manifestations that are very special to human beings, it somehow loses scientific meaning? And becomes crude materialism? That is an empirical discipline guided by systematic philosophy. It’s just that the people studying it have too much generality; anyone who isn’t an idiot can study it, and so it gets disparaged to this extent. But studying this requires spirituality; it is not something just any student in the Tsinghua Garden, or any master’s or doctoral student, can deeply understand.
Moreover, now that fuzzy theory research has such a high status, such a disparaging treatment of physiognomy is truly inconceivable.
From your argument, you actually do not reject theology; instead, you look down on physiognomy!!!!!!!!!!
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-21 10:52:26
I think what Wuchizhai says makes some sense.
People in the anti-scientism camp are basically still materialists and believers in science, and are no different from conventional views. One could even say they are still just a bunch of scientistic people.
The blogger is more concerned with religion, but also tends to focus on it theoretically, placing a high value on theorized, advanced idealism and a low value on primitive non-materialism in practice.
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Old Jiang
2007-04-21 21:45:18
Master of Wuchizhai: Hello.
When I said palmistry is crude materialism,
I did not say that it is impossible to conduct scientific research on manifestations that are very special to human beings, ah ah.
I do not reject theology, so why should I hold palmistry in such high regard?
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-21 23:45:25
Anti-scientism in the first place is not all that anti-science; as long as it is not anti-science, does that mean it is still scientism? If so, then Master of Tianchizhai’s scientism is obviously even stronger, because in order to explain the status of palm reading, he cited a long passage of astronomy, zoology, ecology, and other sciences in support. If it were truly anti-scientism, there would be no need to care so much about the so-called “scientific significance,” or to get bogged down in whether one has the status of entering the ranks of science.
Teacher Jiang asks a good question: what does not rejecting theology have to do with holding palmistry in high regard? The line of thought is probably this: if one does not reject something as anti-science as theology, then things like palmistry, which are not quite so reactionary, ought to be even easier to accept. I do not reject theology either; in fact, I rather appreciate religion and theology. But the reason I appreciate theology is precisely because it is not science, precisely because it lies outside science, and may offer certain things that cannot be found in science. As for things like palmistry, they desperately try to cling to science, yet compared with the science I know, they are simply too crude, which makes me want to reject them. If so-called “disciplines” like palm reading, physiognomy, divination, and fengshui could stop desperately crowding into science, stop constantly hooking themselves up with ecology, fuzzy theory, nonlinear science, and the like, stop defending themselves with those specious new scientific theories and making themselves neither fish nor fowl, and preserve their own individuality, then whether they exist as traditional culture, folk skills, feudal superstition, or quasi-science, I would be willing to support them. But if they want me to support them as science, that is probably impossible! Does that make me a scientism advocate too?
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-23 11:15:47
Brother Gu, don’t be anxious.
Actually, when I said things like “there is no essential difference from conventional views,” I wanted to hear the reaction from the anti-scientism camp and see whether I could provoke some new ideas. But to be honest, your reaction was what I expected, and indeed “there is no essential difference from conventional views.”
Please note my wording: I said, “People in the anti-scientism camp are basically still materialists and believers in science, and are no different from conventional views. One could even say they are still just a bunch of scientistic people.” Your reaction shows that you really are a materialist and a believer in science, and defining materialism as scientism is not impossible either, since scientism itself does not have a very clear definition. In this sense, one could even say that you are a scientism advocate.
This is rigorous, right? In this sense, saying you are a scientism advocate should be acceptable, right?
“Anti-scientism in the first place is not all that anti-science; as long as it is not anti-science, does that mean it is still scientism?”
“I do not reject theology either; in fact, I rather appreciate religion and theology. But the reason I appreciate theology is precisely because it is not science, precisely because it lies outside science, and may offer certain things that cannot be found in science.”
“If they want me to support them as science, that is probably impossible! Does that make me a scientism advocate too?”
——————–
When I discussed with Old Jiang before, I had a “good cop, bad cop” theory, and later I also exchanged views with Huajie. These few sentences of yours are a classic representative of the good cop, bad cop theory.
Old Jiang and Huajie can help explain the specific meaning of the good cop, bad cop theory. Tian Song and the others may also know it.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-23 17:57:51
“Is it not impossible to define materialism as scientism?”??
My reaction is: am I a materialist?
I’d like to ask Yang brother what materialism actually is. In China, this word, together with idealism, is one of the most confusingly used terms; I don’t know what sense you are using it in.
From what you seem to mean, is non-materialism = anti-science? Then Engels was not a materialist either; he also opposed the second law of thermodynamics and many other scientific theories. Then many religious believers are also materialists, because they may not oppose any scientific law.
If, in an ontological sense, one distinguishes whether matter or spirit comes first, whether matter is substance or spirit is substance, whether matter comes before spirit or spirit before matter, whether there are things that exist independently of human beings, and so on; or if one takes those who support the conclusions of science (especially classical physics) to be materialists, while idealists must be anti-science; if materialism is judged by such standards, then Kant would also be a materialist. If you want to count Kant among the materialists, then I’d be happy to join in as well. But I cannot accept being summarily slapped with a materialist label without any clarity. I have always thought that materialism and idealism are never a simple binary; that binary should have been discarded long ago. If we are still going to make distinctions, then we must first make clear in what sense I am supposedly a materialist. Please, do not drag in things from political textbooks to explain it to me—I don’t understand those at all!
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-23 23:13:09
No need to go around all those philosophical terms.
What I mean is the vulgar kind of materialism, the very simple-minded sort.
It means not believing that palm reading/astrology/feng shui and the like can affect a person’s health or even luck, and thinking that diviners from primitive tribes to modern cities are all swindlers with rich social experience and a talent for pleasing all sides.
Not believing in the yin-yang and five phases theory and the qi-transformation theory of Chinese medicine, and thinking that the efficacy of Chinese medicine is merely the accumulation of empirical drug knowledge.
Not believing that supernatural phenomena exist in the world, and treating all uncanny experiences as psychological suggestion or intentional or unintentional deception.
Not recognizing the worldviews proposed by theology and various religions as equal competitors with the scientific worldview, and not recognizing their right to participate.
Thinking that palm reading can be understood as a kind of traditional culture/folk skill, but has absolutely nothing to do with science.
It’s not wrong to say that many anti-scientistic intellectuals hold such views, is it?
I define this view as materialism; that doesn’t seem absurd, does it? As for whether it can be called scientism, if there’s controversy, we can leave that for now.
What I think is that whether one is a materialist is a major issue of right and wrong, whereas whether one is a scientism-ist is a much less important, peripheral issue. Avoiding the major issues and getting bogged down in the side issues is pointless, not profound at all. To put it more sharply, it’s just a diversion of attention, with the red-faced and white-faced roles playing together to suppress dissenting voices.
Please forgive any discourtesies in what I’ve said above.
Actually, on the issue of scientism, my views are very close to Brother Gu’s. Brother Gu is at least much better than a relativist position, and can still move further forward. Maybe one day you will accept many of my views. What I fear most is relativism: everything is relative, there are no principles, no standards, no distinction between right and wrong, and then there is no saving it.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-24 00:51:38
Sigh, if you were talking about Marx’s materialism or something like that, then that would still be fine; but saying that I am a very simple-minded vulgar materialist is really a bit rude… Materialism is, after all, a philosophical term; the vulgar usage is merely an invention of Soviet and Chinese textbooks. As Teacher Jiang said, “The term ‘idealism’ has its strict meaning in philosophy and cannot be vulgarized into a term of abuse,” and the same goes for the term “materialism”; it also cannot be vulgarized into a term of abuse. Frankly, in philosophy I would rather be labeled an idealist than ever become a “simple-minded materialist.” Idealism has always been the mainstream of philosophy, and the philosophers I admire are basically not materialists either; only Marx is exceptional. Whether I am scientistic or not is indeed a “much less important, peripheral issue,” but to call me a simple materialist really is a major issue of right and wrong. How on earth did I end up a simple materialist… I really can’t make sense of it…
The items you listed are basically unrelated to materialism. Things like feng shui, palm reading, and divination—people such as Kant, the most typical idealist of all, probably didn’t believe in them either, and many theologians like Kant likewise do not think that the worldviews offered by religion and science are two mutually opposed, incompatible worlds. If you want to say that Kant and the like are all “simple-minded materialists,” then I really have nothing to say; that can only mean our languages are too different to be translated… Defining materialism in this way is of course absurd!
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-24 01:15:39
If, as you say, theology and the worldviews proposed by various religions, as well as traditional Chinese worldviews such as yin-yang and the five phases, are equal competitors with the scientific worldview—which I support—then since they are “equal competitors,” they should first not be science. If we must first fold them into the camp of science before they can compete with the scientific worldview, how can that be called equality? That would still be taking science as supreme! Only by first recognizing that they do not stand in a subordinate relationship to science can we speak of equal competition. Before the competition even begins, one must first do everything possible to seize the “science” label; in the final analysis, one is still governed by “science”—isn’t that scientism? So-called XX-ism is precisely an attempt to reduce everything to XX, or to reduce all good things to XX, or to make XX the standard for measuring everything. As for my loving science and admiring science, that does not necessarily make me a scientism-ist; just as loving one’s country and loving China does not necessarily make one a nationalist, and admiring Kant’s philosophy does not necessarily make one a Neo-Kantian.
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Lao Jiang
2007-04-24 08:42:01
Let me explain to Brother Gu:
Mr. yxy’s line of thought is this: take Chinese medicine. He believes in Chinese medicine, so of course he opposes someone saying that Chinese medicine is pseudoscience. He also opposes anti-science cultural critics who say Chinese medicine is not science but culture, local knowledge. He thinks that this statement and the scientistic smear of Chinese medicine as pseudoscience are merely the difference between the red-faced role and the white-faced role; both are denying the value, efficacy, and so on of Chinese medicine.
My understanding is: his understanding of science is relatively broad. I am now rather inclined to accept his definition, though of course I still differ from him greatly, and I suppose he still does not quite agree with my pluralist view. He basically thinks that if one denies that Chinese medicine is science, then one cannot truly affirm the value of Chinese medicine.
He basically thinks Chinese medicine is effective, is a kind of science, but not a sufficiently refined science; Chinese medicine may further become logical, theoretical, and mathematized, and then it will be even more scientific. He has also done some work along these lines.
As for other things like divination and feng shui, his view is similar to his view of Chinese medicine: they are all not sufficiently refined sciences and need to be further turned, in imitation of modern science, into rigorous theoretical systems; then they will be even more scientific.
So I think that in form he is overly obsessed with modern science, while in substantive content he is rather strongly critical of the modern scientific worldview.
His dissatisfaction with anti-science cultural critics is mainly expressed in his criticism of the worldview they hold. It is precisely in this sense that he thinks anti-science cultural critics are vulgar materialists.
[Anonymous] Xinzhai Lao Jiang
2007-04-24 08:58:48
Basically, yxy, like those scientismists, thinks that science means effectiveness and truth. But those scientismists think Chinese medicine is not science, and therefore not truth. yxy thinks Chinese medicine is truth, and therefore science.
[Anonymous] adic
2007-04-24 11:20:21
The effectiveness of Chinese medicine has from ancient times been widely verified; the key issue is that the theory of Chinese medicine still cannot be expressed in language that conforms to modern scientific standards, so it is difficult to regard it as a science. This is actually an issue of interpretation. The development of modern mathematics has already made it possible for hermeneutics to have a formalized mathematical tool, namely category theory, which developed in the 1940s. Initially it served as a tool for studying algebraic topology and other branches of mathematics, and today it has been widely applied to various disciplines including physics, philosophy, economics, cognitive science, and sociology; it should be able to become an important method and tool for hermeneutics. The theory of Chinese medicine is surely able to be expressed within the framework of category theory, and thus gain recognition from the scientific community. I believe this will gradually be recognized. Those interested in discussing this area are welcome to add my QQ:327517139
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-24 11:39:50
To understand science broadly, for example Teacher Liu saying that pseudoscience is also science, I can accept that too. But in Brother yxy’s words, I get the feeling that what he means is science = truth = correctness = effectiveness = good things. Whether that understanding is broader or narrower is hard to say.
The issue of worldview, it seems, the teachers really do not discuss very much. Whether the teachers are truly vulgar materialists, I also don’t dare speak carelessly about, and after all materialism may involve some matters that are politically sensitive, so perhaps there is some hesitation in discussing it… But in any case, those who support the conclusions of modern science are not necessarily materialists, and non-materialists also have no obligation to accept other kinds of “false doctrines and heresies.” Rather than saying that Brother yxy is discussing “vulgar materialism,” it would be better to say that what he is discussing is the term “materialism” as popularly understood: in fact, this understanding first of all simply means materialism = good = correct = science, idealism = bad = absurd = pseudoscience, while Brother yxy wants to support the bad, absurd, pseudoscientific things in this popular understanding, and so he concludes that these things are not materialism. Brother yxy himself has not clearly understood the concept of materialism; his so-called “definition” is nothing more than a list of items. Leaving aside the fact that there is no internal connection among these items, even if there were, all he would have done is list some specific manifestations of so-called materialism. Defining by enumeration is not entirely impossible, but after all materialism is a concept of great importance in the history of philosophy. If, according to a new definition, even the most typical idealists are counted as materialists, while famous materialists are excluded, what a disgrace would that be?
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-24 13:05:14
Thank you, Lao Jiang, for the explanation; it states things even more clearly than I myself did.
to Brother Gu:
I’ve never paid much attention to definitional issues; as long as everyone can understand the meaning, that’s enough. If you disagree with my wording, it can be changed at any time.
You disagree that the views I listed should be called materialism—then what should they be called? Scientism? That’s even less appropriate. So I invented a term: vulgar materialism, or simple-minded materialism if you like, or materialism in the popular understanding, or original-ecology materialism if you like. One can find all sorts of ways to strip away the pejorative sense and replace it with a positive term. You are trained in the humanities, so you are better at this than I am; whatever term you think is best, I’ll follow your lead.
According to my definition of vulgar materialism, Heidegger may actually be a materialist. He had a very sophisticated way of speaking about profound principles, and he gave me a lot of inspiration, but when it came to practice, did he believe in supernatural forces? Did he believe that adhering to certain principles can lead one to a higher form of life? I haven’t checked, but I suspect not. Then he should be called “abstract idealism, practical materialism.” I think many so-called idealists are actually in this state.
This definition may be somewhat unusual, but it is certainly more fundamental. If everyone has already forgotten this fundamental distinction, then it means attention has long since been diverted. The red-faced and white-faced strategy has existed for a very long time; most people have long since fallen for it.
“Science = truth = correctness = effectiveness = good things” is wrong.
It should be: science = correctness = effectiveness.
The word truth is a trap; it is too absolutizing, so don’t bring it in here.
Because it is correct and effective, under certain conditions it will be good. But if all humankind went mad and became evil, then science would become a tool for aiding a tyrant’s tyranny.
Science does not equal modern Western science; there can also be other things that are correct and effective, such as Chinese medicine, the Book of Changes, qigong, and the methods of practice found in religion—these things also contain some scientific theories and techniques.
2007-04-24 16:44:00
science = correctness = effectiveness.
Even scientismists, when they are clear-headed, would not agree to the above formula.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-24 18:21:47
It was originally Brother Gu who summed it up for me; I’ve just removed the two most problematic items—if I removed them all, wouldn’t that be too impolite.
To be precise, correctness means that theoretical expectations match actual results. Effectiveness means that if one designs a certain set of steps to achieve a certain result, one really can achieve it in the end. The two are one and the same thing; both are correct prediction.
Science is the pursuit of theories that achieve correct prediction; in a broad sense, all theories pursuing correct prediction are science. But theories pursuing correct prediction may not necessarily achieve correct prediction, and that means incorrect scientific theories and partly correct scientific theories. Modern Western science does not dare claim that it is all correct either.
In any case, science and correctness/effectiveness have a profound connection; that’s just how it is.
What we are mainly discussing this time is the issue of materialism; we do not want to spin off into side issues and divert attention. As long as everyone can understand and the discussion can continue, that is enough.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-24 22:08:27
Your line of definition has been problematic from the very beginning, because it is difficult to find any internal connection among the items you list. For example, I could just as well strongly promote theology while firmly resisting feng shui; or firmly believe in feng shui while refusing to look at palm reading; or believe in palmistry while not believing in psychic powers; and so on and so on. Are the items you list in an “and” relationship or an “or” relationship? If it is an “and” relationship, then very few people satisfy all the conditions to become “materialists”; if it is an “or” relationship, then the group becomes infinitely broad. In that case, let me pick the right concept for you—“people who do not agree with me.” That concept is the most accurate. In fact, the traditional textbook usage of “idealism” is essentially “people who do not agree with me”; you are merely reversing it and calling all those who differ from you materialists.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-25 10:39:39
I think you are the one who satisfies all the conditions. Many anti-scientismists are the ones who satisfy all the conditions.
If you don’t believe it, check them one by one.
Not believing that palm reading/astrology/feng shui and the like can affect a person’s health or even luck, and thinking that diviners from primitive tribes to modern cities are all swindlers with rich social experience and a talent for pleasing all sides.
————
yes or no
Not believing in the yin-yang and five phases theory and the qi-transformation theory of Chinese medicine, and thinking that the efficacy of Chinese medicine is merely the accumulation of empirical drug knowledge.
————
yes or no
Not believing that supernatural phenomena exist in the world, and treating all uncanny experiences as psychological suggestion or intentional or unintentional deception.
————
yes or no
Thinking that palm reading can be understood as a kind of traditional culture/folk skill, but has absolutely nothing to do with science.
————-
yes or no
Not recognizing the worldviews proposed by theology and various religions as equal competitors with the scientific worldview, and not recognizing their right to participate.
————–
On this item, since you mentioned theology, and one branch of theology has already been highly hollowed out, support or no support makes no practical difference, so I’ll change it.
“Not recognizing the worldviews proposed by various religions as equal competitors with the scientific worldview, especially not recognizing primitive religions, folk religions, and Eastern religions as equal competitors with the scientific worldview, and not recognizing their right to participate.”
yes or no
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-25 10:49:46
Brother Gu, is it really so hard to admit that you are a materialist? Is it really so uncomfortable to stand together with the masses?
If you don’t even dare to face this squarely, and keep circling around side issues, then you are only wasting yourself—it’s a pity for your talent.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-25 14:02:32
It’s not really a matter of comfort or discomfort; I just won’t walk straight into your trap. You want to force things into your definition. Since you think materialism can be defined by such an enumerative method, then I’ll define it too: I define everyone whose answers to all the conditions you listed are No as materialists. Would that do? Then according to my definition, if I say you are a naïve materialist, will you accept it? I’ll also redefine words like “truth” and “correctness.” I define “truth” as people who believe in science; I define “truth” as what “Xiaogu says.” Could I do that? According to my definition, I am truth, and you are falsehood; I am idealism, and you are materialism; I am the good person, and you are the bad person… If I just redefine these phrases after my own fashion, then all of that can be said too. That would be utterly absurd!
If you want to make a definition and say that people who satisfy the conditions you have listed should be called “ABCDE-ers,” then inventing a new term is no problem; the only question is whether anyone will pay attention. But the word you are using is an existing philosophical term, so you must explain the legitimacy of using this term to designate these people. What, exactly, is the intrinsic connection between all these items you have listed and materialism?
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-25 15:31:28
Xiaogu, it’s not just the two of us here.
Even if my definition does not quite meet the scholarly standards you understand, it is, after all, a very common understanding. You yourself also said it was a “vulgar understanding of materialism,” so I’m not talking nonsense.
As for what you said—things like “I’ll also redefine words like ‘truth’ and ‘correctness.’ I define ‘truth’ as people who believe in science; I define ‘truth’ as what ‘Xiaogu says.’ Could I do that? According to my definition, I am truth, and you are falsehood; I am idealism, and you are materialism; I am the good person, and you are the bad person…”—that is just random definitional play.
This is not just the two of us. I think everyone can tell the difference here. I’m guessing some of your teachers and classmates will also come take a look. What do you think they’ll make of this passage? And think about how, after some time passes, you yourself will see it.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-25 21:29:52
Defining things is a rigorous matter.
Of course, there is indeed a connection between materialism and the concrete manifestations you have listed. The following conclusion seems obvious: people who are philosophically inclined toward materialism will, when answering the questions you listed, generally be more inclined to answer Yes. But is this obviously real connection enough to establish the legitimacy of the definition?
The following fact is also obvious: compared with women, men are clearly more inclined to be taller, heavier, hairier, stronger, and so on. But can we list the tendencies that men are clearly inclined toward and then say that this is the “definition” of “man”? If a woman happens to be tall and strong, and due to an endocrine disorder grows a bit of a beard, can we then say to her: you are obviously a man, stop denying it; all those traits of yours are the commonly recognized tendencies of men in vulgar usage; is it really so hard to admit that you’re a man? And so on and so forth. That sort of thing would surely be an insult to her, wouldn’t it? The definition of male and female was never without rules; there are many ways of distinguishing them—biological, medical, sociological, and also in terms of self-identification—and it is absolutely impossible to replace definition by listing a few concrete manifestations.
To dig into the relation between materialism and the various manifestations you have listed is a very good question. I also think that the modern scientific worldview and the spread of materialism have often been a bundled deal, buy one get one free. But you cannot take this relation and make it final, turn it into a “definition,” and thereby dissolve the question. For example, originally we could discuss why traditional metaphysics is said to be isolated, static, and one-sided; but if we say that isolation, stasis, and one-sidedness are the definition of metaphysics, then there is no longer any question left to discuss—it is nothing more than saying that metaphysics is metaphysics. If you want to argue that materialists usually have the kinds of traits you listed, then you should produce more evidence; you cannot just say “this is the definition” and be done with it.
2007-04-26 04:49:14
Hehe, I didn’t expect my views to provoke so much controversy. Actually, saying a bunch of things about biology and such doesn’t necessarily mean anything scientifically.
In my view, Chinese philosophy is absolute materialism, with the Book of Changes and Laozi’s Dao De Jing as its classics and guiding principles. Why do I call it absolute materialism? Because this philosophical theory can reasonably explain everything that people think mysterious, from science to psychology. Of course, if you go into it deeply, it is not something that can be understood just by saying it.
Brother, you could read the Dao De Jing a few more times and get a little sense of how the Book of Changes should be read.
Then there is a risky suggestion: during your rest time, quietly try to understand the evolution of taiji and the eight trigrams. I suggest starting from mathematical considerations, then deepening them a little into philosophical concepts. There is no need to stay fully alert, but I hope you can remain natural.
Then there is another suggestion: don’t become infatuated with that feeling and the natural adjustment of your body. Although this natural adjustment is extremely good, quickly forget all those sensations and return to your previous habits.
Because that can easily stir up a person’s primal source, and that energy is a bit too strong; if you don’t control it well, problems will arise.
2007-04-26 04:52:57
The question of definition is actually not a metaphysical question; without an accurate definition, it is basically impossible to understand a thing, and this is especially likely to cause problems in communication. The significance of scholarship lies in its exploration of the unknown; its rigor lies in trying to avoid error and ambiguity in what is already known.
Of course, when it comes to Chinese philosophy, this kind of ambiguity is well worth careful consideration, because each ambiguity seems to represent some kind of state of realization? This question has always been very annoying.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-26 10:23:02
to Xiaogu
I’m getting a bit lazy about continuing this discussion. It’s gotten tangled up in some boring issues.
I said earlier that these definitions of mine may not meet the standards you understand. But they are certainly more fundamental. If everyone has already forgotten these, and insists on treating some tangential issues dressed up in refined terminology as the key features of materialism and idealism, then you have been taken in. The red-face, white-face strategy of diverting attention has existed for a long time.
The male/female example is better than the previous post. Note that male and female have fundamental characteristics. Some people are obviously male, but look very feminine and have a feminine mindset too. Does that make them women? You have to look at the fundamental characteristics.
I think your refusal to admit that you are a materialist is similar to this.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-26 10:32:16
My basic reason for entering this debate is the same as Teacher Jiang’s: “For many years, all kinds of muddled notions have been popular domestically, and they need to be slowly cleared up.” Materialism and idealism are both concepts that have been used in a complete mess.
Indeed, I also think that things from Laozi and the Book of Changes cannot be reduced to idealism; Confucius is even less so. But I think it is no good to reduce them to materialism either. First, materialism is a product of modern Western philosophy. Before the mind-matter dualism, before the understanding of “matter” became modernized, there was simply no question of materialism or idealism.
The concept of “matter” was very different in antiquity and in modern times. The ancient Greeks had no idea what “matter” meant in the modern sense. In ancient Greece, the word “matter” did not originally appear in opposition to “spirit” or “mind”; the concepts it was first opposed to were actually “change,” “actuality,” “form,” and so on. As for Aristotle, “stuff,” “matter” stood in contrast to concepts such as form, motion, and purpose, and was often identified with “potentiality.” For Aristotle, matter is “imperceptible and unknowable, without magnitude and without quality”; “By matter I mean that which in itself is neither a thing of quality nor of quantity nor anything else by which being is determined.” (“Metaphysics,” 1029a20)
It was not until modern times, together with the rise of modern science and the revival of Platonism, that “matter” gradually became a fusion of “stuff” and “form.” The modern understanding of “matter” is in fact a mixture of matter and form in Aristotle’s sense, and Aristotle would certainly never have taken the two to be identical.
As I see it, my classical inclination is very strong. I believe that the very concept of “matter” shaped by modern science is unlawful, and that conflating matter with form is itself mistaken. Therefore I would not admit that I am a materialist, nor would I admit that I am a non-materialist, because the concept of materialism itself contains something I cannot accept—just as I would neither admit that I am tasty nor that I am not tasty, because I simply do not wish to be discussed as food.
I once wrote a short piece called “‘Matter’s’ Expansion,” which briefly discussed how the concept of “matter” was step by step generalized and even deified. If you post a URL in Sina’s comments it gets deleted, but as long as you search Baidu for “Whether in everyday language, or in philosophy and science, the concept of ‘matter’ is so fundamental that people mention it frequently, yet seldom investigate its precise referent,” you can find that passage.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-26 10:38:16
to Tianchizhai zhuren
Views on the materialism/idealism issue are very confused.
From your standpoint, saying that people with the traits listed by Xiaogu or me are materialists—you should agree, right? That is the most basic point. We haven’t even gotten into the complicated issues yet, and it’s already so tiring. At that efficiency, how can one produce outstanding work?
Now to say something a little more complicated:
I think the natural view in the Yijing studies and Dao has a fairly strong materialist tendency, though not as extreme as modern science. If you say it is materialist, I think that’s fine. If materialists say it is idealist, I think that’s also fine.
But you think materialism is good, and you want to say Chinese philosophy is materialist too. I oppose that attitude.
I think materialism is fundamentally the wrong direction; calling Chinese philosophy materialist degrades Chinese philosophy.
I’ve written quite a bit on this subject; you can look for the “Buddhist Studies and Science” blog on Blog China.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-26 12:06:29
All right, Brother Gu. You have your own understanding of the concept of matter; obviously it differs from that of ordinary people, but you claim it is the same as the ancient Greeks, and moreover think the ancient Greeks had more right than we modern people to define it.
That’s a bit odd. You were born in this era, yet you don’t like speaking the language of this era, and instead insist on using ancient Greek, a language you yourself don’t even know. You are making trouble for yourself. But that is your own business.
Since you have your own system of understanding, the previous argument is pointless. If you are determined not to speak the language of ordinary people, there is no need for me to force you to change.
Actually, the word materialism is not the focus either.
You have already admitted that you answer yes to that whole set of questions. When I say answering Yes to all of them is a vulgar view / ordinary people’s view / the view of most people in contemporary China, you’re not going to tangle with me over the definitions of those few words again, are you?
In the end, you still stand together with the masses. Ancient Greek words cannot make you anything special.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-26 13:19:10
When I say I have a classical inclination, that does not mean I fully adopt ancient Greek concepts; I just hope that a retrospective look through the history of ideas will help clarify the concepts.
To a certain extent I support the later Wittgenstein: philosophers have no right to provide a new language to regulate everyday language. But what Wittgenstein emphasized was precisely that philosophers should describe and clarify language, not issue definitions and slap labels on people.
I’ve said almost everything I needed to say. Let me end this argument with a “counter-bite,” hehe:
I think yxy brother will also admit one key difference between materialism and idealism: materialism holds that matter, reality, practical appearances, and so on are more important or more essential; idealism holds that mind, ideas, or the Idea are more important or more essential.
For example, when discussing artificial intelligence, materialists believe that so-called “mind,” “intelligence,” and the like have no independent status at all, and are nothing but appearances of matter. Therefore, the way to determine whether a computer has intelligence is this: ask a computer and a person a series of questions in the same way, have some conversations with them, and if the responses are so similar that one cannot tell which is the human and which is not, then the computer can be said to possess “intelligence.” But idealism insists that mind is by no means merely the outward appearance of matter; mind is something more essential, independent of matter. Even if a computer’s concrete performance in answering questions and conversing is indistinguishable from a human’s, the mental process behind its giving the same answers is different; therefore, however human-like the computer may be, it still has no soul, no mind.
Similarly, when defining whether a person is a materialist, the materialist’s line of thought is: concern oneself only with concrete outward manifestations. Pose a series of questions to someone, hold some conversations with them; if their concrete responses are no different from those of an ordinary materialist and cannot be distinguished, then they are unquestionably a materialist. But idealists believe that the fundamental elements determining a person’s position do not lie in external objective manifestations or concrete answers. If the inner activity and thought process that arrive at the same answer are different, then they cannot be said to be identical. In judging things and people, idealism’s focus is on ideas, thought, and inner activity, not on concrete behavior and manifestations.
You use external manifestations as the definition of my position in terms of thought and ideas, and think that my position in thought and ideas is determined by my outward manifestations in concrete issues—this is the materialist way of thinking. And if it were idealism, then the “categorization” of me should place more weight on my inner life and thought and ideas.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-26 17:54:20
Sophistry.
Quite elegant. Brother Gu still has a high level. But I advise you not to go in this direction. If sophistry is not your intention, then I advise you to dig out the bugs in your own argument even more ruthlessly.
Materialists believe that so-called “mind,” “intelligence,” and such have no independent status, and are nothing but appearances of matter. Therefore, the way to distinguish whether a computer has intelligence is: ask a computer and a person the same series of questions, have some conversations with them, and if their responses are similar enough that you cannot tell which is the human and which is not, then you can say the computer has “intelligence.”
——
ok
But idealism insists that mind is by no means merely the outward appearance of matter; mind is something more essential, independent of matter. Even if a computer’s concrete performance in answering questions and conversing is identical to a human’s, the mental process behind its giving the same answers is different; therefore, however human-like the computer may be, it still has no soul, no mind.
——-
ok
When defining whether a person is a materialist, the materialist’s line of thought is: concern oneself only with concrete outward manifestations. Pose a series of questions to someone, hold some conversations with them; if their concrete responses are no different from those of an ordinary materialist and cannot be distinguished, then they are unquestionably a materialist.
——–
This is the only workable line of thought, the rational line of thought, the investigative line of thought—what is there to question? If you define this as the materialist way of thinking, then that is not impossible, but it easily causes confusion in expression. Just say it is the normal person’s way of thinking.
But idealists believe that the fundamental elements determining a person’s position do not lie in external objective manifestations or concrete answers. If the inner activity and thought process that arrive at the same answer are different, then they cannot be said to be identical. In judging things and people, idealism’s focus is on ideas, thought, and inner activity, not on concrete behavior and manifestations.
———–
How does it “focus on ideas, thought, and inner activity”? You don’t have telepathy. Isn’t it still inferred indirectly through a person’s behavior and manifestations? In the end, it is still judged through behavior and manifestations.
You constructed a very symmetrical formulation, but one is about whether there is intelligence, while the other is about concrete thought and position; these two questions are not symmetrical, one is first-order and the other second-order. Such surface symmetry is just a trap.
Moreover, idealism’s views on artificial intelligence are not so simple either. Your formulation is very easy to find loopholes in, so it’s best not to put it that way. We won’t go too far afield on this. Artificial intelligence is not a key issue for idealism anyway.
[Anonymous] Gu Chu
2007-04-26 19:00:46
The final “biting back” I certainly wasn’t taking all that seriously either, but caring about other people’s inner processes and mental activities does not mean one has to go so far as to claim telepathy. At bottom, one is still looking at actual manifestations; the focus is simply not on the answer he gives to a specific question, but on the thought process by which he arrives at that answer—that is, on the arguments and explanations he offers.
Moreover, the contradiction in your own position is actually quite obvious. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that contemporary, vulgar, and ordinary people’s views have the final power of definition, and that your definition is reasonable precisely because it reflects common understanding. But the problem is that you also seem to be saying that you yourself are not vulgar, and that you regard naïve materialism as vulgar and bad as well. The fact is that, in the eyes of vulgar opinion, ordinary people’s opinion, and the view of the majority of Chinese people today, idealism is simply synonymous with error, and palm reading, feng shui, and the Five Elements are simply “feudal superstition,” by no means science. And science, in the eyes of ordinary people, means things like modern physics and modern biology. If one takes the majority’s view as the basis for “definition,” then the list you have assembled—palm reading, feng shui, the Five Elements, and so on—ought to serve as the definition of concepts such as “pseudoscience” and “feudal superstition,” should it not? And if we were to assemble a list of what should count as “science” in vulgar opinion, then by the definition of “science” according to the majority view, that list certainly would not include feng shui or palm reading and the like, would it? Such a definition is of course perfectly in keeping with your vulgarist line. But when I say that these things are “feudal superstition,” not “science,” you, however, show irritation. Why is that?
Philosophy has no right to legislate new norms for everyday language, but philosophy does need to clear away the confusion in everyday language. How to clear it away? Only through the work of tracing and sorting out the history of ideas, I suppose.
[Anonymous] yxy
2007-04-27 11:05:19
Brother Gu, let me explain to you. (This part is quite important)
I don’t assign any positive or negative value to words like vulgar, ordinary, default configuration, and so on. When Old Jiang used to discuss things on the forum, he said I lacked reflection, had a default configuration, held vulgar views, and so forth. After going through it a few times, I figured it out: if you understand these words as pejorative, then they are pejorative; if you take them as praise, then they are praise. So in the future, when others call me mainstream, ordinary, plain, or default configuration, I’ll answer: what’s wrong with being mainstream? If the masses all believe in something, there must naturally be a reason for it; the masses are often right, and there is no point in blindly pursuing difference from the masses.
So when I say you are vulgar, what I mean in my mind is simply that you share the same view as the masses. But I know that people who are generally anti-science and anti-culture are good at inventing all kinds of flowery terms for insulting people; “popular science amateur” and “default configuration” are two classic examples. I don’t think that is real scholarship; it’s fighting. As long as I, like myself, don’t take it as pejorative, then I’m under a golden bell cover. But since the people who use these words treat them as pejorative, then it is also fine for me to use them back in a proper situation. I don’t take them as pejorative, so I can say it calmly; on the other side, they take it as pejorative themselves, so they react intensely. If they also learn not to be affected, then they will have lost one more weapon for fighting. If one doesn’t want to fight and instead focuses on scholarship, that is pretty good too.
What vulgar, ordinary, or default have to do with is truth. If one is seriously discussing academic issues, one should try as much as possible to isolate such emotional influences.
As for academic discussion:
On terminology, I advocate using wording that conforms as much as possible to ordinary people’s understanding, so that more people can understand and communication will be easier. What accords with modern people’s understanding is more important than what accords with the original meaning when ancient people coined the term.
In order for discussion to reach the key issues more quickly, I advocate that if a concept can be understood, then one should not rush to police the concept first; that wastes too much time. If differences in conceptual understanding affect the depth of the discussion, then we can come back later and sort out the concepts.
On viewpoints, I do not think the masses are necessarily right, nor do I think the masses are necessarily wrong; everything should be judged by whether facts are presented and reasoned through properly. So, on the one hand, many of my views are called a default configuration; on the other hand, many of my views are also ones that even the most radical anti-scientistic people find hard to accept. And I do not make choices on the basis of whether I am the same as others or different from them. If it is right, I will hold to it even if it is the same as vulgar opinion; if it is right, I will hold to it even if it is completely at odds with the academic establishment.
The masses’ understanding of materialism is quite plain, quite useful, and not ambiguous at all—why shouldn’t we use it?
The masses believe that palm reading, feng shui, and the like are wrong; I think they are right. I have tested this in practice.
The masses believe materialism is good and idealism is bad; I think idealism is right and materialism is wrong. I have discussed this in depth.
The masses believe science means modern Western science; I believe that any theory that tries to predict phenomena accurately and achieves a certain degree of accuracy is science, so palm reading and feng shui are also science.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply