Talk:Materialism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this saying the same thing as our Methodological naturalism article? but with less words.--Bobbing up 17:07, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

The article says that the difference between the two is small, but doesn't clarify what that difference actually is. I don't understand it, either; I thought they were synonyms. Can someone provide an example of something which is part of naturalism but not part of materialism? Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Status of space and time in materialism?[edit]

What is the ontological status of time & space in materialism? Your article does not make that clear, hence readers may think that time & space are reducible to matter? 114.30.125.178 (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Yendo

Historical materialism[edit]

May I please add a paragraph explaining it? Pan (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Marx[edit]

Is it prudent to differentiate this form of Materialism from Dialectical Materialism, the contrast offered by Karl Marx to the Hegalian Dialectic? — Unsigned, by: CorpMinicrits / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
And that goes for your own user talk page too. Thank you again. Spud (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Understood, thank you. CorpMinicrits (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Circular reasoning in this article?[edit]

"science is inherently materialistic and the available scientific evidence proves materialism beyond any reasonable doubt" Wait, what? Could the reason that available scientific evidence proves materialism beyond a reasonable doubt is because science is inherently materialistic? So using science to prove materialism is like using materialism to prove itself. And that is circular reasoning. 138.43.105.135 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Where in the article is that said? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
In the second to last paragraph of the main section of the article 149.19.33.81 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Science isn't used to like "prove" materialism but it requires a materialistic framework to work. It's already stated in the article, "Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist" so the overall passage isn't needed. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's kind of hard to "prove" any existential philosophy. I think the question we should be asking is if a given philosophy has utility in any given area. Vee (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)