#materialism — Public Fediverse posts

While it's true that material possessions don't go with you, there is one thing I'm afraid of losing.

The relationships that I have. Maybe they don't "belong to me", but they are the ones that I care about.

I do like using these quotes and wisdom to try and challenge me though.

#stoic #philosophy #art #love #God #death #materialism

While it's true that material possessions don't go with you, there is one thing I'm afraid of losing.

The relationships that I have. Maybe they don't "belong to me", but they are the ones that I care about.

I do like using these quotes and wisdom to try and challenge me though.

#stoic #philosophy #art #love #God #death #materialism

Marx : les idées n’ont pas d’autonomie

Pour Marx, morale, religion et métaphysique ne flottent pas au-dessus du monde social. Elles naissent des rapports matériels, des modes de production et des formes de vie réelles qui façonnent aussi notre conscience. #Marx #Materialism #Ideology #Philosophy Dans L’Idéologie allemande, Marx propose un renversement décisif : la morale, la religion, la métaphysique et, plus largement, toutes les formes idéologiques ne doivent pas…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/04/marx-les-idees-nont-pas-dautonomie/

Marx : les idées n’ont pas d’autonomie

Pour Marx, morale, religion et métaphysique ne flottent pas au-dessus du monde social. Elles naissent des rapports matériels, des modes de production et des formes de vie réelles qui façonnent aussi notre conscience. #Marx #Materialism #Ideology #Philosophy Dans L’Idéologie allemande, Marx propose un renversement décisif : la morale, la religion, la métaphysique et, plus largement, toutes les formes idéologiques ne doivent pas…

https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/08/04/marx-les-idees-nont-pas-dautonomie/

DATE: July 30, 2026 at 09:23AM
SOURCE: SCIENCE DAILY MIND-BRAIN FEED

TITLE: What if the brain does not create consciousness?

URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/07/260729043829.htm

Christof Koch is taking on one of science’s deepest mysteries: how the brain creates conscious experience, or whether it creates it at all. He argues that materialism has yet to solve this “hard problem” and will explore puzzling phenomena such as near-death experiences and terminal lucidity. His work points toward the possibility that consciousness may be woven into reality itself.

URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/07/260729043829.htm

-------------------------------------------------

Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org

Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

-------------------------------------------------

#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Consciousness #BrainScience #HardProblem #Materialism #ChristofKoch #NearDeathExperience #TerminalLucidity #ConsciousExperience #ScienceOfConsciousness #WovenReality

DATE: July 30, 2026 at 09:23AM
SOURCE: SCIENCE DAILY MIND-BRAIN FEED

TITLE: What if the brain does not create consciousness?

URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/07/260729043829.htm

Christof Koch is taking on one of science’s deepest mysteries: how the brain creates conscious experience, or whether it creates it at all. He argues that materialism has yet to solve this “hard problem” and will explore puzzling phenomena such as near-death experiences and terminal lucidity. His work points toward the possibility that consciousness may be woven into reality itself.

URL: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/07/260729043829.htm

-------------------------------------------------

Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org

Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot

-------------------------------------------------

#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #Consciousness #BrainScience #HardProblem #Materialism #ChristofKoch #NearDeathExperience #TerminalLucidity #ConsciousExperience #ScienceOfConsciousness #WovenReality

✮ Give Thanks ✮ 

Subscribe to keep reading

Become a paid subscriber to get access to the rest of this post and other exclusive content.

🧠 Is human #consciousness a magical #mystery—or simply a hard-hitting success story of #evolution? 🧬

In this new #podcast, we put on our evolutionary glasses and take a closer look at #materialisticmonism!

👉 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2BfpZKFyHwl4LEkTMVme8w?si=RptWM_aMQFq2THiK7k632A

#Monism #Materialism #Philosophy #Dualism #MindAndBrain #ChristianBührig #Evolution #Neuroscience #PredictiveProcessing #Dreams #FreeWill #ArtificialConsciousness #PhilosophyPodcast #KnowledgePodcast

🧠 Is human #consciousness a magical #mystery—or simply a hard-hitting success story of #evolution? 🧬

In this new #podcast, we put on our evolutionary glasses and take a closer look at #materialisticmonism!

👉 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2BfpZKFyHwl4LEkTMVme8w?si=RptWM_aMQFq2THiK7k632A

#Monism #Materialism #Philosophy #Dualism #MindAndBrain #ChristianBührig #Evolution #Neuroscience #PredictiveProcessing #Dreams #FreeWill #ArtificialConsciousness #PhilosophyPodcast #KnowledgePodcast

A quotation from Orwell

I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1943-12-20), “Can Socialists Be Happy?” “As I Please” column, Tribune Newspaper [as John Freeman]

More about this quote: wist.info/orwell-george/47663/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #orwell #georgeorwell #aspirations #brotherhood #cause #contentment #details #dissent #happiness #hope #love #loveyourneighbor #materialism #physical #planning #protest #sacrifice #socialism #struggle #torture #utopia #war

A quotation from Orwell

I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English journalist, essayist, writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
Essay (1943-12-20), “Can Socialists Be Happy?” “As I Please” column, Tribune Newspaper [as John Freeman]

More about this quote: wist.info/orwell-george/47663/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #orwell #georgeorwell #aspirations #brotherhood #cause #contentment #details #dissent #happiness #hope #love #loveyourneighbor #materialism #physical #planning #protest #sacrifice #socialism #struggle #torture #utopia #war

I critique and Dis–Integrate Alex O'Connor's Cartesian argument for Panpsychism.

https://philosophics.blog/2026/06/29/deconstructing-consciousness-without-panpsychism/?utm_source=masto&utm_medium=social

Many philosophers I respect support Panpsychism, but Homey don't play dat.

#philsophy #panpsychism #video #youtube #physics #emergence #consciousness #podcast #magic #blog #ontology #reductionism #deflationary #metaphysics #awareness #phenomena #experience #qualia #idealism #materialism

I critique and Dis–Integrate Alex O'Connor's Cartesian argument for Panpsychism.

https://philosophics.blog/2026/06/29/deconstructing-consciousness-without-panpsychism/?utm_source=masto&utm_medium=social

Many philosophers I respect support Panpsychism, but Homey don't play dat.

#philsophy #panpsychism #video #youtube #physics #emergence #consciousness #podcast #magic #blog #ontology #reductionism #deflationary #metaphysics #awareness #phenomena #experience #qualia #idealism #materialism

@homohortus31 We can go further because a concept is a tool, and we can selectively extract a tool from a toolbox - a realist or naturalist might have problems with this empirical-constructivist approch but we can extend the concept of a tool further in this way.... #marx #materialism

What if mathematics is a lie?

https://amkent.co.uk/2026/06/08/what-if-mathematics-is-a-lie/

What if mathematics is a lie?

https://amkent.co.uk/2026/06/08/what-if-mathematics-is-a-lie/

Western psychology values society over individuals. Its project is to produce productive social actors (egos with many attachments, who work, who buy things, etc), not to free people from all possible suffering by deconstructing the ego.

#psychology #west #value #society #productivity #ego #attachment #work #commerce #materialism #freedom #suffering

Western psychology values society over individuals. Its project is to produce productive social actors (egos with many attachments, who work, who buy things, etc), not to free people from all possible suffering by deconstructing the ego.

#psychology #west #value #society #productivity #ego #attachment #work #commerce #materialism #freedom #suffering

Spending, Gifts and Materialism
https://wp.me/p84YjG-aT0
#relationships #zsoltzsemba #relationshipexpectations #money #gifts #dating #datingadvice #moderndating #materialism #generosity #relationshipadvice #menandrelationships #lovеlanguages #materialistic

https://zsoltzsemba.com/what-spending-on-a-partner-actually-tells-you-about-the-relationship/

What the American Left Got Wrong | An #Indigenous Elder's Diagnosis
Roberto Mendoza—82 years old, six decades of organizing from Alcatraz in 1969 to Standing Rock in 2016—sits down with economist Clara Mattei to name what he thinks went wrong, and why it keeps going wrong. His answer isn't strategy or messaging. It's values. And Marxism, he argues, still shares too many of them with capitalism.
#FREE #Racialization #Patriarchy #Hierarchy #Capitalism #Materialism #Industrialization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lisua-os6Mk&t=629s

What the American Left Got Wrong | An #Indigenous Elder's Diagnosis
Roberto Mendoza—82 years old, six decades of organizing from Alcatraz in 1969 to Standing Rock in 2016—sits down with economist Clara Mattei to name what he thinks went wrong, and why it keeps going wrong. His answer isn't strategy or messaging. It's values. And Marxism, he argues, still shares too many of them with capitalism.
#FREE #Racialization #Patriarchy #Hierarchy #Capitalism #Materialism #Industrialization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lisua-os6Mk&t=629s

Bodies are a type of hardware. Being attached to them, desiring them, etc is a type of materialism. People's obsessions with 'who' looks most beautiful is actually with whose mind HAS (ie, possesses, occupies, etc) the most beautiful body.

#buddhism #body #hardware #desire #materialism #obsession #beauty #mind #possession #occupation #moha #delusion

SUNDAY MATINEE MUSIC VIDEO + HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO DONOVAN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-ap_RgR8U

#Donovan #Britishinvasion #britpop #changes #singersongwriter #DavidBowie #classicrock #socialcommentary #poprock #folkrock #popstar #fame #openroad #materialism #simplicity #jasonsouza #soldier #johnnyjblair #singeratlarge #tommallon #birthday

SUNDAY MATINEE MUSIC VIDEO + HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO DONOVAN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-ap_RgR8U

#Donovan #Britishinvasion #britpop #changes #singersongwriter #DavidBowie #classicrock #socialcommentary #poprock #folkrock #popstar #fame #openroad #materialism #simplicity #jasonsouza #soldier #johnnyjblair #singeratlarge #tommallon #birthday

'Lewis takes up a debate with several Black feminists who have, at various times, questioned the idea of family abolition, whose central argument has been that, very often, Black families have been sites of resistance against racism. Similarly, we could point to many experiences of class struggle in which sectors of working families have played a key role against the attacks of capital: supporting strikes, establishing relations of solidarity between factories and neighborhoods, staging rent strikes, maintaining soup kitchens, creating movements in defense of public services, and many other forms of resistance. The tradition of “women’s commissions” in strikes, for example, has allowed the working class to articulate fighting forces far beyond the workplace.

'To this criticism Lewis responds that, even so, we should not cease working for the abolition of the family, since we would not need its “protective shield” if we managed to build a society without racism. The argument contains a grain of truth, but it stops halfway. It fails to contemplate the role that the family relations within sectors of the working class and oppressed can play in moments of heightened class struggle. On another level, it doesn’t account for the fact that capitalism, while it needs such a “social cell” for its own reproduction, constantly undermines working families’ very conditions of existence. Marx and Engels remarked on this in the mid-19th century, pointing to the length of the working day, the lack of decent housing, and the general precariousness of working class life.'

Josefina L. Martínez : https://www.leftvoice.org/love-and-care-beyond-capitalism/

#property #gender #subordination #dependence #family #debates #debate #abolition #antiCapitalism #Fourier #Lewis #sociology #anthropology #communities #feminism #feminisms #chores #care #queer #rainbowMafia #historyOfIdeas #Marxism #relationships #abolitionism #culturalism #radicalFeminism #materialism #classes #revolution #domesticWork #classStruggle #careWork #historyOfFeminism

'Lewis takes up a debate with several Black feminists who have, at various times, questioned the idea of family abolition, whose central argument has been that, very often, Black families have been sites of resistance against racism. Similarly, we could point to many experiences of class struggle in which sectors of working families have played a key role against the attacks of capital: supporting strikes, establishing relations of solidarity between factories and neighborhoods, staging rent strikes, maintaining soup kitchens, creating movements in defense of public services, and many other forms of resistance. The tradition of “women’s commissions” in strikes, for example, has allowed the working class to articulate fighting forces far beyond the workplace.

'To this criticism Lewis responds that, even so, we should not cease working for the abolition of the family, since we would not need its “protective shield” if we managed to build a society without racism. The argument contains a grain of truth, but it stops halfway. It fails to contemplate the role that the family relations within sectors of the working class and oppressed can play in moments of heightened class struggle. On another level, it doesn’t account for the fact that capitalism, while it needs such a “social cell” for its own reproduction, constantly undermines working families’ very conditions of existence. Marx and Engels remarked on this in the mid-19th century, pointing to the length of the working day, the lack of decent housing, and the general precariousness of working class life.'

Josefina L. Martínez : https://www.leftvoice.org/love-and-care-beyond-capitalism/

#property #gender #subordination #dependence #family #debates #debate #abolition #antiCapitalism #Fourier #Lewis #sociology #anthropology #communities #feminism #feminisms #chores #care #queer #rainbowMafia #historyOfIdeas #Marxism #relationships #abolitionism #culturalism #radicalFeminism #materialism #classes #revolution #domesticWork #classStruggle #careWork #historyOfFeminism

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

Shakespeare: New Voices, ed. Ian McCormick #drama #theatre #Shakespeare #performance #adaptation #appropriation #historicism #empire #culture #materialism #TeamEnglish #renaissance #bardolatry #postcolonial #woke #socialjustice #theory #queer www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0GYRM5VCW

🔬Why #experiments aren't always necessary – ⚛️From #physics to #philosophyofmind🧠

In our #Zoomposium with #DanielDennett, one of the most influential thinkers in the philosophy of mind, we explore this very topic.

📽 https://youtu.be/M2qiVz95ZYk

📎 https://philosophies.de/index.php/2023/12/25/naturalistic-view/

#Consciousness #Qualia #InsightsIntoPhysics #TheoryVersusExperiment #CognitiveScience #Neuroscience #MultipleDraftsModel #Functionalism #Naturalism #Materialism #MindAndBrain

🔬Why #experiments aren't always necessary – ⚛️From #physics to #philosophyofmind🧠

In our #Zoomposium with #DanielDennett, one of the most influential thinkers in the philosophy of mind, we explore this very topic.

📽 https://youtu.be/M2qiVz95ZYk

📎 https://philosophies.de/index.php/2023/12/25/naturalistic-view/

#Consciousness #Qualia #InsightsIntoPhysics #TheoryVersusExperiment #CognitiveScience #Neuroscience #MultipleDraftsModel #Functionalism #Naturalism #Materialism #MindAndBrain

YES, WHAT IS IT?!1?!

(The particular authors are not to blame, the journal has all titles in caps)

#academia #typography #materialism

YES, WHAT IS IT?!1?!

(The particular authors are not to blame, the journal has all titles in caps)

#academia #typography #materialism

Materialism is realism
But only if the individual involved in it has come to the bottom of their existence as a being that relates with other human beings and not just ideologies and worldviews

#materialism #philosophy

Materialism is realism
But only if the individual involved in it has come to the bottom of their existence as a being that relates with other human beings and not just ideologies and worldviews

#materialism #philosophy

It’s not enough that just one person is an idiot
..the whole system must be idiotic. Bourgeois ideology is obsessed with the strongman, for better or for worse. If Hitler had been thrown out of the window in 1925, there would have been no German fascism. As daft as that sounds, it’s also a widespread belief, mainly because of that Jesus story.
Historical materialism, and even more so Foucault’s structuralism, show that social conditions lead to outcomes. This can be accelerated by charismatic figures, but never triggered. Similarly, the current decline of Western hegemony is in no way attributable to Trump. Nor has it ever been. And sometimes I believe that Trump knows this. That he is, by design, the angel of the Apocalypse. Like the Judas of the Gospel of Judas, who sacrifices himself to fulfil the prophecy. He wouldn't be the first to see nihilism as the way out.

https://word.undead-network.de/2026/04/14/es-reicht-ja-nicht-wenn-einer-idiotisch-ist/
#Foucault #materialism #Materialismus #nihilism #nihilismus #philosophy #prophet #struckturalism #trump #us

It’s not enough that just one person is an idiot
..the whole system must be idiotic. Bourgeois ideology is obsessed with the strongman, for better or for worse. If Hitler had been thrown out of the window in 1925, there would have been no German fascism. As daft as that sounds, it’s also a widespread belief, mainly because of that Jesus story.
Historical materialism, and even more so Foucault’s structuralism, show that social conditions lead to outcomes. This can be accelerated by charismatic figures, but never triggered. Similarly, the current decline of Western hegemony is in no way attributable to Trump. Nor has it ever been. And sometimes I believe that Trump knows this. That he is, by design, the angel of the Apocalypse. Like the Judas of the Gospel of Judas, who sacrifices himself to fulfil the prophecy. He wouldn't be the first to see nihilism as the way out.

https://word.undead-network.de/2026/04/14/es-reicht-ja-nicht-wenn-einer-idiotisch-ist/
#Foucault #materialism #Materialismus #nihilism #nihilismus #philosophy #prophet #struckturalism #trump #us

Growing up (and even often as an adult) I need to refrain from expressing this interest and it becomes kinda lonely, alienating. When the internet became dominated by commercial interests promoting #materialism and other #mainstream values, I found myself marginalised again, so I dropped out as I had from IRL society. The #decentralised #fediverse seems to offer something like the OG internet and I am grateful for those who develop and maintain it for the #community #alternative.

#Materialism is a prison:
The Problematic Role of Materialistic Values in the Pursuit of Sustainable Well-Being
#Capitalism
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8951562/#:~:text=On%20top%20of%20this%2C%20research,purpose%20in%20life%20%5B71%5D.

“Unhappy is the land that needs a hero”*…

To the extent that evolutionary biologist and sociobiologist Robert Trivers has been in the news over the last decade, it has been for his entanglement with and highly-questionable defense of Jeffrey Epstein. But as Lionel Page reminds us, two decades before that– well before he could have known the execrable “financier”– Trivers made hugely important contributions to his field…

Steve Stewart-Williams announced… that Robert Trivers passed away.

Trivers was one of the most—perhaps the most—influential evolutionary biologists of the 20th century. His work should be much more widely known in social and behavioural sciences, in particular in economics, as Trivers’ intellectual approach is very much in line with a game theoretic understanding of social interactions.

It is hard to overstate the importance of his work. Einstein famously published four groundbreaking papers in 1905, a year often referred to as his “Annus mirabilis”, during which he revolutionised physics. Trivers might be said to have had a “Quinquennium Mirabile” for the five years between 1971 and 1976, during which he produced a series of ideas that revolutionised evolutionary biology…

[Page unpacks four of those contributions: Reciprocal Alturism, Parental Investment, Parental Offspring Conflict, and Self-Deception, each fascinating…]

… Trivers has been one of the most influential evolutionary biologists, and his papers are still worth reading today. His insights, published more than 50 years ago, are fascinating. They often align very well with economic theories of behaviour, and it is therefore regrettable that his ideas are not more well-known in economics, and in particular in behavioural economics.

A key feature of Trivers’ take across these contributions was to see that beneath the world of social interactions we observe, there are deep structures in terms of incentives that shape the game we play. Understanding these games and their structures helps us make sense of the seemingly endless complexity of human psychology and social dynamics. In several key contributions, Trivers helped lift the veil on the underlying logic of human behaviour…

From cooperation to conflict: the evolutionary grammar of social interactions: “The fascinating insights of Robert Trivers” from @lionelpage.bsky.social.

For more on Trivers and the controversies in his life (Epstein, but also the Black Panthers and a Rutgers set-to), all of which followed the burst of productivity described above, see here.

And for some thoughts on how one might reconcile appreciation for a scientist’s work with abhorence of his later sins, see “Ghosts of Science Past Still Haunt Us. We Can Put Them to Rest.“

* Bertolt Brecht (through the mouth of Galileo, in The Life of Galileo)

###

As we linger over legacies, we might send material birthday greetings to a man who helped lay the groundwork for the field to which Trivers contributed, Ludwig Büchner; he was born on this date in 1824. A philosopher, physiologist, and physician, he became one of the leading exponents of 19th-century scientific materialism. Büchner was an early champion of Darwin’s theory of evolution, endorsing it within a decade of its first issuance, then did much to spread it by citing and building on it in his own books.

As far as we know, Büchner’s life was free of the scandal and conflict that plagued Trivers. He taught at the University of Tübingen and published dozens of books and papers. Later in his life he founded he “German Freethinkers League” (“Deutsche Freidenkerbund”) and served as a member of the second chamber of the Landstände of the Grand Duchy of Hesse as a representative of the German Free-minded Party from 1884 to 1890. He was the younger brother of Georg Büchner, a famous revolutionary playwright, and Luise Büchner, a women’s rights advocate; and he was the uncle of Ernst Büchner, inventor of the Büchner flask.

source

МишМаш, «Сверху вверх/Лампы», 2018 ★ Russia/Germany ★ https://www.mishmash.group/lampa.html ⦾ https://toiida.dreamwidth.org/1043750.html #MishMash #contemporaryart #contemporarysculpture #recollections #materialism #lamps #forms #2010s

Работа исполнена второй половиной дуэта, г-жа Сумнина повторила из сподручных материалов — скотча, проволоки, гипса, пластилина, лака, — лампу, которая ей досталась от бабушки. И этот жест должен был продемонстрировать, как художница не похожа на свою бабушку, и что она — вся в бабушку.

I was just reading about Alan Turing and got sidetracked learning about Materialism (the philosophy) which has now torn open a new dimension in my mind thinking of Celine Song’s #Materialists that I just saw the other day. When you view the movie in terms of class struggle… 🤯

#Philosophy #Materialism #Movies #CelineSong

https://youtu.be/rTIMpAQzl4g