Matter

Yesterday I discussed how language antagonistic to the Philosophical doctrine Materialism infiltrates everyday discourse, e. g. in the derogatory term 'materialistic'. On the other hand, other common language perhaps unwittingly advocates it. 'Matter', which comes from the same root as 'material', generally has a positive connotation, not merely insofar as it is taken as synonomous with the positive term 'substance', but given that the expression 'it matters' is indicative of importance. Indeed, the very earliest Philosophers can be classified as 'Materialist', in a formal sense. For example, Thales, generally accepted as the first, believed that the fundamental ingredient of existence is Water, while some of his immediate successors countered that it is Fire, or Air, all of which are types of Matter. But Philosophers tend to not take things at face value, so anti-Materialists began to argue that sheerly Intellectual or Spiritual Being or Beings are principles that underly those superficial substances. Aristotle did not as drastically relegate Matter, but he perhaps did more damage to its status, by treating it as a mere passive receptor of Form, thereby completely stripping it of the dynamism that Thales and the others had attributed to it. Modern Science has helped to revive Materialism, not because, as might be commonly thought, it is so antagonistic to Spiritualism, but because it recovers the innate dynamism of Matter, e. g. Water is molecules possessing a certain type of motion; atoms have electromagnetic potency, etc. Accordingly, Materialism, e. g. Marx, Nietzsche, has been revitalized in the past few centuries, and ordinary language is sometimes the unwitting arena of the Philosophical battleground over it.

Materialism

'Materialism' has both a formal Philosophical meaning and a common usage. On the one hand, it is the doctrine that all reality is composed of Matter only, where Matter can be approximately understood as anything possessing mass and volume. It implicitly rejects the independent existence of purportedly 'immaterial' items such as Spirit, Mind, Soul, etc., meaning not so much that they do not exist, but that they are actually themselves some mode of Matter. For example, 'Mind' means nothing more than 'brain' and/or 'brain functions', according to Materialism. In contrast, in common usage, 'materialistic' is a derogatory reference to the pursuit of exclusively physical goods--pleasure, money, possessions, etc. Thus, there is an overlap between the two meanings: according to formal Materialism, everything is physical, so whatever is pursued must be physical. However, the derogatory usage implies a disinterest in e. g. intellectual, spiritual, or aesthetic goods, which the formal doctrine does not. Rather, formal Materialism simply insists that those goods are as Material as money, cars, etc. So, to whatever extent the derogatory usage is a formal critique of Materialism, from, say, the perspective of Immaterialism, it is an underinformed one.

No Nothing

In some cosmological doctrines, Nothing is the fundamental principle, the true Reality. The main challenge for such doctrines is not to explain Nothingness, as many adherents seem to think and dismiss as irrelevant, but to explain how anything at all, even the Illusion of Somethingness, comes to be generated out of Nothing. Some believe that Genesis accomplishes that, with the account of God's creation of the world. However, Genesis does not express a Nothingness doctrine, not merely because the word 'nothing' appears nowhere in the account, but because something does pre-exist Creation, namely God, hardly a Nothing. Two philosophers have notably tried to counter the thesis of the primacy of Nothingness. Hegel shows how 'Nothing' is actually 'No-thing', a qualifier of the more primary Being, a characterization of the undifferentiatedness of the latter. Sartre derives Nothing from 'Being-for-Itself', i. e. Consciousness, which is a fold in Being in which 'Nothing' is what is between the folds. A further analysis in that direction is that Nothingness is derived from Difference--that 'Nothing' refers to the interstices of the items that are differentiated, and that, more generally, 'Nothing' simply means 'other than'. Perhaps more penetratingly, Nietzsche offers a psychological critique of Nothing-ists. He subscribes to a life-affirming doctrine of Eternal Recurrence, which presents Reality as a plenum. With respect to that principle, all seekers or asserters of Nothingness, even when it is dressed up as 'Heaven', are life-hating escapists, or, to put it precisely, Nihilists. Some might complain that philosophers like Nietzsche take the mystery out of life, to which it can be responded that Existence, not Nothingness, is the biggest mystery of all.

Honesty and Policy

A familiar saying that does not stand up well to scrutiny is 'Honesty is the best policy'. To begin with, all of the main terms involved are ambiguous. A 'policy' can be either a principle or a strategy, a big difference, given that the former is chosen for its own sake, while the latter is a means to another end. 'Best' varies analogously: as a qualifier of a principle, it means 'most admirable', while as a qualifier of a strategy, it describes what is most expedient, which is hardly equivalent to the former. Finally, 'honesty' has three main usages. First, it can refer to exchange activities, specifically to the objective accuracy of the descriptions of a party involved, e. g. 'an honest broker'. Second, it can refer to the sincerity of someone's feelings, e. g. 'he honestly loves her.' Finally, it can serve as a validation of the expression of hateful attitudes, e. g. 'To be honest, I do not like Blacks'. So, interpreting 'Honesty is the best policy' as the first of these, Honesty is plainly a strategy, since it is being compared to Dishonesty, not to another admirable principle, e. g. Courage. In the second case, it is neither a principle nor a strategy, since sincerity is spontaneous, and precedes any kind of reflective judgment. Finally, Honesty as an expression of hate has been an effective strategy in two spheres--as therapy in some schools of Psychology, and as a means to Political solidarity for some orientations. And, in both cases, admiration has been expressed, though that does not necessarily amount to admirability in some general sense. In sum, perhaps the best gauge of the soundness of 'Honesty is the policy' is the answer to the question, 'Would you trust someone who needs to be told that Honesty is the best policy?'

Astrology and Whitehead

Astrology is a popular source of practical advice that is taken a lot less seriously as a scientific theory. However, potential intellectual validation for it comes from a very unlikely source--the metaphysical system of the distinguished Logician, Mathematician, and Philosopher of Science, Alfred North Whitehead. That system crosses Leibniz with Bergson: it regards existence as in a constant flux of development, with each new event a 'concrescence'. The latter is a convergence of all previously existing entities, some more relevant to the novelty than others, e. g. entities in the immediate vicinity of the novelty are much more relevant than distant ones, which are, nevertheless, still ingredients in the novelty. Thus, every concrescence is a reflection of the state of the universe at the time of its inception. And, hence, in particular, every human birth is a reflection of the universe at the time of its inception. Therefore, the position of celestial bodies at the moment of one's birth indeed says something about what one is, according to Whitehead's metaphysical theory. But, what is not grounded by that theory is the typical way in which it is translated into practical advice. So, it is actually in theory, but not in practice, that Astrology has the greater intellectual credibility.

Fig Leaf Morality

The latest fodder for comedians, yet another moralistic politician caught with his pants down, is a reminder of the fateful role played in Western Civilization by the fig leaf. The sequence of events in Genesis is, Adam and Eve disobeying God by eating fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then having their eyes opened, then seeing their nakedness, then feeling ashamed, and then covering up their 'nakedness' with fig leaves. Given that this sequence was based in an act of disobedience to God, it would imply that God was not offended by their nakedness. So, why the very first consequence of this newly-gained knowledge is shame at this nakedness is perplexing: what do they 'know' that they did not know before? Certainly not something that God knew. And, then, there is the fig leaf cover-up, which could only draw attention to a part of the body that previously must have been indistinguishable from the rest. So, insofar as 'literalist' Biblical Morality equates nudity with obscenity, it is plainly at odds with Divine will. Furthermore, it is not so much the case that the cover-up is worse than the crime, as is popularly thought, but that it draws attention to it.

Heidegger

Heidegger was one of the most influential Philosophers of the 20th century, and perhaps its most controversial. His most important work, Being and Time, appearing in the 1920s, is a fascinating hybrid of Phenomenology and Pragmaticism, the most innovative notion of which is his original conception of human nature, one that suits the vague classification 'Existentialist'. In the 30s his work, which became more impersonal and elliptical, was accompanied by his advocacy of Hitler and National Socialism. Beyond that, the opacity continued, but there were no further references to Political thought. This connection with Hitler is, obviously, the focus of the controversy surrounding him, and many defenders have argued that whatever was the scope of Heidegger's involvement with the Nazis, it is irrelevant to his philosophical stature. But such a defense is problematic for a notion of human nature which roots Intellect in everyday affairs. On the other hand, minute examination of his theories have failed to expose any unequivocal Nazi element, e. g. anti-Semitism, Master Race talk, etc., in them. However, what is more telling is Heidegger's continued silence even after the demise of the Third Reich--no explanation of his involvement with it, no criticism, no regrets over the suffering of his colleagues, no re-examination of any of his doctrines, nothing. So, what it is inarguable about Heidegger is the cowardice of this silence, the only controversy being the extent to which his reputation should be stained by it.