View Single Post
Dec21-03, 10:35 AM
P: 1,476
Originally posted by Fliption
Thank you! I've been saying this for pages now.
Your welcome; but, I wasn't posting to support your argument. The discussions merged to This common point. I do not have a definition of materialism but have been using and debating the definition of others. I don't even know what the classical definition of materialism is; but, then I don't think that many here do either or care. As usual Fliption, we think alike and agree on many points comeing from different place for different reasons. It is a measure of another man's intelligence how much he agrees with you. You obviously are very intelligent.

And this is the result. FZ(and others) are using a definition that doesn't allow for anyone to really know exactly what they disagree on. The above quote is Royce trying to make the distinction because he knows there is one. I don't have a clue what FZ thinks Royce is up too since he thinks there is no distinction.
I don't think that Royce has any idea what he is up too either. I am at a complete lost at how the term material or materialism can be perverted to mean everything. The only way that this could be so is the absolute unreasonable dogma that nothing but material exists and the absolute refusal to consider the possiblity of anything else, immaterial or non-material, to exist much less debate about it.
This is the closed mind in absolute denial of any or all other possiblitites that Les and I are talking about. Les's point has been made and validated by the definition that FZ+ and others are using.
FZ+ has been hoisted on his own petard by his own posts and definition. To be consistant, of course, he can never see it much less admit it.

We need some serious realignment on definitions before the debate can continue. I say go back to abiogensis topic for now and deal with materialism in a new thread.
Oh no! Not another Materialism vs non-materialism thread!
Trying to come up with a workable definition I can see.