David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environment and Planning D 28 (5):1-17 (2010)
This paper criticizes two forms of philosophical materialism that adopt opposite strategies but end up in the same place. Both hold that individual entities must be banished from philosophy. The first kind is ground floor materialism, which attempts to dissolve all objects into some deeper underlying basis; here, objects are seen as too shallow to be the truth. The second kind is first floor materialism, which treats objects as naive fictions gullibly posited behind the direct accessibility of appearances or relations; here, objects are portrayed as too deep to be the truth. One major thesis of this paper is that these two forms of materialism are parasitical on one another and need each other's resources to make sense of the world. The second major thesis is that both forms of materialism thereby stand condemned, and that philosophy must be rebuilt from the individual objects that the two forms of materialism disdain. These points are made through a detailed consid- eration of the book Every Thing Must Go by the analytic structural realists James Ladyman and Don Ross, which has gained a surprising following among some speculative realists in continental philosophy. Ladyman and Ross claim to preserve objects by treating them as ``real patterns'', but they do so at the price of destroying their autonomous reality. Furthermore, they are unable to tell us whether the mathematical structures they see as the basis of human knowledge are also the basis of reality itself. In short, their ontology is scientism for scientism's sake (or `Bunsen burner realism') and must be eliminated in favor of a genuine realist metaphysics of objects.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. Wolff (2012). Do Objects Depend on Structures? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):607-625.
Robert K. Shope (1979). Eliminating Mistakes About Eliminative Materialism. Philosophy of Science 46 (4):590-612.
Graham Harman (2011). On the Undermining of Objects: Grant, Bruno, and Radical Philosophy. In Levi R. Bryant, Nick Srnicek & Graham Harman (eds.), The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Re.Press
Lynne Baker (2011). Christian Materialism in a Scientific Age. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70 (1):47-59.
Roy Wood Sellars (1960). Panpsychism or Evolutionary Materialism. Philosophy of Science 27 (October):329-49.
Howard M. Robinson (1982). Matter and Sense: A Critique of Contemporary Materialism. Cambridge University Press.
Anjan Chakravartty (2003). The Structuralist Conception of Objects. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):867-878.
Emmett L. Holman (1986). Maxwell and Materialism. Synthese 66 (March):505-14.
Michael M. Pitman (2003). Eliminative Materialism and the Integrity of Science. South African Journal of Philosophy 22 (3):207-219.
Adrian Johnston (2013). Prolegomena to Any Future Materialism. Northwestern University Press.
Ray Brassier (2011). Concepts and Objects. In Levi R. Bryant, Nick Srnicek & Graham Harman (eds.), The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Re.Press
Don Locke (1976). Zombies, Schizophrenics, and Purely Physical Objects. Mind 83 (January):97-99.
Added to index2012-01-06
Total downloads63 ( #57,691 of 1,780,929 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #291,797 of 1,780,929 )
How can I increase my downloads?