Materialism and Immaterialism

Why would anyone claim that matter does not exist?

 If it were possible to show that the arguments of materialists are either contradictory or in some other way unreasonable, and if it were possible to show that an alternative view does not suffer the same limitations and is simpler, more complete, and more consistent, wouldn't it be better to hold that alternate view EVEN IF it does not square with what we THINK is common sense?  Perhaps common sense arguments aren't so good after all....

1.  Concerning the Representative Theory of Perception

2.  Concerning the Distinction between Primary and Secondary Qualities

3.  Consider how the materialist tends to define or describe 'matter'

4.  Consider how the materialist (specifically, Locke) defines 'knowledge'
 

Sensible qualities represent physical objects - that is, we know that the sensible qualities we perceive come from or are caused by real, existent physical objects.  It is also the case that ideas represent sensible qualities.  In other words, our ideas are caused by sensible qualities.  It follows that all ideas represent, or are caused by, physical objects.

            What could be simpler than this?

1.  The Materialist's Representative Theory of Perception is unacceptable.

2.  There is no distinction between primary and secondary qualities, as the materialist asserts.

3.  Holding that matter exists results in a logical contradiction.

4.  The materialist's account of matter is incomprehensible, overall.

5.  The materialist's position results in skepticism.

All sensible qualities (colors, sounds, tastes, etc.) are identical with ideas and, further, that which we call a 'physical object' is nothing to us but collections of sensible qualities.  It follows that physical objects are nothing more than ideas.  That is, there are no things called physical objects, and when we speak of them (when we use the term 'physical object') what we mean by it is nothing more than the reality we perceive with the senses.  That reality is ideas, not matter.

According to the immaterialist,

The materialist's use of the representative theory of perception is inconsistent with their definition and description of matter.

When the materialist speaks of matter, he is speaking of something even he admits cannot be perceived.

The materialist admits that matter is mindless, senseless, inert substance.  If this is true, could matter then CAUSE anything?

What is active and has causal efficacy is a mind - not matter.  Since matter is not active, it cannot cause anything - even under the materialist's own principles.

To be is to be perceived or to perceive.

There is no rational reason to believe that matter exists.

The position that matter does not exist is fully consistent with the claims and methods of modern science.

We must learn to "think with the learned and speak with the vulgar" and cease being like the philosophers who "raise a dust and then complain that we cannot see."