Dissecting Materialism (part 2)
The term “materialism” and the term “physicalism” are closely related, but I would like to take a moment to define each as I use them.
Materialism refers to a belief about the world which holds that everything that exists, or everything that is real, is fundamentally material and governed by the laws of physical reality. It is a metaphysical position that attempts to define the scope of reality. A materialist, then, uses his view to assert that non-materialist propositions (such as the existence of spirits for example) do not exist and are therefore not part of reality.
Physicalism, in contrast, does not attempt to claim that non-physical propositions are false; instead, physicalism simply claims that if non-physical propositions are true, we cannot know them to be true. The physicalist therefore makes the following claim: For every physical event in the world, there is, in principle, a physical cause or set of causes that sufficiently accounts for the physical event in question. Nowhere, according to the physicalist, is it necessary to invoke non-physical entities or events to account for observable physical events; however, unlike the materialist, the physicalist would not assert that non-physical propositions must be false–they very well might exist, but they simply have no impact on physical reality. Physicalism is, therefore, primarily an epistemic position that deals with how we know rather than what we know; even though it has profound implications for the nature of reality.
In short, materialism makes a stronger claim about the world than physicalism does. The materialist denies the possible existence of non-physical reality whereas the physicalist simply claims that there is no need to assert the existence of non-physical realities–physical explanations are all we need to explain the world we observe.
These concepts are important to understand because they seek to define the scope of our reality. If one were to embrace materialism because the view seems intuitive after a cursory examination, then he or she runs the risk of cutting off a potential aspect of their reality that, ultimately, might be worth exploring. If, in fact, we find that there is good reason to suspect the existence of non-physical realities, it will become cumbersome to attempt to straddle both a desire to uphold one’s prior materialistic beliefs and the desire to explore the non-physical possibilities.
I will continue to expand on these concepts of physical reality with the aim of appreciating the challenges a non-materialst/non-physicalist might make. Check back soon for more…