Home > Sample essays > Exploring the Eras of Philosophical Materialism in This Article

Essay: Exploring the Eras of Philosophical Materialism in This Article

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Sample essays
  • Reading time: 21 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 1 April 2019*
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 6,455 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 26 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 6,455 words. Download the full version above.



according to which the world is composed of material things. For the exponents of this view all that exists is material. Ail entities and processes which are composed of matter are reducible to matter itself. These are only matter, material forces or physical processes which are primary source of everything.'

Thus, materialism is a philosophy which gives primary position to matter and keeps spirit as secondary. It insists that whatever exists is fully dependent upon matter and there is only one fundamental reality that is material. It holds that human beings and the rest of the creatures are not qualitatively different from each other. Human beings are not composed of material body

and an immaterial soul, as is ordinarily believed. They are all bodily and do not have souls which are claimed to be immaterial.^

Materialism opposes ontological dualism that claims that there are two kinds of things which are irreducible to each other. The most famous kind of dualism comes from Descartes. He said That there are material substances and there are psychological

 substances v/hich are non-maierird. These are mind and body as are they called in popular terminology. Materialism rejects Descartes' ontologica! dualism, ll is monistic in so far as it believes that all existing individuals are materia). Thus m.aterialism claims that the whole universe, including all life and mind, can be reduced to matter in motion. But while materialism is ontologically m.onistic, it should also be understood that all ontological monists are not materialists. For example, idealism is a monistic immaterialism. Because it holds that the world is a collection of ideas. This is ontological monistic philosophy but not

materialist philosophy itself."

Philosophical materialism is not a new idea. It is as old as philosophy itself. Broadly, its history can be divided into six different phases. These are ancient materialism, seventeenth- centu-n' materialism, eighteenth-century materialism, nineteenth century materialism, dialectical and historical materialism and

current stage of materialism.

The first stage of materialism centered around Greek and Indian atomism.'* It was thoroughly mechanistic. Ionian philosophers in the tradition of Thales (sixth-century BC)

attempted to account for the origin and the state of the world in materialistic terms. They appealed to change in the states of fundamental substances. Parmenides of Elea (fifth-century BC)

37

 defended not only a monism of substances but also a monism of entities. He maintained that the world is one, uniform, homogeneous, indivisible and indestructible.

Leucippus and his pupil Democritus gave the first clear conception of matter. Their basic idea was that the fundamental stuff was of just one kind and that was matter. The fundamental entities were material atoms. They had the characteristics of Parmenides' Being and moved in an exterior empty space. Their doctrine comprised the following theses:

1. Nothing exists but atoms and empty space.

2. Nothing happens by chance but everything occurs for a reason and of necessity. This necessity is natural and mechanical. It excludes Ideological necessity.

3.

4.

5.

Nothing can arise out of nothing and all changes are new combinations or separations of atoms.

The atoms are infinite in number. They are all of the same stuff. They act on one another only by pressure or conflict.

Ihe variety of things is a consequence of the variety in nuinber. size, shape and arrangement of the atoms which compose them.'

It is clear that the atomist theory arises as an attempt to give an account of change in terms of ultimate elements of the world.

38

 According to this theory, the ultimate are indivisible and indestructible particles that move about in empty space. Things, animals and people of natural world are formed by these particles. They disintegrate and form new and different combinations.^

The second phase, i.e. seventeenth-century materialism, was ibe revival of the first materialism during the 1?"' century. It was, in large part. )he result of the work of two seventeenth-century philosophers, namely Pierre Gassendi and Thomas Hobbes. They crystallized the naturalisiic and skeptical movements of thought of their times. It accompanied the rediscovery of antiquity and rise of natural science. Gassendi claimed that the atoms are not eternal but are created. They are finite, not infinite in number. They are organized in our particular world by a providential determination of initial conditions.

Ilobbes' aim was to discover fundamental principles expressing the tiuth of everything. The truth of these principles v/ould be manifest to right reason and could serve as axioms. From it, a comprehensive theory of the nature of the world could be

derived. This system was almost pure materialism. Hobbes hoped to use the new physics as the basis of a final and complete account of reality.^

39

 The influence of Gassendi and Hobbes was reduced by Rene Descartes. He accepted a materialist and mechanical account of the inanimate world and the creation. According to Descartes, there are in the world two very different sorts of things. These are extended (material) substances and thinking (spiritual) substances. These are united in the case of mankind. He thus started the

Q tradition of dualism.

The third phase of materialism is known as eighteenth- century materialism. It caused the growth of physiological knowledge and gave rise to the hope that a complete doctrine of man in purely physiological terms was possible. It presented a view of man as a self-moving machine.'^

The fourth phase of materialism is called nineteenth-century materialism. It is known as scientific materialism. It tried to reconcile materialism v/ith science. The pioneers of this period were Huxley and Darwin.'° It was developed mainly in Germany and England. And it was presented in terms of chemistry and biology. In 1859. Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species and in 1871 his Descent of Man. T.H. Huxley had produced Man's

Place in Nature in 1863. These three works provided an empirical ground for materialism. They admitted the explanation of the world without appeal to immanent or transcendent purposes. And they claimed that man is a part and product of the natural world."

40

 The fifth phase of materialism began with the philosophy of dialectical materialism or historical materialism. It was mainly formulated by Engeis and Marx. It accompanied the socialist ideology.'" Marx argued that two basic factors to be found in every society are the material forces of production and the knowledge necessary for their use. Marx claimed that the mode of production in materia! life determines the general character of the social, political and economic processes of life. Here we see that

the dialectical materialism which is considered in terms of economic need of men accepts revolutionary process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. According to Marx, world by its nature is material. It is constituted by different forms of matter and motion. Therefore, the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter. This is what Marx called Dialectical Materialism.'^

Finally, the sixth or current phase is developed mainly by Australian and American philosophers. The materialism of this stage is academic and nonpartisan. Associated with this kind of materialism are the names of physicalists like Otto Neurath, W. V.

O. Quine and Smart and emergent materialists like Samuel Alexander and Roy Wood Sellars.

41

 II Roy's View of Materialism

After giving ft brief sketch of the history of materialist philosophy, we discuss Roy's iriteiprelation of maierialist philosophy. Roy tried to restate [iie niatci-jalist philosophy keeping in vievv both Indian and Western kinds of materialisni.

As already seen, while Roy ceased to be Marxist at some stage, he continued to be a materialist throughout his life. But he claimed that his conception of materialism is not like that of traditional materialist philosophers. Roy said that materialism is the only possible philosophy. It represents the knowledge of world as it really exists. According to him, origin of all existence is due to matter and nothing exists but the matter. All other appearances are the transformation of matter. They are governed by the laws inherent in nature. These laws are not mysterious but based upon knov^'ledge acquired through observation and investigation of the phenomena of nature.

Roy talks aboui the primitive man who imagined about the supernatural forces behind the nature. This was the religious consciousness so called, and Roy has no hesitation in calling it a

crude phenomena. Religion is presented by Roy as "the naive form of nascent science."''^ But the scientific advancements weakened the primitive faith in gods. It was so because, according to Roy,

42

 philosophy is born not as metaphysics but as a physical science. It is called the science of all sciences. Therefore, materialism is the basic philosophy which is not based on metaphysical speculations. It represents a scientific approach to life. There was some naturalism in the religion of the Vedas which made the nature as the object of worship. But Roy describes it as the religion of the

tribal society. The development of the religion from polytheism to monotheism is influenced by the intensity of the social crisis. Hence the philosophy of a modern man should be concentrated on scientific advancements and for the betterment of all human beings. We should come out from the religious dogmas and ignorance of the reality.

Roy supports the atomist theory propounded by Democritus and Epicurus. Its main propositions are summed up by him as under:

1. Out of nothing arises nothing.

2. All changes are only the combination and separation of atoms.

3. Nothing happens by chance; so everything has a cause and happens of necessity.

4. Nothing exists but atoms and empty space.

5. The atoms are infinite and endless variety of forms.

4J

 6. Lastiv, ihe soul consists of the finest and mobile atoms. They pass Ihrougli the whole body and thereby produce the phenomenon of life.'^

The first proposition contains the two basic principles of modern physical science. These are the indestructibility of matter and the conservation of energy. The second lays down mechanistic cosmology. The discovery of the mechanistic laws of nature has eradicated the prejudice of a final cause. It has maintained the view that nothing happens by chance and every event has its cause.

According to Roy, knowledge of the changing phenomena makes man free from helplessness. It therefore makes a man happy. Every pleasure is good because it results form knowledge while pain is evil because it is caused by ignorance. Religion is based on ignorance, so it is full of pain. Right knowledge is acquired in the process of the action of man. It is only possible through scientific knowledge. And the materialist conception of the origin and evolution of the universe is the mother of science.

Roy tries to make his conception clear by examining materialism in relation to scepticism, agnosticism and positivism. Scepticism is described as the ideology of the middle class. Roy regards positivism materialistic but not agnosticism. Because agnosticism, according to Roy, is the philosophy of ignorance, and

44

 ignorance is the mother of faith. Religions are all about the faith and therefore are rooted in ignorance.

Roy, on the other hand, regards materialism as the explanation o? the world without the assumption of anything supernatural. He tries to establish a monistic view of the universe. He accepts the basis of everything—body, mind and soul—as a material substance. All these, according to him, are physical entities.'^

On the question whether materialism is practical idealism, Roy's answer is affirmative. He perceives practical idealism in materialism, as he says:

The freedom from metaphysical conception of the absolute, immutable, categorical liberates man from the fetters of the traditional, of the respect and awe for the established order of the world. There is nothing sacrosanct, nothing permanent, nothing eternal. To change is the nature of everything."

Thus, Roy points out thai materialist philosophy makes man change the world and himself in process. He again insists that the philosophical materialist is the greatest practical idealist. The ideal of life is the motive force of the life of materialist.

But while Roy's concept of materialism admits practical idealism, it has been accepted without admitting idealist philosophy. Even though there is little difference between

45

 practical idealism and idealist philosophy, Roy accepts only practical idealism and does not find idealist philosophy comfortable in so far as idealism is identified with the virtue of dedicating life to an Idea. The idealist philosophy is quite different from idealism, as it is practiced in life. The two meanings are quite distinct. The former is derived from the word 'idea' v/hile the latter from the word 'ideal.' 'Practical idealism' has nothing lo do with the 'idealist philosophy.' The former, according to Roy, could be accepted by materialists. They could accept it because tliey are the greatest practical idealists.

Roy appreciates practical idealism and says that it is the motive force of the life of the materialist. Ideals can not be separated from the life of a materialist. In his own words:

The materialist does not reject practical idealism. He alone practices it consistently, sincerely, wholeheartedly. With the spiritualist, of any hue or shade, Western or Eastern, religious or philosophical, it is sheer

Philistinism, covering the egoistic essence of his cult. The ideal of life is the motive force of the life of the materialist. It is inseparable from his life. It grows out of his view of life. It is a part of his own self. The

materialist is a practical idealist, because he cannot possibly be otherwise without abandoning his philosophy. For him practical idealism is not a virtue to be cultivated under duress; it is natural. Without an ideal, life appears to him meaningless—not worth living. He lives for an

46

 ideal, is "righteous and noble'" like Epicurus, "because it is a pleasure to be so.""^

Ill Interpretation of Indian Materialism

Materialism, in Indian philosophy, is indicated by the Sanskrit term Lokayata. It is most common designation for the materialistic school of classical Indian philosophy.'^ Materialistic doctrines were developed in India in sixth century BC. There are many references in the Buddhist scriptures and many other places which have described such ideas in early period. There are references to naturalism of Charvaka. The term Lokayata is indeed the synonym of Charvaka. Therefore, the materialist philosophers of India are knovv'n as Lokayatas or Charvakas.'^"

So far as Indian materialism is concerned, one can find both the idealist and materialist schools in it. It regarded mind, life and matter as manifestations of a single universal principle. Roy's exposition of Indian materialism provided a fresh thinking on the subject. His restatement of Indian materialism put Indian thought

in a proper perspective. He gave a new turn to Indian philosophical tradition.^'

The basic defect in ancient philosophy in the eyes of Roy is its 'a priori' assumption that blocked the way to em.piricism and made it degenerate into dogmatic theology. Roy points out that except Nyaya, Vaisesika and Sankhya, no other speculative system

47

 tried to explain the origin, evolution and phenomena of nature independent of supernatural agency. It is this 'a priori' assumption that makes speculative thought theology. It is a dogmatic assertion about the supernatural being which by its nature is beyond all enquiry or description.^"

Roy describes Indian philosophy as the most classical example of confusion in speculative metaphysical thought in terms of material and non-material things. He agues that all things are material as they all come from matter. He makes the point clear by saying:

If the immaterial is really immaterial, the material can never grow out of it. Two things having nothing in common cannot stand in relation of cause and effect. If the material comes out of the immaterial, then, the latter cannot be what it is supposed to be: it must also be material. Thus there is one substance in existence. The dualism is only a sophistry, a verbal contrivance to defend a useless hypothesis. Should immateriality be conceded to the origin of things, the very existence of

immateriality itself would be denied. For existence, which means extension in space, is not compatible with the conception of immateriality.^^

Here we find that only material things can produce material objects. It is absurd l.o say that there are non-material objects too. Because, according to Roy, it is not possible that material object

48

 has an immaterial cause. Therefore, if the effect is material, its cause must also be material. So, only one kind of substance that is matter is real while the other kind i.e. what is called immaterial, is verbal sophistry.

Roy finds the presence of materialist thought in ancient India in the Charvaka system of philosophy. It is compared by Roy with Greek Epicureanism. They (both systems) held that truth can never be known without senses. They do not believe in reason because every inference depends on observation. It also depends upon the assumption that the future would behave like the past.

Therefore, there is no certainty in it.

Roy supports the Buddhist philosophy. He says that the Buddhist philosophy argued against the basic assumptions of the orthodox Hindu philosophy of the Vedantic system. Buddha found that belief in God was useless. Because the existence of God as the spiritual cause of the universe can be established only upon the assumption of the extra-materiality of the human consciousness.

And the rejection of the doctrine of the soul leads to the denial of God. Roy here refers to "Buddhist materialism" as based on "Vaisheshik atomism."^^ There are two existences—external (material) and internal (mental). But mind presupposes the

existence of an atomic combination. The external is composed of the elements (bhuta) and elemental (bhautika). It receives the

49

 outside nature as well as the bodily organs, The former is made of elements of earth, water, fire and air.

The idea of 'Nirvana' encapsulated the nihilism of Buddhist philosophy. It was essential to the ideology of social dissolution. It was the ideology of those who could not deny the effects of the material existence. According to Roy, the patronage of the upper classes was responsible for the idealistic deviation of Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism was against the Brahmanical dogma of eternal truth. This is why Buddhism expounded the doctrine of the momentariness of everything. It was the later idealistic deviation which affected Buddhism and led to admitting Brahmanical influence. Shankaracharya, according to Roy, had preached 'Nirvana' in a way opposite to the materialistic core of Buddhism. The ideology of priest was reasserted after it had been shaken by the Buddhist revolution.^^

Roy finds the dynamic view of nature in Jainism. Though Jainas believed in soul, they did not find any thing divine in it. The soul was composed of an infinite number of particles. These

particles were soul-atoms which gave materialistic colour to Jainism. But in spite of this materialism in Jaina Philosophy, Roy was not satisfied with Jainism. He criticized the doctrine of self-

mortification in Jainism. Because it blocked all the ways of knowing external causes. It prohibited the joy of life and created

50

 prejudice against the natural urges of man. It, on the whole, had had a harmful effect on the country. The spirit of pessimism made India an easy prey to foreign invaders. The idea of conquering the external world never entered Indian speculation. Jaina doctrine of self-denial represented the victory of the forces of dissatisfaction with the order of things.

Roy accepts ancient materialism which was found in the Vaisesika system originally. He also gives Sankhya system of Kapila a dominating position. The merit of this whole philosophy, according to Roy, is the recognition of the objective reality of the physical world. Roy finds Sankhya theory of cognition materialistic. The principle of Sankhya theory of Knowledge is identical with the modern materialistic principle. According to this, consciousness is determined by being.'^

Sankhya system rejects teleology that is the basis of doctrine of creation. Roy supports this view and says that the origin of the physical world is traced to an endless process of causality. This piocess is inherent in nature itself. Since it exists by itself, the

world does not need a creator or creation. There is no beginning because the world exists eternally by itself.^^

Roy regrets that the rational and naturalistic teachings of materialistic thinkers changed character under the Buddhist

51

 revolution. Brahrnanical reaction checked spiritual progress very successfully. Roy agrees that Buddhism was the revolt of Kshatriyas against Brahmanism. He says that the business class also entered into this social background of the revolution. It was accepted as a reaction against the code of Manu which placed the merchants under all kinds of disadvantages. Sea journey was prohibited by Manu because it encouraged heretical ideas. These are the reasons why Indian speculative thought could not become

philosophy in its correct sense.

Roy points out that Kshatriyas were closely associated with the monopoly of the priesthood although they should have challenged it. The relation between the two classes was established in consequence of the civil war as it has been recorded in the Mahabharata. The supremacy of Brahmans became absolute in the conditions of social dissolution.

Hindu orthodoxy, according to Roy, was supported by the forces of superstition. It tried to resist the march of Buddhist revolution. And finally it stopped the Buddhist revolution. Roy describes it as the most tragic event in the history of India. But he

also hopes that as soon as social stagnation is broken, Indian philosophy will go ahead. It will go forward from the point at which it stopped temporarily. India should be able to learn the true message of her ancient philosophy. The correct evolution of that

52

 philosophy will be useful to the philosophy of materialism. It v/ill also help materialism from the wrong interpretation.^

IV Theory of Knowledge

Roy's materialism is based on scientific theory of knowledge. Knowledge is possible because there is a causal connection between mind and matter. And ideas, according to him, are representatives of reality as they are derived from experience. Roy says:

I must know a thing before I can have an idea of it. But ideas are mental pictures; they represent the knowledge of things, not things themselves. If I am incorrectly informed about a thing, my idea of it will be false. Yet, it will be "'representative" of my distorted knowledge. Knowledge results from perception, which is organic reaction to physical contacts. We know things, not ideas.

Knowledge is not composed of ideas; on the contrary, ideas are derivatives of knowledge. That is how ideas can be representative, and scientific ideas are

representative.•'°

Roy argues that the ideas are the product of interaction

between mind and matter. They can not enclose the radius of mind's reach. They result from mental activity and the cause is never limited by effect. Ideas must correspond with things as they are. If the world of experience is characterized by the absence of absoluteness, idea about it also must have that character. In other

53

 words, they must change according to the knowledge of the world. The representative character of ideas is relative because it is necessary to the accuracy of knowledge. While formulating a scientific theory of knowledge, Roy distinguishes the object from the thing. The one is epistemological category, the other is ontological. An object is a thing perceived. The two are not identical ontologically. Objects are always things. They exist and are real. But things are not always object of perception or knowledge. They exisi without attaining the epistemological state of being objects.

Roy tries to solve the confusion between the objective reality and thing. According to him, in completeness of knowledge of a thing, it does not affect its objectivity. As objective knowledge, it is complete because it covers the parts of the thing actually perceived. In regard to the thing, it is not complete but as regards the object, it is. Therefore, scientific knowledge is always objective. It is objective although ideas which result from it may

change from time to time.^'

The central point in Roy's theory of knowledge is that cognition is a relation between mind and the world. Knowledge is objective and subjective at the same time. Both the knowing self and the known world are correlated and are equally vital. To solve

its problems, epistemology must start from the ontological reality

54

 of mind as well as of the external world. Roy argues that there is no importance of the question of precedence for epistemology. It is indeed irrelevant to talk about priority or posteriority in the domain of epistemology though we can talk about it in ontology. Roy suggests that epistemology must be guided by the facts that mind exists and the world exists. And that knowledge is conditional as much on the existence of mind as on matter.'

P.oy however does not admit psycho-physical parallelism either in individual or in the universe. Mind, according to him, is real because it is a part of physical world. On the basis of biology, Roy regards mind as an empirical category. It contributes to the formulation of a correct theory of knowledge. On the basis of these arguments, Roy also calls it the objective theory of knowledge. It is so because it objectifies the self itself.^'^

Knowing, according to Roy, is an act of mind. But it is not identical with thought any more than thought is identical with being. "Thoughi is mind's property, whereas knowledge is a possession.""""* Here we find that Roy's distinction is basic. The

one is inherent quality while other is acquired from outside. Knowledge is not gained by mind independent of the external world. Thus, there is nothing immaterial which enters into the

process of cognition. It is a process which involves two different

55

 material entities. It is governed by tlie mechanical laws of physical nature.

Roy makes his point clear by saying that we are integral parts of the world of our experience. He says:

The mind of others belongs to my "external world" just as their bodies. And my mind belongs to the "external world" of others. Self is always an embodied self. The knowing mind can never be conceived as a disembodied spirit. The concept of self includes the corporeal being. Our bodies, organs of sensation, the nervous system, the brain, the entire cognitive apparatus, are parts of the physical world."'^

On the basis of these, Roy states that we do not watch the world as outsiders. Our egos, minds, thoughts and intelligence are all interwoven with the physical process of the external world. Thought is a function of organic beings on a very high level. Thought is conditional upon being. And subjective elements of the process of cognition are parts of the physical nature.

Therefore Roy argues that life is the immediate foundation of mind. If there is an absence of life, the existence of mind cannot be proved. Since life is a phenomenon of physical nature,

mind also is a part of nature. The activities of our minds are events in the physical world. It is outside of ourselves. Thinking is the act of perceiving knowledge; it takes us beyond ourselves. So,

56

 according to Roy, even self-contemplation is not purely subjective. Even the most intimate mental act has an objective reference."'''

Roy further states that "knowledge is a thing—a peculiar kind of thing, but a thing nonetheless." In this way, Roy calls knowledge objective. It is self-sufficient and creative. It is a product of mental activity that should be distinguished from mind. It affects the mind. This could not be held if mental activities were limited to mind itself and if ideas were the content of knowledge. Ideas transform mind because they result from the knowledge of

the external world. Mind is the organic faculty to know. Roy tells that primitive consciousness is the foundation of mind. At the same time, it is the simplest form of knowledge. It is a mechanical property of organic matter in a definite chemical state.^'

Roy makes sensations bodily events. These are causally connected with the external world. And there is no interruption in the causal chain. Knowledge and perception both take place on the plane of direct physical contact simultaneously. The causal chain is physical, not psychological. Therefore, the arguments of the

subjectivist are irrelevant. Roy puts mind in direct contact with external world. It is not a contact between two qualitatively different entities. Mind itself originates in the organic property of reaction to stimulus. So, the cognition also is a physical relation.

57

 Cognition is an intelligent reaction while perception is an

automatic organic reaction. Cognition is an interpretative selective

act. And knowledge is a characterizing judgment about the nature

of things. Perception makes conscious that which is gained by

perceptual data. It thus creates the impressions of environment

•3 o

into a mental picture of physical realixy.

According to Roy, experience is the foundation of

knowledge. But he also argues that knowledge is not a purely empirical process. It results from the constant and continuous reference of percept to their external resources. "The fibers of the external world run into our consciousness." The brain is composed of our end of the fibers. So, brain processes can be traced back. These processes are taken along with the fibers to their physical causes.

Percepts, according to him, are purely empirical entities while concepts are synthetic. The former are automatically given. The latter are consciously constructed. Knowledge is a conceptual scheme. It is born out of the insight into the nature of the things. It is also gained through critical examination, rational co-

ordination and logical deduction of perceptual data.^^

58

 V Materialism as Physical Realism

Roy approaches materialism in terms of "Physical Realism."'**^ He considers this term more appropriate to co-ordinate the entire modern scientific knowledge into a logical system. Roy does not agree with the adjective 'dialectic' previously used. Because it does not serve the purpose of meeting the situation created by the revolution in the concept of substance. The philosophical significance of modern science is this that it disputes the claim of

philosophy to an autonomous existence.

Roy here appreciates modern scientific knowledge for solving the philosophical problems. He says that all philosophical problems—cosmological. ontological and epistemological—can be solved only in the light of scientific knowledge. It is so because the function of philosophy is to explain the existence as a whole. An explanation of existence requires knowledge of existence.

Knowledge about the different phases of existence is gained by the arious branches of science. Thus, philosophising should be done by taking the help of science. Because the function of science is to describe while that of philosophy is to explain. The function of

philosophy, therefore, is to co-ordinate the entire body of scientific knowledge into a comprehensive theory of nature and life. Therefore, Roy calls philosophy, science of sciences.'"

59

 Roy accepts thai the new physics abolishes the distinction between reality and appearances. The world of physics is metaphysical because entities which compose it cannot be directly experienced. Inspite of this, Roy does not regard them an apriori categories. Because the metaphysical foundation of new physics is a posteriori deduction. Roy is against dualist doctrine which came

to be known through modern psychology. For it, psychology was helped by physiology. Roy argues that there was no unbridgeable gulf between mind and physical world. It is new physics which has successfully solved old problem of mind and matter. Now we have new physics that is sufficient enough to know the reality.

Modern theories of physics represent a big advance upon the theories of classical physics. Modern science makes clear that the world is changing or change is real and that being or what is static is not real as it has been taken for granted in old time. He says:

Becoming is the essence of being. The stuff of the world is not static, but dynamic. It is never in an inert state. Whatever it is. it is in the state of becoming. In the absence of becoming, there is nothing; being becomes real

in becoming. But, on the other hand, absolute being, that is, being abstracted from becoming, is conceivable logically, whereas becoming logically presupposed being. It can take place only in the background of being.''^

60

 Roy points out that there is no dispute about the reality of the external world. The dispute is only about the nature of the external world. The world of new physics is built on protons and electrons. They are constituents of the material particle that is called atom. As constituents, protons and electrons must also be material entities. The world of new physics, according to Roy, is made of a stuff that remains on the boundary line between matter and energy. The material units of this stuff have no simple location in space. They also do not have continuity in time. They

appear to challenge determinism. So, if determinism goes, the mechanistic conception must also go.

Roy here argues that the concepts of space and time have undergone a revolutionary change. Because an absolute space and the uniform flow of time are gone. Roy says:

Space is curved. Time has no independent existence. It is mixed up with space. Indeed, space, time, matter-all three are merged into a four-dimensional continuum, in which events take place.''^

The theory of Relativity and the Quantum theory constitute Roy's new physics. He opposes Bertrand Russell's contention that the theory of Relatively rejects materialist philosophy in favour of idealism. On the other hand, Roy states that it shows that a mechanistic view of the universe results from the technique of

61

 physical observation. And that the general principles could be deduced through mathematical analysis of the verified data. This is the process by which it is obtained. The theory of Relativity is claimed by Roy as "a great contribution to the victory of materialism." It is theory of Relativity which frees mechanistic philosophy of nature from its fallacies. Theory of relativity is bound to be positive. Because, as a system of physical theories it is not opposed to materialism. It also stands in the relation of continuity with classical physical ideas.

According to Roy, basic concepts of physics such as space, time, matter and causality etc. are not objects of speculative thought. Right knowledge about their intrinsic nature and inner structure is acquired through observation and experiments. Einstein said that empty space is meaningless and inconceivable. It exists because material objects exist—space is only the distance between any two of them. Similarly, there is no absolute time which flows in a metaphysical void. The concept of time results from the physical fact of becoming. It is what Roy calls interval between two events that causes changes in any given object.'*^

Roy tries to make new physics appear more relevant than what he calls classical physics. For classical physics matter was composed of atoms. Atoms were supposed to have internal structure. New physics has analyzed atoms into protons and

62

 electrons. It aiso has ascertained the quantitative value of these units of the physical world. The old physical concept of substance is not accessible to experience. It can be measured mathematically. Here Roy argues that all mysteries about time and space disappeared in consequence of the discovery of relative space-time i.e. of the fact that they enter into human experience as relative entities. Their absoluteness is an empty concept. Mysticism results from the attempt to define absolute. The absolute, if it is really absolute, must be indefinable. The theory of relativity solves the

problem of time and space. It does so by exposing the meaninglessness of the absolutist-idealist concept of time's categories.

Roy takes the theory of relativity as being more than a theory of physics in the technical sense. He finds a cosmological theory in it. Therefore, its epistemological significance is far greater. Since it is a comprehensive system of philosophy, it ceases to be a closed system of speculative thought. It is held by

providing an explanation of natural phenomena in the light of empirical knowledge.'*^

On the other hand the Quantum theory, as Roy points out, opens a new field of physical investigation. The basic units of the physical world have been discovered to possess the property of

waves and particles. It is difficult to grasp the new conception of

63

 substance that absorbs matter and energy into a dynamic, unitary physical being. It constitutes the background of all the phenomena of nature. Since being is highly abstract, it cannot be conceived in terms of every day experience. Hence, the theories of atomic physics appear to be mental constructions expressed in mathematical language.

Roy is against the old problems of philosophy that are mainly the problem of perception. He argues that the theories of new physics are not derived from direct perception. On the other hand, any abstraction contains subjective element. Roy attempts to get out of this dilemma by integrating these subjective contacts between the two.

Again, regarding matter and space, Roy states that matter does not exist in space. On the other hand, space is a function of matter. Matter and energy are the dual manifestation of substance. Mind in not different from matter. If the mind was essentially different from matter, there could be no possible forms. Matter is

the only existence which is realized in its transformation into different patterns. In the absence of the matter, there will be neither space nor time. Matter, according to Roy, is an objective category. Self-sufficient objectivity is the ultimate reality. It is

real ontologically.

64

 Thus the basic principle of "Physical Realism", as propounded by Roy, is that the world exists objectively. It exists objectively, physically as well as biologically. It is self-contained and self-explained. Therefore, there is nothing beyond it. And its being and becoming are governed by lav/s inherent in itself.

Here we observe that Roy's "Physical Realism" adopts mechanistic cosmology with physical determinism as its fundamental principles. Determinism means that "the world is a movement which knows no stoppage and permits no reversal.'" ' In this way, Roy tries to solve the old problem of psycho-phy.^icai parallelism in materialist philosophy. The assertion of human creativeness presupposes recognition of the reality of the physical world. If the physical world is dismissed as unreal, man's own existence ceases to be a reality. Realism becomes the philosophical foundation of science. It becomes the same when the reality of the physical world is conceived as independent of any other existence.

VI Physical Realism—Philosophical Consequences

Roy's claim regarding physical realism is that it is tantamount to a re-statement of maltriaiism. And, moreover, it has been discussed with all ils philosophical consequences. This effort makes Roy able to evolve a philosophy of history. He accepts human history

t).')

 like natural history which is a determined process. But it is self- determined and

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Exploring the Eras of Philosophical Materialism in This Article. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sample-essays/2018-11-24-1543031874/> [Accessed 28-03-24].

These Sample essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.