Hello all,

I have not visited this forum in a few years after becoming disinterested in the theism-atheism debates and the like, but have decided to pop back in. Most of us atheists, agnostics, and the like I would imagine to be physicalists/materialists, but I decided I'd make a poll to see.

I take it as axiomatic that reality is real, as alternative propositions seem useless. I'm a monist, but I could be wrong.

(July 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I take it as axiomatic that reality is real, as alternative propositions seem useless. I'm a monist, but I could be wrong.

Similar views here - The inverse of the axiom "reality is real" seems self-refuting and wholly useless. I'm open to a dualist or idealist ontology (call my position on those agnostic if you like), but for all practical purposes you could treat me as a physical monist.

I am a staunch Idealist and find that mental thoughts are the only absolute truth. Universal phenomena are only proof that the mind is capable of having shared experiences not proven physical reality. I do not deny the physical I just believe it is best summed up by cognitive functions

I subscribe to process ontology, and am a physicalist.

I'm a Pisces with Aquarius rising.

But seriously, I take for granted that sense data conforms to reality in reliable and useful ways. Beyond that, I don't care. I sure won't get sucked into either the one vs many debate or free will debate.

I'm a physicalist by instinct and habit, but an idealist when I really start philosophizing about what "underlies" reality.

I am.

Ontology, as a branch of philosophy, is about trying to understanding the unchanging ground of being.

In that regard, materialism, naturalism and physicalism aren’t really ontologies. All three appeal to tentative types of knowledge. Materialism is pretty much dead, since the scientific concept of matter has become so abstract the term is basically meaningless. Naturalism depends on how someone defines natural and what modern people now consider natural is much different from ages past. Likewise physicalism depends on whatever the current understanding of physics is. Yesterday’s scientific theories are overturned by today’s and tomorrow’s are likely to overthrow today’s.

None of these ‘ontologies’ delve into the fundamental nature of being in any meaningful way. Any ontology worthy of the name would be valid independent of a society’s level of scientific knowledge. The ground of being can only be something that is itself Absolute. So for now, I'll stick with Neo-Platonism.

(July 29, 2014 at 3:38 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Ontology, as a branch of philosophy, is about trying to understanding the unchanging ground of being.

Why unchanging? How do you know this from the start? Not sure how anyone can really believe in such a thing. Materialists will believe that a big bang was preceded by preexisting conditions sufficient to account for what we observe. Theists will believe the universe is a total invention of a creator god. How can we refer to either of these situations as an unchanging ground of being? For the materialist the preexisting conditions are seemingly an inaccessible mystery, while the theist relies on the equally mysterious mind of god.

(July 29, 2014 at 3:38 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Any ontology worthy of the name would be valid independent of a society’s level of scientific knowledge. The ground of being can only be something that is itself Absolute.

Can you then be sure there are any ontologies worthy of their name? What individual has valid knowledge of the mystery which surpasses sum total of the knowledge of all mankind?