What makes people irrational thinkers?

[polymath257]

Whenever he describes matter as 'inert' or 'lifeless', he shows just how little he really understands about the physicalist position. Matter interacts with other matter. In fact, that is often how material things are *defined*: in terms of their interaction.

From Hart's book:

In Platonic tradition, the soul was not conceived of merely as a pure intellect presiding over the automaton of the body. The soul was seen as the body’s life, spiritual and organic at once, com- prising the appetites and passions no less than rational intellect, while the body was seen as a material reflection of a rational and ideal order. Matter was not simply the inert and opaque matter of mechanistic thought but rather a mirror of eternal splendors and verities, truly (if defectively) predisposed to the light of spirit.

Is Hart here advocating the tradition he describes, or merely describing it? All of the verbs are in past tense. Is it possible that he is describing an important historical tradition which countered a view of matter which he himself no longer holds?

He's describing a view held by "mechanistic thought," but do we know that he believes mechanistic thought is still the view of modern physics?

This is very far from the only time that he identifies materialism with exactly this mechanistic thought where matter is inert and lifeless.

In materialism, there is no 'spirit', so matter isn't 'predisposed to the light of the spirit' (whatever that means), but matter is far from being inert. Also, life *comes from* the properties of matter, specifically the way complex collections of chemical reactions interact with each other in certain non-equilibrium situations.

Either Hart fails to understand that or he repeatedly attacks a strawman that fails to represent the materialist position.

Are you arguing that elements are alive? Are you arguing that elements have an inherent purpose? 

These are the only relevant results when I do a word search for "inert" and "lifeless." 

Do you really think that these four examples show that Hart rejects modern physics and considers matter to be something that doesn't interact with other matter? 

Inert: non-interacting.

Purpose is something that humans (or other living things) give to things to organize our lives. it isn't an inherent property of the matter, but rather a property of our interaction with the matter.

I can only rely on what Hart actually writes to determine his views. He repeatedly describes the materialistic view of matter as inert and incapable of doing more than very simple types of activity. Why he believes that or (if he doesn't believe that) why he writes it, I do not know. In any case, his arguments against materialism fail (as far as I can see) on exactly this point.

Well, not completely true. He also assumes there has to be a 'support' for existence (why?) and that matter cannot be such a support (why not?) and that all matter is contingent (that word again, but why must matter be contingent?).

Later, he claims that matter cannot explain the phenomenon of consciousness. In this he has a lot of good company, of course, but it isn't clear to me what sort of explanation is required. If we get to the point (and we are getting closer, but not there yet) where we can 'read minds' from brain scans and can identify brain activities for every thought, emotion, desire, plan, etc, how is that NOT a material explanation of consciousness?