Wisconsin College of the Air; Introduction to the human enterprise; 5; Men, mind over matter: Explanation of materialism

The Wisconsin College of the air presents philosophy and the human enterprise a series of selected lectures by Professor Max Otto recorded in the classroom during the first semester. One of the two textbooks used in the course was a man mind or matter by Charles Mayer. And in today's lecture Professor Otto begins a discussion of the materialism represented in that book. Here is Professor Otto. I suddenly stop. You seem to be not only surprised that. You have an in your face. Why did I stop. Well I thought it was time to stop I thought. The hour was over more than Oh I wouldn't be surprised if some of you had thought it was over before then and if you had consulted your feelings you would have walked out before that. Well I got through and walk out. That's a kind of sense of time experience of time. You want to call it that. But you were going by

clock time and therefore YOU THOUGHT SOMETHING AND happened. Then looking at that on your wrist really err faithful for what you were going by. Fake photo. Watch when I ask you that what you think about faithful to what faithful to a continuum and absolutely I'm broken continue on that has been going on forever and will go on forever. Of what Continuum will form a continuum that is not affected by what's in it. Faithful to that course not faithful to the worldly the possibility of our meeting and acting together. A practical thing like that.

Therefore man I'm going to stop this. You can think about one of the members of this left who are going to talk about because it's become interesting therefore that Clark was not on that clock because that law gets its orders from other clocks but there is a clock somewhere. That this clock reflects all just let's say this clock. That clock was creating time for you. You think that it was checking off time will existed. I'm telling you nothing I believe more profoundly solidly the Nashik me out of it. It was creating the time that you believe it was measuring off. Wasn't it obvious. OK OK. Let's go ahead. This book covers three areas we said that the other day. The physical world clock. I'm back the preface but I'm going away from the craftsman.

The physical world of plant and animal life including mankind and then our interests and aspirations and I feel you can live below your flea intellectual and moral. Well also That's what this book now I find I find the reading of a tantalising and I don't know whether you do or not. Puzzled by that all the time what kind of a world do you live in if it's tantalizing for me anyway and I want to tell you one reason why. Page 5 Dr. Meyer said there is nothing nothing whatever except material facts. Why don't a short sentence. Seems to me I understand that there is nothing nothing whatever except material facts.

All right I get it. Well that's that. And he also says Bob itself is only a spark emanating from matter. And I see horseracing highway all play Paul Revere and sparks flying from and the sparks of fly from the puffs of that horse are in the same order reality aren't they. As the hope of the iron and the road the stone from which those sparks. Fly. All right nothing but math. But on the same page he also says mine is inconceivable without matter and energy that isn't quite the same. You can't think of a mind without connecting it maybe with matter and then I don't think that's quite the

same. And he's going further than that before he gets through. I'm not a I'm not I'm not I'm objecting to is doing. He's writing the book I'm Not my new book I'm trying to read it. But I say it's tantalizing. It's teasing tantalizing and teasing and not quite the same. It is teasing. It's also tantalizing. It leaves Iran. It's also weird. But as I said last time why couldn't you say why wouldn't it be just as true to say matter itself is only a spark. From mind. After all I suppose if a dog were to talk to you he wouldn't talk about matter he hasn't the kind of a mind that conceptualizes things and that when gets a theory of matter where we're going to I don't know.

I've lost. Lest you want me never to say anything I don't actually know. No course. Well I'm assuming the dog had the kind of mind a good formal theory about the world in which he lived maybe gam. I suppose in a certain embryonic way. Maybe he does hear stories living in a different different realm and consequently I don't suppose that among dogs if they could talk. You would find the philosophy of materialism at all and then let me say I don't suppose you are good. Alright fine. Not that nice. We come we come to understand. What I'm getting at. And you must know that not what I'm trying to say is The Mahar is a theory about our experience so I can just well think if not a wonderful spar from a very

active mind like I'm turning it right around. I could also say using another thing that he says here matter and energy are inconceivable without mine ether and mind is inconceivable without matter and energy or turn that around. Well this whole inconceivable business law was not. It's sort of awkward and unsatisfactory in conceivability as a test is not a very satisfactory idea to work with. One man finds one thing inconceivable another man finds another thing inconceivable. Take Barclays George Barclay the E R K E L A Y Y we call him Barclay we do. The Great British philosopher the great idea. But according to him matter matter was inconceivable not mine.

Myra wasn't going to be you know essay or wife or. You you we are you to be me and to be perceived to be is to be felt to be is to be smelt to be is to be seeing. To be is to be touched. To be is to be perceived that all the psychological everything a psychological and I make it matter is inconceivable you were just to suggesting to you that this inconceivable test. A very good test I guess. But yeah we are. Let's move on. First we must make a mistake.

You who've read this book some know that that's what the Dems say we must make the mistake of identifying his materialism with the alter materialism of the 18th century. We've mentioned that before and you've read that the materialism was a machine materialism. Man the machine was one of the books that produced man a machine and this is not a machine with materialism it's not a mechanistic materialism. This materialism includes life. And. Evolution by our. Aspiration ideal values. Marlon Hyun has just about everything. Icelandic values to just about everything but religion doesn't it. As you read it. I want to ask you and I want to ask about that. I always have to get this or that Mr. Parker. If Mr. Parker doesn't want to talk to me all he has to do is to get ahead.

I wouldn't blame him if in a group like this you don't want to talk but if you do it would be nice where I didn't order. Good but why. Why did he will live. I mean again he wrote. Does the rule of law or no you can't get anywhere near religion without merely reacting against everything come to them. Practically everything comes then and religion goes out. Why do you think I have no gas. You live where you want. All right this is one answer that you're going to play in life from the phenomena of life and what takes place in life much more simply than going to religion. Well supposing I want a complicated explanation why not let me have a religious explanation so that doesn't quite do it. I think you're right as

far as you go but that isn't deep enough. What you can say something. Yeah but why does he say that. Wait you. Oh now wait a minute. Put a period wait a minute put a period that at that place his philosophy which is a materialistic philosophy is based upon experience. You mean to say religion is not based upon experience. You do. Wow. That was then. That's interesting. Where is Mr. Crow but there is a Mr. from Mr. Worth. Do you believe that. Not quite giving an example to back you up.

I'm not trying to win back you understand that my how easily you get a nice means of life that I wife and I do and it is very. No you were saying that here is a statement that his life is a philosophy of experience. Therefore even he rules religion are. And I ask the question is religion not based upon experience. And the answer was a boat. I mean holy but that's the way to set about what you believe. And also I believe that all that is not based on experience and so I'm asking you. You're saying not quite That's not quite true. Now. If you think of a concretely would you say that all the people in this state who have great

are just going to say religious experience and one group who have a religion have nothing in their experience they base it upon. You wouldn't take that position would you know. Now what would you do now. Wait now I want to drive away to my death Wait a minute again. I don't want to try to get you and probably the most fun. But you take it all back. Given all that method we were misunderstanding what he said. I did not mean to say that religion was not based on and saying exactly that for now it was so I suppose I'd have to say that it's a different kind of a word and the reason I'm part of that is that I think

we've very quickly dismissed a certain position a certain view by saying I rest my view upon experience and experience is a very large word. It seems to me that religious people no matter what their religion news wristed upon experience don't think everybody rests every word of it when you tell me what else you can rest of the time but experience. How is experience. Question is what kind of experience. So now we have to begin over again. Why are they ruled out in spite of that. Thanking those in the was it rests upon experience. But he reels it out for a certain definite reason why. A. I know right here.

On our walk part doesn't he like about you know me I'd have to ask you what is it about religion that he doesn't like what you're right lead him to the law holding the line. Reading all the right that and what it was what I'm getting now. Keep on going what Barker am but there are really do that another hour. Oh it's pumping water out. What you think was. Not such a bad answer but I have to say it's not a good answer because of the dancer I

want one is. Pretty good I'd say it's a pretty good answer. Now what I was thinking of it's supernatural supernatural and that's important because if there is religion conceivable it's not supernatural he ought to take it into account. He is a Frenchman. And he's evidently having a lot of had had and is having a lot of trouble with a supernaturalistic religion and if he comes anywhere if he sees it all the corner of his eye immediately goes there because it's supernatural and that's the only kind of religion that he sees and that's why we have to talk about work. It includes life it includes strangers with development it includes evolution and it is his theory about evolution and changing life developing life is very interesting I think the most exciting part of the book and maybe we can take that up next time when he leaves off religion and the

reason he leaves out religion I think I don't not saying I'm right but I think basically it's supernatural religion must be supernatural and supernatural is out it as a matter of fact it is going out and it won't be very long before it's all together out that's his position. There used to be a time when when you had take it serious you don't take it seriously anymore and keep on barking on like a barking at his heels no time so he wants to have nothing to do with the dog. That seems to me we've got to do this we're not supposed to go still close. Yeah better understand what is there and we do that by looking at the chapter who which is fire right and Chapter 5 rationalistic materialism in order to get his view a little more clarity. Is science by that. That's his

way of saying what he wants to say but seems to me what he's saying is what about all these people who want to take down who want to who want to deprive Siren's its real significance. You want to dilute it that's it. Why would people want to dilute science that's paid sick for example and so on and here it leaves you there gives you certain cards. I'll read the part by paragraph before criticizing in front of the guy below and preventing it as is so often the lead that science yields only illusion instead of move forward alleging that supernaturalists might be good of doing that it would be well to read about our understanding of the big doors and undercover approaches by which human beings

are able to attain that more or less exact knowledge of phenomena which is called scientific scientific as in the knowledge that comes off of that you get it by the doors by undercover investigation. Then you get a scientific interpretation that's what he said. One reason why we don't appreciate fire. Is that we expend it on intelligent way to areas where it shouldn't be extended. That's easy for us because all of these are now negative battling against a tax on fines and later on makes a positive statement for an intelligent extension. Then on page 7 out of context we take ideas and statements out of context misunderstand them and accuse science of being that which we have distorted and that in the next paragraph

the wavering wavering as which scientific theories are often accused of displaying are usually the result of unavoidable errors. That is we take imperfections in the science temporary imperfections incompletions in science and read those into imperfections into it as a permanent characteristic that's also wrong in the next. Rather those who attack scientific ideals are never tired of calling attention to the fact that scientific theories are constantly changing. Well trained in science is not a defect it's a virtue. It means that science is progressing. That's essential. Then the end of that they'd place them on page 8. I want to ask you questions. What page grand of page 7 he makes now with people in science itself

as a natural reaction. Yes they start him out of the saturation in the past when scientists were much more certain than they are today. I mean as a natural reaction to that let me put a footnote there. When we met in science hall I was a very interesting experience. Me I'd never I hadn't been in there for many years and it's in that room where we began that I had my first introduction to science and the atmosphere and spirit of the great man who'd like to to us later was so different. What you hear today he was giving us the lowdown. Less is the way things really are. And it was an inspiration to me to coming from a little college and find a man who really knew how things actually are.

I thought I'm almost failed to come to this place. I'm awfully happy to come up here now because now I'm really going to get to the bottom now this time. Dr Myers says as a reaction against this believe that scientists used to have that they got things as they really are in themselves. They have now gone to the extreme of saying that they don't ever get to it when things actually are. They get statistical averages of the way things are and so on the next page he talks about relativity and I won't read you ask me to review that paragraph and ask you to think of relativity relativity. The doctrine of relativity that's where we are now. And inside the ducting a relative relative is justified by the limitations which we placed

upon nature ignoring it. Relativity is justified in just one way. By that limitation which we play upon our knowledge of nature but not of my right. Read that correctly but not upon nature nature is not relative capitalized and the different nature is not relative. Our knowledge is wrong but just as faith in absolute truth exposes us to error. So a generalized relativity May and snare dollars over the last relativist who deny any absolute because that is beyond the boundaries of our knowledge at path through relativity at a value that is too absolute or not you must read that for yourself if you have the book I'm going to stay than what in my terms

as to what I think you're saying he's saying the absolute this is wrong. And if a rather vicious mean that nature itself is relative that there's nothing absolute about nature which they are doing seem to mean then they're wrong. There are no wages relative. Sure but there is an absolute need as an absolute truth. Out there. We mustn't really the relativity of our our findings into the nature that is there or what. I think no I don't think that's very deep stuff itself. That paragraph mean what. As to whether there is an absolute there or whether nature is not absolute but rather that may be a proof the problem

and whether it is. Now we go on through that factor. They did order and they were a feeling by the way. Let's take a breath. Probably going order and walking like. All right. If our world that the world in which we live whereby we make complete chaos which should have we would not be a good guy and an explanation of it. What does that mean. If the world actually were a complete chaos that is if it

wouldn't allow itself to be ordered arranged that what it means. I'm not sure which one of those it means is that itself order. He seems to think the fact that we can arrange it in ordered means that it is itself orderly and it has an order an absolute door and if we ever got to it we know what that order is or does he mean if it could not be ordered or arranged if it were. Oh if there were no uniform it is the law of the Renault if today the sun rose in the east and tomorrow it was and I was just in front of the arrows going north and south. There were no uniformity of the law. My support were no uniform at all. Then we couldn't get any order in good. But my own feelings about that would be that what we mean

by what we mean by or. I have no one reference to things and no application of things in themselves at all. If the universe had been or. Then that word or as little resemblance to what we mean by or is just beyond understanding. We can however having a uniform of the order it ranges make patterns out of it give the order to descriptions of that much or there isn't. The world being ordered to such a degree has an explanation. Why should we jump to the conclusion that because we have not succeeded in finding such an explanation in the past it must therefore always elude us. And his doctrine is there is an order in nature governed by its own principles and laws.

And we're searching for that we rather where relative and getting it. We're imperfect in getting it but it's there to get. Now don't you see. If he's wrong about that. If all the order we get is an order we put into it. And that's a big difference in opinion about us. Then we put all the order into what there is. With each step in advance taken by the sciences it is demonstrated that some area which was formerly attributed to the supernatural as still further from wrong still further. I throw in that little by little the last 75 years 50 years 25 years we've taken the supernatural out of this thing and this area after another area and that's been done as science has advanced this. I'm varying tenancies strengthens and re-enforces the unshakeable basis upon which the foundation of all

materialism and rest rest. The declaration of everything in the world proceeds from natural causes everything is not everything is not. I want to read you a couple of things from some other people not that he considered he would consider these two things I'm going to read attacks. Upon materialism. There is one by J and W. Salo. The limitations of science. Where you nine hundred five. We must remember that the end of the view of then science are abstractions from experience and that the out of experience of them better than experience and left a lot and a lot of left behind and only a certain group of experiences are regarded as relevant and thus

lifted out the entities with which a science works. And in terms of which and tries to account for the particular set of phenomena it investigates are all. Composed out of certain selected bits of experience always selected always abstracted always lifted out. And much Left Behind How much much more than is selected out and they are composed as economical as possible scientific concepts are never any richer than they need to be for the particular purposes for which they are designed. While this young monk would say that's an attack on science. Science covers everything it does not abstract talk about these abstractions to misunderstand it. Now I want to read another one. They this is the great amphibian by Joseph Needham led by a chemist in this biochemist the English writer on science and music and

humanities and various other aspect they'd want to Q1 I think in this. What a great amphibian. This Is Us. This would be a startling thing for a doctor Meyer to kind of play the role of I want to read you quite a little of it. Talking now is talking about science too. Material at a time we have one on one with more money. It is more likely Dr. Meyer that we should do better to accept for instance a sort of materialism inherent in the scientific mind rather than just separate remorselessly of its favorite errors and demonstrate how weak fundamentally it is. We shall do better to follow reak road each road out to it. Further this requires him to accept. They look Christian or the

Mary an estimate of the world in the laboratory as well as that of Saint Augustine of sitting to rest at other moments and in other places we'd better accept them all. Not try to reduce them to one all alike are partially faults. None means exactly what it says save on a diet of philosophy which unfortunately can say right because nothing. The science incomplete religion incomplete aesthetics incomplete logic and all of them incomplete. They don't say what they mean only philosophy says what it means. And again say anything. The yes tautologous were looked up from his microscope and I remarked that he was thinking God's thoughts after him. That's what the early scientists thought they were doing is a ridiculous figure. Nothing could be more irrelevant

than divinity through a microscope or a cereal section on that slows things up and look through the microscope find what you're supposed to find and don't expect to find God or angels. It is flatly impossible to give a coherent account of the universe which I'll include all of forms of experience all of the forms of experience I have to say about materialism have to come under this criticism. There is no way of looking at the universe one way wisdom said. He thinks it's better to talk with Al Huxley. He was perfectly right to bring back to our memory the lines of William Blake. Do what you will. The worlds of fiction and all made up of your contraption and your love it come to you come I get this. There was this the same dichotomy the same Trinity the same

plurality hit you when you go into the field of practice practical life practical life proves itself the barrier to science. If science tries to prove itself the Perrier the practical life when it comes up against the foes will reform was not as much interested in the afterworld as he is in this world or in a logical world as it is in the emotional world. It is probable that this attribute will bring about the death of organized religion in the west within the next two or three centuries. The social scientist is interested in this world and not in the next world for a millennium millennium millenarian ism is likely to sweep all before it and will perhaps produce a maximum population of contented bodies inhabited by discontented souls. Religion satisfies the soul. Religion is going out under the impact of the reforming Spirit and then we'll all be

well-fed and miserable. Finally we may admit then that the synthesis of experience is not at all desirable. That's what Dr Meyer is attempting to do for us. He wants to bring it all together under one great concept. We may we have we may admit we'd better and they're going to need them that the synthesis of the experience is not at all desirable for the scientific view of the world for instance satisfies Finally certain types of mind and also more balanced minds in some types of moment. Our problem is in fact to stimulate if we can the production of the mind mind which can summon up at intervals not too widely separated separated spaces. The spiritual energy to cross and recross the boundaries of thought reading there frown at Friendly's in the realm of science and in the realm of design.

Funded over the radio maybe you heard the talk I heard the destruction a mystery why keep McGarry this down is a crime to destroy I missed you trying to make everything I want and part of the materialism and these two men are talking against it. And I don't know whether Mr McGarry was talking against it but I'm talking of you. The world is who Mr is too complicated for sake of a vision that there is a normal complex which perhaps someday we will get to live in just something more to do but perhaps where are we not. Well as we can we can we can sum up what I was going to we'll have to leave one job grab chance no rush and I think materialism so

cause we cannot rationalise materialism next time. And for those chapters sensitivity the right have missed the three stages of creation the key to evolution not always are his description his illumination is your interpretation his elucidation of life and as I said all of that to me the most exciting thing that's most exciting part of the book what's going to live today with what he has to say about moral philosophy and he does that in the preface we're going to get back to it later on when he does it in a full chapter. But these are four suggestions we might take away whether for five. His argument is this if you're a materialist you know if you're a human being looking out upon the world thinking about it thinking about

a million more a lot of lost an ethical philosophy of life standards of right and wrong truth you know I sort of think you have a number of choices. The first one you my and a good many people do accept your ethical philosophy on the basis of authority furred communism there are two great glory. I think part of the world today one is the the chart which the Roman Catholic Church and the other is coming of the rest of the people are in a much more of a people person than Protestant virtue and democracy and much more sick of the human those too low or too authoritarian but their hands resting upon dog. That's one way you can take what he's against is a scientist in the truest is against either of those because they are

authoritarian. They rest upon an absolute dog. Would you have to accept which is not subject to investigation against both. Well if you don't like that there's another thing you can do. You can trust your instincts and drive in your unnatural hungers for life. A nice. Compiler and Jeff and all the rest of that one. That really knocks out the order of my consciousness all the time. I have a sense as we're talking about these things that are really not getting at what interests you because you know you have to live and the only way you can live is in terms of these urgent orders in you. Well alright if that's the case I think again why not take those orders as our Dan Ronan.

Certainly maybe you're on it certainly is ruinous. That's what Dr. Myers said. And using Play-Doh to back him up with say the young criticized life is not fit for human living. Does that mean that means it's means and happiness in the end it means defeating the far right and that goes on. A third thing you can do and that is reason not use your reason because of. His argument as a reason as a perfectly empty thing it's an empty activity unless it's filled in by experience. It has nothing to say. It can be used in my experience to go this way or that way but obvious self it is empty and you will find a man's reason used in favor of what he wants or what he's been taught the one that's what fills it

in. Reason itself won't do well if reason doesn't do. Why not look about you in life. What we are now to call experience. And you look at your test as your stand that is good take the status quo for what ought to be. It's to take the what is for what ought to be and that's no good either. I'm quoting him only in this preface. So you come to this conclusion this is a thing to do. He suggests the making of an arbitrary choice. I wanted time I had with that arbitrary choice. All kinds of knowledge. I'm sorry I let him in because I don't want them around here anymore. Showing that I completely missed what he was driving at. An arbitrary choice he says that means an expression of will without reference to principles and conditions

circumstances once anything an arbitrary choice in which your instincts that is what you are biologically physiologically psychologically. You drive in with your instincts. You're conditioning your education your religious and religious nurture your social conditioning political conditioning your instincts your conditioning the forces and institutions of society as they operate upon you now. That's the third thing I brought together and unified by reasoning really. When I know it's I should have seen. I can see now what he means. Just look out upon life. You say I belong to a

driving family. I train a certain way. I have certain wants. I'm under a certain compulsion on ritual VOB and training. I have a certain education and intelligence and knowledge I'm going to say I will deliberately make the best life I can out of that complicated set of conditions presented to me. That's what he means. OK. This has been another in a selected series of lectures by Professor Max Otto recorded in his course philosophy and the human enterprise. On Thursday Professor Otto continues the discussion of materialism as represented in the course textbook man and mind or matter by Charles Mayer This is the Wisconsin College of the air.