School #121

Materialism (Philosophical)

Ancient atomism (Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius); modern materialism (Hobbes, La Mettrie, Holbach, Diderot); contemporary physicalism in philosophy of mind.

Philosophical materialism is the position that the fundamental constituents of reality are material — physical bodies, particles, fields — and that whatever else exists (minds, values, abstract objects) is either reducible to, supervenient on, or eliminable in favour of the material. It is distinguished here from "dialectical materialism" (already in the ontology, with its specifically Marxist programmatic content) and from contemporary "naturalism" (which may include non-reductive emergentism).

Worldview

Reality is material at the foundational level; minds and meanings are features of material organisation; supernatural agency is rejected; the world is in principle exhausted by the physical sciences (in strong reductive versions) or by an extended naturalist framework (in non-reductive versions).

Moral Implications

Materialism does not by itself entail an ethics, but its rejection of transcendent moral authority pushes ethical theorising toward naturalistic and humanist alternatives. It is often paired with secular humanism, utilitarianism, or evolutionary ethics.

Practical Implications

Materialism has been the working metaphysics of much modern science, of mainstream analytic philosophy of mind (in the form of physicalism), and of secular intellectual life since the Enlightenment. It is critiqued from theistic, idealist, and panpsychist perspectives.

I. Time

Time, for philosophical materialism, is the physical dimension within which material processes unfold — the time of clocks, light cones, and thermodynamic irreversibility, not a separate mental or spiritual category. Whatever the best physics says about time is what materialism is prepared to accept, from Newtonian absolute time to the four-dimensional manifold of relativity. The infinite extent of matter on the materialist picture is matched by an indefinitely extended temporal field within which material configurations succeed one another. Time is neither created nor presided over by anything beyond the material order.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Uni-directional

II. Space

Space, for the materialist, is the extended physical medium in which bodies are located and interact — again whatever the best physics describes, from Newton's absolute space to the geometric manifolds of general relativity. Materialism takes no distinctive stand on the metaphysics of geometry beyond following the sciences, but it is committed to the substantival reality of the spatial order against idealist reductions to mind-dependence. There is genuinely something there, extended and structured, within which material bodies are arranged. Space is not a feature of consciousness but of the world consciousness inhabits.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Matter is the fundamental substance of reality. Mind, meaning, and value either reduce to, supervene on, or are eliminable in favour of material organisation.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The materialist treats the observer as an embodied physical system — a brain in a body in an environment — whose perception, cognition, and agency are realised by, and explicable in terms of, the material processes that constitute it. There is no soul, no immaterial mind, no supernatural agency standing behind experience; subjective life is either reducible to neural and behavioural organisation (in the reductive version) or supervenient on it (in the non-reductive version). The classical tradition from Hobbes's 'Leviathan' through La Mettrie's 'L'Homme Machine' to contemporary physicalism shares this commitment. Knowing the observer is, in principle, a job for the natural sciences.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Immediate Retainment of Knowledge: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Passive Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None Moral Authority: Reason Theological Method: N/A

V. Energy

Energy, for materialism, is a real physical quantity, conserved within closed systems and convertible between forms according to the laws the natural sciences have established. The materialist treats the energy of contemporary physics — kinetic, potential, electromagnetic, mass-equivalent, dark — as ontologically on a par with matter itself, indeed as one of the basic features of the physical world without which the very category of matter would be inarticulate. There is nothing behind energy and no further metaphysical category that grounds it; it is part of the irreducible furniture of nature.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information, for the materialist, is a real but derivative phenomenon: a feature of physical configurations and their causal relations rather than an autonomous metaphysical category. Whatever counts as information — bits, neural patterns, DNA sequences, semantic content — must ultimately be realisable in physical structures and analysable in physical terms. The materialist resists both the idealist tendency to make information primary over matter (as in some it-from-bit programmes) and the dualist tendency to treat meaning as essentially non-physical. Information supervenes on, and is conserved or destroyed along with, the material patterns that bear it.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous
← #120 Queer Theory All Schools #122 Systems Theory →

Works that name Materialism (Philosophical) in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

30%
The Great World-System (Megas Diakosmos) (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 430 BCE
30%
On Forms (Peri Ideōn) (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 430 BCE
30%
De Corpore (Late)
Thomas Hobbes · 1655
30%
Traité de mécanique céleste (Mid-to-late)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1799-1825 (5 vols)
28%
General Scholium (Late)
Sir Isaac Newton · 1713 (added to 2nd edition of the Principia)
25%
On the Mind (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 420 BCE
25%
De Homine (Late)
Thomas Hobbes · 1658
25%
Exposition du système du monde (Mid)
Pierre-Simon Laplace · 1796 (revised through 1824)
22%
An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth from Observations (Mid-career)
Robert Hooke · 1674
22%
Lectures de Potentia Restitutiva (Mid-career)
Robert Hooke · 1678
22%
Letter to Pythocles (Mature)
Epicurus · c. 306-270 BC
20%
Principles of Philosophy (Mature)
René Descartes · 1644
20%
Fragments and Testimonia
Thales of Miletus · c. 6th century BCE (original); testimonia preserved in sources from the 4th c. BCE onward
18%
Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John (Posthumous)
Sir Isaac Newton · c. 1680s-90s composition; 1733 publication (posthumous)
18%
Alchemical and Theological Manuscripts (Career-spanning private work)
Sir Isaac Newton · c. 1660s-1720s
16%
On the Soul (Mid-to-late (Montanist period))
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus · c. 208-212
15%
On Cheerfulness (Mature)
Democritus of Abdera · c. 420 BCE
15%
The Extended Phenotype (Mid)
Richard Dawkins · 1982
15%
Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (Early)
Thomas Hobbes · 1640
15%
On Nature (fragments)
Anaximander of Miletus · c. 6th century BCE
14%
A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God (Early-career)
Samuel Clarke · 1704 (Boyle Lectures); published 1705
14%
Micrographia (Early-career (career-defining))
Robert Hooke · 1665
14%
The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke (Posthumous)
Robert Hooke · 1705 (posthumous, ed. R. Waller; written c. 1670s-1700)
13%
The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity (Mid-career)
Samuel Clarke · 1712
11%
Our Knowledge of the Internal World (Late)
Robert Stalnaker · 2008
10%
Civilization and Its Discontents (Late)
Sigmund Freud · 1930 (German; English 1930)
10%
The Future of an Illusion (Late)
Sigmund Freud · 1927 (German; English 1928)
10%
Beyond the Pleasure Principle (Late)
Sigmund Freud · 1920 (German; English 1922)
10%
Behemoth (Late)
Thomas Hobbes · c. 1668; 1681 (posthumous)
10%
A Compendium of Natural Philosophy (Late)
John Wesley · 1763 (expanded 1770, 1777)
10%
Vatican Sayings (Mature)
Epicurus · c. 306-270 BC (compiled later)
10%
On Providence (fragments) (Mature)
Chrysippus of Soli · c. 250 BCE
8%
A Discourse Concerning the Unchangeable Obligations of Natural Religion (Early-career)
Samuel Clarke · 1705 (Boyle Lectures); published 1706

Personas with Materialism (Philosophical) as a declared influence

20%  Thales of Miletus 20%  Anaximander of Miletus 10%  Zeno of Citium 10%  Chrysippus of Soli 10%  Titus Lucretius Carus 5%  Empedocles of Acragas

How Materialism (Philosophical) resolves each dilemma

56 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 15 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 1 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state.
On this view, the future is fixed by the present, and the observer is a recipient of causes rather than an originator of them. The sense of choosing is real — but what is being chosen is itself a consequence of brain states that were …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites. (9%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact.
On this view, the addict's brain state, history, genetics, and circumstances jointly produce the behaviour, and there is nothing inside the person that could have produced anything else. Calling the addict responsible is at best a social tool — useful for the deterrent and rehabilitative …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order. (9%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers.
On this view, the AI's output is a function of its training data, its architecture, and the input it received. There is no extra fact about the AI that could ground its responsibility, because there is no extra fact about the AI that could have …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible. (9%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
4 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it.
On this view, money is exactly what societies do that performs the monetary functions. There is no fact about whether something is 'really' money beyond whether it is used as money. A community that decides shell beads or carbon credits or proof-of-work hashes count as …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (15%) · “Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
On this view, nations are made: by treaties, by wars, by deliberate institution-building, by the slow work of collective practice. There is nothing intrinsic about a national kind; what exists is the practice. What we owe the nation is what we owe any institution we …
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (15%) · “Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice.
On this view, while biological features exist, what they socially mean — what counts as a man or a woman, what roles attach, how the categories are policed and revised — is the work of social practice. The categories are real but constructed; revising them …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (54%) · Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (15%) · “Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other.
On this view, biological facts about the genome exist, but what we count as 'human nature' is downstream of practice. The germline is one more thing humans now have technical access to; the question is not whether the practice transgresses an essence but whether the …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (54%) · Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric. (15%) · 'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
3 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Subject to a real natural order we did not make.
On these views, nature is a real, ordered, mind-independent reality that we are inside of but did not construct. Our fundamental posture toward it is one of observation, discovery, and humility before laws that are not ours to make. Stewardship and conservation are real obligations, …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (48%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows.
On these views, humans operate within a given natural order whose laws and limits set the terms. Space colonisation is fine to the extent that it is actually possible — radiation, gravity wells, biological tolerances — and folly to the extent that it requires denying …
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (48%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. (15%)
Distinctive · only 12% of schools agree (25/202)
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genomes of the plants and animals we eat is either the natural continuation of breeding — careful improvement of what is given — or a category error that treats biology as raw material rather than as living kind.
Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints.
On these views, organisms are real biological systems with real constraints, and genetic modification is reasonable when it works within those constraints and dangerous when it ignores them. The question is technical: does this modification do what its proponents say, with the unintended consequences they …
Roads not taken Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. (48%) · What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. (15%) · Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow. (15%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
On this view, personhood is not a status conferred at a moment but a property of beings with certain capacities — to feel, to suffer, to prefer, eventually to reflect. A zygote has none of these; a late-term fetus has many; a newborn has most. …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (54%) · Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation. (15%) · The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it.
On this view, marriage is a human institution shaped by law, custom, and the agreements of those who enter it. There is no fixed essence to discover, only practices to negotiate. As societies change — granting women legal personhood, recognizing no-fault divorce, extending the institution …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (54%) · Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. (15%) · “Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
31 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 65% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? The category does not apply — the school is non-religious. 44% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The discrete person is the moral primary. 40% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 37% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through controlled empirical investigation. 17%
1 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (202)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202