History and philosophy of materialism explored in new book

LAWRENCE — The core idea of “materialism” is that all facts, events and objects are dependent on or reducible to physical processes. 

But like “totalitarianism” or “misogyny,” materialism is more often a word used to negatively label one’s philosophical opponents.

“Historically, materialism has been ascribed to various positions by its enemies. It was only in the 20th century that people took on the moniker as a badge of honor,” said John Symons, professor of philosophy at the University of Kansas.

His new book, titled “The History and Philosophy of Materialism,” offers an in-depth look at one of the most long-standing and controversial of all philosophical theories. This multiauthor work features 31 chapters that explore its fascinating history, from the ancient world through the 21st century. It is published by Routledge. 

“Our book set out to understand materialism, historically and conceptually — and lo and behold, there’s not one single story to be told. We try to address non-Western traditions: Indian traditions, Chinese traditions, Indigenous American traditions,” said Symons, who co-edited the book with Charles Wolfe of the University of Toulouse-Jean Jaurès in France.

Symons contributes two chapters: one asking whether materialism is atheistic and one focused on Otto Neurath. KU colleague Marcy Lascano, professor of philosophy, also writes a chapter on English philosopher Margaret Cavendish.

Historically, the main criticism of materialism is that it’s an attempt to provide a total philosophy.

“At its core, modern materialists hold that, ‘Everything is just what physics tells us it is, and there’s nothing more,’” Symons said.

“Mathematics is a challenge for the physicalist or materialist. Value is also a challenge – what does it mean in physical terms for something to be good or bad? What does it mean for something to be better or worse? And then, finally, consciousness has proved a deep challenge.”

Given these limitations, is it possible to be both religious and a proponent of materialism?

Symons answers this in one of his chapters, analyzing the role of “Christian materialism.”

“For some religious traditions, God is also a physical being. Notice also that Christianity has traditionally held the incarnation as central to its theology. So the incarnation of Christ is the embodiment of God, which itself is physical. It’s also important to recognize that the doctrine of the resurrection is a bodily resurrection in traditional Christianity, based on how we will all be raised from the dead,” he said.

A native of Cork, Ireland, Symons has been at KU since 2012. An expert in metaphysics and epistemology of science and philosophy of technology, he has written or edited a dozen books, including “Formal Reasoning: A Guide to Critical Thinking” (2017) and “The Architecture of Cognition: Rethinking Fodor and Pylyshyn’s Systematicity Challenge” (2014). He is the director of the Center for Cyber-Social Dynamics.

Symons personally doesn’t ascribe to materialism. He considers himself an emergentist. He defines that as “someone who believes genuinely new things appear over the course of natural history.”

That belief echoes his view of the volatility of the present era. 

“We’re in an unstable period where 20th century assumptions around the status of science are open for debate. Rejecting materialism doesn’t mean you’re into superstition or you’re necessarily against science,” Symons said. 

Complicating this is the unargued presuppositions that make up the framework of materialism.

“It’s not like there’s a scientific way to prove that physics tells us what there is. That’s a philosophical assumption which we can argue with. You can’t have physics itself without mathematics. You can’t have physics without judgments of value. And we are conscious beings doing physics. So you can’t have physics being done without conscious beings,” Symons said. 

“But consciousness, mathematics and value don’t fit neatly within the story that the physicalist and materialist tell us … and yet these are all completely indispensable.”