Edit: reposted because my previous title had a question in it.

Stating the Problem: Can a Materialist Worldview Account for Truth, Logic, and Other Abstract Concepts?

The central problem addressed here is whether a materialist worldview—one that posits that only physical, material entities exist—can account for abstract concepts like truth, logic, morality, and natural laws. Theists often argue that without a metaphysical foundation, materialists cannot justify these concepts, which they claim must be rooted in an absolute truth or divine authority. This piece examines the validity of such a critique and explores whether materialism provides a consistent framework for understanding these concepts.

Thesis: Abstract Concepts Are Useful Descriptions, Not Independent Realities

My thesis is that abstract concepts such as truth, morality, or the law of gravity are not "things" that exist independently in the universe. Instead, they are human-created frameworks for describing and navigating the material world. These concepts lack physical existence and should not be confused with the material phenomena they describe. Thus, a materialist can reject the need for metaphysical underpinnings while maintaining a coherent worldview.

Supporting the Thesis: A Materialist Perspective on "Things"

Foundational Beliefs and the Axiomatic Starting Point

Both theists and materialists ultimately rely on axiomatic claims. For theists, this may be the existence of God as the creator of truth, logic, and morality. For materialists, the axiom is that the material world exists and is the basis for all that we can know. While theists might argue that only divine revelation can ground truth or logic, the materialist response is that such claims are no more inherently justified than the materialist axiom itself.

Materialists acknowledge that all worldviews, when pushed to their foundational assumptions, are equally "absurd" in the sense that they rely on unprovable axioms. The difference lies in materialism's refusal to posit a metaphysical explanation for phenomena that can be understood through observation and evidence.

Rejecting Abstract Concepts as "Things"

Consider the idea of numbers. Few would argue that "five" is a physical entity existing independently in the universe. Instead, "five" is a concept we use to describe a collection of objects—e.g., five apples. Similarly, the "law of gravity" is not a physical entity but a framework describing the consistent behavior of material objects with mass. The phenomena these concepts describe (e.g., objects falling due to gravitational force) are real, but the descriptive tools themselves are not.

To illustrate:

Numbers and Quantity

• There are five apples on a table.
• The apples and the table are physical objects.
• "Five" is a non-physical descriptor that helps us understand the quantity of apples.
• Therefore, "five" does not exist as a "true thing" but as a concept.

Gravity and Physical Laws

• A rock falls from a cliff to the ground below due to gravity.
• The rock, the cliff, and the ground are physical entities.
• "The law of gravity" is a non-physical concept describing the interaction between material objects.
• Therefore, "the law of gravity" does not exist as a "true thing" but as a framework for understanding.

These distinctions underscore the materialist view that while concepts like "five" or "gravity" are incredibly useful, they do not exist in the same way that a rock or a river does.

Addressing Objections

Objection: Without Absolute Truth, There Is No Justification for Knowledge

Response: Materialism does not require absolute truth to justify knowledge. It relies on evidence-based, testable, and repeatable observations. This pragmatic approach allows for useful descriptions of the world without claiming metaphysical certainty.

Objection: Denying Abstract Concepts Undermines Logic and Science

Response: Materialism does not deny the utility of abstract concepts but recognizes them as descriptive tools, not entities. Science and logic operate within these frameworks to describe and predict material phenomena effectively.

Objection: Materialism Is as Absurd as Solipsism

Response: Materialism acknowledges its axiomatic starting point but distinguishes itself through its reliance on observable, shared reality. Unlike solipsism, which posits an entirely subjective reality, materialism operates within a framework of intersubjective verification.

The Silver Lining: Differentiating the Map from the Territory

This distinction between the material world and the concepts we use to describe it highlights the core strength of materialism: it avoids confusing the "map" (concepts, frameworks) with the "territory" (physical reality). Concepts like morality, logic, and scientific laws are maps that help us navigate and understand the material world. They are not themselves "true things" but tools created by human minds.

By embracing this view, materialism avoids the pitfalls of metaphysical absolutism while providing a consistent, evidence-based approach to understanding reality. It acknowledges the limits of human knowledge and the descriptive nature of our frameworks without requiring recourse to metaphysical or divine claims.

Conclusion: A Materialist Philosophy of "Things"

In summary, materialism provides a coherent and practical approach to understanding reality by recognizing that only material entities exist while treating abstract concepts as descriptive tools. This perspective allows for intellectual humility, adaptability, and a commitment to evidence-based inquiry without the need for metaphysical absolutes. By rejecting the conflation of the map with the territory, materialism maintains a consistent and defensible position in the face of theistic challenges.

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

Friendship as a component of human nature has been of great scientific interest throughout the ages. An Islamic philosopher of the 11th century, Al-Ghazali, described in his book entitled Ihya' Ulum al-Din just how to be a good friend. Nearly a millennium later, the scientific contributions of the contemporary psychologist Robert Dunbar, particularly "The Anatomy of Friendship," explain through the perspective of modern science how friendships function in the brain and society. Surprisingly, his ideas greatly interconnect, showing a bridge between spiritual knowledge and modern science.

Al-Ghazali puts much stress on the choice of friends. He declares that everyone finds friends for his good character, perfect faith, and moral honesty. He looks at friendship not as social dealings but as potent connections that mold an individual's soul and future. This fits very strongly with Dunbar's "Dunbar Number," which postulates a cognitive limit on the number of meaningful relationships-roughly 150, he says-but with only about five close, intimate relationships. In the opinion of Dunbar, mental resources are limited and it is the intensity of the emotional investment in deep friendships which limits their number. He continues with, "Friendships take time, and the mental effort required to maintain them is what limits the numbers of friendships we can have." It is this scientific observation that ascertains Al-Ghazali's recommendation to invest in relationships that sustain spiritual and emotional well-being since we are capable of only a few friendships. Therefore, choosing those friends who help us become good and do good things is not just a personal decision but important in the process of keeping life in balance.

The features of loyalty and honesty appear as the most important features in Al-Ghazali's idea of friendship. According to him, a friend is not he who joins to share the time of joy but he who shares the time of distress. This idea relates closely to Dunbar’s research on why friendship is important in our evolution. Dunbar says that shared experiences, especially those that provide emotional support, make friendships stronger. He writes, “Shared laughter and emotional support are evolutionary tools that cement our strongest friendships.” An emotional connection based on honesty and loyalty is what makes true friends different from just acquaintances. Al-Ghazali’s emphasis on sincerity (ikhlas) supports this idea. He warns against friendships of utility or pleasure alone, since they cannot sustain the knocks of life; rather, true friendship is based upon the promise to look after the other with care. This brings out how important emotional give-and-take is in sustaining the imperatives of a relationship.

It is evident in both Al-Ghazali and Dunbar that conflict is inevitable even in the best of relationships. Al-Ghazali insists on forgiveness and patience. He appeals to be tolerant of as far as the defects in a friend are concerned: for him, no person is faultless, and friendship can be tolerated only by overlooking small mistakes and condoning big ones. This view precisely coincides with Dunbar's idea pertaining to resilience, which is necessary for long-term friendships. Dunbar writes, "Conflict is natural in any relationship; the ability to forgive and rebuild is what separates temporary acquaintances from lifelong friends." The notion that friendship requires emotional resilience is hardly novel; still, this spiritual perspective by Al-Ghazali carries even deeper weight. To him, being forgiving is not just a socially demanded trait but a virtue that becomes a testament to one's inner strength and character. In both schemes, the ability to handle conflict and practice forgiveness would define how long a friendship would last.

For Al-Ghazali, the very essence of any true friendship is trust. Indeed, he said that one of the gravest forms of rupture which can ever damage even the closest of friendships is betrayal. This trust, or amanah, consists of guarding each other's confidence, keeping promises, and acting honorably. Dunbar's own research corroborates this when it postulates that the balance of giving and receiving actively sustains the notion of trust. He writes, "Friendship thrives on a balance of exchanges, whether emotional, social, or practical. A breach in this balance erodes trust." The commonalities are patent in this tenet of their thought. Both thinkers are cognizant that trust is not a high-order abstraction but rather a substantive foundation on which the rest of the friendship structure rests. Without trust, there can be no true connection or help for each other. This shared understanding shows that trust is an important part of human relationships, whether seen from a spiritual or scientific point of view.

The strongest link between Al-Ghazali’s and Dunbar’s ideas about friendship is in how they see its purpose. For Al-Ghazali, friendship is not just for social reasons but also for spiritual and moral growth. To him, friends are fellow travelers that help scale up towards betterment and eventually draw closer to God. The spiritual aspect, thus, gives prime importance to friendship, which, beyond companionship, becomes a bond shaping the character and destiny of a person. Dunbar, while approaching friendship from a secular perspective, does reach a similar conclusion about its impact on personal growth. He says, "Friendship is not just a nice thing to have, but very important for mental health." For Dunbar, friendships greatly aid our feelings and personal development through their support, encouragement, and sense of belonging. The idea here tallies with Al-Ghazali's belief that friends show who we are and affect who we become. Both views indicate that friendships are not only helpful but necessary to a happy life.

Today, social media and online connections often make it hard to tell the difference between real friendship and casual acquaintance. These ideas are important now more than ever. Al-Ghazali’s principles tell us to look for depth, honesty, and good character in our friendships. Dunbar’s research offers a scientific way to see why these qualities are important. Taken together, they give a broad view of friendship, combining the wisdom of ancient and contemporary psychology on the subject. Each thinker gives a challenge as to the quality of our friendships and the place they actually occupy within our lives. Are we investing time in relationships that nourish and feed us? Can we let go, trust, and evolve with our friends? These questions are pertinent and help us find our way to true, lasting connection. 

What do you guys think? Can religious views help our friendships today in the world of social media and online connections? How would you guys balance Dunbar's ideas about how many friends we can have with Al-Ghazali's idea of being good in friendship?

Works Cited/ References

Dunbar, Robin. “The Anatomy of Friendship.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences vol. 22.1 (2018)

Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. “The Etiquette of Friendship.” in The Beginning of Guidance: The Imam and proof of Islam. trans. Mashhad Al-Allaf. White Thread Press: 2010: 142.

(Hopefully I can continue to edit this when I have more time since I actually enjoyed writing this for uni. It took me 3 days to write. I am in the same uni and course as the guy who wrote Absence & Friendships: Kahlil Gibran on Absence around 6 days from posting this on this subreddit.)