Materialism as an Ideology and Mindset

Materialist Analyses are "severely restricted and limited in the analyses that can be performed" Perhaps Jeremiah Reyes provides the best description of the "materialist Problem" Jeremiah Lasquety-Reyes, author & widely quoted expert on Filipino ethics said, "Hi Charles, I completely agree with you that this extreme adherence to materialism is too restrictive and limiting, and frankly fails to capture so many richer aspects of human experience and psychology. It leaves the field of psychology all the poorer. I am myself looking for a framework that helps me confront it. Partly, I think an alternative metaphysics is needed, one that respects the reality and meaning of things like love, relationships, and the profound reality of other people as people and not just as a compound of atoms, chemicals, and neurons firing. Glad that we're on the same page!" As Claudia Nielsen pointed out, the psychiatrist McGilChrist stated unequivocally that "The scope of inquiry and understanding of the Materialist Doctrine with its rigid adherence to the actually arbitrary principle of quantification and over-emphasis on physiological characteristics is severely restricted and limited in the analyses that can be performed." She goes on to ask her question as to whether the materialist "pendulum" has swung too far. The Mannheim Model – Social/religious "worldviews" as "Value Laden" Ideologies The practical, political, and material orientation of the group, Mannheim says, is reflected in its "world view" or Weltanschauung, and this, in turn, pervades the thought of the individual group member and actively structures his perception. Mannheim holds that historical and political thought is determined by the socio-historical location of the thinker and the political aspirations and material ambitions of the group or groups to which he belongs. Such thought is inherently value-laden, one-sided, distorted, and therefore false. (p.143 Truth and Ideology: Reflections on Mannheim's Paradox by Willard A. Mullins, History and Theory, Vol. 18, No. 2 (May, 1979), pp. 141-154) Christina Maimone observes, "Ideology is, as Mannheim uses the term, a mode of thought that obscures the real condition of society to the group holding the thought, thereby stabilizing the shared social reality of the mode of thought. Groups are simply unable to see particular facts that would undermine their conception of the world, that would show their collective perception of the social situation to be a misapplication of thought to experience. Ideology is most strongly associated with groups that have a dominant position in society. Their ideology serves to secure their place in the social order, although the development of their mode of thought was not consciously controlled in this direction." Materialists argue that the focus on "quantification" makes "materialism" scientific. As McGilChrist points out – that is not true and that in the "Real world" - Materialist Analyses are "severely restricted and limited in the analyses that can be performed". Quantification is a proper methodology for the hard sciences – physics, chemistry, and so on. Half of human consciousness is not quantifiable: art, music, dreams, true love, ideals such as justice and freedom, and symbolism (E Halas) etc. Both Kenneth Gergen and Maimones correctly emphasize that "social knowledge" needs to be a separate category. Materialism as an Ideology and Mindset "An increasingly mechanistic, fragmented, decontextualised world, marked by unwarranted optimism mixed with paranoia and a feeling of emptiness, has come about, reflecting, I believe, the unopposed action of a dysfunctional left hemisphere." — Iain McGilchrist