Question

What is Materialism, Functionalism, Dualism, and Idealism? How do each of these relate to human nature. Are they successful?

Answer 1

As humanists we tend to be materialists, rejecting divine or mystical explanations for any natural or human phenomena. And as materialists we tend to believe that we can understand human beings, and the human mind, in the same way as we understand any other phenomena in nature. From such a naturalistic viewpoint the human mind is simply a sophisticated version of the animal mind, or a sophisticated version of a machine.

Functionalism is a theory about the nature of mental states. According to functionalism, mental states are identified by what they do rather than by what they are made of. This can be understood by thinking about artifacts like mousetraps and keys. In particular, the original motivation for functionalism comes from the helpful comparison of minds with computers. But that is only an analogy. The main arguments for functionalism depend on showing that it is superior to its primary competitors: identity theory and behaviorism. Contrasted with behaviorism, functionalism retains the traditional idea that mental states are internal states of thinking creatures. Contrasted with identity theory, functionalism introduces the idea that mental states are multiply realized. Objectors to functionalism generally charge that it classifies too many things as having mental states, or at least more states than psychologists usually accept. The effectiveness of the arguments for and against functionalism depends in part on the particular variety in question, and whether it is a stronger or weaker version of the theory.

The socially constructed human/nature dualism or separation of nature and culture is one of many "inherited dualisms that run deep in Western cultures" (Haraway, 2004a, p. 2; see also Abram, 1996; Armbruster, 1998; Berry, 1988, 1999; Berry & Tucker, 2006; Capra, 1982; Evernden, 1992; Peterson, 2001; Plumwood, 2002; Sandilands, 1999; Russell, 2005; Swimme & Berry, 1992, and many others).It is an often invisible "inherited violence" (Haraway, 2000, p. 106) continually re(inscribed) through everyday speech (e.g. the use of the word 'it' or 'resource' for non-human Others), action (common daily routines that do not consider the needs of non-human Others) and educational practices that make it difficult to provide opportunities for students to consider the earth as animate or communicative (Abram, 1996; Lipsett, 2001, 2002; Smith, 2004). It is also reinscribed through research that provides no space to acknowledge the contributions of non-human persons.

The terms “idealism” and “idealist” are by no means used only within philosophy; they are used in many everyday contexts as well. Optimists who believe that, in the long run, good will prevail are often called “idealists”. This is not because such people are thought to be devoted to a philosophical doctrine but because of their outlook on life generally; indeed, they may even be pitied, or perhaps envied, for displaying a naïve worldview and not being philosophically critical at all. Even within philosophy, the terms “idealism” and “idealist” are used in different ways, which often makes their meaning dependent on the context. However, independently of context one can distinguish between a descriptive (or classificatory) use of these terms and a polemical one, although sometimes these different uses occur together. Their descriptive use is best documented by paying attention to the large number of different “idealisms” that appear in philosophical textbooks and encyclopedias, ranging from metaphysical idealism through epistemological and aesthetic to moral or ethical idealism. Within these idealisms one can find further distinctions, such as those between subjective, objective and absolute idealism, and even more obscure characterizations such as speculative idealism and transcendental idealism. It is also remarkable that the term “idealism”, at least within philosophy, is often used in such a way that it gets its meaning through what is taken to be its opposite: as the meaningful use of the term “outside” depends on a contrast with something considered to be inside, so the meaning of the term “idealism” is often fixed by what is taken to be its opposite. Thus, an idealist is someone who is not a realist, not a materialist, not a dogmatist, not an empiricist, and so on. Given the fact that many also want to distinguish between realism, materialism, dogmatism, and empiricism, it is obvious that thinking of the meaning of “idealism” as determined by what it is meant to be opposed to leads to further complexity and gives rise to the impression that underlying such characterizations lies some polemical intent.