I have yet to see a definition of "matter" that made any sense. Moreover, in the course of the whole materialism vs. idealism debate, which in my opinion is archaic and wrongly founded from the get-go, it presupposes a sharp dividing line better "matter" (whatever that is) and "idea" (whatever that is). I suppose that most charitably one could describe "matter" as "stuff that exists both in space and time" and ideas as "stuff that exists only in time," and for some reason that is never explained one is supposed to be derivative of the other.
The whole idea that there is a world separate from us with a meaning-as-separate-from-us that we can know while still being attached to it is in my opinion completely incoherent, basically amounting to an attempt to describe what the world would look like if there was nobody looking at it.
--- Charles Brown <charlesb at cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:
>
> ^^^^
> CB: This sort of causes the question "why" to pop
> into one's head.
>
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned for malware by
> SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>