Opinion

How would I define my view point now? In short, my perspective on things is –MATERIALISTIC, REDUCTIONIST, DETERMINISTIC, SCIENTIFIC, RATIONAL … and all those other ‘horror’ words we are not supposed to be in my line of work.

Put briefly like that it seems so simple and clear cut. But, of course, it is neither simple nor clear cut. Each one of those requires definition and clarification, and I can defend every single one if I have too.

Materialism:

“The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monistontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Reductionism:

“Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings. Reductionism is strongly related to a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of other, more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it. Reductionism does not preclude emergent phenomena but it does imply the ability to understand the emergent in terms of the phenomena from and process(es) by which it emerges.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Determinism:

“Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

Scientific:

“Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Knowledge in science is gained through research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific

Rational:

“Rationality as a term is related to the idea of reason, a word which following Webster's may be derived as much from older terms referring to thinking itself as from giving an account or an explanation. This lends the term a dual aspect. One aspect associates it with comprehension, intelligence, or inference, particularly when an inference is drawn in ordered ways (thus a syllogism is a rational argument in this sense). The other part associates rationality with explanation, understanding or justification, particularly if it provides a ground or a motive. 'Irrational', therefore, is defined as that which is not endowed with reason or understanding.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

I do not apologise for using Wikipedia – they give as good a definition as any. They are, however, a little too simple as they stand, but they give the general idea I think and sets the background framework for my thinking today.

This set of premises, or attitudes to reality, has certain consequences, of course.

1. Excluded in principal are any non-material claims about the nature of reality. So I reject all gods, spirits, ghosts, devils and similar beings. I also reject all claims as to 'spirituality'.
2. I regard the claim that human beings possess 'free will' to be a very dubious claim indeed.
3. I regard the claim that human beings possess some form of 'core-self' as a myth.
4. I regard many of the so-called 'social sciences' as, simply, so much nonsense. And I speak as a sociologist who has taught both sociology and psychology.
5. The fields of sociology and psychology are, in essence, reducible to biology and evolution.

My politics … Oh my god, my politics. Essentially, I have none. I am, shall we say, a theoretical nihilist. In the course of my life I have moved from traditional Labour Party Supporter (talking of the British Labour Party), via serious Marxist Communism, Social Anarchism, towards a form of 'sceptical' libertarianism. I am not a democrat, I think democracy has failed badly, but I am certainly not a totalitarian. The only writer who still appeals to me is Max Stirner.

I think that whatever 'we' do we have to work with the 'crooked timber of humanity', and people will be people and attempt to utilise whatever 'system' exists to ensure the survival of themselves and their own.