Gustavo Bueno in his book "Essays materialistic" defends a pluralism materialistic states that physical reality is infinite type of material, of which we only know 3, namely:
1) The first type of material (M1) consisting of all things physical or corporeal reality of the outside (rocks, rivers, stars, etc.).
2) The second type of material (m2) covering all the experiences of reality "interior" (thoughts, kinesthetic sensations, feelings, volitions, etc.)..
3) The third type of material (m3) consisting of all conceptual realities (concepts, propositions, theorems, etc.).. According
Well, the "proof" of his thesis is based on the following:
1) An analogy between the numerical series (of natural, whole, sound, etc.) And type of material (m1, m2, m3) based on the apparent similarity between the extension of the concept of natural number to other groups which also are numerous, and the extension "dialectic" of matter primogenérica (m1) to broader contexts (m2, m3) that are not less material by the fact that not reduced to the original material primogenérica .
2) Where fact that the philosophical tradition (Plato, Spinoza , Carnap, Simmel, Popper, etc.) Always has had, although not shown except in a metaphysical distinction trimenbre of the 3 kinds of materiality.
3) In the argument ad hominem that those who reject this formalistic distinction is metaphysical (and primogenéricos and segundogenéricos , etc.) And that no true materialist can admit non-material reality.
Review:
1 - In analogue logic the reasoning is not demo, unlike deductive reasoning, and have no logical justification, ergo the analogy between numbers and sets the alleged type of material is not properly a "demonstration" (although some appeal to the design of Cajetan analogy).
2 - The analogy is weak because it does not provide us with testable other similarities between the alleged number series and type of material.
Demo:
a) The number of numerical series is finite (natural, integers, rational, real, complex). In contrast, the number of suspected type of material is infinite (ontological), although only know 3 ( epistemological level ).
b) The number of elements in the number series is infinite, but it is doubtful that they are an infinite number of elements of each one of the suspected type of material.
c) The elements of a series of numbers are also covered by other series of greater amplitude or extension (for example, the number 3, which belongs to the natives also is a number that belongs to the whole etc.). In contrast, elements belonging to m1 can not be included in m2 or m3, as these genres are mutually irreducible.
3 - appeal to "tradition" in philosophy, where almost everything is still in its infancy and lacks apodictic certainties , is tantamount to appeal to the "Catholic tradition" to settle disputes scholastic, and no more than a guise of the old fallacy of "argument from authority" or " magister dixit " medieval is not relevant in a discipline where the authorities are worthless, but only rational demonstrations.
4 - As an argument "ad hominem "is not really an argument but a fallacy distracting personal attack, then little can be said. If Bueno and his metaphysical disqualifying all materialistic (or claim to such), just because they do not follow their scholastic system would have to say that first demonstrate the validity of your system (not vulgar mathematical analogies prove nothing, but certainly are very persuasive). And secondly, do not try to be as dogmatic Marxists who in their discussions with third used the action to demand that the opponents to accept the 95% of the socialist doctrine as a possible basis for discussion ", leaving only 5% to debate ( Solzhenitsyn dixit).
1) The first type of material (M1) consisting of all things physical or corporeal reality of the outside (rocks, rivers, stars, etc.).
2) The second type of material (m2) covering all the experiences of reality "interior" (thoughts, kinesthetic sensations, feelings, volitions, etc.)..
3) The third type of material (m3) consisting of all conceptual realities (concepts, propositions, theorems, etc.).. According
Well, the "proof" of his thesis is based on the following:
1) An analogy between the numerical series (of natural, whole, sound, etc.) And type of material (m1, m2, m3) based on the apparent similarity between the extension of the concept of natural number to other groups which also are numerous, and the extension "dialectic" of matter primogenérica (m1) to broader contexts (m2, m3) that are not less material by the fact that not reduced to the original material primogenérica .
2) Where fact that the philosophical tradition (Plato, Spinoza , Carnap, Simmel, Popper, etc.) Always has had, although not shown except in a metaphysical distinction trimenbre of the 3 kinds of materiality.
3) In the argument ad hominem that those who reject this formalistic distinction is metaphysical (and primogenéricos and segundogenéricos , etc.) And that no true materialist can admit non-material reality.
Review:
1 - In analogue logic the reasoning is not demo, unlike deductive reasoning, and have no logical justification, ergo the analogy between numbers and sets the alleged type of material is not properly a "demonstration" (although some appeal to the design of Cajetan analogy).
2 - The analogy is weak because it does not provide us with testable other similarities between the alleged number series and type of material.
Demo:
a) The number of numerical series is finite (natural, integers, rational, real, complex). In contrast, the number of suspected type of material is infinite (ontological), although only know 3 ( epistemological level ).
b) The number of elements in the number series is infinite, but it is doubtful that they are an infinite number of elements of each one of the suspected type of material.
c) The elements of a series of numbers are also covered by other series of greater amplitude or extension (for example, the number 3, which belongs to the natives also is a number that belongs to the whole etc.). In contrast, elements belonging to m1 can not be included in m2 or m3, as these genres are mutually irreducible.
3 - appeal to "tradition" in philosophy, where almost everything is still in its infancy and lacks apodictic certainties , is tantamount to appeal to the "Catholic tradition" to settle disputes scholastic, and no more than a guise of the old fallacy of "argument from authority" or " magister dixit " medieval is not relevant in a discipline where the authorities are worthless, but only rational demonstrations.
4 - As an argument "ad hominem "is not really an argument but a fallacy distracting personal attack, then little can be said. If Bueno and his metaphysical disqualifying all materialistic (or claim to such), just because they do not follow their scholastic system would have to say that first demonstrate the validity of your system (not vulgar mathematical analogies prove nothing, but certainly are very persuasive). And secondly, do not try to be as dogmatic Marxists who in their discussions with third used the action to demand that the opponents to accept the 95% of the socialist doctrine as a possible basis for discussion ", leaving only 5% to debate ( Solzhenitsyn dixit).
