Is Materialism a Good Beginner's Philosophy?

[WildeChilde]

I've been reading this David Chalmers essay off and on lately, and I realized this excerpt from the beginning had shocking parallels to my own experience:

"When I was in graduate school, I recall hearing “One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist”.1 I don’t know where this comes from, but I think the idea was something like this. First, one is impressed by the successes of science, endorsing materialism about everything and so about the mind. Second, one is moved by prob- lem of consciousness to see a gap between physics and consciousness, thereby endorsing dualism, where both matter and consciousness are fundamental. Third, one is moved by the inscrutability of matter to realize that science reveals at most the structure of matter and not its underlying na- ture, and to speculate that this nature may involve consciousness, thereby endorsing panpsychism. Fourth, one comes to think that there is little reason to believe in anything beyond consciousness and that the physical world is wholly constituted by consciousness, thereby endorsing idealism. "

Was this anybody else's experience as well?  Was materialism the first metaphysical position you had to which you later explored and adopted others?  

[Leo Gura]

Materialism is the default paradigm of the human mind in our present era and culture. Materialism really just stems from daulity, which the default OS of human beings across all cultures and times.

As one becomes more conscious, one moves towards nonduality.

The last step Chalmers is missing is transcending theoretical idealism to actualized nonduality, until one's nonduality becomes so profound that even the distinction between duality and nonduality falls away.

[Prabhaker]

@WildeChilde

A rich country has spiritual problems; a poor country has physical problems. Buddha's time in India was the golden age. That was the time for India at its peak. The country was rich, tremendously rich, affluent. The whole world was poor, and India was very rich. The people coming to Buddha were bringing spiritual problems. When you become aware of inner poverty, then you start searching inwards. 

In the time of Buddha, India was at its golden peak. It could think in dimensions that are not confined to the body, not confined to the physical, visible world. So India could probe deeply into the ultimate mystery.

It is a strange fact that whenever a country becomes rich it becomes religious, and whenever a country becomes religious it is bound to fall back from its riches. When a country becomes religious it becomes other-worldly; this world becomes meaningless.

Religion is the flowering. When every so-called natural need is fulfilled, only then does the beyond become meaningful and significant. when body needs are fulfilled, when you are not in any struggle at the physical level, then a new struggle begins on a higher level. That is the struggle to achieve consciousness. So whenever a society becomes rich, only then does religion become meaningful.

~ OSHO

[Prabhaker]

8 hours ago, WildeChilde said:

Is Materialism a Good Beginner's Philosophy?

Only a rich person can become religious. I am not saying that a poor person cannot become religious, but it is very rare, exceptional. A poor person goes on hoping. A poor person has not known what riches are. He is not yet frustrated with it. How can he go beyond riches if he is not frustrated with them? A poor man also sometimes comes to me, but then he comes for something which I cannot supply. He asks for success. His son is not getting employed; he asks, “Bless him, Osho.” His wife is ill, or he is losing money in his business. These are symptoms of a poor man, one who is asking about things of this world.

When a rich person comes to me, he has money, he has employment, he has a house, he has health – he has everything that one can have. And suddenly he has come to a realization that nothing is fulfilling. Then the search for God starts.

Yes, sometimes a poor man can also be religious, but for that very great intelligence is needed. A rich man, if he is NOT religious, is stupid. A poor man, if he is religious, is tremendously intelligent. if a poor man is not religious, he has to be forgiven. If a rich man is not religious, his sin is unpardonable.

Osho~ The Discipline of Transcendence, Vol 3