NationStates Jolt Archive

How many people here are dualist or materialist and please state your reason why. And if your not familiar with what both means here: Dualism means you believe in reelightment also that you believe in a spiritual world,god,. Many buddhist or dualist. Materialist believe in only physical objects, MANY(NOT ALL)materialist are considered atheist.

I'm with Kant on this one: subject and object are so deeply intertwined that one can establish idealism on transcendental grounds without committing to dualism. As for non-material substances, we are left with a critical scepticism; that is, we can establish their non-existence on no better ground than we might establish their positive existence (Kant's antinomies).

In other words, I believe that ideas, and particularly the human "self", are "more than the sum of their material parts," but I do not take this in a dualistic "two worlds" sense. On the other hand, I take it as a matter of faith that there is no God and no soul.

Materialist!

How many people here are dualist or materialist and please state your reason why. And if your not familiar with what both means here: Dualism means you believe in reelightment also that you believe in a spiritual world,god,. Many buddhist or dualist. Materialist believe in only physical objects, MANY(NOT ALL)materialist are considered atheist.I didn't answer because I hold two beliefs...

I have a strong aesthetic attachment to dualist elements: (A soul, an after life, free will, a creator).

But in reality those thing all sound absurd, so I live my life as a moral materialist.

I really aught to call myself a materialist atheist... but the happy fairy tales of dualism feel right to me.

No philosophical idealist option? For shame.





(Philosophical materialist here, straight down the line, but actually providing the third missing option which makes sense of dualism would have been nice).

EDIT: oh, yeah, you were asking why... well I see dualist philosophies as needlessly complex and ways of raising more questions than they answer. Thus I fall on the materialist side of the line, although, to be fair there is actually much more in common with materialism and idealism than either of them share with dualism - both posit the world as made of a single kind of substance , and the exact nature of that substance (whether it be material or ideal) is largely irrelevant and basically only a question of historical terminology.

How many people here are dualist or materialist and please state your reason why. And if your not familiar with what both means here: Dualism means you believe in reelightment also that you believe in a spiritual world,god,. Many buddhist or dualist. Materialist believe in only physical objects, MANY(NOT ALL)materialist are considered atheist.
what about neither?

what about neither?Are you an idealist? If so you are only the second one I've ever encountered (well the second who wasn't severely schizophrenic).

The Liberated Ones']Are you an idealist? If so you are only the second one I've ever encountered (well the second who wasn't severely schizophrenic).

Hmm. I've encountered plenty more than that, and even considered myself as one for a year or so, until I realised that what was of primary importance was simply the idea of having a unified kind of stuff. Having recognised that I flipped across to materialist as a much more elegant (and easier to visualise) system of viewing the world.

I think that Dualism [or spirituality in general] is--to put it bluntly-- a crock of shit. I've seen no reason to support its existence and a million reasons why I shouldn't--most of these millions of reasons are American voters who put people like George Bush in office and pay enough attention to idiots like Pat Robertson and the 700 Club so that I have to keep hearing about them.

Besides, even if there is a "spirit world," I wouldn't try to make this one more like it because historically, very bad things have happened when someone tried to. Every atrocity I can think of has been the twisted brainchild of intellectually bankrupt mystics who are reportedly interested in creating a "better world"--though invariably only for their own group.

In short, Dualism on it's own is dangerous enough, but there are not really such things as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people. If there's one thing worse than believing in this shit, it's trying to make everyone else believe it too. Remember folks: you can't spell "believe" without "lie." That's why it's better to know, kids.

I am a complete amoral materialist. I believe the best measure of a man(or woman, for that matter) are his possessions and his accomplishments.

I am a complete amoral materialist. I believe the best measure of a man(or woman, for that matter) are his possessions and his accomplishments.
What exactly about this is 'amoral?' Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I am a complete amoral materialist. I believe the best measure of a man(or woman, for that matter) are his possessions and his accomplishments.

Same here, except I believe the best measures of a person are what he/she's accomplished, and what he/she's done for others.

As far as Moral Philosophy is concerned, I'm now into this guy called James and, you guessed it, "Pragmatism". Do what works in the real world!

As far as dualism is concerned, I've never been one for that kind of stuff. I'd put myself into the materialism (historical materialism perhaps?) category.

What exactly about this is 'amoral?' Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

What I meant by amoral is that I believe the end always justifies the means if it moves you up in the world. And, Potaria, if doing something for others is your goal, then that belongs in the accomplishment category.

I am a complete amoral materialist. I believe the best measure of a man(or woman, for that matter) are his possessions and his accomplishments.Amoral? You really don't have any morals?

So if you suddenly decided that killing a man might be exiting, and you were sure enough that you wouldn't get caught, you'd do it?

Wait a sec... I thought you were a Satanist? Don't they have morals along the lines of "Be Smart", "Be powerful", etc. ?

What I meant by amoral is that I believe the end always justifies the means if it moves you up in the world. And, Potaria, if doing something for others is your goal, then that belongs in the accomplishment category.
Ehhhhh...... sorry, you lost me here. I can't believe how many people have been clinging on to the phrase "The ends justify the means" after all that's been done for the sake of said 'Ends.'

If Christian radicals, for example, want Heaven on Earth and decide to start murdering homosexuals in the street and bombing more abortion clinics, I'd say those aren't legitimate ends or means. If you still want to cling to the phrase, then, your only recourse is to say that certain means justifies certain ends, which is a dubious moral proclamation at best.

I see dualism as probably being a product of the way humans organise their perceptions; I suppose that makes me a materialist...

If I can read about it in a physics journal, it exists. Otherwise, go pontificate over it in that other faculty over there.

Materialist. Historical. Trotskyist. Hardcore.

I do have morals though. Not Bourgeois of course. And I don't do things by any means necessary. But I have no problem with, say, the execution of Tsar's whole family. (The Czar should have know his popularity wasn't great after the 2nd revolution of 1917. By the third he was just pushing his luck.)

Materialist. Historical. Trotskyist. Hardcore.

I do have morals though. Not Bourgeois of course. And I don't do things by any means necessary. But I have no problem with, say, the execution of Tsar's whole family. (The Czar should have know his popularity wasn't great after the 2nd revolution of 1917. By the third he was just pushing his luck.)
Oh god, not another one.

Oh god, not another one.
I like his name but!

Materialist. Historical. Trotskyist. Hardcore.

I do have morals though. Not Bourgeois of course. And I don't do things by any means necessary. But I have no problem with, say, the execution of Tsar's whole family. (The Czar should have know his popularity wasn't great after the 2nd revolution of 1917. By the third he was just pushing his luck.)That's harsh.

I'm a crazy socialist, but do you really think executing children is justifiable in the name of social reform?

(I can see their need for revolution, but I can't help but think the USSR would have been a much better and nicer place if it hadn't been built by bloody handed, fascist ubermensches like Stalin.)

The Liberated Ones']...fascist ubermensches like Stalin.
Ubermensches! Hihihihi.

A quick explanation:
"Über" (don't forget the dots, or if you can't get them, use "Ueber") literally means "above". It's not pronounced "oober" in an American sense, more like "oo" in a really Australian accent. Like an Aussie would say "blooper".
"Deutschland über alles" thus means "Germany above all". By all is not meant Britain, but all the petty problems the little German states had with each other by the way.

"Mensch" (pronounced mensh) means human. The plural in English is Humans, in German it is "Menschen".

An Übermensch is thus some sort of "over-man", a better individual than normal people. Although, I don't think Germans would ever have said it like that, they would have used "Herrenmensch", which means "Master-Man".

Materialist. Historical. Trotskyist. Hardcore.

I do have morals though. Not Bourgeois of course. And I don't do things by any means necessary. But I have no problem with, say, the execution of Tsar's whole family. (The Czar should have know his popularity wasn't great after the 2nd revolution of 1917. By the third he was just pushing his luck.)

Sickening.

Materialist. Historical. Trotskyist. Hardcore.

I do have morals though. Not Bourgeois of course. And I don't do things by any means necessary. But I have no problem with, say, the execution of Tsar's whole family. (The Czar should have know his popularity wasn't great after the 2nd revolution of 1917. By the third he was just pushing his luck.)

Yay! It's good to see a real old timey socialist around here. :)

Materialist. Historical. Trotskyist. Hardcore.

I do have morals though. Not Bourgeois of course. And I don't do things by any means necessary. But I have no problem with, say, the execution of Tsar's whole family. (The Czar should have know his popularity wasn't great after the 2nd revolution of 1917. By the third he was just pushing his luck.)
http://gbehh.com/cards/images/congrats_card.jpg

Ubermensches! Hihihihi.

A quick explanation:
"Über" (don't forget the dots, or if you can't get them, use "Ueber") literally means "above". It's not pronounced "oober" in an American sense, more like "oo" in a really Australian accent. Like an Aussie would say "blooper".
"Deutschland über alles" thus means "Germany above all". By all is not meant Britain, but all the petty problems the little German states had with each other by the way.

"Mensch" (pronounced mensh) means human. The plural in English is Humans, in German it is "Menschen".

An Übermensch is thus some sort of "over-man", a better individual than normal people. Although, I don't think Germans would ever have said it like that, they would have used "Herrenmensch", which means "Master-Man".I guess I should have said Übermenschen if I wanted to use corect german. But I think Ubermensch has become an english word... so I figured Ubermensches was the plural.

I used the term Übermensch based on Nietzsche’s ideal for humanity. An Übermensch aspires to be a brutal overlord who defines his own success by how much he is above the common herd of humanity. I think that’s not a bad way to look at how Stalin behaved, do you?

I really recommend reading the Will to Power, it describes a very interesting, internally consistent ethos that is completely separate from any sane moral system.

When I say I have no problems with it, it doesn't mean I wouldn't condemn it *now*. It means, I don't condemn what they did 88 years ago.

Well, where to begin.

Oh, right, 1905: Bloodbath in the streets of Sanct Peterburg. Who ordered it? Some dude named something Romanov.

According to "morals": Murder shall be met with the harshest of punishments.

As I said, he should have taken the tip.

About Stalin: Does the name Trotsky mean anything to you?

And believe me, there are more stalinists than trotskyists out there. It's just not good policy to advertise.

There are more openly nazi/fascist groups around, though. Makes you wonder...

Athiest through and through

About Stalin: Does the name Trotsky mean anything to you?
What do you think about Paul Wolfowitz and other Neo-Cons?

I think they're in all probability materialist.

"They are enemies of the people" - ooops, too stalinist.

Anyway, this is getting too off topic, so, if you want me to *really* talk about those guys, pvt me.

I'm with Kant on this one: subject and object are so deeply intertwined that one can establish idealism on transcendental grounds without committing to dualism. As for non-material substances, we are left with a critical scepticism; that is, we can establish their non-existence on no better ground than we might establish their positive existence (Kant's antinomies).

In other words, I believe that ideas, and particularly the human "self", are "more than the sum of their material parts," but I do not take this in a dualistic "two worlds" sense. On the other hand, I take it as a matter of faith that there is no God and no soul.

I'm also with Kant on this one, but I take a slightly different spin on it than you do. Dualism usually has the material world as something "bad", and in opposition to the "good" realm of the immaterial/spirit/soul/God - the ideal is to escape the chains of evil matter and become a transcendent spirit. I don't hold that the material is "bad", and I don't subscribe to the false dichotomy between material and immaterial - we are both body and soul/mind/spirit. (Or at least I am. I don't speak for anyone else.)

How many people here are dualist or materialist and please state your reason why. And if your not familiar with what both means here: Dualism means you believe in reelightment also that you believe in a spiritual world,god,. Many buddhist or dualist. Materialist believe in only physical objects, MANY(NOT ALL)materialist are considered atheist.

Neither...

Not all "spiritually" involved religions are dualistic.... Christianity is non dualistic [Manism, Gnosticism, Manchianism, etc. are Dualistic heresies in historical christianity]...

How many people here are dualist or materialist and please state your reason why. And if your not familiar with what both means here: Dualism means you believe in reelightment also that you believe in a spiritual world,god,. Many buddhist or dualist. Materialist believe in only physical objects, MANY(NOT ALL)materialist are considered atheist.
Neither.

I believe that the "spiritual world" exists entirely conceptually. I don't know what reelightenment is, sorry.

I'm with Kant on this one: subject and object are so deeply intertwined that one can establish idealism on transcendental grounds without committing to dualism. As for non-material substances, we are left with a critical scepticism; that is, we can establish their non-existence on no better ground than we might establish their positive existence (Kant's antinomies).

In other words, I believe that ideas, and particularly the human "self", are "more than the sum of their material parts," but I do not take this in a dualistic "two worlds" sense. On the other hand, I take it as a matter of faith that there is no God and no soul.
What the heck does subject and objective "so deeply intertwined" mean?

I am a materialist in that sense. I do believe in certain unseen forces, but I don't believe they are spiritual, and dualism just seems to be mostly total and utter BS. Therefore, I fall under the classification of materialist.

*snip* If there's one thing worse than believing in this shit, it's trying to make everyone else believe it too. Remember folks: you can't spell "believe" without "lie." That's why it's better to know, kids.
But you can't spell know without "now", and that makes knowledge enitrely fleeting (by your logic).

I don't believe in either and that things are in an in-between state. Mind and matter are a dichotomy imposed on the world, but they define eachother (matter is the opposite of mind, mind is the opposite of matter).

I guess I should have said Übermenschen if I wanted to use corect german. But I think Ubermensch has become an english word... so I figured Ubermensches was the plural.

I used the term Übermensch based on Nietzsche’s ideal for humanity. An Übermensch aspires to be a brutal overlord who defines his own success by how much he is above the common herd of humanity. I think that’s not a bad way to look at how Stalin behaved, do you?

I really recommend reading the Will to Power, it describes a very interesting, internally consistent ethos that is completely separate from any sane moral system.

Ooh, don't get me started on Nietzsche. I could go on for days on how much I hate Nietzsche.

Ooh, don't get me started on Nietzsche. I could go on for days on how much I hate Nietzsche.

Meh. That's just one particular reading of Nietzsche - it is equally valid to argue that he is trying to escape the divisions between the herd and their masters by raising all to mastery. The Ubermensch is seen not as a feudal noble lording it over the peasentry, but instead the transcendence of the limitations of the human in much the same way that the human transcended the limitations of the ape.

Neither...

Not all "spiritually" involved religions are dualistic.... Christianity is non dualistic [Manism, Gnosticism, Manchianism, etc. are Dualistic heresies in historical christianity]...

That is a different sense of 'dualist' where an opposition between two difference deities, or demiurges, or the like is envisioned. Here the matter it hand is the question of whether the world is composed purely of material things, purely of ideal things or a combination of the two.

Traditionally Christianity is sharply dualist in this philosophical sense - the material world that we experience every day is real, but slightly less real than the spiritual world which is inhabited by the divine, and which humanity participates in through the existence of souls.

Neither...

Not all "spiritually" involved religions are dualistic.... Christianity is non dualistic [Manism, Gnosticism, Manchianism, etc. are Dualistic heresies in historical christianity]...I think you're using the wrong definition of 'Dualistic'. They are asking about Mind/Matter dualism not good/evil dualism.

If you believe you have a body and a soul you are a Dualist. Even I you believe you cease to exist at death, but currently have a mind separate from the pure mechanics of your body you are still a Dualist.

If you believe your mind is only a function of the machine you call your body, then you are a materialist. Or if you don't believe there is any such thing as a mind and you are just a deterministic machine called a human then you are a materialist.

If you believe there is no such thing as a body and all the universe is minds and ideas interacting then you are an idealist.

Thought there would be more dualist.

Ehhhhh...... sorry, you lost me here. I can't believe how many people have been clinging on to the phrase "The ends justify the means" after all that's been done for the sake of said 'Ends.'

If Christian radicals, for example, want Heaven on Earth and decide to start murdering homosexuals in the street and bombing more abortion clinics, I'd say those aren't legitimate ends or means. If you still want to cling to the phrase, then, your only recourse is to say that certain means justifies certain ends, which is a dubious moral proclamation at best.

No, the end always justifies the means. Of course, the means have to be pratical. I certainly wouldn't advise starting a war in the streets, unless you were sure you had enough support to win. There are a few people in my way I would like to kill, but it just isn't practical. I'd end up in prison.

Great stuff.

anyone here an atheist dualist?

I think there should have been an option for non-dualism - the idea that things that appear to be diametrically opposed are simply aspects of the same thing. That would be more along the lines of my beliefs.

The Liberated Ones']I think you're using the wrong definition of 'Dualistic'. They are asking about Mind/Matter dualism not good/evil dualism.

If you believe you have a body and a soul you are a Dualist. Even I you believe you cease to exist at death, but currently have a mind separate from the pure mechanics of your body you are still a Dualist.

If you believe your mind is only a function of the machine you call your body, then you are a materialist. Or if you don't believe there is any such thing as a mind and you are just a deterministic machine called a human then you are a materialist.

If you believe there is no such thing as a body and all the universe is minds and ideas interacting then you are an idealist.

Good/Evil Dualism = Mancheanism = Heresy
Mind/Matter Dualism = Gnosticism = Heresy

So I'm neither type of Dualist... Nor am I a strict Materialist, nor an Idealist.

The Liberated Ones']That's harsh.

I'm a crazy socialist, but do you really think executing children is justifiable in the name of social reform?

(I can see their need for revolution, but I can't help but think the USSR would have been a much better and nicer place if it hadn't been built by bloody handed, fascist ubermensches like Stalin.)

While i agree with your stance that he is rather morally corrupt :) , i have to add that in this case it was probably needed (allthough he doesn't seem to see it this way).

We are in 1917. If you let a member of the family live, even a child, your social reform will be a lot harder and even more bloody. loyalists will be thougher to fight since they have a person to unite them (even if it's still a baby) and foreign nations will be even more eager to crush the uprising since in the end, all rulers are related in some way (this includes but is not limited to biologic relations). History is full of examples of people claiming to be kings or other type of rules because their granduncle was related to a great-grandfather of a king that lived a century ago and the resulting wars sure are bloody. Even tho this seems strange now, it wasn't a century ago.

Good/Evil Dualism = Mancheanism = Heresy
Mind/Matter Dualism = Gnosticism = Heresy

So I'm neither type of Dualist... Nor am I a strict Materialist, nor an Idealist.Dude, I get the impression from your posts that you are a Christian...
so you think you have a soul and believe in an afterlife...
therefore you believe your mind will exist without your body...
and you believe you actually have a body...
therefore you are a dualist.

The Liberated Ones']Dude, I get the impression from your posts that you are a Christian...

Yes.

The Liberated Ones']
so you think you have a soul and believe in an afterlife...

Yes/No... A soul and spirit [not the same thing], and yes an "afterlife" of a sorts.

The Liberated Ones']
therefore you believe your mind will exist without your body...

No... I do not...

The Liberated Ones']
and you believe you actually have a body...

Yes..

The Liberated Ones']
therefore you are a dualist.

No, I'm not...

You certainly make alot of assumptions upon what other people believe... And they are that, assumptions...

You are in no position to tell others what they believe...

I am not a dualist...
I am not a materialist...
-and-
I am not an idealist...

And those are not the only alternatives....

No, I'm not...

You certainly make alot of assumptions upon what other people believe... And they are that, assumptions...

You are in no position to tell others what they believe...

I am not a dualist...
I am not a materialist...
-and-
I am not an idealist...

And those are not the only alternatives....I apologize if I have misinterpreted you... I was under the impression that all non-atheistic Christians believed that their personality (i.e., mind) was linked to their immortal soul that would continue on after the flesh died. (And thus Dualism).

I must be missing something, but could you give me an example of a situation where you are not Dualist (mind and body), Materialist (just body) or Idealist (just mind)? They do seem to describe the full spectrum of the theories?

What the heck does subject and objective "so deeply intertwined" mean?

If you want the best answer, read the Critique of Pure Reason.

For the moment, briefly, it means that while "I" am not wholly material, there is no such thing as an "I" without external material reality; on the other hand, 'reality-as-we-know-it' is a matter of how 'what-is' (which is always beyond us) interacts with our perception... so it's hard to get 'mind' completely out of 'the world' either.

For Kant, the immaterial "I" of apperception is conditioned by the "internal sense" of duration in time... but time can only be perceived as change in external reality.

Thus, Kant preserves both material and immaterial 'substance', but without falling into dualism. There cannot be one without the other.

Thus, Kant preserves both material and immaterial 'substance', but without falling into dualism. There cannot be one without the other.If it preserves both material and immaterial 'substance' how is it not dualism?

Identity Theory and Elimitivism(sp??) are both variations on Materialism but still have fundamental differences.

The Liberated Ones']I apologize if I have misinterpreted you... I was under the impression that all non-atheistic Christians believed that their personality (i.e., mind) was linked to their immortal soul that would continue on after the flesh died. (And thus Dualism).

I must be missing something, but could you give me an example of a situation where you are not Dualist (mind and body), Materialist (just body) or Idealist (just mind)? They do seem to describe the full spectrum of the theories?

Classical christian theology is not dualist.... That is, there is no differentiation, or seperate treatings between forms. Rather, each one is part of, and operates with the other.... the "mind" is an operation of the "person"; but the "person" can be seen in three basic "sections"; Body, Soul and Spirit... Without all three "elements" there is no "person".

Beauty saves. Beauty heals. Beauty motivates. Beauty unites. Beauty returns us to our origins, and here lies the ultimate act of saving, of healing, of overcoming dualism.

Classical christian theology is not dualist.... That is, there is no differentiation, or seperate treatings between forms. Rather, each one is part of, and operates with the other.... the "mind" is an operation of the "person"; but the "person" can be seen in three basic "sections"; Body, Soul and Spirit... Without all three "elements" there is no "person".Interesting. So "you" don't get to go to heaven when you die, "you" will no longer exist...

I would have thought that if your self were made up of both material and immaterial components that is a form of dualism?

Beauty saves. Beauty heals. Beauty motivates. Beauty unites. Beauty returns us to our origins, and here lies the ultimate act of saving, of healing, of overcoming dualism.Your point? That beauty is the expression of materialist perfection? Or, are you just trying to be poetic?

The Liberated Ones']Interesting. So "you" don't get to go to heaven when you die, "you" will no longer exist...

I would have thought that if your self were made up of both material and immaterial components that is a form of dualism?

Your point? That beauty is the expression of materialist perfection? Or, are you just trying to be poetic?

perhaps

How many people here are dualist or materialist and please state your reason why. And if your not familiar with what both means here: Dualism means you believe in reelightment also that you believe in a spiritual world,god,. Many buddhist or dualist. Materialist believe in only physical objects, MANY(NOT ALL)materialist are considered atheist.

Dualism can mean two external physical material worlds (the afterlife as a 'perfected' material and the current life as material), and Dualism can mean that ones own ideas constitutes partially the world without oneself, that it is only 'half-way' external, but that there is a "Noumenon" of some kind also.

So in theory, one could even believe (oddly as it sounds) in a Dualism wherein the current world is purely Ideal, a creation of ones own perception, but that there is an actual material (atomistic) afterlife. (Somewhat of a 'The Matrix' senario)

These are two ways of looking at Dualism completely not considering the 'good/evil' Dualism, or strict 'earthly/spiritual' Dualism.

Dualism can mean two external physical material worlds (the afterlife as a 'perfected' material and the current life as material), and Dualism can mean that ones own ideas constitutes partially the world without oneself, that it is only 'half-way' external, but that there is a "Noumenon" of some kind also.

So in theory, one could even believe (oddly as it sounds) in a Dualism wherein the current world is purely Ideal, a creation of ones own perception, but that there is an actual material (atomistic) afterlife. (Somewhat of a 'The Matrix' senario)

These are two ways of looking at Dualism completely not considering the 'good/evil' Dualism, or strict 'earthly/spiritual' Dualism.

You couldn't have said it better

The Liberated Ones']If it preserves both material and immaterial 'substance' how is it not dualism?

Traditionally, dualism was the belief that there are two distinct and fundamental kinds of substance. For Kant, neither the material nor the immaterial is fundamental. Indeed, there really is no (knowable) "fundamental substance" for Kant, since that which is fundamental -- the thing-in-itself -- is forever beyond our grasp.

More recently, the philosophy of mind has used dualism in a somewhat narrower (or broader, depending how you look at it) sense. Dualism here is simply the belief that mind and matter are two radically different kinds of thing. In this sense, Kant might be considered a dualist (although this is not by any means obvious).

I was under the impression that this discussion revolved about the former, older and, in a sense, more robust (what exactly philosophers of mind mean by "radically different" substances is far from clear) definition. If so, then I maintain that Kant was not a dualist, nor was he either a strict materialist or idealist.

On the other hand, if we are speaking only in terms of the philosophy of mind, then I believe the issue of Kant's classification is at least up for debate.

Traditionally, dualism was the belief that there are two distinct and fundamental kinds of substance. For Kant, neither the material nor the immaterial is fundamental. Indeed, there really is no (knowable) "fundamental substance" for Kant, since that which is fundamental -- the thing-in-itself -- is forever beyond our grasp.
He seems a very strange fellow. How can the material not be the fundamental substance? Is substance defined differently?

The Liberated Ones']Interesting. So "you" don't get to go to heaven when you die, "you" will no longer exist...

I would have thought that if your self were made up of both material and immaterial components that is a form of dualism?

1. Not when I die, but eventually... However, after death one does not "Cease to exist"...

2. Not two components, three...

You know, there are only two materials on earth?

Water, and everything else...