Absurdities of immaterialism — Edition Insights

(0 User reviews) 462

In Category - Political Philosophy

Authors: Pratt, Orson, 1811-1881 Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2014 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Latter Day Saint churches -- Controversial literature; Taylder, T. W. P. Materialism of the Mormons or Latter-day Saints, examined and exposed Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 28,740

Reading time 125 min

Text sections 3

For Absurdities of immaterialism — Edition Insights, the stored edition analysis reports 28,740 words, 2 hr 5 min estimated reading time, and 3 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 23.4 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Latter Day Saint churches -- Controversial literature,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #45005

Orson Pratt's 1852 rebuttal to T. W. P. Taylder's anti-Mormon pamphlet, arguing for materialism by critiquing immaterialist philosophy, using geometry and logic to assert that truth and mind are material.

Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg45005

Read the Text

Nothings were "brought together into the smallest compass imaginable," they would "there exist without any inconvenience for want of room." Everything which the Immaterialist says, of the existence of _Spirit,_ will apply without any variation, to the existence of _Nothing._ If he says that his god cannot exist "Here" or "There," the same is true of _Nothing._ If he affirms that he cannot exist "Now" and "Then," the same can, in all truth, be affirmed of _Nothing._ If he declares, that he is "unextended," so is _Nothing._ If he asserts that he is "indivisible" and "without parts," so is _Nothing._ If he declares that a spirit "occupies no room and fills no space," neither does _Nothing._ If he says a spirit is "Nowhere," so is _Nothing._ All that he affirms of the one, can, in like manner, and, with equal truth, be affirmed of the other. Indeed, they are only two words, each of which express precisely the same idea. There is no more absurdity in calling _Nothing_ a substance, and clothing it with Almighty powers, than there is in making a substance out of that which is precisely like nothing, and imagining it to have Almighty powers. Therefore, an immaterial god is a deified Nothing, and all his worshippers are atheistical idolators.

A SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE IS MATERIAL.

That spirit or mind has a relation to space, is evident from the fact of its location in the body. The body itself exists in space, therefore every particle of substance which it contains must exist in space. No point can be assumed in the body but what has a relation to the surrounding space or extension. Therefore spirit must have a relation to extension or it cannot exist in the body. All unextended points have a relation to space, though they are no part of space, and do not occupy space; but an unextended substance to have no relation to space cannot be as much as a point. A point is a _located_ nothing, but an unextended substance is nothing, having no _location._

What can be more unphilosophical, contradictory, and absurd, than to assume that something can exist that is "unextended,"--that "occupies no room, fills no space,"--has "no parts?" We ask our readers to pause for a moment, and endeavour to conceive of a substance that has no parts. Grasp it if you can in your imaginations. Think of its existing where there is no space. Conceive, if you can in your imaginations. Think of its existing where there is no space. Conceive, if you can, of a locality outside of the bounds of a boundless space. Do not your judgments, and every power of your minds revolt at the absolute absurdities and palpable contradictions? By this time, perhaps, you are ready to inquire, can it be possible that any man in all the world could believe in such impossibilities? Yes, it is possible. These very absurdities now stand in bold relief, not only in the most approved philosophical works of modern times, but incorporated in the very "Articles of Religion" which millions have received as their rule of faith.

That spirit or mind has a relation to duration is manifest in the act of remembering. Through the memory the mind perceives itself to be the same conscious being _now_, that it was, an hour, a day, a year ago; it perceives that itself has existed through a certain period of duration. There is as much certainty of its own relations to duration as there is of any such relation in any other substance whatever. If there is no certainty that mind has a relation to duration, there is no certainty that any other substance has such a relation; hence all would be uncertainty, even our own existence. Bishop Berkeley denied the existence of the material world, and the first Article of his religion swept away the immaterial world from _space;_ and the modern immaterialist sweeps it away from all relation to _time_. So between them all, space and time are pretty well cleaned out; not so much as a nest egg left to replenish the great infinite void.

Continue Reading →

Orson Pratt, an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wrote Absurdities of Immaterialism in 1852 as a direct reply to T. W. P. Taylder's pamphlet The Materialism of the Mormons or Latter-day Saints, Examined and Exposed. The catalog lists this work under 'Latter Day Saint churches -- Controversial literature,' and the excerpts confirm a combative, philosophical tone. Pratt opens by challenging Taylder's claim that the question 'What is truth?' was unanswerable before the New Testament, asserting instead that basic truths—like 'space is boundless'—are self-evident and independent of scripture. This sets up a defense of materialism, the doctrine that all existence, including mind and spirit, is material.

Pratt's Definition of Truth and Its Independence

Pratt begins by dismantling Taylder's assertion that the New Testament uniquely answers 'What is truth?' He argues that truth exists independently of human ideas or divine revelation. For example, he states, 'It is a truth that something exists in space,' and that geometric truths like 'the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles' were known before the Bible. He criticizes Dr. Good's definition that truth is 'the connexion and agreement, or repugnancy and disagreement, of our ideas,' calling it erroneous because truth is independent of ideas. Pratt insists that even if neither the universe nor God existed, 'eternal, unchangeable, and necessary truths' like boundless space and endless duration would still exist. This philosophical move establishes a foundation for materialism: if truth is material or grounded in material reality, then immaterialism (the belief in non-material spirit or mind) is logically flawed.

Critique of Immaterialist Philosophers

Pratt engages with several philosophers to expose what he sees as absurdities in immaterialism. He references Hobbes, Spinoza, Priestley, and Darwin (Erasmus, likely) as materialists who wrongly thought thought and feeling arise from organized matter. He then turns to Dr. Brown, who argued that a system of particles cannot have properties not possessed by individual particles. Pratt agrees with Brown on this point, but criticizes Brown for then supposing 'an individual unity to be inconsistent with extension and parts,' which Pratt calls 'an absurdity still more glaring.' He also mocks the idea that thought could be 'little particles of matter,' using Brown's own reductio ad absurdum: 'the twentieth part of an affirmation, or the quarter of a hope' is as nonsensical as 'the north and east corners of a comparison.' Pratt's method is to use logical consistency to defend a materialist view of mind.

Structure and Rhetorical Strategy

The excerpts show a clear structure: Pratt quotes Taylder, then systematically refutes each point using logic, geometry, and appeals to common sense. He often poses rhetorical questions, such as 'What does this author mean by the foregoing assertions?' to guide the reader. The text is dense with philosophical references, but Pratt avoids technical jargon, aiming for a broad audience. He also uses analogies, like comparing thought to geometric figures, to make his arguments concrete. Notably, the excerpts do not include any narrative or historical context about Mormonism itself; the focus is entirely on metaphysical debate. This suggests that the book is a polemical work intended to defend Latter-day Saint materialism against Protestant critiques, rather than a doctrinal exposition.

Readers should approach Absurdities of Immaterialism as a period piece of religious-philosophical controversy. Pratt's arguments are rooted in 19th-century metaphysics and may seem dated, but they reveal how early Mormon intellectuals engaged with broader philosophical currents. The text rewards careful attention to its logical structure and use of sources, though it assumes familiarity with the works of Priestley, Brown, and others. For those interested in the intersection of religion and philosophy, this pamphlet offers a unique window into a forgotten debate.

That rainy afternoon, Pratt’s stubborn geometry softened into something stranger—his insistence that even truth has weight left me porous. Later, staring at the window’s drips, I reached for Introduction to Non-Violence — Context and Discussion Introduction to Non-Violence — Context and Discussion, and found the same quiet firmness, only turned toward gentleness. One book’s walls became another’s doorway.