In the paper the author asks the question: what does being a “good” materialist today mean? Does being a “good materialist” mean being a materialist of mathematized nature itself, a materialist without man and history, without a human subject, and even without a witness? Does being a “good materialist” mean being a materialist of absolute contingency, a materialist of separate and unconnected things of this world? Or to be a “good materialist” means to be a materialist of sensual, Renaissance nature, a materialist aware of the positioning of matter in history, a materialist who even places his abstract thinking in the world as a temporary product of the current economic situation, and treats “the movement of thoughts” as a function of the “movement of atoms”?