Say no more. This Soviet Era textbook from the 1930's explains both idealist and materialist dialectic, and also the difference between dialectical materialism and "philistine" (a favorite term of Lenin') materialism.For instance>It is often supposed that the [dialectical] materialist conception of history is a form of fatalism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. On the contrary it holds that man is a self-directing organism. But consciousness and physiological processes are not two separate things. The organism man is a physiological mechanism that knows what it is doing. The mistake hitherto has been to make a false antithesis. If a physiological mechanism then not self-directing. If self-directing then parallelism or interactionism. Modern psychology, and also dialectical materialism, goes back to Aristotle, man is a “minding” animal.>“Consciousness, instead of being a stream outside of the process of physiological change, is simply a characteristic of some facts of organic behaviour.” When a particular movement is made which intervenes in the course of events, that particular movement is only explicable on the ground that when it took place the organism knew what the effect on his environment was going to be before it occurred.>This is also true socially. Man is conditioned but not determined by social structure and the stage of economic development. An airman is most strictly conditioned by the laws of flight and his machine, by the changing atmosphere and his supplies of petrol and electricity; but he is free in so far as he accepts, understands, and utilizes those conditions.Another excerpt>Man is partly determined by his environment. But his relation to his environment is not a static one. In the first place the environment itself is as much the creation of man as man is the creation of the environment. Interaction is continuous.pdf of the book:https://www.redstarpublishers.org/txtbkMarxPhilwIndx.pdf
It's pretty simple>how to taxonomy
>>25280116What's the difference between dialectic materialism and mechanical materialism?
>>25280116>On the contrary it holds that man is a self-directing organismI swear, determinists can apparently just spout whatever inane nonsense comes to their mind to dodge the fatalist accusations and get away with it. One could shoot them and it would as ethically inconsequential as putting bread in the oven
>>25280150The more I read the ancients, the more I realize that there is literally nothing new under the sun.
>>25280165>>25280116Take this for example too.>Man is partly determined by his environment. But his relation to his environment is not a static one.Why do these people do this? Where on earth is the concept of stasis coming from? Because it definitely isn't implied by the statement "man is determined by his environment." They just pull retarded ideas out of their asses to fulfill conditions literally no one was asking for. It's shit that you can see an LLM spout mindlessly today.
>>25280165>>25280180Calm down bro your full on mad
>>25280165>>25280180It's because they are literally functionally retarded. They cannot even stop to think critically for one second that the statement "an act that intervenes in the course of events" presupposes the very thing that is in question and therefore does not even count as engagement. They literally cannot think for once that the act itself is just a part of the same causal process devoid of metaphysical agency.
>>25280185>yourESL newfags aren't even rrying anymore. Go back to TikTok or something.
>>25280192No, the book talks about what you refer to, "continuity" materialism, but contrasts that with dialectical materialism's emphasis on emergence. Dialectical materialism resolves contradiction through emergence. To "continuity" materialists, matter is a closed system which moves around sort of like billiard balls. In dialectical materialism, as per the textbook, emergences allows for functionally new substances like mind, out of matter, but is unlike dualism which makes these two compartmentalized, eternal substances. Emergence is a key word and used over and over
>>25280341In short, it's bullshit like I said. They pull concepts out of their asses to solve a condition no one was asking for. Emergence just shows the utter poverty of materialism, continuous or dialectical.
>>25280367So...magic?
>>25280370Emergence might as well be magic. Matter itself is magical, a thing that is in itself devoid of secondary qualities but still somehow exists even thpugh you cannot even imagine a box that is invisible.
>>25280385If we don't quite understand something we needn't call it magic
>>25280341>Dialectical materialism resolves contradiction through emergenceIt does not. Emergence does not mean that the consciousness is free or able to "intervene" in the "course of events." That is literally just shit marxist retards tell themselves to make their lives and impotent activism seem more meaningful to themselves.
>>25280389Ok, then why did you bring up magic? Do you think that dualism or, say, Berkeleyan immaterialism is uniquely "magical"? If Descartes cannot explain exactly how mind influences matter, then I suppose we needn't call his ideas magical.
>>25280396If I tell you anything I imagine instantly becomes reality, what do you call that? Or if I say I am immortal and my mind has existed always, what of that?
>>25280393>A textbook written in the USSR under Stalin was about "impotent activism"
>>25280415I'm sure this sounds witty to a person that has not read much philosophy, but Berkeley distinguished between passive perception and active. Or are you saying that your imaginations are not real as in "non-existent"? In that case, then you might be an actual p-zombie.Regarding the second, I'd say that you might be a platonist. Do you want me to say that you believe in magic just because plato cannot quite explain or positively prove transmigration? If so, then I might as well call emergence magic unless you admit that it is a fictitious concept that only has psychological utility for people but does not actually make mind into some causally potent and independent substance that "intervenes" on the causal chain. Good luck with that.
>>25280433I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the soviets where the only people to peddle this nonsense or that they had reached such an enlightened state as to not care about whether their vain politicking was actually originating in their authentic substance and wasn't just predetermined.
>>25280442Obviously if I do surgery on your brain I can alter your mind so I do not mean to suggest that mind is on another plane or reality. Just that it is qualitatively different and cannot be reduced to its material composition. Quantative and qualitative are of major importance here, including in the textbook, since capitalism seeks to reduce all qualitative values to quantative ones (commodify them).
>>25280415Why do midwits resort to pathetic rhetoric like this. What is it called, poisoning the well?
>>25280460>Obviously if I do surgery on your brain I can alter your mind so I do not mean to suggest that mind is on another plane or reality.This does not mean anything on the level of ontology. If I shoot you in the head and you die, then that does not mean somehow that invisible matter is somehow real. Again, you are just philosophically retarded.Your schizo point about quality and capitalism is completely irrelevant.
>>25280116It's a bunch of nothing. It's a shame socialism was tainted by it. I guess back then all the intellectual Germans felt the need to latch onto that drivel.
>>25280475Ontology is doing a lot of work here. I did not speak of terminating the mind's connection to the body, I spoke of altering the mind
>>25280464Lmao how is it any more pathetic than the arguments brought against dialectical materialist itt?
>>25280512There were plenty of non-Marxist socialists but they have mostly died away because they don't have any substantial intellectual worldview as an alternative to liberalism's.
I'm so low iq for this I don't even know where to start
>>25280757It’s all just a bunch of bullshit anyway
>>25280197Bro reaching levels of unc never before thought possible
>>25280192it doesn't presuppose it because it doesn't treat it in the way that you do with your formalistic logical framework. your ascribing an inherent objectivity in the actions of human beings disregarding the subjective nature of our existence, where our meddling in the unconscious objective process of labour entails a subjective interpretation, the same subjective interpretation that gave birth to the arts (philosophy itself) please lets be kinder to eachother
>>25280116>>25280116>the organism knew what the effect on his environment was going to be before it occurred.>In the first place the environment itself is as much the creation of man as man is the creation of the environmentThere were significant periods in which Hegel fully or in part was restricted, because of Neo-Kantian things like that. Concrete necessity obliges that 'class relations' be corrected from being subjected to abstractions of usurious finance Capital. 'Dialectical Materialism' sublates the reified German Idealist Ideology toward New Soviet Man. Or something.
>>25280116gobbledygook made by comrades that will stay in airconditioned rooms while I turn large rocks into little rocks.
right answer + wrong answer = righter answer
>>25281165so it's a logical OR?
>>25280116Idk ask Unruhe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwy8I2iPwH0
>>25280116I don't know why anons are giving you such a hard time. The book rec is interesting by itself, being a Soviet textbook and all, and I think it rebuts some of the criticisms Western academics had about Marxism in the years to come. >>It is often supposed that the [dialectical] materialist conception of history is a form of fatalism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. On the contrary it holds that man is a self-directing organism. But consciousness and physiological processes are not two separate things.This part especially makes me think about the common postmodern "credulity to metanarratives" line. Is it really a metanarrative if it's not fatalistic?
>>25281171>so it's a logical OR?more like exclusive OR -> XOR but more of fuzzy nature. >>25280460>seeks to reduce all qualitative values to quantative ones (commodify them).this is one of the antagonists. its opposite stems from the qualitative change in demands on labor in the process of capitalism's evolution. The demand for mental (qualitative demands) labor led to:- qualitative improvement in the education of workers- more loyal attitude towards workers due to limited supply in the field of mind labor- and the end result is greater demands from labor on capitalists. Complex minds require qualitatively complex relationships.All this somehow worked before the qualitative changes in AI+robotics. Now, the main question is: can humans be replaced by AI by robots? If so, then all of Marx’s classes based theory can be thrown into the trash and relations move to the dialectic of confrontation of forces in the struggle for limited resources.imo, Marx's theory was originally utopian even without AI+robots. A materialistic paradise copied from Abrahamic religions that does not take into account the ego induced entropy of relationships.Endlessly oscillating society can't reach Nirvana.
>>25281347>qualitative improvement in the education of workersAs Marx says, mental labor and physical labor are deliberately and increasingly bifurcated in capitalism with the mental portion being reduced more and moreAutomation of all work was a big rage in the early 1900's and was "just around the corner". The idea of automating all work (a perpetual motion machine) is used to counter seeing socialism as the only way out of this mess, as well as masking the actual purpose of the reserve army of laborHuman individuals are emergent properties of humanity. Literacy and language and everything we use to self-define "I" was created by extremely complex societies, and without that we would not be very different from chimps. Human society is a superorganism, not a social compact between fungible ego-organisms.
>>25280116i dont really think anyone uses this sort of 'taxonomic' view.a dialectic is an observation or theory of how things change. the last quote re : man environment gets to that point. thesis environment shapes man, counter man shapes environment, then instead of arguing one or the other you get a dialectical resolution, ie the continuous interaction.
>>25280159The real scandal is that dialectical materialism is really idealism, it transparently smuggles in Hegelian idealist influences by ascribing a teleological directional trajectory to history and material evolution. Yet to assert that material reality is both the primary determinant of consciousness and *guided*, is to assert that it has mental properties. A famous contrast: Example: The French RevolutionHegel’s view: The idea of “freedom” was maturing in Spirit. This idea clashed with the old idea of “divine right of kings.” The clash resolved into a new stage of consciousness (modern constitutional state).Marx’s view: Feudal agriculture couldn’t keep up with rising merchant and industrial capitalism. The bourgeoisie (owners of factories/mills) gained economic power, clashed with feudal nobles, and overthrew them. People’s thinking about freedom came after their material lives changed. This antinomy is itself is subsumable by Hegelian dialectic (it becomes information consumable by consciousness aiding its expansion) meaning that Hegel always has the upper hand over Marx. To assert a world where the material can affect the mental is to always assume a world where the mental is somewhat prefigured in the material. The null hypothesis here would be that the material world is purely chaotic and random, with no implicit direction or "will"
>>25280396I mean it is. Its a religion, more or less.
>>25281447it doesnt really ascribe a teleological directional trajectory. who knows when what people thought about freedom. they werent all happy sufferers, were they? but the opportunity for change was the product of the material conditions. the opportunity for consciousness could be both whenever and also entirely dependent on the material circumstances precluding certain concepts.to assert something isnt to always assume anything.
>>25281362>Automation of all work was a big rage in the early 1900's and was "just around the corner". The idea of automating all work (a perpetual motion machine) is used to counter seeing socialism as the only way out of this mess, as well as masking the actual purpose of the reserve army of laborThis doesn't change the fact that the complexity of mental labor led to qualitative improvements in social interaction over time. The introduction of complex automated systems also forced a change in labor quality requirements for the broader masses.Furthermore, Marx didn't foresee that automation could reach the realm of security, and perhaps he assumed that labor-capitalist interaction framework would always exist in which labor demands could be negotiated either peacefully or by application of force. This means that, according to his theory, the necessary balance of opposing forces should have been maintained throughout evolution.But this may change in the very near future.
>>25281518forces dont balance. it is not evolution.
>>25281525>forces dont balance. it is not evolution.The Marx theory is actually an evolution theory of social interaction. How then can opposing antagonisms interact if they are not comparable in strength? Are you talking within context of dialectics?
>>25281542i think theres something off about saying 'forces balance' as opposed to saying, for example, class struggle. for class struggle to happen, say, enough people need to vote, for example. but thats not really any sort of change that you might call 'forces balancing' - though you could. but its not physics. its anguish and determination. and there is not balancing that is 'necessary'. theres just seems something passive about these terms.
>>25281447The only scandal here is the concept of ideology this so-called antimony forces the analyst to confront.
>>25280192The text is not making an argument here, it is establishing its presuppositions. You’re the one who is functionally retarded and it reminds me of something a professor said, “a little logic is a dangerous thing”. You’re insisting on a dichotomy that the author thinks is meaningless and he has explained why. I have no skin in this game I just think you’re a pseud. When you disagree with someone the issue is almost never logical, it’s presuppositional.
>>25281518marx early writings were more of an idealistic teleological kind like you say, but it nevertheless evolved into a materialistic conception of history unfettered by idealistic dogma> Yet to assert that material reality is both the primary determinant of consciousness and *guided*, is to assert that it has mental properties.you're making your own interpretation here. marx never implied this. he basically said that when man interacts with the environment around him, he is influenced it insofar as he is limited, but as he continues to interact with the environment, the environment itself becomes something shaped by man, a subjective force, which itself influences the consciousness of man. not as much that material reality has mental properties in itself, but that when interfered with by the subject it naturally is arranged in a way that can provoke consciousness by itself> To assert a world where the material can affect the mental is to always assume a world where the mental is somewhat prefigured in the material. The null hypothesis here would be that the material world is purely chaotic and random, with no implicit direction or "will"consciousness isn't some divine eternal otherworldy thing like you imply it is. it might be special inasmuch as it is really advanced matter that has no parallel yet in the universe, but thats all it is. to say anything otherwise would be to assume that its something outside the realm of the material when it is directly shaped by it. marx merely transfigured hegels dialectic on its head and shoved it into a materialistic root. tendencies might arise in human history that encourage it to take a certain course of action, like colonialism and resistance, but to say its teleological is almost more of a confession rather than a classification
>>25281552By what means do antagonisms interact with each other? This can be called struggle; force is merely a synonym.In my opinion, dialectics can be applied not only to humans but also to nature, and perhaps even partially to its immaterial part.Perhaps I didn't fully explain my thought in previous posts.In the phrase "Unity and Struggle of Opposites," unity describes the interdependence between opposites, while struggle describes conflict over share of produced value. Let's list these unities and oppositions that are empirically known in relation to capitalism:- Struggle - the capitalist aims to maximize profits and strives to reduce wages. The capitalist has the ability to force labor to fulfill its conditions.- Struggle - labor can physically resist through protests, strikes, and uprisings.- Unity - the capitalist cannot destroy labor, since it depends on it for profit, he is in competition with other capitalists; and at a higher level, the aggregate of capitalists from one country is confronted against others.Please correct me if I've missed anything.This is the balance of these opposites, which can oscillate in one direction or another, but it remains.In the case I described above (robots and artificial intelligence), the conditions of unity are violated. The capitalist no longer needs labor. In fact, he would even want to eliminate labor, with some exceptions, in order to have more resources for himself.In this case, dialectic will exist only in the realm of capitalists' confrontation in the struggle for resources. If there is a peaceful agreement, entropy in the relationship will decrease to low levels. If this is communism, then it is only for capitalists.
>>25282558force isnt a synonym, and definately not 'merely'youre too casual with your language, and use that to install content sideways.
