[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord

File: 1608528283507.jpg ( 71.02 KB , 1280x720 , ev.jpg )


How do dialectics explain evolution?


Monke become human


How does chemistry explain international relations? How does nutrition science explain architecture?

The big questions of our lifetime.


are you pretending or are you really this stupid


Thesis: monke eat banana
Antithesis: monke no eat banana
Synthesis: monke evolve


So your saying dialectical materialism isn’t the much purported way to understand reality, but rather only useful as a tool of social analysis? Shame on you, tardo.


What? Dude he actually BTFO you, you don't even realize it lol.

Where did he say that?

Holy shit the brainlets are out today.


yeah you're a pretty good baiter I'll give you that


File: 1608528284062-0.png ( 748 KB , 1280x720 , Richard Lewontin quote.png )

File: 1608528284062-1.jpg ( 100.56 KB , 738x471 , dialectics and evolution.jpg )


The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man By Engels


>First, owing to their way of living which meant that the hands had different functions than the feet when climbing, these apes began to lose the habit of using their hands to walk and adopted a more and more erect posture. This was the decisive step in the transition from ape to man.

>All extant anthropoid apes can stand erect and move about on their feet alone, but only in case of urgent need and in a very clumsy way. Their natural gait is in a half-erect posture and includes the use of the hands. The majority rest the knuckles of the fist on the ground and, with legs drawn up, swing the body through their long arms, much as a cripple moves on crutches. In general, all the transition stages from walking on all fours to walking on two legs are still to be observed among the apes today. The latter gait, however, has never become more than a makeshift for any of them.

>It stands to reason that if erect gait among our hairy ancestors became first the rule and then, in time, a necessity, other diverse functions must, in the meantime, have devolved upon the hands. Already among the apes there is some difference in the way the hands and the feet are employed. In climbing, as mentioned above, the hands and feet have different uses. The hands are used mainly for gathering and holding food in the same way as the fore paws of the lower mammals are used. Many apes use their hands to build themselves nests in the trees or even to construct roofs between the branches to protect themselves against the weather, as the chimpanzee, for example, does. With their hands they grasp sticks to defend themselves against enemies, or bombard their enemies with fruits and stones. In captivity they use their hands for a number of simple operations copied from human beings. It is in this that one sees the great gulf between the undeveloped hand of even the most man-like apes and the human hand that has been highly perfected by hundreds of thousands of years of labour. The number and general arrangement of the bones and muscles are the same in both hands, but the hand of the lowest savage can perform hundreds of operations that no simian hand can imitate – no simian hand has ever fashioned even the crudest stone knife.

>The first operations for which our ancestors gradually learned to adapt their hands during the many thousands of years of transition from ape to man could have been only very simple ones. The lowest savages, even those in whom regression to a more animal-like condition with a simultaneous physical degeneration can be assumed, are nevertheless far superior to these transitional beings. Before the first flint could be fashioned into a knife by human hands, a period of time probably elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to us appears insignificant. But the decisive step had been taken, the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation.

>Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations, through the inheritance of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods of time, bones that had undergone special development and the ever-renewed employment of this inherited finesse in new, more and more complicated operations, have given the human hand the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini.

>But the hand did not exist alone, it was only one member of an integral, highly complex organism. And what benefited the hand, benefited also the whole body it served; and this in two ways.

>In the first place, the body benefited from the law of correlation of growth, as Darwin called it. This law states that the specialised forms of separate parts of an organic being are always bound up with certain forms of other parts that apparently have no connection with them. Thus all animals that have red blood cells without cell nuclei, and in which the head is attached to the first vertebra by means of a double articulation (condyles), also without exception possess lacteal glands for suckling their young. Similarly, cloven hoofs in mammals are regularly associated with the possession of a multiple stomach for rumination. Changes in certain forms involve changes in the form of other parts of the body, although we cannot explain the connection. Perfectly white cats with blue eyes are always, or almost always, deaf. The gradually increasing perfection of the human hand, and the commensurate adaptation of the feet for erect gait, have undoubtedly, by virtue of such correlation, reacted on other parts of the organism. However, this action has not as yet been sufficiently investigated for us to be able to do more here than to state the fact in general terms.

Also read the works of Richard Lewontin (Evolutionist, geneticist and Marxist)


>Mfw Engels summed up Human evolution a century before we ever found Lucy


Nah actually engels was proved wrong by anon in 2020 who discovered that dialectics means thesis antithesis synthesis and isn't applicable to nature


The guy also prophesied fucking global warming and both Marx and him later in life saw the prospect of global capitalism and imperialism as well. This is not some new fact. Dialectical materialism is applicable to all material realities.


>The guy also prophesied fucking global warming
really? where did he write that? I mean I can imagine what led him to that point, the quantity of carbon leading to a change in quality and rapid changes taking place.


warning, the following is a seriously red pilled position, if you are not in full, disciplined control of your third eye you probably can’t handle it ahem, Life itself is in contradiction with the inhospitable conditions of the material universe. Life pushes against the ceaseless destruction, somehow. As it does, it adapts parts of the destructive process, takes them on board, thus it does not destroy destruction, rather it takes on parts of it, until life is capable of its own destructions. It synthesises that destruction into its own being, and thus is able to evolve through the destruction of other competitive life. With humans of course, the key destructive capacity they found was teamwork, which lifted them above other forms of life. Fitting then, man is intent on his own destruction to a huge degree. He can never escape it.

The evolution of man is nothing but the life pushing against death, and the two resolving into a series of temporary compromises.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Existence itself is in contradiction with none existence. If there is something, there must also be nothing or what is something? Or, there is only endless something, but endlessness is an impossibly unless it is an endless nothing.


(keep in mind I'm on mobile)
Too broad a category (incl. the world as such).

>all material realities
Again, too broad a category. Also what's up with this weird pluralism (realities)?

So lemme learn u kids. Dialectics can't "explain" physics, chemistry, biology - it can merely inform them in different ways: taking them as human disciplines (science as practice, its history, ideology, class aspects, its models, internal and external structures, etc.) or as part of a general ontology (as with Badiou, Zizek, Johnston).

Iirc Sartre has a chapter in his Crit. of Dial. Reason where he completely tears apart this kind of blunt application od diamat to physics, chemistry, where you try to talk about atoms via Marxist concepts (antagonism, quantitative to qualitative change, negation of negation, etc.).

Evo. biology has a special status tho, because it introduces historical change into biology and it does reflect quite nicely the base (gene) / superstructure (inter-species interaction and behavior, interdependence of life and general/lifeless environment, "culture", learned behav., etc.). No wonder there are a lot of evobio Marxists around (Lewontin, Gould, etc.) but you still can't apply diamat to the DNA so bluntly like u faggots imply.

>being called retarded by retards




pure new age obscurantism


Yeah when you grow up you start reading famously revisionist authors and following their word as gospel whilst accusing others of doing the same


you dumb you read engels
me smart me read sartre, who also believed class wasn't significant


what are you even trying to say, pompous bitch?


File: 1608528285347.jpg ( 63.09 KB , 1280x720 , pj.jpg )

>this nigga
>calling anyone else pompous
wow dude




lol, whiny bitch, where was the USSR's variant of Lysenkoism in, say, chemistry, physics, maths, etc.? You literally can't apply diamat to empirical sciences or math "as-is"


Still waiting for u to explain, counter argue, or just utter some semi-comprehensive points beyond 'muh revisionism.'


i laugh at you retards that apply dialectical materualism to everything. it's like a fucking religion for some leftists.


Where did Sartre say that class was insignificant? The fucker even supported the 1956 invasion and was crucified for it in intellectual circles. You have no idea about what you try to speak of.


Sartre was never a communist to begin with. Existentialism as a philosophy owes very little to the Marxist ideological tradition.


Are you physically unable to answer simple questions, like, do you have some kind of handicap or sg hindering your ability to answer?


Panta rhei




mind: blown


how is it not simply a law of nature for lack of a better phrase? Biological structures are simply matter in a developed form, so why are dialectics suddenly useless at describing processes of more simple forms of matter?


I would say that Sartre never thought that class was relevant in the Marxist sense of the word. Mostly I'm just pointing out that defending Sartre's communist credentials is pretty stupid.


>Biological structures are simply matter in a developed form
No. shut the fuck up.


what are biological structures made of if not matter, unless you believe that every tree has a soul or some hippie shit like that?


It’s literally a way to look at history. One that has proved extremely accurate


That's historical materialism, but what about diamet in general


>not a single response explaining evolution with marxist dialectics
the absolute state


Diamat is more of a Stalinist buzzword than an actual Marxist thing.


He's deriving his argument from a french existentialist whilst acting exceedingly smug about it. So yes he's basically a hippie


This is why we should go back to using flags more often. You could have made it clear you're a liberal moron without having to get to this post


Biological structures' difference from regular stuff is the replication, propagation and mutations of its design rather than just matter. Like saying numbers are objects in matter.


Yeah because the greenhouse effect was already known of back then.
Not to shit on Engels but it doesn't take a supergenius to connect the dots.
>greenhouse gases warm the planet via the greenhouse effect
>we're producing more and more greenhouse gases from industry, agriculture, etc
>therefor the planet will get warmer over time
The fact that rightoids can't grasp this is because of decades of industry propaganda + massive stupidity.


I don't see how that's relevant. >>3320 is an example of dialectics explaining a natural process that isn't biological.


File: 1608528287589.jpg ( 23.5 KB , 565x432 , 1555448123062.jpg )

>This is what philosphyggers actually believe
>Philosophyggers think it's in any way shape or form necessary or intrinsic to science


Idk if dialectics can be used to explain natural phenomena but your description of biology was disgustingly inaccurate that I had to object.


File: 1608528287823.jpg ( 1.07 MB , 3194x2129 , the_thinker_chimp-41.jpg )

Organisms are in a dialectical conflict with their environment. The organism seeks to survive and reproduce, and their environment generally throws things at them that generally resist them doing just that. Thus the organism evolves along a certain path towards a greater ability to survive and reproduce in its given environment towards an eventual "perfected" state where any further mutation would cause it to be less likely to survive and/or reproduce, a state that invites no more change. However, generally the environment changes far faster than evolution can even begin to approach such a state, so evolution is a constant race towards an ever moving goalpost.


So instead of contributing you nitpicked at something that should have been taken as given. Autist moment.


Better to say nothing than to waste time saying completely inaccurate stuff to pollute everyone's mind with misconceptions.


>Like saying numbers are objects in matter.
Numbers are material too. Mathematicians are material and all the maths they produce are too.


posting moe is a litmus test for retardation


File: 1608528288223.jpg ( 41.31 KB , 680x834 , 0721ad65e03c124742d616f213….jpg )

Pythagoras will be rolling in his grave right now.


>Pythagoras will be rolling in his grave right now.
Numbers change the material world when humans use maths, immaterial numbers would be immaterial causes for material effects.


Engels foresaw WWI and more or less understood how the alliances would shake out too


Again you didn't read my post and invented your own narrative, I guess you're just an extreme narcissist


This shit is spooky, Life probably began due to the laws of thermodynamics, as a part of the Universe Life doesn’t exist as somehow an opposition to its physical properties. Life is entropy with consciousness.


I dont care all that much about the triangle cultist


Could we go over the laws of thermodynamics again. Serious. I want to make a point


>so evolution is a constant race towards an ever moving goalpost.

Just like my beloved leftypol threads. Based answer tho.


You made my day, anon, thanks


Not him but searching a little a found this
>The biological evolution may be explained through a thermodynamic theory. The four laws of thermodynamics are used to frame the biological theory behind evolution. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed. No life can create energy but must obtain it through its environment. The second law of thermodynamics states that energy can be transformed and that occurs everyday in lifeforms. As organisms take energy from their environment they can transform it into useful energy. This is the foundation of tropic dynamics.
>The general example is that the open system can be defined as any ecosystem that moves toward maximizing the dispersal of energy. All things strive towards maximum entropy production, which in terms of evolution, occurs in changes in DNA to increase biodiversity. Thus, diversity can be linked to the second law of thermodynamics. Diversity can also be argued to be a diffusion process that diffuses toward a dynamic equilibrium to maximize entropy. Therefore, thermodynamics can explain the direction and rate of evolution along with the direction and rate of succession.



But it is factually true? Marx never speaks about dialectical materialism. I thought everyone knew that it is more of a ML thing?


File: 1608528289459.jpg ( 156.77 KB , 682x900 , _8167cc179ef6c3c9ba84c19d….jpg )

lmao get filtered


>entropy diffuses
Entropy dispersing energy is half explained. Entropy also increases disorder, linking thermodynamics with information theory.


>Numbers are material too.


if numbers are not material what else are they ?




Math arises as a tool to aid humans in changing the material world. Like a shovel or a bulldozer, math too is material.


Bitch, stop posting this. I already responded to that shit several times. It's trash.


Evolution isn't real. Read Marx
>Human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the higher development is already known.


Lmao, he says the opposite

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]