No.5064
There's been alot of talk lately of Metaphysics and Idealism as bad andf wrong
Contrary to Materialism and Dialectics which is the right method worldview etc
But I got the feeling alot of people use Idealism and Metaphysics interchangable without really understanding both
So I want to start a constructive discussion about these things
I'll start with a quote
The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)
-Lenin
The metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist world outlook sees things as isolated, static and one-sided. It regards all things in the universe, their forms and their species, as eternally isolated from one another and immutable. Such change as there is can only be an increase or decrease in quantity or a change of place. Moreover, the cause of such an increase or decrease or change of place is not inside things but outside them, that is, the motive force is external. Metaphysicians hold that all the different kinds of things in the universe and all their characteristics have been the same ever since they first came into being. All subsequent changes have simply been increases or decreases in quantity. They contend that a thing can only keep on repeating itself as the same kind of thing and cannot change into anything different.
-Mao
>>
No.5066
>>5065Thx for the contribution its a great book
>>
No.5074
this is why I personally shill for Infrared, I'm so sick of brainlet theorylets conflating Anglo-French materialism with Marx & Engels dialectical conception of materialism.
>>
No.5075
>>5074Could you eloberate on what you mean by
>Anglo-French Materialismdo you mean metaphyiscal materialism or smth else?
>>
No.5077
>>5076thx
I found it quite intersting that Haz connected the view of the british communist party on trans issues with this ideology
>>
No.5083
>>5077What should I listen to Haz in regards to Anglo materialism or are there other resources describing it?
>>
No.5084
nvm found the thread in the catalog
>>
No.5085
>>5083The two quotes above are form Mao's On Contradiction
Its a great read what you call Anglo Materialism is Metaphysical Materialism
>>
No.5086
>>5064>Metaphysicians hold that all the different kinds of things in the universe and all their characteristics have been the same ever since they first came into being. All subsequent changes have simply been increases or decreases in quantity. They contend that a thing can only keep on repeating itself as the same kind of thing and cannot change into anything different Ok, but assuming that Anglo Thought is Metaphysical, you won't find a single Analytical Philosopher or Scientist in the Anglosphere saying that, no? This whole stuff is really confusing
>>
No.5087
>>5086In my personal experiance this kind of metaphysical thinking is rather widespread in the soft sciences (like history sociology etc)
When we talk about analytical philosophy or stem you have to give me some examples on what you are talking about exactly
>>
No.5088
>>5087>analytical philosophy or stemNot entirely sure about the Analyticals, but nobody in STEM says the State of Affairs is static. Like literally nobody. Darwin didn't even think that so the Statement sounds like Strawmanning from Mao
>>
No.5089
>>5088I think what you are referring too is the vulgar evolutionist outlook
>>
No.5090
>>5089tbh i am rahter versed in the actual modern science of evolution but i never read Darwin so I cant really tell what exactly changed over the years but modern eolutionary theory proved the dialactical thinking right (as did many other stem fields) the modern natural sciences show us that the dialectical approach is right its the vulgar evolutionists that are wrong in their thinking not the field of evolution itself
>>
No.5091
I'll post two other quotes from the text to make more clear what mao is talking about and why the text was written
[This essay on philosophy was written by Comrade Mao Tse-tung after his essay "On Practice" and with the same object of overcoming the serious error of dogmatist thinking to be found in the Party at the time. Originally delivered as lectures at the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College in Yenan, it was revised by the author on its inclusion in his Selected Works.]
[This essay on philosophy was written by Comrade Mao Tse-tung after his essay "On Practice" and with the same object of overcoming the serious error of dogmatist thinking to be found in the Party at the time. Originally delivered as lectures at the Anti-Japanese Military and Political College in Yenan, it was revised by the author on its inclusion in his Selected Works.]
The criticism to which the idealism of the Deborin school has been subjected in Soviet philosophical circles in recent years has aroused great interest among us. Deborin's idealism has exerted a very bad influence in the Chinese Communist Party, and it cannot be said that the dogmatist thinking in our Party is unrelated to the approach of that school. Our present study of philosophy should therefore have the eradication of dogmatist thinking as its main objective.
It was written as a contribution to an internal debate in the party so its not really a critique of metaphysical thinking in stem but in the party you could say a false interpretation of the findings of modern science
>>
No.5139
>>5090nobody in Marxism is attacking scientific practice itself, calm down lol
>>
No.5140
>>5139Wasnt trying to be rude or anything just wanted to make a point about what vulgar evolutionism means
>>
No.5209
>>5207Ye. Most of dialectical materialism is about ironing out the inconsistencies of Hegel in his Philosophy of Right
>>
No.5211
>>5210There is definitly a difference between materialism and idealism
trying to find a middle point between both doesnt work with Hegel or Marx
Lenin called this out as dumb