Search results

each system observes all the others (environment) from it's own point of view based on it's own simplifying binary.

well it's an observation made from within sub-system of science/sociology (true/false); so, yeah, it won't have much use in, say, economy (payment/non-payment) or law (legal/illegal) or politics (power/no power; position/opposition). that's exactly the point. it's just an observations of how...

mega simplified version, because it would take a lot of effort to elucidate

since I already name-dropped Niklas Luhmann i can only riff on that a bit to make myself clear - when I say contingency I’m not trying to blow up frameworks or prove them wrong. society is as a bunch of separate ecosystems—politics, law, religion, economy (the field you and marxists in general...

so all criticism of marxism or dialectical materialism or that line of thinking in general is just hidden class interests?

this question is cognitively meaningless., any kind of verification requires observation and you ruled it out a priori. i mean, can you ask me the question without using human observation, language and concepts?

the whole point of his was exactly that conjunction is NOT a causation. causation as a necessary connection is a mental habit we project on regular observations not an intrinsic feature of reality.

hume's skepticism was epistemological not ontological. he was talking about how we interfere causality from constant conjunction, not denying brute and well known facts about material reality.

Why do you think contingency excludes laws of causation? it's not randomness, that's a different concept entirely.

contingency doesn' exclude the fact that systems are interconnected, that they influence each other or that they evolve and collide; it only means that their interactions and mutations follow no predetermined necessity. in short,, things could always have turned out otherwise. you have...

Contingency can be observed empirically, the changes of history, collapse and failure of communism, breakdowns of old systems and birth of new ones and so on; thing-in-itself is something that's outside empirical observations.

also, it would be silly to deny that capitalism could end up, through some sort of metamorphosis, turning us all into serfs, for example. but from my point of view - i cannot deny any possibilty imaginable, even global communism (although seems highly unlikley, at least i hope so)

i'm not indulging in any kind of apologetics about the beauties (or horrors) of free market either. it's just a dumb, amoral (but not immoral as many lefties moralize it) mechanism that tends to produce higher and higher general standarts of living wherever applied. Obviously it creates a...

no, because those improvements (not just in Eastern Europe, but in many parts of the globe) were due to contingency, as a side effecy you could say. it's not any sort of dialectical necessity or progress that's exactly the bigger point, that you see these contingencies (and predict their future...

you claim to reject foundationalism and fixed categories, but you insist that ‘matter as motion’ is ‘undeniably correct’ and exactly that sort of category. if you truly reject foundationalism - matter-in motion can’t serve as your ground any more than "consciousness" could. and on what...

because if you concede contradictions can resolve in non-teleological ways doesn’t your ‘asymmetrical dialectics’ collapse into simple description of change—not a law of progress towards global communism?

why must your asymmetrical contradictions resolve progressively toward higher syntheses, if not because you have smuggled hegel's teleological absolute into materialism?

i mean, it's circular and endlessley self-referential loop. which is ok, because nothing can escape that. the problem is more the claim that something, some form of knowledge can

if interconnectedness justifies using hegel’s theology to explain materialism, doesn’t your ‘matter-in-motion’ dissolve into the very idealism you dislike?

I don't deny it though