Search results

if your critique of ‘religious doom’ requires you to borrow hegel's theology and philosophy’s tools (Marx), isn't your ‘materialism’ justa a prisoner of the very system it claims to escape?

obviously a foundational claim again

it's the same again. a claim made from within certain hegelian framework with no possibility of being proven (or disproven) if you step outside that framework. it's basically "trust me bro"

if your "matter-in-motion’" is beyond philosophy, why does explaining it require Hegel’s dialectics and his idealist theology?

if ‘materialism as matter-in-motion’ transcends philosophy and language, how do you articulate this truth without relying on the very philosophical constructs (words, ideas, frameworks) you dismiss as idealist?

But you just made a foundational ontological claim - the philosopher determines social being by social consciousness, whereas the materialist proper determines social consciousness by social being.

I mean, this distinction/observation was made from within a marxist framework, but is there any way of proving it by stepping outside the marxist framework itself? if this claim—that social being determines social consciousness—is internally consistent within marxism, but cannot be verified...

Is there any way of proving that this distinction is the correct distinction, the correct duality?

There is no outside, that's the main point. You can only observe from within and even then only partially, because you always observe set of frameworks from within your own particular framework which determines how you observe those other frameworks (and how they observe you, that's also important).

In what sense?

"welfare support and healthcare" but these two things have nothing whatsoever to do with market mechanisms as such, it's a political choice and responsibility

And what's the reason for this?

Is free market to blame for unsustainable population growth patterns? That's kind of everyones free choice, no?

What underlines this argument is simple self-referentiality or tautology - true communism hasn’t failed; it’s never been tried (except when it fails, which proves it wasn’t true communism); I think it's called No True Scotsman fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) which...

Poverty rates have drastically fallen and the life expectency has risen absolutley everywhere in the last few decades, which isn't the same as to say that there aren't countless and endless problems and which isn't to say that it won't reverse, but what has been achieved, has been achieved...

What actually brought, at least relativley speaking, some sort of prosperity to the non-Western world, was capitalist markets while all the communist experiments ended in somre sort of Pop Pot type of situation, ok, maybe not that dramatic, but deffo nothing too great.

Marx also predicted that workers living standarts will keep dropping and dropping until they reach such a miserable level that the workers will bring about revolution through sheer survival instinct. Problem is that the living standarts kept going up and up and essentially, escepcially if you...

Any kind of eschatology, be it religious or secular, is pure nonsense, since everything that exists and will ever exist, is based on complete contingency. Eschatologies are for intellectual cowards who want to ground reality back in all sorts of absolutes. And, yeah, you can trace it all back to...

I'm mentioning him because it's perfect for someone who feels mental and informational overload. It kind of helped me in a similar situation, almost like a zen thing or something like that.

True, he is very dry and very reductive, but his answer would be that he's focusing on the aspects that are truly important and eschews what's trivial; for example, psychology and human perspectives themselves are sort of trivial in his scheme, not too important; it's very anti-humanist approach...