34
Where should I start when it comes to learning dialectics? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (9 children)

This is on the lines of what Cockshott argues, but backwards. If we have developed a logically consistent and quantitative description of systems theory, why do we bother ourselves with cryptic philosophical traditions that are mostly used for intellectual jerk-off? Systems theory is perfectly compatible with mechanic materialism, too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (5 children)

    Well, the systems theory exists in part because of the cryptic philosophical traditions, and understanding the cryptic philosophical traditions allows us to recognize when someone is attempting to develop the supposed next best thing after systems theory and they just end up retreading old ground (as liberals so often do).

    As well, systems theory doesn't really do much to explain how and why philosphical ideas themselves change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    systems theory exists in part because of the cryptic philosophical traditions

    I don't share this, except in as much as it depends on Judaism because it was first explicitly formulated in Abrahamic-origin societies.

    systems theory doesn't really do much to explain how and why philosphical ideas themselves change.

    Again, I don't believe that dialectical materialism naturally gives better explanations to that than, say, mechanistic materialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 23 hours ago* (3 children)

    Then we just have a fundamentally different idea of where this stuff is coming from.

    Mechanistic materialism just side steps the issue entirely. When does an idea qualitatively change? When people stop practicing the actions or when the reason they are doing something changes?

    They are functionally discussing different things, imo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago (2 children)

    When does an idea qualitatively change? When people stop practicing the actions or when the reason they are doing something changes?

    But isn't that materialism? Can you explain to me where's the dialectics in that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child)

    Not really. Materialism doesn't really deal with the process of how or why an idea changes. It can deal with changes in hypotheses and describe that process, but without dialectics, that would, philosophically, just be the creation of another idea, not what it actually is, the transformation of the previous idea.

    It's literally a difference in understanding the metaphysical nature of an idea is. If it sounds like an arbitrary qualifier, that is because metaphysics is mostly arbitrary qualifiers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    My point is that systems theory is dialectical materialism. Marx didn't invent dialectical materialism. Legalists during the Zhou dynasty were already using dialectical materialism. It's the main reason why the state of Qin was able to steamroll the other Chinese polities and unify China despite starting out as an incredibly weak state because their main ideological competitors were a bunch of Confucians, Daoists, and Mohists, none of which espouse a dialectical and materialist framework (with the Mohists being neither dialectical or materialist).

    Of course, their version of dialectical materialism is cruder than what Marx came up with. Systems theory is just the latest iteration of dialectical materialism. So why call Marx a dialectical materialist instead of retroactively calling him a systems theorist? Well, it goes back to what I said earlier about systems theory being an exercise in branding from anticommunist Western scientists. If anything, systems theory should be rebranded as dialectical materialism. Systems engineering should be renamed to dialectical engineering and so on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Legalists during the Zhou dynasty were already using dialectical materialism

    Can you elaborate on the dialectic part of that? I'm not arguing against materialism as a way of describing and therefore changing the universe, I'm arguing against dialectics being relevant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 23 hours ago

    They were influenced by Daoists. Daoists espoused an everchanging world with contradictions which resolved themselves only to give birth to even more contradictions. This is in contrasts to Mohists and Confucians which espoused a world that does not change. Confucians believed in destiny that is ordained by Heaven while Mohists believed in destiny that is ordained by a sky god also confusingly called Heaven. Mohists, despite being neither dialectical nor materialist, at least advocated for an egalitarian society while Confucians advocated for a society where everyone knew their place within the social hierarchy.

    The consequence of Confucians being undialectical is that most of their works constantly orient themselves based on the reported actions of the sage kings of Yu and Xie. Do X because Yu also did X. Don't do Y because Xie didn't do Y. Meanwhile, Legalist works stress the sovereign has to constantly adapt their actions based on the informed observations of their ministers (and methods to make sure ministers actually report what's going on which mostly amounted to ruthless punishment). This is not the case of Confucians not being materialist especially since one branch of Confucians was headed by a full blown atheist. It's this atheist Confucian who taught two students who then go on to take the dialectical aspects of Daoism to develop Legalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent