you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Neither of those disprove dialectical materialism, though, and I think you're confusing how dialectical materialism works. 1+1 = 2 is also not against dialectical materialism. Mechanical materialism is not devoid of merit, it was definitely an advancement on idealism. However, it is still fundamentally limited. Dialectical materialism is a framework for understanding the world. It isn't the common understanding of scientific theory as making testable predictions. You still have to go out into the world, test theory to practice, and carry knowledge forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

    Describing 18th century mechanical materialism doesn't discredit its 21st century understanding either. Again, I'm not arguing against dialectical materialism, only against the dialectic part of it. I haven't received a convincing explanation of why talking in terms of "contradictions", "permanent mutability" and "interconnectivity of everything" is superior to simply saying "try and analyze the variables that describe and influence the behaviour of systems and question everything applying a materialist outlook to reality with the goal of obtaining predictive capabilities that allow you to modify the world in your interests".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

    An advantage of dialectical materialist thinking over mechanical materialist thinking is that dialectical materialism provides a way to understand the way things are related to other things necessarily, not simply accidentally. This is the essential technique which allowed Marx to advance beyond Ricardo in his analysis of value, where Ricardo got stuck due to his commitment to mechanical materialism.

    The basic idea being that dialectical materialism constructs a totality of interconnected concepts which develops historically. The historical development implies a genetic relationship between concepts, which provides the dialectian with a direction when looking at empirical data. The mechanical materialist cannot help but get lost in the innumerable facts available empirically because they cannot integrate it properly into concepts, without introducing a form of eclecticism which destroys the basis of the concepts.

    Edit: I wanted to add that in the end, dialectical materialist thinking is only a manner of thought which helps us reason about the world. A point of distinction between dialectical logic and mechanical materialist logic is in its interpretation of contradiction. The mechanical materialist assumes that a contradiction can only indicate a logical error or a wrong assumption. For Marx (as a great dialectician), a contradiction (can) indicate a point where the theory is too abstract and does not correspond to reality in some manner. Luckily in his reconstruction of Capital, humankind has generally already resolved the contradiction in practice - at which point empirical data is critically important. Rather than throw away the concept of value the moment a contradiction is found, he discovers how reality has dealt with the contradiction, and yet still he is able to keep a strong concept of value containing labor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    I think you'll be interested in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. The benefits of the dialectical approach are in that it helps us understand relational phenomena, and prevents us from analyzing things as static and unrelational. A deer is not a deer without existing in the context that formed it and the trajectory it is going, there is no such thing as a deer in a vacuum. Dialectical materialism prevents us from thinking that way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago*

    My non-dialectical take would be:

    I want to make a predictive model of the deer and explain it. For this, I need to analyze the variables that make up and influence the deer. After analysis and criticism, I will decide, based on what I expect of my model, whether I need to include external variables or only internal. For example, in order to understand the mechanics of how the contraction of a muscle leads to the movement of a leg, I don't need to concern myself much with external variables. If, on the other hand, I need to explain the diet of a deer, looking at internal variables isn't enough, because there are very relevant external variables such as season, geographical location, etc.

    If you go dialectical and try to explain the leg mechanics of a deer in terms of contradictions and in terms of external variables, you're going to create an unnecessarily complex model that doesn't give better predictive capabilities than a simplified one, which requires more study and more effort to reach the same conclusions.

    I'll try and download that book, though a priori from the index it looks to delve deep into materialism and less into dialectics. It could be a good exercise to try and distill the dialectics from the dialectical materialism, and see exactly what I'm missing.

  • source
  • parent