this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2022
1 points (100.0% liked)
philosophy
19796 readers
128 users here now
Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]
"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes
Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
starred and saved, gigabased post
Replying to save empirical evidence of Marxism
I like my models like I like my relationships, casual. Nothing long term, nothing too clingy.
just reinterpret Hegel
he doesn't know about historical materialism
Man thinks utopian socialism is Marxism
It evolved with and out of scientific understandings of anthropology, psychology, natural/human history, and ecology. It's rooted in the same philosophy as science with the same core project of demystifying a physical universe, but approaches that through constructivist rather than reductionist process. Outside of Latinwang and much smaller efforts from within the same system, there is no other critique of science as a structure from a philosophy compatible with a scientific worldview. There is no science to explain the interaction between vastly different systems which predates what Marx was doing or applies as many analytical angles as subsequent Marxists did. Where there is one, it's neutered by the material interests of its patrons and reduced to passive observation of individual subjects if it's funded at all.
If there's a more scientific philosophy I've never found it despite searching. There just isn't meaningful understanding of one thing without understanding its relational opposites. It doesn't matter if it's an electron or a river or a factory.