I understand what you're saying when you claim that Marx accepted a teleological aim to real material development in this World, in spite of his strong materialism; but I've never had a problem with that 'issue': because for me, "communist" society, as reached thru socialist praxis coming out of capitalism, is not really and *end*, per se. It is, instead, OUR goal, only. It's our 'horizon' -- beyond which WE (only) cannot see.
I'm interested to see where you are going in the next video.
@Trotskisty It's extremely interesting to what extent Marx is misunderstood as regards the position of the individual in a future society. I hardly dare talk of communism, I know it wil cause perturbations on you tube. People are strongly conditioned to consider private property 'holy', not understanding that the question is about owning the means of production, which causes division of labour, exploitation and alienation from the products of labor, not personal property for private use.
Not with me. This is the reason I make NO bones about being a plain, garden-variety, old-fashioned COMMUNIST. Just without the stalinist encrustations. Of course, the ruling-class has a vested interest in lying about all this & confusing the issue & everyone. But IMO it is not really possible 2 have a true grasp of anything socialist or communist without a relatively profound & real grasp of dialectical-materialism -- both as it applies to Nature, AND as it applies to method.
What is the alt. to a 'literal' understanding of dialectical-materialism? Allegory? A mere aid? Or as so many (AFAIC) fence-sitters have it, merely the methodology -- i.e. w/o any REAL meaning in the real World..? I take Freddie Engels' explicit demonstration of dialektix in Nature 2B the reality of 'diamat'... I've spent my whole life trying to understand it this way -- & it worx. Profoundly-so. I wish I had your systematic education on the matter -- but I'll take my concrete experience anyday.
Dialectics essentially revolves around social epistemology and the political struggle for consensus and coherentism, it shows that 'truth' is a created platform for collectivity for cultures to either become opposites (distinguish, offer eachother 'challenges') or to resolve differences and merge (syncretism)
Too much history to cover in 10 minutes. Plus, there's the whole issue of materialism vs idealism. The method is still incredibly valuable. Hopefully, your video will spur people to think and do some research on this subject.
Excellent this takes me back 20 years to my Degree. You have explained it very clearly. Its all come flooding back. Is it right that Marx predicted that one day the dialectical process would stop...that all the contradictions would inevitably end? I get confused. Anyway I liked his theory of human nature as I understood it. That humans are a product of their environment...not innately self interested, greedy etc but capable of it nonetheless
Marx is entirely right that the way people think and the ideologies that exist in a society are a product of the material circumstances around them, more specifically the production forces and the production relations in the society, but human nature is basically formed through evolution.
Marx was a child of his time and was influenced by the philosophy, so he thought that humankind can resolve the big contradictions in society and only smaller will still remain.
I'll bet my life that Marx neither would nor could 'predict' that. It doesn't even make sense, actually. The dialectical Universe is unfolding and emergent and evolving, essentially forever. It never stops.
"The puny, imperfect human mind." ...this quote summarizes my lack of experience with dialectics. Thank you for sharing this vid as it presses me to do some research into this topic :) Best wishes.
I wonder what is meant by an "absolute." I have been under the assumption that absolutes are extensions of the imaginary, as like supernatural forces. Forgive my ignorance on this issue.
I owe you probably some explanations, examples, because there was not enough time for them in the video (I have put one link in the sidebar, but it is peremptory). Dialectics - nothing stands still, everything changes through time. Living is also dying, for ex.
An example, that Hegel gave for quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes is that the liquidity quality of water changes with changing the temperature (which is quantity) into steam or ice.
Oh, you do not owe me an explanation whatsoever. Your vid was filled with items that I need to research, as I am beneath their design :D Trust me on this. Thank you for responding to my comment. I will also look into what philosophers, and people in general, define as "absolutes".
Oh, yes, I forgot about the "Absolute". It is a philosophical term. It is not contingent, it is not even 'something', because to be something, means not to be something else. So, it is boundless, limitless (in an idealistic philosophy), infinite, eternal,self-sufficient, independant of anything, whole (it is not composite). The Absolute is also called The One, The Whole, The Supreme... and finally God.
We could mention Kierkegaard's joke about the clumsy student who tried to outdo his teacher Heraclitus and said, "We cannot step into the Same River Once". Thus she postulated not Heraclitus' theme of eternal change, but Parmenides theme of the impossibility of change.
Dialectics often seems that way to me, just evolving chance creating interesting structures.
Another good example: Aristotle seeing form and matter together in opposition to Plato.
I haven't seen anybody tackle those names in the sidebar all together...on here. That's an achievement in itself. You're a wonderful teacher in an elevated league of your own and humble with it.
This has been flagged as spam show
Marx was just a plagurist who ripped off the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and re-packaged it.
americaisbacktrump 4 months ago
2:10 Unity of opposites concept.
JoshAlfred27 5 months ago
I would like to understand how you can use dialectics in two oposits like science and religion if you don't believe in one of them
cardellacole4 6 months ago
I understand what you're saying when you claim that Marx accepted a teleological aim to real material development in this World, in spite of his strong materialism; but I've never had a problem with that 'issue': because for me, "communist" society, as reached thru socialist praxis coming out of capitalism, is not really and *end*, per se. It is, instead, OUR goal, only. It's our 'horizon' -- beyond which WE (only) cannot see.
I'm interested to see where you are going in the next video.
;)
Trotskisty 9 months ago
@Trotskisty It's extremely interesting to what extent Marx is misunderstood as regards the position of the individual in a future society. I hardly dare talk of communism, I know it wil cause perturbations on you tube. People are strongly conditioned to consider private property 'holy', not understanding that the question is about owning the means of production, which causes division of labour, exploitation and alienation from the products of labor, not personal property for private use.
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
@dewinthemorning
Not with me. This is the reason I make NO bones about being a plain, garden-variety, old-fashioned COMMUNIST. Just without the stalinist encrustations. Of course, the ruling-class has a vested interest in lying about all this & confusing the issue & everyone. But IMO it is not really possible 2 have a true grasp of anything socialist or communist without a relatively profound & real grasp of dialectical-materialism -- both as it applies to Nature, AND as it applies to method.
Trotskisty 9 months ago
@Trotskisty I don't think we should be so literal. We are not religious after all, to stick to dogma... :)
What I try to do here, is to relate the basic ideas of Marx - let's try to be historians of ideas.
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
What is the alt. to a 'literal' understanding of dialectical-materialism? Allegory? A mere aid? Or as so many (AFAIC) fence-sitters have it, merely the methodology -- i.e. w/o any REAL meaning in the real World..? I take Freddie Engels' explicit demonstration of dialektix in Nature 2B the reality of 'diamat'... I've spent my whole life trying to understand it this way -- & it worx. Profoundly-so. I wish I had your systematic education on the matter -- but I'll take my concrete experience anyday.
Trotskisty 9 months ago
Boy, you really have no luck with all those noise-makers behind the camera, do you?
;P
Trotskisty 9 months ago
Dialectics essentially revolves around social epistemology and the political struggle for consensus and coherentism, it shows that 'truth' is a created platform for collectivity for cultures to either become opposites (distinguish, offer eachother 'challenges') or to resolve differences and merge (syncretism)
pearlsfortheswines 1 year ago
Too much history to cover in 10 minutes. Plus, there's the whole issue of materialism vs idealism. The method is still incredibly valuable. Hopefully, your video will spur people to think and do some research on this subject.
binhthanhvo 1 year ago
Excellent this takes me back 20 years to my Degree. You have explained it very clearly. Its all come flooding back. Is it right that Marx predicted that one day the dialectical process would stop...that all the contradictions would inevitably end? I get confused. Anyway I liked his theory of human nature as I understood it. That humans are a product of their environment...not innately self interested, greedy etc but capable of it nonetheless
LockedInTheCupboard 2 years ago
@LockedInTheCupboard
Marx is entirely right that the way people think and the ideologies that exist in a society are a product of the material circumstances around them, more specifically the production forces and the production relations in the society, but human nature is basically formed through evolution.
Marx was a child of his time and was influenced by the philosophy, so he thought that humankind can resolve the big contradictions in society and only smaller will still remain.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
@LockedInTheCupboard
I'll bet my life that Marx neither would nor could 'predict' that. It doesn't even make sense, actually. The dialectical Universe is unfolding and emergent and evolving, essentially forever. It never stops.
Trotskisty 9 months ago
Hey hey! I'm glad you looked into this stuff. I thought you did a great job with it. It's such a fascinating system.
BombdePlume 2 years ago
"The puny, imperfect human mind." ...this quote summarizes my lack of experience with dialectics. Thank you for sharing this vid as it presses me to do some research into this topic :) Best wishes.
I wonder what is meant by an "absolute." I have been under the assumption that absolutes are extensions of the imaginary, as like supernatural forces. Forgive my ignorance on this issue.
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
@thedeeliciousplum
I owe you probably some explanations, examples, because there was not enough time for them in the video (I have put one link in the sidebar, but it is peremptory). Dialectics - nothing stands still, everything changes through time. Living is also dying, for ex.
An example, that Hegel gave for quantitative changes lead to qualitative changes is that the liquidity quality of water changes with changing the temperature (which is quantity) into steam or ice.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
Oh, you do not owe me an explanation whatsoever. Your vid was filled with items that I need to research, as I am beneath their design :D Trust me on this. Thank you for responding to my comment. I will also look into what philosophers, and people in general, define as "absolutes".
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
@thedeeliciousplum
Oh, yes, I forgot about the "Absolute". It is a philosophical term. It is not contingent, it is not even 'something', because to be something, means not to be something else. So, it is boundless, limitless (in an idealistic philosophy), infinite, eternal,self-sufficient, independant of anything, whole (it is not composite). The Absolute is also called The One, The Whole, The Supreme... and finally God.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
Hahaha at the end bit there :)
That was quite a bit to tackle in one video, but oh man you did it sister.
nuclearnight 2 years ago
Yes, I think you did try to do the impossible - to review philosophical dialectics from Greece onward.
But, I do think you managed to put Marx in context which is the best you can do in this format.
zarkoff45 2 years ago
NIce. I appreciate your sharing this on video.
We could mention Kierkegaard's joke about the clumsy student who tried to outdo his teacher Heraclitus and said, "We cannot step into the Same River Once". Thus she postulated not Heraclitus' theme of eternal change, but Parmenides theme of the impossibility of change.
Dialectics often seems that way to me, just evolving chance creating interesting structures.
Another good example: Aristotle seeing form and matter together in opposition to Plato.
JayPhilosopher 2 years ago
This is a highly informative video on a vast subject; thank-you for sharing your knowledge. 5*/fav
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
@RowanFortuneWood
Thanks. :)
It is a vast subject and it will come up again in videos about Karl Marx. Dialectics informs a lot of his thinking.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
I haven't seen anybody tackle those names in the sidebar all together...on here. That's an achievement in itself. You're a wonderful teacher in an elevated league of your own and humble with it.
10:38 is very classy :P
That's a really good microphone you have aswell, it picks up absolutely everything.
MrUnscientific 2 years ago
@MrUnscientific
Thank you, it means a lot to me to 'hear' you say this.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
That was interesting. :)
grindstonejournal 2 years ago 4