[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1772608248874.jpg (29.25 KB, 474x355, OIP-430017905.jpg)

 

Dialectical materialism is bullshit because the world itself is not dialectical. The world is made of forces/particles that interact with each other. They bump in on each other imposing their wills, evolving and there is enough of them that sometimes they appear to be moving dialectically. Instead we have a world made up of difference, these differences do negate each other when they interact but instead affirm their differences.

>>2719033
What are you saying man?

Particles and forces aren't real

They're a projection of the human mind that had to intuit classical mechanics by smacking balls into each other

File: 1772612067516.png (1.12 MB, 1176x1702, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2719033
>dialectical materialism is wrong because the world is proceeds to describe a dialectical materialist understanding of the world

many such cases

File: 1772612245342.png (853.6 KB, 1500x1122, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2719060
when we draw things we give them outlines but nothing has an outline in real life. everything's fuzzy. but that doesn't mean that our drawings with outlines represent necessarily entities that don't exist. If I go outside and observe a car in the road. I can draw that car. But you will say "there is no car man, that's just a projection of your mind onto paper."

File: 1772612337584.gif (1.87 MB, 400x224, HOLY SCIENCE.gif)

>>2719060
wow….. freaking WOW………>>2719060

>>2719091
Cars are real.
Atoms aren't

>>2719094
>me: scirnce isn't real
>you: Le science uygha!!!!
You retarded or something?
Go read lenin

>>2719096
atoms are real, they just have fuzzy outlines like real cats do. they aren't the unbreakable unsplittable geometric things democritus pretended they were.

>>2719105
Atoms are a mathematical representation of some data acquired through instruments
They are real the way ideas are real, only as long as they are useful

>>2719099
if I fart in a bag and put it over your head, which overwhelms you: the abstract fart fuzzy blob, or the billions of fart particles slowly replacing the oxygen in your body and coating your sinuses?
particles can be a fuzzy blob too without rejecting the entire concept of a particle

>>2719105
this

>>2719110
>Atoms are a mathematical representation of some data acquired through instruments
the thing observed lies at one end of the chain of instruments used to detect the thing observed. at the other end of that chain is the observer. both the thing observed and the observer are real. when a thing gets observed many times, you come up with a name for it. sophists will mock language by saying that the thing is not real, we're just naming coincidences. but we know atoms are real, we can split them, build molecules out of them. we have a catalogue of different types of atoms, called a periodic table of elements. we even know that certain countries are more economically independent from world trade than others because they have larger stockpiles of periodic elements.

>>2719040
>>2719087
OP is joking about how Deleuze and other academic Marxists/Post-Marxists reject known materialist concepts, only to half-assedly redefine them under different names

>>2719110
>They are real the way ideas are real, only as long as they are useful
useful for what? for operating inside of reality which is real.

>>2719118
idk the rest of the thread seems to indicate he is not joking

I avoid threads like this because it attracts schizos

>>2719120
I don't think they're one of the posters in this thread


>>2719116
QM says atoms aren't real sorry chuddie

They're merely useful as a construct

Deleuze is a retard

File: 1772619381943.jpeg (4.48 KB, 156x210, image.jpeg)

>>2719060
>smacking balls

Deleuze is not anti materialism hes anti dialectical materialism, because he believes the world not act in a dialectical way.

>>2719118
Deleuze rejects dialectics not materialsim.

what we call particles are actually excitations of a common quantum field substrate which we can model using wave functions. the mechanical view of materialism which posits that all motion is causally reducible to volumetric displacement is more than a century out of date.

>>2719244
They still don't behave in a dialectal way.

>>2719248
this statement is meaningless to me without knowing what you think it means for something to "behave in a dialectical way". my understanding is that the primary distinction between dialectical materialism and mechanical materialism is that the former sees motion as immanent to being (things move because moving is in some way fundemental to being a thing at all) whereas the latter sees it as externally imposed (things move because other things move them).

>things bump into each other
When two molecules combine into a chemical compound (e.g. H²O) the "bumping" ceases, and they combine into a new single "thing" rather than having separation into parts. The parts form a whole, and so become a new "thing" which has its own "will", no?
>evolution
But evolution is precisely this changing of states by the combination of many elements into a new body. If we take cosmic evolution, we see how base molecules like hydrogen combine and mix with others to form "heavier" elements. Metals have this precise formula, which then also tracks natural scarcity, by the complexity of the atom. Biologically, it is accepted that the complex develops from the simple; it all lives and dies by the production and consumption of diverse life, creating states of static equilibrium (e.g. immortality) to mutation, which is then either inherited or discarded. The process of development then sees change as a necessary development of universal motion.
>these differences do negate each other when they interact but instead affirm their differences.
If we pour sugar into tea, it dissolves, and so its internal difference is lost, the same as the tea, which now becomes sweeter as a result. The qualities are then preserved, as the form is lost, and so we can speak of the tea's material constitution as changing by the compound of combined elements. The sugar is lost, the bitter tea is lost, but the sweet tea is manifested as a negation of negation (e.g. sublation).

Now take note that I do not invoke any "dialectical" dogma, I only describe nature in a deductive way.

>>2719178
QM isn't real.
It's new age religious psychobable overfitting disguised as a science.

he was brutally mogged by baudrillard anyways
>>2719344
that would be string theory not QM, brainlet

>>2719337
>Now take note that I do not invoke any "dialectical" dogma, I only describe nature in a deductive way.
you are lead inevitably to dialectical dogma when you don't critique representational thinking

>>2719365
I'm quite sure that atoms develop their structure without the imposition of human prejudices; if not, then how did humanity become a product of nature to begin with?

Anyone who reads Marx and gets him this wrong is not your typical political idiot.

File: 1772634148019.jpg (60.97 KB, 686x386, hq720.jpg)

>>2719390
Marx never actually promoted a worldview of "dialectical materialism" thoughever, but only applied dialectics to social phenomena (e.g. History, as class struggle), which he saw as the development of labour abstracted as commodity and property, which through its dynamism, establishes a movement toward its spiritualisation (e.g. the self-moving substance, or "money in motion"; capital) and its abolition (e.g. the negation of negation of capital) which entails returning man to nature, and so ceasing his dialectical motion (e.g. Man-as-Man becomes positively conceived and thus gains self-determination, rather than contingency). This is why Communism can also be linked to "primitive" human society, which Marx clearly imagines man being free within, but only by the capacity of natural oppression. By the socialisation of Nature, Man thus controls his own destiny, by disciplining its organs of production to his own needs.

It was Engels who attempted to naturalise dialectics, such as in his unfinished work "Dialectics of Nature" (1886) in which he denies the Big Bang and Heat Death:
<the eternally repeated succession of worlds in infinite time is only the logical complement to the co-existence of innumerable worlds in infinite space
He justifies this by seeing that dispersed heat (e.g. frictional entropy) must regenerate into activity that gives birth to new worlds, but what scientists now say is that the course of entropy is absolute as a tendency, since reversing entropy requires more energy than the energy lost through simple dispersion. All things die. He supplements this by later citation from Ancient Greek materialists, such as Leucippus and Democritus, rather than any theoretical or practical science. He makes similar claims in his tract, Anti-Dühring (1877):
<It already becomes evident here that matter is unthinkable without motion. And if, in addition, matter confronts us as something given, equally uncreatable as indestructible, it follows that motion also is as uncreatable as indestructible […] [thus, granting an origin of motion] necessarily leads to the creation and destruction of motion, and therefore presupposes a creator.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch03.htm
This of course is the standard logic of Aristotle's "unmoved mover", and which is replicated in the Big Bang Theory, that there was a "time" before time and a "motion" before motion, which set things in order. Engels appeals to the eternity of the universe, and so the eternity of motion, and thus denies a beginning of things.

Engels is then the real origin of "dialectical materialism" which in its various propositions appear to be unscientific, due to their theoretical presuppositions. After Engels comes Plekhanov who writes (1891):
<The philosophy of Marx and Engels is not only a materialist philosophy, it is dialectical materialism.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/xx/dialectic.htm
This is later adopted by the Bolsheviks and becomes their state philosophy, tutored by Stalin (1938). We also get Mao, who emphasises the naturalism of dialectics, or rather, of "contradiction" in the heart of matter (1937). We can follow the rabbit hole then to see where all this confusion begins.

Yeah, I can tell you drooled during middle school science classes. Scientific literacy is so fucking low on this board it's baffling. It's the one thing shitposters on here know less about than theory.

>>2719244
Most intelligent post in this thread

>>2719244
my dick is excited when it's inside your husband

>>2719178
>QM says atoms aren't real sorry chuddie

I am the anon. Quantum mechanics does not say atoms aren’t real. QM says our classical picture of atoms (like tiny solid billiard balls) is wrong, even though atoms themselves are very much real physical systems.

My silence is not approval by the way. I am merely tired and busy at the moment.

>>2719465
> Scientific literacy is so fucking low on this board it's baffling
It's americans. they're young earth creationists who go to dispensationalist school. they learn that the devil put the fossils in the ground to make people doubt the 6 days of creation.

>>2719537
It’s not just Americans

>>2719450
Was fixed by mao:
he said even the dialectical process will also end, if nothing is eternal, then dialectics also isn't

File: 1772638118483.jpeg (24.34 KB, 637x440, perpetual motion.jpeg)

>>2719544
>he said even the dialectical process will also end
He says the opposite:
<According to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from beginning to end; this is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction […] But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
Lenin and Stalin concur with this view:
<Speaking of the materialist views of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus, who held that "the world, the all in one, was not created by any god or any man, but was, is and ever will be a living flame, systematically flaring up and systematically dying down"' Lenin comments: "A very good exposition of the rudiments of dialectical materialism."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

>>2719450
The texts written by Engels did not encounter any objection from Marx when they were manuscripts written by Engels. You are trying to force a separation between Marx and Engels when there was no objection or disagreement from Marx, and there were even conversations between Engels and Marx about what Engels would publish before Marx died. Or do you think that one of them was secretly withholding information from the other?

File: 1772670022610.png (147.7 KB, 638x594, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2719255
I wish this conversation had continued between these two anons.
>>2719525
This one as well.


Unique IPs: 21

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]