that's how long ago but I asked what day of the week
>>267296>And finally, things exist in relationships with one another. For example, a glass of water exists in relationship to me who is drinking it or wants to drink it. The taste of water can be very sweet if I am thirsty
so is this what marx learned from hegel?
about class relating with other classes
we can know about what we think from the world we build
this reduces the human act of thought to only one realization of it, while labor is another for example
so thinking in general is not the same as the subjective act of thought
it's the carrying out of a certain logic, whether in the outside world or subjectively
this logic pre-exists the world, since human thought doesn't need to be privileged - humans, without ability to linguistically and consciously carry out thought are only the highest stage of the development of logic
essentially, the world is carrying out the act of realizing some idea, and as we move forward, we get closer and closer to the perfection of this idea as materially realized
and it just so happens that the prussian monarchy btw is the perfect state to go along with the perfection of the idea (which is the cause of history), cause hegel is the idea thinking itself finally, so history is basically over, duh
also it's interesting that hegel's method of dialectic is between an ideal (some form which is absolute and unchanging) and it's failed realization, which always is reaching closer to perfection but never quite getting there
it's very different from the materialist dialectic which doesn't hold any ideal, and instead sees the world (and all things) changing through their inner oppositions and their relationships, and how these impact each other mutually.
Also you know what i just realized, zizek is trying to have it both ways by having the stuff about objet a, and how future things show the true of past things; and then about how the world isnt fully created yet, and he's a dialectical materialist. Obviously the world isn't created yet from our point of view. But that stands in opposition to the idea that there's a point which things converge to, or that the past becomes put into more true context by the future. In the past people were acting on the open-ended future, and if we can understand it more now, then ok, but it doesnt show the truth in a thing…. This isn't for you OP, but any other anon that wants to weigh in, whats the deal with Zizek? Tbh he led me down a road of idealism but i got out of it so w/e. I thought he was pretty based but thinking about it this way, he seems jumbled.