Marx uses the idea of the dialectic from the philosopher Hegel. For Hegel it is part of an explanation of how ideas evolve throughout history. The dialectic involves a sort of clash between opposite ideas that ultimately produces the new (evolved) idea. Marx believes that ideas are soley based in the material reality because he is a materialist. So, he shifts the dialectic from ideas to matter. The unfolding of history still involes a clash between opposites, but instead of a clash of ideas as Hegel believed, Marx claims the real clash is between physical things. So, the unfolding of clashes between material opposites throughout history is the dialectic materialism.
Moral relativism is technically different from cultural relativism. The former says people disagree with what is right and wrong, and the latter says that because cultures (people) disagree with what is right and wrong, there is no right or wrong. Such distinction is important. If disagreeing about the existence (or nature) of climate change is analogous with moral relativism, then climate change objectively not existing is analogous with cultural relativism. It would be a logical fallacy to say 1. People disagree on the existence of climate change, 2. So climate change does not exist. Given this is a logical fallacy, it illustrates how moral relativism and cultural relativism differ. If cultural and moral relativism meant the same thing then this could not be a logical fallacy (which is hard to even visualize). Moral relativism states that people disagree, and cultural relativism takes it further by saying an ethical standard does not objectively exist. Of course, in order for climate change to be analogous with an ethical theory, an ethical theory has to be something objective. However, cultural relativism posits that there is objectively no objective ethical theory.
Wheather the culture argues about the existence of climate change doesn’t change the truthfulness or falsity of anything said. The definition of climate change isn’t even solid so the entire debate is constantly changing depending on the usefulness of that sort of debate for certain types of people. Weather the culture agrees or disagrees doesn’t change the facts of the matter. If you think so then you’ll have to state what facts you hold true and go from there.
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello! Can you please explain to me simply what is the dialectic materialism of Marx? Thanks!
Marx uses the idea of the dialectic from the philosopher Hegel. For Hegel it is part of an explanation of how ideas evolve throughout history. The dialectic involves a sort of clash between opposite ideas that ultimately produces the new (evolved) idea.
Marx believes that ideas are soley based in the material reality because he is a materialist. So, he shifts the dialectic from ideas to matter. The unfolding of history still involes a clash between opposites, but instead of a clash of ideas as Hegel believed, Marx claims the real clash is between physical things. So, the unfolding of clashes between material opposites throughout history is the dialectic materialism.
Moral relativism is technically different from cultural relativism. The former says people disagree with what is right and wrong, and the latter says that because cultures (people) disagree with what is right and wrong, there is no right or wrong. Such distinction is important. If disagreeing about the existence (or nature) of climate change is analogous with moral relativism, then climate change objectively not existing is analogous with cultural relativism. It would be a logical fallacy to say 1. People disagree on the existence of climate change, 2. So climate change does not exist. Given this is a logical fallacy, it illustrates how moral relativism and cultural relativism differ. If cultural and moral relativism meant the same thing then this could not be a logical fallacy (which is hard to even visualize). Moral relativism states that people disagree, and cultural relativism takes it further by saying an ethical standard does not objectively exist. Of course, in order for climate change to be analogous with an ethical theory, an ethical theory has to be something objective. However, cultural relativism posits that there is objectively no objective ethical theory.
Wheather the culture argues about the existence of climate change doesn’t change the truthfulness or falsity of anything said. The definition of climate change isn’t even solid so the entire debate is constantly changing depending on the usefulness of that sort of debate for certain types of people. Weather the culture agrees or disagrees doesn’t change the facts of the matter. If you think so then you’ll have to state what facts you hold true and go from there.