For the people that don't get the A != A thing. He's not literally saying that two identical A's aren't the same. Yes, in abstract logic if we say that two things are exactly the same, then they'll equal each other. It's one of the logical absolutes. The point of dialectics is that that's never true in reality. In reality, all things are constantly changing and evolving, mostly due to their internal contradictions which are acted upon by external forces. Don't take it so literally.
@@yawnandjokeoh Your body is in a constant state of change. You're getting older every second, your memories are evolving, etc. How can we know anything about the human body or about ourselves then? Same with everything else.
@@yawnandjokeoh Seriously? I'll try to make it simple. Do you deny that gradual, minor change to your body is always occurring? Do you deny that despite that change, you can still recognize certain facts about your body? You're either gonna answer no to both questions, or you're a lost cause. Either way, there's your answer.
@@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 you: "seriously?" why accuse a questioner of being serious if they raise some objections? The hallmark of sectarian thought is lack of confidence in the philosophy, primarily because often it is so weak. Anyway..your question as to whether or not I believe my body is changing yet identifiable as my body. No I do not doubt those things, my body is changing yet I recognize it as such. However A=A is still ok. Change happens, and use of symbolic identity happens. Why is that a problem? Sometimes identifying an object is causal as in your example of a human body, sometimes it's more formal, like in logical terms or quantities. A=A has more to do with a basis of making statements that are logically consistent as statements not as facts in and of themselves as such. A=A isn't a fact of nature but a logical tool for creating logically consistent statements. Its equivalent to 1=1. If A=A is not sensible than it means that as all things change so does our ability to discriminate between objects and recognize identity in the first place.
Probably the best and easiest explanation of Dialectical Materialism out there. Very well done. If I was to show any new Marxist a video on dialectical materialism, this would be the one.
Hallelujah! After searching high and low for a simplified explanation I landed here and shouted for joy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My high school students have a chance of grasping how these philosophies play on each other thanks to you.
It's important to note that this is a reduction of Marx. Marx does not simply believe that material conditions create mental ones. All material conditions must enter an already existing relation of production. Marx would not appreciate the crudeness of this reduction and would want you to add that material conditions do not simply dictate beliefs.
Its not hegalian Genosse Caleb. The Model of „These vs Antithese= Synthese“ is from Fichte and Schelling, they were Hegels room mates. Dialectics, according to Hegel, is that the substance is alienated from itself in it self. So for Hegel the substance (material reality) and the subjekt (yourself) are two sides of the same medal.
I really appreciate this explanation. The first video i tried to watch went too hard into jargon. This was a perfectly accessible explanation of dialectical materialism
Dialectics is law of motion. Materialism is the world outlook, where matter is primary and idea is secondary. Spiritualism doesn't mean failure of materialism but a social consciousness, which could be revolutionary or reactionary. In a Socialist society, high spiritualism means individual's happiness or sorrowness is similar to the society's happiness or sorrowness!
Agreed, he explains dialectical materialism well, but when he speaks about idealism he does a terrible job of doing so. However I adhere to idealism, and Hegel himself was an idealist and formulated the school of objective idealism(the school I follow).
@@pressftopayrespects6325 Well, he gives a somewhat butchered definition at 3:02 when he states, "Idealists believe the mind creates reality". Which is a bit like saying "Materialists believe matter creates reality". It's not "wrong" per se, but of course what Materialists actually believe is that matter _is_ reality. Similarly, Idealists believe that mind _is_ reality. Not _your_ mind or _my_ mind, but mental stuff in general. The world is an Idea, basically. I'm no expert on this by any means, so it sounds like the first replier would probably have a better handle on this, but when it comes to Hegel, he is concerned with the development of the "world spirit" which is his take on the fundamental Idea underlying all of reality, and history is the expression of its development. But that line about Descartes just set me off. "I think, therefore I am" is in no way an expression of Idealism. Descartes was a dualist, he thought mind and matter were both fundamental parts of reality. "I think, therefore I am" is not even an expression of dualism, or idealism or any ontology. Descartes was merely expressing his _knowledge_ of his own existence as something capable of thought.
This makes me realize again how constricting such academic philosophy can be; how little all those ponderings matter if one spends their time on acting from beyond such intellectual constructs. For example, a typical academic mind might see a contradiction, two opposing theses, in mind-creates-reality and reality-creates-mind, whereas I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive. That's synthesis. 😉 (synthetical thought instead of analytical thought) - This is part of the path to spiritual awakening.
watching this to understand epic theater to understand the good woman of szechuwan 2 days before the exams. So thank you for such a simple, brief and easy explainataion. Your video saved the day.
I knew what Dialectical Materialism was inside out before watching this video (having read both Hegel and Marx), but I admire the brutal simplicity and efficacy you have to explain it for beginners, I'll use it as an inspiration next time someone asks me to intro him to Marx.
Watched a lot of videos & after watching this I was thinking who do people have to complicate stuff when you can first introduce the concepts like this pretty succinctly and with precision - You certainly should go into teaching - that is your calling 😀😀 if you are already not formally doing it Best wishes bro ( from a psychiatrist passionate about philosophy 👍🙏👍🙏🙏🤝🤝)
Great explanation. The idea that there are no two things same is also called «Identity of indiscernibles». Since there are no 2 things having the same properties, then it follows that for any A,B, A =/= B (more formally proper than saying that for any A, A =/=A). I will gladly follow your movies.
OMG! thank you for this one. I've watched lots of videos about this but I still can't understand until I saw this one. Now, atleast I have an idea about DIALECTIC MATERIALISM
I don't really agree with your argument about why idealism is (in its purest form) religion. Take for example Christianity. In Christianity, they don't believe the world comes into existence through the mind but through God. This places a divine being into the centre of the universe, while in idealism, your own mind is considered the centre of the universe. In Christianity, God constructed reality, not the mind, while in Idealism, the mind constructed reality (and God), not God.
'A does not equal A'....otherwise known in metaphysics as 'The Principle of the Indiscernibles'. A wonderful exposition of this is to be found integrated into Smolin and Unger's 'The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time'. Highly recommended.
@@guidemeChrist No, it is not. A = the actual material object. Philosophical materialism is another subject has nothing to do with dialectical materialism (exchange of materials and its natural changing). Catholic Cosmism = Old Earth with dinosaurs and evolution, New Earth created just recently in another dimension parallel Earth (Genesis 3:24).
The ideas about Hegel here are incorrect. Hegel didn't believe in a dialectical method nor did he come up with thesis antithesis synthesis that comes from Fichte.
I think therefore I am and I am therefore I think - as they may sound opposite are both right because both can be interpreted and may talk from different perspective all together. 1st I think therefor I am is what you think so you become or produce etc. is this incorect? Think and 2nd one I am therefor I think - is fully on I am alive human being so I think. Is this wrong - I guess not. BOth are right but both speak different truth or mean different.
Can historical idealism be applied to dialectical materialism? I think dialectical materialism is correct but I also believe the contradictions, theses, and antitheses are created by or allowed to exist by God.
@Maos Balls no but you do if you plan to be effective at ever getting rid of it 🤷♂️ Tbh it's ridiculous for anyone to be an idealist in the year 2021. It's childish escapism through philosophy, a denial of reality as a coping mechanism.
Idealism is not the same as magical thinking, you should have reaserched it more before trying to explain dialectical materialism. I recommend you reading or watching Bernardo Kastrup.
Still not 100% on what "the Marxist theory (adopted as the official philosophy of the Soviet communists) that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces and are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. The conflict is believed to be caused by material needs." means
I guess you kind of have to take at face value, no? Events in history and current politics are influenced by contradiction/conflict in the social realm (dominant class (bourgeois in this case) vs subordinate class (proletariat in this case)) which are in turn influenced by material conditions. As a historical example, the material conditions of 18th century Europe gave a legitimate sort of power to feudalist governments and monarchies which in turn wanted more power (as humans naturally are in circumstances which ask for it) so they went to war, culminating in the Seven Years War, and you can take this further with world events influencing contradictions and conflict such as how the Seven Years War lead to increasing French debt and hostility to Britain leading to supporting American independence leading to even more debt and eventually the French Revolution.
Useful, but you need to stop making that strange noise at the end of your sentences - a sort of pig's squeal. Might be the word "Right?", but hard to tell.
I solve dialectics on my own A is not equal to A is farce A is equal to B if we understand what it is A and B don't make such sense if society on economics development solve anti theses between mental and physical labor
This contains an absolutely laughable critique of idealism. Materialism at this time never actually produced a coherently argued alternative to Kant's Transcendental Idealism (indeed, Hegel was an Absolute Idealist).
You said let there be light and believe in God, is u a Christian? Cause that would be great if I could find another Christian out there who also agrees with dialectical materialism
How does Marx deal with the fundamental necessity of association with (ownership) of religious doctrine to rule in Western Civilization? All Western Empires including the current and final consolidated empire depend on the ownership of religion for their power. Without it ruling whoud be much much harder. I don't think Marx ever really understood that or addressed it. (Except for his cheap shot about it being an opiate he missed that essential about Western power.)
@@MeditativeMoments1 Sense the 1350s the church and powers of finance, that is lenders, took control of all commercial activity through the morals of the church and the demands of capital, they have had parallel interests all along - (acquisition of ever more power). Commerce cannot take place without credit, control credit and the powerful obligation the debtor has to capital (morality) and you control the entire economy and can direct capital in your direction always profiting through interest more than any other part of the economy, The oligarchy are organized as a Mafia, feudal ultimately. It is a collection of crime families who rule ruthlessly and enforce the carrying out of their orders just as a mob does. There are no good guys or bad guys, there are only winners and losers.
Were the social democracies partly a product of the dialectic between laissez-faire capitalism and communism? When the communist antithesis diminished in support, those countries tended to become less social democratic. If so, then strengthening support for the communist antithesis should result in more communist influence being present in the ongoing synthesis -- then a tipping point can be reached and the revolutionary phase begins (i think it is all revolutionary in the historical progress sense, but I mean taking power etc).
Marx put it rather up front with his "species being"... We are on the same level as ants sort of speak, we create our surroundings according to our needs. The material world makes us who we are, because without it, we would just be mindless drones. I find it interesting how you admit to sort of agreeing with Marx, but then have to slip in there you are a man of faith in "god". Which seems to be your only real rebuttal to him, why is that?
How does the concept of God’s existence actually fit into the debate between materialism and idealism? It’s completely out of place, it’s like bringing up dinosaurs in an American history class, it’s completely irrelevant. Marx’s idea of God’s nonexistence to me seems more like a personal belief than anything related to dialectical/historical materialism. If anything, God’s existence is more supported by a materialist point of view whereas idealism more or less argues against God’s existence in the sense that the mind creates reality (i.e. the mind creates an omnipotent being).
@@pressftopayrespects6325 marx was pretty clear that religion and gods do not mix with dialectical materialism... second book in the german ideology he goes off on a tangent about how it doesn't work and it's pure made up fantasy.
Dialetical materialism is a philosophical method to use to sound sophisticated when in reality you don't know anything about the subject matter and merely are working back from a preconceived conclusion. Remember, you can't spell sophisticated without sophist.
You are a thinking person who doesn't take things for facts without reasoning. How can you accept that a God exists? If so, who created "Him"? What is the evidence? The evidence is the same as those for the Invisible Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage...
Religion can cure a nihilistic and hopeless person. Infinite progress in a finite universe is meaningless, and so are morals. A God is a sort of cosmic consciencness present everywhere. Consciensness is an emergent phenomenon. On the idealist side, pure solipsism would propose a meaningless universe too, however, if consciensness manifests into brains from pre-existing consciousness, the picture brings a whole new meaning.
@@Zeal_Faith_Humanity For morals, the Golden Rule is all what is needed. To give people hope, anything entertaining is good enough. It can be your favorite team or band or planning your next trip. Doing mental gymnastics to believe that one's religion is "the correct one", or that religions in general are anything else than tales made by the "wise" of the tribes to answer any questions put to them and to control people when there were no Legal Systems in place, isn't something people needs to do.
@@germancarrasco2028 So, it is as I said. The only other option is to distract yourself from the fact there is no ultimate purpose of morals, progress, or the universe by being faithful to subjectivity. That's a bumpy road not everyone can drive on. I think this is one reason why religion is so persistent in people. I do think it is worthy to notice almost every human civilization has believed in something spiritual. People must believe in something rather than nothing.
@@Zeal_Faith_Humanity Yes, people used to do human sacrifices until it rained again. Feeling unable to change or understand things and trying to please a fictional superior being to rely on its favors is nothing but a weakness and a obviously has nothing to do with reality. Only science give us answers. Once we die there is nothing, as there is nothing after an ant or a lettuce plant die.
@@germancarrasco2028 "Only science can give us answers, not religion." That is called a naturalistic fallacy. It is like trying to conflict jewish identity with science. Scientism is a worldview. Science is a methodology, not a philosophy. And you are correct. All light in the universe will die at one point, progress, happiness, and life is an illusion. It's really simple. No one is believing in sacrifices, they are believing in exterior purpose. Non-theistic religions like Buddhism are perfect examples.
History never repeats itself, but it often rhymes. - Mark Twain
but it often rhymes*
@@rrubinski8204 thanks, I fixed it!
Alabama Khrushchev
History may or may not repeats.
The cycle of life continues.
"A is *not* A"
*First chapter of Atlas Shrugged destroyed*
Marx 1 : 0 Rand
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
Aristotle
Marx and Rand both agree with at least 1 thing.
Religion is complete horse shit!
For the people that don't get the A != A thing. He's not literally saying that two identical A's aren't the same. Yes, in abstract logic if we say that two things are exactly the same, then they'll equal each other. It's one of the logical absolutes. The point of dialectics is that that's never true in reality. In reality, all things are constantly changing and evolving, mostly due to their internal contradictions which are acted upon by external forces. Don't take it so literally.
If all things are in a constant state of change in all times can we know anything at all?
@@yawnandjokeoh Your body is in a constant state of change. You're getting older every second, your memories are evolving, etc. How can we know anything about the human body or about ourselves then? Same with everything else.
@@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 what way is that then, you left it out? Or has it changed?
@@yawnandjokeoh Seriously? I'll try to make it simple.
Do you deny that gradual, minor change to your body is always occurring?
Do you deny that despite that change, you can still recognize certain facts about your body?
You're either gonna answer no to both questions, or you're a lost cause. Either way, there's your answer.
@@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 you: "seriously?" why accuse a questioner of being serious if they raise some objections? The hallmark of sectarian thought is lack of confidence in the philosophy, primarily because often it is so weak. Anyway..your question as to whether or not I believe my body is changing yet identifiable as my body. No I do not doubt those things, my body is changing yet I recognize it as such. However A=A is still ok. Change happens, and use of symbolic identity happens. Why is that a problem? Sometimes identifying an object is causal as in your example of a human body, sometimes it's more formal, like in logical terms or quantities. A=A has more to do with a basis of making statements that are logically consistent as statements not as facts in and of themselves as such. A=A isn't a fact of nature but a logical tool for creating logically consistent statements. Its equivalent to 1=1. If A=A is not sensible than it means that as all things change so does our ability to discriminate between objects and recognize identity in the first place.
Probably the best and easiest explanation of Dialectical Materialism out there. Very well done. If I was to show any new Marxist a video on dialectical materialism, this would be the one.
I think you might have a knack for explaining these things in a concise manner. Many thanks comrade.
Superb explanation
this and the three part video from marxist project are easily the best explanations of dialectical materialism
Thanks a lot for this explanation. You should make more video on philosophy like this.
🙏 ❤
Ok....after watching several long winded breakdowns by modern Marxists on this....give this guy a medal, his explanation was awsome..
that was brilliant thank you
Hallelujah! After searching high and low for a simplified explanation I landed here and shouted for joy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My high school students have a chance of grasping how these philosophies play on each other thanks to you.
It's important to note that this is a reduction of Marx. Marx does not simply believe that material conditions create mental ones. All material conditions must enter an already existing relation of production. Marx would not appreciate the crudeness of this reduction and would want you to add that material conditions do not simply dictate beliefs.
I was finding it so hard to understand this concept just through reading, this helped me so much. Thank you!!
I'm very glad you found it helpful
Same! I love this explanation, I get the concept now!
Its not hegalian Genosse Caleb. The Model of „These vs Antithese= Synthese“ is from Fichte and Schelling, they were Hegels room mates. Dialectics, according to Hegel, is that the substance is alienated from itself in it self. So for Hegel the substance (material reality) and the subjekt (yourself) are two sides of the same medal.
Best explanation on RUclips. Thanks mr. Caleb
I really appreciate this explanation. The first video i tried to watch went too hard into jargon. This was a perfectly accessible explanation of dialectical materialism
Dialectics is law of motion. Materialism is the world outlook, where matter is primary and idea is secondary.
Spiritualism doesn't mean failure of materialism but a social consciousness, which could be revolutionary or reactionary.
In a Socialist society, high spiritualism means individual's happiness or sorrowness is similar to the society's happiness or sorrowness!
"I think, therefore I am. That's idealism!"
Anyone who knows any philosophy:
**internal screaming**
Agreed, he explains dialectical materialism well, but when he speaks about idealism he does a terrible job of doing so. However I adhere to idealism, and Hegel himself was an idealist and formulated the school of objective idealism(the school I follow).
What actually defines it?
@@pressftopayrespects6325
Well, he gives a somewhat butchered definition at 3:02 when he states, "Idealists believe the mind creates reality". Which is a bit like saying "Materialists believe matter creates reality". It's not "wrong" per se, but of course what Materialists actually believe is that matter _is_ reality. Similarly, Idealists believe that mind _is_ reality. Not _your_ mind or _my_ mind, but mental stuff in general. The world is an Idea, basically.
I'm no expert on this by any means, so it sounds like the first replier would probably have a better handle on this, but when it comes to Hegel, he is concerned with the development of the "world spirit" which is his take on the fundamental Idea underlying all of reality, and history is the expression of its development.
But that line about Descartes just set me off. "I think, therefore I am" is in no way an expression of Idealism. Descartes was a dualist, he thought mind and matter were both fundamental parts of reality. "I think, therefore I am" is not even an expression of dualism, or idealism or any ontology. Descartes was merely expressing his _knowledge_ of his own existence as something capable of thought.
Thanks for this great explanation, simple precise and accurate. I hope you keeps doing videos like this.
This was helpful. Thanks 👍 this topic led me into depressing pit of the gulag archipelago and I still felt like I needed a more clear explanation
Thanks! I am glad you learned from the video.
This makes me realize again how constricting such academic philosophy can be; how little all those ponderings matter if one spends their time on acting from beyond such intellectual constructs.
For example, a typical academic mind might see a contradiction, two opposing theses, in mind-creates-reality and reality-creates-mind, whereas I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive.
That's synthesis. 😉 (synthetical thought instead of analytical thought) - This is part of the path to spiritual awakening.
watching this to understand epic theater to understand the good woman of szechuwan 2 days before the exams. So thank you for such a simple, brief and easy explainataion. Your video saved the day.
best video i love you thanks
I knew what Dialectical Materialism was inside out before watching this video (having read both Hegel and Marx), but I admire the brutal simplicity and efficacy you have to explain it for beginners, I'll use it as an inspiration next time someone asks me to intro him to Marx.
This is brilliant. So clearly explained, you should be a teacher. Thank you for this
Thanks! I am glad you enjoyed it. I should be streaming and making videos again soon.
Watched a lot of videos & after watching this I was thinking who do people have to complicate stuff when you can first introduce the concepts like this pretty succinctly and with precision - You certainly should go into teaching - that is your calling 😀😀 if you are already not formally doing it
Best wishes bro ( from a psychiatrist passionate about philosophy 👍🙏👍🙏🙏🤝🤝)
Thanks! I am really glad you like my work. I will be streaming and making videos again soon.
He makes the "right?" sound 23 times.
Very appreciated summary. Genuinely.
Thanks Comrade
I really love your teaching Sir. We would like you to make more video on Western political thought.
Great explanation. The idea that there are no two things same is also called «Identity of indiscernibles». Since there are no 2 things having the same properties, then it follows that for any A,B, A =/= B (more formally proper than saying that for any A, A =/=A). I will gladly follow your movies.
Great work
OMG! thank you for this one. I've watched lots of videos about this but I still can't understand until I saw this one. Now, atleast I have an idea about DIALECTIC MATERIALISM
Thanks for this clear explanation!
Nice vid, made easier and informative.
This is really good
Thank You!
Excellent concise explanation!
It is a simple thing. People are trying to explain these mere words into vain. The only thing is just to prioritize the word.
I've watched hours upon hours of talks and lectures and haven't learned anything more than what's in this 6 minute long video.
Thanks. Glad you like it.
High pressure gravitates to Low pressure
Well done!
Dialectical materialism is the correct scientific understanding of the relationship between ideas and material reality.
you're no stalin but it's pretty succinct.
I don't really agree with your argument about why idealism is (in its purest form) religion. Take for example Christianity. In Christianity, they don't believe the world comes into existence through the mind but through God. This places a divine being into the centre of the universe, while in idealism, your own mind is considered the centre of the universe. In Christianity, God constructed reality, not the mind, while in Idealism, the mind constructed reality (and God), not God.
Well explained superb .. thank you
That's how you end a video.
Thanks.
materialism does not negate the ideal or spiritual, it just states that the ideal or spiritual is a reflection of the material.
thats right!!!
Honest response.
Excellent.
4:55 confusion
Is it between realistic and idealist
Or dialectic and materialism????
Idealism vs. Materialism. Plus the Hegelian concept of dialectics.
What is matter but the combinations of fundamental energies of the universe?
Good work! What you are doing is refreshing to see.
So it's like a M&M battle, only with memes.
thank you for explaining! very understandable.
'A does not equal A'....otherwise known in metaphysics as 'The Principle of the Indiscernibles'. A wonderful exposition of this is to be found integrated into Smolin and Unger's 'The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time'. Highly recommended.
"im not a soild materialist" means so much more after getting some short definitions 😂
That why they say we are products of our material conditions
Awesome video man! Thanks!
വൈരുദ്ധ്യാത്മക ഭൗതികവാദം
Take a shot every time he says, "Right?"
Materialism versus Idealism
Dialectics versus Metaphysics
But what is advancing?
A is not equal to A = Idealism. A is equal to A = Materialism.
The other way around
@@guidemeChrist No, it is not. A = the actual material object. Philosophical materialism is another subject has nothing to do with dialectical materialism (exchange of materials and its natural changing). Catholic Cosmism = Old Earth with dinosaurs and evolution, New Earth created just recently in another dimension parallel Earth (Genesis 3:24).
The ideas about Hegel here are incorrect. Hegel didn't believe in a dialectical method nor did he come up with thesis antithesis synthesis that comes from Fichte.
I think therefore I am and I am therefore I think - as they may sound opposite are both right because both can be interpreted and may talk from different perspective all together. 1st I think therefor I am is what you think so you become or produce etc. is this incorect? Think and 2nd one I am therefor I think - is fully on I am alive human being so I think. Is this wrong - I guess not. BOth are right but both speak different truth or mean different.
Thanx bro❣️💐
thanks for the answer to the question
Dude, idealism is not that "you can make things exist if you think it". Look it up on wikipedia or something
you saved me!
How so?
Can historical idealism be applied to dialectical materialism? I think dialectical materialism is correct but I also believe the contradictions, theses, and antitheses are created by or allowed to exist by God.
And.... I'm still confused.
If idealism turns out to be true, does that really invalidate all striving to overthrow capitalism and owning the means of production and all that?
Samyn05 why is materialism important at all?
@@mozart116 Idealism isn't just religion, pal.
@Maos Balls no but you do if you plan to be effective at ever getting rid of it 🤷♂️
Tbh it's ridiculous for anyone to be an idealist in the year 2021. It's childish escapism through philosophy, a denial of reality as a coping mechanism.
@@Merudinnn how is it ridiculous? You do realize idealism and idealism-adjacent philosophies are making a comeback, right?
Idealism is not the same as magical thinking, you should have reaserched it more before trying to explain dialectical materialism. I recommend you reading or watching Bernardo Kastrup.
So marxism ignores the metaphysical philosophy?
The law of attraction
Still not 100% on what "the Marxist theory (adopted as the official philosophy of the Soviet communists) that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces and are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. The conflict is believed to be caused by material needs." means
Cant speak on “official philosophy of soviet union”, but besides that which specific part is tripping you up?
I guess you kind of have to take at face value, no? Events in history and current politics are influenced by contradiction/conflict in the social realm (dominant class (bourgeois in this case) vs subordinate class (proletariat in this case)) which are in turn influenced by material conditions. As a historical example, the material conditions of 18th century Europe gave a legitimate sort of power to feudalist governments and monarchies which in turn wanted more power (as humans naturally are in circumstances which ask for it) so they went to war, culminating in the Seven Years War, and you can take this further with world events influencing contradictions and conflict such as how the Seven Years War lead to increasing French debt and hostility to Britain leading to supporting American independence leading to even more debt and eventually the French Revolution.
hey calab
have you haerd about deez ?
I don't get it
There is a certain way one deals with Dialectical Materialism and that way is always the same
And the answer is.....
I STILL DONT UNDERSTAND IT OMG IM SO DUMB
Holla kantbot
Useful, but you need to stop making that strange noise at the end of your sentences - a sort of pig's squeal. Might be the word "Right?", but hard to tell.
I’m pretty sure that’s just his accent. Yee haw.
I solve dialectics on my own
A is not equal to A is farce
A is equal to B if we understand what it is
A and B don't make such sense if society on economics development solve anti theses between mental and physical labor
This contains an absolutely laughable critique of idealism. Materialism at this time never actually produced a coherently argued alternative to Kant's Transcendental Idealism (indeed, Hegel was an Absolute Idealist).
Thanks for the definition Caleb.
Upon understanding these 2 concepts, I found myself not liking them.
You said let there be light and believe in God, is u a Christian? Cause that would be great if I could find another Christian out there who also agrees with dialectical materialism
And an RT reporter. I have loved RT for awhile. This is epic
@@user24350 What do you mean?
the word you are looking or is "manifestation"
How does Marx deal with the fundamental necessity of association with (ownership) of religious doctrine to rule in Western Civilization? All Western Empires including the current and final consolidated empire depend on the ownership of religion for their power. Without it ruling whoud be much much harder.
I don't think Marx ever really understood that or addressed it. (Except for his cheap shot about it being an opiate he missed that essential about Western power.)
interesting.
That power arises from material relations. The church does not create ideology. The ideology creates the church.
@@MeditativeMoments1 Sense the 1350s the church and powers of finance, that is lenders, took control of all commercial activity through the morals of the church and the demands of capital, they have had parallel interests all along - (acquisition of ever more power).
Commerce cannot take place without credit, control credit and the powerful obligation the debtor has to capital (morality) and you control the entire economy and can direct capital in your direction always profiting through interest more than any other part of the economy,
The oligarchy are organized as a Mafia, feudal ultimately. It is a collection of crime families who rule ruthlessly and enforce the carrying out of their orders just as a mob does.
There are no good guys or bad guys, there are only winners and losers.
Tow A is double AA e z three A is AAA tribal A they coming to pick up your car
Were the social democracies partly a product of the dialectic between laissez-faire capitalism and communism? When the communist antithesis diminished in support, those countries tended to become less social democratic. If so, then strengthening support for the communist antithesis should result in more communist influence being present in the ongoing synthesis -- then a tipping point can be reached and the revolutionary phase begins (i think it is all revolutionary in the historical progress sense, but I mean taking power etc).
total nonsense
aain
nowhere did Hegel talk about Thesis/antithesis/synthesis ...so why are you saying he did
what?
Where’s nowhere ?
@@Maziedivision two blocks West and then take a left....thanks for asking
@@bismarachman9691 Caleb says Hegel defines dialectics as thesis/antithesis/synthesis...Hegel never said that, ever...it was actually Fichte...
Marx put it rather up front with his "species being"... We are on the same level as ants sort of speak, we create our surroundings according to our needs.
The material world makes us who we are, because without it, we would just be mindless drones.
I find it interesting how you admit to sort of agreeing with Marx, but then have to slip in there you are a man of faith in "god". Which seems to be your only real rebuttal to him, why is that?
How does the concept of God’s existence actually fit into the debate between materialism and idealism? It’s completely out of place, it’s like bringing up dinosaurs in an American history class, it’s completely irrelevant. Marx’s idea of God’s nonexistence to me seems more like a personal belief than anything related to dialectical/historical materialism. If anything, God’s existence is more supported by a materialist point of view whereas idealism more or less argues against God’s existence in the sense that the mind creates reality (i.e. the mind creates an omnipotent being).
@@pressftopayrespects6325 marx was pretty clear that religion and gods do not mix with dialectical materialism... second book in the german ideology he goes off on a tangent about how it doesn't work and it's pure made up fantasy.
Dialetical materialism is a philosophical method to use to sound sophisticated when in reality you don't know anything about the subject matter and merely are working back from a preconceived conclusion.
Remember, you can't spell sophisticated without sophist.
method is still plagued with Hegel.
Greek materialist and vulgar materialists don't have logical inconsistencies like followers of Hegel.
Communism
You are a thinking person who doesn't take things for facts without reasoning. How can you accept that a God exists? If so, who created "Him"? What is the evidence? The evidence is the same as those for the Invisible Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage...
Religion can cure a nihilistic and hopeless person. Infinite progress in a finite universe is meaningless, and so are morals. A God is a sort of cosmic consciencness present everywhere. Consciensness is an emergent phenomenon. On the idealist side, pure solipsism would propose a meaningless universe too, however, if consciensness manifests into brains from pre-existing consciousness, the picture brings a whole new meaning.
@@Zeal_Faith_Humanity For morals, the Golden Rule is all what is needed. To give people hope, anything entertaining is good enough. It can be your favorite team or band or planning your next trip. Doing mental gymnastics to believe that one's religion is "the correct one", or that religions in general are anything else than tales made by the "wise" of the tribes to answer any questions put to them and to control people when there were no Legal Systems in place, isn't something people needs to do.
@@germancarrasco2028
So, it is as I said. The only other option is to distract yourself from the fact there is no ultimate purpose of morals, progress, or the universe by being faithful to subjectivity. That's a bumpy road not everyone can drive on. I think this is one reason why religion is so persistent in people. I do think it is worthy to notice almost every human civilization has believed in something spiritual. People must believe in something rather than nothing.
@@Zeal_Faith_Humanity Yes, people used to do human sacrifices until it rained again. Feeling unable to change or understand things and trying to please a fictional superior being to rely on its favors is nothing but a weakness and a obviously has nothing to do with reality. Only science give us answers. Once we die there is nothing, as there is nothing after an ant or a lettuce plant die.
@@germancarrasco2028
"Only science can give us answers, not religion."
That is called a naturalistic fallacy. It is like trying to conflict jewish identity with science. Scientism is a worldview. Science is a methodology, not a philosophy. And you are correct. All light in the universe will die at one point, progress, happiness, and life is an illusion. It's really simple. No one is believing in sacrifices, they are believing in exterior purpose. Non-theistic religions like Buddhism are perfect examples.
Answered by everyone's favorite crypto-fascist
I was with you until you said something about ‘god’