Hilarious. It's been 150 years since Marx wrote the communist manifesto. Where is this working class utopia? Can you point me in the direction of working communism?
This is a great video to start with for me. Very well explained. So well explained even I can understand it and have been encouraged to watch further. Thank you.
One underlying question to this issue is: what is matter. In the field of science that studies matter (physics) enormous progress has been made, getting rid of the mechanical materialist conception, and developed a much more richer description of how nature works on the lowest levels, esp. in the field of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory. The picture described by quantum mechanics is however rather bizarre md counter intuitive, and involves concepts like the uncertainty principle (we can't know exactly the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, the more preciese we measure one value, the less preciese comes the other value) and the famous particle-wave duality. Contemorary logic would claim that something is either a wave or a particle, but nog both, while quantum mechanics shows that both features of matter are present , and it depends on the experiment which feature we actually observe like in the double sllit experiment. In the double slit experiment we can show that electrons can behave like waves (showing wave like features like interference), but as soon as we try to measure which path the electron took, the interference pattern disappears, and we get the particle like behaviour of the electron. In the field of gravity, the development of general relativity does away wth the concept of gravity as a force, and instead insists that gravitation is explained by the curvature of spacetime itself, and that measurements of space and time are dependent on both the intertial reference frame and curvature of space-time, getting rif of the newtonian view of absolute space and time. And apart from cuvature of space, modern cosmology insists on the idea that space can also stretch causing light waves to redshift due the spacetime expansion over long cosmological distances. As to this modern understanding, some idealist have argued that matter as such does no longer exist, and quantum mechanics has definately proven that physical reality is observer dependent. For example as exemplified in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. However that position is not uphold by many physicists, and instead of arguing that quantum mechanics shows that physical reality is observer dependent (dependent on consciousness) they argue that the measurement itself is a physical process which determines the outcome of a measurement, and does not depend on consciousness, and as such poses no opposition to the materialst point of view. In current day physics however, the term matter has a different meaning then the philosophical term matter. Physics defines matter as composed of elementary particles (the ingredients of the Standard Model of physics) ie. leptons (the constituents of ordinary matter, like electrons, protons, neutrons) and bosons (force carying particles like photons resp. for the electro-magnetic phenomena, W and Z particles resp. for the electroweak force (nuclear decay), and gluons assoiated with the strong nuclear force (holding the nucleus together), and the Higgs boson (responsible for part of the masses of the other particles). The Standard model might not be the complete picture, as some physical/cosmological theories require other particles to exist, for example the dark matter hypotheses (the anomalous rotatiion curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing of large objects like galaxy clusters) which tries to explain these phenomena at the basis of massive particles that do not interact with the electromagnetic force, but which do act gravitationally. Some other unknown ingredient of the universe is dark energy, which is the current explenation for the accelerated expansion of the universe. But current physics has no understanding of what this dark energy in fact is, but its existence was postulated based on Einsteins equation of general relativity of a constant, called lambda, initially thought of by Einstein to keep the universe stable (not collapsing or expanding), but in current cosmological models used to explain the opposite - why the universe expansion accelerates. Roughly speaking, dark energy is a contant energy density with a negative pressure, causing gravity to act repulsively. Neither dark matter nor dark energy are understood very well, and might also indicate that the current understanding of gravity is somehow wrong, although it has proven very difficult to alter general relativity. It is often argumented that the current model of the universe proofs that the materialist conception of nature is wrong, because it would somehow proof that matter itself is not eternal, and that matter, time and space have had some definate origin. But there is no reason to suppose that, and what we see on the scale of the observable universe is in fact analogous to what we see every where else, namely that every material structure is always in a state of change and development, nothing stays the same, and that also includes plamnets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc. Neither of them impose the need for some kind of absolute begin to space time and matter, and the observable universe we inhabit, which itself is assumed to be part of a much larger structuire, and since we see that it develops on large time scales (expansion of space time and the chemical compositon - the relative abundances of the elements in the universe change over time due to nucleosynthsis in stars) - which requires that the material structure (of which the observale universe is a part) has some begin in time and probably also an end, but that unerstanding does not imply that the universe itself must have had a begin in time and/or that reality itself is not material.
Quite a wall of text, but I think you have really hit upon an essence here. The experimentation of modern physics would seem to confirm Marx's position, that not only are we part of the material world, we have a direct effect on it in a dialectic way (interaction is a two way street). The double slit experiment indeed, all but confirms this. Nice observations.
that's very very interesting... i'm not a physics scholar but i've read something about this subject, but it's too complicated for my knowledge and understanding to try to explain it all plainly lol. All i can say is that in today's physics the very notion of Time is challenged, both as seen by Newton and by Einstein. Loop quantum gravity theory even collides with the very notion of time. I think that this is faboulous and is indeed a great chance for dialectical materialism; the universe is laid before our eyes as a chaotic dance of events. A chaotic dance where we can try to trace an order, and i think that the best instrument we have to this day is dialectical materialism, which is a dance of elements itself. Too bad that the Revolutionary Communist International stands against Big Bang and these new developments in physics... to apply dialectical materialism to those could be a great opportunity to create fresh new view on the very structure of the universe. This anti-Big Bang stance is something that really stops me from joining...
This is the first explanation of materialism, and especially it's importance to Marxism, that has made sense to me. Explaining materialism vs idealism and why idealism has historically dominated really made this clear. Thank you
Great.. Never compromise with quality.. Short episodes will serve as capsules.. We would like to dive deep into this. Try as long you can emphasize on each smaller and particular aspect. Try to bring some criticisms by idealists. And of course refute it as it will provide a whole and multidimensional view of the philosophy. I am tired of just hearing rhetorics like "everything is connected", "development happens through contradiction", "unity of opposites", "matter over mind".. We are tired of this. Tell us why this. I pretty much acknowledge myself as a Marxist but very much confused when it comes to philosophy. Everyone is keen to tell this happens that way. Tell me why this happens that way. Btw, this video was one of best. It emphasises more on "why"... Liked it..👍🏽
I am a socialist, but I am not a communist because I am also a nationalist. I understand the reasoning behind an international movement, but people often forget that power corrupts. Even if you create a perfect government, over time it could become corrupt. Therefore, it’s better to aim for socialism within different states rather than trying to create an international socialist government. For example, some people might prefer a Muslim state with socialism, while others might want a Christian state with socialism. People are different, and communism doesn’t seem to accept this diversity. Even if you could convince people to work together, a single global government poses too great a risk, in my opinion. Essentially, you’re saying we should risk the possibility of ultimate tyranny to achieve communism. What would happen if a one-world communist government were captured and corrupted? For me, that risk is too high. I support socialism, but not as a global movement. That’s why I’m not a communist, even though I agree with many of its ideas. Another point is regarding materialism. You can adopt Schopenhauer’s concept of materialism, which, in my opinion, is compatible with socialism. It could even serve as an ideological foundation for a socialist framework. "Until recently, people used the term "natural philosophy" to refer to disciplines which we would today call biology, chemistry, physics, and so on. The problem with this viewpoint is that it precludes any notion of metaphysics. But it's tricky because it looks like this physical explanation for the world is both clear and deep. It therefore looks like a satisfactory explanation. In this view, metaphysics aren't just impossible; they're also unnecessary. Judging accordingly from this standpoint, it seems nothing but a mere whim to seek different explanations for a world rendered so clearly using an entirely imaginary metaphysics. On this is based the considerable contempt with which physicists look down upon metaphysics. However, the one-sidedness of this viewpoint will quickly reveal itself. Physicists cannot account for the question of where these natural laws come from. Thus, they are relegated to either plead ignorance or engage in tautology. In this respect, Schopenhauer remarks with a good deal of sarcasm that one could apply a phrase to the entire world thus explicated-one which Victor was fond of uttering when he mastered his dramatic talents at the podium-to say in all earnestness with impressive emphasis, "It is because it is, and is as it is because it is so." Objective philosophies like materialism will inevitably go down the same path, Schopenhauer predicts. We should note that Schopenhauer is biased, of course, being an idealist himself. But he makes the argument that sooner or later these physicists will come to the conclusion that all knowledge of the world, however self-sufficient and mathematically correct it may be, is ultimately mediated by human cognition. Therefore, the human intellect-not the physical world-should be the chief object of philosophical investigation. Wisdom obtained according to objective means is accepted on the credits of the human intellect, which must, after all, have its own forms, functions, and manner of presentation, and consequently is entirely conditioned by it. From this follows the necessity to change standpoint once again and switch method from objective to subjective, thereby making the intellect itself the focus of investigation and putting its authority to the test. So, what is the true object of philosophy? It is to investigate the intellect itself. The greatest accomplishment in this endeavor, according to Schopenhauer, is Kant's masterpiece, The Critique of Pure Reason. However, this investigation must necessarily lead to the conclusion that not even the intellect itself is unmediated. For the intellect grasps merely the surface of things but cannot penetrate to their interior, and therefore it is not entirely and thoroughly capable of understanding or scrutinizing even a single one, even the smallest and simplest of all those beings that are objectively clear and real to it. On the contrary, in each and everything, the main point remains a mystery to it. This is indeed one of Kant's main conclusions in The Critique of Pure Reason: that metaphysics-or, in other words, knowledge of the world as it is in itself, objectively-is fundamentally impossible. All we humans can do, in Kant's view, is formulate knowledge about the world as appearance, as the phenomenon. At this critical juncture, however, Schopenhauer moves away from Kant. Somehow cryptically and dramatically, Schopenhauer ends his essay on the possible starting point of philosophy with a cliffhanger. Then, finally, he recognizes that the ideality of space, time, and causality, which is now clear to him, leaves room for an entirely different order of things than that of nature. For Kant, this different order of things than nature is the noumenon, or the thing-in-itself. As we've seen, it's essentially unknowable-a mystery. We know that it exists, but we can say nothing more definite about it. For Schopenhauer, this is not the case. Schopenhauer does believe we can say something about this different order of things. He doesn't say it in this essay, but what he is hinting at is, of course, his own philosophy: the philosophy of the will. This very short essay, Some Isolated Remarks on the Correct Starting Point of Philosophy, in this way serves as a sort of prologue and justification for his own philosophy. It's not really a defense of idealism per se, because Schopenhauer simply posits that a materialistic philosophy will never truly explain the world without giving actual arguments for this position. Rather than a defense, then, it's more of a justification-an explanation. It's also a warning to his fellow philosophers: do not relegate themselves to a single path. Taking an objective starting point and never deviating from this leads to materialism and ensures that philosophy can never surpass physics. But taking a subjective standpoint will lead to idealism in the vein of Berkeley, who argued that material reality doesn't objectively exist at all, except as an idea in the mind. Transcendental idealism, put forward by Immanuel Kant, is the synthesis of these two positions, and it's what Schopenhauer considered to be Kant's greatest achievement. By working out a philosophy of the will, Schopenhauer saw himself building upon Kantian foundations, importing the transcendental idealist framework but adding on top of this an element which he found missing in Kant's-a framework which would allow us to learn true metaphysical knowledge. We can then see how, in Kant's philosophy, this tension between subjective and objective starting points gets resolved. Schopenhauer, in turn, takes it one step further still. After Schopenhauer introduces the concept of the will, he looks again to nature, to the material world, to learn about its inner workings. In this way, his philosophy becomes full circle again. After importing Kant's transcendental idealism, he refers to nature again to say more about metaphysics. He goes from the subjective to the objective, straight back to the subjective. This was very important to Schopenhauer, as he believed that a true theory of metaphysics must account for physical phenomena as well. So, we get long, vividly described passages-almost documentary-like-on several phenomena in nature, of great literary quality, which are then explained in terms of the underlying will. In this way, Schopenhauer sought to incorporate the scientific findings of his day, mostly in biology, into his own philosophy. A true theory of everything-a fundamental groundwork upon which the rest of our knowledge can be built." -Weltgeist
BTW: Getting a good feeling of what materialistic (and dialectic) thinking and analysis is, is well shown in the essay of of Frederick Engels 1876 *"The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man"* link to the full text following ...ff
Materialistic method shown in a book about society: It begins with .... Society exists in a certain area, a certain time, and something further which I did forget. This is very often not done by idealist philosophers who like to be timeless or better non-historic, anti-scientific etc.
Would you not say that to call the ancient Greek philosophers "materialist" in a strict sense, is a stretch. Take for example Orphism, which led to the thought system we would now call "Greek" philosophy. The Pythagoreans too, could not be called "materialist" as they were in essence, a religious cult. And of course, the mystery religions themselves, stemming from the eleusinian mysteries. Curious on anyone's thoughts regarding this. I am a little confused going forward.
This video justifies the truth of materialism using historical and political evidences. What about at a fundamental level?, i.e. by applying science and analytical reasonig to address issues like brain-mind causation or "hard problem", some contemporary philosophers like Bernard Kastrup, the auhtor of "Why Materialism is baloney", challenge materialism.
Can you please do an intellectual property abolition video soon? This is the most important activist aim for working class people!! And IP abolition is the most important aim to liberate artists and inventors and make them all better off financially.
IP laws make no sense from either left or right politics. The “property” in intellectual property is a false term used for propaganda purposes. Intellectual property is not property in any sense. It’s monopoly
Current studies in physics do not seem to support your definition of materialism, more precisely “unambiguous materialism”. The notion that the objective world is inside of myself & that the natural environment is beyond every subjective reality is wrong headed. They are intertwined. When Marx quotes Freybak “the point is to change it”, what does “it” mean. If it means the cultural reality then it can be changed by considering the orphan, the widow, the infirm and slave. However, if it means the natural environment you’ve got a problem. Personally, I support any actions that supports persons. When such actions are of sustainable design, then all the better.
Let's assume you and I have two separate tribes. You have 10 people and I have 10 people. We both have the same amount of resources. You distribute your resources equally and the same responsibilities to everyone. I assign the resources unequally, and favor those who perform better. You don't have to be a genius to realize who will be more successful and happy. The goal of life itself is to be unequal.
"Let's assume..." - Or, we could study the historical record of early humans that lived in this way and derive insights through analysis of actual material conditions rather than make up some ridiculous "thought experiment" that's overflowing with capitalist realism and rationalization but that doesn't actually map onto the reality we're living in. See, for example, ruclips.net/video/9u2TtXVABcc/видео.html
@@TaxManATX Let's assume, that you can point me in the direction of ACTUAL WORKING COMMUNISM. Show me where it has ever worked, or where it is working now. Without assuming, you can't.
@@DemonDog444 Any form of imposition takes away choice which leads to eventual rejection and rebellion. Communists cannot get their heads around this. Capitalism, while punitive and unequal does allow for more choice across a wider section of society which is why people are happier with it overall as a system. Socialism is not the antidote but I do like the idea of participatory socialism that Thomas Piketty came up with. Capitalism needs more evening out. Capital distribution is a real issue that could be addressed for a more equal share for the labour force while still allowing for the investment of more capital and achieving shareholder value
Excellent comrade. It's almost mystical, that these teachings come at the right time, by the right teachers.
Almost mystical, but we can assume it is quite material
Hilarious. It's been 150 years since Marx wrote the communist manifesto. Where is this working class utopia? Can you point me in the direction of working communism?
This is a great video to start with for me. Very well explained. So well explained even I can understand it and have been encouraged to watch further. Thank you.
One underlying question to this issue is: what is matter. In the field of science that studies matter (physics) enormous progress has been made, getting rid of the mechanical materialist conception, and developed a much more richer description of how nature works on the lowest levels, esp. in the field of quantum mechanics, quantum field theory. The picture described by quantum mechanics is however rather bizarre md counter intuitive, and involves concepts like the uncertainty principle (we can't know exactly the position and momentum of a particle at the same time, the more preciese we measure one value, the less preciese comes the other value) and the famous particle-wave duality. Contemorary logic would claim that something is either a wave or a particle, but nog both, while quantum mechanics shows that both features of matter are present , and it depends on the experiment which feature we actually observe like in the double sllit experiment. In the double slit experiment we can show that electrons can behave like waves (showing wave like features like interference), but as soon as we try to measure which path the electron took, the interference pattern disappears, and we get the particle like behaviour of the electron. In the field of gravity, the development of general relativity does away wth the concept of gravity as a force, and instead insists that gravitation is explained by the curvature of spacetime itself, and that measurements of space and time are dependent on both the intertial reference frame and curvature of space-time, getting rif of the newtonian view of absolute space and time. And apart from cuvature of space, modern cosmology insists on the idea that space can also stretch causing light waves to redshift due the spacetime expansion over long cosmological distances.
As to this modern understanding, some idealist have argued that matter as such does no longer exist, and quantum mechanics has definately proven that physical reality is observer dependent. For example as exemplified in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. However that position is not uphold by many physicists, and instead of arguing that quantum mechanics shows that physical reality is observer dependent (dependent on consciousness) they argue that the measurement itself is a physical process which determines the outcome of a measurement, and does not depend on consciousness, and as such poses no opposition to the materialst point of view. In current day physics however, the term matter has a different meaning then the philosophical term matter. Physics defines matter as composed of elementary particles (the ingredients of the Standard Model of physics) ie. leptons (the constituents of ordinary matter, like electrons, protons, neutrons) and bosons (force carying particles like photons resp. for the electro-magnetic phenomena, W and Z particles resp. for the electroweak force (nuclear decay), and gluons assoiated with the strong nuclear force (holding the nucleus together), and the Higgs boson (responsible for part of the masses of the other particles).
The Standard model might not be the complete picture, as some physical/cosmological theories require other particles to exist, for example the dark matter hypotheses (the anomalous rotatiion curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing of large objects like galaxy clusters) which tries to explain these phenomena at the basis of massive particles that do not interact with the electromagnetic force, but which do act gravitationally. Some other unknown ingredient of the universe is dark energy, which is the current explenation for the accelerated expansion of the universe. But current physics has no understanding of what this dark energy in fact is, but its existence was postulated based on Einsteins equation of general relativity of a constant, called lambda, initially thought of by Einstein to keep the universe stable (not collapsing or expanding), but in current cosmological models used to explain the opposite - why the universe expansion accelerates. Roughly speaking, dark energy is a contant energy density with a negative pressure, causing gravity to act repulsively. Neither dark matter nor dark energy are understood very well, and might also indicate that the current understanding of gravity is somehow wrong, although it has proven very difficult to alter general relativity.
It is often argumented that the current model of the universe proofs that the materialist conception of nature is wrong, because it would somehow proof that matter itself is not eternal, and that matter, time and space have had some definate origin. But there is no reason to suppose that, and what we see on the scale of the observable universe is in fact analogous to what we see every where else, namely that every material structure is always in a state of change and development, nothing stays the same, and that also includes plamnets, stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc. Neither of them impose the need for some kind of absolute begin to space time and matter, and the observable universe we inhabit, which itself is assumed to be part of a much larger structuire, and since we see that it develops on large time scales (expansion of space time and the chemical compositon - the relative abundances of the elements in the universe change over time due to nucleosynthsis in stars) - which requires that the material structure (of which the observale universe is a part) has some begin in time and probably also an end, but that unerstanding does not imply that the universe itself must have had a begin in time and/or that reality itself is not material.
Quite a wall of text, but I think you have really hit upon an essence here. The experimentation of modern physics would seem to confirm Marx's position, that not only are we part of the material world, we have a direct effect on it in a dialectic way (interaction is a two way street). The double slit experiment indeed, all but confirms this. Nice observations.
I’m ngl I enjoyed reading every sentence of that. Thanks for sharing it with us
that's very very interesting... i'm not a physics scholar but i've read something about this subject, but it's too complicated for my knowledge and understanding to try to explain it all plainly lol. All i can say is that in today's physics the very notion of Time is challenged, both as seen by Newton and by Einstein. Loop quantum gravity theory even collides with the very notion of time. I think that this is faboulous and is indeed a great chance for dialectical materialism; the universe is laid before our eyes as a chaotic dance of events. A chaotic dance where we can try to trace an order, and i think that the best instrument we have to this day is dialectical materialism, which is a dance of elements itself. Too bad that the Revolutionary Communist International stands against Big Bang and these new developments in physics... to apply dialectical materialism to those could be a great opportunity to create fresh new view on the very structure of the universe. This anti-Big Bang stance is something that really stops me from joining...
This is the first explanation of materialism, and especially it's importance to Marxism, that has made sense to me. Explaining materialism vs idealism and why idealism has historically dominated really made this clear. Thank you
Love this series!
Fantastic video! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
This was so helpful for me, I'm new to Marxist theory so I'm excited to watch the full series. Thank you!
Great..
Never compromise with quality..
Short episodes will serve as capsules..
We would like to dive deep into this.
Try as long you can emphasize on each smaller and particular aspect.
Try to bring some criticisms by idealists. And of course refute it as it will provide a whole and multidimensional view of the philosophy.
I am tired of just hearing rhetorics like "everything is connected", "development happens through contradiction", "unity of opposites", "matter over mind"..
We are tired of this.
Tell us why this. I pretty much acknowledge myself as a Marxist but very much confused when it comes to philosophy.
Everyone is keen to tell this happens that way.
Tell me why this happens that way.
Btw, this video was one of best. It emphasises more on "why"... Liked it..👍🏽
Just saw this. Is great 👍
Great video, make more about philosophy
I am a socialist, but I am not a communist because I am also a nationalist. I understand the reasoning behind an international movement, but people often forget that power corrupts. Even if you create a perfect government, over time it could become corrupt. Therefore, it’s better to aim for socialism within different states rather than trying to create an international socialist government.
For example, some people might prefer a Muslim state with socialism, while others might want a Christian state with socialism. People are different, and communism doesn’t seem to accept this diversity. Even if you could convince people to work together, a single global government poses too great a risk, in my opinion. Essentially, you’re saying we should risk the possibility of ultimate tyranny to achieve communism. What would happen if a one-world communist government were captured and corrupted? For me, that risk is too high.
I support socialism, but not as a global movement. That’s why I’m not a communist, even though I agree with many of its ideas.
Another point is regarding materialism. You can adopt Schopenhauer’s concept of materialism, which, in my opinion, is compatible with socialism. It could even serve as an ideological foundation for a socialist framework.
"Until recently, people used the term "natural philosophy" to refer to disciplines which we would today call biology, chemistry, physics, and so on. The problem with this viewpoint is that it precludes any notion of metaphysics. But it's tricky because it looks like this physical explanation for the world is both clear and deep. It therefore looks like a satisfactory explanation. In this view, metaphysics aren't just impossible; they're also unnecessary.
Judging accordingly from this standpoint, it seems nothing but a mere whim to seek different explanations for a world rendered so clearly using an entirely imaginary metaphysics. On this is based the considerable contempt with which physicists look down upon metaphysics. However, the one-sidedness of this viewpoint will quickly reveal itself. Physicists cannot account for the question of where these natural laws come from. Thus, they are relegated to either plead ignorance or engage in tautology. In this respect, Schopenhauer remarks with a good deal of sarcasm that one could apply a phrase to the entire world thus explicated-one which Victor was fond of uttering when he mastered his dramatic talents at the podium-to say in all earnestness with impressive emphasis, "It is because it is, and is as it is because it is so."
Objective philosophies like materialism will inevitably go down the same path, Schopenhauer predicts. We should note that Schopenhauer is biased, of course, being an idealist himself. But he makes the argument that sooner or later these physicists will come to the conclusion that all knowledge of the world, however self-sufficient and mathematically correct it may be, is ultimately mediated by human cognition. Therefore, the human intellect-not the physical world-should be the chief object of philosophical investigation.
Wisdom obtained according to objective means is accepted on the credits of the human intellect, which must, after all, have its own forms, functions, and manner of presentation, and consequently is entirely conditioned by it. From this follows the necessity to change standpoint once again and switch method from objective to subjective, thereby making the intellect itself the focus of investigation and putting its authority to the test.
So, what is the true object of philosophy? It is to investigate the intellect itself. The greatest accomplishment in this endeavor, according to Schopenhauer, is Kant's masterpiece, The Critique of Pure Reason. However, this investigation must necessarily lead to the conclusion that not even the intellect itself is unmediated. For the intellect grasps merely the surface of things but cannot penetrate to their interior, and therefore it is not entirely and thoroughly capable of understanding or scrutinizing even a single one, even the smallest and simplest of all those beings that are objectively clear and real to it. On the contrary, in each and everything, the main point remains a mystery to it.
This is indeed one of Kant's main conclusions in The Critique of Pure Reason: that metaphysics-or, in other words, knowledge of the world as it is in itself, objectively-is fundamentally impossible. All we humans can do, in Kant's view, is formulate knowledge about the world as appearance, as the phenomenon. At this critical juncture, however, Schopenhauer moves away from Kant. Somehow cryptically and dramatically, Schopenhauer ends his essay on the possible starting point of philosophy with a cliffhanger. Then, finally, he recognizes that the ideality of space, time, and causality, which is now clear to him, leaves room for an entirely different order of things than that of nature.
For Kant, this different order of things than nature is the noumenon, or the thing-in-itself. As we've seen, it's essentially unknowable-a mystery. We know that it exists, but we can say nothing more definite about it. For Schopenhauer, this is not the case. Schopenhauer does believe we can say something about this different order of things. He doesn't say it in this essay, but what he is hinting at is, of course, his own philosophy: the philosophy of the will.
This very short essay, Some Isolated Remarks on the Correct Starting Point of Philosophy, in this way serves as a sort of prologue and justification for his own philosophy. It's not really a defense of idealism per se, because Schopenhauer simply posits that a materialistic philosophy will never truly explain the world without giving actual arguments for this position. Rather than a defense, then, it's more of a justification-an explanation. It's also a warning to his fellow philosophers: do not relegate themselves to a single path. Taking an objective starting point and never deviating from this leads to materialism and ensures that philosophy can never surpass physics. But taking a subjective standpoint will lead to idealism in the vein of Berkeley, who argued that material reality doesn't objectively exist at all, except as an idea in the mind.
Transcendental idealism, put forward by Immanuel Kant, is the synthesis of these two positions, and it's what Schopenhauer considered to be Kant's greatest achievement. By working out a philosophy of the will, Schopenhauer saw himself building upon Kantian foundations, importing the transcendental idealist framework but adding on top of this an element which he found missing in Kant's-a framework which would allow us to learn true metaphysical knowledge.
We can then see how, in Kant's philosophy, this tension between subjective and objective starting points gets resolved. Schopenhauer, in turn, takes it one step further still. After Schopenhauer introduces the concept of the will, he looks again to nature, to the material world, to learn about its inner workings. In this way, his philosophy becomes full circle again. After importing Kant's transcendental idealism, he refers to nature again to say more about metaphysics. He goes from the subjective to the objective, straight back to the subjective.
This was very important to Schopenhauer, as he believed that a true theory of metaphysics must account for physical phenomena as well. So, we get long, vividly described passages-almost documentary-like-on several phenomena in nature, of great literary quality, which are then explained in terms of the underlying will. In this way, Schopenhauer sought to incorporate the scientific findings of his day, mostly in biology, into his own philosophy. A true theory of everything-a fundamental groundwork upon which the rest of our knowledge can be built." -Weltgeist
BTW: Getting a good feeling of what materialistic (and dialectic) thinking and analysis is, is well shown in the essay of of Frederick Engels 1876 *"The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man"*
link to the full text following ...ff
Materialistic method shown in a book about society: It begins with .... Society exists in a certain area, a certain time, and something further which I did forget. This is very often not done by idealist philosophers who like to be timeless or better non-historic, anti-scientific etc.
I'm not sure about the pessimism of Plato, looking down at the masses...
Would you not say that to call the ancient Greek philosophers "materialist" in a strict sense, is a stretch. Take for example Orphism, which led to the thought system we would now call "Greek" philosophy. The Pythagoreans too, could not be called "materialist" as they were in essence, a religious cult.
And of course, the mystery religions themselves, stemming from the eleusinian mysteries.
Curious on anyone's thoughts regarding this. I am a little confused going forward.
So basically an abstraction of materialists as a whole?
This video justifies the truth of materialism using historical and political evidences. What about at a fundamental level?, i.e. by applying science and analytical reasonig to address issues like brain-mind causation or "hard problem", some contemporary philosophers like Bernard Kastrup, the auhtor of "Why Materialism is baloney", challenge materialism.
Can you please do an intellectual property abolition video soon? This is the most important activist aim for working class people!!
And IP abolition is the most important aim to liberate artists and inventors and make them all better off financially.
IP laws make no sense from either left or right politics. The “property” in intellectual property is a false term used for propaganda purposes. Intellectual property is not property in any sense. It’s monopoly
See the work of Stephan Kinsella, Michele Boldrin, & David K. Levine. These are the best experts on intellectual property in the world.
@@user-wl2xl5hm7k You're really pushing for this thing eh? See you in videos bringing it up.
@@Tetragrammaton22 Haha guess we like the same videos. Absolutely, this is necessary for humanity. You need to look into it too
first
The worst
Current studies in physics do not seem to support your definition of materialism, more precisely “unambiguous materialism”. The notion that the objective world is inside of myself & that the natural environment is beyond every subjective reality is wrong headed. They are intertwined. When Marx quotes Freybak “the point is to change it”, what does “it” mean. If it means the cultural reality then it can be changed by considering the orphan, the widow, the infirm and slave. However, if it means the natural environment you’ve got a problem. Personally, I support any actions that supports persons. When such actions are of sustainable design, then all the better.
Your promoting Marxism?? Are you nuts?
Let's assume you and I have two separate tribes. You have 10 people and I have 10 people. We both have the same amount of resources. You distribute your resources equally and the same responsibilities to everyone. I assign the resources unequally, and favor those who perform better. You don't have to be a genius to realize who will be more successful and happy. The goal of life itself is to be unequal.
"Let's assume..." -
Or, we could study the historical record of early humans that lived in this way and derive insights through analysis of actual material conditions rather than make up some ridiculous "thought experiment" that's overflowing with capitalist realism and rationalization but that doesn't actually map onto the reality we're living in. See, for example, ruclips.net/video/9u2TtXVABcc/видео.html
@@TaxManATX
Let's assume,
that you can point me in the direction of ACTUAL WORKING COMMUNISM. Show me where it has ever worked, or where it is working now.
Without assuming, you can't.
@@DemonDog444 Any form of imposition takes away choice which leads to eventual rejection and rebellion. Communists cannot get their heads around this. Capitalism, while punitive and unequal does allow for more choice across a wider section of society which is why people are happier with it overall as a system. Socialism is not the antidote but I do like the idea of participatory socialism that Thomas Piketty came up with. Capitalism needs more evening out. Capital distribution is a real issue that could be addressed for a more equal share for the labour force while still allowing for the investment of more capital and achieving shareholder value