What do you think about Popper's "What is Dialectic?" pretty strong material if you ask me...

what do you think about Popper's "What is Dialectic?" pretty strong material if you ask me. defend yourselves Marxists or contribute with the texts written against it.

brahmsiano.wdfiles.com/local--files/prueba-archivos/dialéctica.pdf

He's also not mentioning anything about Hegel's "Spirit", nor the fact that dialectic was a theory of the progression of human knowledge foremost and not "all things".

Take for example this:
He then goes on to talk about interpretations of nature as having a dialectical character. Now, Engels may of thought that but it isn't what was intended by Hegel, nor Marx. It's fairly obvious Popper did not spend much time with Hegel, and was critiquing what ""dialecticians"" (like Engels and Soviet Marxist I guess) purveyed instead of the source material. A proper critique of Hegel should draw on Hegel as a primary source. The same applies to Marx.

Also reminder that Popper thought evolution was bunk because it couldn't be falsified. He also thought the same of macroeconomics.

This is one of the laziest forms of argumentation, one I see all too often here. "He's an idiot because he thought this [out of context idea, with no respect for his reasoning]", which literally applies to every single thinker ever, or "He's an idiot because he associated with known idiots like X" - guilt by association. You idiots probably haven't even read Hayek or understood his epistemic argument, let alone already incorporated it into your own master theory that explains all politics which you disseminate piecemeal through incoherent rants on leftypol

Also,
I'd argue that Hegel is radically interpretable, similar to mystical texts, hence why he was a monarchist, and why there were Right Hegelians, then, and clearly now (xDDD). What's more important to me is how Hegel was subsequently modified, used and interpreted by the dominant school of metaphysics derived from him through Marx, which then massively shaped the rest of history, and which is of course of primary interest to anti-capitalist politics.

I haven't found Austrian theory compelling enough to read through a thick text that predicates itself on bad economics like Says Law, but feel free to leave an Ebook here for me. I don't think I could ever slog through a Mises or Rothbard text (nor were my friends who are studying economics), but Hayek seems more attractive, if unimportant and repeatedly shown up by Keynes.

Karl Popper is a faggot completely out of his depth on almost every single issue he talks about. Arch scum bag Leo Strauss pointed this out among others. People who worship Popper are Fedora Soc Dem autists

all economics is bunk because it doesn't make accurate predictions nor can it be falsified nor can it be justified in the first place. Its literally divination for stat autists

You're mistaking falsification for science. Falsification isn't even widely accepted in the scientific community, because a theories validity is based on its explanatory power, not whether it can be falsified. There are entire branches of science we would have to throw out if that were the case. Popper even tried to create a social science based on the "rationality principle" that had a "unity of method" with what he laid out for hard sciences, and utterly failed. Ended up contradicting himself over and over and dropping it eventually. Social sciences, and this includes psychology, do not function as mechanistically as hard sciences and should be held to a different set of standards. The classical economist had the right idea, viewing economics as a theory of how society reproduced itself and created wealth, which was perceptive and more focused on establishing general trends rather than predicting them.

You remind me of A.W.

Yes we should throw out all theoretical physics and evo-psyche as they are unfalsifiable nonsense

Anything that can't be easily demonstrated by building a functioing technology or doing an easy to replicate experiment isn't science its nonsense

This is just the price we will have to pay for preventing NASA from happening again. No more faggot autist wasteful STEMlord fantasies

Real technology, real theories and real experiments. People don't deserve any praise for "proving" the existence of mathematical objects that aren't observable ever to anyone

Who is A.W.?

Why not argue better?

Nomological-deductive is a widely accepted view, and inherited a lot from Popper, not that I strictly believe in it, whinging about falsifactionism is not a refutation of Popper on completely separate arguments regarding such matters as "dialectics", free society and totalizing systems of thought.

ad hominem isn't a valid logical fallacy

im allowed to attack an ideological opponents character and mentality. Karl Popper is a preening pompous faggot and he is part of a strain of Fedora faggots who have ruined philosophy and science

Those sciences that do not meet the criteria of falsification are fucking worthless. They lack predictive powers and should not be trusted. Any value they retain is entirely social.

Yes and any theories that don't yield immediate technological results are equally garbage and don't deserve funding (Black Hole Theory, Higgs Boson particle accelerator)

The social sciences AND useless theoretical aspects of hard sciences need to go.

I can refute him based on the fact that he tried to apply the same method to the social sciences himself, and found it was impossible. The "social sciences" should not be sciences, and the attempt to shoehorn all human behaviour into a hard science is exactly the pompous attitude is talking about.


No, it isn't. Maybe some of the hard theoretical sciences, but theories on human behaviour are wholly relevant. It's the very nature of human activity that makes them unfalsifiable. Odd that you're saying this on a leftist board, when the entire justification for either Capitalism or Leftism is economic and philosophical. Are you a primitivist?


Hmmm.

No duh, that's why I'm painting you as an idiot.


lel. Can you respond to the actual criticism of dialectics and totalized Marxism however?

I'm only going to respond to the parts about Marx's economics. I'm not interested in diamat so to speak, as much as I am in the base/superstructure dichotomy.

And is it possible to understand those without looking at how a society reproduces itself and creates wealth? Absolutely not. That takes primacy over everything we do, without it we die.

For the rest of the part specific to Marx, I concur that his criticism about being "unscientific" if we use falsifiability as the criterion. For one, this makes a couple fundamental mistakes:
- Marx was trying to craft a logic specific to his socialism that would distinguish it from the socialist who were writing about the sea turning into lemonade.
- He then assumes Marx was trying to predict exactly what would happen to Capitalism, and not outlining general trends of Capitalism up until this time which can serve as the basis for further investigation. To quote Marx:


If materialism is interpreted rigidly, it is refuted by its own existence. I'd go as far to say Popper is usually beating down a strawman of Marx. Now, of course Poppers reply (as was his reply when he addressed countervailing tendencies in the law of profit), is that a theory that allows for many possible outcomes it not scientific. This may be so, but rather than take his critique as condemning Marx, we should take a look at how Popper used his criticism of Marxism to craft his own social science. Low and behold, Popper was not able to get around the fact logic in social science's contradicts itself when interpreted rigidly, and becomes unscientific when it allows for multiple outcomes. Read PDF related.

The critique is more relevant to Orthodox Autism, Diamat and etc. I agree his criticism of the economic aspects are not fair. He was making a similar critique of it being elevated to a total ideology as even Zizek might make, as you basically agree to here: when interpreted rigidly it contradicts itself. Which is what has been done, repeatedly. The ideological dogma held by huge segments of the global intelligentsia and forced upon vast sections of the populace by omnipresent states in the 20th century is hardly a strawman, especially given the period in which Popper was writing.

The Soviet Marxist took pieces like Anti-Durhing which were Engels to be analogous to Marx's view which is what led to Orthodox Marxism being dogmatically deterministic. To put this in perspective, "The German Ideology" which is one of the most important text regarding diamat wasn't published until 1937. Marxism was an ideology before we really had access to his full corpus of thought.

shhh… the tankies might hear you!

Kek.
But I also should also correct, the Soviet Marxist and the Orthodox Marxist are obviously different sects, but the root of their determinism is the same - application of Marx with a limited understanding his thought.