Why does this meme exist? How intellectually backwards do you have to be to take a statement this ridiculous seriously?
I see this a lot, primarily from tanks but moreso from Maoists, not the Jason Unruhe "Maoists" but the Althusser-is-my-bro Maoists (funny because Althusser himself was a philosopher who encouraged Marxists to study philosophy).
Furthermore, studying Hegel, Spinoza, even Nietzsche can be useful for Marxists. Why assume DiaMat has all the answers when it obviously doesn't?
Probably has something to do with the fact that professional academics in the west are constantly trying to poison the well of marxism with their own obscurantist bullshit in an attempt to wrest it from the working class.
No, it's the opposite actually: ML and MLM dudebros parrot the idea that DiaMat "solves" philosophy and is correct because it's an authentically proletarian ontology (compared to the "bourgeois" ontology of Plato, Kant, Hegel, etc.).
Marxism grows out of philosophy, and owes it a tremendous debt. If not for philosophy, the materialist dialectic as a methodology would not exist, as it was formulated out of Marx's deconstruction of the so-called "idealist" dialectic, which has its origins in mysticism and theology. In a way, we could say that Marxism is the bastard child of philosophy and theology.
You don't understand the historical dialectic. is closer to the truth. Being "the end" doesn't mean that everything before it doesn't matter, just that it has been negated and is therefore largely unnecessary. You can't build revolutions on book clubs user or graduate degrees. If you want to do that you are more than welcome to but do not get mad when no one cares about your opinion.
is a response to
What makes it unnecessary though? On what basis does DiaMat "debunk" all previous philosophy, and why should we accept DiaMat as the "final" form of philosophy?
FFS your entire religion is rooted in philosophical debate and investigation.
If you're really a christfag, wouldn't you prefer young Marx (Hegelian, romantic, quasi-spiritual) to old Marx (hard materialist)?
...
DiaMat is a shit-tier philosophy anyway.
Mystical dialectics is the source, the materialist dialectic is like a watered down wine. Can you define dialectics for us ignorant folks? Also, how do you advise the left build a revolution, user?
Whoa there user, careful someone might catch you saying true things
Also, how do you reconcile being a Christian and a dialectical materialist? Do you deny that God is the author of everything, past, present and future?
Y tho?
How does DiaMat stay materialist and dialectical, without becoming either hard materialist or idealist?
is there a problem with hard materialism?
Hegelianism literally makes no fucking sense, and philosophy is a waste of time. We need to be looking atte material conditions, reals not feels. Marx's biggest mistake was ever relying on that obscurantist Christfag. He should have relied solely on the scientific method instead.
It isn't Historical Materialism
Didn't he strangle his wife?
It doesn't debunk anything. The whole point is that whatever ideas you can derive from prior philosophies are also present (in perfected form) in Marx.
Wait what? Did we read the same young Marx? How young are we talking here? But yes I do actually prefer young Marx but only because he wasn't trying so hard to be an economist back then.
Yes. Yes, he did.
In what manner did Marx "perfect" all preceding philosophies? You're not making your case.
amongst other things, yes
Never happened. Shit bait.
Well let's turn it around: what use has philosophy had since the French revolution? Enlightenment politics owe a great debt to philosophy, but ever since philosophy has totally withdrawn from History. Except for Communism, no great political or cultural developments in the last century or so have been grounded in post-enlightenment philosophical developments.
Why do you think it doesn't though? Do you even understand what people mean when they say marxism signals the end of philosophy?
ye, he also admitted to never having read marx
In what ways? This sounds like a bold statement with nothing concrete to back it up.
Post-modernist discourse has an idealist method of creating models and theories. They present a priori axioms and attempt to back them up deductively, but never tie them with the material conditions that surrounded the subject they're studying. In short, they're all idealistic relativist theories. It's only logical, since the current establishment doesn't want Young Hegelians 2: Electric Boogaloo, so this is the methodology that's allowed to dominate neoliberal academia
Really activates my neurons
It should be easy enough to disabuse me of it, just point to the political developments spurred by contemporary philosophy. I wait with bated breath.
well I don't really believe that, if you actually read 'Reading Capital' its apparent that there's no way he actually could have written it without reading Marx.
Deleuze wasn't an idealist…
Hmmmmmm
how would your lot call a horseshoe theory with three angles
kek
Yes, which is precisely why everything he ever said is wrong and not worth reading.
Wow, enjoy your spooky ghosts you stupid niggers. I can not wait for the State Mandated Prayer Circles to bring Communism, I mean Marx said it's a spectre, right?
Probably.
I can see why you would say this as a materialist but at the same time I can't. For example, because our world is A.)Governed by material forces and B.)always in change (seen as dialectics), I can't see how you don't see all true/reasonable philosophy as DiaMat.
I could see one reason for you taking the stance that DiaMat doesn't have all the answers, but I think that is (hopefully) you making an abstraction between DiaMat and provable philosophy instead of actually ordering your life around philosophies that reject the real, material world. That abstraction also doesn't exist, by the way.
And just to wrap this up, I'd say that "Marxism debunks philosophy" is a true statement. A lot of really spooky shit is straight up destroyed by Marxism. You look at older, weaker theories and they don't hold up, and only philosophies that were, aware or not, dialectical and materialist can weather the truth. They are the only ones that can withstand inspection when a Marxist perspective is applied. Here's a quote by someone more eloquent than me.
has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the
crumbling away of untruth. It's seeing
through the facade of pretence. It's the
complete eradication of everything we
imagined to be true.
Adyashanti
DiaMat hasn't "debunked philosophy" in its entirety, it has debunked philosophies that simply don't hold.
where?