Materialism is a form of idealism

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

london.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/students/philosophy/ba_course_materials/ba_19thc_hegel_glossary_01.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

And there you have Marxist philosophy.

That does not make it idealist you retard.

So marx took dialectics, but didn't take the context in which dialectics functioned?
Does that matter though? Wasn't Hegel's work entirely abstract?

Its just a meme.


Hes just meme posting, I'm sure.

Can you take your freshman knowledge of philosophy and fuck off? It's bad enough having reddit obesity here but at least he used to post in his youtube channel but you have nothing of value to contribute so fuck off with your trip faggotry.

A basic into into Marxism 101 would tell you how Marx never used dialectics in the same way Hegel used them and that historical materialism has almost nothing in common to the common understanding of the Hegelian dialectic. But you prefer to shitpost.

It's Idealism that doesn't want to be Idealistic, it's an abstraction of Hegel's method without having any of his methodology. Thus the reason why most Marxists theorists prefer Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel's demonstration of his dialectical method, to the explanation of dialectics and how it creates a system in his Science of Logic and Encyclopedia.

Yup, you got it.
No way. Hegel was entirely against abstract thinking, he was all about making concepts concrete.

london.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/students/philosophy/ba_course_materials/ba_19thc_hegel_glossary_01.pdf

Hegel knew that the actualization of ideas in conscious action and then self-conscious mediation was key to understanding reality.

No memes babe!

Sure, if you do the same with your middleschool knowledge of philosophy.

Precisely my friend. By taking the dialectic itself out of context, Marx wasn't able to utilize the vast network that upheld dialectical logic and instead simply put it in the limited context of political economy, it doesn't function at all outside of that frame.

It's like taking the heart of a dolphin and transplanting it into the human body, one of those things is not in harmony with the other.

Dialectics is a conceptual relational development structure, i.e. it requires one to be a conceptual realist, i.e. merely changing the concepts from "ideal" to "material" does not get you out of Hegelian idealism, in fact it's literally impossible. If you can >think< x you're committed to the reality of a concept, call it matter, doesn't matter.

So basically every philosopher who saw that Hegel was too abstract was retard. Thanks, this was all I needed to know.

Then read Althusser and be proven wrong, shitposters.

...

Called it!

Thanks for the laughs, A.W

Materialism is, indeed, idealism! Because LMAO GERMAN IDEOLOGY

It isn't?

Materialism is a pretty direct and strong rejection of idealism.

More like, read what I wrote . Hegel calls ALL philosophy de facto idealist by the very form and content philosophy must have as thought. To merely call something material and expound the concept of what it is to be material shows the ideal nature of the claim.

If materialism was true, and empiricism truly valid, as you say, then we would just merely have to look at the world and immediately intuitively know it by what is otherwise known as intellectual intuition. If we had that, then theory would be pointless.

It means that idealism, like solipsism, is unfalsifiable, irrefutable, and says nothing.

Solipsism is refutable. You have to just stop being stupid and believing pure abstraction, that you are somehow god yet have the memory of a human being.

All of philosophy is unfalsifiable, it's not empirical, it is the very ground concept of what the empirical can even mean. Hegel's idealism is irrefutable in so far as you're going to use thoughts to argue. To know anything is to know it ideally, the very idea of the >not-ideal< is itself an idea.

"The premises from wich we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstration can only be made in the imagination. Thney are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way."

"We have seen that the whole problem of the transition from thought to reality, hence from language to life, exists only in philosophical illusion, ie., it is justified only for philosophical consciousness, which cannot possibly be clear about the nature and origin of its apparent separation from life. This great problem, insofar as it at all entered minds of our ideologists, was bound, of course, to result of finely in one of these knights-errant setting out in search of a word, which, as a word, formed the transition in question, which as a word, ceases to be simply a word, and which, as a word, in a mysterious super linguistic manner, points from whitin the language to the actual object it denotes; which, in short, plays among words the same role as the Redeeming God-Man plays among people in Christian fantasy. The emptiest, shallowest brain among the philosophers had to 'end' philosophy by proclaiming his lack of thought to be the end of philosophy and this the triumphant entry into 'corporeal' life. His philosophizing mental vacuity was already in itself the end of philosophy just as his unspeakable language was the end of all language"

"Where speculation ends – in real life – there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which arise from the observation of the historical development of men. Viewed apart from real history, these abstractions have in themselves no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly trimming the epochs of history. On the contrary, our difficulties begin only when we set about the observation and the arrangement – the real depiction – of our historical material, whether of a past epoch or of the present. The removal of these difficulties is governed by premises which it is quite impossible to state here, but which only the study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each epoch will make evident. We shall select here some of these abstractions, which we use in contradistinction to the ideologists, and shall illustrate them by historical examples."

Empiricism is false and literally can lead nowhere you silly cave dweller - t. Hume


Except, you know, Hegel literally did just that: clarify just why epistemology is retarded, including Marx's early empiricism in the GId.

Hegel LITERALLY says that the ideal which philosophy arises from the practical and unconscious assumptions in it.

That's why Marx didn't rely on empiricism alone.
Jesus Christ. Have you even read anything Marx wrote? Or did you dismiss it because LMAO GERMANI DEOLOGY, MORE LIKE GERMAN SHITPOSTING AMIRITE


The emptiest, shallowest brain among the philosophers had to 'end' philosophy by proclaiming his lack of thought to be the end of philosophy and this the triumphant entry into 'corporeal' life. His philosophizing mental vacuity was already in itself the end of philosophy just as his unspeakable language was the end of all language"

That's very materialistic!

Admit it, idealism and materialism are not the same. Materialism is literally a rejection of idealism alone.

Feuerbach > Stirner

Which many criticize and don't agree on.

How about you give a critique, right here?

Proves me that you're not a product of my mind then.

Biggest kek I had all day, thank you comrade.

No problem!

Yes, let us just go ahead and depict this reality immediately through intuition, because we have total access to the world through the senses. I have no concept of the apple, the apple is always immediate and apparent to me.

Oh wait, that's retarded mysticism-tier thinking. Marx's conception of materialism and 'practical life activity' in the German Ideology is a regression to Pre-Kantian ontology, where our experience is this intuitive access of things-in-themselves and self-consciousness doesn't exist as anything but a series of abstractions.

Refute it.

>To know anything is to know it ideally, the very idea of the >not-ideal< is itself an idea.

Quit motte-and-baileying. This says nothing, and is completely pointless unless you are trying to make a point with it.

What?


You are purposely missing the point.

"Materialism is a flavour of idealism, not matter what evidence you show - and this is true because Yui said so" was just the beginning, apparently.

Lad you stopped posting in the last thread about this because you regress into a nature / man dichotomy as a mysticism for your terrible understanding of Hegelian philosophy.

Don't make the same mistake.

Go and read Marx.

...

Indeed, he didn't. You may be a newfag, but I know my Marx more than most here by a long shot. I'm just pointing out he literally says retarded shit that no one should believe in the GI.


meme tier falsehood said by Marx at a time where it is empirically (kek) verified by historical record that he HAD NOT READ HEGEL.


Have you never read Hegel? He's not Berkeley, you retard.

Three ways:


1. Then the world and ego are one and the same thing, one mistakes subjectivity to be thoughts present to them which may just be another part of the world.

2. Prove the transcendental conditions for the possibility of you being in a world where you are the only reality, yet somehow you are powerless over said reality to the point where you imagine someone of a superior intellect such as myself beating you down for being a retard.

3. Most importantly: prove that you are absolute (good luck).


You're almost right. It just says one thing: all systems of thought are merely the self-determinations of thought, even the thoughts of a world out there, a world as it is, a thing-in-itself, nature, matter.

It is epistemological monism: you can't ever know what is not an object of thought. If matter >really< was something beyond and completely other to thought it would literally be unthinkable. The reason it is not, however, is that reality does contain concepts in-forming it.

I can assure you that I am not.

Oh nice.

I don't to believe in it! I'm not an idealist.


That's the point: idealism is not materialism.

Okay, you two. Let's do it by the numbers.

Can both of you define Materialism and it's opposite - Idealism, in Marxist's discourse before you switch to Hegel and start claiming that it's one and the same thing?

Because I'm not sure we are even talking about the same thing.

Idealism: material comes from the spirit
Materialism: the spirit comes form the material

Good thing I'm not an empiricist, because I can see from the essence of your posts that you are.


Indeed, materialism is >an idealism

1. Then the world and ego are one and the same thing, one mistakes subjectivity to be thoughts present to them which may just be another part of the world.
one mistakes objectivity to be obfects present to them which may just be another part of the mind.

2. Prove the transcendental conditions for the possibility of you being in a world where you are the only reality, yet somehow you are powerless over said reality to the point where you imagine someone of a superior intellect such as myself beating you down for being a retard.
I'm a schizophrenic God with masochist tendencies

3. Most importantly: prove that you are absolute (good luck).
Can't prove i'm relative either.

Your move

Is that all you can do? Call me a newfag? You can ask the BO about it, I don't care. Go jerk off on bunkerchan with all the other tripfags, I don't care either.

>Indeed, materialism is >an idealism

Okay. Pseudo-intellectual bullshit instead of Materialism.

Case closed.

Is Yui the most insufferable trip?

No, it's Rebel.

...

rebel is worse because he posts more often

How are you making such a distinction when you are the the world, the One? How is anything >your< thoughts, what other is there?


How do you know that?


You're literally proving yourself relative by engaging anything >other< than yourself, this includes this so called illusion of a conversation.


Is that all you can do, not argue? Keep being a newfag.

A.W literally assumes that Idealism is a product of, and only of, Hegel.

Thus The German Ideology, which speaks about Idealism - perpetrated by the Young/Old Hegelians and others at the time- is wrong! Because Marx was wrong about Hegel, which is the Ideal of Idealism itself.

When will you realize that Hegel > Marx?

You want to waste time with Marx's shitty philosophy? Be my guest, waste your time away in a pissing match. I think it's funny, Marx is a master of biting wit, but don't come around here expecting me to bow down to meme tier philosophy.

Hegel calls his idealism absolute for a reason: it does what all other idealisms, Berkeleyan of Kantian, and what all other materialisms, ancient or modern physicalism, could not: it actually makes a system in which everything fits and can be properly derived.

Hegel calls his system idealism for technical reasons, he was as materialistic as Marx in many ways.

>How are you making such a distinction when you are the the world, the One? How is anything >your< thoughts, what other is there?
I'm not the world, the world doesn't exist. There is only Me. The concept of something outside me is me deluding myself.

Simple deduction, Me. Given that everything comes from my mind, and i am now arguing with myself, that means my mind is not completely healthy

You're literally proving yourself relative by engaging anything >other< than yourself, this includes this so called illusion of a conversation.
But this no other, you're me.

Oh yeah. Totally. I agree, 100%.

Where are these concepts coming from? Where are you getting this concept of 'I'?

Where are you getting logical forms of knowing from?


Where are you getting this concept from?

Yui, you inspire me.

From me of course.

That's not an explanation. Where are you getting differentiation from in order make claims of an I and an other, illusory or not?

What do you mean, me? All thoses concepts were always present i my mind.

Now you're learning how to shitpost, son!

I'm not learning anything, I always knew it, it's just that i forgot for a time

Nah seriously, i could always find an explanation within solipcism to everything wich should contradict it. Which make it irrefutable.

Except no post has responded with anything close to an explanation. Every response is a mere assertion that assumes many things.

There is an actual explanation to solipsism, but it literally makes it not solipsism.

Rolled 16 + 5 (1d20)GET THE FUCK OUT YOU FILTHY MATERIALISTS, MATERIALISM ONLY EXISTS WITHIN/AS PART OF THE IDEA. YOU KANT FIGHT THIS GERMAN IDEALISM!!!

...

I can make assumption after assumption after assumption in the end it certainly doesn't prove i'm right but still doen't prove i'm wrong.

Bold assumption, why is langage the limit?

Bold assumption. The world could be illogical

That's Wittgenstein's argument.


You could never know this, if you did it would itself be a logical determination.

Wittgenstein assumes things. The point is, however, that assumptions warrant no knowledge. You have to find an Absolute that requires no assumptions, no determinate beginning position, in order to prove solipsism solid.

hey rebel, can you please make more video mate?

Rebel is a schismatist, and I am not him.

Hi, Kitty. :}