It evolved with and out of scientific understandings of anthropology, psychology, natural/human history, and ecology. It's rooted in the same philosophy as science with the same core project of demystifying a physical universe, but approaches that through constructivist rather than reductionist process. Outside of Latinwang and much smaller efforts from within the same system, there is no other critique of science as a structure from a philosophy compatible with a scientific worldview. There is no science to explain the interaction between vastly different systems which predates what Marx was doing or applies as many analytical angles as subsequent Marxists did. Where there is one, it's neutered by the material interests of its patrons and reduced to passive observation of individual subjects if it's funded at all.
If there's a more scientific philosophy I've never found it despite searching. There just isn't meaningful understanding of one thing without understanding its relational opposites. It doesn't matter if it's an electron or a river or a factory.
It’s rooted in the same philosophy as science with the same core project of demystifying a physical universe, but approaches that through constructivist rather than reductionist process.
It also started at the same time the physical sciences were formalizing. But the prevailing, imperialistic, capitalist society couldn't have demystification of itself. It kept the old enlightenment brainworms. In an attempt to keep up the ruse you started getting wacky race science to explain outcomes of imperialism and industrialization. The world was viewed as purely mechanistic because that's what reinforced industrial capitalism.
Hegel saw this and so did Lenin. They both wrote about the limitations of liberal science. In the mid-20th century the Soviets tried to start injecting DM into science again. But then, you know, WWII and then The Cold War.
It evolved with and out of scientific understandings of anthropology, psychology, natural/human history, and ecology. It's rooted in the same philosophy as science with the same core project of demystifying a physical universe, but approaches that through constructivist rather than reductionist process. Outside of Latinwang and much smaller efforts from within the same system, there is no other critique of science as a structure from a philosophy compatible with a scientific worldview. There is no science to explain the interaction between vastly different systems which predates what Marx was doing or applies as many analytical angles as subsequent Marxists did. Where there is one, it's neutered by the material interests of its patrons and reduced to passive observation of individual subjects if it's funded at all.
If there's a more scientific philosophy I've never found it despite searching. There just isn't meaningful understanding of one thing without understanding its relational opposites. It doesn't matter if it's an electron or a river or a factory.
high brainpower based philosophymaxxer post
This has been a big brain 🍯
It also started at the same time the physical sciences were formalizing. But the prevailing, imperialistic, capitalist society couldn't have demystification of itself. It kept the old enlightenment brainworms. In an attempt to keep up the ruse you started getting wacky race science to explain outcomes of imperialism and industrialization. The world was viewed as purely mechanistic because that's what reinforced industrial capitalism.
Hegel saw this and so did Lenin. They both wrote about the limitations of liberal science. In the mid-20th century the Soviets tried to start injecting DM into science again. But then, you know, WWII and then The Cold War.
:this: is very :based-department: