I've been going through Crit's absolute beginner reading list and I keep putting down "Elementary principles of philosophy" and skipping ahead to the other books because I just fail to see the value in a deep dive to philosophy in order to learn about history and economy and so on. I would like to skip it completely but don't want to miss important fundamentals.
It's such a hard read for me because it keeps rubbing me the wrong way with stuff like
Then there are the scholars, unknowingly materialistic and inconsequential. They are materialists in the laboratory, then, when they come out of their work, they are idealists, believers, religious.
In fact, [the shameful materialists] did not know or did not want to put their ideas in order. They are in perpetual contradiction with themselves. They separate their work, necessarily materialistic, from their philosophical conceptions. They are "scientists", and yet, if they do not expressly deny the existence of matter, they think, which is unscientific, that it is useless to know the real nature of things. They are "scientists" and yet they believe without any proof in impossible things. (See the case of Pasteur, Branly and others who were believers, whereas the scientist, if he is consistent, must abandon his religious belief).
so I cant be a christian and marxist? Even worse I'm also a mathematician, I formulate ideas and theories and proofs with absolutely zero regard for any material reality. None. I will take an infinite number of unprovable, non-material statements as true, and to top it all off, unable to show that my axiomatic set theory is at least internally consistent, just believe it to be free of contradiction. Thus if someone proves how some seemingly obvious statement leads to a contradiction in my system I will thank them for proving that the statement must be false. In fact the proof of such nonsensical statements is often the highlight of a math course (I mean this kind of shit is awesome). The poor physicists then have to deal with the fallout of our complete disregard for material reality. But they're the scientist so what do I (speaking as an idealist mathematician) care, they're the materialists.
As a christian I at least double check if what I believe in contradicts scientific statements and amend my belief system, not deny the scientific statement (oh the earth wasn't created in 6 days? Guess I will have to revise what I assumed to be true). But why should the scientist care if I believe in a reality outside of the material one, they won't be able to study it anyway.
Now if I want to understand history or economy or anything else within material reality, I obviously have to use my senses or rely on the senses of others and study the state of the matter at some point in time that would have existed even if I didn't. Then formulate thought based on those observations. But why is it so important to literally always do that?
And what am I supposed to be getting out of this whole mess in order to better understand marxist/leninist/anarchist/whatever else theory????
A surface level understanding of diamat and its position in the history of political philosophy helps you judge the quality of what you are reading. Example: in "foundations of Leninism" Stalin describes how Lenin build off of Marx's work to create Marxism-Leninism. Knowing what Lenin's view was, and how he differed from Marx, means you can tell whether Stalin wrote something that portrays ML accurately or if he just wrote it to justify being the successor to Lenin. Basically you can see through the BS better.
Also, understanding why Marxism differs from other ideologies (simply being based on a different philosophy) will make you appreciate other schools of thought and help reevaluate your own beliefs when you come across them, rather than just dismissing them as uninformed. Not saying you would, but I see it online. "Damn libs just don't know"
because if you aren't (trying to be) aware of subconscious biases and their origin, societal context and its influence, you aren't using the method for materialism. It's like doing an experiment without checking for variables or using a control.
That’s true when you’re promoting a cause or doing something that affects other people. But OP’s quote talks about materialist scientists being “idealistic” outside of their work. In other words, their private world away from wider society. If someone wants to believe in bread turning into flesh while also advocating for parishioners to physically feed the poor and organize them to resist landlords (because Jesus would’ve done the same), then who am I to criticize?
It reminds me of the common Christian parable of the man stuck on his roof during a flood and ignores every instance of humanitarian aid because he was hoping for god’s miracle. When he does, god says that he sent helicopters, boats, kayaks, etc. but he chose to ignore all of them. Now, it’s important to note that this parable can be used to advocate pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. But if you’re a socialist, you can also use that parable to advocate for being materialistic within god’s world - he’s provided you with all the tools right here. You cannot ignore everything and hope god saves you. You must work together with the people and the environment
Thank you, that gives me a good reason to not try to shortcut.