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????
Starting with pure mathematics: while it is generally unconcerned with reality, I would not say that it is necessarily anti-materialist. It is when it comes into contact with reality that people slip into anti-materialism, when they expect reality to conform to their ideas rather than the other way around. The world is not made of math, and you won't find a triangle in nature outside of the human mind.
Now this might be slightly heterodox, but I do not think the contradiction between materialist dialectics and religion is unsolvable. Hegel equated his Absolute with God, what is to stop a Marxist from doing the same with Material Reality? They certainly share some qualities. What you would end up with is a different dialectical materialism and a different god from before, though. Or you could take the practical approach of ignoring the contradiction, but that might not work when you get deep enough.
I have not read that particular book, maybe it is great, but I would be sceptical about a suggestion to read a book on diamat as your third book of theory. If I were to teach someone about diamat, I would have them read books like Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Wretched of the Earth before any book about dialectics in the abstract. If I was forced, I would maybe start with something like the book by Stalin, mostly because it is mercifully short and about 70 % correct. I think a new reader of Marxist theory just has to settle for not being able to fully understand some works before reading the philosophical stuff, and at the same time not being able to understand the philosophy before reading those works.
That's is a better phrasing of my point, if I'm not trying to understand material reality why should I use materialism. That doesn't make sense, and vice versa.
I am hoping so but that's a tough nut and there are more important things for me right now, don't know how necessary it even is.
It's worked so far.
That's normal thing for a newbie in most fields I think.
So don't use it for math, but I hope you aren't applying this statement to the rest of your life