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????

  • 420stalin69
    ·
    6 months ago

    To actually answer your question, dialectical materialism is really the cornerstone of Marxist theory and to understand any Marxist writer you really need to understand dialectical materialism.

    Or well, you can listen to their appeals and see the truth in their statements without it but it’s thoroughly illuminating to understand their process.

    It’s like pulling back the curtain and exposing reality. When a Marxist writer is writing for a broad audience, they can just point at what’s behind the curtain and you can agree “oh yeah that actually is obviously true” so in that sense you don’t need dialectics. But when you understand the theory and the process of dialectics, then you understand how they pulled back the curtain to expose reality which gives you a much deeper understanding.

    • mathemachristian [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      6 months ago

      dialectical materialism is really the cornerstone of Marxist theory

      Yeah that sure seems to be the consensus here thank you for adding your voice