are you more interested in materialism or historical materialism? the former is (at least to me) a drier philosophical distinction whereas the latter produces a radically different view of what shapes human society when compared to historical idealism / great man theory
well, I see these terms like materialism, idealism, historical materialism, dialectical materialism constantly thrown around. I wanted to see what people thought they were. Since you brought it up, how do you think historical materialism produces a radically different view of history?
havent read too much on historical materialism, my impression has just been that its just a fancy name for "the correct history"
It's the ideal that material circumstances (ie. economic restrictions, social structures as they actually operate, physical reality) are basal to Idealist conceptions in human societies. Rather than some talented guy going "I'm gonna do a one-tag now" and imposing a great idea on the world by the force of his beliefs.
That is, your morals and your feelings and culture and how you want the world to be, both as an individual, a class, and a society, are almost entirely determined by material relations. Additionally, what you can do with those ideals is restricted by the same circumstances.
That's why you can't wake up as Napoleon in 1811 and decide to mash the Communism button. That's why if Napoleon had been born 50 years earlier he'd have died an artillery major.
Now there is a dialectic here, in that within the narrow range of possibilities, ideals can choose, and that interaction dictates the change in material circumstances, which then alters the idealist superstructure. But material reality is prime in this.
People and their beliefs matter and can change the world, but the world decides where and how change can happen.
Yes, but I fail to see how this is "radically different". In fact, in some ways I feel this is just an alternative version of the "great man theory": Instead of the idea of great individuals facilitating change, it is the "material conditions" that facilitate change. In both of these scenarios, the causes of change seem distant and intangible, which could easily lead to a deterministic and nihlistic view of history. (i.e. whatever happens was meant to happen, my individual actions have no impact etc) Perhaps Im treating these metanarratives too broadly.
No, it's that material conditions restrict choices, so an analysis of them is needed to chart the right course. Marx is explicitly developing his theory not just as a description but as a method of deciding action.
It's not dogmatic and ultra-determinist, it's dynamic, changing, with ideals and material reality in a constant, mutually altering tension and flux between the world as it is and as it will be, and how the world as it is alters our desires for how it should be, and vice versa.
Masses and individuals have a great effect, but their power isn't infinite, and what they want is also contingent. And until you know how the current society arose from the interaction of material reality with people's desires, you cannot see the avenues where positive change is possible, the avenues that lead to a worse outcome, and those that lead to dead ends.
EDIT: one thing is to remember Marx is developing this in contrast to Hegel. Whereas Hegel says the "Zeitgeist" determines the course of history, Marx says it first arises from history, then alters it.
Yes, but I fail to see how this is “radically different”. In fact, in some ways I feel this is just an alternative version of the “great man theory”
Here it is in contrast to great man idealism:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/brecht/works/1935/questions.htm
Who built Thebes of the 7 gates ? In the books you will read the names of kings. Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock ?
And Babylon, many times demolished, Who raised it up so many times ?
In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live ? Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go?
Great Rome is full of triumphal arches. Who erected them ?
Over whom did the Caesars triumph ? Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants ?
Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it, The drowning still cried out for their slaves.
The young Alexander conquered India. Was he alone ?
Caesar defeated the Gauls. Did he not even have a cook with him ?
Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down. Was he the only one to weep ?
Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War. Who else won it ?
Every page a victory. Who cooked the feast for the victors ?
Every 10 years a great man. Who paid the bill ?
So many reports.
So many questions.
No, material conditions produce the need, leader provides vessel to channel them through, they are dependent on each other :shrug-outta-hecks: there are thousands of lenins, or ches around the world, but they don’t have societal conditions to become large figures of history, just as myriad of conflicts got choked cause the people which responded to societal need where not capable of doing something
I recommend posting this to the philosophy community rather than politics. I think it might help to remember that what people mean by materialism has changed overtime, and that most are just physicalists, believing that all reality is physical. In doing so you don't really need to posit a fundamental substance such as matter, nor must you ascribe certain immutable properties to it such as the inability for another object to occupy the same space (bosons can occupy the same space), or extension (existence of point particles), which older materialist philosophy prescribed to. As our natural sciences develop with the development of new technologies it would make sense to change our notions of the intrinsic nature of reality with them, rather than just accepting an older materialist metaphysics that just seems correct. Marx and Engels saw the need to bring the older 18th materialism up-to-date with the new revolutionary scientific advances of their day, most importantly evolutionary theory, which is why they saw great value in Hegel's interconnected, processive, and developmental philosophy. As such while Marx and Engels never used the term, "dialectical materialism", they essentially sought to synthesize the developments Hegel's dialectics had made in the sphere of philosophy, but to ground them with the new developments of the material sciences.
I always use Syria for it to explain: First "IDEALISM"
In the year 2011 most, if not all people where supporting the rebels of Syria ... as our "ideals" demand that we support those rebels... and "Assad is Bad" .. we supported these rebels because our "ideals" demand us to! But now 10 years later the War has not ended and the "Idealism" framing of this War "Assad Bad" has not ended either ... For a Idealist - 10 YEARS OF WAR - is not a factor , the only factor that matters is "Assad Bad" .
Now if 10 years of War is not a factor for you , we can assume that 20 Years of War would not be factor for you either.
So in Praxis the "Idealist" is actually demanding eternal War ... and he demands his eternal War why ? On the Base of his "Ideals" of course (idealism is a cruel Joke)MATERIALISM is what you do, the Moment that 10 YEARS of WAR constitute an actuall significant Factor in your Analysis.
HOMEWORK :
explore the MATERIAL Value of a standart US- Individual and contrast it with his IDEALISM Value ("how he is imagining himself") ...
Idealists when they
they have material conditions.
idk what wojak I would use
matter really exists and determines the world, your mental states and (in historical part) society states
but what is matter? isn't all of the world matter? if I believe god is real, they are matter too?
All the world is matter, yes, outside of your mental state and society structures. Ah, I don’t think popular religions claim god to be material force, or you could see it/he/she
Religion used to be a big deal. If you consider history from thr perspective of a helenistic person. They would accept non-matwtial causes for effects they see. So divine interventions, or spiritual forces.
You being happy is not matter. It is connected to underlying material reality (hormones, neurochemicals, some neurons firing up), but it is not a matter, it’s a state.
Capitalism is not matter - remove all humans from the world, where is capitalism?
You conception of dog is not matter, you can see and tell something is a dog, yet, without humans there is no concept of a dog as such
happy is a description of my state. therefore, it is describing matter.
by your logic, all words are merely conceptions that don't exist without humans, so are they not matter now?
Yes, they aren’t, and no its not. Happy as in the exact state of neurons I described is material reality, happy as in your state is not.
Matter exists objectively, words don’t.
so basically, you make the distinction between the world(is matter), and human perception(isn't matter). However, we know that thoughts influence our actions. Since we are part of the world, we are matter, and something that isn't matter(our thoughts) is affecting matter. Is this still materialism?
Well, I'm mostly concerned with materialism, here specifically Im taking issue with the distinction between matter and non-matter. How does one make a meaningful distinction, and what are the implications? I see too often materialism just descend into vulgar scientism, but surely theres more to it.
I was going along with comi's version of materialism to arrive at a contradiction, elaborating on a philosophical position's theory of a specific situation. In addition, it is not my actual position.
In material conception matter is primary. Human consciousness, a subjective, is perceiving the world not as it is, we see reflection of the world in our senses/perceptions in our mind. Subjective idealism, for example, supposes that all this reflections are a real world, which has certain consequences.
Your actions are done by your material body, material output of your actions, you can’t will yourself to change material world, there is no telekinesis basically.
In material conception matter is primary. Human consciousness, a subjective, is perceiving the world not as it is, we see reflection of the world in our senses/perceptions in our mind. Subjective idealism, for example, supposes that all this reflections are a real world, which has certain consequences.
This sounds a lot like Kant's transcendental idealism to me. If that is the case, how can subjectivity interact with the material world? Is this really materialism, if it asserts that subjectivity can't truly grasp the material world?
Objective idealism shares some traits with materialism, as in that framework primary spirit/essence produces material world, which is then interactable by subjective spirits/consciousness
We can discover it and search for commonalities. We can’t grasp totality of something like a table. You see a table, you can perceive and conceptualize a table, but what exactly is table color objectively? Unless you enter realms of science, you can’t objectively describe a table. Description such as “it’s light-brown” is subjective, what is table uv color? How does it look on nanoscale? What is table composition chemically? Those are objective description of material reality. Subjectivity can find material reality (which is exactly what science is, and why it came from philosophy, especially physics) through search of objective.
You, a single human, can’t find natural law of physics, but finding a law and then receiving it confirmation from independent source means it is likelier to be objective description of material world
