First of all, in this case, Im discussing reality in the philosophical sense, not as in daily language when we talk about our physical surroundings.
To say that there is a meaningful reality implies that the world we perceive is the material reality. However, this is actually the most idealist position you can take, as all of our experiences come through human subjectivity, and you are claiming that is somehow material. In this world view, there is a "material world" that is static, mechanistic, and then there is "human agency" that is free and dynamic, which is somehow separate from the "material world".(totally not an arbitrary idealistic division) This is pretty much how most people view the world, but once you even examine it a little it all falls apart because of its many obvious contradictions and limitations.
For example, think of human subjectivity as the camera, and "the rest" as the things in the picture. Vulgar materialists would ignore the camera, while actual materialists would take it into consideration. Tbh this example in itself is pretty reductionist, and there really is no "true" materialism, but you get the point. Vulgar materialism bad. And something something dialectical materialism good, I don't have the time to get into that.
The world we perceive is actually just a representation of the real. The Marxist version of this is the concept of superstructure, the societal reality we create by participating and reproducing a mode of production (the base). Basically the engine of human reality that is built upon the real, but has no ability to change what it real, only the societal perceptions of it.
I think it's usually denoted as real (nature) vs Real (superstructure), but I'm just a layman.
phenomenology is not equal to marxism, though marxism is definitely a form of systematics so it does have to account for the whole picture, but I think we can safely say that subjectivity is already incorporated within the greater incentives and contradictions within relationships of production and capitalism
what I mean is that marxism is able to zoom in and zoom out at will. It shouldn't stay zoomed in or stay zoomed out, it all depends on what we are trying to accomplish.
sure but there is an implicit critique of phenomenology in marxism, that what matters is not so much the lived experience (as in perception) but what is behind it (the relations of production), which I think is more correct and which matters if we are talking about morality
as I said, as a systematics, and by going behind the perception to the cause of it, it diminishes the importance of phenomenology, also explicitly with the concept of false consciousness and I guess maybe also commodity fetishization, I didn't not say it said it did not matter however
seriously, it's the materialist position to take
Can you say more about this?
First of all, in this case, Im discussing reality in the philosophical sense, not as in daily language when we talk about our physical surroundings.
To say that there is a meaningful reality implies that the world we perceive is the material reality. However, this is actually the most idealist position you can take, as all of our experiences come through human subjectivity, and you are claiming that is somehow material. In this world view, there is a "material world" that is static, mechanistic, and then there is "human agency" that is free and dynamic, which is somehow separate from the "material world".(totally not an arbitrary idealistic division) This is pretty much how most people view the world, but once you even examine it a little it all falls apart because of its many obvious contradictions and limitations.
For example, think of human subjectivity as the camera, and "the rest" as the things in the picture. Vulgar materialists would ignore the camera, while actual materialists would take it into consideration. Tbh this example in itself is pretty reductionist, and there really is no "true" materialism, but you get the point. Vulgar materialism bad. And something something dialectical materialism good, I don't have the time to get into that.
:jesse-wtf:
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe" basically
The world we perceive is actually just a representation of the real. The Marxist version of this is the concept of superstructure, the societal reality we create by participating and reproducing a mode of production (the base). Basically the engine of human reality that is built upon the real, but has no ability to change what it real, only the societal perceptions of it.
I think it's usually denoted as real (nature) vs Real (superstructure), but I'm just a layman.
I'm pretty sure that Marxism takes scientific realism as an assumption
nope, thats literally idealism, and the dumbest kind of idealism as well
phenomenology is not equal to marxism, though marxism is definitely a form of systematics so it does have to account for the whole picture, but I think we can safely say that subjectivity is already incorporated within the greater incentives and contradictions within relationships of production and capitalism
what I mean is that marxism is able to zoom in and zoom out at will. It shouldn't stay zoomed in or stay zoomed out, it all depends on what we are trying to accomplish.
sure but there is an implicit critique of phenomenology in marxism, that what matters is not so much the lived experience (as in perception) but what is behind it (the relations of production), which I think is more correct and which matters if we are talking about morality
how does marxism imply that lived experience doesn't matter?
as I said, as a systematics, and by going behind the perception to the cause of it, it diminishes the importance of phenomenology, also explicitly with the concept of false consciousness and I guess maybe also commodity fetishization, I didn't not say it said it did not matter however