Especially when online leftists throw around "idealism" as a meaningless label to dismiss ideas, and claim to be "materialists" themselves. Same vibes as "facts don't care about your feeling." They actually don't even use the correct definition of the word, using it to mean either idealists as in naive and unrealistic, or as in driven by ideals(yeah Im driven by material only, no ideas).

Engels was the first one who proposed the two camps of idealism and materialism. Later the vulgar "dialectical materialism" of Stalin turned this into a rigid division and unfortunately it caught on. In the end, intelligent idealism is still better than dumb materialism.

EDIT: This post actually shows how hopeless some self proclaimed leftists are, completely ignorant about PHILOSOPHY of all things. Is it really too much to ask to read a single page of Marx, and not parrot some other reactionary philosopher? Absolutely pathetic.

      • badtakes [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        phil 101 students have a better understanding of philosophy than you do jesus christ

          • badtakes [he/him]
            ·
            3 years ago

            Popper?? What's next, Hayek and Ayn Rand? You're actually so full of shit lmao

              • badtakes [he/him]
                ·
                3 years ago

                Bizarre associations? Popper was very close to Hayek and literally said that he learnt the most from Hayek than anyone else. Besides if you have any critical thinking skill you would be able to see the futility of analytic philosophers like Popper and Kuhn coming up with stupid shit like fallibility. Their "philosophy" directly leads to the maintenance of the status quo and technocratic capitalism as the end of history.

                  • badtakes [he/him]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    "Turns out experiments being replicable is actually chauvinism?!? Also graphs need to be abandoned (and geometry and arithmetic unwed) because I don’t like Descartes."

                    Just putting words into my mouth at this point lmfao, under Popper's outdated bullshit theory of falsifiability evolution isn't even a real science, let's abandon that!

                      • badtakes [he/him]
                        ·
                        3 years ago

                        https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400831296-023/html

                        Im getting the impression that I have read more popper than you lmfao

                          • badtakes [he/him]
                            ·
                            3 years ago

                            Then I shall kindly explain it to you, since you are absolutely clueless about any philosophy, even the reactionary analytic "philosophy" that you are such a fan of. How would you falsify evolution? What can you observe that would disprove Darwinism?

                              • badtakes [he/him]
                                ·
                                3 years ago

                                More crudely, if we found out that traits within a species are not actually transmitted parent-to-child at all, and the fact that it seemed to be the case to Darwin

                                That is genetics not evolution lmfao

                                If we found, for example, that an arctic hare developed a dark, noisy fur pattern that completely undercut its ability to camouflage with no observable benefit and yet that trait somehow managed to dominate the local arctic hare population over successive generations, that would be a data point that would be a problem for a Darwinian scientist in this alternate reality.

                                No it would not, to scientists it would be noted as a species with low fitness. If they end up going extinct, that would prove darwinism, and if they end up being successful, that means they actually have good fitness and that the observations were incorrect.

                                Darwinism according to Popper is a metaphysical research program, it has no testable laws. He literally talks about why in the pages that I linked. It is actually pathetic that you told me to read Popper and you don't even understand Popper's own theories, which by the way are outdated by now. You are arguing something so completely ridiculous, akin to saying that Marx advocated for free market capitalism in the communist manifesto, why should I take anything you say seriously?

              • badtakes [he/him]
                ·
                3 years ago

                and to think that you had the audacity to tell me to read the german ideology, you are as much a marxist as jordan peterson is