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

    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pathetic that you told me to read Popper and you don't even understand Popper's own theories, which by the way are outdated by now.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?