Fair enough - but in that case I'm led to believe they are compatible. And that this meme is solid for making fun of the lazy viewpoint that our situations are a simple choice that isn't driven by external factors. Also for addressing that when things aren't actively materializing, it must be because the conditions are not currently appropriate for it - not because this generation fails a free-will-based test that previous generations have passed, which is a pretty unproductive perspective imo because it unscientifically victim blames instead of taking a closer look at the comparative difference in conditions.
Most materialists/determinists today accept that social context and inner experience influence an agent's actions. They are materialists because they believe that this context and experience is entirely encoded within the material world, from condensed matter and electromagnetism to quantum phenomena and whatever else might be out there. And if it is completely encoded without free will being involved, then the simplest solution is that it is deterministic. But in that framework, the social and inner evolution of a population (like memetic transfers) still has a material consequence that continues from generation to generation - exactly what vulgar materialists denied, and which is why I understand it to be (in this particular popular form) compatible with diamat.
Of course it's not your job to convince me otherwise, so I do appreciate you taking the time to chat with me and link theory even if I don't seem to have connected with your thesis.
edit:
I see there have been even more replies since I last checked, so I learned more about your position. I hold mine but I don't mean to attack you with it when you've already hashed a lot of this out. Don't let me sea lion you if you're already done with engaging on this.
It's not hard to find folks here using this as a form of fatalism, including vulgar materialism. It pops up both in the form of saying proletarian revolution and socialism are inevitable and in those who take hard determinism (often without even knowing that's what it is) to its logical conclusion of the idea of trying to do anything to build revolution being a category error. I would like people to organize, not paralyze themselves with their first foray into philosophy.
Yeah I think we are more in agreement than maybe both of us thought originally. Maybe just imprecise communication on my part. I try to avoid getting overly jargony but sometimes that can be an overcorrection that swings back into miscommunication territory.
See: the other 30 replies
Fair enough - but in that case I'm led to believe they are compatible. And that this meme is solid for making fun of the lazy viewpoint that our situations are a simple choice that isn't driven by external factors. Also for addressing that when things aren't actively materializing, it must be because the conditions are not currently appropriate for it - not because this generation fails a free-will-based test that previous generations have passed, which is a pretty unproductive perspective imo because it unscientifically victim blames instead of taking a closer look at the comparative difference in conditions.
Most materialists/determinists today accept that social context and inner experience influence an agent's actions. They are materialists because they believe that this context and experience is entirely encoded within the material world, from condensed matter and electromagnetism to quantum phenomena and whatever else might be out there. And if it is completely encoded without free will being involved, then the simplest solution is that it is deterministic. But in that framework, the social and inner evolution of a population (like memetic transfers) still has a material consequence that continues from generation to generation - exactly what vulgar materialists denied, and which is why I understand it to be (in this particular popular form) compatible with diamat.
Of course it's not your job to convince me otherwise, so I do appreciate you taking the time to chat with me and link theory even if I don't seem to have connected with your thesis.
edit:
I see there have been even more replies since I last checked, so I learned more about your position. I hold mine but I don't mean to attack you with it when you've already hashed a lot of this out. Don't let me sea lion you if you're already done with engaging on this.
It's not hard to find folks here using this as a form of fatalism, including vulgar materialism. It pops up both in the form of saying proletarian revolution and socialism are inevitable and in those who take hard determinism (often without even knowing that's what it is) to its logical conclusion of the idea of trying to do anything to build revolution being a category error. I would like people to organize, not paralyze themselves with their first foray into philosophy.
All good points.
Yeah I think we are more in agreement than maybe both of us thought originally. Maybe just imprecise communication on my part. I try to avoid getting overly jargony but sometimes that can be an overcorrection that swings back into miscommunication territory.
I agree with this and the above comment. SN articulated it better than me.