https://twitter.com/MarioEmblem_2/status/1676009845235896320

  • quarrk [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dialectics as first expounded by Hegel is an attempt to eliminate "one-sidedness" or limited subjective understanding, through contemplation of things not merely for what they are in isolation, but in all of their interrelations too. When looking at something from different perspectives, there are apparent contradictions i.e. exclusive "truths" between the perspectives. Sublation is the overcoming of these contradictions in a way that preserves each side, as they are in fact both true, only limited.

    Dialectical materialism as a science focuses on objective truths because of its philosophy which recognizes the limitation of any given perspective and the "objective" facts recognized by each perspective.

    All of that is a long-winded way to say, yes, both Hegelian and Marxian dialectic rely on qualia, although not necessarily by that name.

    • culpritus [any]
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Marx and Engels both concluded that Hegelian philosophy, at least as interpreted by their former colleagues, was too abstract and was being misapplied in attempts to explain the social injustice in recently industrializing countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, which was a growing concern in the early 1840s, as exemplified by Dickensian inequity.

      In contrast to the conventional Hegelian dialectic of the day, which emphasized the idealist observation that human experience is dependent on the mind's perceptions, Marx developed Marxist dialectics, which emphasized the materialist view that the world of the concrete shapes socioeconomic interactions and that those in turn determine sociopolitical reality.

      In keeping with dialectical ideas, Marx and Engels thus created an alternative theory, not only of why the world is the way it is but also of which actions people should take to make it the way it ought to be.

      Idealism vs materialism are where the valuable thinking happens, and qualia (or whatever you want to call it) is much more idealist than materialist as far as I can tell.

      "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

      Dialectical materialism is an aspect of the broader subject of materialism, which asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism is a realist philosophy of science, which holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world is in principle knowable.

      Marx says he intends to use Hegelian dialectics but in revised form. He defends Hegel against those who view him as a "dead dog" and then says, "I openly avowed myself as the pupil of that mighty thinker Hegel". Marx credits Hegel with "being the first to present [dialectic's] form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". But he then criticizes Hegel for turning dialectics upside down: "With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell."

      • quarrk [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Qualia are not the mystical Hegelian shell Marx removed. For Hegel the starting point was the pure concept, while the point of Marx's materialism was to start from the material world as the dialectical object, because the material world is the objective basis of all concepts. The basic "form of working" (from your excerpt) is more or less identical between Marx and Hegel.

        The reason Marx emphasized materialism is precisely because concepts arise from subjective perception of the material world. Concepts do not exist independently; their existence is contingent on human perception of an objective, material reality. Therefore a concept like "freedom" does not exist in itself, it exists as a concept in the human mind which is conditioned by their limited perspective.

        Marx analyzed objective phenomena in order to understand the material world. It is not necessary, in fact it is impossible, to reconcile qualia except to the extent that they affect the material world. Two people can experience 400 nm light differently and consistently agree that it is blue, therefore experience has no material effect as long as it is consistent.

        • culpritus [any]
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is not necessary, in fact it is impossible, to reconcile qualia except to the extent that they affect the material world.

          Thanks for conceding I guess.

          • quarrk [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you read that as a concession then you will find the same concession several posts ago.

            If qualia do not affect the material world, then it is not possible to say for certain (as you have) that two people have identical experience of color. The fact that qualia do not affect the material world was the starting point not the conclusion.

            • culpritus [any]
              ·
              1 year ago

              This time with extra emphasis:

              "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

              • quarrk [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Correct, if this is your view then you should not have started the thread complaining about other people's interpretations.

                • culpritus [any]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you can prove it, it isn't qualia, right?

                  TIL asking a yes or no question is complaining.

                    • culpritus [any]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      it is not possible to say for certain (as you have) that two people have identical experience of color.

                      I must have missed that part.