Like how the do you “do” historical materialism? Or dialectical materialism? How the fuck do I look at a problem and then apply this method? What are the steps? Why is it so difficult to learn left theory? I feel like I have to fight people to learn because the first thing anyone will do is throw jargon at me. Like imagine you're trying to learn physics and everyone says you start by reading Einstein as if a beginner would even be able to understand what Einstein is saying, who he is responding to, what the concepts in his work are.

At some point once you think you understand a concept you actually try your hand at it. If you're studying calculus you'll do a bunch of problem sets and that actually helps you understand what it is that you're doing, how mistakes happen, and how to get better. How do I practice this skill? Every suggestion I see basically amounts to: read lots of stuff. And I don't see how this is different than just being a lib and reading a bunch of stuff and popping off with hot takes

Edit: kind of confused that there are lots of responses but no answer.

  • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Historical materialism at a basic a level is just realizing asserting history is only driven by material conditions.

    Dialectical materialism is more to do with logic. That’s more abstract and if you don’t already have a grasp of formal logic and philosophy-speak, it will be difficult to understand.

    No no no no. I teach formal logic. Chomsky tried to formalize linguistics in an analytical logical framework. There is 0 relationship between those and dialectics and if anything I'd say a strong grasp of formal logic is a bar to understanding dialectical materialism they are two totally incommesurate strains of thought incredibly at odds with each other. Not that either is better or 'right', they're just different entirely.

    • thefunkycomitatus [he/him,they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Two main types of logic have arisen out of the two main stages in the development of the science of logic: formal logic and dialectics. These are the most highly developed forms of mental motion. They have as their function the conscious understanding of all forms of motion, including their own.

      Although we are primarily interested in materialist dialectics, we shall not proceed at once to consider the dialectical method of reasoning. We shall approach dialectics indirectly by first examining the fundamental ideas ofanother kind of reasoning: the method of formal logic. As a method of thought, formal logic is the polar opposite of materialist dialectics.

      Why, then, do we begin our study of the dialectical method by studying itsopposite in logical science?

      There are excellent reasons for such a procedure. First of all, dialectics ha grown out of formal logic in the course of historical development. Formal logic was the first great system of the scientific knowledge of the thought processes. It was the consummation of the philosophical work of the ancient Greeks, the crowning glory of Greek thought. The early Greek thinkers made many important discoveries about the nature of the thought process and its products. The synthesiser of Greek thought, Aristotle, collected, classified, criticised and systematised these positive results ofthinking about thought and thereby created formal logic. Euclid did the same for elementary geometry; Archimedes for elementary mechanics; Ptolemy of Alexandria later for astronomy and geography; Galen for anatomy.

      Aristotle‘s logic held sovereign sway in the realm of thought for over two thousand years. It had no rival until it was challenged, overthrown and superseded by dialectics, the second great system of logical science. Dialectics was likewise the outcome of a revolutionary scientific movement covering centuries of intellectual labor. It came as the consummation of the brainwork of the outstanding philosophers of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Western Europe from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Hegel, the titan of the revolutionary German bourgeois school of idealist philosophy, was the mastermind who transformed the science of logic by being the first, as Marx pointed out, to ―expound the general forms of movement (of the dialectic) in a comprehensive and fully conscious way.‖ Marx and Engels were Hegel‘s disciples in the field of logic. They in turn effected a revolution in the Hegelian revolution of logical science by purging his dialectics of its mystical elements and placing his idealist dialectics on a consistent materialist foundation. If, therefore, we approach materialist dialectics by way of formal logic, we shall be retracing the steps of the actual historical progress of the science of logic which developed through formal logic to dialectics.

      Novack - Introduction to the Logic of (Marxist) Dialectics.

      • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Two main types of logic have arisen out of the two main stages in the development of the science of logic: formal logic and dialectics.

        Yeah, and they're so fundamentally different that pretending that the former will help with the latter comes across as a Continental trying to steal Analytic valor in a ham-handed and humorous way. Look at what happened to the Analytic Marxist movement.

        • thefunkycomitatus [he/him,they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I can only relate this to physics and read you as saying learning Newtonian physics will only harm your understanding of General Relativity. It's a moot point anyways since the OP is asking about applying it more so than what to read/watch. Since you're a teacher, go teach and tell them how to apply continental or analytic or whatever you please.

          • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I can only relate this to physics and read you as saying learning Newtonian physics will only harm your understanding of General Relativity.

            That's great but that's something completely different. Dialectical logic and modern formal logic share essentially no terminology (and the ones they do share mean entirely different things, see 'contradiction'), no metaphysical foundations, and no methodologies.

            The notion of writing a formal proof in a dialectical fashion is patentedly absurd, but those are the bread and butter of modern logics.

            Since you’re a teacher, go teach and tell them how to apply continental or analytic

            No one applies logic, dialectic or otherwise, in their daily lives. I don't write a formal proof about what I should have for breakfast.

            • thefunkycomitatus [he/him,they/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              You keep talking past me. You keep replying like I'm saying that formal logic is part of dialectics. Or that they're two sides of the same coin. Or that dialectics is a spin on formal logic. I know you're a teacher, I got you. I don't know where you teach or what class but there is no way that in the US you're skipping all of philosophical history and context to teach dialectical materialism. Unless it's a high level or special elective that only focuses on a single topic. The only reason I said anything about formal logic is that it's a gateway into philosophy. Having someone with little to know experience with philosophy jump straight into dialectical materialism by reading Marx sounds like it would turn off the average person. But if they're someone who's has dabbled in logic and other philosophy, then the prose of technical philosophical works might go down easier. It's not that I'm saying formal logic is the foundation to DM.

              Even the passage I quoted doesn't say such a thing. It's simply acknowledging formal logic in a historical context to DM. While your personal opinion might be that it's counterintuitive, clearly that's not the only valid way to engage with the subject.

              No one applies logic, dialectic or otherwise, in their daily lives. I don’t write a formal proof about what I should have for breakfast.

              So? Nobody applies a lot of academic stuff to their daily lives. I'm just saying that OP was asking a different question than I thought and this whole chain is pedantry about something that's no longer relevant to the discussion. And I honestly do respect your opinion as an educator and someone more informed on the matter than me, which is why I suggested you reply to the OP more than me. But replying that nobody uses it in their daily lives is a weird turn. Most people who do this for a living can't wait to trap someone into a conversation about it.

              • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                The only reason I said anything about formal logic is that it’s a gateway into philosophy. Having someone with little to know experience with philosophy jump straight into dialectical materialism by reading Marx sounds like it would turn off the average person. But if they’re someone who’s has dabbled in logic and other philosophy, then the prose of technical philosophical works might go down easier. It’s not that I’m saying formal logic is the foundation to DM.

                It's a gateway into a specific type of philosophy, namely logic. Someone who takes Formal Logic I and II would probably have a harder time with dialectical materialism that someone who hasn't taken any philosophy courses, because of all the stuff they would have to unlearn. They'd be much better off reading about German idealism.