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.
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.
There's an analytic marxist movement? Who are the heads of that?
No one anymore, all the dialectical types basically bullied them out of existence, which is funny.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.