No, Dialectical Materialism asserts that material reality drives the progression of history, and is the primary determiner of ideas, but that these ideas of humans influence them to reshape reality. This process works in endless spirals. Here’s a handy diagram:
Dialectical Materialism asserts that material reality drives the progression of history, and is the primary determiner of ideas, but that these ideas of humans influence them to reshape reality. This process works in endless spirals.
This reads like the word salad Jordan Peterson spews. It’s vague and doesn’t make any sense. Here’s a better image.
Jumping to insults, rather than asking for clarification on aspects that you are unsure of, doesn’t accomplish anything.
Regardless, in another phrasing, people’s ideas are shaped by their environment and current set of knowledge. When people act on their environment, their environment changes, informing them of new things and ideas, which in turn influences how they choose to act. This is repeated over and over, when people put their ideas to the test, parts of their ideas are confirmed, and others are rejected, allowing new hypothesis to be tested and confirmed or denied.
This is all obvious, of course, but Dialectical Materialism asserts that the primary driver of this process, ie which comes first, is the environmental aspect. People exist in their environment first, and then form their ideas based on that.
Of course, Dialectical Materialism has much, much more to it than that, such as looking at material reality in the context of motion, ie the river you see today is different from what it was yesterday because sediment has been eroded.
I didn’t write any insults. I attacked your arguments. I said they were reminiscent of Jordan Peterson’s word salad. I’m saying you aren’t saying anything of substance. You’re stringing a bunch of lofty concepts together in an attempt to sound smart, but you aren’t saying anything at all.
I think that’s what Marx was doing at many times too, but unfortunately some people are incapable of questioning it and instead just repeat it verbatim.
You directly compared me to Jordan Peterson, and you know I’m a Marxist, surely you can connect the dots and see how that would be insulting. Own up to that.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by Marx trying to sound smarter, or just regurgitate word salad? Or how it is that I don’t question Marx? Agreeing with him generally doesn’t mean I do so thoughtlessly.
So dialectical materialism rejects the notion of ideologies like socialism?
No, Dialectical Materialism asserts that material reality drives the progression of history, and is the primary determiner of ideas, but that these ideas of humans influence them to reshape reality. This process works in endless spirals. Here’s a handy diagram:
This reads like the word salad Jordan Peterson spews. It’s vague and doesn’t make any sense. Here’s a better image.
Jumping to insults, rather than asking for clarification on aspects that you are unsure of, doesn’t accomplish anything.
Regardless, in another phrasing, people’s ideas are shaped by their environment and current set of knowledge. When people act on their environment, their environment changes, informing them of new things and ideas, which in turn influences how they choose to act. This is repeated over and over, when people put their ideas to the test, parts of their ideas are confirmed, and others are rejected, allowing new hypothesis to be tested and confirmed or denied.
This is all obvious, of course, but Dialectical Materialism asserts that the primary driver of this process, ie which comes first, is the environmental aspect. People exist in their environment first, and then form their ideas based on that.
Of course, Dialectical Materialism has much, much more to it than that, such as looking at material reality in the context of motion, ie the river you see today is different from what it was yesterday because sediment has been eroded.
I didn’t write any insults. I attacked your arguments. I said they were reminiscent of Jordan Peterson’s word salad. I’m saying you aren’t saying anything of substance. You’re stringing a bunch of lofty concepts together in an attempt to sound smart, but you aren’t saying anything at all.
I think that’s what Marx was doing at many times too, but unfortunately some people are incapable of questioning it and instead just repeat it verbatim.
“I’m not insulting you, I’m just saying you’re writing word salad devoid of substance like a notorious quack”
You directly compared me to Jordan Peterson, and you know I’m a Marxist, surely you can connect the dots and see how that would be insulting. Own up to that.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by Marx trying to sound smarter, or just regurgitate word salad? Or how it is that I don’t question Marx? Agreeing with him generally doesn’t mean I do so thoughtlessly.