Link to original
Dialectics describe the laws of motion and change in nature. These laws are universally applicable: From natural phenomena, to society, history, human interactions, …
Some of its principles lead all the way back to Aristotle, but Hegel was the first to consciously formulate them and apply them to the whole of human history and society. Marx developed this method on a material basis.
- Truth is not absolute; it evolves with our understanding and interaction with the material world
- All phenomena, from the smallest particle to cosmic scales, exist in a state of constant motion, change, and transformation.
- Inherent contradictions underpin the universe, driving conflict, dynamism, and evolutionary progress.
- On a grand scale, everything is moving from a lower stage to a higher stage, simpler to more complex states, in an upwards spiral.
- In every transformation, elements of the old are both negated and preserved, serving as the basis for the emergence of new conditions.
- Gradual quantitative changes accumulate until a tipping point is reached, leading to a sudden qualitative transformation.
- Material conditions shape our consciousness, not the other way around.
- Change is not a linear path but a dialectical spiral of negation and preservation.
quantity and quality
negation of the negation
union of opposites
Annecdotes and quotes
In the real living world, nothing will ever be 100% true. You can only make new hypothesis and get closer and closer to the truth. Unlike Hegel imagined, we’re not on a logical, spiritual progression towards absolute knowledge and self-understanding (absolute spirit / idea). We’re never going to stand face to face with god. - as George Hotz formulated his life goals @LexV3
Life means inner contradictions that fuel a self-motion governed by positive and negative feedbacks.
Wissenschaft ist der aktuelle Stand des Irrtums
Link to originalInterplay between the whole and its parts
Much like the macro level, shortcomings are evident in the micro-level as well. Neuroscience generates enormous amounts of detailed observational data. Where regions are discretized and studied in isolation.
Unfortunately, the whole cannot be understood by observing the individual. This principle is true of the economy, of ant colonies, and as well as of brains. We will not be able to understand intelligence by observing single actors. Neurons are individual agents in a local-decentralized system. They compete for resources with their neighbors while cooperating in order to achieve beneficial results for the whole. This concept is perfectly summarized in the words of Friedrich Engels, “For what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed.” Engels said this in reference to an economy, however, the application to neuroscience and the emergence of intelligence are equally satisfying.
rci founding conference: Dialectics - The algebra of revolution
- Life of a plant: Constant growth and change, negation of the form, but it also stays the same.
- Even just reading Hegel’s intruductions is supposed to be worth it.
- Dialectics is “like an equation with unknowns” that need to be filled in
- To change the world, you first have to understand it.
- imagine dentist or plumber who haven’t studied / learnt it
Link to originalIgnorance never helped anybody. - Marx
Sophism: A series of clever arguments to justify anthing you like.
Immediately jumping to conclusions - nevermind the facts, “our preconceived idea is this” - is an extreme form of mental lazyness and has nothing to do with Marxism.
In das Kapital, you find a mass of facts. In fact, Marx doesn’t give a general introduction in the book: “… because it seems objectionable to me, to prejudge the results in advance.”
You must study things carefully - scientific attitude - collect all the neccessary facts and figures.
Facts are important, but facts alone are not sufficient for understanding - There are definite limits to empiricism / the emperical method.
- Books with a whole collections of facts are created. Facts which allegedly prove this and that.
- … but facts do not select themselves. The same facts one can prove many different things.
- You need to establish a connection between all the facts, generalize to internal, dynamic relationships, processes and tendencies: From fact to law … in order to make predictions
- not necessarily precise predictions
Exact vs. inexact sciences
Exact science vs. less exact sciences. E.g. Mathematics / Astronomy / Physics / … vs. Marxism / Geology / Medicine
(but ig the more the productive forces develop, the more precise every science gets)
A mass of undigested facts is not an analysis!
→ From the facts to the law / From the particular to the general.
→ AND back from the general to the particular
Link to originalBeyond the facts, I looked for laws. Naturally, this lead me - more than once - to hasty and incorrect generalizations. Especially in my younger years, when my knowledge - book aquired - and my experience in life were still inadequate. But in every sphere, barring none, I felt that I could only move and act when I held in my hand the thread of the general. - Trotzki
- Beware of hasty generalization → “from the particular to the general”
- Theory is necessary for practice → “from the general to the particular”
You can make very precise prediction over groups (of atoms, people, …)
The smaller you go, the harder it becomes to make predictions overv
Quantity and quality was already developed in Aristotle’s metaphysics, but hegel developed it.
Don’t fetishize any theory / perspective.
e.g. Trotky’s perspectives (of 1948?) on the S.U. that it will be defeated were completely wrong (but it was a mistake made when prerdicting certain facts, no a mistake of method; also churchil and roosevelts perspectives were also wrong); Or Stalin, who made a pact with Hitler, through which millions of soldiers got imprisoned anyways; Or Hitler who thought he could defeat Russia.
In the past decades, the objective conditions were not in favor for revolutionary change.
Humans are inherently opposed to change. It’s a dangerous thing, so it takes a change in the objective conditions or big events to shake their consciousness up.
Many people are questioning for the first time what they are being told in the media / by politicians, …
→ the molecular process of revoltuion
Link to originalEyes and ears are bad witnesses for people with Barbarian souls. - Heraklit
→ it’s pointless looking at facts if you don’t understand what they mean (speak the language)
Sooner or later, everything changes into its opposite - same with consciousness.
A strike is like a mini revolution - all the elemnts of a revolution are present in a strike. People who you thought would never move become transformed in front of your very eyes, women in particular.
From being ordered around, afraid, passive, alienated people → actors of their own life’s.
Link to originalAn ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. - Lenin
With respect to the masses, not communists.
Broad layers of workers don’t read books or hardly read anything.
Not, because they are stupid or unintersted, but because of the conditions of life.
Workers are not like little children, who need clever people to explain them everything.
We’re telling them, what they already subconsciously knew (but never put it into words).
Link to original
… that’s the laws of everything.
It’s literally just chaos theory and quantity and quality can be expressed as a power law.
egh, it overlaps, with nuances. of course dialectics is more general
In his exile in switzerland, Lenin was preparing for the oktober revolution by reading The Science of Logic - book (”best way to get a headache”).
Nobody will conquer Marxist theory for you.
Reading plan: Anti-Dührung + Dialectics of Nature, … only then The Science of Logic.
Woods and Grant wrote Reason in Revolt, in order to defend all the basic princples of Marxism.
“Ted and Alan have abandoned revolution in order to write books about phillosophy” - KEK
By the little of which the human spirit is satisfyied, we can gauge it’s loss - Hegel
Capitalism in its bloom produced
Most of today’s philosophical or scientific nonsense boils down to extreme subjectivism. E.g. postmodernism, solipsism, …