Brandon Hall ✝Φ is a user on You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.
Brandon Hall ✝Φ @bthall

I think I'm gonna dive into reading/listening to / philosophy. I've written down my main critique that I've put together from third-party exposure to Marxist/Communist stuff, and I'm curious to see how well it holds up.

· Web · 0 · 2

If Marx proceeds to base his views upon the view in the text I'm reading that is supposedly his of the supposed brilliance of philosophical materialism, I may have already found his undoing (by finding a key flaw in the latter). *scratches head* It can't be that easy.

I'm reading only texts on a Marxist website, btw.

@Combaticus @ProfWorr lmao I'll see where the text continues to go and write up my findings if the role of that conception of philosophical materialism does indeed cause an issue for the rest of it. In proceeding on from the discussion of phil mat., the text is addressing the philosophy of dialetics and the role of it in conceptions of history and science. I have a difficult time seeing where it'll go without requiring the hole I think I found in Phil mat.

@ProfWorr @Combaticus Worse yet, I think that Marx will lean upon the Phil of dialectical* history/science/social science in order to gloss over the hole I think I've found in Phil mat., but Phil of dialectical XYZ is only relevant if his conception of Phil mat. is previously granted. In other words, I suspect that for Marx's use, they're mutually contingent upon the acceptance of each other. One must presuppose that 1 of them is the case for the other 2work

@Combaticus @ProfWorr Semi-related: I'm having a panic attack from dealing with the Phil mat. and dialectical stuff, as both are fairly metaphysical discussions, and metaphysics makes me panicky. This reminds me of how happy I was/am to leave behind my intense studies.

@Combaticus @ProfWorr I regret to inform you guys that the hole I found in phil mat. can be sorta sufficiently patched using the logic of dialectics. I don't think they're mutually contingent after all, but the Marxist conception of phil mat. is contingent upon dialectics.

@ProfWorr @Combaticus I spoke too soon. In the dialectics section they suggest "Nature is the proof of dialectics". Problem is, one cannot access said proof without a metaphysics that allows you to access such (in this case, their phil mat.) without presupposing that you can access such proof. They are indeed mutually contingent.

@Combaticus @ProfWorr It appears to be Engels who writes this, though, so one could (lamely) suggest that this is a mis-saying by Engels and has no ramifications for Marxism.

My own works aren't without their issues and contradictions, I'm sure, but in dealing with these famous works, "contradictions, contradictions everywhere" is all but ringing in my head.