Skip to main content

Defining DiaMat




Somebody at Yahoo!Answers asks what is "dialectical materialism."

When answering such a question I try to abstract from the whole question of my personal reaction to the thing to be defined and just ... well ... answer the question.  Regular readers of this blog will know perfectly well that my reaction to DiaMat is negative. But that wasn't asked!  So I went with this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Dialectical materialism is the metaphysical side of Marxism.

On the one hand there is Hegel, the Towering Figure of mid 19th century German thought. Hegel developed a system sometimes known as "dialectical idealism" which says that the world moves in zig-zags, and that the ultimate goal of the movement is an Absolute Idea that knows itself and is all in all. God, then, is not the Creator of the world but its summation and Judge, and the world moves in its zig zag (back-and-forth among contraries, but nonetheless forward) because this is the way it can create its own judge.

On the other hand there is Feuerbach, a prominent materialist best known for his 1841 book THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. In Feuerbach's view Christianity and other theisms simply involve projection. Humans group our own best qualities together, imagine them in infinite degree, and project them into the heavens. In reality we are material creatures and ought to learn to do without our sacred stories.

"Dialectical materialism" is Marx's attempt to incorporate the apparent contraries of Hegel and Feuerbach. To apply the zig-zag system where Hegel left off, incorporating Feuerbach too.

Marx regards history as moving forward through conflicts between contraries and with a lot of back-and-forth. He also takes the epistemological point of view that one has to follow a similarly dialectical process in order to learn about the world. BUT it is all material, and Marx shaves off of his Hegelianism the stuff about an Absolute Idea.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more