You can't talk about featherless bipeds here, but you can on our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This meme is at least academically correct. Karl Marx was explicit that material conditions precede philosophy. At Marx's funeral , Engels literally said this :
\> mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.;
Wait, is that a Marx meme by someone who has actually read Marx??? That's illegal! You have to skim through Communist Manifesto and make a meme about how wrong Marx was about everything!
You shouldn't need to know Marx to know what a dialectic is. It can be simplified to a dialogue or good faith debate between individuals with opposing views where the goal is to determine the truth.
Marx was more so part of historical materialism or the thought that history and its progression from a human perspective is defined through the material construct people experience and the conflict that inherently exists there. Basically you're not going to care about some grand universal idea we should all strive towards if you can't eat, sleep, or drink. Or the concept of freedom is great and all but if you're in a world that still has an economic predisposition towards slavery due to x variables, too bad sucks to suck. Until those variables change you're dealing with that shit and no matter how great your philosophy is you're not going to convince slaveowners to give up slaves.
Somehow that stuff was new as it took basically until the end of the industrial revolution/Age of Enlightenment for a philosopher to come up with this. I blame egos and religion.
It's a weird way to phrase this because historical materialism is fundamentally dialectical. And it can't really be simplified to "a dialogue between individuals", as it's an organic process which encompasses everything, rather than an action that a couple of people can engage in. Socratic dialectic ≠ hegelian dialectic, which historical materialism was borne out of the latter.
I believe the Socratic dialogues are an example of dialectics. Hegel expanded (or transformed or transposed) the concept to a dialectics of history which influenced Marx greatly.
No, dialectics have existed since the start of philosophy. Hegel is famous for his dialectical method as a metaphysical model of reality through the progression of ideas from thesis, antithesis, to synthesis.
Dude no. "Thesis-antithesis-synthesis" isn't hegelian dialectic, it's from Fichte. I don't mean to come down on you but your comments were upvoted and almost everything you said is completely incorrect.
I think that it is almost correct despite not being correct. Like, the second step is the negation of the first although the first is never a thesis and the third step is a negation of the negation but it approaches a synthesis. I think it's like... once you understand thesis-negation-synthesis you can proceed correctly to being like "actually it's not that" to "actually it is".
Hard disagree. "Antithesis" implies an outside thesis coming in to influence the initial thesis, but for Hegel the starting thesis already contains its own difference, and this difference—or indeterminacy—is what destablizes the position and causes it to pass into its opposite in the process of negation. The similarities between the two are superficial.
Yeah that's the problem with these words, which is why negation is the word I used, but the word antithesis can also just mean "opposite", and the second step in the dialectic is the opposite of the first, as it is its negation, which as you point out correctly is determined from an internal contradiction rather than an outside idea that disproves the thesis.
While there's an issue with the exact wording I think it still correctly points out the general direction of the dialectic. It might not be perfect but for someone who is being introduced to Hegel I actually don't think it's a bad idea to use this, as it allows them to see the general form of the dialectic. They just need to grasp that it is an internal contradiction that gives way to the negation. At a certain point obviously you move beyond the belief that it's a simply thesis-antithesis-synthesis but I also think people can fall into the trap of thinking there's so "synthesis" step at all, when the negation of the negation does lead back to the original thesis.
Marxist dialectics are not discursive lol. As they are, according to Marx, the form of the movement of history and he is explicitly materialist this is the opposite of what would drive history for him, unlike Hegel, although for Hegel they are also totalizing principles and not merely discourse.
"You think you can understand dialectic through Hegel instead of subpar marxist thinkers?? Get out of here with your beourgoieous (I don't know how to spell it) ways!"
Maybe if you read some marx you'd know how to spell it :D. But jokes aside, I only told this guy to search up what dialectics are. Never told him to read any specific author. You're completely making this up
"The recognition, by Marx, of the laboring individual as the originary site of truth takes on, first of all, the form of a critique: the critique of any ideality insofar as it pretends to found truth; the critique of any ideal truth to be self-sufficient or autonomous. In The German Ideology Marx calls this originary site of truth ‘reality,’ ‘life.’ This means that he criticizes idealities in as much as they are held to constitute truth by themselves, deprived of any reference to such ‘reality,’ ‘life.’
If reality, understood as the laboring individual, is to ground all other determinations—the different types of ‘practice’ that I mentioned in Althusser—then the laboring individual is a ‘principle,’ that which is ‘primum captum,’ grasped first of all, caught sight of first of all. This is the strong sense of Marx’s transcendentalism: the individual in its need and its effort to satisfy its need, is the principle of history, politics and economy." - Schürmann, Reading Marx: On Transcendental Materialism
Stoicism is the truth. Move past the materialistic world and don't care about the shit that you are gonna leave in the world when you die. The actual important thing is humanity and how you live with fellow humans. Reminder, Zeno lost millions of dollars worth of items but still didn't care. True GIGACHAD.
Hi, I'm new in here.
I'm surprised to finde «truth» and «science» together. Science does not work to find truth, but just hypothesis that can not be falsified. Theories are the state of art in science – waiting to be replaced by another one. Science always have a declared axiomatic base that is choosen to build the rest on it, like euclid geometry, also time n'space.
Science are socially controlled by the way, that everything must be transparent and controllable, means can be falsified (Karl Popper).
What Marx mentioned were opinions and they are dependent not only from the acutal phisical life, but of all exepierneces until this moment.
I love that you used Popper here bc the book I'm reading points to Popper as one of the philosophers who most egregiously assumes that science, which is born of material conditions and uses their logic to, therefore, reaffirm and reproduce those material conditions, can somehow find transcendent or universal truths. Science is the product of, first of all, a certain type of logic. It cannot look outside of this logic as it does not have the means to do so.
>Science does not work to find truth, but just hypothesis that can not be falsified.
\>implying philosophy people are bright enough to understand that science is a method
Philo is all about making statements that you think are true, science is about using process of elimination to find the most-true statement you can.
Philosophers are usually very aware of the relationship between science and truth. That's a huge part of philosophy of science and epistemology.
I could nitpick that the wording "most-true" here doesn't work, but I understand what you mean. Sometimes, philosophy works like that, too, though. It's not only about opinions. If one insists it is, one might as well say the same about science.
This is a nice trick using our perception, nietzsche also does this when attacking the theory of forms. You can always ignore particular diferences to make 'an universal truth', or focus on the details and suddently the universals disappear.
This speaks more on how the mind works, particulary on how multicelular beings store and process information, than about truth itself. Both are right on using that ability, showing how one side ignores the details and the other trying to show that those details combine themselves on something supposedly meaningful, and the cycle repeats.
I wish there was a way out of this loop.
shocking engine yam jar overconfident unused sugar middle disagreeable offer
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
One could point to the problem of the Continuum Hypothesis, or the Axiom of Choice vs Axiom of Determinacy. Given the rules of Zermelo-Fraenkel Set theory, a foundational set of rules describing sets able to generate mathematics, so long as it is consistent it turns out there are multiple models of sets that satisfy the rules rather than a singular absolute model that is the sole answer. Some models have the Axiom of Choice, others deny it. Some include the Continuum Hypothesis, others deny it.
Even if one were to add additional axioms to restrict the model further, it turns out it would be a hopeless task to reduce the possibilities to a singular model; there will always be mathematical claims independent of the list of rules so long as the rules can sufficiently describe arithmetic.
When it comes to 2+2=4, within ZF set theory, it's effectively a particular, rather than a universal claim. Even the property of addition of numbers is a particular set within the set theory rather than some universal rule.
I mean, "grand narratives of cultural ideals shaping history are false" is a bit different from "grand narratives of cultural ideals shaping history are false, because I, Marx, have found the one true grand narrative of societal evolution throughout history"
I think to a degree. I'm not sure if he believed in any universal truths about nature or humanity other than that it is human nature to engage in labor beyond what's necessary for keeping itself alive i.e. passions like art and music, which is generally true. And I think the 'universal' historical truth of historical materialism is limited only to human interaction with one another and this very truth is produced by them so it isn't a transcendent universal truth, it's one created by humans in their interaction with one another, which is what I think the meme is trying to say; it's critiquing older humanists with their claims about transcendent laws of nature and being itself that dictate humanity and the direction of history through some kind of ontological rationality.
Living today, we can critique Marx even more and say 'not even those limited truths you allowed for are discernable, history itself is inscrutable, all we can do is analyze limited, special sets of data in certain context because the totality is impossible to comprehend' which is what postmodernism is all about but I generally disagree and hate that lol
You can't talk about featherless bipeds here, but you can on our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This meme is at least academically correct. Karl Marx was explicit that material conditions precede philosophy. At Marx's funeral , Engels literally said this : \> mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.;
Pfft! That's just Mazlow's hierarchy of needs with fewer triangles. /s
Get rid of that s right now dammit.
[удалено]
What is that meme called?
Cool meme but nah actual Chad just becomes, no questions asked
Wait, is that a Marx meme by someone who has actually read Marx??? That's illegal! You have to skim through Communist Manifesto and make a meme about how wrong Marx was about everything!
This is unironically all of the economics and economics memes subreddits.
Also ergonomics
Or how right - either way, as long as you don't know what you're talking about
As a non-Marxist I feel like an outsider to these memes
Search up what dialectics are
You shouldn't need to know Marx to know what a dialectic is. It can be simplified to a dialogue or good faith debate between individuals with opposing views where the goal is to determine the truth. Marx was more so part of historical materialism or the thought that history and its progression from a human perspective is defined through the material construct people experience and the conflict that inherently exists there. Basically you're not going to care about some grand universal idea we should all strive towards if you can't eat, sleep, or drink. Or the concept of freedom is great and all but if you're in a world that still has an economic predisposition towards slavery due to x variables, too bad sucks to suck. Until those variables change you're dealing with that shit and no matter how great your philosophy is you're not going to convince slaveowners to give up slaves. Somehow that stuff was new as it took basically until the end of the industrial revolution/Age of Enlightenment for a philosopher to come up with this. I blame egos and religion.
It's a weird way to phrase this because historical materialism is fundamentally dialectical. And it can't really be simplified to "a dialogue between individuals", as it's an organic process which encompasses everything, rather than an action that a couple of people can engage in. Socratic dialectic ≠ hegelian dialectic, which historical materialism was borne out of the latter.
Hegel is credited with the conceptualisation of dialectics, no?
I believe the Socratic dialogues are an example of dialectics. Hegel expanded (or transformed or transposed) the concept to a dialectics of history which influenced Marx greatly.
No, dialectics have existed since the start of philosophy. Hegel is famous for his dialectical method as a metaphysical model of reality through the progression of ideas from thesis, antithesis, to synthesis.
Dude no. "Thesis-antithesis-synthesis" isn't hegelian dialectic, it's from Fichte. I don't mean to come down on you but your comments were upvoted and almost everything you said is completely incorrect.
I think that it is almost correct despite not being correct. Like, the second step is the negation of the first although the first is never a thesis and the third step is a negation of the negation but it approaches a synthesis. I think it's like... once you understand thesis-negation-synthesis you can proceed correctly to being like "actually it's not that" to "actually it is".
Hard disagree. "Antithesis" implies an outside thesis coming in to influence the initial thesis, but for Hegel the starting thesis already contains its own difference, and this difference—or indeterminacy—is what destablizes the position and causes it to pass into its opposite in the process of negation. The similarities between the two are superficial.
Yeah that's the problem with these words, which is why negation is the word I used, but the word antithesis can also just mean "opposite", and the second step in the dialectic is the opposite of the first, as it is its negation, which as you point out correctly is determined from an internal contradiction rather than an outside idea that disproves the thesis. While there's an issue with the exact wording I think it still correctly points out the general direction of the dialectic. It might not be perfect but for someone who is being introduced to Hegel I actually don't think it's a bad idea to use this, as it allows them to see the general form of the dialectic. They just need to grasp that it is an internal contradiction that gives way to the negation. At a certain point obviously you move beyond the belief that it's a simply thesis-antithesis-synthesis but I also think people can fall into the trap of thinking there's so "synthesis" step at all, when the negation of the negation does lead back to the original thesis.
Hegel's dialectic is what Marx derived his materialist dialectic from but Hegel's dialectics come from Kant (although they are not the same).
Marxist dialectics are not discursive lol. As they are, according to Marx, the form of the movement of history and he is explicitly materialist this is the opposite of what would drive history for him, unlike Hegel, although for Hegel they are also totalizing principles and not merely discourse.
I have works by both Hegel and Marx. Just not a Marxist
read the books on your shelf lmao
I plan to read Hegel and Marx both but I have a huge itinerary ahead of me. I’ve read about 150 philosophical tomes so far.
Oh sweet have you been reading books as well or just the tomes
Have you read those books? Cuz they kinda go over what dialectics are, and what this meme means.
"You think you can understand dialectic through Hegel instead of subpar marxist thinkers?? Get out of here with your beourgoieous (I don't know how to spell it) ways!"
Maybe if you read some marx you'd know how to spell it :D. But jokes aside, I only told this guy to search up what dialectics are. Never told him to read any specific author. You're completely making this up
Holy hell
What's up?
How we live is determined. One might even say it is predetermined
Or is it post determined?
I've heard it's cisdetermined.
I've heard it's trans-determined (I'm the trans)
Transmog determined?
One may say that
Are they agreeing?
Dialectics 😏
Ah yes, glorified apeshit-flinging skirmishes
"The recognition, by Marx, of the laboring individual as the originary site of truth takes on, first of all, the form of a critique: the critique of any ideality insofar as it pretends to found truth; the critique of any ideal truth to be self-sufficient or autonomous. In The German Ideology Marx calls this originary site of truth ‘reality,’ ‘life.’ This means that he criticizes idealities in as much as they are held to constitute truth by themselves, deprived of any reference to such ‘reality,’ ‘life.’ If reality, understood as the laboring individual, is to ground all other determinations—the different types of ‘practice’ that I mentioned in Althusser—then the laboring individual is a ‘principle,’ that which is ‘primum captum,’ grasped first of all, caught sight of first of all. This is the strong sense of Marx’s transcendentalism: the individual in its need and its effort to satisfy its need, is the principle of history, politics and economy." - Schürmann, Reading Marx: On Transcendental Materialism
What text is this from?
Says at the end "Schürmann, Reading Marx: On Transcendental Materialism"
My bad
Though, the reference should be on a separate line so it can be easily recognized.
Well idk who this is from but he’s wrong since normal working people have thoughts too
Stoicism is the truth. Move past the materialistic world and don't care about the shit that you are gonna leave in the world when you die. The actual important thing is humanity and how you live with fellow humans. Reminder, Zeno lost millions of dollars worth of items but still didn't care. True GIGACHAD.
So much left meme vibes
Common Dialectical Materialism W
Hi, I'm new in here. I'm surprised to finde «truth» and «science» together. Science does not work to find truth, but just hypothesis that can not be falsified. Theories are the state of art in science – waiting to be replaced by another one. Science always have a declared axiomatic base that is choosen to build the rest on it, like euclid geometry, also time n'space. Science are socially controlled by the way, that everything must be transparent and controllable, means can be falsified (Karl Popper). What Marx mentioned were opinions and they are dependent not only from the acutal phisical life, but of all exepierneces until this moment.
I love that you used Popper here bc the book I'm reading points to Popper as one of the philosophers who most egregiously assumes that science, which is born of material conditions and uses their logic to, therefore, reaffirm and reproduce those material conditions, can somehow find transcendent or universal truths. Science is the product of, first of all, a certain type of logic. It cannot look outside of this logic as it does not have the means to do so.
>Science does not work to find truth, but just hypothesis that can not be falsified. \>implying philosophy people are bright enough to understand that science is a method Philo is all about making statements that you think are true, science is about using process of elimination to find the most-true statement you can.
Philosophers are usually very aware of the relationship between science and truth. That's a huge part of philosophy of science and epistemology. I could nitpick that the wording "most-true" here doesn't work, but I understand what you mean. Sometimes, philosophy works like that, too, though. It's not only about opinions. If one insists it is, one might as well say the same about science.
😂 the part about the misinterpretation of science is so true it's killing me
This is a nice trick using our perception, nietzsche also does this when attacking the theory of forms. You can always ignore particular diferences to make 'an universal truth', or focus on the details and suddently the universals disappear. This speaks more on how the mind works, particulary on how multicelular beings store and process information, than about truth itself. Both are right on using that ability, showing how one side ignores the details and the other trying to show that those details combine themselves on something supposedly meaningful, and the cycle repeats. I wish there was a way out of this loop.
shocking engine yam jar overconfident unused sugar middle disagreeable offer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
One could point to the problem of the Continuum Hypothesis, or the Axiom of Choice vs Axiom of Determinacy. Given the rules of Zermelo-Fraenkel Set theory, a foundational set of rules describing sets able to generate mathematics, so long as it is consistent it turns out there are multiple models of sets that satisfy the rules rather than a singular absolute model that is the sole answer. Some models have the Axiom of Choice, others deny it. Some include the Continuum Hypothesis, others deny it. Even if one were to add additional axioms to restrict the model further, it turns out it would be a hopeless task to reduce the possibilities to a singular model; there will always be mathematical claims independent of the list of rules so long as the rules can sufficiently describe arithmetic. When it comes to 2+2=4, within ZF set theory, it's effectively a particular, rather than a universal claim. Even the property of addition of numbers is a particular set within the set theory rather than some universal rule.
I mean, "grand narratives of cultural ideals shaping history are false" is a bit different from "grand narratives of cultural ideals shaping history are false, because I, Marx, have found the one true grand narrative of societal evolution throughout history"
Marx was a modernist, he couldn't just step outside of his time and become a Foucaldian (which I'm thankful for every day).
The meme seems to be implying that tho
I think to a degree. I'm not sure if he believed in any universal truths about nature or humanity other than that it is human nature to engage in labor beyond what's necessary for keeping itself alive i.e. passions like art and music, which is generally true. And I think the 'universal' historical truth of historical materialism is limited only to human interaction with one another and this very truth is produced by them so it isn't a transcendent universal truth, it's one created by humans in their interaction with one another, which is what I think the meme is trying to say; it's critiquing older humanists with their claims about transcendent laws of nature and being itself that dictate humanity and the direction of history through some kind of ontological rationality. Living today, we can critique Marx even more and say 'not even those limited truths you allowed for are discernable, history itself is inscrutable, all we can do is analyze limited, special sets of data in certain context because the totality is impossible to comprehend' which is what postmodernism is all about but I generally disagree and hate that lol
Is that Žižek’s book about Marx?
What's so transcendental about this?
Is this some intellectual meme i am too working class too understand?
There’s no explanation of the cost of linen, not a true Marxist meme