I hope this is the right forum.

I am a little sketchy on materialism, and although i could probably describe it in a very basic sense i still do not have a very strong understanding.

As far as i understand it, its basically that things in the material world are the most important factors when trying to understand the world. Things happen, at the first instance, because of material causes.

Now the opposite view, i believe, is the idealist postion. That things essentially happen because of ideas.

Obviously most people at this site will be materialist, but i was wondering how far we take materialism as true. How important is idealist approach for revolutionaries? and most importantly, why, do we use the materialism over idealism?

Hope i made sense.

Thanks all

BCS: the problem with all materialsts (up to now, and of which I am aware) is that they depict matter in abstract terms, making their materialism an odd sort of Idealism (in this way, perhaps, trying unwittingly to generate their own 'internal contradiction').

We don't need a philosophical theory to 'define' materialism; all we need are the countless thousands of words in ordinary language (ones that we use every day to describe, handle and alter) the material world around us -- coupled with the concepts we have in Historical Materialism, to give them a scientific edge.

So, I think it is a mistake to try to define materialism in any one way -- it is in fact a family of notions, drawn from the language I mentioned above.

Sure, this is a controversial thing to say, but only becaue we have forgotten and thus neglected our greatest resource here: the language working people have invented and used for thousands of years -- ordinary language.

[Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons why most philosophers depreciate the vernacular, and attack it -- its working-class associations, and because it lends itself to a ready materialist, scientific theory.]

Ever read this text? It's great.

DJ-TC, yes many times, the first time nearly 30 years ago.

But, these are half-formed musings, now nearly 160 years old, about a philosophical tradition that was mired in Idealism.

Marx did the best he could; we can do better.

He did not have the material counterweight provided by the working class; we do.

DJ-TC, yes many times, the first time nearly 30 years ago.

But, these are half-formed musings, now nearly 160 years old, about a philosophical tradition that was mired in Idealism.

Marx did the best he could; we can do better.

He did not have the material counterweight provided by the working class; we do.

DJ-TC, yes many times, the first time nearly 30 years ago.

But, these are half-formed musings, now nearly 160 years old, about a philosophical tradition that was mired in Idealism.

Marx did the best he could; we can do better.

He did not have the material counterweight provided by the working class; we do.

Idealism and Materialism by themselves are both wrong. But when they are combined: Dialectical Materialism, then we have it!

It's fairly easy: Being determines consciousness (your environment determines what you think and how you act) but conscioussness also determines being (how you think and act determines your environement). This is what we call in dialectics the "unity of opposites." It's quite the paradox! It's kinda like the whole chicken and the egg deal.

Idealism and Materialism by themselves are both wrong. But when they are combined: Dialectical Materialism, then we have it!

It's fairly easy: Being determines consciousness (your environment determines what you think and how you act) but conscioussness also determines being (how you think and act determines your environement). This is what we call in dialectics the "unity of opposites." It's quite the paradox! It's kinda like the whole chicken and the egg deal.

Idealism and Materialism by themselves are both wrong. But when they are combined: Dialectical Materialism, then we have it!

It's fairly easy: Being determines consciousness (your environment determines what you think and how you act) but conscioussness also determines being (how you think and act determines your environement). This is what we call in dialectics the "unity of opposites." It's quite the paradox! It's kinda like the whole chicken and the egg deal.

Eusebio, thanks for that, but I see you have only recently joined, so you will not know that dialectical materialism has been systematically trashed here (in earlier threads), and even more so at my site.

Check out the link below.

Eusebio, thanks for that, but I see you have only recently joined, so you will not know that dialectical materialism has been systematically trashed here (in earlier threads), and even more so at my site.

Check out the link below.

Eusebio, thanks for that, but I see you have only recently joined, so you will not know that dialectical materialism has been systematically trashed here (in earlier threads), and even more so at my site.

Check out the link below.

Yes, I've been dying to read your site, but it's very long and I haven't had the time on my hands as of yet.

Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

I think the above description I gave is just the way it is.

Yes, I've been dying to read your site, but it's very long and I haven't had the time on my hands as of yet.

Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

I think the above description I gave is just the way it is.

Yes, I've been dying to read your site, but it's very long and I haven't had the time on my hands as of yet.

Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

I think the above description I gave is just the way it is.

Eusebio:

The beef is that dialectical materialism is a throw back to mystical Hermeticism, an idealist theory invented by religious nuts 2000 years ago.

Independently of that, it does not work (as I have shown at my site, and in several posts here); it is based on a defective understanding of ancient and modern logic, a highly selective use of science, the anthropomorphisation of nature (with 'contradictions' everywhere, as nature seems to argue with itself), lamentably poor reasoning and the projection onto nature of a priori forms of thought.

It is in fact based on a ruling-class view of reality. [Why I say that, you can find in several posts at this site, and in the summary to essay twelve at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm]

I recognise that the material at my site is over-long, but I try to say why I have gone into such detail in the opening page.

I have posted summaries of my ideas (link below), and will be publishing 'absolute beginners' guides over the summer.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm

As to whether it is useful, I agree -- useful for the ruling-class, since dialectics has presided over 130 years of the failure of Marxism (recall, truth is tested in practice -- practice has refuted dialectics).

Recall, I fully accept historical materialism – once the mystical influence of Hegel has been removed.

By the way, if you want me to direct you to the threads here that discuss this topic, please let me know.

Eusebio:

The beef is that dialectical materialism is a throw back to mystical Hermeticism, an idealist theory invented by religious nuts 2000 years ago.

Independently of that, it does not work (as I have shown at my site, and in several posts here); it is based on a defective understanding of ancient and modern logic, a highly selective use of science, the anthropomorphisation of nature (with 'contradictions' everywhere, as nature seems to argue with itself), lamentably poor reasoning and the projection onto nature of a priori forms of thought.

It is in fact based on a ruling-class view of reality. [Why I say that, you can find in several posts at this site, and in the summary to essay twelve at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm]

I recognise that the material at my site is over-long, but I try to say why I have gone into such detail in the opening page.

I have posted summaries of my ideas (link below), and will be publishing 'absolute beginners' guides over the summer.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm

As to whether it is useful, I agree -- useful for the ruling-class, since dialectics has presided over 130 years of the failure of Marxism (recall, truth is tested in practice -- practice has refuted dialectics).

Recall, I fully accept historical materialism – once the mystical influence of Hegel has been removed.

By the way, if you want me to direct you to the threads here that discuss this topic, please let me know.

Eusebio:

The beef is that dialectical materialism is a throw back to mystical Hermeticism, an idealist theory invented by religious nuts 2000 years ago.

Independently of that, it does not work (as I have shown at my site, and in several posts here); it is based on a defective understanding of ancient and modern logic, a highly selective use of science, the anthropomorphisation of nature (with 'contradictions' everywhere, as nature seems to argue with itself), lamentably poor reasoning and the projection onto nature of a priori forms of thought.

It is in fact based on a ruling-class view of reality. [Why I say that, you can find in several posts at this site, and in the summary to essay twelve at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm]

I recognise that the material at my site is over-long, but I try to say why I have gone into such detail in the opening page.

I have posted summaries of my ideas (link below), and will be publishing 'absolute beginners' guides over the summer.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm

As to whether it is useful, I agree -- useful for the ruling-class, since dialectics has presided over 130 years of the failure of Marxism (recall, truth is tested in practice -- practice has refuted dialectics).

Recall, I fully accept historical materialism – once the mystical influence of Hegel has been removed.

By the way, if you want me to direct you to the threads here that discuss this topic, please let me know.

Thats the first time I've read thar. Rather good.
There's an easier translation here http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach...engels-appendix

Thats the first time I've read thar. Rather good.
There's an easier translation here http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach...engels-appendix