I love this meme, however, i have scarcely ever seen idealists actually believe in what the top guy is saying. That philosophy is better called “sophism”.
This is the position argued by idealist philosopher George Berkeley. Idealism regroup all the philosophies that assert or assume that the most fundamental aspect of reality is the mind and that matter is dependent on and created by the mind, ergo this is indeed idealism since saying that the world is an illusion of the mind is the same as saying that the mind creates the world.
This is the extreme but logical conclusion you reach when you take idealism’s theses seriously, also called immaterialist idealism, if you take it one step further and conclude that by the same arguments other peoples are illusions too, you get solipsism (maybe you meant that but typed “sophism” instead?).
Also, when internet marxists say “materialism”, what they should really be saying is “historical materialism” and/or “political economy”. Sometimes nihilism also overlaps with what is called “materialism” (aka, the position that you don’t have to participate in/give credibility to religion, state, morals, property, etc).
The fact that peoples don’t use the word correctly has nothing to do with it’s actual definition, here I am talking about the philosophical position called materialist which assert that there exist a world outside our consciousness and independent from it.
Nihilism overlap with vulgar materialism, an extreme version of materialism that assert that the mind isn’t real. This version of materialism is rejected by dialectical materialism.
Honestly, it’s pretty easy to see through this stuff. Most people say “materialism” to launder Marxism through a “clean” or “cool” persona. A re-branding.
Dialectical materialism has been at the base of Marxist theories since Marx himself (he’s the one who though of applying dialectics to materialism), so I’m not sure how this ca be a “re-branding”.
As a bonus effect, when a non-marxist uses more than 10% of their brain and approaches a topic scientifically, we call them “materialists”. Ex - John Mearshimer, who I have seen people describe as a “materialist but on the side of empire”.
We call them materialists because they are. Materialism isn’t exclusive to the left by any means, materialism is the position that assert the material reality of the world we live in. It is the default position of scientists, especially experimental scientists, when they are investigating the laws of nature (because searching for the laws of the material world would be meaningless if the material world is an illusion) whether they realize it or not, even when they try to re-frame their conclusions through an idealist perspective afterward like proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM do.
This is the position argued by idealist philosopher George Berkeley.
I remember lenin tearing apart this guy’s philosophy, but how are these specific idealist philosophers relevant to modern politics? Or modern economics? Or in a historical sense?
And the real question is about what percentage of people believe that the world isn’t real.
The fact that peoples don’t use the word correctly has nothing to do with it’s actual definition
Hence why I specified “Internet marxists”. Even so, “actual definition” is an idealist approach. The actual way that words are used is very important to address.
I’m not sure how this ca be a “re-branding”.
Re-branding is the wrong word. I’ll concede this point.
We call them materialists because they are.
Has John Mearshimer ever talked about his theory of mind, or his theory of change? Or what he thinks about the solipsism? In what sense can he said to be a philosophical materialist? These aren’t rhetorical questions, I’m genuinely asking.
This is the position argued by idealist philosopher George Berkeley.
I remember lenin tearing apart this guy’s philosophy, but how are these specific idealist philosophers relevant to modern politics? Or modern economics? Or in a historical sense?
And the real question is about what percentage of people believe that the world isn’t real.
Berkeley is one of the most important idealist philosophers. Modern idealism is largely Berkeley’s idealism reformulated to sweep under the rug the whole “the entire world is an illusion and nothing is real” part of his philosophy. So despite the fact that modern idealism is largely derived from Berkeley’s, modern idealists don’t believe that the world is an illusion, or at least they won’t admit that they do.
The fact that peoples don’t use the word correctly has nothing to do with it’s actual definition
Hence why I specified “Internet marxists”. Even so, “actual definition” is an idealist approach. The actual way that words are used is very important to address.
I agree. But the definition used in philosophy and communist theory is an actual way these words are used, and a particularly useful one at that.
We call them materialists because they are.
Has John Mearshimer ever talked about his theory of mind, or his theory of change? Or what he thinks about the solipsism? In what sense can he said to be a philosophical materialist? These aren’t rhetorical questions, I’m genuinely asking.
I don’t know about John Mearshimer in particular, I’m not familiar with this name. But it’s perfectly possible that he is a materialist. You should ask the person you heard that from why they think he’s a materialist. My point was that materialists aren’t necessarily leftists and that the scientific method is materialist.
But the definition used in philosophy and communist theory is an actual way these words are used, and a particularly useful one at that.
The word as it is used by communists basically refers to the position that ideas/ideological formations/ruling class actions are the driving force behind history and society.
For instance, great man theory is often presented as a quintessential example of idealism. Whereas materialism is a naturalistic framework. This is something you have accepted.
However, the unclear part is this. What is the logical connection between idealism of the Berkeley variety and idealistic schools of politics/economics?
What is the relationship between scientific practice and materialism as such, vis a vis the position that “the world exists independently of the mind”.
I will admit that philosophical materialism is a necessary premise of scientific practice, but this does not mean that the debate between philosophical materialism and philosophical idealism can be cleanly extrapolated to the struggles between metaphysics and scientific practice.
My point was that materialists aren’t necessarily leftists and that the scientific method is materialist.
The conclusions provided by scientific investigations in the realms of politics, society, economics, ecology, international relations and climatology almost conclusively support “leftist” politics. Or rather, the ruling order ignores the results from these fields whenever convenient, and anyone outside the ruling order is labeled as left-wing.
The word as it is used by communists basically refers to the position that ideas/ideological formations/ruling class actions are the driving force behind history and society.
For instance, great man theory is often presented as a quintessential example of idealism. Whereas materialism is a naturalistic framework. This is something you have accepted.
However, the unclear part is this. What is the logical connection between idealism of the Berkeley variety and idealistic schools of politics/economics?
I’m still in the process of reading and learning about all this so I don’t have all the context yet. But from what I’ve read, it seems that the main appeal of Berkeley’s idealism to the capitalist class is that Berkeley conceived it specifically to counter materialism.
Berkeley was a bishop, at the time he lived, scientific discoveries of a lot of important laws of nature were starting to let less and less phenomenons to which Catholics could attribute “the hand of god” as their cause. To counter this, Berkeley developed his idealism as a way to disprove the existence of the matter that science was studying.
What is the relationship between scientific practice and materialism as such, vis a vis the position that “the world exists independently of the mind”.
I will admit that philosophical materialism is a necessary premise of scientific practice, but this does not mean that the debate between philosophical materialism and philosophical idealism can be cleanly extrapolated to the struggles between metaphysics and scientific practice.
Like I responded to someone else: Experimentation is science’s praxis. through many experiments we conclude that it is reasonable to assert that the material world exist outside our minds and independently from them.
The consistency and repeatability of our science shows that whatever reality is, our science is able to describe it and often predict it to some extent. For a materialist that’s perfectly in line with what they believe, no problem. But an idealist who believe that reality depends on the mind would have to explain you can have any number of different minds perform an experiment and they will all find roughly the same thing no matter what the mind thinks of it, you can then either invoke an omnipotent all-knowing mind giving the same ideas to all other lesser minds so that they all experience roughly the same “reality” like Berkeley does, or if you don’t believe in god, you have to find an other explanation somehow.
If you’re an idealist and believe that the world is dependent on the mind, i.e. you believe that things only “exist” when they’re being perceived by a mind, you have a problem: how does things that “stop existing” because no one was perceiving them start “existing” again when you perceive them again? And how do you perceive them again if they ceased existing? You can then either invoke an omniscient all-seeing observer perceiving everything at all times so that nothing ever really “stops existing” like Berkeley does, or if you don’t believe in god, you have to find an other explanation somehow. If you’re a materialist and believe that the world exists independently from the mind, you don’t have this problem, you don’t have to invoke any ad-hoc hypothesis to explain you can have measuring instruments take readings of things even when no one is perceiving either the thing or the instruments.
This is not a proof, but I believe it is a strong case.
The conclusions provided by scientific investigations in the realms of politics, society, economics, ecology, international relations and climatology almost conclusively support “leftist” politics. Or rather, the ruling order ignores the results from these fields whenever convenient, and anyone outside the ruling order is labeled as left-wing.
Pretty much yeah, just look at the way transphobes are confidently incorrect about “the science”.
This is the position argued by idealist philosopher George Berkeley. Idealism regroup all the philosophies that assert or assume that the most fundamental aspect of reality is the mind and that matter is dependent on and created by the mind, ergo this is indeed idealism since saying that the world is an illusion of the mind is the same as saying that the mind creates the world.
This is the extreme but logical conclusion you reach when you take idealism’s theses seriously, also called immaterialist idealism, if you take it one step further and conclude that by the same arguments other peoples are illusions too, you get solipsism (maybe you meant that but typed “sophism” instead?).
The fact that peoples don’t use the word correctly has nothing to do with it’s actual definition, here I am talking about the philosophical position called materialist which assert that there exist a world outside our consciousness and independent from it.
Nihilism overlap with vulgar materialism, an extreme version of materialism that assert that the mind isn’t real. This version of materialism is rejected by dialectical materialism.
Dialectical materialism has been at the base of Marxist theories since Marx himself (he’s the one who though of applying dialectics to materialism), so I’m not sure how this ca be a “re-branding”.
We call them materialists because they are. Materialism isn’t exclusive to the left by any means, materialism is the position that assert the material reality of the world we live in. It is the default position of scientists, especially experimental scientists, when they are investigating the laws of nature (because searching for the laws of the material world would be meaningless if the material world is an illusion) whether they realize it or not, even when they try to re-frame their conclusions through an idealist perspective afterward like proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM do.
I remember lenin tearing apart this guy’s philosophy, but how are these specific idealist philosophers relevant to modern politics? Or modern economics? Or in a historical sense?
And the real question is about what percentage of people believe that the world isn’t real.
Hence why I specified “Internet marxists”. Even so, “actual definition” is an idealist approach. The actual way that words are used is very important to address.
Re-branding is the wrong word. I’ll concede this point.
Has John Mearshimer ever talked about his theory of mind, or his theory of change? Or what he thinks about the solipsism? In what sense can he said to be a philosophical materialist? These aren’t rhetorical questions, I’m genuinely asking.
Berkeley is one of the most important idealist philosophers. Modern idealism is largely Berkeley’s idealism reformulated to sweep under the rug the whole “the entire world is an illusion and nothing is real” part of his philosophy. So despite the fact that modern idealism is largely derived from Berkeley’s, modern idealists don’t believe that the world is an illusion, or at least they won’t admit that they do.
I agree. But the definition used in philosophy and communist theory is an actual way these words are used, and a particularly useful one at that.
I don’t know about John Mearshimer in particular, I’m not familiar with this name. But it’s perfectly possible that he is a materialist. You should ask the person you heard that from why they think he’s a materialist. My point was that materialists aren’t necessarily leftists and that the scientific method is materialist.
The word as it is used by communists basically refers to the position that ideas/ideological formations/ruling class actions are the driving force behind history and society.
For instance, great man theory is often presented as a quintessential example of idealism. Whereas materialism is a naturalistic framework. This is something you have accepted.
However, the unclear part is this. What is the logical connection between idealism of the Berkeley variety and idealistic schools of politics/economics?
What is the relationship between scientific practice and materialism as such, vis a vis the position that “the world exists independently of the mind”.
I will admit that philosophical materialism is a necessary premise of scientific practice, but this does not mean that the debate between philosophical materialism and philosophical idealism can be cleanly extrapolated to the struggles between metaphysics and scientific practice.
The conclusions provided by scientific investigations in the realms of politics, society, economics, ecology, international relations and climatology almost conclusively support “leftist” politics. Or rather, the ruling order ignores the results from these fields whenever convenient, and anyone outside the ruling order is labeled as left-wing.
I’m still in the process of reading and learning about all this so I don’t have all the context yet. But from what I’ve read, it seems that the main appeal of Berkeley’s idealism to the capitalist class is that Berkeley conceived it specifically to counter materialism.
Berkeley was a bishop, at the time he lived, scientific discoveries of a lot of important laws of nature were starting to let less and less phenomenons to which Catholics could attribute “the hand of god” as their cause. To counter this, Berkeley developed his idealism as a way to disprove the existence of the matter that science was studying.
Like I responded to someone else: Experimentation is science’s praxis. through many experiments we conclude that it is reasonable to assert that the material world exist outside our minds and independently from them.
The consistency and repeatability of our science shows that whatever reality is, our science is able to describe it and often predict it to some extent. For a materialist that’s perfectly in line with what they believe, no problem. But an idealist who believe that reality depends on the mind would have to explain you can have any number of different minds perform an experiment and they will all find roughly the same thing no matter what the mind thinks of it, you can then either invoke an omnipotent all-knowing mind giving the same ideas to all other lesser minds so that they all experience roughly the same “reality” like Berkeley does, or if you don’t believe in god, you have to find an other explanation somehow.
If you’re an idealist and believe that the world is dependent on the mind, i.e. you believe that things only “exist” when they’re being perceived by a mind, you have a problem: how does things that “stop existing” because no one was perceiving them start “existing” again when you perceive them again? And how do you perceive them again if they ceased existing? You can then either invoke an omniscient all-seeing observer perceiving everything at all times so that nothing ever really “stops existing” like Berkeley does, or if you don’t believe in god, you have to find an other explanation somehow. If you’re a materialist and believe that the world exists independently from the mind, you don’t have this problem, you don’t have to invoke any ad-hoc hypothesis to explain you can have measuring instruments take readings of things even when no one is perceiving either the thing or the instruments.
This is not a proof, but I believe it is a strong case.
Pretty much yeah, just look at the way transphobes are confidently incorrect about “the science”.
I agree with what you say. I think we can just end this thread.
I agree. This was a good conversation, thank you for your time.