Materialism - Revision history

imported>All that is Solid at 18:49, 7 April 2024

2024-04-07T18:49:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, 7 April 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />		'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />

	For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process.<ref>this is the false and stupid idea of an opposition between Hegelian method and system </ref> Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.		For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; ''with him there is too much God''."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process.<ref>this is the false and stupid idea of an opposition between Hegelian method and system </ref> Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.

	In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''		In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>All that is Solid: more quibblin

2024-04-03T08:36:46Z

more quibblin

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 3 April 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />		'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />

	For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.		For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process.<ref>this is the false and stupid idea of an opposition between Hegelian method and system </ref> Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.

	In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''		In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>All that is Solid: quibbling over commas now

2024-04-03T08:29:44Z

quibbling over commas now

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 3 April 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:
	'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />		'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />

	For Spinoza ''only God exists'' ~~- against~~ those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.		For Spinoza ''only God exists.'' Against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.

	In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''		In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>All that is Solid: quibbling over word choice now

2024-04-03T08:25:19Z

quibbling over word choice now

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:25, 3 April 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].		In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].

	'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.''' Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />		'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.'''<ref>On this point Hegel even gives points to Bayle who, though having "not a trace of the speculative element in him ... is acute enough as a dialectician," for ridiculing Spinoza's "idea that all particular content is only a modification of God .... from it that God modified as Turks and Austrians, is waging war with Himself." Hegel, ''Lectures on the Philosophy of History,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />

	For Spinoza ''only God exists'' - against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.		For Spinoza ''only God exists'' - against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.

	In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate ~~perspective~~ of one or another class engaged in struggle.''		In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate position of one or another class engaged in struggle.''

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>All that is Solid: broke up the mega paragraphh lol

2024-04-03T08:16:53Z

broke up the mega paragraphh lol

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 3 April 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].		In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].

	'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.''' Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" /> For Spinoza ''only God exists'' - against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence. In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate perspective of one or another class engaged in struggle.''		'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.''' Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" />

			For Spinoza ''only God exists'' - against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence.

			In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate perspective of one or another class engaged in struggle.''

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>All that is Solid: added detail to the section on Spinoza drawn from Zizek and Hegel

2024-04-03T08:12:07Z

added detail to the section on Spinoza drawn from Zizek and Hegel

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 3 April 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].		In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].

	~~[[Baruch~~ Spinoza~~]] had a mechanical metaphysics~~ which ~~incorporated some jibber jabber about free will~~ not ~~existing~~, which ~~later served~~ as the ~~object~~ of ~~Kant~~'~~s critique~~. In this ~~critique~~, ~~Kant aimed to save~~ the ~~last remnants~~ of ~~metaphysics~~ in ~~his critique~~ of ~~Spinozism~~. However, ~~he actually created~~ the ~~basis critical foundation~~ for Hegel's dialectical ~~idealism to steel-man idealism once and for all~~, ~~by starting from scratch~~ with his ~~thought and scientifically developing dialectical~~ idealism. ~~In Kant~~'~~s valiant effort to preserve metaphysics~~, ~~he gave Hegel terra firma– or~~ the ~~means to make a fully developed critique~~ of ~~metaphysics~~.		'''Spinoza''' collapsed the metaphysical dualism of Descartes (corporeality and the thinking 'I', the Cogito) into One Substance, absolute Being. His idealism conceives this substance in two attributes, thought and extension, and only this absolute unity is reality, it alone is God. Substance is that which exists in itself, conceived by itself, requiring the conception of no other thing as its foundation. All else is finite and therefore accidental. His infinite is not the bare infinite of "and so on to ...." - it is the "absolute infinity, the positive, which has complete and present in itself an absolute multiplicity which has no Beyond .... as a circle is perfect infinity in itself."<ref name=":0">Hegel, ''Lectures on the History of Philosophy,'' "Spinoza"</ref> Hegel only notes that "it might have been better expressed as: ''It is the negation of negation''.”<ref name=":0" /> And this is really '''the problem with Spinoza, his lack of Dialectics.''' Because negation is only considered one-sidedly in his system there is "an utter blotting out of the principle of subjectivity, individuality, personality, the moment of self-consciousness in Being."<ref name=":0" /> For Spinoza ''only God exists'' - against those who would accuse him of atheism (namely, Jacobi), Hegel hurls accusations of cowardice: those who defame him are not "aiming at maintaining God, but at maintaining the finite and the worldly; they do not fancy their own extinction and that of the world." To call Spinoza an atheist is "the direct opposite of the truth; with him there is too much God."<ref name=":0" /> However, "in the sense that God is not conceived as spirit, it is atheism." Without Spirit, Spinoza's God lapses into "rigid substantiality."<ref name=":0" /> For Hegel however "the Idea essentially includes within itself motion and vitality." With Spinoza there is only a chain of causes, whereas for Hegel the "dialectical process involves cuts, sudden interruptions of the continuous flow, reversals which retroactively restructure the entire field."<ref>Zizek, ''Less than Nothing,'' 369</ref> Essential is that these cuts are not not mere moments within some encompassing process; Zizek gives the example of speech: it is only where the babble cuts off that meaning is retroactively affixed to the entire sentence. In the same way Marx turned Hegel on his head to discover dialectical materialism, vulgar materialists turn Spinoza on his head. His divine substance is replaced with the substrate of modern science: a physical universe composed of dead matter, atoms and void. But in doing so they share Spinoza's limitations without his brilliance. And ultimately their "substance" is a form. It is idealism. This is '''why ''dialectical'' materialism is the only true materialism''' - for us matter is not some positive totality with a variety of attributes: society (for instance) is not an organic whole of which classes are parts, ''it is a radical void, a nothing upon nothing, an antagonism rendered positive only from the determinate perspective of one or another class engaged in struggle.''

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>SullivanGLavish at 05:43, 3 April 2024

2024-04-03T05:43:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 3 April 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:

	When most people hear "materialism", they immediately associate it with ideas of greed, desire, or overemphasizing the value of physical things or "wealth" in the human experience. However, critique on the overemphasis of the value of "material possessions", which often comes from a spiritual place, is an implicit critique of "vulgar" materialism (as Marx called it). The vulgarity is essentially in this type of materialism's completely one-sided view that physical material reality is all which exists or all that matters for us to concern ourselves with scientifically. However, this ignores the realm of human subjectivity and therefore human self-critique; in which it is not "material reality" or "material externality" which concerns our scientific thought, but the realm of thought itself (viz. Phenomenology, [[Psychoanalysis]]) and its unity and conflict, ''its relationship'' with our external/material reality.		When most people hear "materialism", they immediately associate it with ideas of greed, desire, or overemphasizing the value of physical things or "wealth" in the human experience. However, critique on the overemphasis of the value of "material possessions", which often comes from a spiritual place, is an implicit critique of "vulgar" materialism (as Marx called it). The vulgarity is essentially in this type of materialism's completely one-sided view that physical material reality is all which exists or all that matters for us to concern ourselves with scientifically. However, this ignores the realm of human subjectivity and therefore human self-critique; in which it is not "material reality" or "material externality" which concerns our scientific thought, but the realm of thought itself (viz. Phenomenology, [[Psychoanalysis]]) and its unity and conflict, ''its relationship'' with our external/material reality.


	In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].		In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].

	[[Baruch Spinoza]] had a mechanical metaphysics which incorporated some jibber jabber about free will not existing, which later served as the object of Kant's critique. In this critique, Kant aimed to save the last remnants of metaphysics in his critique of Spinozism. However, he actually created the basis critical foundation for Hegel's dialectical idealism to steel-man idealism once and for all, by starting from scratch with his thought and scientifically developing dialectical idealism.		[[Baruch Spinoza]] had a mechanical metaphysics which incorporated some jibber jabber about free will not existing, which later served as the object of Kant's critique. In this critique, Kant aimed to save the last remnants of metaphysics in his critique of Spinozism. However, he actually created the basis critical foundation for Hegel's dialectical idealism to steel-man idealism once and for all, by starting from scratch with his thought and scientifically developing dialectical idealism. In Kant's valiant effort to preserve metaphysics, he gave Hegel terra firma– or the means to make a fully developed critique of metaphysics.

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>SullivanGLavish at 02:23, 2 April 2024

2024-04-02T02:23:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 2 April 2024
Line 8:		Line 8:
	In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].		In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]]~~, materialism~~, science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		[[Baruch Spinoza]] had a mechanical metaphysics which incorporated some jibber jabber about free will not existing, which later served as the object of Kant's critique. In this critique, Kant aimed to save the last remnants of metaphysics in his critique of Spinozism. However, he actually created the basis critical foundation for Hegel's dialectical idealism to steel-man idealism once and for all, by starting from scratch with his thought and scientifically developing dialectical idealism.

			It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, ideas, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the very experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>SullivanGLavish at 20:41, 1 April 2024

2024-04-01T20:41:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:41, 1 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Materialism''' is a fundamental philosophical and/or political worldview which has been in constant opposition with that of [[Metaphysics]]. Notable materialists include [[Heraclitus]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[John Locke]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels]], [[Nikola Tesla]], as well as the tradition of Communism.		'''Materialism''' is a fundamental philosophical and/or political worldview which has been in constant opposition with that of [[Metaphysics]]. Notable materialists include [[Heraclitus]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[John Locke]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Friedrich Engels]], [[Nikola Tesla]], as well as the tradition of Communism (dialectical materialism).

			The Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus was a dialectical thinker, who was also materialist in his dialectical wisdom. Examples of this materialism are found in key fragments of his works, which are all but lost to time, such as "No man steps in the same river twice; For it's not the same river and he's not the same man." He was the main contender and confuser of [[Aristotle]] and Aristotelian metaphysics.

	When most people hear "materialism", they immediately associate it with ideas of greed, desire, or overemphasizing the value of physical things or "wealth" in the human experience. However, critique on the overemphasis of the value of "material possessions", which often comes from a spiritual place, is an implicit critique of "vulgar" materialism (as Marx called it). The vulgarity is essentially in this type of materialism's completely one-sided view that physical material reality is all which exists or all that matters for us to concern ourselves ~~which~~ scientifically. However, this ignores the realm of human subjectivity and therefore human self-critique; in which it is not "material reality" or "material externality" which concerns our scientific thought, but the realm of thought (viz. Phenomenology, [[Psychoanalysis]]) and its unity and conflict, ''its relationship'' with our external/material reality.		When most people hear "materialism", they immediately associate it with ideas of greed, desire, or overemphasizing the value of physical things or "wealth" in the human experience. However, critique on the overemphasis of the value of "material possessions", which often comes from a spiritual place, is an implicit critique of "vulgar" materialism (as Marx called it). The vulgarity is essentially in this type of materialism's completely one-sided view that physical material reality is all which exists or all that matters for us to concern ourselves with scientifically. However, this ignores the realm of human subjectivity and therefore human self-critique; in which it is not "material reality" or "material externality" which concerns our scientific thought, but the realm of thought itself (viz. Phenomenology, [[Psychoanalysis]]) and its unity and conflict, ''its relationship'' with our external/material reality.


	In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept into their thought while acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].		In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept it into their thought while also acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, ~~inverted~~ "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], materialism, science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, reinverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) back (Heraclitus) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], materialism, science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.

imported>SullivanGLavish at 17:50, 1 April 2024

2024-04-01T17:50:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 1 April 2024
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept into their thought while acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].		In attempting to shield pure (vulgar) materialism and accept into their thought while acknowledging the metaphysical realm of thought, the mechanical school was founded by Descartes, who completely estranged his materialist physics from his mathematical metaphysics. For this reason, the materialists of the Cartesian school, or the "anti-metaphysicians", looked to the fresh materialism of John Locke, which had just crossed the river from Britain into France coincidentally. Locke's materialism lent itself to the movement of pragmatism on which the American Revolution for independence was founded, which included [[Thomas Paine]] and [[Jean Jacques Rousseau]].

	It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, inverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], materialism, science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism.		It wasn't until the dialectical school was revitalized in the West by [[G.F.W. Hegel]] around the turn of the 19th century that his "rational kernel" of dialectics, inverted "as in a camera-obscura" from idealist (metaphysical) into materialist dialectics-- which takes our thoughts and ideas as conditioning external reality ''as well as'' external reality conditioning our thoughts and ideas-- that a proper dialectical critique and grounding of materialism in dialectical being was formed. This laid the foundation for the development of Communism as a tradition rooted in and unifying the traditions of [[Dialectics]], materialism, science, philosophy, economics, politics, and, of course, materialism. Thus, when Lenin says "You can only become a Communist when you enrich yourself with all the treasures of mankind," he is not only talking about the physical treasures of humanity; paintings, jewelry, ancient artifacts or architecture, machinery; Lenin is including in these treasures different modes of thought, language, jokes, our spiritual thoughts and feelings-- all of which refer, for Lenin, to the metaphysical treasures of the experience of living and the social aspect of humanity, which he views as fundamentally materialist.