This is very idealist, rather than materialist. Proper analysis of problems presented by capitalism must be looked at systemically, yes, but framing it based on vibes and LARPing as “system doctors” doesn’t actually solve anything. We must take a consistent, scientific approach, a la Marxism.
From reading the book you gave me, I feel much more aligned with materialism. I believe that matter is the realest and the spirit world is less real - if I may put it like that.
That doesn’t mean that I think we should view everything from a materialist lense.
The materialist lense is synonymous with the scientific method. But science isn’t suitable for everything. Science is slow, rigid, unaccessible and never answers wholistically. Oftentimes science isn’t the right approach.
For deem, if he wants to befriend her, he could look up research papers on the best approach to do so, but if she responds with something he hasn’t studied, then he will have to go back to the drawing board. In this case it would be better for him to lean on meta physics such as “trusting his gut feeling” or “make her feel valued”. This approach moves away from materialism, but that doesn’t mean that he has turned into a luney coocoo head.
I think you’re looking at it in quite a rigid manner. The dialectical materialist theory of knowledge is that when we practice, we better inform our theory, better allowing us to guess. In unknowns, we can only draw on what we know, and the results of what happens help us get a deeper and deeper understanding of what we are learning. It isn’t that we can never interact with what we don’t already know, it’s that we have to in order to learn more!
Yes, unwellness lokening is going away from the material frame because unwellness lokening greatens our ability to think wholistically. It doesn’t weaken, but greatens our ability to systematically respond to the rampage of might and machine*.
With this framing, we relight our attention away from the abstract, towards the value of life. This weakens mights ability to coerce us in that we move away from an unliving world towards a living world. Where we view life as worthy, instead of as exploitable. Where we do not simply see a forest as a source of income, but rather as something that lives and are worthy of care.
We don’t need science to see that Gaja is sick, we already know this. We know that might and machine is the source of these unwellnesses. Simply withdrawing our support and establishing mightless and samholding societies are enough to ensure samlife with Gaja. We can do this through lokenings such as moving away from overproduction towards frugile societies. Let societies not be governed by leaders, but grown by guiders. No science is needed to understand this, only an agreement about what society should be grounded upon.
*Using machine as a way to refer to the systems controlled by might that undermines our free will.
I haven’t delved into the philosophy of idealism, so I’m a seed in that. Just looked up the wikipedia article when you brought it up. Found it to be an umbrella term, so I couldn’t really determine my stead on it.
Elementary Principles of Philosophy is a full book, but is absolutely my favorite primer on dialectical materialism, and how it came to be, going over earlier idealism, vulgar materialism, the origins of dialectics, etc. I recommend giving it a read!
This is very idealist, rather than materialist. Proper analysis of problems presented by capitalism must be looked at systemically, yes, but framing it based on vibes and LARPing as “system doctors” doesn’t actually solve anything. We must take a consistent, scientific approach, a la Marxism.
From reading the book you gave me, I feel much more aligned with materialism. I believe that matter is the realest and the spirit world is less real - if I may put it like that.
That doesn’t mean that I think we should view everything from a materialist lense.
The materialist lense is synonymous with the scientific method. But science isn’t suitable for everything. Science is slow, rigid, unaccessible and never answers wholistically. Oftentimes science isn’t the right approach.
For deem, if he wants to befriend her, he could look up research papers on the best approach to do so, but if she responds with something he hasn’t studied, then he will have to go back to the drawing board. In this case it would be better for him to lean on meta physics such as “trusting his gut feeling” or “make her feel valued”. This approach moves away from materialism, but that doesn’t mean that he has turned into a luney coocoo head.
Or what you say?
I think you’re looking at it in quite a rigid manner. The dialectical materialist theory of knowledge is that when we practice, we better inform our theory, better allowing us to guess. In unknowns, we can only draw on what we know, and the results of what happens help us get a deeper and deeper understanding of what we are learning. It isn’t that we can never interact with what we don’t already know, it’s that we have to in order to learn more!
deleted by creator
Deliberately abandoning science and materialism in favor of idealism is counter-productive.
Yes, unwellness lokening is going away from the material frame because unwellness lokening greatens our ability to think wholistically. It doesn’t weaken, but greatens our ability to systematically respond to the rampage of might and machine*.
With this framing, we relight our attention away from the abstract, towards the value of life. This weakens mights ability to coerce us in that we move away from an unliving world towards a living world. Where we view life as worthy, instead of as exploitable. Where we do not simply see a forest as a source of income, but rather as something that lives and are worthy of care.
We don’t need science to see that Gaja is sick, we already know this. We know that might and machine is the source of these unwellnesses. Simply withdrawing our support and establishing mightless and samholding societies are enough to ensure samlife with Gaja. We can do this through lokenings such as moving away from overproduction towards frugile societies. Let societies not be governed by leaders, but grown by guiders. No science is needed to understand this, only an agreement about what society should be grounded upon.
*Using machine as a way to refer to the systems controlled by might that undermines our free will.
This is just idealism, it has no merit.
Well, ditto then.
Deliberately abandoning science and materialism in favor of idealism is counterproductive.
Quick question, is a doctor an idealist?
If they are an idealist, yes. If they are a materialist, no. That question is like asking if a doctor is 35 years old.
Gotcha mate.
We may be talking about different things, are you aware of what idealism and materialism are in philosophical terms?
I haven’t delved into the philosophy of idealism, so I’m a seed in that. Just looked up the wikipedia article when you brought it up. Found it to be an umbrella term, so I couldn’t really determine my stead on it.
Elementary Principles of Philosophy is a full book, but is absolutely my favorite primer on dialectical materialism, and how it came to be, going over earlier idealism, vulgar materialism, the origins of dialectics, etc. I recommend giving it a read!