I was reading an easy primer on dialectical materialism. I didn’t get far because a nagging in the back of my mind telling me the foundation was unsteady.

I don’t have the original article handy, but they’d posited that idealism and materialism are fundamental opposites (before presenting arguments).

My question is: “why not both”? We have space & time and (as far as I know) nobody says one is the product of the other. Why couldn’t the material and the idea be like orthogonal axis? Or why couldn’t you posit that all is the ideals of some greater thing, appearing as material to us?

I guess I’m looking for a stronger foundation for materialism. I think valuable insights could be gleaned from it, but I don’t trust it’s foundations enough to use it.

  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    6·
    1 month ago

    The view that idealism and materialism are or could be compatible is idealism. You can’t see that if you don’t investigate materialism. All you will have before then is an idealist framework, through which everything will and must look like it supports or can support idealism.

    Idealism =/= ideas

    Ideas can be a material force, can e.g. motivate workers to organise a mass protest or revolution. Our the architect first has an idea for a house and then this idea, coupled with very material labour and resources can be brought into existence. But there’s absolutely zero possibility of the architect’s plans coming to fruition just because she has thought them up.

    Having a mere idea does not make it real. For example, thinking that idealism and materialism are compatible has no effect whatsoever on their compatibility.

    Or why couldn’t you posit that all is the ideals of some greater thing, appearing as material to us?

    Because this is not a materialist argument. It is pure idealism. It is the kind of faux materialism of religion, which today cannot avoid acknowledging that the material world exists but insists that an ideal God must still be behind it all.

    Space and time are not affected by what you or anyone else thinks of them. Idealism suggests that they are or could be so affected. Materialism insists that they are not.

    If you’re interested in space and time, maybe read Lefebvre and Harvey first, then come back to materialism. And remember that it’s not just materialism, it’s materialism plus dialectics. Without dialectics, you will be led astray as to what materialism means.