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.
Do you think your thoughts shape the world around you? Not your perception of the world, but the world itself. Do you see people as disconnected individuals who choose to create and destroy relations between them as they see fit? Do you believe that a hungry, oppressed mob can be placated by words and ideas?
Or, do you think your thoughts are shaped by the world around you? Do you see everyone as connected (whether they recognise it or not) and influencing each other? Do you believe that a hungry, oppressed mob can’t be placated by words and ideas, only food and the end of oppression?
You mean other then the material reality you occupy and that you can change using your physically body?
Maybe it would be easier to explain things to you if you told us what your understanding of materialism and idealism is. The two are actually opposites and can in no way coexist. Well, they can “coexist” as well as oil and water can be mixed together.