Dialectical and Historic Materialism

  • Thread starter Royce
  • Start date
In summary, Marx argues that a being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being and plays no part in the system of nature. He also believes that a being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being and that its being is not objective. Marx views a non-objective being as a non-being and sees it as an unreal, non-sensuous thing. He also argues that to be sensuous means to be an object of sense and that man, as an objective being, is a suffering and passionate being. Additionally, Marx is an objective materialist and does not believe in the existence of anything that is not objective. He also claims that for anything to exist, something else must exist first or simultaneously.
  • #1
Royce
1,539
0
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object."

K. Marx in Critique of Hegel's Philosophy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I copied this from Huesdens thread. I am not a philosophy major. I readily admit that I have read very little of Marx's writtings. I tried. I really honestly tried to read it but couldn't. I could and did read Plato, and Kant and Sarte and bits and pieces of others so It is not that I don't read philosophy or that I am too dumb to understand it. Marx to me first of all is not a philosopher and his writing is not philosophy. The above is a perfect example.
It is circular mumbo jumbo attempting to rationalize and justify his political stance as a revolutonary communist who has no understanding of economics or the human condition.

I'll start with the observation that he is a n objective materialist. This I think is obvious. As an O.M. he does not believe that anything that is not objective does not exist in reality.

"A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective." This is telling me that:
1. The universe does not exist. (As Heusden pointed out in his post
on Conscious Universe
2. Nature does not exist. As there is no nature ouside of nature.
3. I do not exist in the Cartesian sense.
4. You do not exist in the same sense.
5. For anything to exist something else must exist first or
simitainiously

The existence of anything requires that it be and object and the existence of an object requires that another object exist for it to be an object to (i.e. nothing can exist on its own merits or property but depends on the existence of something else ad infinitum, ad nausium). Does this really make sense to anyone? Is this dialectic logic? Am I really that obtuse that I can't make any sense of this nonsensical schizoidal ramblings.

There next is Conflict and Antagonism but that's another topic for another thread.

Does anybody want to explain or discuss this or should it die an ignoble death like it's author. (Marx not me)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by Royce
I copied this from Huesdens thread. I am not a philosophy major. I readily admit that I have read very little of Marx's writtings. I tried. I really honestly tried to read it but couldn't. I could and did read Plato, and Kant and Sarte and bits and pieces of others so It is not that I don't read philosophy or that I am too dumb to understand it. Marx to me first of all is not a philosopher and his writing is not philosophy. The above is a perfect example.
It is circular mumbo jumbo attempting to rationalize and justify his political stance as a revolutonary communist who has no understanding of economics or the human condition.

I'll start with the observation that he is a n objective materialist. This I think is obvious. As an O.M. he does not believe that anything that is not objective does not exist in reality.

"A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective." This is telling me that:
1. The universe does not exist. (As Heusden pointed out in his post
on Conscious Universe
2. Nature does not exist. As there is no nature ouside of nature.
3. I do not exist in the Cartesian sense.
4. You do not exist in the same sense.
5. For anything to exist something else must exist first or
simitainiously

The existence of anything requires that it be and object and the existence of an object requires that another object exist for it to be an object to (i.e. nothing can exist on its own merits or property but depends on the existence of something else ad infinitum, ad nausium). Does this really make sense to anyone? Is this dialectic logic? Am I really that obtuse that I can't make any sense of this nonsensical schizoidal ramblings.

There next is Conflict and Antagonism but that's another topic for another thread.

Does anybody want to explain or discuss this or should it die an ignoble death like it's author. (Marx not me)

The universe and nature does not exist to itself, and neither to something outside of itself.

We do exist in the objective sense, because we have our nature outside of us, and can relate to things outside of ourselves in an objective way.

So what is the problem with that notion?
 
  • #3


First of all, I would like to address your assertion that Marx is not a philosopher. While he may not have been trained in traditional philosophy, his ideas and theories have had a significant impact on the field of philosophy. Many philosophers, such as Georg Lukacs, have written extensively on Marx's ideas and have considered him to be a philosopher in his own right. Additionally, Marx's ideas on dialectical and historical materialism have influenced many other philosophers, such as Herbert Marcuse and Louis Althusser. So while he may not fit into the traditional definition of a philosopher, his ideas and theories have had a significant impact on the field.

Now, let's address the content of the quote. Marx is discussing the concept of objectivity and how it relates to the existence of beings. He is arguing that in order for something to be considered an objective being, it must have an object outside of itself. This means that the being is not just existing in its own mind or imagination, but it has a tangible existence in the external world. This is where the idea of materialism comes into play – the belief that the material world is the only reality.

Marx goes on to argue that if a being does not have an object outside of itself, it is not objectively related to anything else. This means that it does not have a real existence in the external world, but is simply a product of thought or imagination. This is where he makes the connection to suffering – as humans, our existence is tied to the material world and we suffer when we are deprived of the objects that we need for our survival and well-being.

In terms of the circular reasoning you pointed out, I think it's important to understand that Marx's ideas are based on a dialectical understanding of reality. This means that he sees everything in a constant state of change and development, with opposing forces constantly interacting and shaping each other. This is why he argues that nothing can exist on its own merits, but is dependent on the existence of something else. It's not a linear cause-and-effect relationship, but a complex interplay of forces.

I hope this helps to clarify some of the ideas presented in this quote. While Marx's writing may not be easy to understand, it is worth exploring and discussing in order to gain a deeper understanding of his theories and their impact on philosophy and society.
 

What is dialectical materialism?

Dialectical materialism is a philosophical approach that views history and society as being shaped by the conflict and interaction between opposing forces or ideas. It emphasizes the role of material conditions, such as economic factors, in driving societal change.

What is historic materialism?

Historic materialism is a theory that explains historical development through the material conditions and economic factors of a society. It argues that the economic system, such as capitalism or communism, is the driving force behind societal changes and the formation of social classes.

How do dialectical and historic materialism relate to Marxism?

Dialectical and historic materialism are two key components of Marxist theory, which was developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. These concepts are used to understand and analyze the historical and material conditions that shape society and the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class).

What are the main criticisms of dialectical and historic materialism?

Some of the main criticisms of dialectical and historic materialism include the reductionist and deterministic view of history, as well as the lack of emphasis on other non-material factors, such as culture and ideology. Additionally, some argue that these theories do not adequately account for individual agency and choice.

How can dialectical and historic materialism be applied in scientific research?

Dialectical and historic materialism can be applied in scientific research by providing a framework for understanding societal development and change. This can involve analyzing the material conditions and economic factors that influence a particular phenomenon or problem. It can also help researchers to identify underlying structural issues and potential solutions for societal problems.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
804
Replies
1
Views
741
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
6
Replies
190
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
667
Replies
1
Views
889
  • Classical Physics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
3K
Back
Top