Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Dialectical and Historic Materialism

  1. Aug 20, 2003 #1

    "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

    The existance 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: Aug 20, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 24, 2003 #2
    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?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook