regular_reddit-user t1_itqxffy wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:28 PM

The best alternative to our metaphysical worldview is dialectical materialism, because it is rooted in reality

mirh t1_itqymz1 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:36 PM

Except it isn't dialectical and it isn't even material.

regular_reddit-user t1_itqz4a9 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:39 PM

bold statement, please elaborate

mirh t1_itr0ioj wrote on October 25, 2022 at 5:48 PM

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/u5nna9/dialectics_the_methodology_of_hegel_and_marx/

It somehow tries to have its hegel blattering cake, and then pretends it's not wishful idealist thinking too.

regular_reddit-user t1_itr4l18 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:14 PM

You just disproved yourself with that source, I do not understand what you are trying to say here. I really want to know, I don't mean to discredit you.

mirh t1_itr6tcq wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:28 PM

And I meant for you to read my comment there.. it's just that it's basically impossible to explain this in brief, without accusations of having missed "something".

regular_reddit-user t1_itr909a wrote on October 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM

But many scientific models are based around philosophical theses. In sociology for example, the ground concept for the tragedy of the commons to work , is the assumption that humans rather act in the way that they have the most individual utility, rather than acting in a way that makes everyone benefit from it. What is beneficiary for the collective is always better for the individual (pareto optimum). This entire theory though is an excerpt of reality that ignores its causes and consequences, it is based around metaphysics. Philosphy itself may not be scienfic, but it influences sciences a lot.

mirh t1_itrlga0 wrote on October 25, 2022 at 8:01 PM

> But many scientific models are based around philosophical theses.

Not really? Philosophy of science certainly informs science, but it's still philosophy.

> In sociology for example, the ground concept for the tragedy of the commons to work , is the assumption that humans rather act in the way that they have the most individual utility, rather than acting in a way that makes everyone benefit from it.

Economics is not really sociology, but nonetheless utilitarianism is just a constraint you put inside a game theoretical model. Whether that applies to the real world in a given situation is a totally different thing.

> What is beneficiary for the collective is always better for the individual (pareto optimum).

The principle you are talking about is enlightened self-interest.

Pareto efficiency can totally mean "less" for a given single individual (and again, it's just a super handy tool for theory.. there are no imperatives in science)

> This entire theory though is an excerpt of reality that ignores its causes and consequences, it is based around metaphysics.

Ethics is metaphysics, by all means.

> Philosphy itself may not be scientific, but it influences sciences a lot.

Nothing to add there (except perhaps that there's still too little of it).

But put aside the criticism specific to that particular video. Even if it's buried inside a wall of text (and that's the recap) dialectics in this sense is just a disingenuous way to claim a win by dispensing with logic.