In nutshell?

And that there could be a 4th party involved?

What I'm saying has more to do with the physics- we don't know what the particles are made of

yeh

even staying within materialism, we just don't know what the stuff "really" is, that's all

so in a way matter remains a concept, an idea, within materialism. Hence I think it is simply a silly debate. But I don't insist on a positive position, i.e. that I "know" what everything is. Hence I don't think I'm an idealist

I am very interested in the controversy about monism in the soviet union I wish I knew more about that

Well what you proposed doesn't even have a narrow interpretation that necessarily aligns itself with ideas

i don't get it

And since the matter is the issue at hand in its composition

What I'm saying is, I don't find any of your sentences to be worth being accused of being an idealist.

oh word

Was the Marxists that attributed you an idealist here in the server?

Well when I bring up Baudrillard on leftypol that's just the immediate reaction. Sorry for venting

Or someplace else?

Nah that's alright.

the imageboard

Ah

I mean I do think it

is an interesting philosophical debate or discussion, but it seems like many people use concepts so they don't have to think

but it's ok, I learn alot from the discussions. This is my first time on this server but I'll come back I like the more fast paced discussion

and I like the challenge 😉

oof

lambo

Lambo

concepts are part of thinking

I'm back fellers

They are but poetic thought is about getting beyond concepts. It's like Buddha pointing at the Moon. The finger is the concept, the Moon is the ineffable

I don't think we disagree on idealism

I'm mainly on the point that the "value" of an idea is determined by society, which I'm pretty sure we can agree. I say that ideas do not have any inherent value behind them, and that the value put on them is subjectively determined by society, and on a personal scale, by the individual.

I'm with you. I mean to take an example, nationalism. People identify with their nation because of material conditions: there are a lot of people in the world, we're vulnerable to violence, so we band together to try and protect ourselves from the larger social outside. Nations are connected to religions, since both are based on myths having to do with origins (national history / creation myths) and a sense of purpose perhaps

I think this is a Marxist position, perhaps: simple denunciation is no good, you have to address the root causes of the behavior and ideas which impede communism. Where this intersects with the economism debate is that people aren't just about material interests, it's more that they are about the meaning of their life, being faithful in some way to whatever the respect, whether that's the government/army, or their ancestors (cultural heritage). So a problem we face is that people insist on having things just the way they want them, as part of a demand to recognize the reality of their culture

This is something that all kinds of people do, but the desires of the powerless are of course ignored (eviction of the lakota from the black hills for example)

But, when it comes to people who have relatively more power, their irrational expectations for reality have material consequences since they will behave irrationally to try to make the world fit their vision of their cultural destiny

In other words, ideas are not only downstream from material conditions-> they also change material conditions

of course, I think ideas themselves are material conditions, so it's just that different aspects of material reality are mutually influencing each other

Oooh

Now Im hungry

I just ate