163

submitted 2 months ago by RNAi@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I feel like every time I go down a philosophy rabbit hole I'm getting on a train to go to some destination only to realize after a few circuits that I stepped into a carousel.

The only exception being dialectical materialism because it destroys and remakes itself constantly as the world around it shifts.

Instead of trying to pigeonhole and describe the world in a system, why not just have the system be the world as it is? Apply the scientific method you fools.

[-] woodenghost@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

Totally agree on dialectical materialism, though there is no such thing as a universally accepted scientific method. I say this as a scientist working in a technical field: science in capitalism is ripe with contradiction.

[-] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

Agree on that too. The basic concept of it though is still pretty rare in philosophy. The fact that your theory is meant to adapt and change over time as you gain more information about the world.

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

I feel like every time I go down a philosophy rabbit hole I'm getting on a train to go to some destination only to realize after a few circuits that I stepped into a carousel.

The only exception being dialectical materialism because it destroys and remakes itself constantly as the world around it shifts.

This is by design. You really think the ruling class would actually teach people how to actually analyze and change the world? Better to mislead the intelligentsia into getting stuck in mental carousels.