/lit/ - Literature

rand doesn't fit?

Yes. It's called dualism.

>>6081633
>Kant managed to reconcile rationalism with empiricism.
The British seem to have managed reconciling nationalism with empire.

Have we really advanced?

Sure, but why?

What would science gain from such a framework?

>>6081637
No, Rand didn't reconcile them, she just wrote fiction.

>>6081654
Do you think idealism is limited to subjective idealism?

>>6081660
It's more important for philosophy than science, since science doesn't study things like the effects of culture upon civilization.

>>6081633
> Can idealism and materialism be similarly reconciled?
This is what Hegel and Marx both attempt.

>>6081672
Hegel's dialectic is idea-material, but Marx's is just material-material, isn't it?

>>6081677
> Marx's is just material-material
Dialectical materialism can't really be considered to be a purely materialist system due to its reliance of History as an acting force.

>>6081682
But what if history is material? Which for Marx it is or mostly is, end of his history is the end of material dialectics.

>>6081682
Isn't history basically time?

>>6081633
>Can idealism and materialism be similarly reconciled?
Bergson.

>>6081682
Until we have a working scientific theory of history, one that requires or prefers an idealist position, idealism fails to explain history's acting force as much as materialism does. Anyone preferring one or the other is merely huffing and puffing until STEM is done with it.

>>6081682
>Dialectical materialism can't really be considered to be a purely materialist system due to its reliance of History as an acting force.

Eh. Marx only considers history an acting force because of material conditions that force it to change.

It's called dialectical materialism for a reason, not dialectical historicism.

>>6082320
Its called historical materialism for a reason. Because the noumena cannot be shown to behave in dialectical manners: only humans behave dialectically in a demonstrable way.

Get back in your tank, go back to where you once belonged.

>Can idealism and materialism be similarly reconciled?
only time will tell, but any solution will probably involve an explanation of consciousness in material terms

>>6081666
>>6081666
Firstly I commend your repeating numbers.
Secondly, between linguistics, anthropology and sociology, studying the effects of culture upon civilization may yet be the province of science.

>>6082298
Implying a scientific theory of history is even possible. You can't empirically experiment on the past bro.

>>6081633
No
They are antithetical
Materialism proclaims one
Dualism proclaims two. All idealism is dualism. All materialism is materialism, but Hegel is the best bet for a cross between them

>>6084518
I mean natural sciences. If you're including non-STEM stuff, that's another matter, but those disciplines often overlap and cross with philosophy.

>>6084567
>All idealism is dualism
What about subjective idealism?

>>6084567
>Materialism proclaims one
>Dualism proclaims two.

Can you elaborate on that?

>>6084720
Hegel thinks the idea interfaces in a dialectic with the material, Marx thinks the material interfaces in a dialectic with the material.

>>6081633
>Kant managed to reconcile rationalism with empiricism.
Obviously you haven't read Quine's famous critique.

>>6084690
If you claim there is a fundamental distinction between subject and object you are still a dualist

>>6084720
Really?
Materialism: one substance or material. Mind and world are constituted together
Dualism....

Deleuze.

>>6084567
>All idealism is dualism.

>>6084962
Subjective idealism doesn't claim any such distinction.

>>6085615

Are you shitting me?

Kant managed transcendental idealism by representing the noumenal and the phenomena and showing how the noumenal is constituted by the phenomenal. His apperception thesis only holds by declaring two worlds. He did not avoid dualism, he just ignored his own bias

>>6085702
The image is about Hegel overcoming Kant's dualism.
Things in themselves Kant hide from Hegel, get it?

>>6081633
These idiots keep talking about the same shit, writing tons of books but what remains of all their work is usually a sentence or two.
Such useless crap.