• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      he contextualizes his thoughts well over several paragraphs, providing specific reasons and suppositions for his arguments.

      What other context could be provided that would somehow make it clear engles truly doesn’t believe that another scholar is missing a fundamental logical connection?

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s specifically a conversation surrounding misunderstandings of Dialectical Materialism, the example given being one such example.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          are you a philosophy major or professional yourself? you seem very knowledgeable on the subject.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          only in so far as engels is unwilling to consider alternate perspectives.

          as I supposed earlier, his criticism sounds more like he’s trying to academically armbar moritz’s interpretation rather than suggest moritz doesn’t actually understand the base and superprojection relationship.

          he just understands it and discusses it in a way engels doesn’t approve of.

          that’s how engels is coming off, anyway.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s a fair interpretation, but it’s also worth noting that Materialism in its Dialectical form was very new, ie created by Marx. There was a ton of misunderstanding surrounding his theories (which remains today).