Benny Musen
New member
From what I have read earlier, the dialectic is a process where conceptual or material contradictions are overcome.
Another place I have read that the dialectic it is characterized by the notion that there is a continual feedback and mutual interaction among the various sectors of society. That is, one sector of society, for instance the economy cannot be reduced to epiphenomena determined by another, for instance the idea system, because the economy affects the idea system, just as the idea system affects the economy.
Does this mean that one cannot at the same time be a dialectican and an idealist (in the Hegelian meaning of the terms)?
B16: It is not about merging dialectic idealism and dialectic materialism. It is about whether any of these two are really possible. Does not for instance materialism mean that the economy is far more important than other factors in explaining society or even that it determines the development of society? From the second definition above it seems like it is not possible to combine materialism with the dialectic, that is that the dialectic implies that neither ideas nor the economy can be seen as "driving forces" in history.
I suspect that the answer might be that the dialectic materialism means that the economy is more important than ideas, but that still ideas might influence the economy and other sectors of society. In other words, that the economy is most important, but that it does not "determine" historical development.
Another place I have read that the dialectic it is characterized by the notion that there is a continual feedback and mutual interaction among the various sectors of society. That is, one sector of society, for instance the economy cannot be reduced to epiphenomena determined by another, for instance the idea system, because the economy affects the idea system, just as the idea system affects the economy.
Does this mean that one cannot at the same time be a dialectican and an idealist (in the Hegelian meaning of the terms)?
B16: It is not about merging dialectic idealism and dialectic materialism. It is about whether any of these two are really possible. Does not for instance materialism mean that the economy is far more important than other factors in explaining society or even that it determines the development of society? From the second definition above it seems like it is not possible to combine materialism with the dialectic, that is that the dialectic implies that neither ideas nor the economy can be seen as "driving forces" in history.
I suspect that the answer might be that the dialectic materialism means that the economy is more important than ideas, but that still ideas might influence the economy and other sectors of society. In other words, that the economy is most important, but that it does not "determine" historical development.