Theory can only rationally exist because the material conditions surrounding it are conducive to its existence, and as such the theory must reflect that. This is true across all manners of theory, social and scientific. Modern physics could never exist before it actually did. The importance here is in direct opposition to idealism. You cannot spontaneously create an abstract idea for the world to imitate; your ideal must be born out of the present material existence. Humans have the conceptual capacity to view time as a past, future, and present occurence, but only one of them will ever actually exist outside of our conceptual ability, the present. Still this ability allows for the confusion of material occurence, lending ghosts of the past and the future real validity to the present moment of which they have no bearing.
This is philosophical materialism. We cannot suppose conditions that are not in existence and we can only accept conditions that reasonably exist. Abstract occurences are inferred by their availble physical imprint, the source of reason, the base of history.
A common critique of idealism: ‘Freedom’ does not exist by itself. It can only be a very specific list of definitions: the right to own property; what kind of property; under what conditions; how can it be owned, manipulated; where can it be owned; will it be trespassed upon? It’s not enough to be in favor of ‘Freedom’, a word with no objective meaning unless this word can be objectified by the user. This holds true to most rhetoric; it serves to misrepresent what actually occurs and projects a false theoretical image of which it builds upon, obscuring the layers of material reality beneath.
Marxist theory is based on Historical and Dialectical Materialism. This has always been the foundation of Marxism and this is where it most prominently diverges from the other threads of socialism. Essentially, a theory of material existence allows for the practical terms of discussion and analysis that are not available rhetorically. This is why orthodox Marxism is necessarily atheist (which isn’t necessarily the case amoungst ‘Western Marxists’) and why there is a specificly broad emphasis on economic conditions and class, as opposed to ‘freedom’ or other manner of ideals.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to change it.” KM - 11th Thesis on Feurbach
Are you claiming that material based knowledge is always better than purely conceptual knowledge? If so, what defense can you provide for holding to this ideal?
Would you say that math is (ultimately) material based or purely conceptual?
You would get more people to read this if you could write it in a more simple way.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against getting theoretical. Theory is, after all, where marxism has worked the best. I just think many people took one look at the post, decided that they couldn’t be bothered, and skipped on to something else.
I suppose conditions that are not in existence all the time, and I frequently REJECT conditions that reasonably exist.
Huh?
PS High School students in China are in for a surprise this year (Today’s NYTimes–front page). The text drops wars, dynasties, and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials onecon, tech, social customs and globalization. The text mentions Mao only once, on a chapter on etiquette.
What do you think of that? Why is THIS fromt page news.
Another front page story is Bush linking war on terror to former battles with nazis and soviets…
Good questions. I think some math is materially based, like showing kids the equivalence between the numbers 1 - 10, and actually using those numbers to count actually objects, as well as add and subtract objects along with numbers.
Yes. Material knowledge has the advantage of being an actionable event. As a social species, communication on well accepted terms (existence) is paramount to social progress. This is based on our ability to distinguish what is and what isn’t. Developing a theory of praxis allows for the unique application of that theory in a measurable and complete way. To contrast, conceptual theory is useless unless it can be put into terms with reality, becoming a material force, but it has little to no significance until then.
There is a paradox of language and cognition and any discussion will in effect be conceptual; I offer no defense for a material ideal beyond plain existence.
Of course we can build systemic theory within itself and use it as a language, clearly defined, but mathematics has no meaningful existence unless it is a product of applied reality. I cannot speak to all fields of mathematics; while we can point towards obvious material observations, the internal logic at a higher level has created uncertanties and paradoxes that are clearly the product of the system’s theory and not universal reality. Paradoxes do not exist in reality, only in terms of conceptual logic and so math taken broadly is only a communication tool, susceptible to various semantics, but within reason of existence.
Beyond that, you left out some information, like “what book?” and what age students? If the subject is history, maybe they’re switching over to what gets taught in the West. It’s only a matter of time, at its current rate, before China becomes the #1 economic superpower. And if their future leaders never learned anything about Chinese history, they’re even with us Americans, at least…
Maybe that’s better than weapons of mass destruction?
So, how do creative/artistic endeavors fit into this ideal? I agree that material knowledge may be best for say, running a government or doing science. Is abstract, conceptual art worthless?
Should mathematicians stop and wait for science to catch up? I think the same question of creativity is relevant for math too. Should we halt all forms of creative expression because some of it may have no obvious correlation to reality? This is starting to sound an awful lot like the money-ruled world we live in today. Artistic expression is suffering because mere concepts and abstractions don’t yield a monetary profit.
It’s hard for anything to have no correlation to reality unless it is taken out of context, as art often is, and revived upon that new definition. There is no mystical aesthetic involved with the creative process; the emotional content found beneath art is simply a complex physical and chemical relationship intertwined with unconscious material. Reaction and interaction, creativity are all internal products of cognition; humans are not divine through conciousness, ourselves and creations are not beyond organic matter. The human condition is not a seperate entity emotionally and theoretically; the same physical brain mass recognizes all manners of conciousness, material existence, and conceptual thought. So the point is not to invalidate these processes, but to contextualize their meaning.
Artistic expression is suffering because modern capitalism equates all human interactions as being market based. The flaw, of course, is the ideological supremacy of the market, a conceptual idea that has been ascribed material power. Money is fiat*. When we give undue power to intangible concepts, god, money, ideology, they become larger than human existence, negating reality and alienating ourselves therein.
*When new bills were introduced by the US Treasury Department, millions were also spent in order to advertise the conceptual idea of that particular money, which would otherwise have no material power if it was not recognized.
