7mo ago

I wrote an intro to diamat from the perspective of thermodynamics

This is a culmination of a lot of ideas I've had over the years that constitute my world view and understanding of our reality.

Some key realizations I've had are that there are many parallels between concepts of energy gradients driving evolution of dynamic systems, emergence, and self-organization with the core concepts of Dialectical Materialism rooted in contradictions, transformation of quantity into quality, and the negation of the negation.

Dialectical Materialism describes the cyclical process of development where an initial thesis is countered by an antithesis, leading to a synthesis that retains aspects of both but transcends them to a new level. This directly mirrors the idea of energy gradients driving systems towards higher levels of complexity and organization. In both cases, emergent properties arise from the interactions within the system driven by the selection pressures.

I see nature as having a fractal quality to it where environmental pressures to optimize space and energy use drive the emergence of similar patterns at different scales. I argue that our social structures are a direct extension of the physical reality and simply constitute a higher level of abstraction and organization that directly builds on the layers beneath.

If you're simply interested in a standalone introduction to dialectics can skip to chapter 8, which is largely self-contained. The preceding chapters build a foundation by illustrating how self-organization leads to the emergence of minds and social structures.

One of the goals I have here is to provide an introduction to diamat for people in STEM who may be coming from the liberal mainstream by demonstrating a clear connection between materialist understanding of physical reality and human societies.

Feedback and critique are both very welcome.

an audiobook here (it's LLM narrated so not perfect) https://theunconductedchorus.com/audio.html

34 comments

awesome ill give it a read after christmas sheananigans are done
(Edit: If anyone is wondering about reading the text that was posted above, I recommend first reading the discussion in this thread, specially the part that happened 3 months later, then make you own conclusion on whether this is worth you time or not.)
Always good to see someone using a field they are knowledgeable about to explain the Dialetical process imbued in everything, as Engels would say: "Nature is the test of Dialectics".
I do have something to nitpick though, I have seen it written before here or on Hex about the development being an thesis, anthesis, synthesis movement, and I have never truly understood it and always thought weird that none of the classical authors have ever used those words to describe Dialectics.
Seeing the resume of how you wrote your text, I think I have finally understood what people mean by those words, and in my understanding it's a mistaken view of Dialectics.
The Dialetical method sees the development of everything that exists by the progress of each things internal contradictions, which when the main aspect of the main contradiction changes from the older to the newer, the thing itself changes from being the previous main aspect to being the new one. Utilizing the same jargon, the "Thesis" itself becomes the "Anthesis" after enough qualitative changes. Which is also why it necessary carries some qualities of the old aspect and it also creates it's own "Anthesis" that will eventually take its place in the future.
I don't really know where this "synthesis" came from, but it feels to me like and idealistic view of the Dialetical method where something is born out of the method itself instead of being the process of already existing things.
I think this wouldn't cause that much difference in your text considering you are studying nature itself when using thermodynamics, but I would this can cause bigger problems when dealing with more abstract things like society or economy.
- I go into this in detail in chapter 8, and explain it (hopefully) properly there. The blurb was just meant to draw the parallels between the two ideas.
  
  I read this whole thread again due to the post in Philosophy of the troll and I wanted to thank you once again for being patient for explaining your idea.
  I took my time reading the debate bro's grievances about Fichte's idea about thesis, antithesis and synthesis and I found after reading for hours that they are basically arguing about semanthics regarding on how to word material contradictions. I was saddened that the troll lost their chance on having a productive conversation and also I was impressed by your level of patience.
  Anyway, TLDR thank you for always sharing your ideas despite nasty trolls like that other user trying to divert the attention from the main topic of the post which is "how to view reality". Take care Yogthos and I am always looking forward for the quality of information you share!
  
  Sorry for the way my comment is structured, it's already morning here and I did my best to try to get my point through, I haven't had the time to read the hole text yet, but I did read the 8º Chapter, and I must say that yes, the application of that mistaken dialectical method does lead to some problems when exposed to more abstract matters like society and economy.
  I do note now that this mistake comes from attempting to use the dialectical method created by Hegel in the same way that the ancient Greeks used to find better answer through a dialogue between opposing parties, which is where "Thesis", "Antithesis" and "Synthesis" are used correctly.
  But Hegel's Dialectics is not about two opposing sides culminating in a third one through conversation, but about the better and more developed side, in his idealistic view the big "idea", and the lesser and flawed side, the reality, struggling and ever changing attempting to reach the former.
  Marx then comes and turns it on his feet, as Engels would say, and adapts Hegelian dialectics to the real and material world, consequently changing the cause of development from the contradiction between the idea and the existing, to the internal contradictions present in every existing thing.
  Now what this change in method causes can be exemplified in your brothers and bikes problem: Using Diamat for them to be in there would need to be a process which puts them in opposite sides, in this case, "who is the fastest?", in this process they are in contradiction trying to overtake each other, now one brother has a better bike and consequently becomes the main aspect of the contradiction and therefore "the fastest", but given time the other brother can struggle in an attempt to improve and surpass the other brother, if he is successful in his struggle, if his struggles were enough, he can then surpass his brother as the main aspect and therefore become the fastest.
  What were the differences between methods: 1º: the brothers are not contradictory as a whole with each other, but in a specific process. 2º: No dialogue is necessary, the problem and the changes come from the facts themselves(not saying dialogue doesn't help). 3º: the resolution to the contradiction do the process is in the process itself, there isn't necessarily a need for a third party to come and resolve the contradiction. 4º: Struggles are not a negative thing, but the necessary action to bring forth change. 5º: The unity of opposites means that their place in the process is interchangeable, when one becomes the faster the other becomes the slower and vice-versa.
  These differences become very important when analyzing more complex situations because the entire Marxist theory is on the bases that the answer the two main contradictions of capitalism, being the private property of the means of production and the socialized production, and the organization of factories and the anarchy of production, lie in themselves, meaning the socialization of the means of production and planned production. And that those changes will only happen when the newer revolutionary class takes the place of the older reactionary class as the leaders of society.

34 comments