Majenrobe

I’ve always felt that this is needless philosophizing, but if one wants to do it, then go ahead. It’s similar to liberal college philosophy professors saying that Heraclitus’s idea of “change is the only constant” paradoxical when in reality they just fail to understand it. Basically, it’s probing for a reduction question to things that aren’t meant to be reduced. We have to stop reducing at some point, and “change being the only constant” is one place where dialectics can stop.

Dialectics, just like all philosophies, is interpretive, meaning that it takes in information and tries to make sense of it. Of course, some interpretations require a priori assumptions about the universe, but these are just metaphysical quackery. All materialisms, physicalisms, realisms, etc. must begin at the a posteriori stage, and only then can interpretations make sense with the observations which we have. Dialectical materialism, I believe, has done this relatively well, especially because a core concept in it requires that it adapts to scientific observation instead of making dogmatic, eternal assumptions of the universe and forming itself around that.

Other comments claiming that “dialectics don’t exist” are essentially correct. “Objects” as we know them through social interactions do not meaningfully exist in the universe, but only attain meaning when we particularize them. A “tree” doesn’t exist, but that tree does.

I will admit that I’m still in active research of these things, and I’m open to criticism on things here because I’m certainly no expert. I have found articles such as this and this which have helped me in understanding these concepts, and I recommend them (and all of their articles, really) to anyone wanting to learn philosophy.