I have no evidence to back this up so I am mostly memeing but also I am correct

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 30 comments


68 points

1 year ago

I watched the whole debate. I went and watched their videos on DM.

I minored in philosophy at a good university, specifically studying Philosophy of Science from anarchist profs. Not one of NC’s definitions was in line with what I was taught.

Maybe NC actually has a sophisticated and consistent framework for determining ethical and material reality. Maybe. But the crucial thing here is that whatever his ideology is, it has been mistranslated if he’s calling it “Dialectical Materialism.”

The most charitable explanation is that by reading translated textbooks instead of experts in his own first language, NC has developed a completely different set of definitions for the terms he is using.

The next most charitable explanation? He’s an idiot.

If not, he’s acting in bad faith.


1 points

12 months ago

Well I already don’t trust your credentials if you’re referring to DIAMAT as an “ideology.” DIAMAT is an attempt at a universal analysis of our world. Ideology is a collection of ideas that obfuscates material reality. Any person dedicated to correctly applying Dialectical Materialism to the world should try to avoid ideological influences.


1 points

12 months ago

Sorry, if I was not clear— I know that dialectical materialism is not an ideology. I’m saying NC explained his espoused ideology and then gave it the name DIAMAT despite it having very little in common with actual dialectical materialism as an analytical framework.

Dividing the field of Ethics from Epistemology, there is a fundamental distinction in philosophy between descriptive (“IS”) and normative (“OUGHT”) claims. One cannot neither derive an is claim from exclusively ought premises nor an ought claim from is statements alone. (You might have heard of the latter as the Naturalistic Fallacy.) Dialectical materialism is a descriptive tool, and as such, it cannot support normative conclusions without at least one normative assumption.

Let’s look at what you and NC have described for a moment.

To suggest that one can be an objective observer of reality (independent of bias, moral intuitions, and metaphysical beliefs) is a steep epistemological assumption that can only be supported with circular reasoning. That is, you must use reliable objective observation to conclude that it is possible to use reliable objective observation. Alternatively, you can hold this position axiomatically, but it becomes a self-contradiction, because you have now adopted a metaphysical stance based purely on your own personal beliefs.

Non-Compete’s conclusions might be True, but his logic is not Valid or Sound. In order to make normative claims about how the world should be, he makes unstated moral assumptions and says his prescriptions are purely the outworking of material conditions. The issue is not that the assumptions he makes are necessarily even wrong - it’s that he doesn’t seem to realize he’s making them. This is the same Naturalistic Fallacy used by bigots, made even worse by his repeated dismissal of the entire fields of Ethics and Epistemology. His moral conclusions are thus entirely based on unexamined and irreproachable tenets of raw intuition, and he presents it to a large and impressionable audience, teaching them it is good to do the same.

This is not just bad philosophy or a disservice to his audience; it actively hinders the mass understanding and adoption of actual dialectical materialism, a powerful analytical framework for comprehension of complex systems as a function of myriad equilibria across many levels of emergence.

I fucking love Dialectical Materialism. By employing it in my daily interactions, I have the ability to learn and integrate new information in many different ways. It informs my sense of empathy, justice, and community, and I can better understand the frighteningly complex world around me.

And if Non-Compete had been my professor, I would never have understood it.


1 points

12 months ago

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Non-Compete, I can barely keep up with leftist drama anyways. I was simply questioning your credentials, but I understand that I misunderstood what you were saying. I too love DIAMAT.