All Articles All Articles

Dialectics Precede and Are Primary Over Materialism Parts 1-6

Dialectics Precede and Are Primary Over Materialism

By Dennis Loo (12-11-17)

I have mentioned this before, and proceeded on that basis, but I am now making two points about this topic that I have not made previously so explicitly: dialectics make materialism possible, and are overall therefore more important than materialism, though materialism (in the philosophical, not commonsense meaning) is nevertheless indispensable; I shall be soon making a point here about different levels (e.g., individuals and the systems they are part of) and their relationship to each other. But first, the first point.

Matter in motion (materialism) does not predate dialectics, and here is why: you can only know of the existence of matter in motion, and even before consciousness, there must be a way of distinguishing different, contrasting things, always, because otherwise existence itself is impossible without it. Perhaps a better way of saying this is that there must have always been dialectics and existence and any other state is utterly impossible. Even if there was at one point a Big Bang, there had to have been something before that. Why do I say that?

How could there be a state of nothingness without a something-ness to be in contrast to nothingness? That would be like imagining sound without silence in between - and you can't do it! You only are aware, and even before human consciousnness or any kind of consciousness existed, there has to be and can only be matter in motion because of dialectics, otherwise it could not be or even be known of, without that. How do you know "up" except as an opposite to "down?" How can you know "left" if it were not for "right?" How can you be "in" unless you know an "out" exists? How can you know matter, if there is not non-matter?

The universe in some form or another has always existed, which is why creation told by the bible in Genesis is merely a fable. The universe could not be preceded by a state of nothingness because a contrast between things has and must always have been.

For something to have meaning (i.e., a purpose beyond itself) then something has to exist OUTSIDE of the universe, but it cannot, and not only by definition, but by the very nature of dialectics and existence itself. That is why "materialist dialectics" is correct, but "dialectical materialism" is not. The modifier here is "materialist" not "dialectics." From this, much flows.

For instance, the universe and humans within it, have no meaning other than what we impose on it. For meaning or purpose to exist, there has to be something outside of it, but if the universe is everything, then meaning and purpose are not imposed by "god" or anyone else outside of it. Contrary to this being a pessimistic diagnosis, it does not have to be pessimistic at all. 

To be continued - in this series: Dialectics Precede and Are Primary Over Materailism Part I 

Part 2 (On the Basic Nature of Reality)

Part 3 (The Liar's Paradox Solved and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem Revisited)

Part 4 (On Theses on Feuerbach and Marx Melding Materialism with Dialectics)

Part 5 (our decoding of Theses on Feuerbach Continues and Preview Why Dialectics Are Key Even As To Materialism)

Part 6 (Why God Does Not Exist and Why It's Materialist Dialectics, Not Dialectical Materialism)

Add comment

We welcome and encourage discussion and debate. We find truth via contention.

Security code