• Funkytom467
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Dialectic can never be a science, you can’t apply the same methodology. Even when it’s material.

    However it is philosophy, and if your searching for some material reality then it’s ontology.

    Science too is a product of ontology, it’s a methodology created for this exact purpose and wich can be studied in this field.

    Saying physical properties are social abstractions sounds to me like social constructivism, which is epistemology, again philosophy.

    Social sciences can be soft science precisely when they are not dialectic and rely on the methodology of science.

    And to be clear, soft science is just a science that is based on a hard science, in which we don’t have enough work done to explain every emergent properties using fundamental properties of matter.

    Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.

    • Codex
      link
      fedilink
      69 months ago

      I went on a tear at one point trying to really understand, rigorously (I’m a computer and maths person by trade and training), what dialectics are and how, specifically, the material dialectic (the foundation of Marxist thought!) should work.

      I was a bit dissapointed to understand that they can’t really be “rigorous” in that fashion and that they’re really more of a philosophical and rhetorical tool. I do still get a lot of use from them, and in discussions with other people the framework of the dialectic (“Ok, what if we took these two ideas and put them on opposite ends of a spectrum, how does that look?”) is very useful for explaining and expounding upon ideas.

      • Funkytom467
        link
        fedilink
        69 months ago

        Its usefulness never made me disappointed despite this drawback.

        I’m a physicist at heart, which might explains it… To me the use in philosophy is just as important, especially in philosophy of science and metaphysics.

        Simply put I couldn’t imagine studying how reality works without ever wandering what it is and how to best study it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -79 months ago

      Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.

      Quite like Marxism.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -39 months ago

          In that it’s an outdated economics theory… In fact, it was outdated when it was first published already.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -39 months ago

              In that it ignored the previous half a century of (well tested) advances on the area and just made claims that were already known not to hold on the real world.

              • Cowbee [he/they]
                link
                fedilink
                7
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Can you for one second elaborate on anything you’re saying? What did Marx ignore, and what doesn’t hold in the real world?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -49 months ago

                  For example, the entire labor theory of value doesn’t hold up on the real world and Economics had already better explanations for the phenomenon it was trying to explain.

  • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Honestly, a mistake right off the bat to let him get away with slandering Marxist analysis by tying it to a word as poisoned in the popular imagination as ‘economics’

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    59 months ago

    Why is psychoanalysis bullshit? I’ve seen people talking about it before but I don’t really remember the reasons.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      99 months ago

      It’s not really very evidence-based from what I remember. Freuds ideas rested on a lot of untested assumptions about the way human psychology works

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      39 months ago

      Psychology student hère.

      In short, our professor explained to us that there are two approaches as to how subconscious thoughts and emotions work. The first one is that sometimes thought processes are subconscious, but they can be “brought to light” relatively easily; this perspective has been well-validated and compatible with modern psychology. The second approach is the psychoanalytic one - that some thoughts and emotions are forcefully kept away from the consciousness in order to self-regulate. This position has been debunked and doesn’t seem to have empirical basis.

      That’s why classical psychoanalysis today, where you dig deep into thoughts and feelings in order to go beyond the “defensive forces” of the mind (in German also called Abwehr), is seen as outdated.