Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,009)
Recent Questions
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
- Do people with Down syndrome understand that they have abnormalities? How do they see the world? Are they self-conscious about their illness?
This is such a cool philosophical ontological and gnosselogical concept. Historically, it has been characterized as either Marxist or post-Hegelian.�
The main postulate to which it can be reduced is that the material determines the ideal.
A distinctive feature of diamat is that when considering a dialectical bundle, it invariably reveals the main (deterministic) – material — and the secondary (determinable) — ideal.
To be a little more specific: politics and economics. The economy is the basis that determines its superstructure — politics.�
Like any dialectic, this gnosseological concept clarifies that not everything is *so simple*. That one and the same thing in one dialectical contradiction is secondary (deterministic), but in another contradiction it will already be leading (deterministic).
Other theses of diamat:
– the objective factor belongs to the material category, and the subjective factor belongs to the ideal category.
– by entering into a dialectical contradiction, things simultaneously show their mutual exclusivity and unity;
– proceeding from the previous one, such contradictions are called dialectically identity and dialectical contradiction. Both phrases mean the same
thing– – movement can be quantitative and qualitative;
– contradiction is the source of qualitative movement–
a qualitative leap is a consequence of the accumulation of certain quantitative changes, as a result of which the thing (parts of which came into conflict) acquires new properties, and new contradictions that again lead to qualitative development–
– this chain of movement is also called thesis-antithesis-synthesis;
– contradictions may have an open (antagonistic) character, or they may have a hidden (non-antagonistic) character.
If I open all these theses, it will turn out to be a completely unreadable sheet, so I limited myself to their notation.
All that I have identified as Italian is philosophical categories. It is worth lurking what they mean in a philosophical context, otherwise there is a high risk of misunderstanding the text.
If you need/want to understand in detail what it is and why, then I advise you to read Marx-Engels proper (the same Anti-During), you can Mao (On contradiction) or even [do not be afraid of the brand] Stalin (On historical and dialectical materialism).