Idealism vs Materialism

[BIXX]

Alright, so, I basically need someone to explain to me how these two terms relate, or rather, if I have their relation correct, in the context of "God and the State" by Bakunin.

Materialism seems to be assuming that our actions/thoughts/etc... Are all a reflection of reality. "I am therefore I think".

Idealism is the opposite, reality is a reflection of our minds. "I think therefore I am".

My difficulty comes in where it seems that in "God and the State" he says that idealism leads to a belief in god and a state, why is this? And conversely, why does materialism imply the opposite?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Idealism and materialism are two metaphysical positions. You're more or less right about what they constitute, but the Idealism which Marx was critiquing was a form which had crystallized with Hegel and his philosophical followers.

This was the same kind of idealism that Bakunin was responding to (as far as I know), as both he and Marx were students of Hegel who took his idealist system and inverted it into a materialist one.

I'm not familiar with what Bakunin is talking about here, but I imagine he is arguing that idealism leads to ideas of God and the State because they are entities which can only be asserted in an idealistic framework. There is no material "state", it is merely an idea which many people assert. It makes sense that idealism necessitates an idea of God, although it's harder to see how idealism necessitates the idea of the state (on the contrary, it is the other way around - belief in the state necessitates idealism)

[BIXX]

Idealism and materialism are two metaphysical positions. You're more or less right about what they constitute, but the Idealism which Marx was critiquing was a form which had crystallized with Hegel and his philosophical followers.

This was the same kind of idealism that Bakunin was responding to (as far as I know), as both he and Marx were students of Hegel who took his idealist system and inverted it into a materialist one.

I'm not familiar with what Bakunin is talking about here, but I imagine he is arguing that idealism leads to ideas of God and the State because they are entities which can only be asserted in an idealistic framework. There is no material "state", it is merely an idea which many people assert. It makes sense that idealism necessitates an idea of God, although it's harder to see how idealism necessitates the idea of the state (on the contrary, it is the other way around - belief in the state necessitates idealism)

So, idealism just says "ideas assert reality" and materialism says "reality asserts ideas" I'm a sense? That helped a lot, thank you!

Also, the reason Bakunin stated that idealism leads to a state for the same reason as it leads to religion, because they both have similar grounds (religion relies on the idea that people need to become more like a prophet, a state relies on the idea that people need to become better citizens, both of which can be considered a form of divinity).

However, I feel that a believe in a god and a state would require idealism. Because as you said, they are ideas that are asserted, rather than material facts.

[Akshay!]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/

[Brutus]

I'd try this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1897/history/part1.htm) rather than Akshay's recommendation.

[Brutus]

Also this is a brilliant piece on Hegel, materialism and idealism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1891/11/hegel.htm)

[Sotionov]

How bout dualism?

[TheEmancipator]

The two are not opposed, the only debate is which one precedes the other. Do material conditions determine ideas or can ideas determine material conditions? I tend like most post-modernists towards the former, but the latter intrigues me far greater.


How bout dualism?

One thing I can say for certain is that the revolutionary left is rarely dualist since it believes the only perfection can be achieved in this world and not another.

[Sotionov]

I was talking about my opinion that you don't have to be a materialist to accept the materialistic functioning of history. Materialists like to portray dualists as idealists, someone who think that ideas appear independly of the material word and that they can change it by themselves, which is view present only in some cults, not among non-materialist socialists.

Concerning Bakunin, I think that idealism he talkes about is the marxist oppossition to his view that class struggle gives rise to class consciousness, which he saw as materialist (matter precedes idea) whereas he saw oppossite marxist notion [most clearly expressed by Kautsky: "socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without"] as idealism (idea preceding matter).

[Comrade #138672]

So, idealism just says "ideas assert reality" and materialism says "reality asserts ideas" I'm a sense? That helped a lot, thank you!That summarizes it, yes. You get it.


Also, the reason Bakunin stated that idealism leads to a state for the same reason as it leads to religion, because they both have similar grounds (religion relies on the idea that people need to become more like a prophet, a state relies on the idea that people need to become better citizens, both of which can be considered a form of divinity).The same thing goes for the "Free Market" or "The Invisible Hand".


However, I feel that a believe in a god and a state would require idealism. Because as you said, they are ideas that are asserted, rather than material facts.Yes.


How bout dualism?Dualism is an inconsistent philosophical view IMO.

Or do you mean some kind of mix between idealism and materialism, because ideas do have some importance? In that case it isn't necessary to introduce "dualism", because materialism can explain that quite well.

[The Jay]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/idealism-t173456/index.html?t=173456 bam.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So, idealism just says "ideas assert reality" and materialism says "reality asserts ideas" I'm a sense? That helped a lot, thank you!


I mean, it's a simplification of the two positions, but it's a very good simplification that gets at the most important point. One says our experience of material reality stems fundamentally from the ideas in our consciousness, the other says that an objective material world causes our ideas and experience. Both positions have some justification, which is why it is a difficult problem to overcome.



Also, the reason Bakunin stated that idealism leads to a state for the same reason as it leads to religion, because they both have similar grounds (religion relies on the idea that people need to become more like a prophet, a state relies on the idea that people need to become better citizens, both of which can be considered a form of divinity).
It makes sense, I guess I would just argue that it seems that some kind of anarchist idealism is conceivable, where there is no state. I guess in the abstract sense there is a "state" headed by "god" but I think I'm getting ahead of myself ... it looks like an interesting text to read for myself.



However, I feel that a believe in a god and a state would require idealism. Because as you said, they are ideas that are asserted, rather than material facts.

Yeah this is where Bakunin's argument is most intuitive


How bout dualism?

It's a challenge to explain how two substances interact or coexist. In a way it just creates more problems than it solves.



Dualism is an inconsistent philosophical view IMO.

Or do you mean some kind of mix between idealism and materialism, because ideas do have some importance? In that case it isn't necessary to introduce "dualism", because materialism can explain that quite well.

I agree that dualism is problematic, but there are ways (albeit perhaps quite hamfisted ones) that can make it work. I mean, there's always the pineal gland.

There are other metaphysical positions which are possible, too. Idealism and materialism aren't binary opposites. We can reject mind/body dualism without asserting either mind or body as the fundamental substance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

It's a fun metaphysical debate which most Marxist non-philosophers have unfortunately written off as already completed by figures like Marx and Bakunin.