Not philosophical, but literary and political. Not the school, but the style. Not Soviet, but Anglo-American. Not dialectical, but scientific. Not materialism, but realism. Not lost, but won.
Diamat lost all the main battles of life according to the proverbs ” judge by the fruits, Practice is the Criterion of Truth.”
Pawn schools of philosophy have not yet matured to the point where their games/wins/losses are of interest to anyone on the main political training ground of the main political events…
Philosophical schools play notes dictated to them by their Political Leaders, who play very serious games, and philosophers only sing along and agree with the Political Leaders…And they could have had their own weighty Word to say.
Diamat lost not to a school, but to a historical trend. Philosophy, alas, is closely linked to political ideology, for which scientific truth means nothing. It does not follow that I consider diamat perfect in its present form: its main ideas are correct, but still need significant refinement. – Analogy: in Ancient China, Moism was theoretically the most powerful movement, and its founder rightly said that the attacks of other philosophers on it are like trying to break a stone with a chicken egg. But when the routine of society began to prevail in China, it was Moism, with its heroic activism, that first left the scene.
Philosophical teachings are far removed from poker competitions and hockey tournaments.
Philosophy is the most general teaching about the laws of nature and society, which includes various approaches for identifying the mechanisms of functioning of systems and phenomena and using the methods of various philosophical schools, including elements of dialectics, scholasticism for understanding the World.
Dialectics as a way of theoretical thinking, exploring contradictions as internal forces of World development.
One can disagree with the theoretical messages of the Soviet School of Philosophy about the unity and struggle of opposites, argue about the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones and the acquisition of new properties by them, but the ideas of dialectical knowledge of universal processes work perfectly in various currents of foreign philosophical schools.
Only the basic position, which put forward the teaching in the first place, where the material world of being was positioned as the main and leading one in tandem with the subtle-material plane, is criticized.
1. Dialectical materialism was developed by Aristotle and Hegel. Who considers it Soviet…,. let him open the textbook. 2. This is the first time I've heard about horse races. between philosophical schools. And who won?
Judging by the fact that there are almost no supporters of dialectical materialism left, and the number of supporters of all other schools has not greatly decreased, it has lost to all available schools. Because it's a false idea.
The Soviet doctrine took place as an initially populist and false idea of the power of cooks and porters of suitcases. The working class understood nothing of dialectical materialism, but it believed that by planing metal it realized its productive supremacy. In short, deception and theft, and bribery of smart people for rations of bread, sausage and sour cream.
Not philosophical, but literary and political. Not the school, but the style. Not Soviet, but Anglo-American. Not dialectical, but scientific. Not materialism, but realism. Not lost, but won.
Diamat lost all the main battles of life according to the proverbs ” judge by the fruits, Practice is the Criterion of Truth.”
Pawn schools of philosophy have not yet matured to the point where their games/wins/losses are of interest to anyone on the main political training ground of the main political events…
Philosophical schools play notes dictated to them by their Political Leaders, who play very serious games, and philosophers only sing along and agree with the Political Leaders…And they could have had their own weighty Word to say.
Diamat lost not to a school, but to a historical trend. Philosophy, alas, is closely linked to political ideology, for which scientific truth means nothing. It does not follow that I consider diamat perfect in its present form: its main ideas are correct, but still need significant refinement. – Analogy: in Ancient China, Moism was theoretically the most powerful movement, and its founder rightly said that the attacks of other philosophers on it are like trying to break a stone with a chicken egg. But when the routine of society began to prevail in China, it was Moism, with its heroic activism, that first left the scene.
Philosophical teachings are far removed from poker competitions and hockey tournaments.
Philosophy is the most general teaching about the laws of nature and society, which includes various approaches for identifying the mechanisms of functioning of systems and phenomena and using the methods of various philosophical schools, including elements of dialectics, scholasticism for understanding the World.
Dialectics as a way of theoretical thinking, exploring contradictions as internal forces of World development.
One can disagree with the theoretical messages of the Soviet School of Philosophy about the unity and struggle of opposites, argue about the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones and the acquisition of new properties by them, but the ideas of dialectical knowledge of universal processes work perfectly in various currents of foreign philosophical schools.
Only the basic position, which put forward the teaching in the first place, where the material world of being was positioned as the main and leading one in tandem with the subtle-material plane, is criticized.
1. Dialectical materialism was developed by Aristotle and Hegel. Who considers it Soviet…,. let him open the textbook.
2. This is the first time I've heard about horse races. between philosophical schools. And who won?
Judging by the fact that there are almost no supporters of dialectical materialism left, and the number of supporters of all other schools has not greatly decreased, it has lost to all available schools. Because it's a false idea.
The Soviet doctrine took place as an initially populist and false idea of the power of cooks and porters of suitcases. The working class understood nothing of dialectical materialism, but it believed that by planing metal it realized its productive supremacy. In short, deception and theft, and bribery of smart people for rations of bread, sausage and sour cream.
Materialism is even older than idealism. And he can't lose, it's not a commercial sport for paper dollars. And what do you mean by the word “Soviet”?