What is Dialectical Materialism?

This video lecture discusses very briefly the meaning, nature, and dynamics of the term "dialectical materialism".

***

Feel free to share your thoughts in the “comments” section below, or hit the "Like" button if you find this material helpful!

Thanks! PHILO-notes

[MissyChilii]

Thnkq so much for uploading this video.. It was really helpful Sir 😊

[silistardemirovic]

In my book it is mentioned as Marx and Engels materialism, can you explain it to me?

[moofworld]

primer: A dialectic is a conversation between two opposing viewpoints seeking an absolute truth (think pro and against a subject ).

Applying a material dialectic is describing the relationship for why or not anything occurs as pertaining to all the essential ingredients that make it up, as opposed to a classic interpretation such as this person did this because they were angry (instead of being poor and desperate by a factor of economics and cultural conditions ).

[catalonamarkjasoni.]

I'm having a hard time understanding this theory can you gave an example please!!!

[stofelie]

It's not just what it does, it's what it's engineered to do.

[sebastianpenamante]

Can I ask questions to you
Is conservatism and materialism share same ideologies?

[timmy]

History is the life of nations and of humanity. To seize and put into words, to describe directly the life of humanity or even of a single nation, appears impossible.

The ancient historians all employed one and the same method to describe and seize the apparently elusive—the life of a people. They described the activity of individuals who ruled the people, and regarded the activity of those men as representing the activity of the whole nation.

The question: how did individuals make nations act as they wished and by what was the will of these individuals themselves guided? the ancients met by recognizing a divinity which subjected the nations to the will of a chosen man, and guided the will of that chosen man so as to accomplish ends that were predestined.

For the ancients these questions were solved by a belief in the direct participation of the Deity in human affairs.

Modern history, in theory, rejects both these principles.

It would seem that having rejected the belief of the ancients in man’s subjection to the Deity and in a predetermined aim toward which nations are led, modern history should study not the manifestations of power but the causes that produce it. But modern history has not done this. Having in theory rejected the view held by the ancients, it still follows them in practice.

Instead of men endowed with divine authority and directly guided by the will of God, modern history has given us either heroes endowed with extraordinary, superhuman capacities, or simply men of very various kinds, from monarchs to journalists, who lead the masses. Instead of the former divinely appointed aims of the Jewish, Greek, or Roman nations, which ancient historians regarded as representing the progress of humanity, modern history has postulated its own aims—the welfare of the French, German, or English people, or, in its highest abstraction, the welfare and civilization of humanity in general, by which is usually meant that of the peoples occupying a small northwesterly portion of a large continent.

Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients without replacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation has obliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected the divine authority of the kings and the “fate” of the ancients, to reach the same conclusion by another road, that is, to recognize (1) nations guided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending. - war and peace appendix 2