• Funkytom467@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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    Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 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.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.

      Quite like Marxism.

  • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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’

    • dessimbelackis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 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

    • greencactus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 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.