he contextualizes his thoughts well over several paragraphs, providing specific reasons and suppositions for his arguments.
What other context could be provided that would somehow make it clear engles truly doesn’t believe that another scholar is missing a fundamental logical connection?
only in so far as engels is unwilling to consider alternate perspectives.
as I supposed earlier, his criticism sounds more like he’s trying to academically armbar moritz’s interpretation rather than suggest moritz doesn’t actually understand the base and superprojection relationship.
he just understands it and discusses it in a way engels doesn’t approve of.
That’s a fair interpretation, but it’s also worth noting that Materialism in its Dialectical form was very new, ie created by Marx. There was a ton of misunderstanding surrounding his theories (which remains today).
he contextualizes his thoughts well over several paragraphs, providing specific reasons and suppositions for his arguments.
What other context could be provided that would somehow make it clear engles truly doesn’t believe that another scholar is missing a fundamental logical connection?
It’s specifically a conversation surrounding misunderstandings of Dialectical Materialism, the example given being one such example.
are you a philosophy major or professional yourself? you seem very knowledgeable on the subject.
Nah, I’m just a Communist, I’ve read a good deal of Marx and the gang.
only in so far as engels is unwilling to consider alternate perspectives.
as I supposed earlier, his criticism sounds more like he’s trying to academically armbar moritz’s interpretation rather than suggest moritz doesn’t actually understand the base and superprojection relationship.
he just understands it and discusses it in a way engels doesn’t approve of.
that’s how engels is coming off, anyway.
That’s a fair interpretation, but it’s also worth noting that Materialism in its Dialectical form was very new, ie created by Marx. There was a ton of misunderstanding surrounding his theories (which remains today).
ha, nothing truer these days.