I understand you. What I’m saying, for example, if I am considering between a green salad, fruit, or smoothie for lunch, my argument for greens would be iron content, fruit argument may be for the C content, smoothie would be “I can get both.” But in the United States, we’re taught “argument” is disagreement, or negative. So yes. I do agree we can take a dialectical approach, which if I’m understanding it correctly, takes contradiction in ideas and basically does the same as my lunch example? But I’m still grappling with my understanding of the word, so there’s also that. As a side note, it occurs to me dialectics informs your style when correcting us on misconceptions (and also wondering if it’s your general disposition to be so patient and good natured, or if understanding and practicing dialectics had lent extension to any degree)?
Ah, gotcha. When I hear “argument,” I hear “debate culture,” the kind of liberal bloodsports that focus mostly on rhetorical wins than finding a fundamental truth. I’m not quite using dialectics the way they were first formalized in ancient society, but instead more as a dialectical materialist. We can’t come to a better understanding purely through the realm of ideas, such is the strategy of dialectical idealists, but instead we can be more cooperative in education.
As for my style, I do try to emulate the dialectical method of Marx, but I absolutely do not compare to him in skill. Practicing dialectical materialism as a method of analysis is a skill like any other, it takes repitition and intention to become more accurate. Regarding disposition, I mostly take from Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist, which helps me maintain revolutionary optimism!
Thanks! Happy to help!
Thank you, for taking the time. I honestly can’t wait for their next argument to learn even more!
Haha, hopefully there are fewer arguments and more constructive discussions.
Arguing isn’t bad. How it’s done may be!
Argument tends to be less fruitful than discussions, in my experience.
I think it’s how we’ve been trained to understand it.
If anything, debate-culture is dominant in liberal spaces, not Marxist. We should try to take a dialectical approach to education and self-education.
I understand you. What I’m saying, for example, if I am considering between a green salad, fruit, or smoothie for lunch, my argument for greens would be iron content, fruit argument may be for the C content, smoothie would be “I can get both.” But in the United States, we’re taught “argument” is disagreement, or negative. So yes. I do agree we can take a dialectical approach, which if I’m understanding it correctly, takes contradiction in ideas and basically does the same as my lunch example? But I’m still grappling with my understanding of the word, so there’s also that. As a side note, it occurs to me dialectics informs your style when correcting us on misconceptions (and also wondering if it’s your general disposition to be so patient and good natured, or if understanding and practicing dialectics had lent extension to any degree)?
Ah, gotcha. When I hear “argument,” I hear “debate culture,” the kind of liberal bloodsports that focus mostly on rhetorical wins than finding a fundamental truth. I’m not quite using dialectics the way they were first formalized in ancient society, but instead more as a dialectical materialist. We can’t come to a better understanding purely through the realm of ideas, such is the strategy of dialectical idealists, but instead we can be more cooperative in education.
As for my style, I do try to emulate the dialectical method of Marx, but I absolutely do not compare to him in skill. Practicing dialectical materialism as a method of analysis is a skill like any other, it takes repitition and intention to become more accurate. Regarding disposition, I mostly take from Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist, which helps me maintain revolutionary optimism!