Can anyone who is more well read tell me if there is any philosophy work that revises the theory of dialectical materialism in light of modern scientific advances? I just finished Elementary Principles of Philosophy (FLP edition) which was extremely enlightening but some of the scientific examples are dated and it got me thinking. Physics (and all sciences for that matter) has advanced quite a bit in the past fifty years and I'd love to read a principled critique/investigation/discussion on how our current understanding of nature modifies our understanding of materialism. Also if there are any critiques of idealism in the understanding of modern science

  • Mrtryfe [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    But then we face a new problem: on what grounds do we verify whether this new scientific paradigm is “correct” or preferable to dialectical materialism? Because the two have different verification procedures. Which one to choose? So we’re back at the question of what should be subordinate to what: science to the dialectic or dialectic to science.

    Would recommend OP check out Kuhn wrt to this

    • Camboozie [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      From my understanding dialectical materialism has to be subordinated to our understanding of science. The two are linked and develop together. In the 18th century materialism was mechanical, and therefore metaphysical, because the science of mechanics was our most powerful predictive tool. This created problems in philosophy with people like Descartes theorizing that animals (and humans by extension) were basically just an amalgamation of simple machines.

      A materialist point of view requires that philosophy be subordinated to our understanding of the nature of matter, energy, and motion since it is from these understandings that we shape our societies, or at least lay the foundation.

      • Mrtryfe [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I largely agree with you. I think Kuhn is interesting in this regard because I feel that he does give some value to the idea of history being about material class struggle, despite Kuhn not subscribing to Marxist thought. In that way, his ideas wrt to paradigm shifts in science is important - despite the idea that science is a cascading wave of progress, history shows that what drove a lot of scientific advancement was parallel to the material needs and desires of the parties involved. This is a key point that many in the scientific fields tend to overlook, and view scientific methodology as being unerring. That's not to say the science that they're doing is right or wrong, but the historical process certainly isn't rational when it comes to scientific progress.