Latest / Think Twice Show / The Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism

Transcript

The Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism · Think Twice Show

0:00
Here's a story I quit a well. Paid job at KPMG and everyone
0:04
thought it was a phase but the truth was simple, my successful
0:08
career was costing me parts. Of myself.
0:11
I believed I was a good person, but that place kept turning me
0:14
into a version of myself I did not like.
0:17
Now all of a sudden I'm wondering, did I want this or
0:20
did the world teach me to want it?
0:22
Are my ideas actually mine or just what the world trained me
0:25
to think? And I'm not the first to think
0:28
about this either. It's an age-old debate.
0:31
Idealism versus materialism, Thoughts versus.
0:35
Things. So why do you believe what you
0:38
believe? It's because the contradictions.
0:41
Within your beliefs. Haven't been resolved yet.
0:43
Well, at least that's what Karl Marx thought.
0:46
Let me explain. Concept a clash and then a
0:50
change, a new concept, a new clash and a new change.
0:55
And the cycle continues. This is the dialectical Mark's
1:00
argues that real world conditions shape our lives and
1:04
then our thoughts, not the other way around.
1:07
It's the clashes within these conditions that drive change in
1:10
society. This is called materialism.
1:14
The world shapes you long before you can shape it.
1:19
I felt one thing, my job gave me another, and the clash between
1:23
the two forced me to change, Mark said.
1:26
All economic systems do this. That is dialectical materialism,
1:31
the philosophy that sits at the heart of Marxism.
1:34
He predicted that after capitalism would come socialism.
1:39
And he might have. Actually cooked.
1:40
Which city in the world has the most billionaires?
1:43
New York. And which city just elected its
1:46
first ever socialist mayor? You guessed it, New York.
1:50
So maybe Marx wasn't wrong, just early.
2:07
Welcome to Think Twice. Thank you for listening and
2:10
joining us. We really do appreciate you.
2:12
However, you're consuming us today.
2:14
Of course, my name is Benz, and today we're discussing
2:20
dialectical materialism. First question, does progress
2:24
exist without opposition? No.
2:28
So I believe dialectics and we'll discuss in a bit more what
2:32
dialectics means to to both of us.
2:34
But I believe that sits at the very core progress, and that
2:37
conflict between ideas, between people, between systems is what
2:42
drives progress. Yeah, I, I, I completely agree
2:45
with you. So like in my head, I didn't
2:48
start there though. I kind of didn't want progress
2:50
to have opposition to exist. Like I kind of wanted the
2:53
concept to be like, you can progress because you want to
2:55
progress, right? Like you desire to be better at
2:58
something. But I looked at the definition
3:00
and progress is a system that becomes more capable than it was
3:03
before, right? But every system prefers the
3:07
lowest energy and most stable configuration, most stable
3:12
arrangements. Every system is made-up of
3:13
matter. And the the more energy within
3:17
that system, the more unstable it becomes.
3:20
And every system wants to be simple.
3:22
And if you even looked at society, you don't want loads of
3:26
protests all the time, because for a system to last for a long
3:29
period of time, for it to survive, you don't want lots of
3:31
energy moving in and out of the system.
3:33
And therefore to generate change or to generate progress, you
3:38
need energy to come into that system.
3:40
Otherwise it will just remain at equilibrium.
3:43
Basically, it will remain the same.
3:45
It will stay and they stay in place.
3:47
Agreed, agreed. And really when it comes to
3:50
dialectics and this idea of two things opposing each other or
3:54
being in conflict with one another or even being in balance
3:57
with one another, use the word equilibrium.
3:59
This kind of like touches at the very laws of the universe.
4:03
Like you, you mentioned physics there about energy coming into a
4:06
system and and new synthesis coming out of that system as a
4:09
result of the energy. And it's kind of like as many
4:13
examples as you want to try and find to disprove it.
4:16
There's always something that has basically 22 forces that are
4:20
basically in conflict with one another, that creates new
4:23
things. And that new thing is even at
4:25
the point of being synthesised, enters opposition with something
4:29
else. And this is the cycle that
4:31
drives both human progress. But a lot of like math science
4:35
it is is compatible with the laws of math and science.
4:37
It's because everything is made-up of matter, right?
4:39
And obviously that's where materialism comes from.
4:41
Materialism comes from the concept of matter and even if
4:45
you look at molecules or you look at society or you look at
4:48
history, there's, there's, there's matter involved in all
4:51
of these processes to to progress, whatever the area
4:56
you're discussing is. Agreed.
4:57
So what what I actually want to look at is the history of
5:01
dialectics within European philosophy.
5:02
Just quickly and contrast that to different cultures, right.
5:07
So we've got the European tradition, which kind of starts
5:09
with Plato and Plato's idea of the dialectic.
5:12
He introduced this into like European philosophy is 2 people
5:17
engaged in debate, right? So for him, the opposition that
5:20
would drive progress is 2 people debating.
5:23
And out of that debate, through that debate they reach
5:26
transcendence. And that transcendence drives
5:29
human progress is the energy behind the synthesis of the new
5:33
ideas. Right?
5:35
Kind of like what we're doing here, right.
5:36
OK. We would hope that, you know,
5:38
new things come out of our discussion, that when we walk
5:41
into the studio, yes, I've got something to say.
5:43
You've got something to say. But we would hope.
5:45
And it's happened in the past, obviously, where I'm like,
5:48
wrong, Let me just sit on what Ben said.
5:52
Let let him marinate him for a SEC.
5:53
And a new idea can form from that.
5:55
And I like to think that's the reason why our episodes now are
5:57
better than episodes before. So Plato comes up with this idea
6:01
of the dialectic and philosophers throughout history
6:05
in Europe have engaged with this idea.
6:07
Immanuel Kant famously disagreed with Plato and didn't think that
6:12
you could get transcendence through that debate.
6:15
Like 2 mortal people can't achieve transcendence and form
6:19
new ideas. Hegel famously brought that
6:21
those dialectics into popularism in in Europe and he thought that
6:25
you could achieve transcendence, but certain cultures and certain
6:30
people are like preordained to achieve that transcendence.
6:33
Not everyone could do it, obviously.
6:36
Now we've got to think European philosopher, white man, what's
6:38
he really trying to say? Yeah, that's that's pause for
6:40
the second. And and Dubois is obviously WB
6:46
Dubois. He he engaged with Hegel on that
6:48
basis, right. He's like, well, I kind of agree
6:51
with him. But I think African Americans
6:52
are the transcendent people who are driving culture through the
6:55
arts, through music, through literature.
6:57
And then we arrive at Marx and Engels, and Marx synthesises
7:02
dialectical materialism by bringing all of these ideas,
7:05
which are great, but he's like, what about the real world?
7:07
What about like working people? And what does it mean in terms
7:10
of like the ordinary man? And that's how we arrive at
7:13
dialectical materialism, which is, yes, these things are in
7:16
conflict, but really the conflict we need to focus on is
7:20
the conflict between classes, is the conflict between working
7:23
people and, and the bourgeoisie. And he synthesises dialectical
7:27
materialism through this this process.
7:29
And it's kind of funny because dialectical materialism is in
7:32
itself a process of dialectics because all these people have
7:36
engaged with an original idea, modified it, changed it, adapted
7:40
it. And that's how we arrive at
7:42
Marks and Engels's theory of dialectical.
7:45
Materialism, obviously, Marx essentially ended up at the
7:49
point that every economic system or every system has its own
7:53
contradictions, his own opposing force within it.
7:56
And so feudalism ended up at capitalism.
7:58
And capitalism's problem is basically the working class
8:01
against the capitalist, the the bourgeoisie against the
8:03
proletariat. So what's going to end up
8:06
happening? And we've actually seen those
8:08
things happen with like financial crashes, etcetera, and
8:12
inequality growing, and you see that issue.
8:14
And Marx is basically arguing that capitalism is going to move
8:17
into socialism. But the weird thing is that it
8:21
means that socialism essentially has its opposing force within it
8:26
and its own contradictions within it, which means it's at
8:30
some point going to fail as well.
8:32
Correct. And what Marx thought was that
8:34
socialism was an in between place, between capitalism and
8:36
communism. Communism has its own
8:39
contradictions within it as well, correct?
8:40
Which is, it's a weird place to be in and it felt like he never
8:44
truly acknowledged it well. I guess even in his like that
8:51
step from capitalism to socialism to communism, he has
8:54
appreciated that this conflict even at the stage of socialism,
8:57
right, Because he's saying there's an additional new
8:59
contradiction that is then needs to be resolved again to
9:02
communism and I guess but. Then there'll be another one to
9:05
be resolved. Correct.
9:06
But what he didn't do was he never really described what
9:09
communism would look like, because he thought the
9:10
proletariat would have to determine that for themselves.
9:13
So I guess he couldn't then describe it, and he also can
9:16
describe what the contradiction would be there.
9:19
But that's why dialectical materialism is so, so profound
9:22
because essentially it's it's a predictor of future.
9:24
That's why it's considered like a scientific theory, because
9:27
basically it can predict future things happening, even though
9:31
it's like extremely broad. That's basically the power of
9:34
it, yeah. What what I did want to touch
9:37
on, and I touched on it a little bit, a little bit there with WE
9:39
Dubois is how Europeans developed this theory and
9:47
contrast that with how other cultures look at dialectics,
9:50
because dialectics is not something that Europeans
9:52
discovered, right? It's something that is
9:55
understood in African oral tradition.
9:57
It's understood in Asian religion and culture.
10:00
And the dialect is what we're talking about is the European
10:03
version of a universal truth that a lot of cultures have
10:06
uncovered. And my theory is that a lot of
10:10
those other cultures of the Eastern Africa, I feel like
10:14
interconnectedness is built into their culture, right?
10:18
Whereas for Europeans, the individual subject, the
10:21
individual rational person is the core of philosophy, the core
10:26
of morality, right? For Europeans, I would argue you
10:30
do need something like dialectics to explain the
10:33
universe when you come from an individual perspective, and you
10:37
need to formalise that theory. Whereas I would argue that
10:39
African and Asian cultures, because interconnectedness and
10:44
this idea of the universe is always in motion, the universe
10:47
is always changing through these processes of being connected.
10:51
African and Asian cultures don't need like a theory of dialectics
10:55
like that. That's my contribution to the
10:58
four. So you're basically saying like
11:01
when you're connected and in the community you don't need
11:05
dialectics. You do you have dialectics in
11:07
built in your culture is what? I'm trying to say OK so so it
11:10
exists, you just haven't like named it.
11:11
Exactly, Exactly that. You don't have a scholarly
11:13
tradition. You've got like a world
11:14
tradition. You've got something that's
11:15
already been built in your, in your.
11:17
Yeah. Yeah, Yeah.
11:21
OK. On to the second question.
11:24
When you change as a person, is it growth or is it just your
11:29
condition shifting? It's your condition changing.
11:33
I really went back and forth with this.
11:35
I really, because as much as I accept Marx's materialism, there
11:42
is a part of me that I cannot reject, can't, can't
11:46
transcendental idealism. I can't get away from it.
11:50
I just feel like I'm in a bind to it.
11:52
Like it's kind of crazy. And it, it actually pays me to
11:54
say this, but I just think Kant's idea of transcendental
12:00
idealism, it's so profound and it, it just like resonates with
12:04
me that I, I flip back and forth on this question.
12:07
I did ultimately arrive at your conditions.
12:10
Changing is what changes you as a person.
12:14
Because I think the material world, everything around us is
12:18
always the genesis of change. So even if you have some sort of
12:22
internal process like an idealistic view of the world,
12:25
you still need material conditions as a trigger to
12:28
change you as a person and change your consciousness.
12:31
So I I agree with Marx, but I cannot reject can unfortunately.
12:38
What do you think? Well, like I firstly reject the
12:43
this is just like that you do. This is like that you do.
12:47
I reject the notion that you can, you can change your nature
12:52
as a person, like you can really change as a person, but you
12:56
can't change behaviours and those sort of things.
12:58
And as a result, I think it has to be condition shifting.
13:04
OK, just because when you, when you discuss group, what are we
13:07
actually discussing? We're discussing like the person
13:11
becomes an evolution of the person they were before, right?
13:14
Like an evolved version of that. But that doesn't actually
13:18
happen. Like when you develop behaviours
13:21
or you develop traits, they only crossover if the conditions are
13:27
similar. So like for example, I, I, I go
13:29
to the gym, I become really disciplined in the gym or like I
13:32
go to the gym every week or I run every week or every day.
13:34
So it doesn't now mean I'm going to be really disciplined with
13:38
money or like really disciplined with women because the
13:41
conditions don't really crossover as much.
13:43
And so your conditions basically shape the behaviours that you
13:49
learn and learn to exhibit. And once those conditions
13:52
change, those behaviours probably change too.
13:55
So as a result, it has to be conditions.
13:57
It it can't be growth, you don't just like grow or you don't have
14:01
the autonomy you think you have. The conditions basically
14:03
generate the autonomy that you feel you have.
14:06
But in that scenario, surely the material conditions have
14:09
potentially driven growth. Yeah, in in like a in a sort of
14:13
roundabout way, but like once the conditions change, you will.
14:18
You're at, you're at the mercy of the conditions.
14:20
Exactly. OK.
14:21
Essentially. So it's the conditions that are
14:22
important, OK, Not the not the growth.
14:25
It's sort of like you're a sailor in a storm.
14:27
You can sort of dictate where the boat goes, but you're not
14:30
really in control. Like, you know what I mean?
14:31
Like you're subject to what the storm gives you.
14:33
Yeah. Fair.
14:34
I I definitely agree with that. I think either way you go
14:37
actually on the materialism idealism debate, whether you go
14:41
with Camp or or Marx, you're subject to the material
14:45
conditions. Like what is happening around
14:48
you on a on a macro scale is going to is going to impact you
14:51
for sure, but it's weird. Though I do think like to
14:54
support the idealism side of things.
14:57
Your thought is the catalyst, but the actual change happens
15:02
when the material conditions change.
15:03
But your thought is the catalyst to begin that.
15:09
I would have thought you you reject idealism.
15:12
Well, like you have to, you have to think that like.
15:14
Do you agree with Kant? So what Kant would say is that
15:17
material conditions have changed, but you don't know what
15:20
the material conditions are in and of themselves.
15:23
What you perceive is like filtered through your sensors
15:28
and because you can't access what the material thing is in
15:30
itself. Yeah.
15:31
So you've got like 2, obviously you've got like Descartes, which
15:33
is I think therefore I am and I want to say it was, was it box?
15:39
I am therefore I think like. I'm not sure who it was.
15:43
Oh, it was a rebuttal to It was a rebuttal.
15:44
To Descartes, right, Right. And what I'm trying to say is
15:50
that I believe in, I am therefore, I think because those
15:53
material conditions essentially generate those thoughts, but you
15:56
have to still think it. Does that make sense?
15:58
Like you have to, there has to be a level, some sense of
16:01
autonomy involved in which your mind generated this thought.
16:05
And that's it kind of goes back to my beginning point where you
16:07
can't change your nature as a person because how you how this
16:11
thought comes up is based on those material conditions of
16:15
your history. But it's still your thought.
16:19
And that thought is the catalyst that then allows the material
16:22
conditions to change. And then you get the growth or
16:25
then you get, then you get the change of the person.
16:28
Fair. So.
16:29
So do you. So you see what Kant said
16:31
though? That you can't access the true
16:33
essence of the material thing. Do you believe that?
16:36
Good. Question.
16:39
So say your material conditions change that that's going to
16:41
happen, right? That that's definitely a
16:42
catalyst for change. Well, it's a it's a trigger that
16:45
needs to happen, otherwise the process don't start, right?
16:49
Do you think when you perceive that through your brain, do you
16:53
think that you have access to what that truly actually is?
16:56
That material condition. That has changed because Marx
17:00
would say yes, we do have at least some access to what the
17:02
material condition changes. But Kant would say we don't.
17:07
We have us like approximation of what we see.
17:11
Weird because I don't understand or I don't really.
17:14
Part of me doesn't really care for the difference because if
17:19
it's an approximation or it's what you believe it is dude, the
17:23
outcome is still the same right? So I I.
17:26
Just the outcome is that the the thing has to go into your brain
17:29
anyway. Exactly.
17:30
So whether it's an approximation or it is actually what it is, no
17:34
one actually truly knows, but the outcome is still the same.
17:36
So I I just don't know the value in sort of beating on that point
17:41
for like philosophers. I'm not talking about this
17:43
conversation. I'm just.
17:43
Talking about that. Because the outcome is still
17:46
very similar that. So, so you're actually sort of
17:48
taking a view that Marx did right that.
17:51
Yeah, definitely. Taking the view all of all of
17:52
this like going back and forth between philosophers who don't
17:55
they don't like do any manual labour like they just they just.
17:58
Want to scratch it into? Yeah, yeah, exactly right.
18:00
Which is definitely Kant and Hagel for sure.
18:02
And and Marx himself, right. Marx himself was, was definitely
18:05
bourgeoisie. Bringing it into the real world
18:08
is like, well, I still have to go to work.
18:10
I still have to fight with my boss to get my maximum pay.
18:12
And he's trying to dock my, you know what I mean?
18:14
There's always this this tension, and I think Marx just
18:18
sat a lot more in that attention of the real world rather than
18:22
this battle about phenomena, which is what, which is what
18:25
Kendall was interested in. This is a little bit of
18:27
scripture, but by the way, audience TEF often says this
18:31
thing about like filling a hole. Do you often talk about that,
18:35
right? Like a hole has come to you
18:37
through like trauma or through something bad happening to you.
18:40
And then you fill that hole with like progress, you with
18:42
achievement, with success, for example.
18:45
And I always say, bro, it's like it's not that bad.
18:48
Like it's not that deep like. Trauma is not that deep.
18:51
What? That's not what exactly I say.
18:56
Filling that hole is OK, however you decide you want to do it
19:00
right? And when I was doing dialectical
19:04
materialism, I said, it's all makes sense now.
19:08
It all comes together. Why?
19:09
Because, you know, sometimes you feel something, but you don't
19:11
know why You feel this is right, but you know, it's right in your
19:13
heart. But you don't know.
19:15
You can't. You can't explain it.
19:16
Yeah. And it's the concept around
19:21
opposing forces. OK.
19:23
And it's a concept that that hole, you need an opposing force
19:28
to fill that hole. That's that's what I got from
19:32
that, that you need that. I was always like unsure at like
19:36
why I felt this way. And then when I was reading, I
19:39
was like, that is it? That's the thing.
19:40
Like that's the opposing force that you need to help you in
19:45
that moment. It needs something.
19:47
It needs an opposing force because everything does right.
19:49
So that's, that's the way you get through it at the moment.
19:51
Maybe it's not the way you fill the hole.
19:52
And yeah, I've, I've said that. But in that moment, that is the
19:55
way that is the opposing force that you need for that hole.
19:59
Strong. Strong, to be fair.
20:00
Yeah. You know, I mean, that's it.
20:02
Was like a light. Bulb yeah, you could, you could,
20:06
you could. I would ask you though, whether
20:08
you you feel that it's constructive because especially
20:12
what the European philosophers that we mentioned do is talk
20:15
about transcendence, right? What they're really saying is
20:17
like elevation to a higher self right, amongst other things.
20:22
But when you fill that hole of trauma with like a stop gap, do
20:27
you feel like that is progress or that that is just trying to
20:33
chase an equilibrium? Because I don't mind someone
20:37
chasing an equilibrium. I'm not saying it's necessarily
20:40
terrible. I don't think it's terrible, but
20:43
it's like chasing an equilibrium but thinking you're
20:46
transcending. You're thinking it's progress.
20:48
That's the problem. Well, we're going to go on to
20:50
the final segment and then we'll probably circle back to this
20:53
point. On to the dilemma.
21:01
Capitalism needs inequality to survive.
21:04
Socialism needs capitalism to define itself again.
21:07
If a revolution ends the current struggle but brings a new one,
21:12
did it ever really move us forward, or did we never move at
21:15
all? It's actually funny that you
21:17
brought up the, the thing about trauma and like self improvement
21:22
because I genuinely think, let's say you were part of a
21:26
revolution and you after 10 years, you look at what you did
21:31
and you look at the progress of the revolution and you're like,
21:33
we didn't actually get material conditions didn't change.
21:37
Me personally, I still would would think that was worthwhile
21:41
because although your external material conditions haven't
21:43
changed, you've explored a conflict within yourself and the
21:46
process of doing that has LED you to progress within yourself.
21:51
Let's say you go to a March, right?
21:52
You go to a March for three hours you're saying, you know
21:55
free Palestine or some 'cause that you, you feel strongly
21:58
about. Even if the government done
22:00
nothing on that, what you've done by going there is you've in
22:04
a sense resolved the conflict within yourself, the conflict
22:06
between who you think you are and who you actually are, right.
22:09
If you believe you're someone who stands up for social justice
22:11
and you go and do something for social justice, in a sense, the
22:15
conflict between the two things has achieve the synthesis of
22:18
something new. Yeah.
22:19
And in the future, you might become the person who actually
22:22
does revolution. You might go from marching to
22:25
something substantial. Right.
22:26
So for me, I think it is still progress even if the material
22:31
external conditions don't change.
22:34
What do you think? I think it's progress.
22:37
Too nice. So like.
22:39
Real progress is measured by the expansion of the total
22:42
capability space accessible to most people.
22:46
And if we have an issue, for example, like a a revolution,
22:53
the idea is now that more people's capabilities is going
22:57
to increase, there will be reduction in some people's
23:00
capabilities like overflow capitalism, billionaires.
23:02
It's not great for them, but for the vast majority of people, you
23:06
get an increase in capabilities. And if any revolution achieves
23:11
an increased capability for the majority of people, even if
23:15
there is, like now, another struggle, that has to be
23:18
progress, that has to be considered.
23:19
Progress. Yeah, agreed, agreed.
23:21
And, and, and to be fair, my answer was ever so slightly
23:24
different to, to them, but I think I think you're absolutely
23:27
right too, even if, especially in the world of the, the
23:30
dialectic, you will never have a situation where there's not some
23:34
conflict. You will never ever achieve
23:37
this. Like by definition, it's not
23:39
just like an opinion, right? This is a, a fundamental truth
23:42
of the universe, right? I think to even strive for that
23:45
is probably misguided. So I think I think we're both
23:47
right and I like it when we agree.
23:49
We agreed the whole. Episode.
23:50
The whole episode, yeah. Wouldn't wait.
23:53
I guess you're more of a materialist than I am.
23:56
Yeah. And I can't get over Kant's
23:59
idealism. Is there a way that you the
24:02
material conditions could be at the forefront whilst you're
24:05
still not able to truly access the nomina of those material
24:10
conditions? So that, that's what I'm trying.
24:13
That's where I want to be. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
24:15
You know, that's where I want to be.
24:18
My reading is telling me that I don't know if I I'm allowed to
24:20
be there, but that's where I want to be.
24:26
That's exactly where I want to be.
24:28
That's where you want. To be the material conditions
24:31
are stopping you, it's just. It's tough.
24:35
Oh, that's funny. Stay less, man.
24:37
Thank you for joining us. That was enjoyable.
24:40
Hope you learnt something we did.
24:42
Much love. See.
24:43
You next week. Wait, two 60s?
25:00
Happy. Yeah.
25:02
Could you press? Could you press?
25:05
Could you press record? We'll just double check sound.
25:09
Yeah, we're in. That was really good.
25:12
Really good. So what I wanted to ask you
25:14
about when it comes to the conversation of idealism and
25:17
materialism is how do you reconcile the materialism of
25:22
Marx and other materialists to your own Christian faith, which
25:29
relies on idealism? Do you think the two are
25:32
compatible or do you think they are in conflict with one
25:35
another? Because what an idealist would
25:40
say is that the Genesis, the foundation of consciousness,
25:44
does not come from the material world.
25:46
The material world is comes from God.
25:49
God gives us our consciousness and has in a sense, laid out the
25:53
world in front of us for us to live our lives.
25:58
So the material conditions are not the Genesis, it is God.
26:01
So Christianity and religion feels inherently idealistic in
26:06
the philosophical context of that word.
26:09
Yeah, I think they're undoubtedly in conflict.
26:11
OK. The good thing about it is I, I,
26:13
I don't have to have the answers, which is quite helpful
26:16
for me, but it is probably why I struggle with religion a little
26:20
bit at times. You know what I mean?
26:22
I think any if you, if you apply logic and reason to the majority
26:26
of your situations, you're going to struggle with religion a
26:28
little bit at times. Yeah, I'm not.
26:30
I'm not sure what answer exactly you want from me, but yeah.
26:33
No, no, no. I just kind of wanted us to sit
26:35
in that a little bit and and see if there was something in
26:38
especially the way the Europeans engage with the dialectics.
26:42
So Hagel had this idea of a transcendent people, right?
26:46
And it's difficult to divorce that from his Christianity,
26:49
right? Like God's chosen people, like
26:53
the people God has ordained to lead humanity forward.
26:56
And I wondered if Christianity would take you in one of the
27:01
directions of like one of these philosophers and agree with him
27:04
more than the others. No, it hasn't yet.
27:06
No. Then again, like when I make
27:09
decisions or like when I'm studying around these sort of
27:11
things. Like I probably don't baking
27:13
Christian for as much as maybe someone else would, You know?
27:18
What about you? I'm a similar person to use.
27:21
I struggle to reconcile the two. I'm probably I I guess I see
27:27
Christianity these days in 2025 through through a different
27:31
lens. Like, I think it has utility and
27:34
a lot of value in society, but I don't know if you can make the
27:38
scientific and like logical rational arguments through the
27:42
lens of, of Christianity. And, and sometimes when I read
27:46
philosophers that try to mix the two and intertwine the two, like
27:50
Hegel, I feel distance from him. Like I, I can't quite do what
27:54
he's doing. Obviously society has moved away
27:57
from that mode of thinking. So in my mind, I'm also like, am
28:00
I just a bit indoctrinated now to think that science, Russian
28:03
logic is the way to see? Like as if there are things that
28:07
are unexplained. Exactly.
28:08
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Part of my my reluctance to
28:11
fully go down the materialism route is that I do feel that
28:14
humans have a spirit within us. I do think that we have some
28:19
sort of transcendent like quality about us that is not
28:23
limited to our human bodies. Like it can't be when I'm
28:27
dreaming a bear vivid dream. It can't be that it's just my
28:32
physical brain doing that. I just don't believe that
28:34
there's nothing else. Do you know what I mean?
28:37
That's that's impacting me when I have those visions.
28:40
So there's definitely a gap there.
28:41
And I'm sure we'll, we'll, we'll talk about it again on some
28:44
future episode. Yeah.
28:46
Did you feel like you were uncovering the truth of the
28:47
universe when you were reading about dialect?
28:51
Because that's a big thing. Did I feel like I was uncovering
28:54
the truth? Do you know what it felt like?
28:57
The thing I was saying before? It's like, you know something to
28:59
be true, but it's never been like, truly fully explained for
29:02
you. And then now, oh, yeah, I get it
29:04
now. Like, it, it, it makes sense.
29:06
You know what I mean? It's like it's been sort of
29:09
distilled into a easy to read philosophy.
29:13
Yeah, but you kind of always knew that to be true.
29:16
Yeah, it's, it's, it's funny because obviously we're black.
29:19
So what immersed in black culture, if we have people that
29:25
talk about the the truth of the universe, Yeah, we, we call them
29:30
hoteps. Do you know what I mean?
29:32
If a brother comes to you now and he's talking about I've got
29:34
the truth of the universe, Come, come, let me tell you about the
29:37
truth of the universe. You're going to be alright, ***
29:40
Yeah, but like, it's because there's a lack of empirical
29:42
evidence there. Sure, but is it just cause Marx
29:46
and Engels are white philosophers from 100 years ago
29:49
that have credibility in society?
29:52
No. Surely that's playing a part
29:54
though. No, no, no, no, no, no.
29:59
Like think about this like maybe we're we're discussing something
30:02
slightly different. But.
30:03
What I'm essentially saying is Marx Engels is based on
30:08
dialectics, right? Like that is what?
30:10
So what they then tell you is based on dialectics.
30:13
If this hotel were to tell me something based on dialectics,
30:17
then we might be on the same page, right?
30:19
But it's not. It's.
30:19
Not it's not that. It's not called dialectics,
30:22
though. In our.
30:22
In our. The same, it doesn't have to be
30:24
dialectics. I mean the the same process of
30:27
two opposing forces. The issue actually, this is
30:30
probably the, the major issue with those sort of people is
30:34
there's logical fallacies in their thesis and antithesis
30:40
because it's not, it's not unique to just them.
30:41
It's, it's, it's like maybe people who believe in other
30:46
conspiracy theories as well, that there's logical fallacies
30:49
in their thesis and antithesis, and then they reach a synthesis,
30:52
but the synthesis is incorrect because of the rules they've
30:55
applied before. Yeah, yeah, the underlying
30:57
principle, exactly. OK.
30:59
Fair, fair. But I still think I, I basically
31:03
what I'm saying is that the European philosophers have,
31:05
have, they've got an advantage of credibility, you know what I
31:07
mean? They've got 1000 years of like
31:09
this dialectical process in and of itself.
31:12
Like we can talk about, we go all the way back to Plato.
31:14
Plato is like, you know, the the father of Western, Western
31:17
culture, whereas like if one of our people comes to us about
31:22
and, and describes an old tradition that was passed down
31:25
to him from his parents, society deems that as a bit kooky
31:29
because we he don't have the thousands of years and like the
31:31
written documentation and like the testing and all that stuff.
31:34
But it's the same shit. Do you know what I'm trying to
31:37
say? Even even like I've had this
31:39
experience myself. So like I said, dialectics is a
31:42
rule of the universe that is understood by many cultures.
31:46
And there's this book called The Kabalion.
31:49
Yeah, you, you might have heard about it, but this book, the
31:52
Kabalion is, you know, a written record of the almost the, the
31:57
cult of Hermes, right? Hermes is like a Greek, ancient
32:00
Greek, but kind of like a forgotten ancient Greek.
32:03
And he wrote down the laws of the universe called the seven
32:07
laws of Hermes, right? The Hermetic laws, if you read
32:10
the Hermetic laws, they're all dialectics as high, so is low,
32:15
as hot, so is, is cold as fast as slow.
32:19
And one of our boys teach, teach.
32:20
He, he sent me the book and he's like, read this.
32:24
I read it and I'm like this, this is kooky.
32:27
This is, this is like weird shit.
32:29
Like it's like bait. It's like it's overdoing it
32:32
basically. Like, and I don't feel that when
32:35
I read about dialectics, when I read about Plato, Kant, Hegel,
32:39
Marx, I don't, I don't feel the same thing.
32:41
And it it's a bit mad to me now looking back that I felt it was
32:47
kooky all those years ago when it's the same shit.
32:50
I do because it's difficult because I don't know the book
32:52
that you're discussing. But like one thing that I think
32:55
has to be noted is the test. It's not just the test of time,
33:00
but the test of opposition throughout time.
33:03
Do you get what I mean? Has has LED you to now trust it
33:06
as a source? I, I, I think that can't be
33:09
understated. That has to be, that has to be
33:11
mentioned. Like when you're talking about
33:13
Plato, or you're talking about Hague or you're talking about
33:15
Marx, they've had opposition constantly, and they're still
33:18
somewhat relevant today. Yeah, what?
33:20
What you're discussing, I don't know if it's had the same.
33:23
And and neither do I. I can't, I can't I just in in
33:27
hands hand. Now I look back at that and I
33:28
felt I was wrong about that. Maybe I need to text teach so?