• Funkytom467@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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    Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.

    • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Marxism, the base (material/economic conditions) is what the superstructure (social/cultural/political conditions) is generated by. Societies organise themselves around the resources available and the division of labour required to utilise them. Marxism’s social observations are all rooted in that mediation of the material environment.

      • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just to add onto this for completeness’s sake: the superstructure is created by the base and also the remaining superstructure left over from the previous base. And don’t forget the dialectic between base and superstructure!