this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
14 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
22766 readers
345 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This debate would still be "material" in at least three ways.
The debaters themselves are still material, and a product of a certain kind of society. The debate about abstract math would probably not happen in a hunter-gatherer society, or a society that does not spend resources on education, or a society that does not create an intellectual class.
Let's assume the object of the debate is something that directly or indirectly matters to the debaters and to people of the society they live in. Then, the new ideas or understandings created in this debate do not end there, they extend to a larger community or even the whole society. What kind of ideas can spread in a society is influenced by material factors, for example, mathematics that can be used in complex lens systems would be more likely to spread in a society that creates those systems.
The ideas themselves are based in the material human brains. Furthermore, however abstract and separate from the material world the ideas appear to be, they do not exist discretely from other ideas, and these other ideas are related to the material reality.
I'm asking about the artificially narrowed scope of the dialectical interchange between the ideas mid debate. Just the changing conceptualizations and support for the ideas changing based on the interplay between them. What is that called?
This question doesn't actually make sense because the mathematical ideas are either right or wrong, inherently. There would be no dialectical process of development, or if there is, it would exist in the material minds of the people debating