Chapo's Matt Christman: How Dialectics Work

[@sunalwaysshinesonTVs]

I understood dialectics, then heard Matt's explanation and no longer understand dialectics.

[@leftwingdogwhistle]

The Dialectic, she is in motion

[@josephunderwood1875]

all phenomenons are dichotomies, basically the Tao Te Ching

[@ericgilbertson5785]

Or Heraclitus

[@komradjay5738]

Then you didn't understand dialectics.

[@slavojdyrdek]

​@@komradjay5738no jokes allowed

[@inkarn8915]

Matt is explaining his understanding of dialectics and Connor is changing his Zoom background and adjusting the shades.

[@caderichardstv5802]

Yeah thats the materialism part duuhhh

[@mastersquinch]

@@caderichardstv5802 underrated comment

[@CzolgoszWorkinMan]

theory and praxis

[@RB939393]

I'm 100% here for Matt Christman evolving to the level where his ramblings make less sense than a Terrence McKenna lecture.

[@EmptyCrystal]

Terrence Mckenna lectures usually got some interesting ideas, he just ruins it by getting details wrong to fit his talking points. But tbh he didnt really believe in any ideas he just tossed them around

[@joelnicholson]

It's crazy that some people might say that being locked in your own basement with just the one (apparently) jogging outfit to wear and a big sack of weed for several months would have a negative effect on sanity... with a bit of luck I'm hoping that Matt calms down to more of a Robert Anton Wilson level soon enough (the man had bad politics, sure, but at least he didn't take himself as seriously as McKenna).

[@misterdemocracy3335]

You watch your mouth

[@mayacastaneda8076]

LOL, so I’m at the point where I’m unsure if Matt is gonna end up a genius madman or like if things calm down in the world if he’ll chill

[@IjwPetersen]

@@mayacastaneda8076 i think his latest cushvlog suggests he's functioning at a pretty high level of sanity

[@gggggoldwooddddd]

I think he accidentally read Dianetics

[@hunny___]

Goldwood Productions I don’t think the Chapo crew is against public discourse, I think they just argue that their influence on said discourse is vastly overstated. Particularly, they say that the discussions occurring online are in an echo chamber primarily amongst those who attended college which is alienating to the vast majority of Americans who have not attended college. I think where the Chapo crew fail is in abdicating any sense of responsibility to the discourse while standing on the pulpit.

[@LoadPast]

Lol I was just thinking while watching this, if Matt ever decided to start a cult it would probably dwarf the church of scientology

[@zainmudassir2964]

@@LoadPast I'll join the cult of Matt Christmann. He has Christ in his name

[@Ynimixer]

Matt went full Zizek on this

[@Bisquick]

Dish I claim *_sniff_* is the natural progression emergent by the futility imposed by global capitalishm itshelf *_pulls shirt_* It ish ze master-slave dialectic embraced in ze abstract but now must be applied to the material world where the idea was extracted to begin with and inevitably forged as a consequence. *sniff* And so on...

[@calebjames2031]

@@Bisquick came here for this

[@aweinspiringname]

A lot of people poking fun at Christman, when honestly, this is a man who seems to have had an epiphany from observing and confronting the sublime. Words can't really express that. How do you really describe what you learn from ego death? Maybe they should have sent a poet, but they sent a pshyonaught.

[@uabel]

Seriously tho, Matt is getting very close to a clear presentation at points but it seems like he lacks the language to communicate what hes experiencing. I like it. Seems creative

[@tedbyron1499]

But he deserves major credit . That wasn't for just anybody - that was for people right at the cusp or who get and just don't know it. It's just honest bookkepping

[@aweinspiringname]

acid marxism, bb.

[@ollie3270]

@@tedbyron1499 it was for me :3c

[@fr9062]

Dilectics; struggle of opposites that, when they crash into eachother, make something new.

[@ongemakkelijkegladjakker]

Well done you!

[@rsspartanz]

Jello

[@mustafazubair2679]

Great. Novel idea. But still great. And you didn't even mention the Big Bang!

[@outsidersperspective13]

Thesis + antithesis = synthesis

[@briankrebs7534]

Something either is, or it isn't. If you and I compare and contrast what is and isn't, and we agree on what is true and false - or are willing to agree - then we can ultimately agree on a third composite set of assumptions to reason from. Bravo on the brevity of that statement too lol

[@MLTHRON7542]

Three books to read: "Marx's Capital and Hegel's Logic" (Haymarket), "Intelligent Materialism" (Haymarket), "Dialectical Investigations" (Routledge) -- anything by Bertell Ollmann

[@info_____]

thank you!

[@amrcnngrmny]

Stfu

[@toritwopointoh]

connor's insistence that matt retract from the grand scale theoretical level to the "but, like, what about warren" is so annoying

[@bradypatterson7172]

You're all making fun of Matt because he's smart. Jacobin is revisionary liberalism.

[@TheDavid2222]

Truer words have never been spoken.

[@dulltakes3512]

I think it's more that Matt's definition of dialectics doesn't really help explain them to someone who isn't already familiar

[@Quarter324]

@@dulltakes3512That's something I've noticed with my own attempts at explaining dialectics to people. The more you begin to understand dialectics, the more "bogged down" your explanation becomes. It's a deceptively simple, concrete philosophy, but when it's expressed it almost becomes abstract.

[@KINGofGUNS]

I love that modern technology allows the mad prophets to preach to the world as opposed to just the people passing by his street corner.

[@benbascheable]

this is the funniest clip on youtube

[@spar7acvs]

i feel like something happened very recently that caused matt's intelligence to hit a singularity of exponential growth

[@nightonthesunband]

I was just thinking that. Holy fuck this guy is brilliant.

[@ConsciousnessisRough]

Nah, Matt was always really smart he's just speaking on topic a lot more with the live streams.

[@tomstein7131]

it was bernies loss. he predicted that he was going to win and it forced him to undergo some big time introspection.

[@severalwolves]

Tom Stein I don’t think he predicted it... he definitely HOPED he’d win, and saw that it might have been possible. But yeah he did seem go through some sort of “long night of the soul” type introspection - my sense was it had more to do with Covid breaking up the regular flow patterns of his [well, everyone’s] daily life.

[@bigburd875]

Most people are capable of being that intelligent, Matt is just more focused than most people

[@DLSacks]

2 disparate points: 1) At the beginning when Matt is talking about liberal subjects I think he's getting at this idea of self as a fixed concept. I'm taking influence from hearing him speak on this topic other places, but the conception of all of us as distinct individuals with our own motivations that need to be mediated in a rational way through society, the state, etc. is actually a poisonous way of thinking. It's foundational to liberalism, but then definitionally foundational to more authoritarian philosophies in every direction, from monarchy to fascism. Our motivations and our base personalities don't even exist without the interaction with other people. Think about the way our language and thinking changes throughout school as we pick up slang, or inside jokes, or simply learn new things. As we grow older it's easy for our base personalities to get solidified. Post-HS or post-college we may be interacting with less people, our social circles shrink, we're less open to making close connections, and it becomes easier to see ourselves as these fixed souls navigating life. Take your soul and plug it into an avatar on the internet, and there's a good chance you lose all perspective, and are ranting at people for self-validation. A caveat here that many have gained something, allowed ourselves to be altered, by what we've read, listened, or watched on the internet. But "posting" in support of a candidate or issue that you already solidly believe in is barely doing anything. You're not mixing with other people, it's not a social activity, it's a synthetic experience that provides very little growth or gratification even if you rack up some nice likes and retweets. The real challenge lies in letting ourselves mix with others, and not just mix with others, but to allow them to change us. This doesn't mean that you lose your values or moral center or need to find compromise with abhorrent positions. It means the actual experience of communicating and interacting with others, even those we disagree with, should change you in some slight way, as any new experience does. Especially when we're talking about organizing and arguments over small differences. Are we so fixed that we can't cede a small argument, or are we looking to connect with people over common experiences that fundamentally change everyone involved. How open are you to actually, sincerely, genuinely working with others, with all the attendant risks that your ego and conception of self may change over time if you put yourself out there to do that (often very unrewarding) work. 2) What I got wrong about Warren was thinking that she was even an approximation of her public persona. Not sure of the timing on this interview, but the revelation that all of her money that kept her in the race for the last month through Super Tuesday came from a single right-wing SuperPac donor that also funded Sheriff Joe Arpaio genuinely shocked me. I supported Bernie through and through, but had sympathy for Warren as a candidate and those that supported her. But she was actually a fraud through and through. The snake emojis were too kind, but no one knew it yet. She was valueless, crafting a public media persona in opposition to big finance that now seems impotent by design rather than as some stymied underdog crusader. But to the above, I still organize and speak with some of the nice ladies in my community that supported her because they are genuinely good activists and campaigners. If I rant at them as if Warren's moral failings are theirs, then I've done nothing but reinforce my isolation, and reduce our collective opportunity to change anything at any level.

[@jamesonh2962]

I think ive been operating under this thinking without realizing it. If i understand it right, its just the recognition that people are the product of their world, everything is predetermined, but individuals are real things at the same time. Theres no reason to get mad or get revenge when you realize peoples actions are just a consequence of all the complex forces in the universe

[@spar7acvs]

which is dialectics way of explaining history- as a consequence of physical laws, and the singular animal of humanity deciding which ways to meander with it's organization i think matt is implying that if we apply dialectical logic to recent events, we can attempt to influence civilization the way we want to because dialectics itself exists within the dialectic, so as agents we can still influence the (predetermined) outcome of society.

[@Bullypulpit]

I watch a lot of physics videos, so I was very confused as to why they were not discussing dielectrics.

[@slowbro596]

gotta love the 360 wind-mill dunk at the end there

[@tedbyron1499]

I'm glad to see HE understands it, LOL. I don't think I'll let him cause me to de-understand it... which means I understand him understanding himself At this point "We" (me/me & him/him) we move beyond the vanishing point that preceeded AN understanding. Whether I belive him/him or not. Look to nature; that's where you see it the most. Dialectic Synthesis is not unlike phase change. Instead of liquid to gas, substitute with something like quantity to quality (this ties in to dialectic materialism= Superstructure vis a vis Base) If you want to see a highly complex, visual rendering of synthesis look at Marcel Duchamp's last painting: "T'um" from 1919. It illustrates phase change into synthesis like nothing else I've seen. Matt could've exported this concept more efficiently if he had used the phase change analogy. Like I said it's very important that HE understands...

[@timlanghans]

Wow you're both wrong, and so am I. This does a poor job of explaining that dialectics is dynamic, that knowledge is provisional and our accurate assumptions of today are at best useless, at worse inhibiting when applied to tomorrow's new set of facts. That these conversations fluid and it's a mistake to not constantly recalculate.

[@leftwingdogwhistle]

I thought he got this across tbh.

[@tomstein7131]

not watched the video but I can say with all certainty 2 months later and judging from his streams Matt is acutely aware of this.

[@uabel]

This is why I love acid

[@D.Wise-hb8tm]

I ve forgotten how to read

[@brandonmiles8174]

I've been getting hard into dialectics this past week actually. Right before this came on, I had just got done writing some thoughts on it and drawing it out visually, to the extent you can. It's very interesting, but once you really get into it and understand it more and more you see it as a great way to interpret things.

[@leftwingdogwhistle]

Salty Socks the dialectic is in motion

[@leftwingdogwhistle]

I wanna see these drawings. Everyone should send their dialectical sketches to Matt so he can make a slideshow or something

[@librarygary1618]

He explains it perfectly in the first 2 minutes and 15 seconds lol

[@PurushaDesa]

I feel like Matt did this back to front - chastised everyone for not understanding it, then wriggled his way back to the definition after extreme prodding.

[@havanaradio]

hes gone full undergrad prof mode from talking to himself in his backyard on low doses of acid.

[@bradymotschenbacher4898]

I got know idea what's going on

[@Jeremy-dz8mj]

But what if the opposite were true?

[@Oneoneone111One]

Context dependent actualization of potentiality.

[@Alacrates]

Why would the liberal individual be assumed to be "an unmoved mover"? I don't think many assume that people are uninfluenced by the constant change of history

[@spar7acvs]

yeah but they dont specifically think its a predetermined result of theses and antitheses synthesizing within their imagination they think it's an "influence" on what they think their immortal soul would be, even divorced from time and space

[@schroeder666]

When we cringe at this video we are truly cringing at ourselves.

[@seangambogi7901]

Yup

[@worldnotworld]

Oh dear, it's worse than I'd been led to believe

[@zainmudassir2964]

Great video

[@Saladkiwi]

Matt really pulls off the comb over/ bushy beard look

[@TheSonicSpud]

Teasing out something deeper rather than taking the concept literally, at face value, and debating it. This is the way discussions online should always go.

[@TheSonicSpud]

You cant challenge every bit of language if you want to learn something. I applaud Matt for allowing himself to be vulnerable to the people whos first inclination is to own him on lack of clarity.

[@AslanW]

It's a very weird feeling to simultaneously understand and be confused by the ideas discussed here. I feel like the world's smartest idiot, but not in a good or bad way. Very weird.

[@soongtype]

Christ Man

[@dryad7524]

Matt, I respectfully take issue with your characterization of the Sentinelise tribe of the Andaman Sea. Since very little is is known about this culture, I would be reluctant to ascribe any external societal mores upon their projected hypothetical reaction to what they understandably perceive to be a threat to their existence. That would be the plague. I don't take issue with your broader point in general, but I prickled at the poor choice of allegorical comparison.

[@freewheelinghorn]

"I would be reluctant to ascribe any external societal mores upon their projected hypothetical reaction to what they understandably perceive to be a threat to their existence." - The two of you are in agreement, no? He said they likely do not fit into the western categories of liberalism. This aligns with your statement that western cultural concepts cannot be used to effectively describe, classify, or understand this tribe or their actions (a point on which I agree with you both).

[@dryad7524]

@@freewheelinghorn Yes, I must confess to having to give it another listen, and remind myself once again, not to post anything after an ale quaffing session with one of my friends, which were becoming less frequent even before the current sequestered pandemonium.

[@freewheelinghorn]

@@dryad7524 @c dryad A lesson we should all take note of 😅👌

[@thehowlingfantodz]

@@freewheelinghorn Thanks! Now can you explain the rest of the video because I AM LOST.

[@yerobain]

Waaaaaaay too many people have made Matt feel that he has the expertise to pontificate about this. Yeesh.

[@lucasmurphy740]

I mean I kinda get it. But maybe the Elizabeth warren campaign was the most on the nose vehicle for that explanation

[@Oneoneone111One]

I’d like to drink with Christman a decade ago

[@bramsanjanssan4908]

This reminds me of spiral dynamics theory

[@reddeserted13]

The New Zizek

[@calebjames2031]

I think Matts right.

[@Jake_Funk]

9:29

[@heraclitusblacking1293]

Matt needs to read actual theory instead of sitting around juggling these reified terms like "dialectics." Bernard Harcourt has a recent book where he describes the method of immanent critique, which is much more specific than this vague spiritual thing, "dialectics."

[@pietzsche]

It's painful to watch someone realise that western philosophy doesn't really take the passage of time into account, and think that realisation is profound.

[@heraclitusblacking1293]

"western philosophy doesn't really take the passage of time into account" That is exactly what Hegel did.

[@johnmatrix3664]

Why is that painful? Seems like a genuinely profound insight.

[@pietzsche]

@@johnmatrix3664 Because it's an absurd flaw in philosophy and it was recognised centuries ago. It's not a profound insight that time happens, it's a profound fuck up to not take that as a fundamental axiom right from the start. Think about it this way, Ayn Rand is famous for insisting that A=A and A=/=-A, and that all philosophers other than her are unserious because they don't insist on that the way she does. She has a huge cult following because of her insistence on this kind of thing. But A=A is a triviality once you factor in time, as A will change over time. So the actual formula should be A=A and A=/= -A, but also that A itself changes over time, and A at day one can become -A by day two. That's her entire philosophy debunked. Rand is the most obvious illustration of this, but it's incredibly widespread. And again, it shouldn't be, this isn't new information, it was figured out centuries ago.

[@johnmatrix3664]

@@pietzsche I guess not everyone is as smart as you dude. I thought it was a fascinating observation. I had never considered it before.

[@pietzsche]

@@johnmatrix3664 That's fair enough, if you're not engaged with philosophy it wouldn't be obvious, but if you are it should be, Christman (who I think is great generally) is

[@azerothshero]

I thought dialectics was like a sowcrates

[@seangambogi7901]

This is your brain on drugs:

[@Zakdayak]

Is this satire?

[@Zakdayak]

@Salty Socks Oh wow

[@tannermurphree8247]

I came here to hate watch this channel but am amazed at how congruent Matt’s world view is with mine, and I consider myself politically opposite of most viewers of this channel.

[@__D10S__]

what do you mean politically opposite? like an ML or like a conservative? lmao

[@peterolsen-phillips4099]

I don't understand this at all. How would a deterministic world, in which we're nothing more than billiard balls pushed around the table by external physical forces, also allow for anything like individual free will? See Matt's explanation at 9:30: CK: "What were we wrong about in the past 2-3 years?" MC: "Here’s the thing, you have to contextualize them in space and time… This is why it’s so hard to ascribe morality to history, because you don’t want to be presentist, but you want to give moral suasion. And the way you do that is you accept at some level of intuition that *all actions in life are fully determined by physical circumstance like billiard balls, but also that every person has absolute freedom to choose in the moment that they choose. Those are both true at the same time.* So, that means the ‘me’ who choose to start Chapo, he cannot make a different choice anymore. He made reality… I cannot look back and say that he did the wrong thing, because I wouldn’t be here if he hadn’t done it. I can say he chose wrong at the time, which is a different question. "

[@willisles7742]

What I think he means is that because we are viewing from the present the past is deterministic. The present that we have is contingent on the past that has happened. One action begets another begets another in a cascade that leads to now but each action was a choice at the time it happened. I think he's pointing out that the decisions made have an intrinsic temporality to them and you can't just look at a choice being bad in the abstract and that you need to look at a choice being wrong at the time it was made. A good example is the diggers in the English civil war. The choice to engage in a kind of collective farm with no hierarchical social relations isn't a bad decision in the abstract but it was a bad decision at the time and place. Arguing against past action in the abstract is like arguing that your grandad should have been celibate. If you're correct then the you that's making the argument wouldn't exist. You can't disentangle the self that is making arguments from the past which has made the self. You need to frame it from the position of the person that made the choice at that time the choice was made because that's when it wasn't deterministic. Idk if this does or doesn't make sense in spite of or due to the hallucinogens I've done

[@havanaradio]

LOL someone really reads the comments i guess - thats my time stamp image from the original feed they are using as the thumbnail

[@solomonreal1977]

lousy Matt Christmas, thinks he's so smart just bc he's so smart

[@Fuzzycuffsqt]

Still doesn't make sense. Why are they talking about Elizabeth Warren instead of explaining their philosophy adequately?

[@mttwmacneil]

Hegel. Read Hegel (The Logic, Lectures on History and The Phenemenology) and then think back about the last 10-15 years, now and then think about the future.. There was a Napolean then..

[@Yotun-of-the-WWW]

Verdandi, look her up. Norn of the present. The ever becoming present.

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

I think one important aspect of self-critisism is understanding it not as a thing good / thing bad -thinking, but as active process of inspecting the paces of missrecognition to arrive at knowledge. Funny enough this is the very basis of enlightenment thinking and scientific method - which is just packaged in liberal framework. Matts argument about having to take account space and time thus simply doesn't hold and is fruitless - it is just dodging liberal individuals responsibility, thus liberal thinking. Self-critisism should not take to account circumstances as it aims not to condemn but to arrive at new knowledge - thus fully accepting the necessary of miss recognition, yet still taking presentist perspective to create present knowledge. Past is recontextualised on purpose, as it is the basis for creating new knowledge from miss recognition in past. Understanding the necessity of past mistakes is important, yet should not stop us from self-critisism. Self-critisism by it's very nature is "unfair" for liberal subject of the past. But that's kind of the whole point.

[@MrMrscoffey]

Would help if they didn’t lie

[@andreasvedeler80]

He confuses how you think with what you think about. It used to be people confined themselves to a mountain cave for 20 year, thinking about this stuff, before writing a short text about it

[@8523wsxc]

You mean like what you should have done before commenting?

[@andreasvedeler80]

@@8523wsxc No

[@8523wsxc]

@@andreasvedeler80 Ever heard the sentence "Better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it."?

[@andreasvedeler80]

@@8523wsxc Yes

[@edwoodsr]

Frankly, I'm not convinced that Matt's explanation is beyond shadows on a cave wall. Some points on the wall may change from light to shadow over time, but that doesn't mean the point is either true or false.

[@TheLokiBiz]

How is anarchism liberal? While Chomsky damn sure is a liberal, he also damn sure isn't an anarchist....

[@Condobius]

He meant that it is in the liberal tradition, anarchism was born directly from liberal ideas

[@TheLokiBiz]

@@Condobius Liberalism is capitalism with a mild social safety net thrown underneath. Anarchism is anti-capitalist - We anarchists are socialists and we all very much oppose liberalism. You obviously haven't done much study into anarchist theory - I suggest you start with Peter Kropotkin or Emma Goldman. Anarchism is a stateless society, free of hierarchy where the proletariat have communal ownership of the means of production. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@Condobius]

@@TheLokiBiz I think you’re misunderstanding the point, I’m not calling anarchism “liberal” in the modern sense like being related to the Democratic Party. It is liberal in the sense that thinkers like Kropotkin and Proudhon drew from enlightenment ideas the European liberal tradition (progressivism, humanitarianism, universalism, anti-state, etc). Matt Christman is talking about the same thing in the video, like how Marx is a liberal subject because he is directly spawned from the European liberal tradition.

[@TheLokiBiz]

@@Condobius I'm not talking about liberalism in terms of the Democrats either - Both mainstream political parties in the the United States and all three here in Canada espouse neo-liberalism. I'm also familiar with classical liberalism, Adam Smith and all that - but Capitalism was very much part of the European liberal tradition. And Marx, Kropotkin and Proudhon were very much _not_ part of this tradition. I think you're confused.

[@Condobius]

@@TheLokiBiz In the sense of classifying political movements, you are correct. But Matt is discussing the hegemonic ideas of the thinkers and the system that prevailed which influenced how they interpreted dialectics that created anarchism and Marxism. All of the thinkers were are discussing were enveloped within the hegemonic ideas of European liberalism and were very much influenced and interacted with enlightenment ideas. Anarchism, for instance, was a natural extension of the radicalism of the French Revolution and final conclusion of the emancipatory and anti-authoritarian tendencies. I’m not saying anarchism is a liberal movement today, Matt was discussing how the thinkers were liberal subjects in that their political ideas are informed by the popular liberal ideas of their time. Obviously, anarchism and Marxism are not considered within the liberal system today

[@adin4407]

Matt took forever and never did get to the point.

[@jahtea7849]

Dialectics = drown people in jargon and they might not realise you're full of shit

[@jahtea7849]

@Salty Socks I think he got mixed up and is actually talking about Dianetics.

[@ongobongo8333]

I think he's just on acid lol

[@dogeyes7261]

Jesus Christ just read On Practice and On Contradiction by Mao

[@ross4]

This guy think he a philosopher because he got a popular podcast.

[@acodell5142]

This segment just makes me think that dialectics, to Matt, are just some secular kabbalah esoterica. At least this gibbering nonsense was good for a laugh.

[@leftwingdogwhistle]

Hard to argue Hegelian dialectics isn’t esoterica since almost nobody seems to understand it or be able to agree on what it is.

[@srtnnrnn7405]

ROFL this was absurd

[@severalwolves]

dang , capitalism IS schizophrenia D:

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

You know the saying I want the same thing that guy is smoking? I want to read the book Matt Christman is reading.

[@charleshatt1281]

This reminds me of Tom Cruise explaining Scientology

[@marshadingle3550]

He understands dialectics so well he can’t explain it to us?

[@isaacjones6323]

Understanding is something that is felt at its very base, and constraining what must be felt to a language that exists only to define the material and not the spiritual can be an impossible task

[@NoRace]

Dialectics (also called "Problem Reaction Solution")...When two opposing narratives are used to find a center point of agreement. e.g. Communism vs Capitalism = Survelliance State Global Communitarianism

[@havanaradio]

you should use e.g. here - also this is a bad example and joke.

[@NoRace]

@@havanaradio Thats why both Richard Spencer and Sam Seder are both calling for communitarianism as the anwser to the global crisis.

[@havanaradio]

interpreting dialectics bluntly as a series of political compromises is pretty funny though. your mind fascinates me...

[@NoRace]

@@havanaradioThanks for the correction ... I'm specifically referring to "Hegelian dialectics" [Thesis vs Antithesis = Synthesis.] So yeah...the "synthesis" between two opposing ideologies resulting from a broad "inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions." To me Dialectics are just the pre-scripted tensions held within the left/right political paradigm. Democrats and Republicans both agree on communitarianism and Fabian Socialism through fascistic militarism. Here's an example; what the left calls "social distancing" the fascist right is secretly calling "segregation" ...both agree the focus should be based around keeping certain ethnic communities "safe." The ideological approach only appears different...on the ground reality remains the same.

[@NoRace]

*"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."* Carroll Quigley *_Tragedy and Hope_*

[@BealeFarange]

Matt is being interrupted over and over and is on a rhythm that keeps getting fucked up. This kilpatrick guy is awful. I guess I shouldn’t expect anything from jacobin. Read Elliot Liu’s “Maoism and the Chinese Revolution” for a good faith deconstruction of Mao and Stalin’s awful takes on dialectics. Matt is maybe (hopefully) ready to ditch the DSA swamp.

[@bopulist7221]

Matt’s cool and smart and funny and all, but he shouldn’t pretend he knows philosophy better than he does. Cringe

[@jahtea7849]

Dialectics according to (the aptly named) Christman: everyone is wrong but i am less wrong than everyone else.

[@mustafazubair2679]

.... and no one's ever right!

[@peterhooper2643]

Hahahahahahaha he's evolving backwards and has reached the state of mind of a toddler

[@gapsule2326]

This is what happens if Vaush finally reads theory.

[@tharsisharmonia9316]

This was embarrassing.

[@mustafazubair2679]

I'm sorry but Matt Christman is possibily the worst person ever to explain something; Dialectics is a simple concept, but his explanation was so convoluted, now I've a problem understanding it!!!

[@leftwingdogwhistle]

Perhaps you’re understanding of it simply differs from his and a move towards uncertainty is necessary for you to more fully extrapolate your own preexisting understanding of it just sayin like maybe?

[@peterhooper2643]

I think he's trying to explain how non essentialism works, and how you can justify standing for something even if it isn't objectively true because objectivity is a flawed concept. But hes very confusing

[@mustafazubair2679]

@@peterhooper2643 Maybe. Although my agrerment is based on what you've said, because I did not get that at all from Mr. Christman.

[@peterhooper2643]

@@mustafazubair2679 yeah, he needed to explain what he means by "higher level of abstraction" etc. Lots of what he said was super vague

[@honestabe411]

Looking forward to your video explaining dialectics

[@CarlyonProduction]

In amongst the dorm room acid talk, Matt occasionally stumbles across something insightful.

[@franriding6473]

Smoke and 8th of strong weed with mate then disscuss dialectics. Try it.

[@henryrollinswiththehomies7404]

I think he means dianetics

[@schroeder666]

This video does nothing to change my opinion that philosophy is dumb, pretentious, bad psychology. Psychology is bad enough, but philosophy seems to almost willfully ignore what is necessary in terms of accumulation for any particular phenomena to be impactful or substantive, so you end up just shifting word piles around and explaining nothing. People are looking to multiply their force. That is the anxiety of all living things, and it also can pervert our society (social media constantly gives the promise of force multiplication). At the same time, we become numb to strategies in varying degrees. They become old news. It is difficult for this reason to understand what will come next because what brings a novel reaction is mostly unpredicted. There were lots of gruesome murders before George Floyd, for example. But that murder occurred in a rather large confluence of essentially technologically amplified events, such as COVID-19 which, whether or not it was invented in a lab, there can be no doubt that our technology of livestock farming accelerated our production of novel diseases. TL; DR the future is still unknown and offering a pretentious philosophy that suggests you can predict the future is really not a good thing unless you basically want to waste people's time in a thought gulag.

[@emilyyyyyym]

gross