B. W. wrote:Kenny wrote:...How 'bout if you define the laws, then explain how someone would be destroyed if they choose not to follow them.
The laws of historic materialism and dialectics are too many to list. Suggest you research these...
Dialectical materialism is both Marxist and Hegelian and used by the modern progressive left. It is a method of studying and apprehending phenomena of nature and using that to buttress political materialist/Marxist/Progressive theory on governing by conflict. Laws of nature is one of struggle. Lower classes struggle to take from those that have. Laws come into to play to ensure this by means of dialectics.
Dialectics is the process discourse between two or more parties holding different points of view about a subject. You begin with a thesis, invoking an antithesis, creating conflict between the two be resolved by means of a Compromise. So by compromise you weaken the stronger party and win it over. Basically is it how an truly insane person think in order to justify insanity.
This method is not debate, it is the means to skirt around debate by force of compromise.
Historical materialism is based upon the principles of dialectical materialism. However, it concerns applying its principles of dialectical materialism to the study of life of nations history, society, culture, government, laws of a social order.
Both are used in science, law, juridical courts system and government to enact laws to reach the goals of socialist agenda of One World Government. It makes crisis and uses crisis for that goal so that people surrender their will by means of compromise. The laws of Global warming and the compromise solutions are examples of such laws. No debate on that topic is allowed nor is allowed the evidence that refutes Global Warming.
In others words, there is a dialectical narrative that guides and perverts truth and will not allow truth to be told to establish the truth of a matter guided by any form of reasoned arguments.
the narrative is simple: Create from the material seen a theses for change, provoke a response the antithesis from opponents, uses opponents words against themselves to force compromise. By slow compromise you force change to the Marxist/Progressive/Social materialist based dialectic agenda-thesis. Truth, facts, do no matter and any debate to establish truth must be squelched.
That is the simplest definition I can think of. It is better that you research these things on your own.
Thanks for the answer. So if I understand you correctly, the law of Dialectics Materialist has nothing to do with Materialism (the belief that all things consist of matter) and is more of a distorted view perhaps created by someone who just so happens to be a materialist. An analogy would might to point to someone who was a spiritualist who created an evil idea and called those ideas “the laws of spiritualism”
B. W. wrote:Political Correct thinking and use of ridicule to enforce its goals is an example of such materialist laws in play in order to create conflict in human nature to submit to the goal/narrative/ agenda of the left.
Laws of nature is based on conflict and survival, thus, the materialist world is one of conflict unless all submit to socialist thought. Yet, even the socialist idea must collapse on itself if all material world is based on conflict. In other words, socialism must overthrow itself to prove their thesis correct.
As human beings, we live in a mortal and material world. However, we are not material. We are reasoning beings how seek dominion, purpose, significance in our lives. Following materialism creates a tension for ones do-gooding because one derives a sense of dominion, purpose, significance in doing good to feel materialistic good. However, when one dies, all do-good deeds are actually worthless and have no values at all,
I disagree. When one does good, his good work often continues long after the person is dead and gone. History is full of examples of this happening.
B. W. wrote:CS Lewis points that out in his works which I can summarize his points against materialist/modernist mindsets as this:
To materialist it is all about the Big ME and no one else as the Great I determines right and wrong. Then I die and I am forgotten but die smugly fooling the Great Myself that I was able to do some good that made ME feel really good.
It seems you are confusing “the laws of Materialism” (as you described them) with being an actual materialist. Judging from your description, the laws of Materialism has nothing to do with being a materialist despite the similar name
B. W. wrote:What is good?
Good is a positive judgment call people make about the actions they experience.
B. W. wrote:Can goodness be defined by subjectivism?
B. W. wrote:Or is Good defined by objectivism?
B. W. wrote:In materialism, there is only the subjective ways to define goodness. Objective truth cannot define goodness.
I disagree; even a materialist could get this one wrong; in theory a materialist could make the mistake of believing “good/bad” is objective rather than subjective. Just because a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else.
B. W. wrote:However there is objective good or else it cannot be defined as good at all.
Can you give an example of “good” that is not based upon interpretation, and perception?
B. W. wrote:The ancient Hebrew concept of Goodness is based upon was is not dysfunctional.
Goodness of the subjective materialist has to be based upon what is dysfunctional as it seeks to justify human dysfunction as good.
Wow! How did you make THIS leap???
B. W. wrote:Think about and read more of CS Lewis's works, Ken.
Forget CS Lewis, I’m having a good conversation with some of this stuff YOU are putting down! Looking foreword to some of your responses