What is the difference between naturalism and dialectical materialism? Be complete.
Well, that’s a pretty large topic if I do say so myself, but let’s break it down a little, okay? While both are atheistic in nature, so they believe there is no God, they have different definitions. Naturalism is a bit of the more common philosophy, and it’s the idea that science rules all, there is only nature, and all of existence is in this one little physical box, and there is nothing outside the box. So, basically, there is only the physical reality because there is no supernatural. Dialectical materialism—I’m pretty sure it hasn’t caught on mainly because of the huge name and how complicated it sounds—is the idea that there is a constant evolution of sorts called the dialectic, or “conflict.” They claim there is a thesis, or big idea, that develops an antithesis, or opposite idea, and the two conflict until they merge to form a synthesis of the two. Then, as time goes on, they claim a new antithesis emerges to combat the synthesis, and it goes on from there in a constant state of conflict, which is seen as evolution by them. But, let’s look at the differences a bit more in-depth, shall we?
The two ideas contrast pretty greatly on their views of science. For example, naturalism sees science as the be-all, end-all that should be applied to everything. Have an issue? Science can solve it. It all fits into the “box” that science makes. Of course, that can run into some real issues when you consider things that can’t be scientifically measured like logic, morals, and thought in general—then the box develops some holes and an outside source leaks in. Now, dialectical materialism—ugh, waaaaay too big a phrase, honestly—is a bit more lenient on that topic. They see the universe as interdependent and all things need each other to survive rather than science being everything. Their laws are more philosophical, based on the ideas of the dialectic, or conflict, to further society. So, to them, science still has a purpose, but they put far more into their view of philosophy, since that is what they govern their world with.
As well, both hold differing views of the future, which is very significant for people who wish to ascribe to an atheistic viewpoint (citation for the idea goes to Victoria Sitterley). On one hand, naturalism is a very bleak outlook on the future and how life will progress: stuff happens, get used to it and get what you can before you’re gone for good. You get one shot, and if something happens to you, well, that’s too bad—you got shafted. At least it wasn’t me. I, personally, couldn’t stand that kind of viewpoint because it just feels so empty and useless that I would go insane (although I’m probably halfway there already, but you know what I mean). At least with dialectical materialism (I’m tempted to call it dm because it’s just too weird to type), they acknowledge conflict and that the best of both sides will come through and continue to be refined, even if it is with the process of evolution. You see, this way, at least the future looks brighter, and that offers some hope. Either way, though, you will die and get nothing in the end—one shot. Still depressing, but not as bad.
So there you have it—some key differences between naturalism and dialectical materialism. While they may share some of the same viewpoints, they also split in a lot of important ways. And, honestly, neither sounds all that great because you still have no hope about life after death, just a quick and depressing end. How empty.
No comments:
Post a Comment