It purports to be a reflection of the real world created by man. Dialectic would thus be a robust method under which one could examine personal, social, and economic behaviors. Marxist dialectic is the core foundation of the philosophy of dialectical materialismwhich forms the basis of the ideas behind historical materialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed that Hegel's dialectic is too abstract:
First, it purports to explain what we should think about the future, but never makes a real argument for it. It starts by suggesting there are two important axes on which futurists can differ: So you can end up with utopian singularitarians, dystopian singularitarians, utopian incrementalists, and dystopian incrementalists.
Therefore, the last group is right, there will be no singularity, and the future will be bad. The author ignores the future almost completely, in favor of having very strong opinions on which futurist movements include the right or wrong sorts of people.
The author never even begins to give any argument about why the future will be good or bad, or why a singularity might or might not happen. Third, the article wants to classify some technologies as inextricably associated with privilege, but it has a pretty weird conception of which ones they are.
So much so that of five slots for potentially worrying technology, you filled all five with the same one? Helping sick people improve their quality of life?
Do gross male nerds from the outgroup support that or oppose that? Fourth, the article presupposes a bitter conflict between the four quadrants, whereas actually people tend to be a lot more on the same side than she expects.
Her pessimists are concerned about algorithmic bias making banks less likely to extend credit to poor people. But her optimists just care about flashy new things like cryptocurrency. But one possible application for cryptocurrency is peer-to-peer microfinance via smart contracts — ie one of the most promising solutions to bias in big financial institutions.
But cryptocurrency enthusiasts are working on it, and it seems weird to deny this matters or that the whole reason behind developing some of these flashy new technologies is to solve recognized societal problems.
And her singularitarians are strategizing how to deal with far-future advanced AI algorithms, while her nonsingularitarians are strategizing how to deal with near-future primitive AI algorithms. These seem like…not entirely the opposite of each other? Imagine you were writing an article on the different kind of climatologists studying global warming.
Is this a reasonable distinction? Which kind should you be? But to try to turn these two positions into arch-enemies would be ridiculous and destructive. The scientists involved may have different research interests and skillsets, but not necessarily different opinions.From Leninism to Stalinism: A Logical Progression?
The question of whether or not Stalinism was a logical continuation of Leninism is a difficult one. Stalinism did take significantly more drastic measures than Leninism did.
There were differences in policy. But in spite of these, Stalinism still found its basis in Leninism.5/5(3).
This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings. (June ). From Leninism To Stalinism A logical Progression From Leninism to Stalinism: The question of whether or not Stalinism was a logical continuation of Leninism is a difficult one.
Stalinism did take significantly more drastic measures than Leninism did. An essay or paper on From Leninism to Stalinism: A Logical Progression?. The question of whether or not Stalinism was a logical continuation of Leninism is a difficult one.
Stalinism did take significantly more drastic measures than Leninism did. There were differences in policy. But in spite of these, Stalinism still found its basis in Leninism. Port Manteaux churns out silly new words when you feed it an idea or two.
Enter a word (or two) above and you'll get back a bunch of portmanteaux created by jamming together words that are conceptually related to your inputs..
For example, enter "giraffe" and you'll get . Western dialectical forms Classical philosophy. In classical philosophy, dialectic (διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions and counter-propositions ().The outcome of such a dialectic might be the refutation of a relevant proposition, or of a synthesis, or a combination of the opposing assertions, or a.