kwomp2

What you talk about is a mechanistic kind of materialism, basically the over the top variant in wich the other side of the dialectics get lost.

And yes, things came into existence for no reason and no cause. Big bang, evolution, emergence of culture. No reason, no plan, no mechanistic predictable process, no god, no teleological history. Just interplay of material and ideas.

“Male = objective” is idealist, since it doesnt understand the interplay of the politics of gender

In your example this means idealists think the worth of a coin comes from itself, while materialists ask for the social processes that this property “worth” emerges from. This would have to be analysed both economically and in termns of constructivism

No you got that mixed up. Materialism (sometimes called neo-materialism) is well compatible with the constructivist arguments you are referring to.

It just says the world of ideas develops dialectical with the world of things and acts.

Idealists imagine ideas to have their own realm of existence with a mystical source of power, indepentend from said dialectic.

Thank you too! That convo came out much better that I thought.

Bremen hat “Schweigefuchs” verboten weil Wolfsgruß, heute gelesen. Zumindest eine kleine gute Nachricht politischer koop

I messed up putting my answer here and I cant delete stuff cause jerboa/android 8. Please see below

All of y’all need to get into the original meaning of that word. Radical basically just means “take a problem by it’s roots”.

The interesting part is what type of society/politics makes that some kind of slur.

Materialism is thinking of things and their development on the grounds of history and causality, like a play of material and its organisational emergent forms (like ideas and their neurons). Whereas Idealism means imagining some kind of methaphysical structure or idea behind thins, like a god or ghost (Geist, Hegel, Kant…).

Utopia refers to an imagined, but possible world. When well done/thought, it is what you think and feel about how things could be. By definition this seems impossible regarding the currwnt state of affairs, and utopia will never come put as you imagined it. History is too complex for that. It is still necessary to be able to think utopia somewhat, otherwise one cannot hope and everything is eiter determined or irrelevant.

Haha okay I automatically assumed I was talking to a techie-alman speaking out of a eurocentric perspective. How the turn tables.

Of course I understand your bias.

And yeah, switzerland… I still think that affects much less people than there are people living and working alongside turkish immigrants. This should motivate seeing turkish culture as valuable in the sense of living the cultural melting pot we created for economic reasons.

I dont understand the turkish part… something annoys you I guess? Anyway biji kurdistan. (Also not sure how to spell that. In my school they taught french and latin)

Thats the gist. Of course it should be optional, no one said it should be mandatory, and I feel like the defensiveness of that argument is not entirely accidental.

My argument is that learning the language of the majority of immigrants would be testimony of a actually open post-migrant society.

Instead it’s “no one migrates to turkey and its economically useless”, as if learning french in school would be relevant to the migration of germans to france. Encounters of germans and turskish migrants happens on daily basis though.

The notion of national character might also be deceptive regarding its practicality, specifically to understand culture. Sincerly, practical german

Also I think the more pressing/interesting question is why they don’t teach turkish, since ~every 30th person has a turkish backround