> In philosophy, later philosophers may suggest a counterargument to the early philosopher, but as philosophy does not normally deal in absolutes it is impossib

> In philosophy, later philosophers may suggest a counterargument to the early philosopher, but as philosophy does not normally deal in absolutes it is impossible to say the later philosopher is now more correct and worth reading instead of the earlier philosopher. Absolutely wrong. I have heard this on several occasions - where do people get this misconception from? The whole point of materialism (and especially new materialism, and even the "materialist Hegelianism" of Badiou and Zizek) is to show that idealism, whether in Greek or Eastern form, is wrong and misleading, and the negative effects it has had on people's every day lives in terms of religion, politics, and thinking about "the way the world works."