I think what I said was reasonably clear, if a little brief.
As to this 'gem':
"...materialism must change its form with every epoch making discovery."
If I were convinced Engels knew what materialism was, I would still not
agree with him.
Since I do not accept philosophical materialism (i.e., the sort that makes
Engels regard matter as an "abstraction", and that saddles it with Hermetic
rubbish), I do not accept that materialism has to change with every passing
scientific fad. Nor even with 'epoch making' discoveries.
Under what circumstances materialism should change I will leave annoyingly
I am not working on Historical Materialism at present, just concentrating on
trying to kill-off the influence of Hegel (not that I stand much chance of
doing that, the poison has seeped in far too deeply).
Everything he wrote about science, mathematics and philosophy, although the
word "naive" was a little too mild.
I should have said "rubbish".
His other stuff I admire greatly.
Was Engels writings concerning science, mathematics and philosophy, naive
when they were written and in relationship to the literature of the 1850s,
1860s, 1870-1890s? For me his greatest philosophic gem was his statement
materialism must change its form with every epoch making discovery."