Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Marx's dialectics

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:01:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here summarized for discussion.

-Everything is interrelated and interconnected in some way. Basically another way of saying that nothing exists by itself and totally within itself. Everything is contingent in some way or another.

-Everything is matter in motion. As per Marx's acceptance of philosophical materialism. The world is not simply a world of ideas a la Hegel. It exists in the here and now as only that which is material.

-Enough quantitative change leads to qualitative change. For example, heating a pot of water up to 99 degrees will not make it boiling. It still has the qualitative character of not boiling. At 100 degrees though this changes. Quantitative addition of heat leads to a qualitative leap in characteristics.

-Contradictions within everything are what push change. Similar to Hegel's notion of Abstract/Negation/Concrete. Consider some development, it will begin with an abstract or thesis. Owing to its incompleteness a negation (anti-thesis) appears to counteract it. The result is a concrete which incorporates the anti-thesis or synthesizes it. The process then begins again as the concrete becomes the new abstract. This happens over and over until the Absolute is reached or totality. It's hard to describe it in words exactly but I think I understand what totality means. Meh.

-These principles are applicable to human behavior since matter precedes thought, thus human behavior and thought are constrained within materialist limits.

-The dialectical process in regards to humanity is based on internal economic contradictions within a given society i.e. incompatible class conflict based on the forces of and one's relation to the means of production.

-Economic conditions in regards to the means of production are the basis of human society. Politics, law, ethics, religion develop in relation to these economic forces.

-Society progresses as the internal contradictions within various economic arrangements become clear. Each new system is better in relation to the last but at some point reaches a level of maximum efficiency at which time it falls apart and is replaced by the synthesis of it and its anti-thesis.

-The progression of society ends when all internal contradictions within its economic arrangements are eradicated through the aforementioned dialectical process. At this point all components of society predicated on economic arrangements -all of them- progress and develop in a truthful and consistent manner.

I have to say looking at this line of thought is beautiful to me as per my own aesthetic sensibilities. As I've said before Marxism is like a complete trilogy series, like Star Wars or something. Within itself at least it describes an almost complete outlook on society in just a few points. Anyways thoughts?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:17:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Points 1 and 4 are pretty much exactly Hegel (Point 4 of a thesis/antithesis -> Synthesis is literally word-for word Hegel). Not surprising, but still food for thought. A lot of the other ideas a Hegel-ish as well.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:23:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:17:34 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Points 1 and 4 are pretty much exactly Hegel (Point 4 of a thesis/antithesis -> Synthesis is literally word-for word Hegel). Not surprising, but still food for thought. A lot of the other ideas a Hegel-ish as well.

That's pretty common knowledge. Dialectical materialism is Hegel's dialectics edited to fit into materialism as opposed to some mystical ideology or Mind or whatever.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:44:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:01:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Here summarized for discussion.

-Everything is interrelated and interconnected in some way. Basically another way of saying that nothing exists by itself and totally within itself. Everything is contingent in some way or another.

-Everything is matter in motion. As per Marx's acceptance of philosophical materialism. The world is not simply a world of ideas a la Hegel. It exists in the here and now as only that which is material.

-Enough quantitative change leads to qualitative change. For example, heating a pot of water up to 99 degrees will not make it boiling. It still has the qualitative character of not boiling. At 100 degrees though this changes. Quantitative addition of heat leads to a qualitative leap in characteristics.

-Contradictions within everything are what push change. Similar to Hegel's notion of Abstract/Negation/Concrete. Consider some development, it will begin with an abstract or thesis. Owing to its incompleteness a negation (anti-thesis) appears to counteract it. The result is a concrete which incorporates the anti-thesis or synthesizes it. The process then begins again as the concrete becomes the new abstract. This happens over and over until the Absolute is reached or totality. It's hard to describe it in words exactly but I think I understand what totality means. Meh.

-These principles are applicable to human behavior since matter precedes thought, thus human behavior and thought are constrained within materialist limits.

-The dialectical process in regards to humanity is based on internal economic contradictions within a given society i.e. incompatible class conflict based on the forces of and one's relation to the means of production.

-Economic conditions in regards to the means of production are the basis of human society. Politics, law, ethics, religion develop in relation to these economic forces.

-Society progresses as the internal contradictions within various economic arrangements become clear. Each new system is better in relation to the last but at some point reaches a level of maximum efficiency at which time it falls apart and is replaced by the synthesis of it and its anti-thesis.

-The progression of society ends when all internal contradictions within its economic arrangements are eradicated through the aforementioned dialectical process. At this point all components of society predicated on economic arrangements -all of them- progress and develop in a truthful and consistent manner.

I have to say looking at this line of thought is beautiful to me as per my own aesthetic sensibilities. As I've said before Marxism is like a complete trilogy series, like Star Wars or something. Within itself at least it describes an almost complete outlook on society in just a few points. Anyways thoughts?

Where do you personally find fault with Marx's dialectic? Didn't you once subscribe to it?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:12:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Idealogy hurts us.. Its just another Religioun
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 11:44:07 AM, vbaculum wrote:

Where do you personally find fault with Marx's dialectic? Didn't you once subscribe to it?

I've never been a real Marxist in the qualified sense as I'm really just now coming to understand it. On first glance though I don't see as much a problem with the dialectics as I do with the application of materialism. I don't think enough justification is put on why economic forces in relation to the means of production are really the base of society and think it needs more anthropological support. Furthermore, I have a problem with the concept of history basically ending when class conflict is eradicated. I think it contradicts Marx's earlier point in his historical account of how it has so far played out. He argued that we started with basically communism but economic productivity lead to the creation of classes. Even if we accept this to be true, it goes against the idea that society will stop developing at some point. Other factors clearly lead to societal change besides internal contradictions in the economic system i.e. drastic technological changes as he admits.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:35:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:12:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Idealogy hurts us.. Its just another Religioun

Not a criticism, mere assertion. Find actual fault.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:35:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:12:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Idealogy hurts us.. Its just another Religioun

Not a criticism, mere assertion. Find actual fault.

The Fool: Do you honestly think I don't have a good reason. <(XD)
Is the reason not inherent in what I said already. A I must be speaking that Foolish gibberish again, its so complicated, incoherent in fact.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:42:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:35:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:35:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:12:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Idealogy hurts us.. Its just another Religioun

Not a criticism, mere assertion. Find actual fault.

The Fool: Do you honestly think I don't have a good reason. <(XD)
Is the reason not inherent in what I said already. A I must be speaking that Foolish gibberish again, its so complicated, incoherent in fact.

I don't know if you have reason behind your assertion, that's why it would be nice for you to point it out.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:57:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:46:06 PM, wierdman wrote:
I agree with all except for the third one. I think the word contradiction should be changed to conflict.

Any opinions on Marx's historical application of materialist dialectics?

>Primitive Communism to
>Slavery to
>Feudalism to
>Capitalism to
>State socialism to
>Pure Communism
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
wierdman
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:12:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:57:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:46:06 PM, wierdman wrote:
I agree with all except for the third one. I think the word contradiction should be changed to conflict.

Any opinions on Marx's historical application of materialist dialectics?

>Primitive Communism to
>Slavery to
>Feudalism to
>Capitalism to
>State socialism to
>Pure Communism

I think the principle itself is correct in many forms and is easily proved by everyday life. His historical application of the principle definitely contributed to the Social-Conflict approach of modern day sociology. It specifically addresses modern capitalism in a very critical and factual manner. All in all, I think that historical materialism is THE best way to define and predict any upcoming economic growth.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:36:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:34:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 11:44:07 AM, vbaculum wrote:

Where do you personally find fault with Marx's dialectic? Didn't you once subscribe to it?

I've never been a real Marxist in the qualified sense as I'm really just now coming to understand it. On first glance though I don't see as much a problem with the dialectics as I do with the application of materialism. I don't think enough justification is put on why economic forces in relation to the means of production are really the base of society and think it needs more anthropological support. Furthermore, I have a problem with the concept of history basically ending when class conflict is eradicated. I think it contradicts Marx's earlier point in his historical account of how it has so far played out. He argued that we started with basically communism but economic productivity lead to the creation of classes. Even if we accept this to be true, it goes against the idea that society will stop developing at some point. Other factors clearly lead to societal change besides internal contradictions in the economic system i.e. drastic technological changes as he admits.

I suppose I should clarify that a bit. Looking further into it I understand his reasoning for putting economic forces as the base on which the superstructure is founded. I just think that Marx tended to dismiss any rival ideology or philosophy purely based on that fact. I still think that in order to remain consistent one should show why these rival ideologies fail. When Marx dismisses any opposition as bourgeois he gives himself away to the same criticism i.e. why is his philosophy not subject to the same criticism a la his own relationship to the means of production. So I think the point of his here is basically correct but that he takes the influence too far.

On his formulation of historical development, I'm pretty much in agreement with Marx that history tends to change as contradictions cause struggle and conflict. However I stand by the fact that this doesn't mean historical development ends at some fixed point. Even if it did I think Marx's formulation of six simple stages is too simplistic anyways.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:58:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find the materialist aspect of Marx's theory now to make sense. Society is built on the ability to find sustenance. In more primitive societies where surplus food is very small and people basically spend most of their time gathering food and shelter, things like law, philosophy, science, aesthetics, etc. will tend to be very limited. Obviously society must exist to philosophize and the like though so sustenance will always take precedent. No one is going to spend time writing an ethical treatise or develop a coherent theory of how the world works when food production is a daily issue.

In more advanced societies like capitalist countries, the relative surplus of labor and production gives us much more leasure time. The Marxists agree with the Austrians at least that leasure time isn't all bad! With that time people are able to focus on other aspects of existence besides material sustenance. We can see that as society progressed to more efficient economic systems, so did the relative sophistication of thought within that society. This has historically culminated in our current society.

So I agree with Marx that there is a definite causal relation between various aspects of society and the material conditions of existence. From this it does follow that one's specific relation to the modes of production would also have a further affect on one's basic outlook. Bill Gates has more surplus time and leasure then someone on an income of $3 a day. So even within societies which are generally capitalistic there are still different relations to the economic base.

This is the idea behind classes. There are two types of classes in capitalist society by Marx's conception, those who own the modes of production and those who sell their labor time as a commodity to the owners in order to make a living. Since these two groups have irreducible differences in regards to their relations to the means of production, they necessarily have different goals in society, hence the idea of class conflict.

This much I generally agree with. I just have two real problems with Marx. The is the first aforementioned fact that while there is a causal relationship between economic forces and ideology, that is not the only factor and claiming it is opens one up to legitimate charges of inconsistency. Marx would have done well to spend less time dismissing any opposition as bourgeois and realize that it's still possible to come up with ideas on one's own.

The second is the conception of classes. I think Marx was blind to the other class, one that is generally antagonistic to the working class and in cohorts with the capitalist class, the political class. The political class has basically the same relationship to everyone else in society as the proletarians do to the bourgeois. The political class does not produce any wealth. It simply leeches off of the labor of tax payers (see Nozick's argument for taxation as forced labor). So I think either Marx's theory should be revised to include a third class or that the political and capitalist class should be combined.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 3:44:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:42:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:35:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:35:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:12:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Idealogy hurts us.. Its just another Religioun

Not a criticism, mere assertion. Find actual fault.

The Fool: Do you honestly think I don't have a good reason. <(XD)
Is the reason not inherent in what I said already. A I must be speaking that Foolish gibberish again, its so complicated, incoherent in fact.

I don't know if you have reason behind your assertion, that's why it would be nice for you to point it out.

Marx: The History of Humanity, has been about the production of materal Good.(This is not based on anything) FUNDEMENTALISM

The Fool: Really is that all we care about? Is that only what our history is of? What about love, passion, music, philosophy, discovery, Knowledge, progress, art. ,etc,

Marx: And it is through comption for these material Good which manifest itself through class struggle (via Hegelian dialectic which is logically faulty)

The Fool: But you are just making this up, its based on a really shallow interpretation of Humanity... and most people are not thinking 'how am I going to get power relationd over classes. Classes is an infaliable notion, there is not clear sense of class which has not been 'defined into existence.' We are all just living our life, doing what we can, in our on situations. The notion of classes has created teams and distinctions in society which were not necessary there. Thus increasing war, hate for different groups, jealously. Its has hurt us more then helpped. We are less happy because we think because of that ideaology people owe us, For things that are related to a past, some sort of 'Divine Right of Kings' notion.
We simply Post-humiously look back at the past and demand that people born now owe us something because, because the labels are the same. What about 'Individuality'?
Are will still going with the 'Adam and Eve" notion eternal sin. we are all individuals first. grouping us in classes is unwarrented and fundemenalist.

Ideologies and any other forms of Fundementalism have to GO! They are just new forms of Godless Religions.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
wierdman
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 3:50:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:58:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I find the materialist aspect of Marx's theory now to make sense. Society is built on the ability to find sustenance. In more primitive societies where surplus food is very small and people basically spend most of their time gathering food and shelter, things like law, philosophy, science, aesthetics, etc. will tend to be very limited. Obviously society must exist to philosophize and the like though so sustenance will always take precedent. No one is going to spend time writing an ethical treatise or develop a coherent theory of how the world works when food production is a daily issue.

In more advanced societies like capitalist countries, the relative surplus of labor and production gives us much more leasure time. The Marxists agree with the Austrians at least that leasure time isn't all bad! With that time people are able to focus on other aspects of existence besides material sustenance. We can see that as society progressed to more efficient economic systems, so did the relative sophistication of thought within that society. This has historically culminated in our current society.

So I agree with Marx that there is a definite causal relation between various aspects of society and the material conditions of existence. From this it does follow that one's specific relation to the modes of production would also have a further affect on one's basic outlook. Bill Gates has more surplus time and leasure then someone on an income of $3 a day. So even within societies which are generally capitalistic there are still different relations to the economic base.

This is the idea behind classes. There are two types of classes in capitalist society by Marx's conception, those who own the modes of production and those who sell their labor time as a commodity to the owners in order to make a living. Since these two groups have irreducible differences in regards to their relations to the means of production, they necessarily have different goals in society, hence the idea of class conflict.

This much I generally agree with. I just have two real problems with Marx. The is the first aforementioned fact that while there is a causal relationship between economic forces and ideology, that is not the only factor and claiming it is opens one up to legitimate charges of inconsistency. Marx would have done well to spend less time dismissing any opposition as bourgeois and realize that it's still possible to come up with ideas on one's own.
This I fully agree with you; however I do think that Max at his peak was too busy trying to come up with flaws within capitalism, that he failed to regard almost all other theories of his time. I think its more of a 'too focused to care' kind of thing than a purposeful dismissal of certain theories.

The second is the conception of classes. I think Marx was blind to the other class, one that is generally antagonistic to the working class and in cohorts with the capitalist class, the political class. The political class has basically the same relationship to everyone else in society as the proletarians do to the bourgeois. The political class does not produce any wealth. It simply leeches off of the labor of tax payers (see Nozick's argument for taxation as forced labor). So I think either Marx's theory should be revised to include a third class or that the political and capitalist class should be combined.

I completely agree with you. While the provision of a working and capitalist class is imminent in his work, the exclusion of a political class was in a way flaw.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 3:55:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 3:44:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Marx: The History of Humanity, has been about the production of materal Good.(This is not based on anything) FUNDEMENTALISM

It's not based on nothing actually. Obviously society cannot exist without some form of sustenance. Law, politics, science, art, etc. all develop AFTER some economic base has been laid down prior. This was his idea of everything else as superstructure which is derived first from relations to the modes of production.

The Fool: Really is that all we care about? Is that only what our history is of? What about love, passion, music, philosophy, discovery, Knowledge, progress, art. ,etc,

Marx wasn't denying the importance of these. He was arguing that they historically develop posterior to a given economic system. In society, the base is the economic structure. After that has been laid out, things like music, philosophy, law, etc. develop as extensions of that.

Marx: And it is through comption for these material Good which manifest itself through class struggle

Not exactly. Class struggle vis a vis Marxism develops as the materialization of internal contradictions within any given economic system. As stated previously, society is built on economic structures. Inside a base economic structure (consider capitalism) there are various relations to it. This is where classes come in. Certain groups of people have necessary relations to the modes of production in conflict with others. Workers and capitalists are the premiere example of this under capitalism.

(via Hegelian dialectic which is logically faulty)

Substantiation?

The Fool: But you are just making this up, its based on a really shallow interpretation of Humanity... and most people are not thinking 'how am I going to get power relationd over classes. Classes is an infaliable notion, there is not clear sense of class which has not been 'defined into existence.' We are all just living our life, doing what we can, in our on situations. The notion of classes has created teams and distinctions in society which were not necessary there. Thus increasing war, hate for different groups, jealously. Its has hurt us more then helpped. We are less happy because we think because of that ideaology people owe us, For things that are related to a past, some sort of 'Divine Right of Kings' notion.

Not even sure how to interpret that chunk. Have no idea what you're saying.

We simply Post-humiously look back at the past and demand that people born now owe us something because, because the labels are the same. What about 'Individuality'?

Individuality clearly exists. The tenet of Marxism is that we can look at the past and learn what drives the development of society and what causes the conflicts that we see around us. Any system seeking to describe the world fully will have to try to explain these.

Are will still going with the 'Adam and Eve" notion eternal sin. we are all individuals first. grouping us in classes is unwarrented and fundemenalist.

Wut.

Ideologies and any other forms of Fundementalism have to GO! They are just new forms of Godless Religions.

Marxism is open to criticism and development. See the growing number of different Marxist interpretations since Marx. It was the claimed successors of Marx's thought who embodied godless religions. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. all built off of a flawed conception of Marxism in creating their dictatorships. Criticize Marxism for what it is, not a flawed interpretation that goes by the same name.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 5:15:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 3:55:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 3:44:39 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Marx: The History of Humanity, has been about the production of materal Good.(This is not based on anything)

socialpinko: It's not based on nothing actually. AKA FUNDEMENTALISM

The Fool: That is what Based on anything.

socialpinko: Obviously society cannot exist without some form of sustenance.

The Fool: you mean society how we understand it withing a frame work of accept ideology all ready....Society is not a clear definition itself. What are you basing this from? Did I say it?

The FOol: you are begging the question of the Ideology.

Law, politics, science, art all develop AFTER some economic base has been laid down prior.

The Fool: This already presuppoed in the idealogy.

This was his idea of everything else as superstructure which is derived first from relations to the modes of production.

The Fool: You mean the many and many assumption which got a lot of people murders, and has yet had no positive effect on live quality.

The Fool: Really is that all we care about? Is that only what our history is of? What about love, passion, music, philosophy, discovery, Knowledge, progress, art. ,etc,


Marx wasn't denying the importance of these.

The Fool: his beginning, was based on Material Good. Did you actually read the manifesto or Marx and Engles direct works? Or is this a post mutation?

socialpinko: He was arguing that they historically develop posterior to a given economic system.

The Fool: RIght, and I am talking about his 'actual argument'

In society, the base is the economic structure. After that has been laid out, things like music, philosophy, law, etc. develop as extensions of that.

The Fool: So small societies, including small, villages in africa, or bushment community, need this before art,. philospohy,. Musics?????? Check mate.

Marx: And it is through compitition for these material Good which manifest itself through class struggle

socialpinko: Not exactly. Class struggle vis a vis Marxism develops as the materialization of internal contradictions within any given economic system.

The Fool: AKA Competition Bieng conflict. The use of the word contradiction is based on Hegal . But that doesn't make SENSE. Because contradition equals zero.....

socialpinko: As stated previously, society is built on economic structures.

The Fool: You mean as stated wrongfully previously .This is a BOLD assertion. And I refuted it with example in Afirica. And lastly it assumes the truth of the idealogy.

socialpinko: Inside a base economic structure (consider capitalism) there are various relations to it. This is where classes come in. Certain groups of people have necessary relations to the modes of production in conflict with others. Workers and capitalists are the premiere example of this under capitalism.

The Fool: they vague bullsh!t catagories, which are post acceptence of an idealogy already.

The Fool: But you(Marx are just making this up, its based on a really shallow interpretation of Humanity... and most people are not thinking 'how am I going to get power relationd over classes. Classes is an infaliable notion, there is not clear sense of class which has not been 'defined into existence.' We are all just living our life, doing what we can, in our on situations. The notion of classes has created teams and distinctions in society which were not necessary there. Thus increasing war, hate for different groups, jealously. Its has hurt us more then helpped. We are less happy because we think because of that ideaology people owe us, For things that are related to a past, some sort of 'Divine Right of Kings' notion.

socialpinko : Not even sure how to interpret that chunk. Have no idea what you're saying.

The Fool: Firstly ansered before you read it all, an so broke it apart in a way making it unable to see the WHOLE OF THE ARGUMENT. It is much harder to understand the argument which is refuting something we thought were true for sure. Thats what it mean to be the Fool.

I made this break to avoid more confusion.

It is self bias intuition that makes us avoid trying to make sense of it. Some people will even resort to believing that 1=0 because they don't want to let go of what thought was true. Or for the sake of Pride.

The Fool: We simply Post-humiously look back at the past and demand that people born now owe us something because, because the labels are the same. What about 'Individuality'?

Individuality clearly exists.

The Fool; No sh!t.

The tenet of Marxism is that we can look at the past and learn what drives the development of society and what causes the conflicts that we see around us. Any system seeking to describe the world fully will have to try to explain these.

The Fool: oh you mean ,Post-humiously, aka a Post-Hoc fallacy.and unfalsifiably, with confermation bias, Group polarization.

PLEASE LOOK EACH ONE UP> IT WILL REALLY INCREASE YOU CRITICAL THINKING SKILL.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Fool:Are will still going with the 'Adam and Eve" notion eternal sin. That is, if we place classes on the our history and its ad hoc. Where we use modernaly conceptualized Ethical ideology which we then project onto history when they didi not exist. Group and class people, and then by the meakest possible relation deprive or favour individual born today based from complete irrationaly.
Rationality=incoherence with logic. Definied by the rationalist them selves.

socialpinko : Wut.

The Fool: Your not understanding it because you are repling before you get to the conclusions. And then when it comes up you are completely baffled because its seperated from its whole.

THe Fool: Ideologies and any other forms of Fundementalism have to GO! They are just new forms of Godless Religions.

socialpinko: Marxism is open to criticism and development. See the growing number of different Marxist interpretations since Marx. It was the claimed successors of Marx's thought who embodied godless religions. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. all built off of a flawed conception of Marxism in creating their dictatorships. Criticize Marxism for what it is, not a flawed interpretation that goes by the same name.

The Fool: then we shouldn't really call it marxism now should we. The message here is that at heart its a baseless assertion(fallacy) A huge set of bold assumptions (Hegel: one bold assumption is as good as the next) That is, the development is INSANE. because there was never anything to develope. It is a virtue to be ready to call the majority on thier bullsh!t. Grow some balls!
Where argument presuppose itself instead or other reality. Thus its a Godless religion. The Rights created by it have no more of existence then Unicorns and dragons.' Its just one new set of commandment which are true via Capital D on declaration.

Plse make sure to read and understand the whole before answer in between.
Remember also that I understand the material well all ready, you are mistaking my simple answers and generalizations as If I am new to the subject. It is you who is new to the subject is.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 5:44:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 5:15:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: you mean society how we understand it withing a frame work of accept ideology all ready....Society is not a clear definition itself. What are you basing this from? Did I say it?

Society I define as something like civilization. If you don't think that a civilization can develop without any way of material sustenance then I implore you to explain your reasoning and show how it's even theoretically possible.

Law, politics, science, art all develop AFTER some economic base has been laid down prior.

The Fool: This already presupposed in the ideology.

The ideology is nothing more than the sum of its parts. I don't subscribe to a point because it conforms to a given ideology, I conform generally to a given ideology because I subscribe to all of its points. And even that it saying too much. As I've made clear in my various criticisms, I don't accept Marxism entirely. There are specific flaws in it that I have described at length in the thread.

This was his idea of everything else as superstructure which is derived first from relations to the modes of production.

The Fool: You mean the many and many assumption which got a lot of people murders, and has yet had no positive effect on live quality.

The effects of Communist regimes of the twentieth century didn't arrive out of the idea that economic structures exist prior to societal development. They existed as the response to Marx's flawed political program. He had a flawed conception of how society would develop and didn't understand the internal incentive structures of the State.

The Fool: his beginning, was based on Material Good. Did you actually read the manifesto or Marx and Engles direct works? Or is this a post mutation?

He argued that material factors affected society in a larger and more base way then did other factors like law or culture. This doesn't deny their importance, it merely attempts to explain them. If you think culture develops prior to economic structures are you denying that economic structures have any importance? Of course not.

The Fool: So small societies, including small, villages in Africa, or bushment community, need this before art,. philosophy,. Musics?????? Check mate.

They need some sort of economic structure. Hunter-gatherer, tribal communism, etc. are examples of economic structures that give way before these things in primitive cultures.

The Fool: they vague bullsh!t categories, which are post acceptance of an ideology already.

Marxism didn't exist as an ideology BEFORE the concepts of worker and capitalist classes was developed was it?

It is self bias intuition that makes us avoid trying to make sense of it. Some people will even resort to believing that 1=0 because they don't want to let go of what thought was true. Or for the sake of Pride.

The tenet of Marxism is that we can look at the past and learn what drives the development of society and what causes the conflicts that we see around us. Any system seeking to describe the world fully will have to try to explain these.

The Fool: oh you mean ,Post-humiously, aka a Post-Hoc fallacy.and unfalsifiably, with confirmation bias, Group polarization.

I know what all that it but you haven't explained how it specifically relates to Marxism.

The Fool: then we shouldn't really call it marxism now should we. The message here is that at heart its a baseless assertion(fallacy) A huge set of bold assumptions (Hegel: one bold assumption is as good as the next) That is, the development is INSANE. because there was never anything to develope. It is a virtue to be ready to call the majority on thier bullsh!t. Grow some balls!
Where argument presuppose itself instead or other reality. Thus its a Godless religion. The Rights created by it have no more of existence then Unicorns and dragons.' Its just one new set of commandment which are true via Capital D on declaration.

Who said anything about rights? And I'm describing Marxism, not Stalinism and not Maoism. While the latter two were described as extension of Marxian thought, I'm here describing the base of Marxism as Marx and Engels themselves developed it. I think Stalinist interpretations and the like were thinly veiled efforts to excercize and concentrate power which is why I disagree with Marx's political program as I said earlier.

Plse make sure to read and understand the whole before answer in between.
Remember also that I understand the material well all ready, you are mistaking my simple answers and generalizations as If I am new to the subject. It is you who is new to the subject is.

I didn't say that. I just think you're wrong on the subject. I admit I'm a newcomer and am of course open to criticism. That doesn't mean I'll accept any of what you say blindly
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 6:49:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 5:44:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 5:15:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: you mean society how we understand it withing a frame work of accept ideology all ready....Society is not a clear definition itself. What are you basing this from? Did I say it?

Society I define as something like civilization. If you don't think that a civilization can develop without any way of material sustenance then I implore you to explain your reasoning and show how it's even theoretically possible.

The Fool: Do be honest I really had no intention in discussing this with this long. I shouln't have to be explaining its ideological nature, if you have an well rounded understanding of the history of philosophy. An no offend I am not here to be you proffessor. (There is no relation to you asking me too) I am just telling you that. as I have been many things. I am reallly not intresting in discussing these much matter with someone new to the topic.

Law, politics, science, art all develop AFTER some economic base has been laid down prior.

The Fool: This already presupposed in the ideology.

The ideology is nothing more than the sum of its parts.

The Fool: see, come on now.. everycomposite thing is a sum of its. You see the gap here is to big. And idealogy and I am not arguing with you I don't care what the dictionary says, or some authority I am passed that part. I am definition in relatiion to its us in history. This is a fruitless endevoer. I consider all continential philosophy. Philosophies of opinions.

I don't subscribe to a point because it conforms to a given ideology, I conform generally to a given ideology because I subscribe to all of its points.

The Fool: WHo cares,. you are not even sure of what it is.

And even that it saying too much.

The Fool: don't say it at all. who cares. its all opinionated philososphy.

As I've made clear in my various criticisms, I don't accept Marxism entirely. There are specific flaws in it that I have described at length in the thread.

The Fool: who cares...

This was his idea of everything else as superstructure which is derived first from relations to the modes of production.

The Fool: who care about his idea. its basless. and of opinon.

The Fool: You mean the many and many assumption which got a lot of people murders, and has yet had no positive effect on live quality.

The effects of Communist regimes of the twentieth century didn't arrive out of the idea that economic structures exist prior to societal development. They existed as the response to Marx's flawed political program. He had a flawed conception of how society would develop and didn't understand the internal incentive structures of the State.

The Fool: Who cares, its all opinion based. its garbage and 99% post-hoc fallacy.

The Fool: his beginning, was based on Material Good. Did you actually read the manifesto or Marx and Engles direct works? Or is this a post mutation?

He argued that material factors affected society in a larger and more base way then did other factors like law or culture. This doesn't deny their importance, it merely attempts to explain them. If you think culture develops prior to economic structures are you denying that economic structures have any importance? Of course not.

The Fool: who cares!
The Fool: So small societies, including small, villages in Africa, or bushment community, need this before art,. philosophy,. Musics?????? Check mate.

They need some sort of economic structure. Hunter-gatherer, tribal communism, etc. are examples of economic structures that give way before these things in primitive cultures.

The Fool: its about happy cultures. you can have all the matirals in the world.(happie as in postive affect over a life time)

The Fool: they vague bullsh!t categories, which are post acceptance of an ideology already.

Marxism didn't exist as an ideology BEFORE the concepts of worker and capitalist classes was developed was it?

THe Fool: who cares. its not rational conception'.

It is self bias intuition that makes us avoid trying to make sense of it. Some people will even resort to believing that 1=0 because they don't want to let go of what thought was true. Or for the sake of Pride.

The tenet of Marxism is that we can look at the past and learn what drives the development of society and what causes the conflicts that we see around us. Any system seeking to describe the world fully will have to try to explain these.

The Fool: oh you meanPost-Hoc ,Post-humiously, aka a and unfalsifiably, with confirmation bias, Group polarization.

I know what all that it but you haven't explained how it specifically relates to Marxism.

The Fool: Ah, You see I shouldnt have too. So you don't know them well enough, every single marxist and related idealogy is based from fallacios POST HOC REAsoning its all garbage.

The Fool: then we shouldn't really call it marxism now should we. The message here is that at heart its a baseless assertion(fallacy) A huge set of bold assumptions (Hegel: one bold assumption is as good as the next) That is, the development is INSANE. because there was never anything to develope. It is a virtue to be ready to call the majority on thier bullsh!t. Grow some balls!
Where argument presuppose itself instead or other reality. Thus its a Godless religion. The Rights created by it have no more of existence then Unicorns and dragons.' Its just one new set of commandment which are true via Capital D on declaration.

Who said anything about rights?

The Fool: Its irrelevant of anybody saying it. I am giving an example of idealogy. I shouldnt' have to say that. I can give new examples when I want to.

And I'm describing Marxism, not Stalinism and not Maoism. While the latter two were described as extension of Marxian thought, I'm here describing the base of Marxism as Marx and Engels themselves developed it. I think Stalinist interpretations and the like were thinly veiled efforts to excercize and concentrate power which is why I disagree with Marx's political program as I said earlier.

The FOol: its all opininonates reason the modern Religions of our time. That hide unders difference world..go away! no more wars.

and non-existence and harmfull ideology,

Plse make sure to read and understand the whole before answer in between.
Remember also that I understand the material well all ready, you are mistaking my simple answers and generalizations as If I am new to the subject. It is you who is new to the subject is.

I didn't say that.
The Fool: you said exactly that twice.

I just think you're wrong on the subject.

The Fool: Even the subject is wrong about itself its all over map. who cares what you think, I am not into the game of opinion or beliefs. Save that for your mom. or girlfriend. All I care about is what you can Logically defend. THen you grab my interest. My only interst now is that there is one more fundemtalist running around. .I care about the progress of humanity, via. Life quality, technology, and knowledge.

I admit I'm a newcomer and am of course open to criticism. That doesn't mean I'll accept any of what you say blindly

The Fool: But you will take what others have to say if ofcourse it populare. Look if it can't logically be justfied I don't care about it. Even your conceptions of logic are lacking.or what is knowledge. its probably relative and all over the map. I am not here to be loved, I am sorry if I got to deep doesn't an irrational contenetnal philosophy. I am here for you to rationally challenge what I say
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 7:13:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 6:49:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Blah blah blah.......continental philosophy is dumb......blah...... I dontz argue with them dictionaries........herpy dom berp........you're new so you can't argue.....darpinorino........I hatez dat continental philosophy.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:33:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 7:13:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:49:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Blah blah blah.......continental philosophy is dumb......blah...... I dontz argue with them dictionaries........herpy dom berp........you're new so you can't argue.....darpinorino........I hatez dat continental philosophy.

The Fool: Hey there is some truth in there. I am bias I can't stand continental philosphy. But you have to take into account the history. Kant demonstrated, in the critique that the limit of human knowledge is pure reason(math,logic, geometry etx.) and experience. In fact that experience is organized by being subsumed under these rules. (you have to remember there is only a very small portion of educated individuals. So most people don't understand Kant. But he cuts out metaphysics, and of course religion. Part of the purpose of the Enlightment was to kick out superstitious and subjective idea out of the state. AKA More seperate church and state.
Hegel doesn't like these limitation. So he tries to show that we can know everything via, The Hegelian dialected. Where by showing that one thing true depend on its opposite, which create a category, that also has and opposite and so on an so forth.( Any mordern logician will say that a contradiction =nonsense)
And of course he wanted keep God and Religion as knowledge and such, and also he creates a absolute political position out of this. Now the next generation on the CONTINENT(europe) but not in england. Learns philosophy with a Hegalian understanding. (remember there no internet. were we could just look back at the history of philosophy. So these Guy are CUT OFF,(harder to find certain books) They are no longer the well rounded poly-maths of the Enlightenment.(philosophers who masters of many discliplines )IN fact they are not even doing what the previous philosophers were doing. But they still had the name of philosophy. At the time they didnt' know they were continental philosophers. Anyways. most all them are in reaction against Hegel, but there style of philosophy is Heglian Based. No longer with the critical percision of the previous western philosophy, it was more of a softer, opinionated philosophy. But england an southern continent,(austria kept up the orignal notion of western philosophy,thus creating a Fork seperating philosopohy into Analytic, the rigious, critical philosophy(logic, natural science, math, philosophy of mind, stressing on OBJECTIVITY) and of course continental philosophy (social sciences, politics, subjectvism, post-modern, ideology,feminism, existentialism stressing on SUBJECTIVITY)

The Fool: Of course these are generalizations, there is always exeptions.
But I am against the That style of philosophy, because of such types of Reasons. They made up of huge amount of assumption, opinions, And any evidence either begs the question of the contructed ideology, or fallacious Post-hoc reasongs. Groups get together creating polarization of belief, most of social science is not even Falsibiable. They are just not the values I think are related to progressive knowledge.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:51:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: And yeah its not about you not knowing enough, its about getting you logic, right, if you are will to accept this. 1=0 Then we can't get anything productive going.

You are saying. These people said 'blah blah blah', is true. And I am saying okay lets check if its true.. Can't is pass the test of critical thinking. That is can it pass a logical examination, and I am saying no. Because its opinion based, of a irrational aquation of knowledge.
I am trying to push the application of critical thinking skill. That is get people to be able to questionn authority. Now in undergrade, you are not really allowed make your own theories, its all about what we call filling you up with infromation. like taking a big bucket and pouring it into you. Nothing you say mattesr if someone didn't say it. So that is also the norm on here. But in graduate studies, it turns around. Now you have to show What YOU can do. IN that you got the information, so what experiment or theories can YOU create. Less teaching and more of DOING. Regurgitatoin is not longer valued. But the later is the popular notion, here so people are mistrustful, and sometimes confused when I give such sure and direct, responses or refutation from pure reason.. They want to no Who else said that. IF someone else said it, it must be true.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:55:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:33:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:13:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:49:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Blah blah blah.......continental philosophy is dumb......blah...... I dontz argue with them dictionaries........herpy dom berp........you're new so you can't argue.....darpinorino........I hatez dat continental philosophy.

Hegel doesn't like these limitation. So he tries to show that we can know everything via, The Hegelian dialected. Where by showing that one thing true depend on its opposite, which create a category, that also has and opposite and so on an so forth.( Any mordern logician will say that a contradiction =nonsense)

It's not the source of all truth as a method for epistemology. It's a way of describing change. At least this is the way Marx used it in his own adaptation of the dialectic.

And of course he wanted keep God and Religion as knowledge and such, and also he creates a absolute political position out of this. Now the next generation on the CONTINENT(europe) but not in england. Learns philosophy with a Hegalian understanding. (remember there no internet. were we could just look back at the history of philosophy. So these Guy are CUT OFF,(harder to find certain books) They are no longer the well rounded poly-maths of the Enlightenment.(philosophers who masters of many discliplines )IN fact they are not even doing what the previous philosophers were doing. But they still had the name of philosophy. At the time they didnt' know they were continental philosophers. Anyways. most all them are in reaction against Hegel, but there style of philosophy is Heglian Based. No longer with the critical percision of the previous western philosophy, it was more of a softer, opinionated philosophy. But england an southern continent,(austria kept up the orignal notion of western philosophy,thus creating a Fork seperating philosopohy into Analytic, the rigious, critical philosophy(logic, natural science, math, philosophy of mind, stressing on OBJECTIVITY) and of course continental philosophy (social sciences, politics, subjectvism, post-modern, ideology,feminism, existentialism stressing on SUBJECTIVITY)

Wut

The Fool: Of course these are generalizations, there is always exeptions.
But I am against the That style of philosophy, because of such types of Reasons. They made up of huge amount of assumption, opinions, And any evidence either begs the question of the contructed ideology, or fallacious Post-hoc reasongs. Groups get together creating polarization of belief, most of social science is not even Falsibiable. They are just not the values I think are related to progressive knowledge.

Would you rather social science be based on the empiricist methods of the hard sciences? Because we all know how that worked out.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:04:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:51:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: And yeah its not about you not knowing enough, its about getting you logic, right, if you are will to accept this. 1=0 Then we can't get anything productive going.

On a side note, why do you think 1 is not equal to 0 anyways?

You are saying. These people said 'blah blah blah', is true. And I am saying okay lets check if its true.. Can't is pass the test of critical thinking. That is can it pass a logical examination, and I am saying no. Because its opinion based, of a irrational aquation of knowledge.

You're simply making points that are either misrepresentations of dialectical materialism or are unsubstantiated assertions of it being irrational. You have to actually back this shat up man and be sure to attack the thing in itself, not just some other misrepresentation. Your criticisms seem to either focus on simply calling it illogical or equating it with Stalinism. Neither work well for arriving at the actual truth hombre.

I am trying to push the application of critical thinking skill. That is get people to be able to questionn authority. Now in undergrade, you are not really allowed make your own theories, its all about what we call filling you up with infromation. like taking a big bucket and pouring it into you. Nothing you say mattesr if someone didn't say it. So that is also the norm on here. But in graduate studies, it turns around. Now you have to show What YOU can do. IN that you got the information, so what experiment or theories can YOU create. Less teaching and more of DOING. Regurgitatoin is not longer valued. But the later is the popular notion, here so people are mistrustful, and sometimes confused when I give such sure and direct, responses or refutation from pure reason.. They want to no Who else said that. IF someone else said it, it must be true.

Wut. I'm not regurgitating orthodox Marxism here brah. I made very explicit critiques of certain aspects of Marx's thought, among them his theory on the method of reaching a final economic order, his easy dismissal of opposing ideology as simply bourgeois and obviously based on economic relations, his lack of inclusion of political affiliates in his class analysis.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
AnalyticArizonan
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:11:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
SocialPinko is only expounding the logical positions that Marx approved of (except that whole "Everything is contingent bit").

I think Neo-Kantianism and Existentialism are schools of thought in Continental philosophy that are worth looking at. Of course, postmodernism is complete BS.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:19:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 9:11:23 PM, AnalyticArizonan wrote:
SocialPinko is only expounding the logical positions that Marx approved of (except that whole "Everything is contingent bit").

Well I am presenting his dialectics as a start up for conversation so it makes sense doesn't it?

I think Neo-Kantianism and Existentialism are schools of thought in Continental philosophy that are worth looking at. Of course, postmodernism is complete BS.

A while ago I mis-categorized all of Continental philosophy as postmodernism. Embarrassing.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 10:23:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 9:57:21 PM, AnalyticArizonan wrote:
I am responding to Fool, not you.

Oh, my bad hombre.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:51:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:55:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 8:33:26 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 6/18/2012 7:13:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 6:49:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Blah blah blah.......continental philosophy is dumb......blah...... I dontz argue with them dictionaries........herpy dom berp........you're new so you can't argue.....darpinorino........I hatez dat continental philosophy.

Hegel doesn't like these limitation. So he tries to show that we can know everything via, The Hegelian dialected. Where by showing that one thing true depend on its opposite, which create a category, that also has and opposite and so on an so forth.( Any mordern logician will say that a contradiction =nonsense)

It's not the source of all truth as a method for epistemology. It's a way of describing change. At least this is the way Marx used it in his own adaptation of the dialectic.

The Fool: I am saying that the dialetic its self is irrational. Because opposites don't work like that.
FOr lets take interagers -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Know if I try to summarize them I get zero. I do not get something which is the opposite. But they are all values. So if we are thing thing to exist in an Absolute universe (philosopher universe absolutely everything, minds,. body and sense information, and god if there is one)
We see clearly there is NO opposits Thus the hegelian dialect is garbarge no matter who uses it.

And of course he wanted keep God and Religion as knowledge and such, and also he creates a absolute political position out of this. Now the next generation on the CONTINENT(europe) but not in england. Learns philosophy with a Hegalian understanding. (remember there no internet. were we could just look back at the history of philosophy. So these Guys are CUT OFF,(harder to find certain books) They are no longer the well rounded poly-maths of the Enlightenment.(philosophers who have mastered many discliplines )IN fact (continentals) are not even doing what the previous philosophers were doing. But they still had the name of philosophy. At the time they(19th century continentals) didnt' know they were continental philosophers.
aka just like remaining Eastern Roman Empire, did know they were (Byzantine Empire) That is the name has given to them later in history, if you were they would call themselved Romans)

Anyways. most all (the ealier continentals) which are often refered to as (The young Hegalians) Reacting againsts Hegel(political absolutism), but there style of philosophy is Heglian Based. AKa they are trying to out master the master with his own methods. And inturn and in time the phililophy becomes more subjective and opinionating. (e.g Kirkigaard, goes completly subjectivist, but he is from Denmark and not one of they young Hegelians.)

There philosophies (The continentals) No longer have the same critical percision of previous western philosophy, it was more of a softer, opinionated philosophy.
The name continental comes from the fact these German Idealisms(Hegels was german, who was reacting to Kant transendental Idealism)

However philosophy in its Orginal Greek definition 'Philosophy' continued in England and America and southern part of the European continent,(Austria with the 'Vienna' circle'.. )

This difference of what 'philosophy meant'(a quest for knowlege) and the use of the term, on the northern European. That is 'philospohy as salvation'

These differences of Locations and the 'uses' of the word 'philosophy.'

The differences where then Categorized as
1. Analytic philoosphy, the rigious, critical philosophy(logic, natural science, math, philosophy of mind, stressing on OBJECTIVITY) and

2. Continental philosophy (social sciences, politics, subjectvism, post-modern, ideology,feminism, existentialism stressing on SUBJECTIVITY)

Wut

The Fool: I am sorry but it wasn't that confusing, I made it even clearer. If you don't no the term wiki them or something.

The Fool: Of course they are generalizations, there is always exceptions to the rule within the Two Types completly different types of philosophies.
But I am against the contenental, style of philosophy, because of such types of Reasons. They made up of huge amount of assumption, opinions. Any and virtually all evidence either begs the question it continental truth, and or depend exclusivly Post-hoc fallacies.
Social science acts as a false affrimating science because every thing is based on ideological assuptions, we could never know if its wrong so all it does is tell us what we want to here.

Would you rather social science be based on the empiricist methods of the hard sciences? Because we all know how that worked out.

The Fool: ah you at least you know that. But that is the point, IT FAILED! It doesn't produce any knowledge (some parts do. but alot is pure insanity) Just because its popular doesn't mean its make sense. (adherence to popularity)

They labelled it science 200 years after Natural science had been known as The Science. Even when it failed. THEY KEPT THE NAME SCIENCE ANYWAYS. To make it sound trust worthy.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL