[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home


Hegel’s ​Phenomenology of Spirit
Presented by Todd McGowan

What follows are some very accessible lectures that will walk you through The Phenomenology. It's a great place to start, not only with Hegel, but even philosophy generally. Don't be scared off if you're a layman. Included along with the lectures are a handy glossary of terms and McGowan's own summary. Everything you need to climb the mountain to Absolute Knowing.

Sorry if the recordings are wonky and i had to cut some of these in half due to file limits
10 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1625547775244.mp4 (54.22 MB, 910x512, 7b-Absolute Knowing.mp4)

The End.

Wonder if anyone will actually make it all the way through.


Very useful PDFs, thanks.naziNazi


Can this thread be merged into >>4337 please?
This thread has good resources and is already dying without any discussion. It would be a good addition to the thread above. Many thanks.


Thank you, I will have a look at them some time.


File: 1608528064617-0.jpg (124.93 KB, 449x600, 8955.jpg)


To bring up my back ground before getting into the topic at hand. I am a historian and have been interested in seeing how we humans throughout history cope with deadly diseases. As we have seen in recent times of deadly diseases, such as the "spanish" flu, ebloa, sars, etc.

Now to focus on thentopic, humans throught hidtory tend to personify diseases. One of the best examples woth the related pictures are from the bubonic plague. Where medieval artists would cope with the death by creating personfications of the plague. This is what intrests me is why do we cope with the death by making into a person? I would like to hear from some of you on this, for its an interesting subject.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


You just wanted to make a topic about corona-chan didn't you, admit it.


There is already a thread about that on /GET/ already and lets be honest. This is only but another example of what I am trying to tall about. Because during the internet age we have been making art of things like the ebola or now the corona virus. I wanted to have a discussion about why we personify these deadly dieases as we did throughout history.

This might be the case, I wonder what makes us as humans feel more at ease being able to see the virus as a humanoid. I know from what happened in the mid 14th century with the black plague it drastically changed the world in those five years it lasted. Art changed showing the depiction of death, as a sort of comforting thing.


Here's something for you; Apollo started out as such a personification


It could be theoretically argued that the tendency to personify things extends outwards to all boundaries of human existence, as a sort of inevitable anthropocentrism which permeates all facets of our perception due to qualities which are inescapably ingrained in our consciousness: i.e. that a human recognizes their own humanity, as its species essence, is a rather unique feature, even though it might sound mundane. The symbolic realm arguably derives from this, and if said realm does indeed owe its origins to such a tendency, then it would make sense for it to always be 'textured' with the recurrence of specifically human imagery. Even animals, as we often depict them, are more or less projections of our own sense of mythos… representational metaphors–a fox, for example, is not 'just a fox', but is connotated as 'sneaky, mischievous, suave–an archetypal trickster', etc.
People will probably accuse me of coming off as overly Jungian, but I'm not really much of a subscriber to him, that is, outside of the base realization that there's probably some kind of innate anthropocentric lens which colors our figurative ideals of reality. So at any rate, I don't think the phenomenon spoken of here is so exclusive to death, although at the same time, I guess the 'coping theory' isn't mutually exclusive with what I'm saying either.


*is so particular to death


Hello comrades. I have doubts about materialism since the philosophical part of Marxism isn't my strength, but I want to be able to understand it better since materialism is the foundation of marxist theory and the communist movement.
I've had arguments in the past with people who claim that modern science doesn't prove materialism or that materialism cannot explain things like the origin of the universe or quantum mechanics. Well, where do I begin with this? Is materialism the truth? The most basic part of marxist philosophy is the assertion that matter is objectively real, right? How do I prove this then? Maybe one of you STEMlords around here can help me out with this. Any resources on this is appreciated.
44 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Bumping for this guy again


Can this be archived please?
It was two new threads from deletion, basically already dead.


QM is a mess (having actually studied in academically in some capacity) but its a materialist conception of history not really a metaphysical one. Also the idea that reason falls back on a quantum mechanical world was fucking destroyed by Bell in the 60s so the idea that any broad metaphysical statement has any scientific backing is rather suspect.


Perhaps I dont understand materialism, scientific value, communism, marxism, or what you mean
The way I see it, materialism is all that matters because its all that can be proved to exist
>inb4 solipsism brain in a jar shit, I dont care if my house isnt actually real, I have performed numerous repeat experiments by living in it and all evidence points toward corporeality
I guess this is one of those things that can be really easy to bring into a navel gazing circlejerk about what is reality, what is real, etc, like in the same vein as Last Thursdayism where technically you could have been created a few days ago and it just so happens that all your memories are generally pretty accurate and also congruous with reality moving forwards


Post videos of 1800s life.

>Man Born in 1867 Talks About Working in the 1880s - Filmed in 1930 - Colorized & Restored Video

>Albert l. Salt, born in 1867, was 14 years old when he began working for Western Electric in 1881. He rose up through the ranks to become President of the Graybar Company, which was spun off from Western Electric in 1925 and handled their electrical appliance market. Graybar is still in business today and was named after the founders of Western Electric, Elisha Gray and Enos Barton. This was filmed in 1930.



>Ex Slaves talk about Slavery in the USA

>A story done by ABC News in 1999 about slavery as told by people who were slaves. Recorded in the 1940's.


>Rebecca Latimer - 94yrs old born 1835 - US Senator & Slave owner

>filmed 1929


everyone in the comment section is going on a list

File: 1641530872418.jpg (14.52 KB, 201x302, Juan_Posadas.jpg)


This Thread is created to have serious discussion on J. Posadas works. Critiquing, analyzing, and learning from his works and understanding why his Party was very big in South America. Below are some of the translated works that I could find:





Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1641535455124-0.pdf (27.58 MB, 197x255, 1621878045108.pdf)


I have read that book it was quite interesting to get the life of Posadas and how Trots turned against him. Despite the fact that there was valid reasons for it, as the Fourth International were very Eurocentric. They did not listen nor cared about the blight of the South American Comrades. When Posadas with his influence decided to do the Fourth Inernational Posadas, he basically pissed off all the Trots doing soo.

It was when he addressed one of his comrades on the UFO phenomena was why the Flying Saucers article everyone knows was written. It was originally a speech and was written down as the minutes, what this speech was supposed to do was basically saying, if advance civilizations exist they would be Socialist'. It was this twisting of words that caused the Posadist to be seen as the ufo cult by the jealous trots that still had beef with Posadas.

If you read some of his other articles like the ones I posted and the book he written. You would see that Posadas was very much a ecologist, wanting Nuclear Power to be out of the hands of the capitalist and into the hands of the populace. That Workers state should be in control of the nuclear weapons to defend themselves in a capitalist world.

File: 1640985701043.jpg (8.59 KB, 231x346, 1221.jpg)


Is this book any good? It was published while Lenin was still alive, but I can't find him mentioning it anywhere. I assume its on the same tier as The ABC of Communism. Good, just not often recommended. At any rate, I'm going to read it over the next week to see for myself.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


I would agree usually, but Bukharin is an exception. His imperialism and works on marginal utility are all fine


Lenin and Bukharin are the exceptions to your rule


didnt bukharin get purged by stalin?


The book has recently gotten some new attention since it got republished by Cosmonaut Magazine not too long ago: https://shop.cosmonaut.blog/product/historical-materialism-a-study-in-sociology/16?cp=true&sa=false&sbp=false&q=false&category_id=2
Now I haven't read it myself but I've heard very good things about it and Bukharin in general was a pretty great theorist. This book is on my personal reading list, though I don't know when I will get to it. Let us know what you think of it when you're done, OP.

Yes, unfortunately.


It's quite nice so far. I recently read Stephen Cohen's biography on Bukharin, which is what spurred my interest. I will say, however, it's restating mostly the basics of stuff. If you have read Engels 4 letters on historical materialism, the first chapter of the german ideology, capital, or even the manifesto, you are probably set enough. Probably. It's good to have things restated clearly anyways. It does remind me that purging Bukharin was an unforgivable and senseless tragedy. It's a determining factor in being a non-stalinist communist, among other factors.


Baudrillard is one of the few who was able to critique Marxism from a resonable and not cucked perspective.
Especially in The Mirror of Production his criticisms are from the prespective of some one knowledgeable of Marx.
Now that the dust has settled was he right nearly about everything?
I mean look at China
24 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Make an argument anytime


Baudrillard only had vapid literary critiques of Marx, also suck my dick anytime


This is not fucking /leftypol/. Stop shitting this board.


OP shat up this board


It sounds like a reasonable perspective until you realize that this concept was already addressed by later marxists.
Alienation being a fundamental feature of humanity is something explored by Zizek.

File: 1640960840219.jpg (86.71 KB, 640x807, Janos_Kornai_2005.jpg)


We had already thread on him I think but can't find it anymore. Are there any good books or reviews on his work? Did Cockshott ever talk about him?
In general also a /thread/ about current AES economics.


Contemporary socialist economics aren't your "AES" economics because all serious socialist economists have moved beyond your insipid apologia for state capitalism.


To what exactly?



File: 1608527927010.jpg (79.24 KB, 597x424, antique-painting.jpg)


Post any weird and obscure history facts that you know of
52 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


The 11 yo Grace Bedell wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln telling him to grow a beard. He did it.

>All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President.



File: 1638317892831.mp4 (323.02 KB, 734x720, youuuu.mp4)

>in the late Ottoman Empire there was a movement of weeboos who loved anything to do with Japan, since they were a non-western power who was victorious against a western one in the Russo-japanese war, then it culminated in conspiracy theories that the Japanese emperor was a secret muslim who was going to come to their rescue

Jesus Christ, nothing is new in history


Fucking kek, that's something I've never heard of before but it sure is hilarious.


File: 1639250108297.png (3.89 KB, 225x37, known for it.png)

This is my life's dream


The same company that invented Aspirin invented heroin.

File: 1640891729727.jpeg (1.86 MB, 2057x2179, EEDwuFNWwAAU3Kh.jpeg)


(I'm posting this on /edu/ because I think it's more of a discussion about self-education than leftist politics per se.)

To an extent, I think most people on this site are skeptical of journalists and academics. We can all recognize that "knowledge production" is not politically neutral, not free from bias or outside influence, etcetera.
On the other hand, even skeptics of these sources don't tend to be fully skeptical. One thing I noticed is that even when people practice skepticism of journalism, they tend to question the interpretation and presentation more than the facts. That is, they might point out how facts are framed in misleading ways, or important details are excluded, etc., but rarely accuse the media of outright fabrication.
This mimics a similar practice I've noticed in skepticism of science: you'll find people pointing out methodological problems and limitations, but rarely questioning the actual reported results of experiments. I say these practices are similar because they involve questioning the logic but never the premises; they take it for granted that the authors might be trying to mislead you but would simply do so through subtly faulty logic and never through outright invention.
All of which is to ask:
>Is there any reasonable justification for this? That is, is there a reason to believe knowledge producers would draw the line at actual fabrication?
>In general, to what extent can we actually trust the information produced by academia and journalism? If none at all, how can we even navigate the world?
>Is it ever reasonable to simply "trust the science" without even looking at the arguments?
I feel the need to note these questions aren't rhetorical in the slightest, they're genuinely thoughts I've been struggling with.


Always be skeptical. Even the most rigorous and principled people can make errors.
>Is there any reasonable justification for this? That is, is there a reason to believe knowledge producers would draw the line at actual fabrication?
There's plenty of history that they are fine with outright fabrication at times.
>In general, to what extent can we actually trust the information produced by academia and journalism? If none at all, how can we even navigate the world?
Review sources, methods, data if the claim warrants investigation. Try to corroborate the information with other sources, particularly those with different or contrary interests (if you can't find someone disinterested).
>Is it ever reasonable to simply "trust the science" without even looking at the arguments?
No, literally never. "The science" happens in a real social context with a political dimension and it has always been slanted by this. Even if the data collected is good and the study is valid in a technical sense it will often be interpreted (by the scientists themselves or by reporting) through ideological lenses that lead you into mistakes. Always be skeptical. Anybody telling you dude trust me is probably being dishonest and is self-aware of it. An honest person would tell you to check for yourself and validate what they're saying.


I don't think that's fair.

Scientists are sceptical about results, and it is well known and accepted that results are sometimes wrong. More often because of errors than malice, but deliberate falsification does happen. That's why scientific findings always have to be reproducible. If multiple, independent research groups repeat the experiment/study and find the same results, they are most likely correct. Repeating previous results is expensive and not very attractive and unfortunately it is not done as often as it should be. In most cases as an outsider you can't do it from your bedroom alone. That's why you usually see people attack methodology and other issues first, it is less effort and you only need to get the paper from sci-hub. If you are interested in a topic, try finding meta-analyses and literature surveys instead of individual papers, they are more likely to contain trustworthy results, as they aggregate multiple results.

In journalism it is a bit different, but you can (and journalists are supposed to) cross-check facts from multiple independent sources, when they are available. Then again, this is more work that just pointing out faulty reasoning, so outsiders don't bother. But serious, published works are supposed to have done this for you, and they are more likely to be more factual than some online blog masquerading as a news site.

I don't think your criticism is right, these are known issues and there are safeguards that are supposed to limit their harm. Of course they are not perfect, but the situation is not nearly as bad as you make it to be.


>Review sources, methods, data if the claim warrants investigation. Try to corroborate the information with other sources, particularly those with different or contrary interests (if you can't find someone disinterested).
But what if, for example, there's an imbalance between the different interests? Few people have the resources to conduct large-scale nationwide polls, or access to advanced telescopes or particle accelerators, stuff like that. The ability to verify data might be concentrated in the hands of a few and at that point it's easier for their interests to align, especially when it comes to journalism.
It seems to me that the bigger institutions will tend to form a sort of "knowledge elite" that not only may align with the political elite but will also have its own independent interests (such as securing funding or maintaining its credibility) that will steer it a certain way.

I'm not that trying to suggest that we're in a crisis where most of the science is wrong, I'm just wondering how, epistemologically, we can justify our trust in the data that's presented to us.
I know replication and cross-checking exist, but as you yourself sort of pointed towards, they have their problems as safeguards on an institutional level. As I said above, the ability to verify might be concentrated in the hands of those with shared interests (or not even necessarily interests, but shared biases). This is especially the case with journalism where sources are often anonymous.

But I do agree now that there at least exist processes by which we can gain sufficient trust in the data, even if I don't think they'll always work.


just be critical, like >>9124 said


Learn to think skeptically; the clearest introduction to this mode of thought is still Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Skepticism.

Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home