[ 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!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

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

| Catalog | Home
|

File: 1621378038601.jpg (86.25 KB, 1280x720, holy science.jpg)

 No.5858[Reply]

We have some threads on religion and what not, but I think we should have one taking "spirituality" as a developing science. I feel "spiritual science" isn't "anti-materialist" in the same way that quantum physics is not anti-classical physics. I'm also not saying to woo woo quantum physics into some kind of justification of spirituality. All of these things may be true and seemingly separate because of our lack of knowledge between the connections of these various phenomenon at different levels.

As for myself. I used to be a hardcore skeptic. I used to laugh at my Chinese friends telling me about Chi power and herbal medicine and whatnot. I remember my brother was interested in Chi-Qong and I brushed it off as at best a primitive understanding of understood biological processes. I had my first experience with Salvia Divinorum and immediately it was like my skepticism and my attachment to crude understandings of accepted science was blown out the window. I remember at the time I first encountered it, my inclination was to try and get some people smarter and more knowledgeable in physics and quantum physics than myself to try and encounter these kind of experiences and see what there interpretation would be. I've had many more experiences off and on various psychedelics since than, Marijauna, Mescaline, and LSD since than, and frankly, in the right state I feel like even completely sober, I could induce altered perceptions in myself and in others, but I feel like certain people who are attached to their learned perspective of reality are internally/sub-consciously afraid of ever opening themselves up to alternate perspectives. I am very hesitant to get myself involved with other people who are into this kind of stuff, because I feel like many of them, especially religious types, are victims of superstitious beliefs and understandings of these experiences and phenomenon. Yogis have talked about the high-probability of falling into superstition when encountering the spiritual unknown. It's really not hard to believe when we consider the history of accepted science. People not to long ago believed that flies spontaneously spawned from rotten food. A fault explanation of a phenomenon, does not negate the underlying phenomenon described.

There used to be in The West a high interest in spiritual science in the late 1800s early 1900s(Edgar Cayce, Dione Fortune, etc.) but all of that got kind of pushed to the periphery but still existed with somePost too long. Click here to view the full text.
48 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5907

>>5859
Define eastern spirituality.

 No.5908

>>5904
>Take it as a thought experiment, if you are interested.
ok
>I could tell you more abstract shit like people felt better when I was around in some instance and there would be even more hypothetical explanations.
You can't blame me for thinking this has a boring explanation: people like company.
>If something is purely some kind of biological process, it can't be replicated by anything but biological processes.
I have no problem with that, you are allowed to use biological components in a test-rig. Just as long as we get a thingy we can get objective measurements out of. The goal is to make the phenomenon happen without any source of bias.
>So you're saying this would be the beginning and the end of your own acceptance? What about all the sciences that don't require an instrument like that. Would it be un-scientific to say verbal abuse or something could effect someone psychological and physiologically? Unless I can construct a machine that could be affected by words in the same way a person could that means that phenomenon does not exist?
There is no mystery how abusive verbal communication is transmitted, we know how sound carries words, we know about vocal cords and ears, and we have external devices that replicate it in an objective way: we call it speaker and microphone. Metaphorically, you told us you could spook horses via an invisible telephone, it would be neat if we could figure out how it works, and build a model that isn't attached to your head, to play around with.

 No.5909

>>5871
you are delusional. im not saying this only because of what you believe you can do but also your written explanation, it reeks of delusional thinking

 No.5910


 No.5911




File: 1621221532243-0.jpg (28.24 KB, 324x499, montefiere 1.jpg)

File: 1621221532243-1.jpg (24.47 KB, 323x499, montefiere 2.jpg)

 No.5705[Reply]

An anti-communist friend recommended me these. Has anyone here read them? Are they at all accurate?
17 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6013

>>5789
Suny's been making the rounds lately raising awareness for his book contra Montefiore, Kotkin, etc. Here's a timestamped youtube video where he distinguishes his bio from other bios on the market: https://youtu.be/8GRS2kMlZsk?t=1507
>>5794
No problem! I recently ordered copy and am looking forward to reading it.

 No.6014

>>6013
>"With Steve Kotkin […] he doesn't take the earlier period that seriously. Montefiore who DOES look at the early Stalin (he has a book called Young Stalin) in fact DOESN'T take Marxism, the 'National Question' seriously—One time I met Montefiore and he said, "What are you interested in?" I said, "Well I'm interested in the Revolution, the labor movement; I'm interested in, yknow, social democracy" and he said, "Oh good! I'm interested in his women." So if you're interested in his women, then go to Montefiore and you'll find a Stalin who's not only a bandit, a gangster, a terrorist, but a pedophile. I took Stalin very seriously; I took Marxism very seriously. He was a journalist for much of his career! He wrote dozens and dozens of articles in Georgian and in Russian—and he wrote on the 'National Question' […] So it's a lot of context—maybe too much context."

 No.6015

>>6014
Here's hoping Suny lives long enough to write a book on Stalin during the early Soviet period.

 No.6031

>>5921

What does "too biased" means ? If the question is the anti-stalinist position is backed up by solid sources, even marvellous for a time when knowing something about the soviet union was extremely difficult, then no it's not "too biased".iwwIWW

 No.6035

>>5741
Anyone read his history of the USSR?



 No.5689[Reply]

Does anybody have some book that study the Belt and Road Initiative from a Marxist-Leninist (not MLM) perspective? Preferably from the Chinese perspective.
I need it to debunk reactionnaries shitting on China daily and claiming the B&R is unsustainable.


 No.5669[Reply]

What are the best books on Russian, Chinese and the failed German Revolution and East Germany.
Books about other communist revolutions and state establishments are also welcome.

I want to know everything that happened before and after those events occurred
I want to know how the conditions and reasons for revolution happened in the first place
I want to know what happened during the civil wars
I want to know what happened after they won or lost
I want to know what were the mistakes they made

Don't care how many books to get a full understanding but as long as they're credible and good it's fine by me. I prefer PDFs.
8 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.6027

>>6023
>>6024
Based as fuck, thank you anon

 No.6028

>>6023
>>6018
>>6024
thank you!
if you find anything about other lesser known communist revolutions
drop them

we have to learn from the comrades of the past and their efforts

 No.6036

E.H. Carr's History of Soviet Russia in a lot of volumes. As it is very connected, he goes through the German revolution atempt as well

 No.6037

>>6036
Nice to hear that

 No.6199

>>6018
>>6024
Fanshen is also pretty good, it focuses on a single village between 1945-7 (I think). There are plenty of interviews with the peasants and cadres. Hinton does a good job explaining the successes, excesses, and failures of various stages of the revolution.



 No.5632[Reply]

I'm not sure if anyone is interested, but I've created a playlist of all of jacque Fresco's classic lectures from tapes 1-20. The audio is a little hard to hear, so you may have to wear headphones or earphones, but the audio is relatively fine.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiADn3rLZsazUnhTlBCgiD9MaxPCANwD-anarchismAnarchism
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5647

Bump

 No.5655

check out this thread, copied your post there
>>>/leftypol/234065

 No.5656

Bump

 No.5657

Bump

 No.5660

Try to download these lectures aswell, I'm hoping youtube won't delete them.



File: 1620471161487-1.png (143.37 KB, 936x520, one.png)

File: 1620471161487-2.png (105.79 KB, 902x476, two.png)

 No.5616[Reply]

Dialectical thinking is not only a western concept. There is a native Chinese tradition of dialectics within Taoism, that while similar to has some interesting differences when compared to western dialectics. Is this something worth exploring? It was very influential to Mao's thinking. Not to sound to much like a libtard but it seems exploring non western philosophy might be an interesting way to gain insights that might be otherwise ignored.

 No.5666

>>5616
pics 2 and 3 make the different traditions of dialects look like completly alien concepts

 No.5667

>Circularity: No Development
that would be directly against the notion of DiaMat, then? i don't think Mao was inspired by that part of it, any way



File: 1620456659131.jpeg (51.92 KB, 364x350, dostoevsky.jpeg)

 No.5615[Reply]

Writer worth reading or reactionary garbage?

Lenin apparently wasn't a fan; from "The Other Lenin" by Alexander Maysuryan:
> ["Demons" is] Evidently reactionary filth, like Krestovsky's "Flock of Panurge", I have absolutely no desire to waste time on it. I have no need for such literature; what could it possibly give me? […] I have no free time for this garbage."
Demons isn't the only book he doesn't like:
>I am familiar with the content of both these pungent works, and that is more than enough for me. I just about began reading the "Brothers Karamazov" and then dropped it: the scenes in the monastery made me sick."

However, Stalin apparently enjoyed Dostoevsky greatly. He had a heavily annotated copy of "The Brothers Karamasov" and at least once referred to Dostoevsky as a "great philosopher." Quote:
> [Dostoevsky is] a great writer and a great reactionary. We don't publish him because he is a bad influence on the youth. But he is a great author.international_brigadeInternational Brigade

 No.5662

Bump.
>>5615
I don't have much to add, but I really liked "The Idiot" when I read it in high school. My main takeaway from that and "Crime and Punishment" was his focus on psychology, which I assume was fairly novel for when Dostoevsky was writing. Surprised to learn that Stalin was a fan.

 No.5670

>>5615
>We don't publish him because he is a bad influence on the youth. But he is a great author.
KEK

 No.5673

I've read Notes from Underground, I thought it would be about some loser but that guy had a better life than I do.

 No.5674

>>5673
>that guy had a better life than I do.
in what way



File: 1620094176011.png (175.46 KB, 250x325, Heracleetus.png)

 No.5588[Reply]

>muh fire
>muh artemis
>muh bow/harp
>muh death/play
>muh wisdom in ordinary things

>But he had himself withdrawn into the temple of Artemis in order to play knucklebones with the children; here, the Ephesians stood around him, and he said to them: “What are you gaping at, you scoundrels? Or is it not better to do this than to work with you on behalf of the πόλις (city)?”


File: 1619813015277.jpeg (424.32 KB, 2000x1200, d&g.jpeg)

 No.5558[Reply]

You people lied to me, I read Deleuze and the guy was a fucking materialist.

 No.5563

Care to elaborate?

 No.5586

who ever said deleuze wasn't a materialist. he's like the arch-materialist.

 No.5587

>>5586
He’s a spinozist.

 No.5595

>>5587
Isn't Spinoza a materialist too…?

 No.5598

>>5595
he’s a fake materialist



 No.5539[Reply]

Why isn't communism the same as liberalism? Why didn't Marx become a liberal while writing Capital? Before the critical turn of the enlightenment the purpose of most philosophy was grant intellectual legitimacy to dogmas, or pre-existing state of affairs or beliefs that are taken for granted. Classical political economists and those that came before them (Hobbes, the Physiocrats, others) were similarly uncritical; the categories of political economy were explained, but not criticized. Vulgar economists (most economists today) don't even bother with attempting to understand the categories or the social relations they're made up of, and spend their time building models of different elements of capitalist production for the purpose of making it more efficient. It's no coincidence that "economize" means "to make more efficient", that is the sole aim of vulgar economics.

Where does Marx depart? Marx takes the materialist analysis of the political economists, their categories and terms, and constructs from these building blocks an immanent critique of capitalist production. Capital isn't liberal because Marx takes the materialist analysis seriously, he criticizes without reservation the most basic elements of exchange and the religious affectation of participants in the exchange with its elements (read Marx on commodity fetishism). We can't seriously call Capital, which is the most thorough rupture with political economy ever written, an economics textbook.
>Check reply for more, you know who you are
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.5545

what capitalists are made of

 No.5678

The more I read Marx the more humanistic I see in his ideas. When I say humanistic I don't mean liberal philanthropic sense but in the communal way, the individual should be elevated by all, and by elevation of all individuals, we elevate the collective. It's a appropriation of the real meaning of individuality not mediated by capitalism, but by humanism, or communism in the Marxist sense.

 No.5681

No. Hegelianism and dialectics negates a log of the presuppositions of the philosophy of Locke. modern liberalism and neoconservatism don’t.

 No.5682

>>5678
Marx was a humanist just not a utilitarian humanist. “anti-humanism” is usually either peak intellectualist pettiness or just 14 year old atheists that don’t understand what humanism means

 No.5702

everything is liberalism



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