/edu/ - Education

The preface is Hegel’s phenomenology of philosophy; it treats the various forms of philosophizing and delineates their defects. In a sense the preface is the completion of the section on absolute knowing. The book is itself a circle, the form Hegel attributes to the system as a whole. A theme that runs through the center of the preface is Hegel’s criticism of reflection and the understanding (Verstand) as capable of producing true philosophy and his characterization of speculation and reason (Vernunft) as the replacement for this inadequate form of philosophizing.

We find two sets of images in the preface. On the first page Hegel speaks of anatomy as being not a true science but only an “aggregate of information” (par. 1). Because it is a knowledge of only the parts of the body regarded as inanimate, we lack, in anatomy, a knowledge of the living body itself, of its principle of life. On the second page Hegel introduces the contrasting image of the bud of a plant producing a blossom that becomes a fruit. He characterizes this as an image of “organic unity” (par. 2) and as representing stages of necessity in the life of the whole.

Hegel says that the understanding schematizes experience, “a table of contents is all that it offers” (par. 53). The understanding, which proceeds through reflection on the object, produces, in thought, a world that is dead. All objects are fully categorized and rendered lifeless, labeled, like parts of a skeleton, or pigeon-holed, like boxes in a grocer’s stall. Reason, which proceeds speculatively, seeks out the principle of motion or life that is within the object, that makes the object, so to speak, what it is. Reflective understanding grasps the body as an anatomically ordered substance. Speculative reason goes within the body to its spirit to grasp its principle as a living subject.

The answer to this lies principally with Kant, with transcendental philosophy and critique. In his effort to answer David Hume and to secure, for the understanding, its own categories of experience, not derived from the senses, Kant forces himself to abandon reason. This causes Kant to formulate a very limited notion of experience, in which reason plays no role in the constitution of the object. Once one enters the world of critique there is no way out, no way to restore reason to its rightful place. Reason is sacrificed to reflection and to the trap of the transcendental.

How does Hegel move from the establPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>21909
The question of language goes right to the core of Hegel’s notion of systematic science, of truth that actually takes place in the embrace between thought and being. If a language of science is one meant to convey objective truth, then Hegel’s singular take on science must imply a special grasp of both its language and objectivity. What sort of discourse can claim to express objective truth within an idea of science that sees itself as the systematic articulation of existing knowledge? To answer this question we must guard against importing epistemological and linguistic notions foreign to the Hegelian idea of objective truth, neither must we import notions of objectivity and discourse alien to his idea of science.

Failure to comprehensively understand the nature of Hegelian scientific language has allowed to go unchallenged a wide-spread misunderstanding regarding the nature of Hegelian objectivity. This misunderstanding can be bluntly summarized as follows: the world itself operates dialectically, obeying an inherently dialectical logic. Many who know something of Hegel will probably find nothing objectionable in this statement. In fact, it appears readily verifiable with regard to that part of worldly objectivity Hegel deals with on the Spirit side of his philosophy, for example the rise of consciousness and inter-subjective relations. Indeed, spirit, as human activity, can easily be said to reflect thought or "mind", which, as the Logics tell us, is inherently dialectical. And it is this objectivity or "second nature"i that most commentators are interested in. When the natural world itself is brought into consideration, however, there is some embarrassment. It is indeed hard to verify, for example, that cosmological phenomena and chemical reactions operate along strictly dialectical lines. Hegel's Philosophy of Nature therefore tends to be taken less seriously, or ignored.

However, even when the inherently dialectical nature of Hegelian objectivity is ascribed solely to the Spririt side of his philosophy, crucial (Kierkegaardian, Marxian) questions arise concerning the coherency of the entire philosophical endeavor. If objectivity itself operates dialectically, what is the status of the philosopher subject (i.e. Hegel)? Or, more precisely, what is the status of Hegel's scientific discourse? From where does it derive its own objectivity Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>21904
>(Idealisation theory of science).
Idealism

scientific socialism is scientific insofar as it describes the functioning of the world in an objective and ideology-free way without rejecting its conclusions or the discoveries it makes along the way.

this is opposed to modern subjects such as sociology or economics, etc. which also analyse the world and its functioning but in a constructive lens. That is, their criticism is not ruthless, but constructive, for they hope to improve the system they live under with it.

scientific socialists on the other hand know that if they wish to abolish the misery they are forced to abolish the present economic system, because it is precisely it that creates and requires this very misery.

Throughout this thread, people have made a binary distinction between science and non-science. Partially they seem critical of this binary themselves and blame anglo culture for this crude way of thinking. But even anglo culture has a hard science VS soft science distinction, with further graduations how solid evidence needs to be to be considered proof in this or that community. You are unfair to even the biggest anglo STEMlord reddit-gold millionaires if you present them as being this crude and cocksure about what science is and is not.

Of course economics can be more or less scientific. They have causal models of booms and busts and they collect statistical data strengthening or weakening belief in this or that causal model. And economists also do little experiments about how people behave. It's called *drumroll* behavioral economics. Why deny that.

What a stupid thread.

>>24602
>>24603
>likely served as a trading hub linking Pacific coast cultures with those in the Andes and Amazon
If they can find more solid evidence to that effect this is an incredibly important site and a historic find.
>After eight years of studies
It's crazy to think about how far the published research on rediscovered ruins in the Americas has come since 2017. One wonders how it might have been affected if this information was public, although it's understandable why they'd want to study this quietly for a while.

>>24603
>la civilización prístina de Caral, la primera de toda América.
That we know of ;-)
At the rate they keep finding things on these continents who knows if that honor will last

>>24604
>If they can find more solid evidence to that effect this is an incredibly important site and a historic find.
In another article I read it mentioned sculptures with Amazonic traits, likely the ones in >>24603. I'm not an expert but one of them looks like a monkey to me and they don't live on the coast of Peru.
>it's understandable why they'd want to study this quietly for a while.
Yes. Many articles also mention how Ruth Shady, the director of the Caral Archeological Zone, and her archeologists have been threatened by land speculators who seem hellbent on buying the land around the archeological sites to develop it.

posting about this cause i'm just finding out

Mexican government acquires long-lost Aztec manuscripts about the rise and fall of Tenochtitlan

María Castañeda de la Paz still vividly recalls discovering the Codices of San Andrés Tetepilco in 2009. While on vacation, a colleague mentioned a friend who had some potentially interesting manuscripts. She went to a meeting in Mexico City’s ritzy Coyoacán neighborhood and was amazed to find copies of these codices, one of which narrates the history of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec empire’s ancient capital. “It’s not every day you come across documents like this,” said Castañeda de la Paz. “I was thrilled and surprised because documents about the history of Tenochtitlan are very rare.” She is among a team of experts who unveiled the discovery on March 20 at the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. After years of research and negotiations, the Mexican government paid 9.5 million pesos (roughly $500,000) to the family that owned these historical manuscripts.

The effort to acquire documents dating from the late 16th century and early 17th century was long and fraught with setbacks. “The person who showed me photos of the codices on a computer mentioned they belonged to a family, but didn’t provide details other than the family had two or three documents. I was given some color copies to analyze, and I suggested registering them to prevent a rise in black market value. The family wasn’t interested in that, and I started to have some doubts about who really owned the codices. I tried many times to contact the family but they were unresponsive, and unfortunately their interest eventually faded,” said Castañeda de la Paz, a researcher at the Anthropological Research Institute of Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM).

Unable to persuade the family with the valuable manuscripts, Castañeda de la Paz contacted Baltazar Brito Guadarrama, head of the National Library of Anthropology and History (BNAH), and showed him the copies. Brito then led the effort to contact the family and acquire the codices. “I was totally surprised when I opened the little box they were in. And when I lifted the first sheet, I just knew it was an original document,” said Brito. The National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) hasn’t disclosed the owners’ identities, but Brito says they said the documents were passed down through generations in the same family.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24611
FULL set of sheets of the tira de san andres tetepilco

https://www.facebook.com/glifonawa/posts/pfbid0bb8KsnUT5RSLbcQANJBySP6gozhs3Q8yryQwU2hAZjrkYe5e66ho72LsVjNAUxutl

lonely ushnus in the middle of desolate, giant plazas, surrounded by the corpses of dead inka cities and suffused in the cold climate of the suni make me feel melancholic

i mean let's be real. the reason the 1939 american nazis liked washington is because he owned slaves, and the reason the 1938 American communists liked Lincoln is because he is perceived as having freed the slaves

>>17474
Was America truly founded on Hitlerism?

>>17469
How can you argue Washington was a symbol of wasp identity in the 30s when the bund was flying banners of him lol “let’s say, you’re retarded”

Nearly every narrative of American history has been so bastardized that I don't even get into the topic unless someone is over the usual posturing and bullshit that happens in these discussions.

Probably the helpful thing to remember is that the President was de-emphasized before the Civil War, and Lincoln takes a stronger role out of necessity but also bent over backwards to please his fellow Republicans and keep his generals happy even when they were drunk as fuck and wanted to undermine Lincoln for getting them involved in this mess. Washington presented himself as the great neutral force that everyone could agree on, while the government was mostly in the hands of the founding generation and they figured out what they were going to do with it (hint: they really don't agree on what they're going to do with it). Also he was a big Freemason and there were calls to make him a king, but Washington rebuffed this for all of the reasons kings are a terrible idea. In many cases, the President was a titular head who was out and about doing things, but the general public did have that strong an identification with most presidents. Washington was an exception because he was Washington but, as mentioned, he was the neutral center everyone could agree on. The real center of the country was Congress and its prominent Senators and Representatives, and the alliances and clubs the most prominent Congressmen had aligned with them; and really this meant decisions were made in the smoke-filled back room and this was suitable for everyone. No one was convinced laws were made entirely by ponderous procedures as a formality, as if that were the entirely of what the law and the state could be. If you tried to tell people that was how government worked, everyone, of every social class, would laugh at you and ask if you are on the dope. The procedures did have a disciplinary effect on the other Congressmen, prevented any one of them from jumping up and down like a retard too much and making Hitlerian proclamations. The President was a man tasked with very important executive business, and usually represented what the victorious party and government were going to push for, but to become President you had to please Congress and play ball, hence why the surest path to the Presidency was for all of American history through Congress. (Trump is not a President, he's a sniveling retard put up for show because this republic is deader than dead.) When Lincoln, who was the most oPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>12529
>>12529
Miss this motherfucker more than you’ll ever believe.

Don't Talk to the Police
>Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials.

Alternative links:
https://piped.video/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
https://github.com/TeamPiped/Piped/wiki/Instances Insert /watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE to the end of the link

>>20135
Oh, someone already posted this. Keeping it up cuz of the piped links though.

Beyond Chavs: Imagining a working class politics for the 21th century
Owen Jones

bump

Engels was wrong.

theanarchistlibrary is pretty much a blog platform anyone can submit their diatribes to

>>24547
anarkiddie

>>24381
>I agree and it's why I will never do a trade, particularly when we as a society don't have a sufficient social safety net for anyone who gets a work place related injury. This is why the trades pay even less than what they pay in actuality. Even then, the per hour earnings of a tradesmen suck for quite a few years.

The real reason why trades pay less is because theyre less likely to have student loan debt compared to degrees.
Also while trades aren't guaranteed cushy living, you have more steady employment

The problem is, trades are looked down upon because people think getting a degree will get them big money more efficiently

>The other problem with the trades is that having completed an apprenticeship in {X} is not as transferable as a bachelors degree in {Y}. Many jobs just require the bachelors. Very few jobs require some sort of apprenticeship. It's why I think tech apprenticeships are a horrible idea. If you end up not becoming a developer, that credential is worthless.

Well, Ive heard from a guy who is an IT guy that the main problem with computer industry nowadays is the lack of hardware skills.
Most IT guys are only trained in software but are unable to troubleshoot hardware issues.

>Further, employers are not going to teach you the skills you need to job hop or keep up with the industry for decades like a degree SHOULD by covering the math, theory, etc. of computer science itself. Many CS degrees don't do that THOUGH. I've met people who were straight up failed by their degrees. I didn't even complete my CS degree until after I became a dev so I think I'm qualified to make this claim.

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

>>24527
Ya, I know what an LLM is. A lot of people think these chat bots are literally skynet for some reason. Though, I wouldn't say college edu in the west isnt helpful for getting better jobs. Why else in USA would it be as cost prohibitive as it is? USA needs to do something about school cost. Everyone should attend college. People should know shit, and know how to do it. Western academia is just inundated with a multitude of problems and retarded ass ideas.

>>24543
>Everyone should attend college. People should know shit, and know how to do it.


The problem is, everyone goes to college nowadays.
Irony is, we have more adults spending more time in school than ever before and they still cannot function for shit.

I disagree with this libleft idea that college should be mandatory. It's no different from religion

And the irony is, alot of our educational institutions were funded by the church

>>24556
>The problem is, everyone goes to college nowadays.
You're not American. College enrollment todays at like an all time low.

>and they still cannot function for shit.
Cant speak for your country, but that's just the default state of your average American today. College or not.

>It's no different from religion
Lost me there too. College is supposed to actually teach you shit. Not molest you and teach you a form of shamanism.

>>24558
>You're not American. College enrollment todays at like an all time low.

Except I am. Even if not, everyone is going to college nowadays. "All time low" just means relative to a boom-bust cycle.

>Cant speak for your country, but that's just the default state of your average American today. College or not.

It's not just America. It's the average postmodern adult.

>Lost me there too. College is supposed to actually teach you shit. Not molest you and teach you a form of shamanism.

And a lot of molestation does happen in college.
Also, professors will fail you if you dare to correct them or have different methods of problem solving.

And a lot of people working within industries often complain about the incompetence of college educated folk.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Having a medical degree is a sure way to never have to worry about money again as long as you don't go full retard with your spending.

Didn't you post a few months ago? I rember something similiar I thought you definitely were going to med school. Maybe it was someone else

>fairly normal life, but im extremely bitter against (succubi) m*dels, the glamour, ease,wealth, luxury and globe-trotting they are gifted just cause MUH FACE


This is a dumb reason.
I don't feel any jealousy towards those kind of people.
Those celebs have to deal with groomers and corporate assholes trying to steal their rightful pay.

wrong link other thread is fixed one

If you're just getting into studying the USSR then I recommend you read E.H. Carr's books and/or Charles Bettelheim's Class Struggles in the USSR.

I read it a couple of months ago and enjoyed it. I found the discussion about the term ”professional revolutionary” especially interesting.

>>24344 (me)
I have almost finished his Lenin biography, so I can recommend that book and this one also because Lars knows historiography and uses up-to-date sources from the archives released in the 90s.

Better than the ones where Lenin touches upon nationality, for sure.

>>24204
Marxallah, we found a liberal I was just speaking of your kin.

>>24204
>Tudeh was a minor player in the actual revolution in 1979. The Soviets actually quit funding them because they thought they were a useless non-entity with little actual influence in Iran.
This misunderstands Abrahamian's perspective. By the time of the Iranian Revolution, the Tudeh had indeed become marginalized, but this wasn't always so. I find his focus on the Tudeh interesting precisely because it is important to analyze the historical developments that caused its demise, all while Iran continued and intensified its process of industrialization, modernization and, crucially, subordination to imperialist interests.

It was never a bad idea for a Marxist to ask oneself the question "what the fuck just happened?" after a religious national-bourgeois revolution when conditions were ripening for a communist one. In Iran, often considered the birthplace of modern Islamist politics as a mass movement, the question is yet more urgent.

>>24516
I feel like its possible the Tudeh party was never as popular as people like Abrahamian tell us it was and this is a result of historians like him focusing too much on Tudeh at the expense of other groups in Iran. Abrahamian is an old fashioned new left Marxist and for him the victory of a socialist faction is how history should have played out but didn't. So he goes looking for the biggest Marxist faction (Tudeh) and tries to ask "why did it fail?" and you do that you wind up developing tunnel vision.

>It was never a bad idea for a Marxist to ask oneself the question "what the fuck just happened?" after a religious national-bourgeois revolution when conditions were ripening for a communist one. In Iran, often considered the birthplace of modern Islamist politics as a mass movement, the question is yet more urgent.
The problem is the way in which Marxists approach this history. They are too teleological and misapply Marx's theories. Marx warned the Russian socialists not to take his history of capitalist development as a universal model that could be applied to Russia because his own work was based on studies of Germany, France, and Britain. But Marxists try to interpret Iranian history through Marx's history of Western Europe. "Well, socialist revolution is the next stage, so why didn't it happen? Maybe Iran was too feudal? was Khomeini a bourgeois nationalist or a fascist?" These are the wrong kinds of questions to be asking because Iran isn't Western Europe and stickers like "feudal" or "bourgeois nationalist" aren't something you can just paste onto every human society.

Iran also is a problem for Marxist historians because it defies their theories of revolution. Before 1979, the Iranian economy was growing, inequality was a serious issue but poverty was decreasing etc. The revolution wasn't motivated by socioeconomic grievances. Khomeini himself once declared that 'we didn't overthrow the Shah because of the price of bread.' Before 1978, US diplomats saw Iran as an island of stability. Nobody predicted the revolutionary outbreak between 1978 and 1979. I'd also say that Islamist mass politics really begun in the 1910s, anti-colonial movements based on Islam go all the way back to the 1900s. Foucault's writing on Iran have always been controversial because he pointed these things out. Islam was a drivingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>24203
Why are you sperging out at someone you don't even disagree with?