/edu/ - Education

not sure where the /occult/ thread went, but i was reading about alchemy and found arthur john hopkins' "alchemy" (1934) exquisitely illuminating as to what all of this stuff is about. i first encountered hopkins in a separate article discussing the "colour theory" of the magnum opus (which i independently confirmed in "splendor solis", 1530). the colour theory claims that the progress of the "great work" is the transformation of the base substance into different colours: black, white, yellow, red/violet. hopkins in chapter 6 shows that the "prima materia" in this case is represented by a lead-copper alloy, which is then mixed with silver, then gold and finally, mixed with vinegar. this reddens the "philosopher's stone". in splendor solis, the movement from the "black sun" to the "red-golden" sun shows this very process. hopkins' ultimate theory is that while alchemy has its ancient roots in egypt (e.g. thoth), its codefication is ultimately alexandrian (greco-egyptian) by the way of the philosophers, including plato, aristotle and (pseudo-)democritus, such as in his "four books" (the oldest alchemical manuscript extant). aristotle gets a lot of credit ultimately, such as in his attribution of "secretum secretorum" (which includes "the emerald tablet" attached to it), but this is an arabic forgery. as hopkins also shows, alchemy comes to western europe by way of arabia (e.g. geber)… we can also see the colour theory here (De Alchimia Opuscula Complura Veterum Philosophorum, 1550) where the person is composed of four sections (black, white, yellow, red) holding the 3 dragons (i.e. solis splendor, 1530).

THE VIDEO OF HILLARY CLINTON COMPLAINING ABOUT CHINA BEING A TOP-DOWN CONTROLLED ECONOMY PLEASE

I found this video on why this guy prefers homelessness to being a wageslave

>>25374
How come he looks like Shawn Michaels?

>>25374
im in the same situation

The similarity in freedom from being homeless or having expendable wealth is in the autonomy of a person deciding what to do based off of their environment.

>>25380
homelessness is a form of freedom

>>25381
One possible counterexample to funny line going down in aggregate that is funny except for the people eating each other in the streets (if it's not done sensibly with communism) is an enormous peak at 2040 because there's still the 2065-2075 implied by linear mapping of the peaks to 2075

>>25381
Never mind when humanoid robots would be useful. The problem with any such machine is that humans are cheaper and will always be cheaper. A fleet of robots requires regular service, engineers, managers. Also, you will find that how the robots are disciplined and managed is basically the same thing a manager would do to a human.

All of this talk has been an masturbatory fantasy of the petty-managerial fags, and they are fags. Anyone in management who is smart knows this idea will not work and is superfluous anyway. It would be cheaper to pay the humans their vacation time and let them have nice things again than to do this.

Now you may say "you can't treat humans like machines!!!111". The problem is, we did that. That was the dominant idea of the 20th century, and the whole society was organized on the idea that humans would be mechanical, thinking, rational actors. Any human who wasn't a "rational actor" regarding a clearly monstrous system was shamed and told they were guilty of numerous crimes that are not actual crimes, while these same honest humans saw murderers and rapers glorified by the same managers who did this to them.

If you actually did treat humans like machines for productive use, you would not have done the insane, Satanic thing that was done in the 20th century. Again, it would have been cheaper to give the human machines their vacation time, and not lie to them about everything with the utmost contempt. So much of the pointless, cruel suffering of the past 100 years resulted from nothing more than pig-headed, malicious ignorance of the managers and the political class, who ignored that humans have actual material and spiritual wants. Those humans were told "you're just machines, you're just animals", again while being told they have to exalt murderers and rapers. All of this has always an exultant shouting of the eugenists, of political elitists, and other such faggotry. It is not a reasonable plan for society and it was built so that humanity would never, ever know what that is like.

With all of that said, if you did have humanoid robots, or more generally effective multi-tasking autonomous robots capable of either thinking in a way similar to humans or at least a worth emulation of such, those robots would not replace humans. They would work alongside humans, and every worker would either command or be integrated with robotic workers (both of which amount to the same thing, since all of the work tasks these robots do exist to serve some human interest… the robots are not doing this for their own existence or some sense of themselves, and before you say "you can't say that is a given about humans", clearly the petty-managerial fags and ruling elite do this to perpetuate their own existence at our expense, and they take sadistic delight in telling us we're selected to die and that we will never be allowed anything ever again. The sadism was the soul of petty-managerialism more than any productive outcome the sadism made for the world.

Above all, the petty-managerial dogma insists that workers must be severed forcibly from their tools, from all connection to reality. It is a wholly Satanic cosmology. This is obviously a failed system, but none of us are allowed to say no to it.

One other thing about a robotic co-worker; it would be the bestest buddy a human worker could ever have, if it weren't programmed by disgusting assholes. Robots are cool and don't start stupid shit for drama. Amazingly, of all of the ways humans were made into robots, they didn't think to suppress the obviously disgusting backstabbing behavior of humans. Instead the machine essentialized every malicious thing humans did and insisted you were supposed to "respect" it, so that fag managers can keep stealing more stuff and hiring their buddies.

I now know why all of you are so mad
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-4078

>>21138
Belongs in >>>/hobby/5031

He was great, he made fruit trees grow in Moscow

Irrelevant link dump https://academic.oup.com/plcell/advance-article/doi/10.1093/plcell/koae130/7658667?login=false

>>24461
if you think you can do it, do it. medicine is pretty safe thing to study as a career, you just need to keep up the effort.

You can do it anon.

>>24461
If you work in a hospital, your coworkers will be people like these.

>>25364
Is it justified to do something "fun" to these people?

>>25253
Has anyone here read this book? How do you debunk it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education

You guys pay for education?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna's_Archive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-Library

>>25360
why would you have to debunk it? to preserve a failed experiment?

>>25313
>>25313
You didn't read my post. Education is about teaching the prevailing ideology which today is capitalism - yes its anti blue collar/anti left because the capitalist ruling class needs you to work in their offices and work in their factories. If you already knew how to apply these things irl then you wouldn't have a market to apply for these things

The backing up of real world applications and applying it towards education SHOULD be a real thing, but ultimately will do no good unless capitalism is abolished first. From there education should focus on things that are needed to uplift and continue a communist society including real world application to things

>>25253
how about an actual communist program instead of trying to set the prices of this or that commodity lol

marx doesnt stipulate this (since he's a bad writer) but the LTV of which he investigates only concerns certain goods, as noted by ricardo:
<In speaking then of commodities, of their exchangeable value, and of the laws which regulate their relative prices, we mean always such commodities only as can be increased in quantity by the exertion of human industry, and on the production of which competition operates without restraint.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htm
for this reason, ricardo also says that with monopoly (or "imperfect competition") the laws of value are indefinitely suspended. so marx's theory of value only concerns commodities which may be freely reproduced by labour and which are subject to competition in a market.

This asinine argument is obsessed with the Austrian School definition of price (always returning to "me wantee") and insists you're supposed to automatically accept it after being beaten over the head with enough idiocy. The labor theory of value, and the discussion of value going back to Adam Smith, was about value rather than prices. The prices of things are set by merchants in response to what they understand the respective value of those things to be. Every merchant makes calculations of value, and if they're operating with the same information, they're going to make the same calculation of value based on those objective criteria; that is, they're going to notice that manufacturing some widget requires the same inputs, that the most effective labor for producing those widgets and the most effective system for producing widgets is expected to produce so much under those conditions, that the demand for widgets is no great secret to everyone in the market, that the utilities of these widgets are describable to everyone to the best of their knowledge. That is to say, value is judged by rational agents based on a lot of objective criteria, if it were a question of utility. But, the most relevant problem for the producers is that they require human labor and exploitation for their enterprises to continue as productive enterprises. The entire reason money exists, the reason why we have price tags in the first place, is because this is how humans are exploited, and what humans have to abide until some other system of exploitation is devised. If prices were not related to wage labor or some form of bonded labor (i.e. slavery, which always has definite costs for its maintenance), there would be no real reason to have the intermediary of prices at all.

It gets more complicated when you really think about what is done with money, instead of believing money is literally made of magic. Everything about the asinine Austrian School arguments requires magical thinking on top of magical thinking and insists you have to "respect" any of it. It's absurd if you step away from their retarded shibboleths and ask yourself what truly, really happens in all of the affairs of a capitalist firm and the wider affairs of a market, of society, of the state. On some level, the economic matter is never strictly about money or a wage, and it's never "just a contract". What isn't arguable is that workers are either paid a wage, or the holder of labor has to pay so much to commaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

As for the actual question: Marx's law of value pertained to commodities, freely reproducible objects (and so they are not original artworks, unless you have devised a scheme by which "original art" is itself a commodified service to be assigned a price tag, which in a sense is something we have done… and as a result, commissioned artwork has a fairly low going price, dependent on the availability of starving artists who will create furry porn, and ignoring for a moment that furry porn is produced by a cartel of sorts that fixes prices for their own benefit and recognize that they shouldn't undercut their fellow furry porn creators).

Nearly everything about "luxury" goods is explained by the prevalence of cartels and price fixing, which would be the thing Adam Smith calls "a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices". People often try to forget what Adam Smith was really describing, and sometimes Marx himself is doing this or willfully ignoring what political economy entailed.

It should also be remembered that Marx describes the law of value to explain how political economy was nonsensical on its own terms; that if you actually did this, you are missing a lot of very relevant details about what actually happens in capitalist society. Nothing in the free trade theory mentions primitive accumulation, which is why Marx spends chapters describing this process.

Generally though, the reason free trade is allowed, the reason why this system can work, is because price fixing is mitigated and the producers are competing to provide goods for the lowest price, without concern for any external want. Obviously if you can produce goods for cheaper than your competitor, you have an advantage against them. You can sell your goods at the same price as your competitor, who can't do shit against you except try to emulate your ability to produce the same good for cheaper. So, if some starving artist says "I will create furry porn for basically free, as long as I receive a diet of Hot Pockets and am free to make you more furry porn", he's going to have an advantage over a competitor whose needs are greater, say if he has a family to feed. You can see where this heads, once society has degraded enough that the family and even the most basic expectations of human existence can be cannibalized. You're never going to compete with people who live on practically nothing, are used to living on nothing, and have no expectationPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>25362
>>25363
what a waste of words.

>if you read locke (1690) he's a schmittian fascist (1932) AND an ancap (1963)
it seems that history means nothing to you.

Nietzsche is for the failsons specifically

>>25165
Are you 15?

>>25223
Obviously I meant that Schmit and the ancaps elaborated on tendencies already pre-existing in liberalism.

Fascists use philosophical and intellectual pretexts because, due to their ideology, they completely fail to understand the richness and nuance of discourse. Unfortunately, you do not offer a nuanced perspective on the issue; Mill's anti-slavery stance would have been interesting in this specific context. Furthermore, please elaborate on your statement: according to which philosophy or definition do you really see fascism, with examples? Locke refers to a limitation of the state's room for maneuver, which is indeed damaging, but these are founding texts, and what followed was not the intention of their authors.