/edu/ - Education

>>2014
After you finishing Stalin's "Dialectical and Historical Materialism". Read:
Frederick Engels' "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy"

Another important philosophical work on economic aspects is another work of Stalin:
"Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR"
But that requires you to have good knowledge of Marxism and economic system of USSR.

>>2014
>the base and superstructure or ideology, and so on. Could one of you anons help me figure out how exactly I should educate myself on such topics?
I haven't read it but I'm pretty sure these all come from the German Ideology

also Kojeve is a philosopher that specializes in interpreting Hegel if you're interested in that.

Lukacs' History and Class Consciousness.

>>2024
seconding this

>>2014
take inspiration from cockshott's list

He recommends:

Engels : Ludwig Feuerbach
Darwin: The Origins of the Species.
Plekanov: The Materialist Conception of History
Lenin: Materialism and Empiro-Criticism
Kautsky : Origins of Christianity
Turing: Can a Machine Think
Althusser : Lenin and Philosophy
Dennet: Consciousness Explained
Dennet: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/01/two-reading-lists/

>>2029
Dennet seems pretty random when there's so much else.

>>2048
anything else probably goes against his positivist ideology

>>2048
What are other modern pro materialist works on consciousness?

>>2052
define "pro materialist"

>>2014
The conquest of bread
The revolution betrayed

Semi-reelated repost of a tant about Kant

The Categorical Imperative is fucking stupid.
I'll take the never lying principle, for instance:
According to K(u)nt, if a murderer comes at your doorstep asking if you know where a certain friend, the one you are hiding from him, is, you should say yes, because otherwise you'd corrupt the categorical imperative.
The logic, if it can be called that, is that by lying about it you are using the killer as means instead of an end, something you should never do to another human being, because if everybody did it then society couldn't function because 1 - by covering/misrepresenting information you take away people's autonomy to take a conscious decision 2 - if everybody lied then lying wouldn't really anything; IE, lying is irrational (gross oversimplification, yes, but I'm not lying about it).
So let's destroy Immanuel "bad portraits" Kant with facts and logic, shall we?
- The killer doesn't follow the categorical imperative. If anyone could kill anyone willy-nilly than society kan't really function, can it? You're not really seeing people as ends to themselves when you kill them for money, are you? Then how can defend the interests of people that go against the Categorical Imperative? If everybody gave autonomy to people that don't respect the CI, than the CI wouldn't mean a whole lot, now would it?
- Once your friend is dead, he can't make informed decisions of any kind. You know, cause his brains are all over your wall.
- In defense of the indefensible, Kant says that maybe your friend could slip out the back after all, even heroes know when to be scared, and if the killer caught him outside after not looking inside your house it would be your fault. Let's consider the combinations:
A: you lie B: you tell the truth
a: your friend runs b:your friend stays
1: your friend is killed 2: your friend survives
Kant seems to assume the killer would not enter your house anyway if you said he wasn't there; that's fucking stupid and I won't take such childish assumptions into account.
In Aa1,Ab1,Bb1,Ba1, your friend dies; 50% of all scenarios.
According to Kant, you are completely at fault in cases Aa1, Ab1. The odds of your friend dying by not lying is still 50%, but fuck your friend, the important thing is that your hands are clean!
Oh, and the best for last:
consequences, and the series of coincidences he imagines is even more fantastic:
"After you have honestly answered the murderer's question as to whether his intended victim is at home, it
may be that he has slipped out so that he does not come in the way of the murderer, and thus that the murder may not be committed. But if you had lied and said he was not at home when he had really gone out without your
knowing it, and if the murderer had then met him as he went away and murdered him, you might justly be accused as the cause of his death. '''For if you had told the truth as far as you knew it, perhaps the murderer might have been apprehended by the neighbors while he searched the house and thus the deed might have been
prevented.''' (On A Supposed Right to Lie From Altruistic Motives, Immanuel Kant)
AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT THE ONE DOING ANYTHING, IT'S FINE!

>Reproduction of Daily Life by Freddie Perlman

Short and good

>>2024
You absolutely need to read Lukacs. He's as essential as Lenin.

>>2471
>hey I'm reading this subject and I want to know more about
&ltheh, you're just an echo chamber kid
peak idiocy

>>2052
Heidegger is more materialist than Marx

>>2476
As is Deleuze.
There's also vitalism. Which is and isn't materialist depending on your flavor.

>>2477
Deleuze is just a naive realist

I would consider a study of Epicureanism to be helpful to a student of socialism since Epicurus studied the philosophy of happiness in a way that I feel is compatible with socialism.

In brief he advocated ,
1) moderate pleasures that includes only enough wealth to free one from want , but no more.
2) Freedom from pain .
3) The importance of friends and community
4) A reflective lifestyle

His students also lived communally since he felt this was the ideal lifestyle for happiness.

>>6365
I don't think Benjamin or Lukács was part of the Frankfurt School. Then again, Debord wasn't either, so idk.

>>6366
Lukacs was simultaneously an intellectual forefather and early critic of the franky boys, and Benjamin's debates with Adorno are well documented.

Wiki said Lukacs 'repudiated' History and Class Consciousness, whatever that means, which doesnt make me so enthusiastic to read it.christian_communismChristian Communism

>>6406

It's one of the most important philosophical book of the marxian tradition. Love it or hate it, but def. unavoidable.

The repudiation come after the harsh criticizm his book take from the Comintern at the time (if I rermember right, espc. from Zinoviev and Bukharin). It nonetheless make Lucaks take a more "orthodox leninist" turn, that culminates in his "ontology of the social being".iwwIWW