/edu/ - Education

Yes you are missing something and getting pissy over nothing. Popper is essentially saying that to be tolerant you must paradoxically be intolerant of some things, which is paradoxical.

But frankly I don't care about any of this, tolerance is fucking retarded because people have used the word so much they've forgotten what it means and that it isn't all that positive a meaning anyhow. It's a liberal delusion that's a perfect tool for Porky to split the working class with idpol and the inevitable clashing between minority sects.

based popper living rent free in the head of leftoids

Read Marcuse and Cockshott.

>>6714
Yeah, that's my point who cares about tolerance. It's not necessarily desirable. It's a deeply lib concept.

I was getting pissy to generate enthusiasm, ok?

>>6722
>generate enthusiasm
ok you got me lol

>>6717
>in the head of leftoids
His advise was aimed at the repression of /pol/ neonazis actually as well as criticizing liberal protection of Islamic Fundamentalists.

>>6722
But what's the point of the thread? Do you want to whine some more about how liberals care about liberal concepts? That sounds pretty silly.

>>6732
I wanted to start a Popper slander thread heh. Mission failed. I'll try again when I hate him more.

When reading picrel, i got curious about the passage:
>It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social
existence that determines their consciousness.

And decided to take a look to see from which of Marx's works it was, and i happened to stumble upon this interesting paper:
https://www.academia.edu/1622097/It_is_not_the_consciousness_of_men_that_determines_their_existence_but_their_social_existence_that_determines_their_consciousness_Marx_Explain_and_discuss_critically_the_claim_that_Marx_holds_a_materialist_theory_of_history

With its apparent objective being:
>In what follows, I argue that commentators such as Gerald A.Cohen (1970), Karl Popper (1962) and Bertrand Russell (1920), have misinterpreted Marx’s conception of history in two important ways.

So i'll be reading it later and will decide what to think of it.

Also, why are there SO MANY FUCKING BOOKS THAT I CAN READ IN MY LIFE DAMMNIT. IT'S DISTRESSING KNOWING I'LL ONLY READ SO FEW IN MY LIFETIME NO MATTER HOW MUCH I TRY.

Are there any good books on popper?

>>6765
That's an insanely based quote. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about the paper.

>>6714
This. What does "tolerance" even mean? And what, you're going to "tolerate" other people? At that point aren't you admitting that you don't like them but you've decided you'll just put up with them? It's such a liberal idea of how to look at other people, harboring some secret, seething hatred but tolerating other people instead of being in open conflict with them.

>>6714
>But frankly I don't care about any of this, tolerance is fucking retarded because people have used the word so much they've forgotten what it means and that it isn't all that positive a meaning anyhow. It's a liberal delusion that's a perfect tool for Porky to split the working class with idpol and the inevitable clashing between minority sects.
We should do a genealogical analysis of terms used by liberals.

>>6866
Oh shit anon, sorry. Only saw your comment now.

But either way, it's a good introduction and explanation of historical materialism. It talks about what the author (and me) considers to be the correct interpretation of Marxist historiography, and points outs that Popper's argument is actually invalid as it misinterprets it. But he himself doesn't actually consider hismat to be true, because, as he states:

>[…]although limited in scope, the above outline of Marx central theory suggests that it is by far a more complex theory than that which Russell makes of it. However, a defense of one particular reading of a theory over another should not entail an endorsement of the theory in question. I may agree that the correct reading of Kant commits him to a `two world’ epistemological theory, yet, strongly disagree with regards to the validity of Kant’s transcendental idealism.

And presents Max Weber's interpretation of history, the one that talks about the importance of psychology and protestant ethics to the development of capitalism, as opposed to the changes in modes of production, which themselves provoke class struggle.

But even then, he still finds shortcomings in Weber's theory and muses at the amount of evidence supporting Historical Materialism.

>This does not prove that historical materialism is true, but by starting from what I have considered as the appropriate reading of Marx, it does seem that focusing on changes insocial relations and means of production is supported by much of social and historical evidence.

Overall, a pretty good article, which can provide important information to those that only understand a bit of Marxist theory in general, and it doesn't really 'pwns' it. Though, i can't help but agree with the author in regards to my criticism to hismat, since, at least to me, it seems rather teleological.

So, what about Popper's Falsifiability idea?

Popper is a fucking pseud