[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

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


File: 1711846811265-1.jpg (961.59 KB, 1280x1500, Karl_Marx-1116383723.jpg)

 No.1810024[View All]

So we know the right wing has their dogwhistles, i.e. "Christ is King" and "It's Okay to be White."
How about a Socialist dogwhistle? Something that will trigger rightoids, something that really hurts: reminding them that the soul does not exist, and that consciousness is an illusion. They HATE this, it threatens everything about right wing ideology much more than they are willing to admit. This is why they fought it fiercely in the 20th Century, making sure to appeal to the "godlessness" of communism. Ultimately I believe there is too much idealism around these days. You see it in things like psychedelic culture, wellness culture, tech culture (and their idiotic quest for "immortality") and surprise! they are all becoming very reactionary!

Trigger the idealists. "Matter is the fundamental substance in nature." It's the perfect combination of disarming and bewildering that gave "its okay to be white" and the AOK hand their power. "Matter is the fundamental substance in nature. Make it a meme. Marx would be proud. That's where it all began, after all. Before his ingenious theory of Dialectical Materialism, before Scientific Socialism, before the Communist Manifesto, there was Materialism.
187 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1817171

>>1817040
I’ve yet to see someone ask a biologist “what is life” then conclude that life doesn’t exist because they don’t define it due to that person already standing on firm ground due to thousands of years of human history proving life. Opinion discarded.

 No.1817571

>>1817171
?
are you accusing me of not believing in matter because you dont know basic physics?
My question about matter is rhetorical because matter transposed as a substance apart from experience is just old enlightenment thinking.
Materialism as a metaphysics has been overturned, which is why its funny today when marxist larpers pretend they are victorian gentlemen appealing to science, when marx himself was clearly a monist coming out of german idealism (his "inversion" of hegel comes from his analysis that history is moved by the masses and not elites - a theory still in contention).
"Dialectical Materialism" isnt even a term codefied by marx and engels, but still becomes the doctrine of a quasi-heraclitean concept, and formalised as the state ideology of the USSR, where it again just appeals to tautologies that have no political license.
Thats why i think mao is the most "dialectically-materialist" thinker, since he is a thinker of change itself, not of tethering nature to the political - but here he becomes a materialist in the most virulent way too, by positing it as a substance apart from man, or as something which "shapes" man without integral self-relation.
"Materialism" today is only peddled by the same liberals you supposedly hate, since liberalism didnt graduate from its epistemic origins in empiricism (and rationalism), so is always seeking deliverance in the "objective" world (and so justifying its economics in a greater dharmic reality of justice tied to property and titles).

 No.1817579

>>1817040
>All Time is set against the speed of light,
The whole time light relation is one of the most incomprehensible aspects of modern physics to me. I don't know any real physics and doing the maths abd whatever but I have read a bit and I have never seen an explanation of why light and time should be tied together. As I rememver the standard explanation, a photon doesn't experience time at all, I guess even tho a photon is on one place at one time or another, since at the speed of light time stops, no time for photons. Never got what that bullshit was supposed to mean.
>and all particles except photons have mass and so are entered into time by this dispensation of energy. All time is simply the passage of an object through space - so all matter is spatio-temporal in orientation,
Yeh everything is ever increasing entropy ecept when it isn't. Another concept that sounds kind of retarded to me but I am smoll brain.
>even if matter doesnt "produce" space-time, but space-time here is also just a net of relations, not an "object" in itself (which is also why space can be "infinite").
Now you are just inventing your own undefined terms that doesn't explain anything.

 No.1817582

>>1817571
>are you accusing me of not believing in matter because you dont know basic physics?
No, I’m accusing you of making bad examples I can easily discard. The rest is retreating from the first point raised.

 No.1817587

>>1817579
Lol I thought again, wait "why should photons move at all?"

The top results are this typo filled comment lol. I think that's why I never got into physics. They want to tell 100s of pages about the most esoteric nonsense. Then you ask the most badic questions and it is so hard to research.

 No.1817598

Another fun fact: the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. I don't know how this effects the time a photon experiences. In a vacuum no time, in a medium a smoll amount of time or something?

 No.1817604

>>1817571
stfu, pseud

 No.1817606

>>1817571
> "Materialism" today is only peddled by the same liberals you supposedly hate
Find me the liberal that uses historical materialism.

 No.1817624

>>1817579
>As I rememver the standard explanation, a photon doesn't experience time at all, I guess even tho a photon is on one place at one time or another, since at the speed of light time stops, no time for photons. Never got what that bullshit was supposed to mean.
All Time is motion, and all motion is determined by mass, since mass is energy, and energy is matter.
Photons have no mass so dont experience time, so all time is measured against the timelessness of light-speed.
Think of the speed of light as zero, and all mass as creating positive integers which give it time (relative to the speed of light - the more mass, the more energy, but the slower the time experienced. This is why large bodies move slower than smaller bodies (think of the states of matter like this in terms of density - gas moves sporadically, water moves slower, and solids dont move at all, relatively).
Think also about how hard it is to catch a fly, since we move in slow motion relative to them. Their shortness of life can also be seen as their private time operating faster than ours. Timelapses of the seasons can also give us reference to planetary time in this regard too.
>Now you are just inventing your own undefined terms that doesn't explain anything.
Well, the fabric of space technically isnt made of anything, its just the net that all matter rests on. So it cant be seen as an object, but the no-thing that relates everything to everything else.
>Another fun fact: the speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. I don't know how this effects the time a photon experiences. In a vacuum no time, in a medium a smoll amount of time or something
Photons interacting with objects give them visibility, so the contact slows down time to inter-relate the temporal image of a thing. So when you turn on your lightbulb, photons are bouncing on the walls to self-relate the walls to themself. This happens when light enters into the gravity or energy field an object creates.
Photons in a vacuum by comparison are obviously invisible since they arent interacting with anything

 No.1817629

>>1817582
>No, I’m accusing you of making bad examples I can easily discard.
What bad example? I just asked what matter was and you sperged out. You can still answer me if you like.
>>1817604
Cope, theorylet
>>1817606
Adam Smith's view of history is materialist in his meaning to parse out the laws of economics, and most liberals have proceeded as thus, except austrian thinkers who are rationalist as opposed to empiricist.
But im talking about the precept of a "materialist" discourse to begin with, which is bound up in metaphysics. "Materialism" isnt a method; youre just talking about science.
Thats why marx called himself a scientific socialist, not a dialectical materialist.

 No.1817636

>>1817624
Well all matter is an "excitation of quantum fields" anyways Frrom my reading of physics, they don't know shit and maybe it is imposdible to know shit. You can't determine what the outside of a building looks like from the inside and we as beings are permanently on the inside. There may be a lot of things that can never be experimentally proven from the inside and we will never know these things on the outside.

 No.1817637

>>1817629
> What bad example?
Now you’re just playing dumb.

 No.1817649

>>1817637
A "materialist" should have an idea of what matter is, no?
>>1817633
>>1817636
But you see how you are already positing an inside and outside? This is my criticism, that materialism seeks to make a discursive separation between the subject and object, or otherwise enclose the subject within the objective (like de sade for example).
My feeling from german idealism is that the objective has its own subjective gaze in man which orders reality to an instrumental reason, and marx follows from this - that in some way the world is an unfinished thing that has to be made by man.
I would also say that art is part of this transhistorical consciousness; that nature is not enough. Even in plato's dialog "protagoras" ir says that man was an artist before he was a political animal, and this shows from cave paintings.

 No.1817654

>>1817649
I am positing an inside an outside in relation to our cognitive perspective. If we belive thst consciousness is just a result of the atoms in or body, then that is a natural limitation of our perspective.

If matter exists within space or fields or time ir whatever, it nakes sense we can never encapsulate those things within our skulls.

 No.1817659

>>1817629
> But im talking about the precept of a "materialist" discourse to begin with
That’s not an excuse to carte blanche equivocate between the two. You know what you’re doing. It doesn’t matter what liberals believe is or isn’t materialism. Marx did use a materialist conception of history that Engels, after Marx’s death, termed historical materialism.
< This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; describing it in its action as the state, and to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. arise from it, and trace their origins and growth from that basis. Thus the whole thing can, of course, be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another).

 No.1817664

>>1817659
<dat orange text.
>everone needs to fulfill their biological needs
Yeh
>that explains everything
Wtf?

 No.1817727

>>1817654
>If matter exists within space or fields or time ir whatever, it nakes sense we can never encapsulate those things within our skulls
I would disagree, since science is already refining nature down to formulas and mechanical reproductions. Clearly our human understanding reflects "reality" in some way. Appealing to a "deeper" reality is just ideological nonsense.
>>1817659
>That’s not an excuse to carte blanche equivocate between the two
They come out of the same intellectual milieu so bear relation to one another. The "godlessness" of materialism is expressedly political and this has momentum in marx's work (though, i would say that the anarchists, as the first communists, bear most likeness to the republican revolutions, where marx and engels' work is a critique of the left's internal contradictions - i.e. the catching wind of socialists of all kinds described in the manifesto, including "reactionary socialists" which have seemingly lost relevance to the left's study today). So marx's materialism isnt the same as the liberals', but it is still encoded in his fervour for science and atheism.
>Marx did use a materialist conception of history that Engels, after Marx’s death, termed historical materialism.
Yes and its an inversion of hegel's idea of history, where marx sees motion made by the base of production as opposed to the superstructure. Of course i disagree and side more with hegel and orher idealists, but "materialism" here is still a strategic misnomer, like you identify, so why call it "materialism" to begin with if you arent being properly materialist?
But then you will say that you are a materialist, but not define what matter is, so its a strange circular relation of the "thing" you orient yourself around by never disclosing its properties.
I just take science's word for it, that matter is energy and so on. I'm not avoiding the topic. Why would self-professed materialists?
Again, "humans need food to live" isnt a novel insight, nor denied by anybody, and only makes sense within a concept of history as a whole. What real relevance does "historical materialism" have except a way to demystify relations of production in an atheistic contrivance?
i would otherwise argue that production has always been tied to religion, or ideology, because society is always a religious community - capitalism itself was spun out of the protestant work ethic. Again, marx's appraisal of bourgeois "self-interest" is his materialist ethos, which is what materialism is "in-itself"; godlessness as a sociality *and* corresponding mode of production

 No.1818075

>>1816854
Just heard Higgs died.

 No.1818166

>>1810024
damn that sheen guy in the webm is so faggy dressed like that and the way he talks with his hands… why dont modern catholics dress and talk like that? also, since when did god say freedom of press is an inalienable right?

 No.1818167

>>1818166
>also, since when did god say freedom of press is an inalienable right?

forget it anon, it's americanism

also I think everyone on TV was like that back then, every actor had theatrical training

 No.1818170

>>1818167
i really cannot believe americans to be so stupid that they believe god gave them "rights" just for them to be shat all over the majority of time anyway, they're not rights if they can so easily be taken away, and they're CETAINLY not god-given if the fucking omnipotent omniscient omnipresent creator of all that is or ever will be cannot even be bothered to defend them.

 No.1818221

File: 1712709126716-0.png (746.29 KB, 580x564, TFP Student Action.PNG)

File: 1712709126716-1.png (300.39 KB, 531x202, TFP Student Action2.PNG)

File: 1712709126716-2.png (250.64 KB, 334x293, TFP Student Action3.PNG)

>>1818166
>why dont modern catholics dress and talk like that?
They do.

 No.1818232

>>1818166
>>1818221
And they still talk like that

 No.1818250

>>1818221
>>1818232
cool, catholics calling the pope heretical never gets old, is this group for real why would "good christians" care about property bruh

 No.1820714

File: 1712915356504.jpg (70.72 KB, 468x630, he has rizzen 2.jpg)

>>1817727
They don't come out of the same intellectual milieu. The Liberals were of the opinion that those to the left of them held untenable positions. "Godlessness" itself isn't expressly a liberal concept anyway. The "Cult of the Supreme" being comes to mind.
>So marx's materialism isnt the same as the liberals'
Should have stopped there. Even reactionaries make attempts at "science" and liberals aren't expressly atheistic.
>Yes and its an inversion of hegel's idea of history
Then it follows that it's distinct from Hegel and that it's not truly a "misnomer". As Marx puts it, it's not centered in an idealistic view that measures periods of history in accordance to certain ideas. The practical overthrow of social relations is given precedent over mental criticism as a driver of history. Here he explains:
<My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

>I just take science's word for it

That's a more mechanical materialist outlook which is oddly more "atheistic" than the Marxist viewpoint. What constitutes matter within Marxism is typically more nuanced and is often tied to what is extended with some room given to things that defy categorization.
>"humans need food to live" isnt a novel insight
Good thing that's not all he is saying. You can shrug at "demystifying the relations of production", but seeing as "mystification" keeps happening with the right it's been incredibly useful.
>Again, marx's appraisal of bourgeois "self-interest" is his materialist ethos, which is what materialism is "in-itself"; godlessness as a sociality *and* corresponding mode of production
>self-interest
This seems like an issue you need to take up with Stirner rather than Marx. Marx is way more interested in class interest.

 No.1820723

>>1820714
>What constitutes matter within Marxism is typically more nuanced and is often tied to what is extended with some room given to things that defy categorization.
Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter
>Marx is way more interested in class interest.
The whole point of the manifesto is to say that the capitalists have revealed that history is a process of working out selfish desires, but that theyre now just conserving that power for themselves.
This is also marx's criticism of capital's internal contradictions, that it limits its own ability to circulate commodities in production by hoarding wealth in the capitalist class. Marx likes liberalism, but doesnt feel that its liberal enough.
Ive never read a passage from marx that talks about "class interest" as something which doesnt procure a political universalism. The point of the proletariat to marx is in overcoming their condition, not in identifying with it.

 No.1820732

>>1820723
V. I. Lenin
MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM
Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy

Chapter Three: The Theory of Knowledge of Dialectical Materialism and of Empirio-Criticism. III
1. What Is Matter? What Is Experience?

I did not readed this text, i will do it later, maybe it will help in explaining what is matter

>Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/three1.htm

 No.1820772

>hey guys here's a fun catchphrase idea I had
214 replies later
>achkshually, as Lenin clearly says in Imperialism and Emperio-Criticism…
lol, lmao, even. who says this site is dying?

Fascists need dogwhistles because they're inbred spastics who know their ideas are unpopular to sane people, so they dance around it with shit to conceal it but get off on triggering twitter users since that's half the reason why they joined the far right in the first place. (That, and they're childish losers who unironically think this le secret society movement shit is real). Most of them aren't any different from the libs who vote for the dems or the republicans, they just get off on backing a different team to own the libs/commies/[insert slur]. Most of them aren't going to do any meaningful activism to support whatever ideology they've picked from politics Kmart, and the ones that do aren't really going to be interested in dogwhistles.

Also:
>Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims
- Marx, the communist manifesto (inb4 "the tradition of dead generations")

but if you think it's a good idea, go for it

>>1810028
^^^ this. If you're only interested in dunking on the right, a hammer and sickle work just fine.

 No.1820782

File: 1712921677809.png (105.18 KB, 560x560, stirner corrupt file.png)


>>1820723
>Im still waiting for a marxist definition of matter
I just said, it's things that exhibit metaphysical extension with some room given to things that defy that categorization. You've still only appealed to a mechanical materialist perspective.
>le manifesto
In the manifesto itself it says that bourgeoise interest springs from the mode of production. That's class interest.
Marx sees liberalism as tied to capitalism. It's not that it isn't "liberal enough", but that it's inherently premised upon faulty ground. Even with social liberalism, its appeal to natural "rights" is flawed within a Marxist framework. Marx has a kind of inverted "Sittlichkeit" that he follows conversely.
>The point of the proletariat to marx is in overcoming their condition, not in identifying with it.
That's because it's not about identity. It's about the social relations of production as a force propelling interest, not "self-interest" by itself. That's more of a Stirnerism.

 No.1820794

>>1820772
>a hammer and sickle work just fine.
Damn, sometimes the simplest solution goes over your head. Should have thought of that.

 No.1820830

>>1820794
no worries m8

one of the easiest and most obvious strats leftists seem to ignore is that it is extraordinarily easy to get people onto your side if you just be normal. Talk to people about their lives (your social skills and ability to do this will improve over time - if you're a socially stunted autist like me or just have social anxiety, think about it like an RPG - you talk to random people your character doesn't know all the time, right? But you do it because you have to fulfil an objective. Think about it like that.) If you don't act like a total retard and just talk to people like they're people, same as you (and DON'T proselytise), you'll find it easier to talk to normies about socialism, even easier to recruit them to the cause if you maintain a friendship/relationship with them over the course of weeks, months, or years. Even if it's just a normal convo, sneaking in this or that Marxist perspective gets pretty easy once you get the hang of it (and don't act like a total autist when you do it)

theory related

 No.1820832

>>1820830
Chad and based

 No.1820850

>>1820732
Lenin just criticises the machists for being idealists, but also says they are secretly materialists. He never gives a full definition of what matter is except this:
>matter is that which, acting upon our sense-organs, produces sensation; matter is the objective reality given to us in sensation, and so forth.
I feel like this is typically tautological and fallaciously dichotomous; as if idealists dont believe in external sensation.
Lenin also talks about 'externality' in regards to matter which is pure rhetoric. But Lenin gracefully references marx's transhistorcism by saying that there are basically 2 trends in philosophy; materialism or idealism, and you must pick one. Althusser also had this opinion, where he saw science as revolutionary and philosophy as always being sophistical and masking ruling power.
So Lenin here is just being an empiricist talking about sense-certainty and whatnot. So a marxist materialism here clearly takes off from the liberal tradition's own codefication of science as a liberating tool. And should we be surprised considering marx and engels' project was "scientific socialism"?
>>1820782
> I just said, it's things that exhibit metaphysical extension with some room given to things that defy that categorization.
Word Salad
>You've still only appealed to a mechanical materialist perspective.
The newtonian universe is mechanical. The einsteinian universe is dialectical.
>It's not that it isn't "liberal enough", but that it's inherently premised upon faulty ground.
In anti-duhring engels (wuth oversight from marx) describes how the french revolution was potentially an event organised by pure reason, but its potentials were held back by class interests. Communism is supposed to just be the french revolution 2.0 that rights the wrongs.

 No.1820862

I didn't even know that "Christ is King" has become a dogwhistle. Christian nationalists ruin everything for everyone else. Same thing happened to groomer which used to be a word that had an actual meaning, before they destroyed it.

 No.1821048

>>1820830
Practical advice? In MY /leftypol/?!

 No.1821223

>>1820850
>Word Salad
Nah
>The newtonian universe is mechanical. The einsteinian universe is dialectical.
Mechanical Materialism isn't inherently tied to Newtonianism.
>In anti-duhring engels (wuth oversight from marx) describes how the french revolution was potentially an event organised by pure reason, but its potentials were held back by class interests.
The only mention of pure reason is here:
<For the bourgeois world, based upon the principles of these philosophers, is quite as irrational and unjust, and, therefore, finds its way to the dust-hole quite as readily as feudalism and all the earlier stages of society. If pure reason and justice have not, hitherto, ruled the world, this has been the case only because men have not rightly understood them. What was wanted was the individual man of genius, who has now arisen and who understands the truth. That he has now arisen, that the truth has now been clearly understood, is not an inevitable event, following of necessity in the chain of historical development, but a mere happy accident. He might just as well have been born 500 years earlier, and might then have spared humanity 500 years of error, strife, and suffering
It's describing the English, French, and first German
socialists. But this is not the scientific socialist outlook that Marx himself ascribes to.

 No.1821236

>>1820862
It's funny, the right will accuse everyone of being degenerate while degenerating the meaning of certain words.

 No.1821246

>>1821223
>Mechanical Materialism isn't inherently tied to Newtonianism.
Yes it is. Einstein calls his system "relativity" partly as a rhetoric against the *absolutist* newtonian concept, which was mechanical. Newtonian mechanics hasnt been disproven though, just sublated.
>It's describing the English, French, and first German
socialists. But this is not the scientific socialist outlook that Marx himself ascribes to.
So what is scientific socialism's relation to reason then? I just try to be historical. When marx talks about "the terror", he's being ironic by saying that he will use the liberal's own tactics against them; i.e. the liberals didnt go far enough.

 No.1821259

>>1810024
The daniel dennett outlook towards consciousness (as being illusory) has nothing to do with materialism, you've confused marx's dialectics of nature for british empiricism, lol. Consciousness is inherently in no way anathema to marxism nor is it reactionary. Rightoids who adopt consciousness do so out of mysticism, due to their pathological idealism, yet this is only but one model upon which to conceptualize. Besides, one can defend consciousness as extant and irreducible to the body = all, death = permanent cessation conception even WITHIN a physicalist framework. Like, there are literally books and papers doing exactly that.

 No.1821261

>>1821259
This being said, you really should come up with other dogwhistles and develop a more thorough understanding of marxism and its many internal deviations. We can already accomplish this by coopting populist rhetoric in a class-driven direction.

 No.1821275

>>1817649
I have a few honest questions.
1.) If you're genuinely of this belief: "My feeling from german idealism is that the objective has its own subjective gaze in man which orders reality to an instrumental reason, and marx follows from this - that in some way the world is an unfinished thing that has to be made by man.
I would also say that art is part of this transhistorical consciousness; that nature is not enough." why are you a Nazi? Yes, I know of Heidegger's ontology of being and its relation to the volksch and the zeitgeist blah blah blah, but Nazism is still fundamentally eugenicist, which necessarily relates itself to the reducibility of naturalism.
2.) Have you read Giovanni Gentile? Actually read him, not just the Wiki summary.

 No.1821290

>>1821275
Oh, I also wanted to add that although Zizek is seen as a 'meme philosopher', if you seriously read his written works, he directly addresses the insufficiency of reality unto itself from a neo-hegelian perspective vis a vis marx. Are you familiar with his 'Less than Nothing' and, if so, do you have any criticisms regarding it?

 No.1821293

>>1821275
>why are you a Nazi? Yes, I know of Heidegger's ontology of being and its relation to the volksch and the zeitgeist blah blah blah, but Nazism is still fundamentally eugenicist, which necessarily relates itself to the reducibility of naturalism.
Yes this is a great question.
I just call myself a fascist or nationalist or anticommunist socialist. Nazi is just the flag on this site, but i do hold my spooked right-wing respect for them. Im not an anti-nazi, but im also not german, so i have no place in the reich.
>gentile
No ive never read him, but ive seen people talk about him.
Im not really into "political philosophy" since it gets bogged down in "theory" which is inherently universalist, or "lawful" in its orientation. I much prefer metapolitics since it gets to the root of the dialectical dispute, which i see as a battle between the *qualitative* on the right and *quantitative* on the left (as per guenon's "reign of quantity").
Its not a perfect dichotomy, but the dialectic is always internally-contradictory anyway.
Many today dont believe in a left and right, but my orthodoxy is in seeing this meta-politics as an objective process in modernity (which is where both formally begin).

 No.1821296

>>1821293
Gentile is meta-political, to be fair. He has law oriented texts like the doctrine of fascism, but theory of mind as pure act, its untranslated sequel, and on education are all meta-political and metaphysical.

 No.1821309

>>1821290
With zizek books i read excerpts at a time
I have read bits of less than nothing and i like a part in his introduction, where (by *qualitative* distinction), he differentiates between "idiots" and "morons". An idiot is someone who takes codes literally, like someone responding to "how was your day?" seriously, while a moron is someone who takes the position of a complacent common sense. I myself am an idiot. I have an example, where once as a kid i missed my grandad's birthday, so my parents told me to write a card to send the next day - i included in the card an apology for missing his birthday (as an act of true belief in the social custom), and my parents scolded me for this. I always believed what i was told, like santa and the tooth fairy - but here's the hilarious contradiction. I was into science as a kid so i knew the speed of light and i was figuring out how fast santa would have to be to be able to move across the whole world and so on. So in my general intelligence i was being totally idiotic. Whereas i imagine a moron is someone like a cynic who says there is no santa, and the same type of guy to later compare God to the easter bunny.

I read another passage today where he was making a great point about this inefficiency of reality youre talking about, (or where "reality" is put in the place of ideology), where the "objective" person like carl sagan talks about the "pale blue dot" as a fact of a sort of lifeless gaze, the "grey" gaze of the Real, which might be analogous to the camera lense. Zizek's point is that in this "transcendence" is precisely the disregarding of the kantian *transcendental*, where a man imagines himself as inhabiting the "objective" but through the fantasy of the objective itself. So the objective here is a crudely human universe, since our judgements are clearly limited by our subjectivity.
But think of this in more ideological circumstances. In feudal times it was your ordained place to be at the bottom, or at the top. God or divinity here is the self-referential "objectivity" which we refer to. Today a bootstrap conservatives tells us "thats life" when we demand change, as of "life" here is something we can see *through* into the supposed impersonality of power. The greatest myth ofc is the "free market" which is self-regulating. I once heard a catholic say that the "invisible hand" is real and it is literally god. Here, "transcendence" is limited to the *transcendental*, or the objective is always subjective, and that would be the hegelian through-line.
But this is why i say that in the matrix analogy the blue pill is more true than the red pill. The red pill is the fantasy of ideology, while the blue pill gives us "the real world" for all intents and purposes. I reject Zizek's "third pill" here and stick with a brutal dualism. Cypher is the hero of the matrix.
i had an idea once for a rewriting of the matrix where it was humans who ORDERD the robots to build the matrix to create "the real world" for them after the ruins of a trashed earth. Neo finds this out in the last one and decides that the matrix is good, BUT still lets zion exist in its place of revolutionary fantasy

 No.1821312

>>1821296
I have the PDF
I'm just going through the collected works of plato atm and will get to him eventually. But in my hegelian way ofc, you should fake it til you make it. To normies maybe i namedrop gentile here and there and give the "good enough" truth of gentile's perspective.

 No.1821317

>>1821246
>Yes it is.
It's not. You can have Mechanical Materialist Einsteinist despite it being anti-Einstein. "I just take Science's word for it" is a mechanically materialist position due to it suffering from the same absolutizing of scientific laws. It's the attitude of scientism.

>So what is scientific socialism's relation to reason then?

You should read this:
<It is of this absolute method that Hegel speaks in these terms:
>>“Method is the absolute, unique, supreme, infinite force, which no object can resist; it is the tendency of reason to find itself again, to recognize itself in every object.” (Logic, Vol. III [p. 29])
<All things being reduced to a logical category, and every movement, every act of production, to method, it follows naturally that every aggregate of products and production, of objects and of movement, can be reduced to a form of applied metaphysics. What Hegel has done for religion, law, etc., M. Proudhon seeks to do for political economy.
<So what is this absolute method? The abstraction of movement. What is the abstraction of movement? Movement in abstract condition. What is movement in abstract condition? The purely logical formula of movement or the movement of pure reason. Wherein does the movement of pure reason consist? In posing itself, opposing itself, composing itself; in formulating itself as thesis, antithesis, synthesis; or, yet, in affirming itself, negating itself, and negating its negation.
<How does reason manage to affirm itself, to pose itself in a definite category? That is the business of reason itself and of its apologists.
<But once it has managed to pose itself as a thesis, this thesis, this thought, opposed to itself, splits up into two contradictory thoughts – the positive and the negative, the yes and no. The struggle between these two antagonistic elements comprised in the antithesis constitutes the dialectical movement. The yes becoming no, the no becoming yes, the yes becoming both yes and no, the no becoming both no and yes, the contraries balance, neutralize, paralyze each other. The fusion of these two contradictory thoughts constitutes a new thought, which is the synthesis of them. This thought splits up once again into two contradictory thoughts, which in turn fuse into a new synthesis. Of this travail is born a group of thoughts. This group of thoughts follows the same dialectic movement as the simple category, and has a contradictory group as antithesis. Of these two groups of thoughts is born a new group of thoughts, which is the antithesis of them.
<Just as from the dialectic movement of the simple categories is born the group, so from the dialectic movement of the groups is born the series, and from the dialectic movement of the series is born the entire system.
<Apply this method to the categories of political economy and you have the logic and metaphysics of political economy, or, in other words, you have the economic categories that everybody knows, translated into a little-known language which makes them look as if they had never blossomed forth in an intellect of pure reason; so much do these categories seem to engender one another, to be linked up and intertwined with one another by the very working of the dialectic movement. The reader must not get alarmed at these metaphysics with all their scaffolding of categories, groups, series, and systems. M. Proudhon, in spite of all the trouble he has taken to scale the heights of the system of contradictions, has never been able to raise himself above the first two rungs of simple thesis and antithesis; and even these he has mounted only twice, and on one of these two occasions he fell over backwards.
<Up to now we have expounded only the dialectics of Hegel. We shall see later how M. Proudhon has succeeded in reducing it to the meanest proportions. Thus, for Hegel, all that has happened and is still happening is only just what is happening in his own mind. Thus the philosophy of history is nothing but the history of philosophy, of his own philosophy. There is no longer a “history according to the order in time,” there is only “the sequence of ideas in the understanding.” He thinks he is constructing the world by the movement of thought, whereas he is merely reconstructing systematically and classifying by the absolute method of thoughts which are in the minds of all.

>he's being ironic by saying that he will use the liberal's own tactics against them

He wasn't being sardonic with the "terror" comment but terror predates and isn't unique to liberalism.

 No.1821326

>>1821317
>It's not. You can have Mechanical Materialist Einsteinist despite it being anti-Einstein. "I just take Science's word for it" is a mechanically materialist position due to it suffering from the same absolutizing of scientific laws. It's the attitude of scientism.
Well i was clearly bring flippant about my trust in science. But a critique of science is only immanent to a scientific understanding itself. The most "true" concept of matter still must come from science.
<orange text
Yeah, so he wants to out-reason the rationalists. Thats my point. Engels' quote about "Reason" is a sarcastic and rhetorical response to the enlightenment.
>He wasn't being sardonic with the "terror" comment but terror predates and isn't unique to liberalism.
Political terror refers directly to the revolutionary terror of the jacobins. Marx is clearly appropriating this aesthetic, the same way the anarchists and all communists did.

 No.1825829

>>1820850
>I feel like this is typically tautological
I think what you have written on Hegel so far should put you in the position to know that dialectical phenomenology(material or ideal) is tautological but it makes less assumptions then any other worldview and constitutes a closed loop completed system.

Hegel makes exactly one assumption, that being exists, Lenin makes one assumption, that external reality exists. Everything else logically follows from that.

>>1817727
> its an inversion of hegel's idea of history
Its actually not. All three of them are just being autists. Hegel read a lot of Christian mysticism but what he means by spirit is the natural world. Marx studied interpreters of Hegel that vulgarized this so he thought it was necessary to emphasize the material over the "ideal". Lenin was fighting the orthodox church so he went hard on atheism. All three of them repeatedly emphasize that dialectics means that both ideas and matter interpenetrate in flux they just differ on terminology and what is primary, which is actually irrelevant if you take what they are saying seriously because the Absolute contains both. Its only an inversion in the sense that subtraction is an inversion of addition but can equally be representative of a negative addition. The method is the same.

 No.1826698

>>1825829
>>1825829
>I think what you have written on Hegel so far should put you in the position to know that dialectical phenomenology(material or ideal) is tautological but it makes less assumptions then any other worldview and constitutes a closed loop completed system.
Yes, but "materialism" as a discourse brings direct antinomy to "idealism". Thats why i say materialism is an outdated idea, where someone like graham harman would agree, with his own "immaterialism", or someone like zizek (in his own kantianism) would implore that "materialism has nothing to do with matter".
If you want to know, a fundamental theory of matter begins in aristotle, who simply sees it as the vessel for "form", but all is held within "substance". When DiaMats talks about "matter", they mean "substance", but there is no "substantialism" as a doctrine, because, again, its tautological.
>Hegel makes exactly one assumption, that being exists, Lenin makes one assumption, that external reality exists. Everything else logically follows from that.
I wouldnt be so simplistic. Things are very different in their worldviews, and so the hubris of minimalist metaphysics doesnt get you closer to consellation with a common Reason.
>Hegel read a lot of Christian mysticism but what he means by spirit is the natural world.
Yes, and no. He didnt mean Nature as something for-itself (like muh black holes), but like Kant, saw Nature as normative to Reason.
>which is actually irrelevant if you take what they are saying seriously because the Absolute contains both
I think this is too dualistic, but i get your point. But it also matters in how you approach the world and how you derive your concepts.
>Its only an inversion in the sense that subtraction is an inversion of addition but can equally be representative of a negative addition. The method is the same.
Inversion is subtraction the same way 3 - 6 = -3
Hegel puts agency in the elites, while marx puts agency in the workers. In truth, both are right and both are wrong in different ways.
>Method
What method exactly? Historical analysis?
Sure, but the concepts differ here again. Hegel's point would be that utopia is impossible, but there is still the necessary struggle for civilisation and society abstractly (through the internal contradiction of social identity itself), while marx's point is that science can liberate man from his hardships.
In terms of the absolute, hegel views it as Reason manifested in the world toward itself, while marx sees it as the self-movement of labour toward its liberation.
I think temporally there is difference here again, where hegel's conception is cyclical (as per the dialectic), and marx's is linear. Both believe in progress, but from different angles.
I embrace marx as a *critic* of hegel, but that means he also subsists within his critique as such, the same way lenin is a critic of the marxism of his own time. This relates to hegel being a critic of Kant too, and so on.
I am not a hegelian dogmatist so i appreciate it, but you must also understand that there is no fundamental recociliation, otherwise you'll be like the cooks still trying to reconcile plato and aristotle.


Unique IPs: 23

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]