/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

waiter waiter!!! more esoteric marxism please!!!

https://danieltutt.com/2019/04/05/the-neoplatonist-pre-history-of-marxism/
Read this.

Didn't we have an exact LARPy thread like this like, a year ago?

>Is [philosophy] compatible with marxism?
The answer is always NO.

>>1845682
Neoplatonism is idealist it, it's goal was to understand the qualitative nature of the world it has no practical application unless you take Plato's writings on politics and pragmatic matters as gospel.

You can aufhebunga bunga whatever aspect of whatever guys you want into some new schizo amalgamation. None of that matters. What matters is what actually functions in practice. It could be an idea that comes from a storied and ancient philosophical tradition or an observation made by a janitor who was just passing by the philosophy lecture hall.

It's all just grist for the Dialectical and Historical Materialism mill.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

>>1846248
surprised to see christian-anon saying this considering how much neoplatonism influenced Christianity

>>1848453
Christianity isn't really platonist as such the church fathers borrowed the language for the sake of self expression in the context of paganism there is nothing like the trinity in greek philosophy or any other religion really except superficial similarities.

>>1846248
>Neoplatonism is idealist it, it's goal was to understand the qualitative nature of the world
By that definition all natural scientists and medics are idealists, who knew?
>it has no practical application unless you take Plato's writings on politics and pragmatic matters as gospel.
It's amazing to think how many marxists have gotten praxis wrong when all they had to was to take Marx's writings on politics and pragmatic matters as gospel.
>>1851337
>Christianity is christian, not platonist
>Christian trinity was first conceptualized by christians
Who could've guessed?

OP, Plato was proto-fash (see „Plato’s ‚Republic‘ and German Education‘‘, The Journal of Education, Vol. 77, No. 907, No. 910, No. 913; German version in: Otto Neurath Gesammelte philosophische und methodologische Schriften Band 2). Neo-Platonism is a very fuzzy term and I wouldn't use it.

>>1851400
Yes, Neoplatonists didn't believe they had any original contribution but upheld Plato's oral tradition, they even believed that Aristotle was in harmony with Plato, that is Aristotle's teaching being the exoteric dimension and Plato's the esoteric and that Plato's writings were quasi divinely inspired.

>>1851412
Aristotle is in fact mostly coherent with Plato except on the gnoseological arena. He completes platonism by giving account on how the forms in themselves are both cognized (Noeton and intellect) and expressed in the object (ousia-substance) and that way he bridges the gap between matter and essence that Plato couldn't fill (Plato was not as much dualistic as he's often defined) putting both under the same explainatory hierarchy. The real difference is Aristotle puts a higher value in empirics for the cognition of ideas while plato focuses on contemplation and dialectics (which is why he couldn't fill the gap between universal essences and their very manifestation in the objects nor could explain change properly). Aristotle's critique of the theory of ideas is already pre-figured in the Parmenides dialogue.

>>1846134
So mayerialism goes to the tradh, then?

>>1876992
Trash*

>>1846134
For typical marxism most of philosophy is alienated consciousness.

>>1876992
Marx's materialism is an anti-philosophical philosophy, llike humean realism or positivism.
Marxism excludes all which is unrelated to material conditions from it's analysis and explains them as consequences of material conditions.

>>1877041
So philosophy is not related to material reality?

>>1877046
To the extent on which a given philosophy tries to reach the absolute beyond empirics in any way, be it consciously or not, it explains being beyond material conditions and material conditions beyond themselves, and that goes beyond the reach of historical materialism. Marxists philosophers don't fall under that "metaphysician" category.

>>1877048
I think you just dislike philosophy in general.

>>1877052
It's quite the opposite, I love philosophy, and precisely because of that I try to bw conscious of the limits of marxism in contrast with philosophy in general. Marxism is quite reductionistic, when you start studying comparative religion for example you notice there's an element of economic relations and power structures to religious institutions yet that doesn't explain away the whole of religious phenomena, and the same for philosophy.

>>1877057
Selective idiot

>>1845682
I think OP means the politics of Plato mostly.
It's true Plato's Republic is often described as totalitarian.

>>1877138
>It's true Plato's Republic is often described as totalitarian
In an errorrenous way.

>>1851337
>here is nothing like the trinity in greek philosophy
The triad of the one, intellect, and soul was related to the holy trinity by Augustine as he was a convert from neoplatonic paganism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity

>>1877126
>>1877127
>>1877129
My assertion:
> To the extent on which a given philosophy tries to reach the absolute beyond empirics in any way, be it consciously or not, it explains being beyond material conditions and material conditions beyond themselves, and that goes beyond the reach of historical materialism.

> Marx's materialism is an anti-philosophical philosophy, llike humean realism or positivism.
Marxism excludes all which is unrelated to material conditions from it's analysis and explains them as consequences of material conditions.

>To the extent on which a given philosophy tries to reach the absolute beyond empirics in any way, be it consciously or not, it explains being beyond material conditions and material conditions beyond themselves, and that goes beyond the reach of historical materialism.

>Marxism is quite reductionistic, when you start studying comparative religion for example you notice there's an element of economic relations and power structures to religious institutions yet that doesn't explain away the whole of religious phenomena, and the same for philosophy.

Your argument if I'm summarizing and understanding correctly:

>Marxism takes into account all the products of consciousness and their effect on sociopolitical and economic order albeit it knows it's foundation lies in material conditions, therefore marxism is conscious of the sociopolitical character of non-material disciplines

I struggle to find the opposition between your position and mine regarding marxism. I did not say that marxism ignores non-material conditions althogether, but that it ultimately relates them and founds it's core within material conditions on a general basis. I did not imply that it is not the case that the social character of philosophy is precisely related to class struggle nor did I imply the same for religion, I said that the whole of marxist analysis does not give a complete account of them in my view, including it's account of non-material conditions. I precisely mentioned religion as marx & engels did give an account of both it's material an non-material moments. I believe it still incomplete, it could not be completeness is beyond the reach of historical materialism.

>>1877158
*It could not be a complete account of these phenomena, as completeness is beyond reach for historical materialism* I must add it's bc of gnoseological reasons, essentially it's scientific disposition. Sorry for the bad writing, I'm doing other things while answering.

>>1877158
TL;DR: is Marxism a philosophical position or not, you faggot?!

>>1877158
Lol

>>1877177
In the sense of the discipline it is (or rather it oversteps philosophy, political sciences, sociology and other social sciences, etc), but looking at it's OG doctrine it rejects philosophy in general, being in itself is beyond the reach of it's methods. I compared marxism to humean empiricism and later positivism because both were sort of "antiphilosophical philosophies".

>>1877183
uygha, we, who produce shit, think of you as excrement.

>>1877189
Both philosophies I used as comparison are to an extent self-defeating.

>>1877194
>read a book flag
… read Althusser's work on this question, you literal disgusting faggot!!!

>>1877200
The flag was there from posting on other thread long time ago. To what extent does althusser answer what I posit here, if I already essentially disagree with marxist gnoseology? Why don't you explain it yourself insteaf of behaving like an hysterically flaming fag?

>>1877207
>>1877200
if you want us to read it please post PDF

>>1877189
>who produce shit
I see that

>>1877207
Before answering I'd recommend you to take a few benzos.

Marx's positivism and crude atheism don't sit well with the "neoplatonic tradition"

>What about related ideas like Spinozism
Spinoza was just a crude budget Sufi who pulled ideas from Jewish mysticism without truly understanding them and combining them with incoherent mumbo jumbo. Spinoza was a house uyghur who sold out his own Jewish refugee community.

>>1877138
In a sense, Plato can be seen as a foundational figure for communism in a way. He was the first to try and lay out a rational model of a utopian society.

>>1846248
>[insert x] is idealist
This is literally the retarded Marxoid response to everything.
>see anything new
>not Marxism
>yup, must be idealist
Retards

>>1877254
Pre-Modernism is not welcome here.

Plato is the model of the bourgeois philosopher, complete with Jeffrey Epstein freak utopia. Spinoza is maybe the first modern dialectical political philosopher
>>1877057
>that doesn't explain away the whole of religious phenomena
That's like saying "no one knows why birds fly because it doesn't make sense with our vulgar Marxist economics that can only talk about walking around to find resources"
>>1877129
>philosophy is class war
so that's why that PMC loser Althussy did nothing but be an annoying wrecker taking people out of context

>>1877364
>Plato is the model of the bourgeois philosopher,
uh… isnt this anachronistic considering he lived well before the birth of capitalism?

>>1877396
>uh… isnt this anachronistic considering he lived well before the birth of capitalism?
Great classes are forever.

>>1851337
there wasn't anything like the trinity in judaism either. it's almost like Christianity is a syncretism of Neoplatonism, Judaism, Zorastrianism, stoicism, and other philosophies/traditions

>>1877364
>That's like saying "no one knows why birds fly because it doesn't make sense with our vulgar Marxist economics that can only talk about walking around to find resources"

Given that for marxism most philosophical doctrines and religious experiences come down to alienation of consciousness from it's real conditions, it would rather be like;

<Bird's flight is due to the fact that birds feel alienated from the ground and what it entails for their productive relations.

And that is not a complete account of the flying birds phenomena.

>>1877409

The trinity is in the gospels, read them, it's quite clear. Neoplatonists have a triune abstract absolute yet some branches of hinduism do have a triune god too. Both have their differences from the trinity.

>>1877364
>PMC loser Althussy
The CIA actually monitored him because of his support of the USSR and his influence, you loser.

>>1877645
>the CIA
Only fascists care about conspiracy theories and retarded mystifications of the shadow side of state power.
>loser
Or competition.

Didn't think this reply was worth it's own thread, but on a similar topic to marxism+neoplatonism, I thought "what about anarchism+thelema?"
All I really want to present on this is liber oz (https://sacred-texts.com/oto/lib77.htm)

Liber LXXVII
"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." –AL. I. 40

"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." –AL. I. 42-3

"Every man and every woman is a star." –AL. I. 3

There is no god but man.
1. Man has the right to live by his own law–
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.
2. Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth.
3. Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
4. Man has the right to love as he will:–
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." –AL. I. 51
5. Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." –AL. II. 58
"Love is the law, love under will." –AL. I. 57

>>1877672
>"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." –AL. I. 40
Religious liars always forget the following part:
>Love is the Law, Love under Will.
It's a mystification of Lutheran values, "servanthood under love" but not servantly. That's good. Submissives aren't proletarian. They're lumpen.

>>1877685
As fo ten years ago, the CIA was asking for less than the global surveillance system asked for. You should stop using boomer mystical shorthand as if it makes you cool.
https://cryptome.org/2013/08/spy-budget-fy13.pdf

>>1877672
Thelema is a fucking joke. Crowley was a total fraud. This is proven already.

>>1878147
All religionists are frauds. This is proven already.

>>1877599
>The trinity is in the gospels
Read them. It's not. Trinity is a false pagan concept that was grafted onto christianity after the original apostles died.
But before we go down this rabbit hole, we first need to agree what trinity is and is not.

>>1878384
It’s actually in other places too.

John 1:1-3, 14: This passage portrays Jesus (the Word) as co-existent and equal with God.
John 8:58: Jesus uses a name for God (YHWH - "I am") to describe himself, hinting at his divine nature.
John 10:30: Jesus directly claims oneness with the Father.
Philippians 2:5-6: This suggests Jesus was divine but chose not to flaunt it.
Colossians 1:15-17: Describes Jesus as pre-eminent and instrumental in creation, qualities often ascribed to God.
Isaiah 40:3: Here, the coming Messiah is referred to as God.
Psalm 110:1: This can be seen as prophesying the Messiah's dual nature as human and divine.
Proverbs 30:4: This verse, though some debate its interpretation, suggests the Son's closeness and equality with God the Father.
Matthew 28:19: The Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit are mentioned together in a baptismal formula.
Mark 1:9-11: This portrays the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all present at Jesus' baptism.
2 Corinthians 13:14: Another instance where all three are mentioned together in a blessing.
Acts 5:3-4: Equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God, implying their oneness.
Genesis 1:26: The plural "us" is used when referring to God in creation, hinting at a multiplicity within the Godhead.
John 5:18: Jesus claims authority to forgive sins, something traditionally seen as a divine prerogative.
Hebrews 1:3: Describes Jesus with characteristics exclusive to God.
John 14:10-11: Jesus points to his miracles as evidence of his oneness with the Father.
Isaiah 9:6: This prophecy assigns multiple divine titles to the Messiah.
Hebrews 1:6: The act of worshipping Jesus is seen as confirmation of his divinity, as worship is due only to God.
John 16:13-14: Describes the Holy Spirit's role as distinct from the Father and Son, yet working in concert with them.
1 John 5:7: Though debated in interpretation, this verse is seen by some as hinting at the Trinity.
Matthew 5:17-18: Jesus claiming authority to interpret and even supersede the Law, a power traditionally reserved for God.
Revelation 19:13: Jesus is identified with a title that signifies both divine power and communication.
Colossians 2:9: Explicitly states the fullness of God resides in Jesus.

>>1877745
>>1877672
>Love is the Law, Love under Will.
First time I've seen this part even after reading plenty of popular sources on Crowley and his many, many associates. It does change things somewhat.
<t. focus on the power politics, not the mysticism, occultism or religions

>>1878652
>But before we go down this rabbit hole, we first need to agree what trinity is and is not.
Why did you ignore this condition and immediately begin dishing out scriptures? We must first understand what kind of "trinity" we are talking about.
If trinity is a flimsy concept that can be molded to anything you want, it is meaningless.
<Look at shield of trinity
Let us look at the logic of this:
>Father = God, Son = God, Holy Spirit = God
but:
>Father =/= Son, Father =/= Holy Spirit, Son =/= Holy Spirit
Now, let us put them on one line each and remove commas:
>Father = Son = Holy Spirit = God
>Father =/= Son =/= Holy Spirit =/= God
In other words, it's nonsense. The only way to resolve this, is to add a relationship hierarchy, where an abstraction is higher than an instance (such as vehicles and trains, cars and planes)
But if one were to do that, then the concept of "God" loses meaning and can safely be restructured to mean "Supernatural" which is meaningless (and a priori true since satan is also described as "god")
You can also double down and then say that infact Father = Son = Holy Spirit = God and then play around with it when it suits the rhetoric (like supply and demand curves)
For the sake of logic, I will show why both approaches either debunk the trinity, make it meaningless (return to monotheism) or imply polytheism (unscriptural)
<Will use modern english translations as well as original greek
>John 1:1-3, 14 - In the beginning […] word was with God […] word was (a) God/god
Yahweh has no beginning, "word was with" already applies distinction between the Father (Yahweh) and the Son (Jesus)
The hangup is always with Word was God. In greek, the word θεὸς has a different meaning than today "God".
You can apply it to satan for example in 2 Corinthians 4:4 (ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος - the god of this world (relevant to 1 John 5:19 & Ephesians 2:2))
Therefore, by the structure of the verse, Jesus is not "The God" of the old testament and hence, not a Trinity.
Verse 14 says the Word became flesh and resided with humans. Again not a verse supporting trinity because it further states Son of the Father, applying distinction.
>John 8:58 - Before Abraham was I am
Read John 8:54 to see Jesus again applying distinction and even subordination to his Father.
You said he uses name for Yahweh. "I am" is not God's name. Yahweh or Jehovah mean "Causes to become" (Exodus 3:14).
And the greek word here εἰμι is used in John 14:9 with the same conjunction, however that verse is translated as "have been". Besides we already agreed Jesus is of supernatural origin so this is not a contradiction
>John 10:30 - Father and I are one
Read John 10:38 and John 17:11 and John 17:21
The greek term here ἐν is in neuter gender implying oneness as a concept. He literally says that Christians ought to be one as he and Yahweh are one.
Are all Christians the same person? No, so this is not the trinity. This is like the saying, "The Party and the People are one" https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/172907
<As trinity doctrine implies, Jesus was co-equal at creation. Side point, but did you notice how Jesus is praying to Yahweh? Why would he pray to someone that is Co-equal to him?
>Philippians 2:5-6
>A point against trinity (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, - who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped)
This is nothing about flaunting, it says right here that he DID NOT CONSIDER HIMSELF EQUAL. This is a contradiction to the coequalness of Jesus and Yahweh.
If "form of God" causes hangup, please go back to the previous elaboration of "Theos" in greek and read Philippians 2:9-11 to see further superiority of the Father over Jesus.
>Colossians 1:15-17 - Image of God, Firstborn of All creation
It says "image" or "likeness". Not the thing itself. Not to mention he had a beginning, as he is called Firstborn of all creation, for him and through him things were made.
>Isaiah 40:3 - After paying off guilt Jerusalem will have a renewed relationship with Yahweh.
How do prophecies of the messiah as a distinct and subordinate being imply he is Yahweh?
>Psalms 110:1 - Sit at my right hand
There is no issue with Jesus being a supernatural being and also becoming human, not an indicator of a trinity.
>Proverbs 30:4 - What is his name and the name of his son?
Seems like they are different people with the Father having primacy. But I agree the wording here and in Isaiah 44:24 are confusing since they both Imply God has a son and doesn't.
If you look for the trinity in the old testament, you will then come to believe that Yahweh is Jesus and then the new testament won't make sense.
>Matthew 28:19 - Baptize in the name of the father, son and holy spirit
<The scripture that started it all kek
Yes, three are presented in one sentence, but nothing is stated of their nature and relationship to one another. As to the "name" issue, the holy spirit does not have a proper name. Only the Father and Son have.
See Matthew 10:41 where the same term ὄνομα is used to refer "on account of" (He who receives a prophet in THE NAME of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward - ὁ δεχόμενος προφήτην εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου μισθὸν προφήτου λήμψετα)
>Mark 1:9-11 - You are my son, the beloved, I have approved you
Where did you get the trinity from this? It literally says that after Jesus was imbued with Holy Spirit (the spirit is not a person) The Father said to Jesus, you are my Son.
>2 Corinthians 13:14 - Grace of Jesus, Love of God, Sharing of Spirit be with you
A homeage to Matthew 28:19 + Distinctness and separation are implied. Jesus being graceful for dying for our sins, God being love (1 John 4:8) and holy spirit being a gift (thing) given to Christians. Not a trinity.
>Acts 5:3-4 - Ananias & Sapphira
You can lie to God and you can lie to the Holy Spirit without them being the same thing. You can lie to God and to your spouse, are they the same thing?
>Genesis 1:26 - Let us make man in our image
<And Stalin said: Let us take Berlin! Trinitarian: Stalin must be a plural!
>John 5:18 - Jews accuse Jesus of being equal to Yahweh
Jesus then proceeds to debunk the Jews in verses 19 to 24 stating that a superior being (Yahweh) gave him great authority, further highlighting his power is not his but his Father's.
>Hebrews 1:3 - Jesus reflection of God's Glory, but then sits at his right hand
He also is now superior to the angels. But he is still subordinate to Yahweh. No one is denying the special nature of Jesus, but this nature is distinct and subordinate to his Father.
>John 14:10-11 - Father is One in Me
<See explanation for John 10:30 as the same term ἐν is used to denote oneness and this oneness is a unity of harmony not of identity.
>Isaiah 9:6 - Child born to us will be called Prince of Peace
But it says Mighty God, not Almighty God. I agree calling a child that was born "Eternal Father" is strange, but if you look at the original hebrew, it's more like "Father of the Future".
And the term Mighty God (al gbur) is repeated in Ezekiel in plural (ali gburim) when talking about "warriors from shaul". Not the trinity.
>Hebrews 1:6 - God tells angels to proskynes to Jesus
So God is superior to Jesus and gives instructions to his angels. Plus, (προσεκύνουν) proskynes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proskynesis has multiple meanings. Not only "as worship" but also as respect to authority.
Not to mention that "worship" went beyond "bowing down" and implied the totality of religious activity towards something. Why did Jesus not rebuke his disciples in Matthew 14:33 as he said in Luke 4:8?
Also why is Mark 15:19 translated as "paid homage to" when the same word is liberally translated as "worshipped" everywhere else? So it turns out Jesus' executioners were mockingly "worshipping" him?
<Does that mean when Christians proskyned to icons, they were equal to God?
>John 16:13-14: Describes the Holy Spirit's role as distinct from the Father and Son, yet working in concert with them.
You just debunked the trinity my comrade. Congrats.
>1 John 5:7
The addition of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in this verse is called the Johannine Comma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma and was entirely made up in the middle ages.
<Strange how most of the scriptures "supporting" trinity come from the Book/Letters of John which where the last books of the Bible written (late 90's AD), when Gnostics/Pagans corrupted Christianity. (Matthew 13:25)
>Matthew 5:17-18 - I came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill
Jesus came to fulfill the law. Nothing indicating the trinity.
>Revelation 19:13 - He is called the Word of God
Yes, we agreed on that in John 1:1. No contradiction
>Colossians 2:9 - In Jesus divinity dwells
Similar to the explanation for theos in this case Θεότητος or "of divine nature". Yes, and who caused that? Colossians tells us The Father caused Jesus to have that. Also we agreed to the supernatural nature of Jesus.
<Strange how Jesus calls his followers "Disciples" and not "Worshippers".

tl;dr the trinity is a false doctrine

>>1877254
>Marx's positivism and crude atheism
what illiterate leftypol shitposting does to a MFer.

it's kind of funny that so called "neo" platonism is over 2000 years old and helped form Christianity through its syncretism with 2nd temple Judaism.