Both /pol/ and /leftypol/ are the same exact fucking thing, same bullshit, both of you people are clearly manifestations of yaldabaothic energies and it’s clear that neither of you really give a shit about anyone
>>2483875
That’s not what I am complaining about concerning leftypol
> clearly manifestations of yaldabaothic
Idek what that is but sounds made up
I said this before and I'll say it again, imageboards are imageboards and they will always attract the lonely alienated white male nerd demographic, doesn't matter what you call the site.
>>2483882You are still a disgrace to the armchair flag
>>2483873>yaldabothGet this Homestuck shit out of here
>>2483987I feel sad for the demiurge in the photo, but the guy really doesn't bother talking to us or visibly appearing to us so I don't feel bad for him. And truly the difference in Christianity vs. Ancient Judaism is so stark, that it's the reason why Jews thought it was a roman trick and Pagans thought it was a jewish trick. There are so many differences between the two on a conceptual level that the gnostic interpretation actually makes sense even though Jesus himself took legitimacy from the old testament and Christianity would be meaningless without the judaic base.
Also, where on leftypol do we have an /x/ board where we can talk about achieving gnosis? kek
>>2483989>>2483987>>2484000Whoever designed these images clearly did not read Bordiga
>>2484014>Also, where on leftypol do we have an /x/ board where we can talk about achieving gnosis? keklook gnosis is easy. it's actually doing something after achieving it that's hard
Crazy how the alt right is coopting gnosticism now
a formerly obscure pacificistic vegan anti-natalist occult movement that claims material reality is a torturous evil hellscape we must escape and the abrahamic god is evil or incompetent
As someone who was raised in a hardcore christian environment and did a lot of acid and was mentally unstable, it too was my cope during my early 20s until I actually got a job, went outside, got into politics, sorted my life out.
no idea why nazis love it so much now. maybe because they can tie it into their general misanthropy and link animosity towards the abrahamic god into broader anti-semitism?
look I get it's easy to blame everything bad on the cosmos and believe by simply meditating or burning incense you can fix your life. I get it's all very aesthetic.
But you know ultimately it's a cope. It's a lie. Give it up before it gives you schizophrenia and you can't get out of it, advice from someone who's been there and escaped the idealist pit of misery, blame shifting, lack of acceptance of circumstances, and waiting to be saved.
>>2484488I'm surprised it wasnt coopted earlier since it's so prevalent in anime and video games
heads up that gnosticism didn't exist
>>2484488this. the philosophers have only interpreted the world. the point is to change it.
>>2484513yeah it's a modern scholarly term that encompasses several competing branches of early christianity that only had a few vague characteristics in common. still doesn't stop people from being "gnostics" the same way people try to be "pagan"
>>2483873>up 12+ hourswhat teh fuck is wrong with our faggot jannies?
>>2484729there's 20+ usapol threads clogging the catalog. who gives a fuck about this gnostic bait
>>2484729btw i know for a fact that mods log on maybe once every day or so because if a bunch of bait gets reported in a general thread that's already full, they'll come in and delete it after a new version of that thread has been made, making it no longer full, and able to be bumped again
>>2484658and it's also something that is barely used anymore in scholarly literature, because it's not even useful as a term for that
>>2484488>I actually got a job, went outside, got into politics, sorted my life out. Good for you, anon.
>>2483987>the God of the old testament is basically an evil beingDialectically evil, like the Matrix where the first simulation world which too perfect so that "humans rejected it as inauthentic"
>>2484513>gnosticism didn't exist"no one in history has ever rejected our bourgeois Judeo-Christian death cult" We found one in the wild, folks!
>>2484488>until I actually got a job, went outside, got into politics, sorted my life out. Every NPC in the Matrix can be instantly activated to become agents who attempt to destroy any humans who seek an alternative to 1990s style Zionist finance imperialism
>formerly obscureit was erased from history by the pedo priest class who ordered it to be censored and its followers burnt alive (totally different than Zionist behavior today!).
>no idea why nazis love it so much nowFascism is reactionary, they're impressed by any vague pagan Joe Rogan lifestyle aesthetic that can be used as a counter-hegemonic spirituality
>>2484488Acid fixed your life
>>2485005>"no one in history has ever rejected our bourgeois Judeo-Christian death cult" We found one in the wild, folks!gnosticism didn't exist as a specific sect. there were various sects with ideas scholars would later collectively term "gnostic" but none of them called themselves "the gnostics" and they were all competing versions of early christianity which, guess what, was a "judeo-christian death cult" whether it came in the "gnostic" flavor or not.
>>2483873
>yaldabaothic energiesmagic is not real and neither is any form of spiritual bs likes gods,demons,other realms,ritual magick,"energies",spirits,ghosts or any woowoo crap like that. there is physical reality independent of the mind and thats it.
>>2485174But what if I know for a fact that you are completely wrong. If these things do exist, and if they do interact with material life, are they not material? What if by trying to espace the material, or denying the spiritual, we work to unite heaven and earth and make the material spiritual?
>>2485165>gnosticism didn't exist as a specific sect. there were various sects with ideas scholars would later collectively term "gnostic" but none of them called themselves "the gnostics" and they were all competing versions of early christianity which, guess what, was a "judeo-christian death cult" whether it came in the "gnostic" flavor or not.All true. But you could make a similar argument for the pre-Socratic philosophers. They (obviously) didn't call themselves pre-Socratic philosophers. But in hindsight, despite individual differences, to historians of ideas they appear to be a distinct type of thinker.
I guess the difference is you can put "gnostic" on the British census form under religion. You can't put "pre-Socratic philosopher."
>>2483873, yes, water is wet, fire is hot, the sky is blue, this is /leftypol/, shitposters are toxic, how is this news?, are you shocked that leftist subreddits are a bunch of screeching idiots as well?
Religions that reject the material world are funny because they wouldn't still be around if their adherents really did follow the teachings of escaping to an ideal world.
>>2485174 well said comrade
>>2483873I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge. I hate the demiurge.
>>2483873If you look at the threads it's almost like 4chan
>>2484967i think you mixed those up
>>2483873What the fuck is a yaldabaoth and why should I care
>>2483882I mean yes and no.
You say this in a degrading way. It's total liberal projection and bullshit.
>Y'all dont care about anything>-haha you're a white lonely male, fucking kill yourself groyper Chud. Or better yet, Pokemon go to the polls and keep working for Jews who hate youMind you i mean Jews in the abstract sense not like literally the Jews. I'm not just saying the bourgeoisie because I'm not a fucking larper.
What i am is sick and tired of normies acting like they have the moral high ground. I was literally talking to my gf earlier, yes my actual gf,that if i had a better upbringing, a better life, i would've liked to be one of the scientists working over at cern bashing particles together at near light speed unlocking new minerals just to dunk on midwits who think they know everything.
That's a completely reasonable desire. I know there's always gonna be dumb asses who think cern is a laser causing time loops throwing us into alternate realities, but that's preferable to libs who just want an excuse to say God isn't real. We get it, you hated church.
I definitely wouldn't want to be an engineer under capitalism. Getting into college debt i can't worm my way out of via bad credit, just to be beholden to some man child like Elon Musk who never built a God damn thing in his life who wants flavor town flames on his rocket so it looks cool and it blows up before we're even done.
It is extremely difficult to not just be nihilistic and post utter coal nonsense constantly to ease the pain of interacting with the libshit.
You can't even maintain a good faith argument over something mundane. I could bring up something like Yugioh and what a garbage game it is mechanics wise to the point it has to be intentional. Detailing how power creep is an excuse and there's a vast difference between newer cards are better than older cards, vs sixteen nonsense paragraphs, facilitating doing sixteen actions, just to end on the same auto win board states every time and we all know what's going to transpire but we gotta do this gay and painful ritual anyway. And people, like you, hit me with
>skill issue>well they're in it to make money, not please you>play something else if you don't like itThan you expect me to fucking care like when one of your slightly more right of center libshits dies. Kirk was far less annoying than you. Like i do kinds wonder how he would've reacted to this very post. But he'd probably say some dumb shit too that pisses me off.
But somehow it's my responsibility to be the bigger man.
No motherfucker. I'm going to be mean, petty, reactionary, and demand you pay me to act civilized and i don't care if you think I'm being social democrat armchair leftist about it.
>>2489342Lenin was wrong. The end.
The demiurge rapes me every night
>>2484967Word games are shit and if you think they ONLY changed economics to make Marxism unattractive, then you are naive. They changed philosophy and a lot of other disciplines to obfuscate Marxism. Marxism is gnosticism and will pierce through the darkness no matter how much they try to smoke it up.
>>2489342TRUE.
>>2490423Lmao what a retard.
>>2490434Why? You cannot fathom your prophet being wrong?
>>2490512>your prophetwe don't have those. you do.
>>2490664What if the only thing that exists is illusion? Then both can be true, it's dialectical you see…
>>2483873There is no gnosticism in socialist rhetoric or thought because there is no submission to a higher power in which morality and metaphysics in drawn from.
<To break it down:/pol/ is a board of suffering individuals who gave up on meaning and waddle in nihlism or yearn for a father figure in the face of either the state or gnosticsm. /pol/ posts are either nuerotic or hysterical, or schizophrenic.
/leftypol/ does not worship marx, hegel and other material dialectics like a father, nor an energy. There is a consciousness when it comes to leftypol because you have actual discussion and answers.
>>2490739>/leftypol/ does not worship marx, hegel and other material dialectics like a fatherI agree they shouldnt, but there is no shortage of people on this site who absolutely have that kind of psychological relationship to historical leftist figures.
All this academic banter is just pseudointellectual masturbation and absolutely nothing interesting or worthwhile in the domain of academics is ever going to come from the brain of some barely-educated shithead on a fucking anonymous imageboard.
>>2490791they are outnumbered by the "everyone who reads something i dont like is a worshipper" crowd
>>2490739Marx didn’t invent socialism, Marxism isn’t the only socialism out there, Marxism isn’t the only far-left socialism in existence. I know what you are doing, engaging in a war of words by using language to imply that rival socialists don’t exist. Bolshevik vs Menshevik level scheming. Just because I subscribe to socialism as an economic principle does not mean you own my soul.
>>2490869More often than not those are the same people, projecting their own attitudes on others.
>>2489342Was this decision out of a genuine interest in socialism and liberation of the people, or was it as a result of the personal ptsd trauma of his father’s death from a brain haemorrhage (the event that drove him to atheism) which he then projected unto socialism and then the political system which he over saw?
Seems like instead of ‘liberating’ people from religion, it was really all about projecting his inner personal issues
>>2483873<yaldabaothic energiesThis is why spiritualist hippies and other freaks need to be mass graved without option of re-education.
>>2491120>muh soulnot real
>>2491146>pop psychology as historical analysislmao
>>2491120>i reject your materialist scientific socialism and wish to RETVRN to idealist utopian socialism of fourier, with added gnosticismok but that's stupid and reactionary
>>2490667yeah i'm familiar with the concept of maya, it's not useful in day to day life
>>2491157Very liberating, let’s murder even the proletariat if they have different views on spirituality than us! We, men from a middle-class background, are surely liberating the workers! Such saviours we are!
>>2491175I am not saying we should return to anything, only that socialism should be always in evolution, that the status quo of what socialism should be should always be in question, and I don’t think socialism should ever have a static consensus but it should be ever self-questioning
>>2491177>>2491157the funny thing is you just need good public education systems and no one has to die. your children and there children will go on to be well educated well read well vaccinated atheists and go to the universalizing publicly owned school system where everyone gets the exact same treatment.
>>2491188You treat people like archetypes and boogeymen in your head, notice how you are so brainwashed by your dogmatic thinking that you think that I am automatically an anti-vaxxer for having any spiritual views at all. What do you also think, that I am some sort of anti-feminist monarchist despite being here?
>>2483873>yaldabaothic What about deeznutsaothic, tho? Also, those gnostics must have been under some craaaaaaaaazy drug to come up with a lion-headed worm as a god, ffs.
>>2491198I threw the vaccination shit as a lil test anyways tf does saying public education causes populations to become more secular overtime gotta do with muh boogeyman stereotypes lol. Literally just a commonly known fact it’s why homeschool parenting exists, keep ‘em trapped in a religious information bubble.
>>2490659No I don't. (You) have leaders who cannot make mistakes or else your whole worldview comes crashing down. In this case you refuse to acknowledge that Lenin was wrong about religion. Lunacharsky was correct. No atheist project in the USSR lasted organically and all of them were shut down except for academic courses as they were part of the curriculum and were more like a chore. As funny as it is, the end result of communist atheist projects was a policy of "live and let live". Which is correct. Although a more correct version would be for communists to create their own religion which is difficult since religion needs a supernatural element for it to attract believers. Even gnosticism while rejecting the religions it came from, acknowledges the supernatural. People want things beyond, it's only natural.
>>2491177<schizophrenic weirdo living in his moms basement<proletarianPick one.
>>2491223They didn't really, trust me bro. The serpent is a really big thing in all these mystery schools.
It goes back to ancient egypt man.
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11221https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/tracing-origins-serpent-cult-002393Shout out to Kurp Metzger who got me into this shit. It truly is fascinating.
>>2484488Teach me your ways anon senpai
>>2491223yaldaboth deez nuts
>>2484967>>In philosophy:<the notion that ideas are merely mental constructs used to describe a real physical world outside the mind is called idealismIncorrect
>>2485174>physical reality independent of the mind Hmmm
>>2490664Marxism = inverted hegelianism
Marxism = inverted gnosticism
IE We must liberate our bodies (souls) from the false consciousness (lures) created by capitalism (le demiurge) in order to achieve socialism (return to the pleroma)
>>2509147>IE We must liberate our bodies (souls) from the false consciousness (lures) created by capitalism (le demiurge) in order to achieve socialism (return to the pleroma)parallelomania. goatse'd analogy.
>>2509150Nick Land agrees with me in this respect lad and that's good enough for me
>>2509153>nick landWhat are you a deleuze guattari tiqqun reading rhizomatic accelerationist trccn?
>>2510671A nomadic warmachine nomad, perhaps?
>>2509138good points but mostly wrong
>>2489367No. Read.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
>Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, and that the material world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being >>2510731>>2484967><the notion that ideas are merely mental constructs used to describe a real physical world outside the mind is called idealism?
>>2510731neither matter nor consciousness have real or independent existence
>>2510913In philosophy. Not in Marxism. read.
>>2511076there is nothing that makes anything innately what it is to suggest a separation between things as real rather than constructed would mean the person presenting the difference would have to show what feature is the defining one
but nothing has a defining feature we can not claim anything is "material" or "consciousness" even suggesting the objectivity of reality itself presuposes the real existance or independent existance of many things first
>>2511073>ideas are merely mental constructs>a real physical world outside the mind>idealismi dont think that is correct, pretty sure that is realism, and realism can be both idealist or materialist. realism is idealist from a marxist perspective though.
the more 'confusing' one(not really) is that what is commonly called materialism in philosophy is often physicalism which is a type of idealism
the one that actually is a bit confusing is that hegels idealism is actually materialism. but if you actually understand how dialectics its not
>>2511467>physicalism which is a type of idealism Can you explain this?
>>2510731>that matter, nature, being, is an objective reality existing outside and independent of our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of beingBut matter itself is not fundamental, it emerges from the collective interactions of fundamental particles and forces. The organic matter of our brain is no more or less real than the words and thoughts that emerge from it.
>>2511589Another one fell for the Copenhagen psyop
Marxist materialism was based on an archaic understanding of matter. All Karl Marx, or anyone else in the world in the 19th century, knew about matter was that it was a bunch of tiny balls of various elements all smashed together into a solid mass. They thought the atom was the fundamental indivisible particle, it wasn't until years layer that scientists discovered electrons and protons and neutrons and the fundamental forces and quantum mechanics and all these other things that prove that matter is not a bunch of balls stuck together, it's not a thing at all - it's zillions and zillions of quantum fluctuations all interacting with each other in random probabilistic ways and when you touch a solid object it only feels solid because of the fundamental electric forces repelling each other - the solidity is just an illusion, it's an emergent macroscopic property. We don't live in a world of billiard balls bouncing off of each other, we live in a world of infinitely layered recursive emergent systems. This isn't metaphysics or theology, this is proven science. The question now is, how does Marx fit in with this new 21st century understanding of reality?
>>2511594More Copenhagen metaphysics
i confess i get a lil yaldabaothic wid it
>>2511593>>2511596There is no God, and he plays dice.
>>2511598The Copenhagen cope is prrcisely belief in a pantheistic idiot-god, basically the nietzschean account of "nature", which is just the liberal historical nihilism reified.
>>2511610>The Copenhagen cope is prrcisely belief in a pantheistic idiot-god, basically the nietzschean account of "nature", which is just the liberal historical nihilism reified.No, it's just accepting the fact that there are limits to human knowledge and that reality is fundamentally indeterministic and the world does not necessarily have to align with our beliefs and ambitions. It's a hard pill to swallow, but accepting unpleasant truths is what science is all about. Science isn't about what you want, it's about what is.
You're the one making the logical leap that if the fundamental nature of the universe being chaotic is equivalent to living in a universe ruled by a mad idiot god, you're the one anthropomorphizing the world and making the assumption that the universe must have some universal clearly defined order or meaning.
>>2511617Well except that youre just taking the Copenhagen interpretation's metaphysical claims about reality as mere descriptive statements, when they are actually claims, from there you just accuse people who disagree with your metaphysics as "denying nature/science".
>>2511619To be clear, I never even brought up Copenhagen to begin with, you just started spamming "Copenhagen" over and over again as a strawman rebuttal.
The Copenhagen interpretation is basically just an attempt to explain quantum level phenomena in the language of our familiar macroscopic reality, and the reason it tends to fall apart and lead to the kind of confusion and frustration you are experiencing is because it's really hard to explain quantum phenomena with our language and thought that is based entirely on how things work in our everyday macroscopic reality, where we can observe objects existing and moving deterministically through space and time. But when you get down to the level of individual particles, you are now between matter and space and time. You can't talk about "when" something happens or "where" something is anymore, "when" and "where" are meaningless at this scale. Copenhagen was just early quantum mechanics grappling with how to describe these phenomena in conventional language.
>>2511633You're still repeating the Copenhagen interpretation though.
>You can't talk about "when" something happens or "where" something is anymore, "when" and "where" are meaningless at this scale. Metaphysical claim
I don't understand why people always make the conclusion that a fundamentally boundless and indeterminate universe is inherently nihilistic or implies that existence is utterly meaningless.
It's like, just because you can never understand all of existence in its totality, just because you can't find some unifying central meaning or pattern to all of it, just because you can never fully predict it or take control of it, doesn't mean that existence is meaningless. If anything, it means the opposite - it means that every day is a unique and special gift and that we are all beautiful snowflakes 🌈
>>2511640This is just reheated pantheism and just world theory.
A palestinian child torn to shreds by sn israeli bomb is ultimately meaningless, but also beautiful, in a cosmic kind of way :wholesome:
What all of this means for commies?
>>2511594>infinitely layered recursive emergent systemsHow is it infinite? And what does this have to do with the boss man fucking you over or a clique of rich fuckheads ruling the world?
>>2484000I agree with the meme but christ, was the dog really necessary?
>>2511593>>2511610you must invent seethenhagen
>>2483873THE DEMIURGE DID NOTHING WRONG .
EMBRACE OBLIVION
>>2511594>we live in a world of infinitely layered recursive emergent systems. This isn't metaphysics or theology, this is proven science. accurate but that actually isn't what copemorehagen says
>>2511594>All Karl Marx, or anyone else in the world in the 19th century, knew about matter was that it was a bunch of tiny balls of various elements all smashed together into a solid mass. that isn't really what matter means, its just talking about "stuff" it never hinged on literal atoms
>>2511617>the fact that there are limits to human knowledge it also doesn't prove this
>>2511633>I never even brought up Copenhagen to begin withbut you are endorsing something that relies on it
>Copenhagen was just early quantum mechanics grappling with how to describe these phenomena in conventional language.exactly and it was wrong, so your further extrapolations resulting from a flawed premise are also wrong
>>2511640>I don't understand why people always make the conclusion that a fundamentally boundless and indeterminate universe is inherently nihilistic or implies that existence is utterly meaningless.no one said this, you are making assumptions to frame the opposition to it as some kind of religious delusion
>just because you can never understand all of existence in its totality, just because you can't find some unifying central meaning or pattern to all of itif you mean the general you, then the second sentence is mutually exclusive from the first, if you mean that a finite individual cannot understand all of existence by nature of their finitude then that would be correct, and correlate with the second.
also understanding a central meaning or pattern to all of it is the same as understanding all of existence, and attempting to know all the individual parts is again misguided by assuming the parts are separate from the whole.
>>2512741>exactly and it was wrong, so your further extrapolations resulting from a flawed premise are also wrongyou're just attacking the anon by proxy even though what anon is saying doesn't really rely on it and you just insist that it does
>>2512773the universe being fundamentally unknowable chaotic and indeterminate is premised on copenhagen. they are relying on experiments that accept its assumptions to make even more assumptions that are metaphysical that are not born out in the data. its classical map/territory stuff. the equations are the map they do not prove the territory actually is a field of probabilities.
the inherent flaw is the assumption that the observer and observed are independent. the measurement problem and observer effect are results of this assumption, not fundamental aspects of reality. other interpretations don't have this problem. the "unknowability" is an epistemic problem, meaning its is a limit of what we can know due to being a part of the system we are observing, not an ontological reality of the system itself. spooky action is only spooky if you think the universe is a disconnected set of independent objects, but anon doesn't even believe this:
>we live in a world of infinitely layered recursive emergent systems
yet that is the assumption necessary for the world to be chaotic and random
ironically it is actually the bourgeois scientist with the religious assumptions, this being another secularization of christianity that is so common in post-enlightenment thought instead of overcoming it, elevating themselves to the position of a god with an unbiased neutral perspective, one that is fundamentally impossible because they are merely a finite part of an infinite material being.
its quite different to say you cant know every thing than it is to say you can know any particular thing.
>>2512802I'm having trouble following your train of thought, but I would argue that reality being a fundamentally-indeterminate emergent phenomenon is not an anthropocentric or religious assumption, if anything it is more anthropocentric and religious to assume that the universe is a giant machine where you can figure out exactly how it works and reproduce/reshape it to your liking by breaking it down into its most basic constituent parts.
>>2512426>How is it infinite? The primordial chaos from which our universe emerged was itself an emergence from the entropic decay of some other universe governed by the exact same fundamental laws as our universe but different emergent properties due to the quantum randomness factor.
>>2512811>universe is a giant machine where you can figure out exactly how it works and reproduce/reshape it to your liking by breaking it down into its most basic constituent parts.yes that is what i am critiquing. the reason it is flawed is because it treats the observer how you describe.
im saying when anon says reality is emergent he is rejecting copenhagen in the middle of trying to defend it. if its emergent, and especially recursive, then its interrelational, so the observer and observed are not independent discrete objects with no connection, which is a necessary assumption, which is the "proof" for reality to be random. "we live in a world of infinitely layered recursive emergent systems" is a description of a dialectical universe where the observer is reintegrated back into the observed.
>>2512826I wasn't really trying to defend Copenhagen, tbh I don't know how we even got onto Copenhagen to begin with. I'm really sick of the word Copenhagen can we stop saying it?
>>2512831are you talking about another theory that posits randomness?
>>2512839Why is randomness being fundamental so hard to accept? If course there has to be a fundamental random variable, otherwise everything in reality would be exactly the same, it would be featureless nothingness, there would be no reality. Randomness is not nihilistic, it is a necessary component of reality.
>>2512847>Why is randomness being fundamental so hard to accept?Its not hard to accept its just hasn't been proven.
>there has to be a fundamental random variable, otherwise everything in reality would be exactly the sameWhat? Why? Which theory is this and where is the proof?
>>2511594>Marxist materialism was based on an archaic understanding of matter. false
>matter is not a bunch of balls stuck together, it's not a thing at all false
>it's zillions and zillions of quantum fluctuations all interacting with each other in random probabilistic waysfalse
>This isn't metaphysics or theologyfalse
>this is proven science. false
>The question now is, how does Marx fit in with this new 21st century understanding of reality?provocative
<why everyone so mad :(( >>2512855>What? Why? Which theory is this and where is the proof?Not a theory, just logic. Imagine trying to write a computer program of an emergent system without a random number generator.
>>2512868So you're just saying shit
>>2513640>The real reason you can't know everything>The universe doesn't even have to be fundamentally composed of probabilistic or chaotic phenomena for it to be fundamentally unknowable This doesn't follow, just because you cant know everything doesn't mean the universe is fundamentally unknowable.
also i keep seeing people conflate random/chaos/indeterminacy/unknowable. these arent the same thing, which is why they are different words
>>2513705>It is not physically possible for a model of the universe residing within the universe to be perfect. It will always be an oversimplification.and thats different than it being impossible to know. if your object of study is not "everything everywhere all at once" then simplified models can be sufficient for understanding a particular thing. i dont have to know the color size and weight of every animal on earth to know that planets orbit the sun. by the nature of investigating some particular thing you are necessarily not calculating the whole universe and so in principle can use everything in the universe except that thing to precisely determine what it is, the same way you can find the area under a curve by integrating to infinity. obviously you are limited by a human or societies lifetime but that is a problem with being human not a physical constraint on the possibility of such a calculation.
>>2483873ayy bro Ιαλδαβαώθ here. didn't mean to soul trap you homie. congratulations on seeing thru the tricknology and recognising the simulation. you're actually the sigil on my mixtape mane. can't let you go homie or this beat won't be fire no more.
>>2514159>and thats different than it being impossible to know. if your object of study is not "everything everywhere all at once" then simplified models can be sufficient for understanding a particular thing.sufficiency for understanding (incomplete knowledge) to me is much more realistic than perfect knowledge (total understanding). To fundamentally know everything everywhere all at once (i.e. the universe) would be to break the laws of physics. Humans had to invent omniscient Gods to fill this void.
how does the agnostic lore fit in with the yakub lore?
>>2512823What's the evidence for that? I remember many years ago there was a hypothesis that the lifecycle of the universe could be a long series of big bangs followed by big crunches leading to another big bang but my understanding is the universe will just keep accelerating until it flies apart.
>>2514195>perfect knowledge (total understanding)yes but that is different again from absolute knowledge. its the difference between saying the universe is intelligible, that is that it is knowable, that the real is rational, and omniscience, saying that you can know every thing. you dont have to have total knowledge to have complete knowledge. that is to say that practice is the criterion of truth, not contemplation.
>>2514236I'm saying all your knowledge approximate and therefore incomplete, because your brain objectively ignores and loses information in the process of translating reality into "knowledge." Because matter observing itself is a process that consumes energy, and all knowledge is an attempt to partly simulate the object of study.
>>2513653
We don't really know what "knowing" is. You can know with absolute certainty that the number 1 is not the number 2, but the actual mechanism by which the brain discerns one thing from another different thing is a complete mystery to science. But 1 is still objectively different from 2, whether we know it or not. The truth is there and we have the means to inuit it with perfect confidence and accuracy, but we have no earthly clue how we do it.
>"A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there."
What's the material explanation for this thread being so fucking gay
>>2514228I forget the specifics of it but basically, after the heat death of the universe when everything reaches its lowest possible energy state, all that will be left are the randomly fluctuating interacting quantum fields which, after an unimaginably long stretch of time, will randomly produce another big bang and a new universe will emerge.
>>2514250right but that doesn't say anything about the composition of reality. just because finite beings are limited by their nature does not mean reality is subject to our limits. otherwise the moon would disappear when you look away.
>>2514271>I forget the specifics of it but basically, after the heat death of the universe when everything reaches its lowest possible energy state, all that will be left are the randomly fluctuating interacting quantum fields the lowest possible energy state means that there will not be randomly fluctuating interacting quantum fields. heat death means that all everything is the same equidistant which makes measurement incoherent with no distinct reference points meaning that it is indistinguishable from every point being the same point. "randomly fluctuating interacting quantum fields" assumes the uncertainty principle as an ontological truth rather than an epistemic limit of the model, in other words it assumes a particular
interpretation of qm
>>2514280
>the lowest possible energy state means that there will not be randomly fluctuating interacting quantum fields.The quantum fields are fundamental and always fluctuating, regardless of what is happening in the universe.
>heat death means that all everything is the same equidistantNo, it just means that the universe has reached it's lowest possible energy state, but the omnipresent quantum fields are still there and fluctuating.
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is proven science and it has nothing to do with our measuring equipment, reality really is fuzzy and unpredictable at the fundamental level regardless of the observer.
>>2514324>The quantum fields are fundamental and always fluctuating, regardless of what is happening in the universe.then its not heat death
>it just means that the universe has reached it's lowest possible energy state, but the omnipresent quantum fields are still there and fluctuating.that is contradictory
>it has nothing to do with our measuring equipmentdidn't say that
>reality really is fuzzy and unpredictable at the fundamental level regardless of the observerthat is not proven by the math. it is the starting proposition(an assumption) of certain interpretations of the math. its like you didn't even read the post
>>2514324>The quantum fields are fundamental <numbers are fundamental! its proven science!how you sound right now
>>2514327I don't really know if they are fundamental or if they are even a thing, I'm just speaking to what I vaguely know about one particular popular theory that gets talked about a lot. I don't really have strong opinions one way or the other about any of these metaphysical cosmological theories, they're just fun to read/discuss.
>>2514333>I'm just speaking to what I vaguely know about one particular popular theory that gets talked about a lot.that has essentially been the subject of the last however many posts, that copenhagen is a bourgeois psyop that smuggles in capitalist propaganda about the privileged status of the observer that justifies the status quo as human nature by denying the interrelated reciprocal relationship between objects and in doing so it holds back scientific advancement by mystifying reality. insisting that its assumptions are ontological truths is no different than saying things happen because it is gods will
>>2514334>insisting that its assumptions are ontological truths is no different than saying things happen because it is gods willReality emerging from random incomprehensible chaos is about as far from "god's will" as it gets.
>>2514362you can think that if you want but it doesn't make it proven science . you are just positing a prime mover on the basis of faith, thats dogma not science.
>>2483873>200 post thread about le esoteric XD retardationcool
>>2514372i remember this movie
hated it and loved it at the same time
>>2489366Every allchans chan is an extension of 4chin. Taking any of them seriously is the ultimate waste of time, but so goes the internet.. in the hands of a few, the ultimate mind control tool. It's so successful in that regard that those who are dependent on it no longer believe in freedom, though they don't fully realize it. I would say "yet" but the captive audiences seem unwilling to look outside. Anyway, it's nice outside and I've got things to do so have a good one..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsrqKE1iqqo >>2491249Based Legend of Queen Opala Poster
Better the head of a chicken than the butt of a phoenix.
>>2514272>the moon doesn't disappear when you look awaythe other anon was not suggesting that
le both sides are le wrong
>>2528602solipsism is a logical consequence of denying a knowable objective external world
>>2528724the other anon wasn't denying the existence of an objective external world, just saying that all knowledge of it was bound to be incomplete and approximate since observation is a form of computation (whether done by a brain or a computer) and is fundamentally limited by local resource scarcity.
1) Premise 1 (The Claim): Objective reality is fundamentally unknowable. All we have access to are our own perceptions, ideas, and sense data.
2) Implication: We are trapped behind a "veil of perception." We cannot compare our ideas to the "world-in-itself" to check their accuracy. The external world becomes a hypothetical cause for our internal experiences.
3) Logical Extension: If we cannot know the external world, we also cannot know that other minds exist. Other people are part of the external world; we only perceive their bodies and behaviors, not their consciousness.
4) Conclusion (Solipsism): The only thing one can truly know to exist is one's own mind. The external world, other people, the past, and the future could all be illusions or constructs of one's own consciousness.
From this perspective, any philosophy that denies direct or reliable access to objective reality is on a slippery slope to this intellectually barren and practically unlivable position.
The response isn't to claim we have infallible access to reality, but that the "unknowability" thesis is itself flawed because it relies on an impossible standard of knowledge. The core Marxist rebuttal, drawn from Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, is that we don't just think about reality; we interact with it and change it. Human practice is the proof of objectivity.
>The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such[…]
>The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question[…]
>The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmIf I have a theory of aerodynamics and build an airplane that flies, my theory has been validated not by its correspondence to an inaccessible "thing-in-itself," but by its successful application in the real, material world. The plane's flight is a practical, material test.
Dialectical Materialism rejects the rigid subject-object dichotomy that creates the problem. Consciousness is not a sealed room looking out at a world it cannot touch. It is a product of the material world (the brain) that actively engages with that world. Knowledge is not a mirror of nature but a process of increasingly accurate reflection through practice.
>In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production[…] The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htmMarxism does not arrive at "Complete Knowledge" in the traditional, philosophical sense of a final and perfect system of truth that ends all inquiry. In fact, the demand for "Complete Knowledge" is precisely the kind of metaphysical, ahistorical thinking that dialectics sets out to overcome. Knowledge is about a material world that is in constant flux. Since the object of knowledge (reality) is itself processual and unfinished, our knowledge of it must also be processual and unfinished. History and nature develop through contradictions and negations. There is no final, harmonious end-state of knowledge because the material world itself has no such final state. New contradictions and new phenomena constantly arise.
>The sovereignty of thought is realised in a number of extremely unsovereignly-thinking human beings; the knowledge which has an unconditional claim to truth is realised in a number of relative errors; neither the one nor the other [i.e., neither absolutely true knowledge, nor sovereign thought] can be fully realised except through an endless eternity of human existence. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two5.htmA theory is "objectively true" not because it perfectly mirrors the noumenal world, but because it allows us to accurately predict outcomes and successfully manipulate the material world. A social theory is "true" if it correctly identifies the contradictions within a society and provides a guide for action that successfully leads to its revolutionary transformation. The success of the practice validates the theory.
>The standpoint of life, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two6.htmMarxism claims a kind of "absolute" knowledge, but it is structural and historical, not factual and complete. The core argument is that the proletariat, by virtue of its objective position within the capitalist mode of production, is the one social class capable of achieving a "total" or "absolute" understanding of society as a whole. The bourgeoisie has an interest in understanding the parts (markets, profits) but must mystify the whole (exploitation, crisis), because understanding the whole would mean understanding its own historical transience. The proletariat, as the "universal class" whose emancipation requires the emancipation of all, has an interest in understanding the total system of its own exploitation. Its perspective is not partial but totalizing.
This is the "absolute" knowledge of the laws of motion of capitalism and its place in human history. It is the knowledge of the fundamental social totality, which Marx aimed to provide in Capital.
>The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm>>2529110>1) Premise 1 (The Claim): Objective reality is fundamentally unknowable. All we have access to are our own perceptions, ideas, and sense data.<2) Implication: We are trapped behind a "veil of perception." We cannot compare our ideas to the "world-in-itself" to check their accuracy. The external world becomes a hypothetical cause for our internal experiences.Reality can be fundamentally unknowable, yet one perception may be more correct at least within a certain context or defined parameters.
>>2528724solipsism is a logical consequence of having your head inside of your ass
>>2529114>Reality can be fundamentally unknowable, yet one perception may be more correct at least within a certain context or defined parameters.if reality is fundamentally unknowable a perception cant be "more correct" if there is no objective grounding for "defined parameters" you are advocating a relativistic subjective idealism. if your "defined parameters" are objectively grounded then reality isn't fundamentally uknowable.
this is just the error of mainstream philosophy and the rejection of hegel leaving people to think kant is "common sense" when he has been overcome for centuries
>>2529131>if reality is fundamentally unknowable a perception cant be "more correct" if there is no objective grounding for "defined parameters" you are advocating a relativistic subjective idealism. if your "defined parameters" are objectively grounded then reality isn't fundamentally uknowable. Things are always correct only within defined parameters. This sentence can only be grammatically correct within defined parameters. Newtonian physics can be correct in its way without considering relativity within certain parameters. But just as you can make Newtonian descriptions that are more correct than others, it still doesn't "know" reality not considering underlying factors, and whatever underling factors we may never get to the true substrate of substrates. So reality can in fact be unknowable but one description can be more correct than others within defined parameters.
>>2529139this type of correctness is arbitrary and subjective so has no claim to truth. if reality is fundamentally unknowable then truth is incoherent. i cant stop you from being a bourgeois idealist if thats what you want but that doesn't make you correct. capitalism is human nature within certain "defined parameters".
>>2529110this is a mischaracterization of any serious idealist philosophy. there is no real debate about whether there is an external world, but rather about what that external world is 'made of'. whether the external world is 'made of' matter or 'made of' mind, it behaves in the same way and its properties can be studied empirically. your assertion that
>[consciousness] is a product of the material world (the brain) is simply not logically founded in a rigorous way. there is indeed much known and studied about the correlations between consciousness and the brain, however there is not a single causal explanation to explain how internal subjective experience arises from physical matter. there is nothing about matter that would suggest subjectivity, there is nothing in information theory that explains experiential awareness of information processing, there is no causal explanation for consciousness whatsoever under physicalism, other than to deny that it exists at all.
again, the disagreement is not about what empirical observations can be made about reality, but about how to interpret them in an ontological sense. people, minds and bodies both, are obviously affected by their environment at least as much as they effect it in turn.
whether my empirical observations can be relied on or not in an epistemological sense, it is all i have to go on, and i must assume that it correlates to some kind of external reality, whether that reality is 'made of' mind or matter or something else we haven't thought of yet.
>>2529165thats fine if you are not a communist/marxist but cant be a materialist revolutionary and also agnostic in this way, at least not while remaining philosophically consistent. again, i cant stop you from holding mutually exclusive contradiction positions
if you want to say science proves marx wrong then just say that instead of trying to dispute what marx's position is
>>2484000>But still nature is an evil placeMoralism. You’re projecting abstract human categories of good and evil onto an objective process. Nature simply exists and develops according to its own laws, independent of moral judgment. It isn’t “evil” or “good”, it’s dialectical, containing contradictions: creation and destruction, life and death, growth and decay. These are natural processes, not moral questions.
also i would like to see the supposed "evidence" for reality being fundamentally uknowable
>>2529157>this type of correctness is arbitrary and subjective so has no claim to truth. Huh? You're missing the point entirely. We were discussing with how the reality always remains a subjective experience, and any objective descriptions or perceptions fundamentally remain subjective. I gave you examples to illustrate that point. Can you not follow a simple argument?
> i cant stop you from being a bourgeois idealist if thats what you want but that doesn't make you correct. Dumb response that fails to understand followed by canned response. I swear the LLMs are outpacing you.
>>2529183>You're missing the point entirely. I really think you are and have been for many replies.
>any objective descriptions or perceptions fundamentally remain subjectiveThis is precisely what dialectics overcomes.
>>2529182>also i would like to see the supposed "evidence" for reality being fundamentally uknowableI'll put it in the most simple way but it might be too esoteric for you to understand:
>How can you say can objectively say what reality is unless you were outside of reality itself?<Can you perceive the exterior of a building from inside it? >>2529185>I really think you are and have been for many replies. I replied to you once. I even restated for you to make it easier for you to comprehend but you still fail to.
>>2529188Well you are making the same mistake as the other anon
>>2529186Again this is exactly where Hegel
starts >>2529189Now you're just onto playing dumb. It's ok anon, just think of a non-retarded response and come back and post it when you have it. I'll forget all the retarded replies.
>>2529193His entire project is a direct response to Kant saying we cannot know
>>2529203>only approximately knowablethis is very different from "fundamentally unknowable"
people on leftypol actually read doe and arent pedophiles
>>2529210Here's what was said
> The universe doesn't even have to be fundamentally composed of probabilistic or chaotic phenomena for it to be fundamentally unknowable because "knowledge" itself is a simulacrum, or model, or representation, or oversimplification of the object the "knowledge" is trying to "understand."This is not a claim that it is fundamentally unknowable
>>2529216This defines knowledge as a collection of facts about objects that retains the subject-object distinction that dialectics overcomes.
I'm not disputing that there are material limits to particular knowledge as a complete set of facts about all existing objects, I'm saying that you can objectively know fundamental relations between objects that constitute absolute knowledge of truths that applies to all things.
A map cant be the territory, because to create such a map you would have to use ever piece of matter in existence to recreate itself, but this arrives at the real conclusion: the territory is the map.
Knowledge as representation is exactly contemplative aspect of philosophy that Marx critiques: the point is to change it.
>>2529225>I'm not disputing that there are material limits to particular knowledge as a complete set of facts about all existing objects, I'm saying that you can objectively know fundamental relations between objects that constitute absolute knowledge of truths that applies to all things. So then you are now agreeing that reality is unknowable? What was your definition of reality? A completely imaginary thing can be reality and have objectively correct or incorrect descriptions about it. That doesn't make it "reality" in any real sense. The imaginary always exist within the bounds of reality but are not equal to reality.
>A map cant be the territory, because to create such a map you would have to use ever piece of matter in existence to recreate itself, but this arrives at the real conclusion: the territory is the map. That doesn't follow at all. The description is not the thing neither is the thing the descriptor, they both exist independently of each other. The descriptor may bare some similarities within a well defined set of parameters.
>>2529228>So then you are now agreeing that reality is unknowable? No
What was your definition of reality?
a better question would be what is knowledge. maybe read the thread before posting
>they both exist independently of each otherno they dont. this is what i mean by missing the point. ive already said just today:
>>2529225>that retains the subject-object distinction that dialectics overcomes. >>2529197>[Hegels] entire project is a direct response to Kant saying we cannot know>>2529191>[How can you say can objectively say what reality is unless you were outside of reality itself?] is exactly where Hegel starts>>2529185>This is precisely what dialectics overcomes. >>2529233>What was your definition of reality? >a better question would be what is knowledge. maybe read the thread before postingWhy don't you define them?
>no they dont. this is what i mean by missing the point. ive already said just today:You quoted half a dozen posts where you said nothing.
>>2529249>Why don't you define them?read the thread
>You quoted half a dozen posts where you said nothing.If you reject dialectical materialism just say so instead of restating things that dont address it.
Fuck off tumblrite
>muh eschaton
>>2490791wanting a father figure is not the same as unconsciously producing material policies that adhere to a need of a father
>>2491120this is a schizo post - I did not say that marx invented socialism nor implied that marxism is the only socialism out there - what socialism IS however - is a self consciousness about the world - when you are self conscious about the world, then you cannot succumb to the opiate of Gnosticism
go suck my dick bitch
Unique IPs: 82