/edu/ - Education

>>13165
I think what Marx is doing and who he is writing to is often misunderstood. It isn't that Marx is fully a dishonest actor or hatchetman telling lies. What Marx writes about is something very important to know why the world turned out the way it did, and what was going on psychologically. There are a lot of self-described Marxists who didn't get it or what it was pointing to, and the way Marx was followed sycophantically was disgusting. Marx himself hated those people. I think if people are aware of the context Marx wrote in - and literate people of the time were familiar with the liberal, conservative, and reactionary arguments - what can be taken away from Marx is a lot more sensical. Marx assumes in his work directed towards other intellectuals that you've done this reading. Capital doesn't make sense unless someone is familiar with Adam Smith and what is critiqued, and then where Adam Smith is coming from. These men all saw knowledge as something built on the past, rather than some Prometheus recreating science and reality as they see fit. The idea of a Hitlerian wave of the hand forcing the world to abide a will to power only came with the new wave of reaction at the end of the 19th century, this disgusting movement of idiots and fools and fags that brought nothing whatsoever to humanity or the world.

By no means is this predatory element the sole motor of history, or the heart of every state. The state exists in response to a general fear, and predatory humans are one fear, but the state to be viable has to become something more. Once it does, the philosophical conceits founding a state give way to its actual existence, the thing it rules over, its boundardies, and so on. It works that way in every country, every empire. The state by its nature is never "good" or a thing that overcomes the purpose of its existence, but a state ruled by "violence is the supreme authority" or other crass interpretations of fascism like the Heinlein rot is an infantile disorder.

>>13165
Speaking of sociopaths - it is impossible for me to see what the gifted kids are taught, the ideology surrounding intelligence, and not see "sociopathy" as something selected for. Those who are not "supposed" to be sociopaths are diagnosed and marked, those who are have been rewarded and taught to embrace this disdain for society and their inferiors.

I've always found it to be a useless descriptor of predation and the ethos at work, as if it were some essentialized state. The predatory can mask their behavior and even lie to themselves and "sleep" in a way, waiting for the day when they can reactivate. That's what a lot of Nazi sympathizers did - they put on a liberal or progressive mask, or a conservative mask, and look for the signal to tell them it was okay to be a Nazi again. When Trump gave those signals loud and clear - and the media emphasized the "OK" sign Trump used - we were told that what Trump was doing was not at all what he was doing, and this has always been a trope with them. Those people came out of the woodwork, though they had already been coming out since the 1990s with what they wanted to do to the world. It's not just the Trump people who do this. Many a liberal have always wanted to get their Nazi on, and now they have the signal that it is time to do what they've always wanted. The liberals are worse than the Trump base, because they're in positions to do more harm.
I should qualify this by saying that many people voting for Trump don't give a shit about any ideology or Trump as a man. Most of those people voted for any dogshit Republican, or voted for Trump because they thought it was hilarious to have a retard for president. Others saw Trump as the necessary rot or the inevitable outcome of what this country became, and either let it happen actively or passively let Trump go on. It wasn't like you were going to get to say no to it, and Trump was obviously the plan. They wouldn't have put him at the center of everything unless he were necessary for more than the 2016 spectacle. I think a lot of people believed he was a Goldwater who would be discredited and we had more time, but it turned out that the system was ready for the rot.

>>13157
It is "anti-intellectual." The accusation isn't true anyway. I'm not a philosophy student. I didn't take philosophy classes, nor is my degree in any field connected to "theory." I have a "real job." I'd welcome more philosophy students here, if only because it bothers the dumbest people on this board who have a one-sided emphasis on practice rather than the unity of theory and practice.

If discussing philosophy is a waste of time, a meta-discussion about how discussing philosophy is a waste of time is going to be even more of a waste of time. If you don't care for the topic, no one is asking you to comment. Going out of your way to read and comment in this thread doesn't show that you don't care; it just shows that you can't engage with the thread.

>>13168
based truth speaker

>>13168
If doing so is "anti-intellectual", that implies talking any trivial matter in-depth is intellectual, and in that sense, it may not be strictly false. It isn't, however, useful in any way for users of this forums – and if it is, no one here has made a compelling case as to why. It isn't holistically anti-intellectual to reject discussing ontology, you may not want to discuss pharmacology or algorithm analysis and I would not call you an anti-intellectual for that, you may do as you want in your spare time. What I am is anti any semantic quibbling AND the childish attention-seeking practice of baiting people to discuss philosophy on their terms under the provokation that it is an urgent matter that "tankies" ought to clarify! I view it as petite bourgeois practice that in no way advances comprehension of the working class conditions.
>I'd welcome more philosophy students here, if only because it bothers the dumbest people on this board who have a one-sided emphasis on practice rather than the unity of theory and practice.
No way this retard is suggesting this is "unity of theory and practice" in any way hahahahaha. People here really say whatever makes the quippiest comeback rather than be honest. See:
>If you don't care for the topic, no one is asking you to comment.
Really?! Then what is this? >>13160
This poster throws tantrums whenever others don't entertain them, provoking others while claiming to be a victim of harassment. You are so fucking disingenuous.
>Going out of your way to read and comment in this thread doesn't show that you don't care; it just shows that you can't engage with the thread.
You can keep telling yourself that if it makes for le epic ownage but if you had a shed of intellectual honesty you'd admit that this could very well – and in fact is way more likely to – not be true.
Fucking sophistry, man.

>>13172
log off touch grass

>>13173
That goes for you, who I know for a fact has never worked a day in your life when you suggest workers should just break shit in their jobs to "dismantle the Capirtal" hahahaha. Fuck off.

>>13174
byeee ehave a nice day

>>13160
youre just as unfunny as the channers here tbh, just replacing chan culture with 2013 tumblr culture

>>13176
ive never used tumbklr in ,mylife actually youre just a sheep maybe??

>>13177
uh ok stop being mean to sheep

pseud vs anti-intellectuals, who will win (everyone loses including the observers)

Deleuze was a marxist.

>>13176
Well, I think it's an improvement

>>13151
>what's interesting about him.
hes another one in the trancendental materialist or speculative realism group. i like his stuff on deleuze and luminosity, he talks about crystals and diffraction too.

>i wonder if d&r may prove to be an extremely crucial read
I think so. Its really good and parts of it are similar to me of Lenin and Engels. Its like Deleuze rediscovered everything independently from the other side of the Iron Curtain but used French and Freudian vocabulary to explain it instead.

>>13184
Shut up Satan

>>13159
>people ignore them and yell at you for being 'too theoretical' just like they do when i post about philosophy.
You keep using over specific jargon and rejecting things because they don't match your favorite author without giving philosophical reasons for why that go beyond your personal preference. You haven't really explained why Marx and Hegel and dialectical materialism are in philosophical opposition to Heidegger and Deleuze instead of being complimentary.

If Hegel is supposed to be an "Absolute Idealist" but also dialectical then is the argument against him about the suggested structure of reality or the primacy of ideas over matter? Does Hegel actually give primacy to ideas or does dialectics suggest equal parts of both? When Deleuze says plurism = monism is the important part that pluralism is listed first or is the point that they are reciprocal and interconnected, that you can't have one without the other?

>>13165
>criticising the power structures of 'science' its apparently a no-go for a lot of so-called marxists.
Again, Lenin wrote a whole book about it. Do you actually have a philosophically based and non-propaganda/non-aesthetics based reason for rejecting Marxism-Leninism?

>>13186
when did i ever say marx was in philosophical opposition to heidegger and deleuze? deleuze was a marxist

>>13187
i thought you wanted a discussion

do you plan on actually explaining yourself?

>>13188
???

>>13186
>If Hegel is supposed to be an "Absolute Idealist" but also dialectical then is the argument against him about the suggested structure of reality or the primacy of ideas over matter? Does Hegel actually give primacy to ideas or does dialectics suggest equal parts of both? When Deleuze says plurism = monism is the important part that pluralism is listed first or is the point that they are reciprocal and interconnected, that you can't have one without the other?
Saying 'parts' already implies they're distinct things. In the lectures on religion Hegel refers to it as ideal-realism because they are the same thing in Hegel's mind. But materialism doesn't factor in for Hegel, they're just crude forms of idealism. So I feel like you're already starting from a misunderstanding of Hegel here

>>13189
you said in the op that marx doesn't have an ontology and deleuze does, you suggest heidegger has something necessary to add and in your other thread you said you reject hegel and dialectics. are these related? why do you think marx doesn't have an ontology?

>>13190
>So I feel like you're already starting from a misunderstanding of Hegel here
no u

>ideal-realism because they are the same thing in Hegel's mind
yes

>materialism doesn't factor in for Hegel, they're just crude forms of idealism
why would you say this? whose interpretation of hegel did you lean?

was hegel a christian? why was spinoza excommunicated for being an atheist? does einsteins endorsement of spinozas god make him an idealist?

in my view hegels method is sufficient proof of a substance, which is that same thing that lenin refers to as matter

>>13191
>
>was hegel a christian? why was spinoza excommunicated for being an atheist? does einsteins endorsement of spinozas god make him an idealist?

my guy what the hell are you talking about
i still dont even know what you're disagreeing with me *on*

>>13192
marxism has an implicit ontology, you said it doesn't and just assumes the existence of matter from appearance without proof, which is not true and what hegel, marx, lenin, sellars, ilyenkov etc argue against

spinoza was excommunicated for being an athiest because he didn't agree with a personal christian god

hegel agreed with spinozas view of god

so hegels supposed idealism is actually a scientific naturalism, his method is a demonstration of the existence of god as absolute being is proof of a substance, which is later called "matter" in dialectical materialism

>>13172
>If doing so is "anti-intellectual", that implies talking any trivial matter in-depth is intellectual
If it's trivial, then why comment? Moreover, if it's trivial because it's not practically useful, there are dozens of other threads here that have no possible practical application or foreseeable use.
>It isn't, however, useful in any way for users of this forums
You're on an imageboard, a place for discussion (ideally), so I'm not sure why you keep using "practical usefulness" to judge threads. How is the thread on "pre-capitalist imperialism" practically useful for example? I'm not saying that topic or others with limited or no "practical usefulness" should be removed; on the contrary, I'm saying that "practically useful" isn't a criterion normally used to judge whether threads are worth being discussed. In fact, evaluating solely on that basis restricts inquiry to preconceptions of immediate usefulness or applicability, like "tailism" for philosophy.

And what's the "practical usefulness" of Marxism for a Westerner? Reading mainstream economics textbooks would be more practically useful than reading Marx for most.
>It isn't holistically anti-intellectual to reject discussing ontology, you may not want to discuss pharmacology or algorithm analysis and I would not call you an anti-intellectual for that
Yes, but I'm not going to go into a discussion about pharmacology and aggressively asserting that discussing pharmacology is a waste of time. Simply not discussing something isn't anti-intellectual. In fact, feel free to not comment on discussions that don't interest you.
>What I am is anti any semantic quibbling AND the childish attention-seeking practice of baiting people to discuss philosophy on their terms under the provokation that it is an urgent matter that "tankies" ought to clarify!
While the "tankies" comment offers an excuse, even polite comments on topics like this get criticized as "impractical" by people presenting themselves as (if) "Marxist-Leninists."

To be fair, I personally don't find MLs to be like this on other sites, at least for the most part. I'm not sure what's wrong here, but someone mentioned "Cockshott fans" earlier and that could be why.
>This poster throws tantrums whenever others don't entertain them, provoking others while claiming to be a victim of harassment
That response is after a number of other aggressive and mean-spirited responses. There's no claim of harassment or victimization, though. Regardless, from my own experience, posts and comments like the OP tend to get hate for being overly theoretical, whether they're rude or not.
>You can keep telling yourself that if it makes for le epic ownage
No, it's just true. It would be easy to not respond if you don't care, but you evidently care enough to continue reading comments and posting in this meta-discussion. If you can address the OP, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about the value of any such discussion instead.

>>13193
literally never said that

>>13195
are you going to address any of the questions or are you just here to troll

>>13136
>'the truth is that appearance logically entails reality' this is precisely what needs to be demonstrated

>>13080
>I don't see much substance from Marx by way of arguing for materialism

>>13080
>(which simply explicate categories about our "external" reality) on a proper approach towards the world. In a sense, I think Marxists also unconsciously on some level agree with this

>>13080
>Even in naive realist ontologies we see that the brain mediates reality, but there is no account for this in the materialist ontology.

>>13154
>ur not talking about synthesizing heidegger and deleuze

>>1444626
>Hegelians pretend they aren’t erasing the existential validity of becoming challenge (impossible)

>>1443710
> hegelian mythology of history which has many false assumptions.

>>13194
>whataboutism
Excellent.
I'm not a Westerner. Stop strawmaning, retard.

>>13197
>>whataboutism
Demonstrating a contradiction is always going to involve a "what about?" Saying "whataboutism" doesn't address the contradiction; it only pretends to resolve the problem by addressing the demonstration of a contradiction as if it were a fallacy.
>I'm not a Westerner.
I never said you were. I'm just asking "what's the use?"

>>13196
Why would I argue in favour of a position I don’t hold?

>>13154
haha, though i am not rlly planning on doing either. ive already written some criticisms of heidegger, and i have furthermore taken notes of marxist criticisms of heidegger as well. some of these i have even posted in this thread… otoh i sense as though deleuze butchers bergson somewhere along the line (taking into account thomas nail's criticism of deleuze here and furthermore this article 'From Duration to Eternal Return: Deleuze’s Readings of Bergson and Nietzsche'). i will probably have a lot of criticisms of deleuze when i get around to reading d&r. something i wonder is whether through a closer scrutiny of deleuze, i may not also be able to produce a different framework for understanding what adrian johnston is talking about with drive and desire. for guattari, i think he alone might ironically be interesting. i predict that schizoanalysis might help provide an ontology of the subject on the highest scales of time. in a way my stance to d&g is the opposite. i am more ready to accept guattari than i am ready to accept deleuze…

all of this is not to mention the fact that this stuff needs to be tied in with the philosophy of labour amongst other things… there seems to be different ontological directions, each most characteristic of different scales of time. yet at the same time, all of these directions bundle into one larger rhythm/process that is the subject

>>13183
>hes another one in the trancendental materialist or speculative realism group
i see. how does he tie into those guys? tbh i don't know how i currently feel about the speculative realism guys. i do sort of fuck with the sellarsians that came out of the "movement" now, but i feel as though a lot of ideas that came out of that stuff were mistakes (see for instance OOO and to a good extent new materialism as well). i hope he doesn't make the ones typical of the time like the inflation of agency and correlation. especially the latter! him being more of a deleuzean i guess is a good sign (at least in this case, because i like deleuze more than harman)
>he talks about crystals and diffraction too
interesting… i should say when i talk about diffraction i have in mind specific dispositions, which though conjoined implementation within a "situation" with other dispositions and elements, having differential manifestation and perhaps capable at times of a sort of "transubstantiation". does this guy have something like this in mind? oo i do see he has some commentary on thomas nail who he also describes as having a "luminous philosophy"… this could be interesting
>I think so. Its really good and parts of it are similar to me of Lenin and Engels. Its like Deleuze rediscovered everything independently from the other side of the Iron Curtain but used French and Freudian vocabulary to explain it instead.
ive never heard someone make this comparison… interesting… mind if you elaborate?

>>13127
>I disagree but can’t prove you wrong so fuck you!
Lol

>>13160
Based

>>13200
>which though conjoined implementation
*which through

>>13198
Ah, yes, the contradiction of /leftypol/ not being a single person. Now I truly see.

>>13181
if op toned down the memes in their posts then yes, it would be an improvement to leftypols status quo

>>13204
I assume you're the single person who made the comment I was responding to. I'm also assuming the fact you aren't engaging in meta-discussions on other threads with no practical benefit means you either approve or don't disapprove of them on this basis. So why is "practical benefit" the criterion for judging this thread in particular and not others equally? Perhaps you theoretically disapprove of all such threads, but it's more a "practical" contradiction I'm pointing out.

>>13200
>tbh i don't know how i currently feel about the speculative realism guys
yeah some of them are a bit to focused on their pet interpretations but from my view they all have the same structure. their differences are about from which perspective they choose initiate their study of the whole, whether the best starting point is personal, psychological, material, ideal, social, negative, positive etc. but they generally come to similar conclusions. to me speculative realism is like an agnostic version of dialectical materialism, they all point to a substance, some claim that we can't or don't yet know what it is where dialectical materialism gives the substance a specific name. it feels like arguing if matter is primarily a solid or energy before we knew it was both.

>>13200
>mind if you elaborate?
the whole project of western marxism is taking the assumption that the soviet union was "totalitarian" and then using psychology to explain why nazi germany happened and applying it to critique marxism-leninism. marxism-leninism understands that fascism has a material basis in liberal capitalism and the promotion of psychological interpretations of fascism is used to cover up this fact. more recently people have been rediscovering the conclusions of dialectical materialism through marxist influenced postmodernism philosophy and by continuing zizeks project of returning to hegel to understand marx, but its rare for them to actually read russian on chinese authors so they don't make the comparison or take it all the way and usually more interested in how it can help with their literary criticism.

deleuze's rejection of hegel comes from learning dialectics through hyppolite and kojeve. the philosophical core in deleuze is very similar to the content found in materialism and empirio-criticism, dialectics of nature, and in hegels own work. where people say marx stood hegel on his head, i like to say deleuze turned hegel inside out. hegel says a - b = c and deleuze says a = c + b. the difference is in focusing on the result vs the origin not on the actual operation of understanding, 'how did i get here' and 'where am i going' are really the same question. deleuze tells us how to live a non-fascist life as an individual and lenin tells us how to defeat fascism as a collective.

the way i see it is analogous to calculus combined with secular version of the ontological argument for god. the way humans understand reality is by breaking the whole into parts. so designating an object is like measuring the area of a function under an arbitrary curve but in doing so implies the existence of the area above the curve which goes to infinity. the particular is proof of the universal from which the particular is imminent. the universe is made up of a single stuff that exists as a fractal manifold that is interconnected.

the basic idea is like huxleys doors of perception or wilson reality tunnels. perception is diffracted like light through prisms and you can't take the reality goggles off you can only put different ideology glasses on, but it is in principle possible to reconstruct white light from a rainbow to determine its source. through applying theory in practice we can measure the instantaneous rate of change at a given point in time and determine the tangent, then through repetition and and comparing the difference you can find the asymptotic limits of the current course of action. by comparing results from different perspectives we gain a parallax view from which we can determine new courses of action that supersede previous limits. inb4 wrong and schizo

>>13200
>does this guy have something like this in mind?
maybe
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=5BE704EC89792210F5A59CB06B38D975

>>13207
ty for elaborating anon
>and then using psychology to explain why nazi germany happened and applying it to critique marxism-leninism
deleuze and guattari don't do this?
>the way i see it is analogous to calculus combined with secular version of the ontological argument for god. the way humans understand reality is by breaking the whole into parts. so designating an object is like measuring the area of a function under an arbitrary curve but in doing so implies the existence of the area above the curve which goes to infinity. the particular is proof of the universal from which the particular is imminent. the universe is made up of a single stuff that exists as a fractal manifold that is interconnected.
i can see this view in lenin from my understanding of him, but i do not know whether deleuze has a similar idea? maybe a product of my lack of knowledge about him so i'll keep this in mind when i read him
>inb4 wrong and schizo
makes sense to me. though id like to add that this perspective taking thing also relates to how we are able to transcend the confines of our individual senses by the use of scientific apparatuses

>>13208
hmm this more concerns like the formation of distinct patterns out of a homogenous medium… too primordial perhaps…? though maybe it could be useful for explaining the emergence of instincts and needs

>>13122
?

>>13122
>>13211
these are metaphyiscal positions, not ontological ones. They're focused on substance not being

>>13212
Isn't ontology metaphysical harry potter

>>13212
it would be great if you could explain why you think that. most people consider ontology to be a part of metaphysics.

>>13082
Okay but what the hell does that mean