/edu/ - Education

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me you little ontologist
I'll have you know [….can't be bothered with anymore]

>>13081
"Being-In is not a 'property' which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have, without which it could be just as well as it could with it. It is not the case that human being 'is' and then on top of that has a relation of being to the 'world' which it sometimes takes upon itself. Dasein is never 'initially' a sort of being which is free from being-in, but which at times is in the mood to take up a 'relation' to the world. This taking up of relations to the world is possible only because as being-in-the-world, Dasein is as it is'.

S12 of Sein und Zeit

>>13082
The audacity to quote Heidegger at me. The only person ever to be a bigger pseud than Stirner

>>13083
ur mom never loved u

>>13084
That's a really horrible thing to write

>>13085
WELL youre being obnoxious

>>13086
ok sorry

>>13080
>But to me it seems the positive sciences that say things about the 'world' rely on a totally certain idea of what 'world' means.
>So why don't we all have a calm discussion about ontology and attempt to come to an understanding of why there are so many of you (usually tankies) for whomst philosophy and ontology appears 'meaningless'?
Saying stuff like "actually you cant know what is and isnt real, maybe everything is just in your mind and youre just asleep, you can never know" doesn't help you achieve or change anything. Its just masturbatory smartsounding olympics for people who have nothing in their lives to worry about.

> I think Marxists also unconsciously on some level agree with this, because you recognise that the bourgeois sciences mainly operate in service of capital, and this is unwanted
>But on the other hand you seem to shoot yourselves on the foot by explicitly denying the validity of ontology in favour of vapid essentialism
What the fuck does this even mean? Science is not an objective process. Its a human process attempting to come closer to "truth" or repeatable applicable predictions. As such it is subject to all the biases in worldviews the humans who do it have, it is subject to publishing bias, it is subject to subconcious framing due keep the funder happy, it is subject to survivorship bias by anti-capitalist research not being funded.

>From where does this 'materialism' come?
My boss pays my salary but i make more money than he pays me. Slavemasters whip their slaves.

>how do you understand ontology
Can it be tested? Can it be applied? Does it work? Then its useful.

>if all you've spent all your life on is the pursuit of small-B beings, never evaluating the existential nature of 'world', which rather than being something we are merely placed in, is constitutive of our being?
I spend my life trying to find affordable rent and trying to make sure my friend's landlord fixes their black mold problem. Have you ever worked a day in your life or do you just read books?

>>13088
A lot of your response, especially the stuff about 'this is just not important it doesnt change anything' is still predicated on a particular understanding of the world you have yet to defend. You have not really made an adequate argument that our understanding the world a different way doesn't change it, simply relying on a pre-ontological idea of world as something given instead of actually making an evaluation of what 'the world' even is. This has nothing to do with muh solipsism. This has to do with formulating values and a disposition towards the world, which are not pre-defined. 'The point is to change it'– changing the world relies on a sufficient interpretation of the world, not in the sense of positivistic science, but in an analytic that actually accounts for the fact that we are the ones who experience the world ourselves.

None of this is a particularly effective argument against the importance of ontology, it's just outrage at the question itself.

>>13088
>Can it be tested? Can it be applied? Does it work? Then its useful.

This is predicated upon induction which still has yet to receive an adequate defence aganst Hume's accusations. Induction fails all the time, in practice as well as in theory. Yet you still cling to it as if it's somehow valid just because you haven't seen a 'black swan'. Moreover, you aren't even sure what 'useful' means because you haven't made any consideration as to what your teleology is.

>>13089
>You have not really made an adequate argument that our understanding the world a different way doesn't change it
there have been billions of people who understood capitalism, colonialism and oppression in many ways, yet it never changed.

As I have said, this masturbatory kind of post-modernist thinking doesn't lower your rent. Positive thinking doesnt put food in your mouth. Understanding the world differently doesn't remove the mold off your walls. Its just intellectuals being high in their salons.

>Yet you still cling to it as if it's somehow valid just because you haven't seen a 'black swan'.
Correct. I will keep doing things that work and predict correct outcomes until it does not work anymore.

>you aren't even sure what 'useful' means
Not being homeless, having more money, the planet not warming

>>13091
>there have been billions of people who understood capitalism, colonialism and oppression in many ways, yet it never changed.
Pre-ontological understandings of the world can never inform the ontology which is used to define the methods which are used to understand the world.

>Correct. I will keep doing things that work and predict correct outcomes until it does not work anymore.
Do you not find it concerning that one day you may fall into a proverbial manhole because you kept clinging to a false relation to Being?

>Not being homeless, having more money, the planet not warming
'Planet', 'Homeless', and 'Money' are things (pragmata) encountered in the world, but you still have yet to understand what the 'world' is.

>>13092
>Pre-ontological understandings of the world can never inform the ontology which is used to define the methods which are used to understand the world.
People understood the world before philosophers invented their own head up their ass. Put your hand into fire, it hurts. Put food in fire, it gets hot. Get beaten by cops, it hurts. Get paid more, you can buy more food and beer.

>Do you not find it concerning that one day you may fall into a proverbial manhole because you kept clinging to a false relation to Being?
Given that this sentence is nonsense, no I don't care about not being to convince weed smoking rich kiddies that I like not being homeless.

>'Planet', 'Homeless', and 'Money' are things (pragmata) encountered in the world, but you still have yet to understand what the 'world' is.
The working class does not need to ask what the world is. The world is apparent to them, it is the food they eat, the house they live in, the family they have, the insecurity they experience, the police violence aimed at them. Only the privileged elite is detached from reality enough, atomized from humanity and production enough, to put its existence in question.

>>13093
it seems like you have a pretty lowly opinion of the poor.

>>13094
>it seems like you have a pretty lowly opinion of the poor.
I will make my next neighbourhood meeting about whether their mold filled houses are actually real and how they can prove it, rather than the fact they are constantly falling ill.

>>13095
you're projecting your own perceived implications of considerations of ontology onto me, rather than actually engaging with what is said. which is humorous because supposedly it's something you 'dont have time for' but you have time to 1. make shit up 2. argue online

>>13096
Dont care im just shitting on you while doing something else. This kind of philosophy is retarded

wtf is a goddamn ontology??? either this shit flying over my head or its a buncha goddamn liberal solipsistic nonsense in which case who tf cares about some dumb ass idealistic "nOoOoo yUo hAvE tO eNtErtaiN mY vApiD fAntAsY WorLd"

>>13098
>or its a buncha goddamn liberal solipsistic nonsense in which case who tf cares about some dumb ass idealistic "nOoOoo yUo hAvE tO eNtErtaiN mY vApiD fAntAsY WorLd"
It is.

>>13090
>adequte defense against Hume's accusattions
Do philosophy bros really? I don't have healthcare why tf would I care is some bitch ass anglo mfer tried to disprove the scientific method 300 years ago, this shit OD af

>>13092
what is the world then?

>>13101
there are actually multiple worlds. each being which is related to its own being in its being has its own world

>>13098
google it.

>>13102
how so this kinda just sounds like main character syndrome where everyone is there own "world" or just making a new definition of "world" how is this not just a repackaging of "i think there for I am".

>>13104
how is it a repackaging of the cogito in any way lol

oh cool its another of "those" threads

>>13105
how is not? why should I believe i'm in a different "world" than every other being seems like atomized individualism with better vocab

>>13098
Metaphysics son, only the smartest and those pretending to be the smartest know

>>13106
I think the OP is basically mistaken, but this thread is no worse than most threads on this board. Most of the complaints just reflect anti-intellectualism rather than constituting a response.

I've never been able to figure out why this board mentions /pol/'s own anti-intellectualism as if it demonstrates something about the right-wing, when this board is just as averse.

>>13109
right?

>>13108
sounds like its all the second one in this thread lol how is any of this shit meaningfully different from any other form of idealism?

What does ontological mean?

>>13112
For Heidegger and those influenced by his usage, "ontology" is typically regarded as a fundamental grounds of "being"-ness and of beings (or entities). The sciences study "beings" in the latter sense but not "being," hence are "ontical" rather than ontological.

There are problems with this way of thinking, but the problems aren't reducible to "idealism."

>>13113
why the false dichotomy between beings and being?

>>13114
It depends on what you mean by "false," but it's not meant to imply the two are severed from each other. Then again, I'd agree that it does introduce a split analogous to the neo-Kantian division between "(logical) validity" and "values."

>>13090
>induction which still has yet to receive an adequate defence aganst Hume's accusations
t pseud who only read wiki page about Hume
>muh black swan
cope harder

I think both major forms of monism (idealism, materialism) which have dominated philosophy have multiple flaws which leave each incomplete and incorrect.

Dualism is most likely a false and/or arbitrary dichotomy.

Ontological pluralism is the only thing that makes intuitive sense and seems reasonable to me. That or maybe neutral monism.

This is just my opinion and based solely on my readings as a dabbler, not a professional.

>>13114
its not a dichotomy? beings have being, otherwise they wouldnt be called beings

>>13117
i agree w ontological pluralism also.

>>13109
>Most of the complaints just reflect anti-intellectualism rather than constituting a response.
Is it really "anti-intellectualism"? Can you explain how this discussion matters to anyone who isn't a philosophy student? OP certainly doesn't make a good case. In fact, >>13088 is pretty spot on in their response.
>I've never been able to figure out why this board mentions /pol/'s own anti-intellectualism as if it demonstrates something about the right-wing, when this board is just as averse.
This is a huge fucking stretch and you know it.
I get the impression people treat this forums as a hobby and discuss important matters in their IRL orgs, and if they do, they are correct on it. Anonymous imageboards are prone to raids, astroturfing, trolling, bad-faith discussions etc. See OP:
<So why don't we all have a calm discussion about ontology and attempt to come to an understanding of why there are so many of you (usually tankies)
<But on the other hand you seem to shoot yourselves on the foot by explicitly denying the validity of ontology in favour of vapid essentialism
Total waste of time.

>>13080
> so many of you (usually tankies) for whomst philosophy and ontology appears 'meaningless'
i don't know why you would think this. i've found it to be the opposite. have you read lenins materialism and empirio-criticism? i would also look into evald ilyenkov that is kind of his whole thing

1. is the essentialism in the room with you right now?
2. read materialism and emperio-criticsm, its literally what you want, a marxist theory of knowledge, from an author canon to tankies
3. who is denying ontology? (bonus points if you post twitter screencaps)
4. most people don't care about philosophy, much less philosophy that questions basic things like our material reality. People are busy living in it sry babe
5. "rely on a certain idea of what 'world' means"… does it? The goal of science is to understand the world, in other words to approach it from a place of not knowing, in order to know more.
6. CIA deluzean glow in the dark, run em over

>>13118
>>13117

what exactly is the supposed ontological difference between pluralism, property dualism, dual aspect monism, daoism and dialectical materialism?

>>13121
op has one of the worst readings of deleuze ive seen, they must come from some retarded niche twitter circle

>>13119
>Is it really "anti-intellectualism"? Can you explain how this discussion matters to anyone who isn't a philosophy student?
A Marxist might care. The problem with the OP is connected to Lukacs's critiques of Kant, Fichte, and the neo-Kantians at the beginning of his essay "Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat." That might not be a concern to you, but it has been a concern.

And reading philosophy doesn't mean you're a philosophy student. Deeming others "philosophy students" is just another form of anti-intellectualism in this context, deployed in part as an excuse for not reading the material.
>This is a huge fucking stretch and you know it.
It isn't at all. Every single one of these discussions, you get belligerent anti-intellectualism within the first five or ten comments.
>I get the impression people treat this forums as a hobby and discuss important matters in their IRL orgs
lol, I'm not even sure if you actually believe this.
>Anonymous imageboards are prone to raids, astroturfing, trolling, bad-faith discussions etc.
Yes, there's quite a bit of trolling and bad faith discussion.
>Total waste of time.
"Tankies" is really the problem? I've been called much worse, individually and "collectively" through posts, but I've at least addressed the content of the posts. >>13088 is anti-intellectual garbage, from top to bottom. It doesn't address the logic; it begins and ends with ad hominem, separated largely by non sequitur.

The closest it gets to a critique is paragraph 2, but it misunderstands what it's dealing with. The opening post is asking "from what perspective can you criticize science under capitalism fundamentally without an ontology?" and the commenter responds by saying "science isn't objective for such and such reasons" (without understanding that the notion of "objectivity" he's using indicates an "ontology" that hasn't been worked through). If you consider the OP to be in error, he's repeating the same error.

If the concern is politeness, we have a post up starting "Stalin rules, Trotsky drools" right now. If that's the bar this post has to pass, it's passed it. If not, it's a bit "politeness for thee, but not for me."

>>13080
Marxism has a family resemblance to the American pragmatists: e.g Peirce, James, and Dewy .Which, incidentally, is a philosophy that achieves the goals of the positivist school of thought without all the rationalization. What is this similarity? The idea in essence is that action is a philosophically important element, that action can demonstrate the validity of ideas.

Of course, communism as it was manifested historically in practice, was always communism under assault, it was always "war communism" constantly under attack and undermined by fascist and capitalist forces. So there is no pure experiment, no trying out of the ideas in a neutral environment.

That said, the Soviet Union is the closest approximation to marxist ideas applied in reality and had several positive attributes.

* Virtually full employment throughout its entire history

* Immune from "market forces" , fluctuations, business cycles economic depressions, and other purely capitalist pathologies; fundamentally stable

* Extraordinarily robust heavy industry , the world's second largest GDP (without exploiting the 3rd world but rather trying to support it)

* Military superpower, arguably the strongest conventional land forces in history , prevailed against the horrific nazi invasion in the largest military confrontation in history

* Scientific and technological advances, including the worlds first space station, satellite, and moonrover, the first manned spaceflight, the first artificial heart,, the Ilizarov Apparatus, Anthrax vaccine, the first mobile phone, and tetris

* Broad, high quality, inclusive FREE, education that turned hopelessly disadvantaged peasants into leaders, generals, doctors, scientists, and engineers. In fact students were paid to go to pursue higher eduction via a stipend

* Successful universal healthcare , the first attempt in history to implement such a system

*Advances in military technology

*







*

>>13124
I disagree but I doubt I will convince you, so I won't bother extending the discussion. You are correct in your critique of others' childish tendencies and I have no interest in investing my patience in these other trollposts either.

>>13080
>So why don't we all have a calm discussion about ontology and attempt to come to an understanding of why there are so many of you (usually tankies) for whomst philosophy and ontology appears 'meaningless'?
i regard most philosophy and ontology as meaningless because, especially in their analytical forms, they rely on abuses of language to manufacture issues that must then be resolved by the philosophical enterprise. t. philosophy major.
>For me it seems to be the most important thing that we properly understand the dependency and aims of sciences (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, because you recognise that the bourgeois sciences mainly operate in service of capital, and this is unwanted. But on the other hand you seem to shoot yourselves on the foot by explicitly denying the validity of ontology in favour of vapid essentialism.
the issue of bourgeois science is not an issue of validity which can be critiqued through the application of ontological method. the issue of bourgeois is an ethical one; an issue of means and ends. the question is not "does science portray a model which is consistent with my ontological commitments?" but rather "who controls the actual practical application and resulting fruits of scientific method in our society?"
>Even in naive realist ontologies we see that the brain mediates reality, but there is no account for this in the materialist ontology.
you are stuck in the kantian quagmire. to say the brain "mediates" reality is to imply that whatever is on the other side of the "medium" from reality exists outside of or in some way beyond reality. if anything is "mediated" it is the object, and the mediated object is the object for a subject.

i know you don't like hegel, and so the above will not sound particularly convincing to you. i highly suggest you read the two pdf's attached for a broader scale look at why i feel the way i do about this subject. i obsessed over these two works throughout my entire freshman year at college, at first as a critic and opponent. i would draw particular attention to chapter VII and XI of austin's work, and chapter IX of the searle piece.

>>13121
>who is denying ontology its not happening ur crazy
Two posts above u lol. But thanks I’ll take a read of the Lenin work you posted!

> The goal of science is to understand the world, in other words to approach it from a place of not knowing, in order to know more.
Ok, you were doing well, now you’re kind of uhhh just doing dude bro atheism

>>13125
I feel like you start by talking about the problem and then just go and talk about the Soviet Union. I’d like to hear more about the ‘family resemblance’ in particular IE differences and similarities. Action being an important element of philosophy isn’t really something that pragmatism has a monopoly on. All it sounds like is that you’re saying is pragmatism doesn’t talk about ontology. Seems like a denial of the question (which I’m not averse to, but I’d like reasons as to why) as opposed to a refutation of it

>>13128
Based the first response in the thread to actually engage with the OP. I will read those PDFs anon :)

I’m impressed, you used so many words all to say you know nothing at all. Read a Bible and fuck off with this postmodernist shit

Let’s all pay attention to this post.
>>13126

>>13130
Is this postmodernism in the room with us right now

>>13128
you are stuck in the kantian quagmire. to say the brain "mediates" reality is to imply that whatever is on the other side of the "medium" from reality exists outside of or in some way beyond reality. if anything is "mediated" it is the object, and the mediated object is the object for a subject.

I used to find this Hegelian line quite compelling but now I think that it’s a bit pointless, given that it doesn’t actually offer any defence of the position other than ‘oh well we can’t know so lets assume we can find everything within the ideal reality’. Cute in theory, but in practice you get people like Schelling who think you can just choose to expand your ego into infinity and that walls just exist like, by our own willpower man. Crazy stuff (if my reading of Schelling is correct). It seems again like just a rejection of the question rather than anything sensible to say about the answer.

All of philosophy is ultimately a series of footnotes to Plato — but to Plato’s cave specifically. It comes down to this: If there is something there, then we should probably go find it. If there isn’t, well we’re wasting our time. Saying ‘idk I’m just gonna go on what I’ve got here’ is a kind of resentful rejection of possibility in favour of staying within the cave.

>>13133
>I used to find this Hegelian line quite compelling but now I think that it’s a bit pointless, given that it doesn’t actually offer any defence of the position other than ‘oh well we can’t know so lets assume we can find everything within the ideal reality’.
that's precisely the opposite of what it does though. the point is that we *can* know, and that we *do* know, but philosophers muddy the waters raising issues where there are none. this is the point that i linked j.l. austin for.
>It seems again like just a rejection of the question rather than anything sensible to say about the answer.
you are correct. the question can be rejected because it is premised on a problem (alienation from or mediation of "reality" for consciousness) which only exists in the minds of philosophers.
>It comes down to this: If there is something there, then we should probably go find it. If there isn’t, well we’re wasting our time. Saying ‘idk I’m just gonna go on what I’ve got here’ is a kind of resentful rejection of possibility in favour of staying within the cave.
i would argue that it is the philosopher who puts himself in the cave by subordinating appearance to an imagined reality that sits just beyond the appearance. the truth is that appearance logically entails reality, and vice versa. that is not to say that every appearance and rational interpretation of such is correct, but that one cannot conceive of something's appearing e.g. blue without being able to conceive of something's *actually being blue*. this is the point i linked searle for.

>>13128
>>13134
i feel silly rereading these posts (not silly for reading them, i feel autistic for that) because i’ve confused wilfred sellars, whose paper i shared in the first post, with john searle, an analytical philosopher i have significantly lower regard for. no one else would have noticed or cared, but i will take this moment to self flagellate.

>>13134
i cant comment on austin since i havent got the time to read it right now (I've saved it to my list, it's at the top), but when you say 'the truth is that appearance logically entails reality' this is precisely what needs to be demonstrated

>>13136
it may take me a bit of time to get to it since the other books I am reading rn are long and I'm near the start so I probably won't be able to give a meaningful response on those two in this thread

>>13136
>when you say 'the truth is that appearance logically entails reality' this is precisely what needs to be demonstrated
here is a selection from the sellars linked above which gets at this precise issue. if you should get time to read and fully digest the whole work, i would say read the austin first, as it lays a large part of the context that sellars is also responding to. both are essential reading for anyone trying to do post-positivist philosophy.

>>13138 (me)
and a few more bits at the end for good measure.

>>13133
>in practice you get people like Schelling who think you can just choose to expand your ego into infinity and that walls just exist like, by our own willpower man
That sounds more like Fichte. Schelling did have a very early "Fichtean" period, but he generally insisted on the primacy of nature before the "I," which eventually led to Fichte and Schelling splitting. It's one of the reasons why Heidegger sympathized with Schelling the most among the post-Kantian idealists.

Hegel's position is not Schelling's, but he opposed Fichte as well. He points out the very same thing you mention. From the "Science of Logic":
>In the more abstract exposition of the Kantian philosophy, or at least of its principles, namely in Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre, the infinite progress likewise constitutes the foundation and the ultimate. The first principle in the exposition, “I = I,” is followed by a second which is independent of it, the opposition of the “not-I”; the connection between the two is right away also assumed as a quantitative distinction, the “not-I” being partly determined through the “I,” also partly not. The “not-I” thus continues in it so that it remains opposed to its non-being as something non-sublated. Starting from there, after the contradictions contained therein have been developed in the system, the concluding result is the same relation that made the beginning; the “not-I” remains an infinite shock, an absolute other; its final reciprocal reference connecting it with the “I” is the infinite progress, longing and striving — the same contradiction with which the beginning was made.
And much later in the book:
>As for the infinite obstacle of Fichte’s Idealism, it might well be that it has no thing-in-itself for foundation, so that it becomes a determinateness purely within the “I.” But this determinateness that the “I” makes its own, sublating its externality, is to the “I” at the same time an immediate determinateness, a limitation of the “I” which the latter may transcend but which contains a side of indifference, and on account of this indifference, although internal to the “I,” it entails an immediate non-being of it.
I think he somewhere calls Fichte's idealism "megalomaniacal" as well. Regardless, it isn't characteristic of German idealism per se.

>>13140
you're quite right that I'm conflating Schelling and Fichte. It's been some time

i think something that no one is taking about is that marx DID have an ontology. one that might be far less abstract than deleuze. apparently gentile took some interest in it during an early period of his philosophical career (though he later veers from it or perhaps never agreed with it in the first place it… i am still note completely sure how precisely he does this, since the ideas in gentile's actual idealism seem pretty vague. like he describes the mind as a development and a constructive activity which is cool but there is not much talk about how man really relates to the external world? or perhaps it is this lack of emphasis, and his move to grounding man on a more abstract "socius" an intentional move? maybe more on this later). his reading of it is rather interesting, and this blog post by some fascist tries to critique materialism i think goes over them: https://zoltanous.substack.com/p/giovanni-gentile-and-the-young-karl?s=w

the basic synopsis of this article is that marx, like a good hegelian, grounds subjectivity on an infinite process i.e. a process in which one confronts an other that is incorporated into itself. furthermore, marx believes that knowledge involves us recognizing an object as a "self-alienation" and consequently there is a reincorporation of the object into the self. the language of "reincorpoation" is sort of weird as it implies that objects as particulars were primordially all somehow a part of the subject, which would defeat the necessity of an infinite process to begin with… if you are not familiar, the true infinite is meant to be juxtaposed against "false" notions of infinite. that which is finite is that which has a limit. however, we can not simply take away this limit and call it a day. for this sort of infinite is determined as simply not-infinite, so it in some sense has a limit. then there is also he bad infinite which is not good either (here is an article explaining the true and bad infinite: https://hegel.net/en/v11123froeb.htm). the solution is to conceptualize infinity as process by which the finite transcends its finitiude and gradually incorporated otherness into itself. this is an absolutely core element of hegel's system which should be understood… so we see that if there was a self-alienation it would imply that the subject was initially a sort of false infinity that had no otherness. then the question would be why limit? would take things to a perhaps unnecessarily theological or eschatological direction which i dont think is necessary?

anyways overlooking that problem for a sec, there is a major problematic which this infinite process is trying to solve. namely, how subject and object are related to one another. for the idealists what was extremely important is how they were related to one another in knowledge in particular. marx, as already foreshadowed in his theses on feuerbach, grounds this relationship on sensuous activity. in particular, through it subject and object first separate, presumably producing this "self-alienation" that was mentioned above. now, in seeing the products of man's activity, he comes to contemplate himself, and thus the object of his labour gets incorporated back into himself. so it is by virtue of this process that subject of object both emerge and are intrinsically related together

now we must confront the problem mentioned before. but i think now that we have introduced sensuous activity i think there is a good answer here. what seems to be happening is that it is within the context of sensuous activity that subject and object become categories that are phenomenologically (in husserlian sense?) salient

one quick note… this article does gesture vaguely at how gentile diverges of marx:
>Gentile held that Marx had not made a substantial innovation in the fundamental Hegelian conception of the world. Marx had attempted, with Feuerbach, to substitute one content for another in dealing with the Hegelian dialectic. But even this substitution, Gentile held, was really only apparent. A more substantial understanding of idealism would have revealed that the sensuous activity with which the revisionists were preoccupied was but the most primitive moment of the spiritual life, the prius out of which arises the objective and subjective moment. It was in precisely this fashion that Gentile was to interpret sensation in his mature writings
could this be the true core of fascism? is there a larger research project worth exploring here? so much intrigue and i haven't really looked to deeply into any of it lol

ok brilliant, anyways idk if you read the last post i made, but brzozowski ties into all of this as well! in his philosophy of labour, he mentions how labour is the process by which subject and object are initially differentiated. as i mentioned above, to brzozowski, labour is a delineation of duration. this insight becomes more amazing when we take in mind bergson's own ideas about subjectivity. one crucial thing he talks about is how if we are to talk about the relation between subject and object, we should do it through time. bergson believed that duration is behind the separation of subject and object. brzozowski seems to be trying to connect bergson's account of subjectivity with marx's! and in such an elegant motivated fashion! compare this to deleuze who starts talking about syntheses or whatever, idk i havent yet read deleuze tbh but it seems DUMB to me. so uhh point is brzozowski might be pretty cool? he seems to have followed an ontological project that is very much after the young marx. i suspect he might have a more concrete grasp on anxiety than heidegger (amongst perhaps other things, check out "On the Pseudo-Concreteness of Heidegger's Philosophy" and marcuse's postscript to his book 'Heideggerian Marxism'). one thing i don't like though is he seems to take a polemical stance towards engels which idk i think a dialectic of nature is so so important

<~DEEP BREATH IN~
speaking of engels, another guy whose work i am sort of hyped for is adrian johnston! his whole project is called "transcendental materialism" which uhh yeah that is a name of all time. i think i agree with the wise word's of zizek: "what the fuck does that mean?". and yeah, this guy takes tons of pages from zizek in fact he wrote an apparently excellent book titled 'Zizek's Ontology: A Transcendental Materialist Theory of Subjectivity' which i have not read. once again quoting zizek "While reading it, I often had the uncanny feeling of being confronted by a line of argumentation which fits better than my own texts what I am struggling to formulate"… so he seems pretty good at exegesis, which is good since johnston's project is very much based upon zizek's ontology. of course that is not why i am excited with his work. rather it may be in some sense due to the ways in which he diverges from zizek. see instead of doing this whole schelling-quantum thing for trying to metaphysically ground subjectivity (a somewhat dubious strategy which zizek employs which doesn't seem to care much about plausibility of how exactly this gets instantiated in a flesh machine – a problem painfully important to me), he instead looks to the dialectics of nature as well as hegel's philosophy of nature. this is so important and is perhaps a step to righting the anti-naturalistic tendencies of western marxism (it is sort of weird brzozowski seems to also go an anti-naturalistic route despite being influenced by bergson? like-). a 2nd interesting about him is that he seems to interact with some analytic philosophers, in particular mcdowell and cartwright. this is because he takes seriously mcdowell's concept of second nature, and the concept of dappled world is a (somewhat disagreeable to me) concept that is used to wrestle with it. believe it or not, this also leads a line back to the last post i made as well

johnston has an incomplete series of books called 'Adventures in Transcendental Materialism' which i plan on binging when the first instalment is complete. in the meantime, one interesting summary of his ideas is in an article cutely named "Points of Forced Freedom: Eleven (More) Theses on Materialism"

someday it will all fit together… bergson, rhythmanalysis, marx, philosophy of labour, transcendental materialism… and when that day comes, i will be all powerful! or rather not because i still need to study up on a bunch of theoretical physics for redacted reasons. i will complete german idealism and fundamental ontology (amongst other things) and there still will never be any replies to these posts… it's so over, but what can you do but laugh?

>>13142
>first instalment is complete
*last
while im correcting myself check out this interview:
https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/on-transcendental-materialism

>>13129
> the first response in the thread to actually engage with the OP

im actually interested in these kinds of things but your OP assuming that marxists don't have an ontology just shows that you haven't done the reading or worse, that you read an interpretation of marx in the context of liberal academia

>>13142
Adrian Johnston, Ray Brassier, and Hanjo Berressem are great!

>>13144
I didn't assume that. I am pointing out that the general position *on this board* is anti-ontological

>>13147
yeah there are a vocal handful of people on this board that are like that but they are rejecting the marxist position in favor of vulgar materialism so it is not really a critique of "tankies" or dialectical materialism but a specific sect of people who follow Cockshott

>>13131
thank you for pointing it out, it was a good post

>>13133
>It comes down to this: If there is something there, then we should probably go find it. If there isn’t, well we’re wasting our time.
<Saying ‘idk I’m just gonna go on what I’ve got here’ is a kind of resentful rejection of possibility in favour of staying within the cave.
Don't these contradict? You go on what you have in order to find out what there is. I think maybe you should re-read hegel if you don't understand that "here" and "there" are interconnected, one thing and another thing, or one thing and its future transformation, are connected. You don't need to try to take up a new (impossible) vantage point in order to discover difference (or whatever you mean by 'possibility' in its positive content).

one thing that is really weird to me is how ontology is split off from science and meta-science, as its own sub-category of epistemology? or a parallel category? i dont really know… what exists is discoverable through… science. Not any single formula of discovery but observation and validation, abstract understanding moving towards concrete understanding, and the validation of our knowledge. What better can anyone do? It looks to me like there are only two sides: on one side there are people actively trying to know what there is. These people accept the imperfections of the process, try to work about biases, try to account for weak corroboration, etc. On the other hand, there are people who only want to call into question the ability to know anything, which only works by calling into question the material world as a whole, which can only be done by placing subjective experience as logically prior to the perceived material reality. These two lines are materialism and idealism. Why should we be idealists, OP?

>>13136
>NEEDS to be demonstrated
according to people who want to waste everyone's time
because what answer could we find? If it were true that material reality does not exist, only perception exists somehow in a spiritual, non-material way, then so what? Do we sit down and try to reach nirvana because it's all fake? Will i stop feeling pain, or be able to bend reality to my will because of this (equally unprovable) idea? Since the opposite proposition is equally unprovable and has literally no benefit to even entertain (since it only gets in the way of interacting knowledgeably with the-perceptions-formally-known-as-the-world), why does this question matter?

>>13147
god help you for thinking anything of leftypol at all, how did you get here and why stay, does it feed some psychological need? Do you not feel seen in your daily life? Anyways here is your (you).

We seize the mop and figure all that shit out later

>>13145
ty 4 reply! never heard of this hanjo berresem fella. what's interesting about him. i see he somewhat recently wrote a book on guattari's solo work which looks interesting. i am interested in the schizoanalytic cartographies because i wonder whether they can better explain the structure and emergence of everyday life

>>13146
hmm interesting. this article does a good job motivating what makes deleuze's difference and repetition so interesting to pure blooded lacanians… there seems however to be a looming dislike for guattari or guattari's interference with deleuze which i wonder whether gets fleshed out more… i wonder if d&r may prove to be an extremely crucial read that is far more important than i may have initially realized. there may be a very deep connection between freud and bergson that deleuze may have discovered/intuited through the motif of temporality. perhaps perhaps, or i could just be overhyping deleuze too much

also the idea of how drive arises by instinct being redirected through the mediation of the plastic neocortex (and desire also stemming from a similar redirection, this time with biological need getting coded by the symbolic and imaginary order) definitely helps to put into context the abstract principles in the 11 (more) theses on materialism article i referenced above… it seems that what is going on is not simply a sort of complex of systems which through some generic interaction produce generic "short circuits" (which diverge a systems behaviour from what is "intended"), instead certain dispositions are almost itemized/"objectified" and passed into a larger rhythm/system whereby it is "processed" (information processing metaphor, though as a note to self for later use, perhaps a better word here could be "diffracted"). there may be some larger hint here as a computational (or perhaps even post-computational…? this sounds like baseless schizoranting if unaware of my larger project… i apologize…) explanatory basis for psychoanalytic ontology

>>13150
What's stopping you from doing that right now?

>>13151
>what's interesting about him
*what's interesting about him?
meant this as a question lol

>>13151
i heard psychoanalytic ontology and schizo and got excited but then i realised ur not talking about synthesizing heidegger and deleuze/guattari but instead just doing a zizek

I guess Plato was right. Everyone wants to be a philosopher king, no one wants to be a functioning member of soyciety

i, too, remember being a philosophy undergrad

>>13156
You can't point that out lest anons will call you "anti-intellectual".

We need less philosophy and more economics.

>>13158
ive actually made quite a few serious threads on economics here before, specifically post-keynesian and MMT, but people ignore them and yell at you for being 'too theoretical' just like they do when i post about philosophy.

let's be real, none of you actually have anything interesting to say and your dicks are just small and that's why you're mad at someone trying to *actually say things*, someone who actually speaks threatens you. you'd rather argue about vatican II, the stock market, and mayday (top line of the board rn as I'm speaking) than actually engage with a discussion about re-evaluating values, meanwhile laughably complaining about how im 'not talking about anything meaningful'. look urselves in the mirrors you ineffective liberal goons, your bourgeois revolution is not coming and certainly nothing you do is actually getting to it. you arent even talking, youre basically all mutes.

>>13159
your have a anfem flag, ofcourse ppl will not like you

>>13160
Well I like you. Don't take it seriously.

The problem with ontological grounding is that the study of ontology today suggests the Marxist / Hegelian and German idealist way of thinking can't actually work, or produces something very different from what a naive observer woudl assume. If you are asking questions of metaphysics and what it means to be, philosophy was never "solved" in that regard nor did it freeze in place after the late 19th century. There was instead a conspiracy to destroy this knowledge and replace it with an impostor, and that is where you get things like logical positivism.

It should be understood that the positivist claim was not necessarily that there can be no such thing as metaphysics - i.e. "scientism" in the crass sense. It is rather that there was no metaphysics handed down from on high, and it was possible through the methods of science to investigate and verify if a scientific paradigm works. It was idiots like Popper who bastardized this to advance the neoliberal idea, who wanted scientism to be as dumb as possible. In order to have any useful scientific theory, philosophy of science is necessary, but this philosophy would be a product of human beings, because human beings are the creatures who conduct science. "Science" as some Demiurge overmind was a later invention of imperial science, that was designed to forestall independent inquiry. There are a lot of unflattering things to say about the positivists - their habit of cajoling, their interest is crude mesmerism, their propensity for sycophantic behavior - but this idea of "The Science" being held above the world is not a liberal invention. It is not even a British imperial invention - the imperial ideologues are perfectly aware of the trap, and simply chose to allow it to fester among inferiors, a deliberate lie to weed out those who are not allowed in the actual institutions. It is Germanic and the philosophy of a warrior aristocracy that is ordered to push against the world at the command of external forces, while not being aware of what is done to them. The Germanic mindfuck in its time was one of the most elaborate projects going, and there is a straight line from Kant (virgin loser) to Hegel to Hitler. It was this, coupled with imperial operations research and investigations into psychology, which made possible the habit of lying the Nazis reveled in, and this was not a habit particular to the Nazis. It was a global phenomenon, to be launched simultaneously and on multiple philosophical fronts, to arrive at an outcome that we are seeing play out. It is often conflated with "Marxism" because Marx's writing dealt with many of these subjects. The philosophical and ontological framework did not allow Marxism to be viewed objectively, but instead encouraged a belief that Marx was this super secret Anglo-Jewish agent capable of mind control - and this is really a reflection of the institutions the Germanic thinking created, the way in which they believed education and society should proceed. But, the inventions of the Germans were not particular to a race or one area. They were exported and reworked to build the schooling systems of all the world, and we have suffered from those ruinous institutions ever since. All we do in education is designed to retard and stunt the brain, so that subjects are trained only as far as they are allowed to be useful for the "great plan", whatever it may be at the time. The university in its entirety is a joke that should not have been allowed to assert the authority that it did. We were not allowed the world where its authority could be challenged by the people, or their own institutions. It would also be the working class co-opted by a ruling class institution, and the workers would be told that the university was like Christ, and that "the Christ" was the only way to wisdom. Their native faculties would be destroyed by one insidious assault after another, and that has proceeded in stages every generation. This is a rough overview and could not explain entirely how or why this has been done, but our position allows us to see in hindsight that it has been done, and has perpetuated itself long enough that removing it would not be trivial.

Anyway, the interesting thing is that there is still investigation into this question of ontology and science. General systems thought requires this, and the need of such a thought was understood during the 20th century. An open investigation into the matter would not be permitted, due to the institutions of our time and the interests that govern humanity. An open investigation would make it clear to nearly all people, in multiple classes, that these institutions are wholly unacceptable and would, by their nature, insinuate that their way is the only way to the bitter end. To challenge them in entirety is not permitted as a serious idea, and those who try are derailed, destroyed, or marginalized. A small handful who pass through every filter are co-opted and given some version of the actual story and purpose of these institutions, and the interests which inhabit them. There is an interest in humanity that has existed for a long time that has always reveled in rot and depravity, and seeks to keep most of humanity fearful and compliant. It is not reducible to an economic imperative or logic, nor is the cause purely a moral one. A certain sort of person has never thought for a moment that humanity and the world should be anything other than a struggle for life, since the struggle for life pushes some reward stimulus and makes the world sensical for them. So long as they are fed sacrifices and torture, they will always choose to continue this, and these people find each other and those that can be aligned with their vision for the world. They do not like any "do-gooders" who would ruin their party, who have no reason to go along with this. The predatory ethos likes to claim they are always the silent majority, and that "everyone agrees with them", that everyone is secretly a Nazi or progressive or liberal or socialist or whatever front the predatory are using to win their game. The truth is that few in humanity truly embrace this ethos. There is a small but noticeable part of humanity that has always been given over to it, and a larger part that have long been incredulous followers for some reason or another, who are almost naturally disposed to this form of worship. Those two groups work in concert to select for people like them, and exclude all others. The third group then is everyone else, who by default has no stake in this bullshit and sees correctly the stupidity of the whole enterprise. There are those in the third group who out of necessity seek power and must reckon with people in the predatory group, who may have various aims large and small. The third group rarely bothers with "world-historical missions" or "billion year contracts" or the insanity the predatory like to glorify. They may have a vision for the world which is noble, decent, self-serving, avaricious, or any number of qualities, but they are typically realist in outlook, even in a situation where realism isn't a viable political sense. The third group is quite large and full of competing interests, and does not correspond to any class as such. Class struggle in the modern sense has really been a struggle of interests, and the interests are never things fixed in place. Every interest and every institution has its modus operandi and conditions it can operate in, and those who share the interest are never married to some particular idea. There are those in humanity though who persistently seek the predatory interest, which claims to be transhistorical and the master theory, and they utilize whatever philosophy, ideology, institution, material condition, or people they can towards that goal. We are told to believe these people do not exist, or they must have some ulterior motive, but it has long been known to those who see enough that such people are not unusual, and the predatory can be found in any niche that allows them to survive. There is no ulterior motive, no actual grand vision, no real world-historical mission, nor are these people tools to be used by some greater purpose which is holy and sacrosanct. The predatory simply know that unless someone will tell them no, they can push this reward button and their behavior is encouraged. Reasonable people see that this is a stupid way to live and does not allow any substantive life, but humans do not need to be reasonable to endure. The predatory have long sought to make their interest and values the only admissible values, and declare that anyone but them is insane and retarded. That above all has been their great motive and game, and while it is not truly transhistorical - the predatory have been known to utilize a begging strategy and slave morality to appear harmless, and the predatory came from somewhere - it is difficult to put a stop to their behavior without a consistent means to tell them no. Ultimately the only thing that would stop them is an oppositional force that is uncompromising in defending themselves against this idea, and has some basis to perpetuate itself. The predatory like to lock humanity into quasi-Manichean struggles, while at the same time pretending that no such struggle is possible and the only struggle is predatory might imposing itself on a dead world, as if the world were puppeted by their mind.

I have only alluded to a few things at work here, to answer this question of translating ontology to praxis. My notes are scattered, and I've avoided saying the obvious word that unites much of this interest in our time, since it is a trigger. I can continue onward if people like.

There is a distinction between being and doing that can never be fully bridged. Marx attempts to merge these two with some clever wordplay, though he is careful in acknowledging what can and cannot be done with this.
Ultimately human beings see the world more through doing than being, so much that we understand things by what they do rather than what they "are". If we were to understand existence operationally rather than by an ontology defined by symbolic language and "idea" alone, we arrive at very different interpretations. The ontology of understanding things by what they do, and what it means to "do" anything, is one that philosophy never likes to develop, since it questions many conceits they cherish. For example, humans and rationality in general would become nothing special at all, and human frailty would be exposed. This is in fact what has happened, and the use of philosophy now is to obfuscate things that are thrown in our face, in an effort to condition humanity to accept the slave system that has been declared. This slave system will never work the way its ideologues present it, and it isn't intended to work at all. The only intent is to decide who lives and who dies, and the terms those selected to live will be allowed. Those selected to die are allowed "freedom", but with no security and omnipresent predation. Those selected to die are not allowed purpose, and if they choose a purpose for themselves, it will be tracked and disrupted if that purpose suggests that the ruling ideas are wrong. Their freedom and intellect is effectively neutralized as a historical force, and it is materially irrelevant. This plan is never wholly successful, but so long as it finds new sacrifices and neutralizes threats to its rule, it persists as long as it can. The implications of this to our actual being are things we are seeing now. Those who were true believers wanted this outcome or at least most of it, and enjoy the garish display of torture and humiliation. They love seeing freaks on display humiliate themselves, and their value system trained them to believe this is the purpose of life and the path to Heaven. To be a sinner is to be a fool, and there is no escape. The goal is to turn men into living abortions, and that has indeed been done.

>>13163

what you're saying about the double hypocrisy of pushing quasi-manichean struggles on the populace resonates w me. actually a lot of what you say in your post is super interesting. i think a lot of what you say about 'the predatory group' does some good in bringing desire into the discussion about pragmatics, but rather than group i would just class this as a tendency. there's a problem with pathologising 'sociopaths' (obviously you dont mean sociopaths but i am using them as an example) like they are some real category which sort of has the effect of excusing or rather pathologising the desiring machinations of everyday life. 'everybody wants to be a fascist' so to speak.

>An open investigation would make it clear to nearly all people, in multiple classes, that these institutions are wholly unacceptable and would, by their nature, insinuate that their way is the only way to the bitter end. To challenge them in entirety is not permitted as a serious idea, and those who try are derailed, destroyed, or marginalized
this is excellent stuff

Marx speaks of the 'ruthless criticism of all that exists' but the minute people start talking about criticising the power structures of 'science' its apparently a no-go for a lot of so-called marxists.

>>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