/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1835230
Damn why did god make such a stupid universe it could be explained by MS Paint venn-diagrams?

>>1835230
>some stupid Venn-diagrams to explain all of existence.
the diagrams are meant to explain things on a level you can understand.

>>1835233
maybe its you who are stupid, not the universe. ever thought of that?

>>1835207
The problem is that its wrong and you don't understand the Marxist position and you think I don't understand or am trying to refute the scientific position when I do and I'm not.

Its as if you think that by admitting dialectics is correct you have to give up science but I keep telling you that they are in separate domains which is why science has no bearing on philosophy and you keep trying to prove that science can overcome or supplant philosophy when it can't.

The biggest category is metaphysics and then inside it you have ontology and inside that you have empiricism and inside that you have science. Marxism assumes a dialectical metaphysics and then says that people who dont subscribe to it are "doing metaphysics(derogatory)" then inside that you have a dialectical phenomenologic ontology and then inside that you have empiricism and science and I guess you could have ethics and aesthetics or whatever else. They are perfectly compatible.

The dominant worldview is neoliberal neopositivist physical reductionism by which, since Marx, western academia has claimed to have collapsed the distinction between these categories, which is wrong, and is actually motivated cope against Marxism. If you google it you will see mostly diagrams of these categories represented horizontally as if they are equal and independent when they are not. It leads to things like evo psych or trying to prove ethics or solve politics with biological facts and other stupid shit you hear from people like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Certain stances(ie realism, rationalism, etc) in certain domains can rule out or exclude things in other domains but not always it depends on the scope of the claim in question and which domain it pertains to. I even posted some analytical garbage that explains this upthread and you either didn't read it or didn't understand the connection because you haven't done your homework.

The issue with all this is that by denying dialectics it actually precludes revolution and class struggle. It is a sneaky backhanded way to deny the possibility of class consciousness and pretend you aren't doing it.

>>1835234
Yes all real scientific laws can be explained so simply with no math whatsoever. Lmao. So what material effects have you been able to achieve in ms paint?

>>1835236
>Its as if you think that by admitting dialectics is correct you have to give up science but I keep telling you that they are in separate domains which is why science has no bearing on philosophy and you keep trying to prove that science can overcome or supplant philosophy when it can't.
>The biggest category is metaphysics and then inside it you have ontology and inside that you have empiricism and inside that you have science.
you are misreading the diagram. This is an ontological diagram not an epistemological one. The label says physical world, not "physics".

>>1835240
So made up bullshit with no facts behind it?

>>1835242
no, the point is that hegelian/spinozan/platonic substance monism is wrong and a dead end.

>>1835244
So made up bullshit with no facts behind it? H

>>1835236
how exactly does denying dialectics deny class struggle? Class struggle can be directly observed as well as being observed through history. Denying dialectics would at most deny the historical necessity i.e. outcomes of class struggle but thats actually a good thing. Socialism isn't a historically necessary outcome of the class struggle and thats part of the hegelian historicist baggage whic SHOULD be ejected since history is actually radically contingent and historical materialism is just a structure we imposed on it looking backwards. Historical could just as easily produce barbarism or neofeudalism which in this case is looking more likely than socialism anyway.

>>1835246
Because it can't account for change and dialectics is the study of matter in motion opposed to a static mechanical materialism as conceived by a christian god who created the world in seven days with all the animals and plants and rocks in their perfect ideal forms.

>>1835240
are you actually retarded or you just dont know what words mean? thats not even a response to your diagrams. youre just describing a physicalist ontology not the structure of how ontology(what there is) and epistemology(how we know what there is) relate.

>>1835248
What is this strawman argument? Because Christians are retarded and you are slightly less so that makes you not retarded?

>>1835248
>dialectics is the study of matter in motion opposed to a static mechanical materialism
again i don't think you're paying attention here. Do you actually fucking believe any form of science doesn't include notions of motion, change over time, processes, etc.? that adding 19th century german idealism into the mix is literally the ONLY way of modeling change or having a theory that accounts for social or any other change? Again this is what i mean by dogmatism, people who are just quoting the luminaries of socialism, no thought, critical reflection and are still fighting the battles of the 19th century and whatever lenin said in 1905.

There are PLENTY of alternatives to modelling change and/or motion in a social theory other than using Hegelian language and concepts.

>>1835252
Modern science is built on the enlightenment which is foundationally about reconciling the belief in god with the natural world. It has a lot ofchristian baggage because western Europe was christian. A lot of athiests back before evolution was discovered believed that species were eternal and even then entire concept of species categorization is infected with this static representation.

>>1835254
>Do you actually fucking believe any form of science doesn't include notions of motion, change over time, processes, etc.?
Yes. Your describing mechanical motion
>that adding 19th century german idealism into the mix is literally the ONLY way of modeling change or having a theory that accounts for social or any other change?
Yes. Its proof by contradiction and you cant do it without it.

>>1835256
Ok and… Jesus Christ. Is there a term for this shit? When you just go on a random tangent in a debate and it just confuses your opponent for how it could possibly be relevant. The closest I can think is a Gish Gallop but that's not it exactly.

>>1835260
Its not a random tangent its to show how its relevant to the modern concept of science and not limited just to people who are religious.

>>1835260
I mean like we're discussing, let's say, who knows, it doesn't matter, universal healthcare, forgiving student loans. Then you start debating colonies on Neptune, and I have no possible idea how it could connect. I can't say that there is not some connection in your mind, but I can't access it.

>>1835262
as the other anon said, what exactly does that video have to do with fuck all? I think you're just throwing shit at the wall and using whatever science terms out of context you can think of to justify your BS

>>1835265
Its an educational video for children that explains proof by contradiction in simple terms.

>>1835267
and again, what does that have to do with fuck all?

>>1835264
We aren't discussing universal healthcare, or forgiving student loans, were discussing materialism and idealism.

>>1835270
Doot you can't understand an analogy. Maybe it wasn't a fair analogy but at least you should be able to understand it was an analogy.

>>1835271
I dont see how giving examples of why modern science still has idealist baggage because its not dialectical is an unrelated tangential gish-gallop.

>>1835277
And really if its getting off topic its because you keep asking stupid questions. Almost like that is the point.

>>1835281
i dont know if proof by contradiction in the mathematical sense really is the same as contradiction in dialectics.

Seems to me that we are talking at cross purposes here. The main difference between "mechanical" materialism and dialectics is that dialectics sees change and movement as the result of the clash of internal oppositions which necessarily lead to a climactic resolution while mechanical materialism sees all change as being externally impelled, like billiard balls on a pool table colliding. The thing is these things aren't incompatible depending on the level of ontological abstraction. It could be true that at a micro level things are atomistic but this can lead to macroscopic change. Hence the heat/thermo analogy cockshottists use which itself is reminiscent of the sorts of analogies Mao uses in on contradiction/on practice which isn't surprising since Cockshott is basically a 70s maoist combined with a stemlord hence cockshottists are just maoists in the grand scope of things and so was althusser basically.

I guess the only difference is hegelian marxists would ascribe the macro changes to the dialectic-logic contradictions whereas cockshottism uses the atomist/statistical physics metaphor of a writhing morass of agglomerated individual irreducible elements which interact in an atomic and mechanical sense leading indirectly to macroscopic change much as heat is merely atoms speeding up and colliding and eventually producing a state change (ex: water to steam).

The problem isn't that cockshott is some scientistic anglo-positivist as many of the braindead posters here seem to think but rather the opposite. its that Cockshott wants to drag Althusser halfway back to "normal" marxism by on one hand acknowledging the Althusserian view of history as radically contingent, and that historical materialism is simply a backwards looking structure we place on history, not a model with predictive capability the same way evolutionary biology only explains the previous evolution of one species into another but doesn't predict future species. And this is where cockshott jumps in to say you can combine randomness with necessity by splitting the difference and thats where the autism with markov chains and stochastic materialism come in. But rather than an attack on marxist historical materialism as many here seem to think its actually an attempt to save it. One can just as easily take the atomist metaphors provided by Althusser in the philosophy of the encounter in the opposite direction.

So unlike what OP seems to think the solution isn't to retvrn to hegel, but rather the problem is that even Cockshott is too Hegelian and not materialist enough. He's attempting to save historical necessity, or at least as much as he can in the face of radical contingency and destabilization.

The fact is neither scientific positivism or marxist materialism (including cockshottist atomist versions) truly escape idealism or the idea-matter duality, but thats not a reason to simply declare everything "idealism-with-more-steps" like some AW-tier pseud, its a reason to become even more materialist.

I think the Bataillean notions of base materialism are helpful here. Matter is no longer a monist ideal form like the mirror image of Spinoza's substance, but instead has been liberated from all ontological prisons, that is to say base materialism replaces ontology with non ontology. The difference for example between neoplatonists and spinozists on one hand and practitioners of, for example, advaita vedanta in hindu philosophy is that while neoplatonists posit "the one" i.e. the superform and spinozans "substance", these are "still things in themselves" in the kantian sense, while advaita vedanta posits non dualism. Non dualism is not the same as oneness but rather itself is the negation of oneness as nonbeing is the negation of being, and in this sense what nondual hinduism does to idealism, base materialism does to materialism. One thing these eastern (and other) spiritual traditions seem to share with Bataille's thought, though obviously very different, is the inherent inarticulability of the ground of being/base. By definition base materialism is what allows us to truly escape idealism and the byzantine labyrinth of linguistic signifiers.

>>1835333

>The difference for example between neoplatonists and spinozists on one hand and practitioners of, for example, advaita vedanta in hindu philosophy is that while neoplatonists posit "the one" i.e. the superform and spinozans "substance", these are "still things in themselves" in the kantian sense, while advaita vedanta posits non dualism. Non dualism is not the same as oneness but rather itself is the negation of oneness as nonbeing is the negation of being, and in this sense what nondual hinduism does to idealism, base materialism does to materialism. One thing these eastern (and other) spiritual traditions seem to share with Bataille's thought, though obviously very different, is the inherent inarticulability of the ground of being/base. By definition base materialism is what allows us to truly escape idealism and the byzantine labyrinth of linguistic signifiers.

? You've just described Hegel

>>1834634
The screenshots explains exactly that, but ig you didn't read them. Logic is the discipline that thinks about its own operations. I don't really care about some analytic vs conty discourse, it's irrelevant. The important thing is whether we're thinking about thinking.

Science takes certain forms of logic for granted and then applies them to pre-conceived notions in order to explore those ontologies in greater depth.

But philosophy is thinking discovering the very forms of thinking itself.

>>1834630
It's a way to get out of the problem of induction, reliance on contingent 'thats just the way the mind works / experience works' a la the empiricists, which simply turns philosophy into another form of science and instead seeks to grapple with how the structure of thinking works– and not just 'how it does work' empirically but how it *might* work, the very rules from which it operates, and reflexively.

>>1835259
>>1835261
I'm hopping into this irrelevant discussion bc I'm a nerd.

This entirely depends on your concept of change So in Intuitionistic Logic, where there is no law of the excluded middle, you still have change, you just can't posit a rule being false and then change your mind on it based by proofs that that leads to a contradiction in your rules. But you can still find contradictions in your rules when you affirm something to be true. And you can still have fluid logical rules by seeing what you can prove as true with different rules by making certain assumptions of rules as true. They have made intuitionistic versions of Prolog for example and you still can have backtracking. Proof by Contradiction is not all that vital to logic and some mathematicians don't agree with the law of excluded middle.

Also worth noting that in intuitionistic logic, not not P is not the same as P. That is, the negation of negation is not simply the original proposition, and proving the negation of a negation does not prove the original proposition.

>>1835228
Ahh, but u see, u have yet to deduce the concept of space from Being, so this diagram does not hold. Classic Spinozist error!

>>1835352
>You've just described Hegel
not really, although Bataille doesn't 100% reject Hegel either. that would sort of be a longer post though I think his philosophy wouldn't really be compatible with systemic/hegelian philosophy as its too concerned with transgression and unconstrained possibility to be compatible with Hegel's system and its notions of logical completeness.

>>1835383
What you described is charitably an interpretation of Hegel, the 'nonbeing as a negation of being' is in the intro of the science of logic. He says you can use 'nonbeing' as an alternative word for 'nothing'. Also I don't really care about Bataille

>>1835542
>the 'nonbeing as a negation of being' is in the intro of the science of logic
Yes, I know, and I'm telling you other philosophers can have different ideas

>>1835333
>>1835352
Bataille and people influenced by him are retarded (i.e. Deluzeans). Basically his argument is that the only way to escape idealism is to escape literal ideas. That even conceptualizing or defining shit at all is a subtle form of idealism. But once the only thing left is this experiential encounter with the demons of the underworld, why fucking philosophize at all? If the only way to truly be a materialist is to destroy ontology and escape the prisonhouse of linguistic signifiers then why even discuss shit at all, lets just all drop acid and go to a rave since thats fucking closer to materialism than sitting around talking about shit.

You can really see where Nick Land got his schizoism from.

>>1835842
you haven't described any though

>>1835902
Yeah Bataille is a little rarted though I like Story of the Eye. Deleuze is still cool though.

I think Amy Hollywood offers some pretty good critiques of Bataille's 'Inner Experience' thing as well as Sartre's 'projects' nonsense which both clearly got a lot of from Kierkegaard (Bataille clearly understands the spirit of Kierkegaard better). Luce Irigaray does a lot better job of navigating some of the pitfalls of religious thinking than Bataille without going 'like, nihilism man'.

>>1834605
Most anarchists are quite generous to Marx; they just take him in a different direction than the worker's societies from which they departed. Graeber passed on just as New Materialism was coming together; he might have been sympathetic to it.

>>1835902
>the only way to escape idealism is to escape literal ideas
What abstractions are no longer available once you give up the possibility that thoughts can articulate in relation to one another? Mathematics will certainly have a bad time, and Marx had not yet found an art culture that was free from myth. The purity you're chasing may be a false one.

>>1836212
What do you think abolition of the value form means in practice if not moral abolition, and why would that scare anyone who is committed to the end of class, money, and the state?

>>1836307
>Most anarchists are quite generous to Marx; they just take him in a different direction than the worker's societies from which they departed. Graeber passed on just as New Materialism was coming together; he might have been sympathetic to it.

agree w this anarchists are typically very wiling to listen to Marx. The split ain't as clear as people wish to believe.

>What do you think abolition of the value form means in practice if not moral abolition, and why would that scare anyone who is committed to the end of class, money, and the state?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming at this from a moralist angle. I just think Bataille's understanding of existentialism is at once better than Sartre's but also displays some of the limits of Kierkegaard's thought and his dependence on introjecting the suffering of the other to attain his own enlightenment.

>>1836964
I mean to begin with, Bataille is like… the moralist par excellence lol

>>1836210
you didn't really understand that post, the I was saying Bataille is to materialism what nondual hinduism is to idealism

>>1835333
>things aren't incompatible depending on the level of ontological abstraction. It could be true that at a micro level things are atomistic but this can lead to macroscopic change.
i.e. "non reductive materialism". People ITT are getting materialism confused with reductive materialism and even non materialist philosophies which are reductionist. Materialism or even physicalism are not necessarily tied to verificationist theories of meaning or direct realist accounts of perception.

>>1836964
There is more common ground between internationalist anarchists and internationalist Marxists than there is between internationalist Marxists and those who call themselves Marxists and defend nationalism (like the IMT).