/lit/ - Literature

>>3561658
>mfw #1 and engineering

In metaphysics, David Armstrong, Derek Parfit, and Peter van Inwagen.

In philosophy of mind and language, John Searle, Saul Kripke, David Chalmers, Colin McGinn, Dan Dennett, and the Churchlands.

In ethics (and political philosophy), Alasdair MacIntyre, Rosalind Hursthouse, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Michael Sandel, Michael Walzer, and Peter Singer.
In epistemology, Alvin Goldman, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Feldman, and Keith Lehrer.

In phenomenology, Robert Sokolowski and Jean-Luc Marion.

In semiotics, Umberto Eco and John Deely.

In Thomism, Benedict Ashley, Eleonore Stump, Peter Geach, John Finnis, John Haldane, and John Wippel.

>>3456186
>I bought her mainly for discourse and companionship but of course her holes are a bonus.

>>3098697
>pinned

>>3082022
Mathematics = Science

Look at this fool, look at him and laugh! No self-respecting mathematician will ever call themselves a scientist.

This is one question on Marx's theories I've seen no one ask. But it seems to me it's one huge blaring hole that distorts his entire theory.

Feudalism gave way to Capitalism because the Feudalist mode of production gave to much power to the Bourgeoisie class, allowing them to usurp political influence from the Aristocrats, as exampled by the French and British civil wars.

That part seems feasible. But the idea of the Proletariat workers class assuming complete control and forming a classless society doesn't seem possible, as there is no way a Proletariat class could possibly remain united throughout a revolution. All revolutionary movements consist of footfodder as well as planners, with ranks spread out inbetween. In no revolution will you find every revolter to share a giant hivemind. The OWS movement is clear evidence of this, the 99% was rife with social divisions, the strongest being the division between the yuppie, hipster planners at the north end and the welfare nigs and other proles at the bottem end.

Because of this social division through the revolution, the control over the means of production cannot possibly be shared by one single united class after. Either the planners of the revolution assume control and form a stratified class system with themselves at the top, or the footfodder fighters who did the groundwork once again try to elimate all above them. Giving way to a new revolution, which will in turn have new leaders directing from above.

Pic unrelated