/lit/ - Literature

>>12112110
Agreed.

His critique of capitalism is largely cogent for the time however, and in large part has been borne out by history. He evidently underestimated the placating effects of consumerism on the proletariat, however, and just how effectively the state has been subsumed by capital

>But he was wrong about communism.

He wrote very little about communism and only in the vaguest terms.

>>12112132
>and just how effectively the state has been subsumed by capital
marx believed the state emerged out of capitalism

Well, historical materialism, stripped of its dialectical component would become a highly influential idea in modern sociology for good reason.

>>12112132
>>12112152
>>12112912
>>12112948
I'm a right-winger and reactionary, and I think historical materialism is basically correct.

Dialectics are wrong because it says in Ecclesiastes that nothing ever changes.

>>12112110
>>12112132
>>12112948
>>12113047
No. Historical materialism is wrong. All materialism is wrong. The circuit precedes the current. The path precedes the traveler. Before any actuality is the possibility. The center of reality is the will to being. Like a photograph, material is the negative by which we can produce the positive.

>>12112152
>He wrote very little about communism
technically true, but he wrote a whole lot about capitalism which communism is the direct negation of.

>>12113111
absolutely based, trips confirm

>ideas don't influence the material organization of society

all marxists should be launched into the sun, nigga shoulda stuck to economics and kept his grimey jew mitts out of ontology

>>12113111
*hits blunt*

>>12113111
Yes indeed the circuit precedes the current, and the circuit is a direct analogy for the material conditions that society forms in.

>>12113149
I don't smoke.

>>12113167
How can you believe something so obviously self-contradictory? All material conditions are an effect of a previous cause. Culture is a wave, a current. Material is a particular actualization of a non-material pattern. Quantity is meaningless without Quality.

>>12113287
Material would necessarily have to spring from something like itself in some fashion (if it were not like it in some fashion, it could not affect it), being like itself this preceding substance could then likewise also be called "material" though I personally would just call it substance. So everything eventually goes back to something timeless that precedes it that is still fundamentally like it in some fashion. But culture does not precede matter, culture in fact came long after matter, and is a product of material individuals living in a material universe, since the mind is not an uncaused actor.

He was right about more than he was wrong about. You can even agree with the majority of the Frankfurt Schools criticism of capitalism like I do and still see communism is a failed project (which is a sad thing indeed ).

In the Longview or history communism/capitalism really aren’t very old and I’d imagine as technology continues to rise that both models with slowly be phased out ( Protip: it’s already happening )

>>12112110
>a country's or people's historical material conditions are unknowable
>at present countries' material conditions have nothing to do with their power
>if i curse DIALECTICAL CONFUSED COUNTERREVOLUTION every other page people will hopefully ignore this and kill bourgie...but like not me
>mfw

>>12113328
No. You are stuck in thinking of the material. This is why I ended with Quantity is meaningless without Quality. What you believe to be the substance of reality is really the most shallow extremity. The idea comes first. An infant bird has a concept of food before it tastes food. As it grows, the idea of food is refined. The actualization arises from possibility. The values of a society organize the society. From the organization come the logistics. Man's desires are what stir him to action or inaction. It is not the abundance of trees which causes him to build a house, but the desire for a house that causes him to cut down the trees. And even then, if the the idea of a house changes, the trees he cuts down will change. The environment is changed by ideas.

>>12113439
The infant bird has no idea of food before his material body forms, which contains within it instincts derived from his previous ancestor, these instincts didn't exist until one of its ancestors at some point developed them and passed them to its offspring, eventually reaching the bird.

The desire for shelter, brought about by a material body affected by a material environment, leads a man to experiment with and refine various forms of shelter, which are influenced by the material conditions around him. It's no coincidence that houses will be made out of whatever a particular area has an abundance of to make houses out of.

The ideas are beholden to the environment, because as I said, the mind is not an uncaused actor.

>>12113439
>>12113470
Can we end this debate before it goes nowhere and just live and let live?

You philosophers overthink everything

>>12113470
It's strange how you can describe the process, bu not understand the process. Those instincts it inherits are ideas. It inherits those ideas by code. A range of behaviors, a system of ideas and beliefs, is carried from one iteration to the next by code. This means that the ideas, the system of beliefs do not exist or arise from the material. Rather, the material is organized by the idea. Before you challenge this, remember that even the process of procreation is subject to evolution. The process of procreation is present in the system. Within the pattern is a system for codifying and decoding itself. The pattern is the permanent form, and the material is the ephemeral.

>>12113529
It is better to overthink everything than to only overthink some things.

>>12113609
The idea didn't exist until in response to material circumstances, the material components of the brain changed to establish within them the new idea, until that occurred there was no idea.

>>12113145
historical materialism doesn't say that ideas can't effect the material organization of society. it simply says that it plays the dominant role in shaping ideas. read base / superstructure theory.

>>12114537
only correct answer desu

Isnt it weird how Marxism ended up being an extraordinary example of how ideas manifest in material?

This just occured to me. I guess its probably a superficial observation. But one wonders if Marx ever anticipated his ideas being the impetus for the revolutions he argued would emerge as a result of contradictions in capital.

>>12113047
>I'm just as retarded as the opposition is.

>>12114537
You are seeing things the wrong way round. In your view, the material creates the idea. But in this sense, the sensation of an idea is merely an illusory phenomena, the reality of which is a complex series of chemical interactions. However, these chemical interactions follow a pattern. The same chemical interaction produces the same thought. This means the pattern of the though is independent of particular execution of the thought. Whether I think it or you think it, whether it is one set of chemicals or another set of the identical chemicals, the thought is the same. Importantly, the particular chemical circumstances are not simply the chain reaction of synaptic response, but the synapses themselves, and the entire chemical structure of the organism. When you stop isolating the chemical process to the way we measure brain activity, but instead consider that process within the entire environment, including those chemical structures the organism interacts with, you begin to see that what is really happening is the interaction between different patterns. A bird is not simply a collection of cells, themselves a collection of organic compounds, but rather it is a system of behavior in relationship to an almost infinite host of other systems of behavior. Within the earth system, and within the subsystem we call life on earth, the bird is in general a strategic position within and against all the other localized systems. One particular bird will carry out one unique pathway within and against these other systems, but it is unavoidably an execution of several other more fundamental systems, one of the first being the pattern of its species, then genus, then family, and so on. Remarkably, this interaction does not end with the super-order of life itself, for life itself is a pattern of behavior set against the inorganic, which also have their own systems of behavior. The laws of reality precede the materialized reality. Material in this way becomes not the base substrate, but rather a phenomenon of our being. The way we perceive material is not the way it is perceived by any other systems. What you call reality is rather the language by which you interact with the other actualizations of being. As much as life cannot arise out of nothing, so also consciousness cannot arise out of nothing. Our consciousness is not the highest reaches of chemical interaction, but rather an extremely limited keystone to a complex pattern of being. By observing reality closest to us, the reality of evolution becomes undeniable. But considering the full ramifications of evolution from the first being to our own, it also becomes undeniable that materiality itself is not the foundation, but a consequence of prior immaterial being--the idea.

>>12115055
cringe

>>12115097
how so?

>>12113111
Imagine believing this lmao

>>12113111
this is presuming that the Word exists. I'll take my Deleuze and Faustian bargain to animate the material, thank you very much.

>>12115055
The existence of patterns and systems doesn't change the fact that these patterns are still material (which themselves only debatably have an objective ontological reality rather than a strictly nominal one). The existences of forces like form doesn't change the fact that they're operating on a fundamentally material substance. Life did not arise out of nothing, nor did consciousness, it arose out of a primal, fundamental substance that had something in common with the matter of the material universe, and could thus be described as material.

The idea however is not prior to anything, because the idea only forms in reaction to the existence of things (even if it's just the existence of the brain that holds it).

Careful guys. Last time we had this thread I got banned for 'fan fiction'.

>>12115545
>The existence of patterns and systems doesn't change the fact that these patterns are still material

you refute yourself just for having to make the reduction, the mutual dependency of matter on form, and form on matter, precludes you granting priority to one or the other

>Life did not arise out of nothing, nor did consciousness, it arose out of a primal, fundamental substance

ahaha, imagine actually believing this, then your "primal, fundamental substance" contains within it the potential to observe itself into being, which is antithetical to any common sense notion of substance you're pretty much starting back at square one

>>12114709
>what is Göbekli Tepe

people congregate and establish communities for religious reasons, what does that say?

>>12113130
>capitalism which communism is the direct negation of

>>12113130
>whole lot about capitalism which communism is the direct negation of.
Wanna know how i know you never marx?

>>12113529
These guys are hardly philosophers in any real sense, the guy speaking against historical materialism could not give a description of it.

>>12116097
>which is antithetical to any common sense notion of substance

Not it isn't.

>>12116134
consciousness is not a thing, it is the processual self-relating of matter, its recursivity, hegel is a far more profound thinker than marx

>>12113111
>All materialism is wrong

ITT Americans, once again, don't know anything about Marx and spew more shit than a malfunctioning toilet.

>>12115545
To be clear, the other anon you replied to you is not the anon you were replying to. But your argument is full of arbitrary axioms. You are creating barriers between things which have no basis other than the superficial perception of the senses. It's not the mere existence of patterns and systems that demonstrate the material as consequence. It's literally that the pattern has to exist first. The potential pathway of activity exists before it is actualized. Before a river forms, there is already a pathway for the water to follow. Before anything called material could exist, their had to be a framework, a system in which that material could exist. While energy may be material, the laws that govern it are not material. The laws of the universe are not a result of matter. The laws of reality must exist before the material of reality. The immaterial is the substrate out of which the material arises.

>>12115544
False. It is the natural conclusion of evolutionary theory.

>>12116127
>>12116121
You can't take two definitions of capitalism depending on the case. The Communist Manifesto is unarguably a rough outline of Marx's criticisms of what he saw as Capitalism, a sketch of what he believed to be a scientifically-derived utopia (in the abstract), and the general strategy for bringing it about.

>>12116924
In all the years I've been arguing with casual Marxists, I have never heard any other argument other than "You're so ignorant." It saddens me deeply. I read what they ask me to read, and then when I argue with them again, they still say I don't understand. But they never explain. I find it shocking, for Marx has been around for a very long time. Whole nations have been built, and whole peoples murdered, based on his ideas. How is it that no one can tell me what he says? At this point, all I can think, is that if you can't explain it, you don't understand either.

>>12117065

Read Marx. There's a lot more to say than whatever I could tell you.

>>12116097
Form doesn't actually exist in a positive sense though, it only differentiates matter.

As for the second part of your post, in what fucking way? It works just fine in Spinoza's philosophy.

>>12117597
then your idea of matter needs to account for and encapsulate this self-differentiating power, of which consciousness is the primary example. your "matter" is either empty or nonsensical


either Marx was a dumb jew who couldn't grok the fucking dude whose thought he was trying to improve, or he did and already has an argument for this, but in all my time trying to understand historical materialism I don't see that refutation anywhere

>>12117025
Ah so basically we are just going to nitpick about the fact they said materialism rather than physicalism, as though they weren't largely considered interchangeable. This is casuistry.

>>12117025
>While energy may be material, the laws that govern it are not material
You don't know that. Hempel's dilemma cuts both ways, and it may be that things you believe not to be material may turn out to be material

>>12117621
how could the regularities of matter possibly be material themselves? do you have any idea what you're saying?

Yes and no. Communism isn't wrong, it's still too early for communism. To have a successful communist revolution, there needs more bionihilist understanding of the world. As the biotechnology and pharmacology develop, there will be an increasing amount corporate's control over your bodily autonomy (by extension, you). Eventually, it plateaus into the commodification of people into a perpetual state of material pleasure (corporate communism).

>>12117634
Given we don't know what either matter or regularities actually are, I don't see how you can be so confident it's one way or the other. Do you understand what you are talking about?

>>12117634
There could be a material entity shuffling the atoms around for our material universe. We don't know. It's equally arrogant to dismiss or accept Hempel's dilemma.

>>12117644
the "law" that guarantees that a glass cup that's pushed off a counter will shatter will never be material m8, it's an obvious category error

>>12117669
Well, gather ye round anons. Mr Genius here is going to explain to us all what matter actually is.

>>12117669
prove it.

>>12112110
>Historical materialism,
>the idea that the dominant ideas in society are shaped by the material organisation of society
It's not
>Is correct
No

It's a materialistic oversimplification of human behavior based on outdated 19th century anthropology that relies too heavily on the concept of rational actors

>>12117695
prove it isn't?

>>12117688
if your concept of matter incorporates patterns, relationalities, regularities, FORMS of matter, it isn't so material anymore then, is it?

is the shape of a statue made of bronze just as material as the bronze itself?

>>12117710
>it isn't so material anymore then, is it?
You are beginning to understand what Hempel was getting at

>>12117541
You should read what I wrote again. If you can't explain it, you don't understand it.

>>12117710
the shapeness of that bronze statue was created by humans and abiotic factors which are material. i don't understand the point of your antinaturalistic forms argument.

>>12117716
this is the first time I've even heard of hempel's dilemma, if he's an anti-reductionist then fine, we agree

>>12117609
Yeah, no. Not nitpicking. I don't care what word you use to describe it. The non-material, the non-physical, the non-corporeal, the super natural--however you wish to describe it, it comes first.

>>12117727
completely irrelevant, is the shape in and of itself material? we're not talking about the materiality of efficient causes, m8.

very, very simple distinction between structure (matter) vs. structuration (form), that you're not getting

>>12117621
This is not Hempel's dilemma. And the laws of nature are inherently non-physical or non-material, however you wish to describe it. That's what makes it the law. It is the pattern of behavior over any particular instance of behavior. It's the function of the fractal vs the fractal itself.

>>12117710
Form is a principle acting on physical objects, therefore it is also physical. If it weren't, it would have nothing in common with it and thus could not act upon it.

Further form does not have an existence independent of matter. If form did not exist, matter would still be, it would just an undifferentiated mess, whereas if matter did not exist neither would form.

>>12117734
If it's a principle that operates on the physical, then it must share something in common with the physical and thus be physical.

Further, until actual, potential doesn't have a real existence, so it can't be said to precede anything.

>>12117731
The other anon has no idea what he's talking about. Hempel's dilemma is vaguely related, but irrelevant to this discussion. Hempel's dilemma is one of language and definition, whereas this debate remains unchanged whichever position you take in Hempel's dilemma.

>>12117760
>If form did not exist, matter would still be, it would just an undifferentiated mess, whereas if matter did not exist neither would form.

no, without form there is no matter. without predicates, there is nothing that can be predicated. the formless is the void.

your definition of the physical incorporates what is manifestly not physical. roads are matter, the specific organization of a system of roads is NOT matter, and if it is, your definition of matter is practically useless.

>>12117772
>no, without form there is no matter. without predicates, there is nothing that can be predicated. the formless is the void.

But that's wrong. Without form the primal substance would still exist since it's timeless and without creation, it would just be undifferentiated.

>your definition of the physical incorporates what is manifestly not physical. roads are matter, the specific organization of a system of roads is NOT matter, and if it is, your definition of matter is practically useless.

The idea of their organization doesn't have an actual existence, except in the sense that all ideas do (as arrangements of neurons doing their thing), but the shape and form of the road as it actually exists is indeed something physical.

>>12117801
>The idea of their organization doesn't have an actual existence, except in the sense that all ideas do (as arrangements of neurons doing their thing)

hah, no friend you can't attribute conscious intentionality to matter, either you posit intentionality in matter, and refute yourself, or you don't, and still refute yourself.

your definition of the "physical" is absolutely meaningless if it encompasses intentionality

>But that's wrong. Without form the primal substance would still exist since it's timeless and without creation, it would just be undifferentiated.

that differentiation is nevertheless a distinct operation of the prima materia, whether "imposed" or immanent to substance, is the whole argument here.

>>12117760
>if it's a principle that operates on the physical, then it must share something in common with the physical and thus be physical
Non-sequitur.
>until actual, potential doesn't have a real existence
You only think this because you define Real in part as "having a physical or material existence". You are engaging in circular reasoning. If what's real is defined has what has materiality, and materiality is defined as what's real, then you have built a castle in the sky.

>>12117737
>>12117760
>>12117772
>>12117801
>>12117826
>>12117737
Also, both of you. Fuck your spacing, and get the fuck out of here.

>>12117826
>hah, no friend you can't attribute conscious intentionality to matter, either you posit intentionality in matter, and refute yourself, or you don't, and still refute yourself.

I don't because intentionality doesn't have a real existence, except in the sense all ideas do.

>that differentiation is nevertheless a distinct operation of the prima materia, whether "imposed" or immanent to substance, is the whole argument here.

It however does not have an existence independent of the matter, and operates upon the matter, and thus must share something fundamental in common with it, because if it did not it could not affect the matter, and is therefore of the same nature as the matter.

>>12117862
>Non-sequitur.

Not even slightly, if it has something in common with it, it shares in the same essential nature at some level.

>You only think this because you define Real in part as "having a physical or material existence".

There is no better definition of real. Every other definition will admit of every fancy and idea having as much reality as what we can observe.

>>12117873
If you aren't placing an indentation after you posts, the correct way to differentiate paragraphs is with a line break.

>>12117976
gtfo newfag.

>>12117976
>There is no better definition of real.

Is the idea of a mountain made of licorice real? It's certainly is, we're talking about it. Where might I find this mountain, friend?

>>12117737
and im saying that the structuration is material because they only can be created by material entities. just like how circles only exist if someone draws it.

>>12118136
the form =/= efficient cause

you're conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other. nevermind there's such a thing as a formal cause that quite obviously not material

>>12118131
>>12118136
>>12118152
Both of you--your arguments suck. your formatting sucks. you both suck huge dicks. You have to be over 18 to use this site. Please leave.

>>12118131
>t. never read the rationalists
Descartes, Spinoza, JS Mill

>>12118389
Descarte is generally considered an idealist. You're going to have to pull out a very impressive argument to convince me otherwise.

>>12118448
He believed in two distinct substances, which makes him a dualist.

>>12118465
I've fucking had it with you fucking newfag gnostic retards. Not all Idealists are Monists. And, Descartes wasn't a dualist; he was a Catholic.

>>12118374
cool argument bro, a child could understand the matter/form distinction, why don't you ask them?

>>12118493
>Descartes wasn't a dualist; he was a Catholic
how many level of retard is this?

>>12118496
Just because it is a simple argument to make does not mean you've made it well. Now fuck off back to discord.

>>12118448
he founded modern rationalism, anon. are you joking?

>>12118493
He's commonly considered the founder of Cartesian dualism.

>>12118507
ok dude

>>12118502
We're not talking theory of mind. We're talking metaphysics.

>>12118508
Rationlism as he put it forward was idealist in the way we've been discussing it. I mean, fuck, did you even read Meditations?

>>12118579
Descartes didn't have a theory of mind. he posited two substances, body and soul. if you read the meditations he lays this all out quite clearly. modern catholic metaphysics agrees.

>>12118620
if Descartes was an idealist then he would need to conclude that the material is false or illusory but he makes it very clear in the meditations that a benevolent god would not lie to us and therefore we must assume the material is eeal, even though it is subject to doubt. I don't think you finished the meditations anon

>>12118509
Sorry. I've been arguing with a lot of gnostic/hermetic/manichaen twats on here a lot, and even in this thread. Given that this thread has been about metaphysics and ontology, I was not reading dualism in the sense of philosophy of mind. Dualism, in the sense of philosophy of mind, is rather limited in comparison to the dualism of metaphysics and ontology, and doesn't really have any particular bearing on it. As a Catholic, Descarte was anti-materialist, and so given current usage, would be an ontological idealist, which is made quite evident in his work, and upon which his work actually relies heavily. His mind-body split only functions as he saw it within the Catholic theological ontology.

>>12118666
there are so many things wrong here

>capitalism bad!

>>12118623
You are terribly confused. Mind-Body dualism is a theory of mind. He arrived at it in large part due to a combination of rationalism, limited skepticism, and Catholic ontology, and some metaphysics. But the metaphysical solution, though central to the argument, is limited in scope. Importantly however, Descartes was an avowed Catholic. This means that he believed all things came from God. The mind-body split was not a statement about the fundamental structure of reality, but rather was a rational apology for the idea of body and soul. It did not exclude the possibility of other planes or substances, not did it challenge their shared single origin, which also means, despite their separateness, there were assumed to be some shared governing principles, even if what was shared was simply the Will of God. Descartes was not a dualist in the sense that has been predominantly used in this thread.

>>12118671
Instead of saying it, demonstrate it.

>>12118641
An idealist does not have to think that. Furthermore, is argument, as you just describe is just that there must be some consistence reality, whether or not we can ever be certain of what it is precisely like. Due to the limits of our perception, it may be nothing like what we think it is, but it won't particularly matter, because it must be consistent enough that we can still act upon it anyways. Still, that's got very little to do with the ontological scope of this conversation.

>>12112110
Sorry, brainlet reporting in. What do you mean by material organisation of society? I think I get what you mean but will need a bit of clarification.

>>12118689
>Mind-Body dualism is a theory of mind
alright so I have no idea if this is actually catholic doctrine because I really haven't gone deep on it but as far as Descartes goes this is a total anachronistic analysis which kills Descartes actually stated theory. to begin, Descartes was not interested in "mind", that concept wouldn't reach a full philosophical conception for another 100 years at the least. Descartes was interested in the nature of substance, namely how substance seemed so epistemologically fragile, and went on an intellectual investigation to discover the episitimological basis for substance. He was very clear on this. what he concluded was that there was something whichyou could not infact doubt away, the cogito. modern thinkers sometimes conflate this with conciousness, leading to the theory of mind analysis, but this is an incredibly shallow reading of what cogito means. cogito isn't simply the thinking substance, it was the doubting substance. "Thinking" in its colliquial understanding, namely intrumental thought, was not the cogito, because Descartes applies this type of thinking to animals as well. Descartes did not beleive that animals were consious, however, ie. the mind is not where consiousness lies. consiousness is related to doubt, which is located in the cogito, which is an aspect of soul. If we are discussing Cartesian dualism, it is the believe that these two substances (i.e. extended and non-extended substance) are separate and real, but we can only know this because both stem from god, which as an absolutely benevolent actor, must be true and not false. this is Cartesian substance dualism and it is infact what he did believe. Later thinker Spinoza would try and tie both extended and non-extended substance into the same monastic vein (ie. and body are aspects of God) which literally became it's own heresy. Spinozaism:
>The mind-body split was not a statement about the fundamental structure of reality, but rather was a rational apology for the idea of body and soul. It did not exclude the possibility of other planes or substances
was punishable by death according to the Catholic church. Where did you learn this stuff, anon? Is that actually how they teach you about dualism in Catholic school? Genuinely interested btw.

>>12118942
>(ie. *mind and body are aspects of God)

>>12117541
subtle...

dude this ideal vs. material thing is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. Or whether monday or sunday came first.

Sure all life appears, to the best of our knowledge, to have arisen from material stuff, but who's to say that the universe itself didn't come out of something immaterial?

>>12119061
idealism and materialism are incompatible. you are imagining a form of dualism.

Marx nowhere uses the phrase "historical materialism", Marx was actually just one in a long line of esoteric magicians dating back to at least the time of Atlantis

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/magic.htm

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/future/future-human.pdf

>>12117065
Most marxists don't read Marx or really understand him. They usually are Communists who merely attach themselves to Marx cause of his legacy through Lenin and others or to appear like they are intellectual or appear valid. Don't know-how to explain but it's alot like fascists attach themselves to evola without really reading or understanding him. They essentially don't want to be emberrashed by appearing ignorant of the position they attach to. They usually learn the basics by peers.

>>12117766
>Hempel's dilemma is vaguely related, but irrelevant to this discussion.
It's completely relevant. If we are saying x is material and y is not material, then unless we know what matter is we are not saying anything. Only physicists can answer this question, despite any special pleading

Marxists: people who argue about bullshit all day and accomplish absolutely nothing.

Communism will never happen because people simply do not want to live in diverse societies. Leftists intellectuals are deluded when they think race/cultural distinction is only pushed by the rich to divide the proles. That is simply false, people divide themselves without the help of the rich. Most of you simply dont understand that people prefer their culture over others

>>12120933
Race is just another form of tribalism, which has always existed. Ideological brainwashing can't eradicate it fully.