/lit/ - Literature

Perhaps you've misinterpreted Marx's interpretation of Hegel on the most basic level

I would argue that all philosophy derives from misinterpretation

>>15685246
Philosophers philosophize. They don't "interpret" other philosophers. Get an education, kid.

Because he was the link between real philosophers (feuerbach, Hegel, Smith, Saint Simon, Engels), social theory and political activism

marx is the missing link between continental philosophy and the jewish intellectual tradition; the synthesis of those two forms is nonsense, but an interesting kind of nonsense that's manifold in how it can be used.

Marx (pbuh) and engels (pbuh) ended philosophy.

>>15685267
Perhaps you've misinterpreted this interpretation of Marx's interpretation of Hegel on the most basic level

>>15685310
Lmao. Marx was a scientific philosopher.

>>15685246
He can be whatever he likes
Any man who directly or indirectly kills hundreds of millions of men is a friend of mine.

>>15685318
Explain what you mean.

>>15685335
He is not in the continental tradition, no matter how heavily they cite him.

>>15685345
Explain what you mean by scientific though. What is your criterion for whether someone is scientific or not?

>>15685345
he's not in the continental tradition, but he was inspired by (and relied on) continental philosophy. have you actually read marx?

>>15685360
>Explain what you mean by scientific though.
He was a materialist who practiced philosophy as a Wissenschaft, emphasizing rigorous argumentation, logical consistency, and clear writing.

Anyone with common sense realizes that materialism is fucking retarded. There will always be a spiritual, supernatural component to reality. We have enough compiled evidence over centuries to say this very definitively. Atheists on /lit/ will seethe at me but they can't refute me. Since we started collecting hard evidence about supernatural/mystical/miraculous things, around the 16th Century or so, we have some famous false positives, but we also have a preponderance of genuine hard data that verifies that there is a world beyond what our senses can perceive, and that it occasionally intrudes into the material world. Hell, just look up Our Lady of Fatima from 1917.

When faced with this, Marx becomes a fraud and a joke, and Hegel sharpens into focus to turn Marx into a punk. What's Marx even getting at with "dialectical materialism" when Hegel's dialectic necessarily is NOT materialistic? A materialistic, atheistic interpretation of Hegel necessarily leaves out the supernatural component of Hegel that winds up being all-important to his theories of you read him at length. Hegel cannot be divorced from his spiritual element. Fuck, Hegel was a practicing occultist. He absolutely believed in a reality beyond the material.

What we must consider, then, is whether Marx is merely one of Hegel's stooges. Marx thinks he has escaped the spiritual component of Hegel, but has he really? Or has he merely become an unwitting avatar of Hegel's supernatural dialectic, unawares? Marx thinks he's using Hegel. But what if Hegel is using HIM? What if Marx and all his thinking is merely an unwitting agent of Hegel's actualization of the dialectic into our world? There IS no "dialectical materialism". Marx's power is ENTIRELY spiritual. Why do communists get so fanatical about Marx? It's precisely BECAUSE Marx has a spiritual dimension. Communism is a fucking religion, that's why people will die for it. And this is all exactly as Hegel intended it to be.

>>15685466
are you the hegel is the antrichrist poster from that other time

>>15685453
Didn't he say calculus was bourgeois or something?

Doesn't sound very rigorous to me.

>>15685560
No.

>>15685466
>>>/x/

>>15685453
That really doesn't say anything other than 'Marx was all about being correct and saying true things', which any philosopher would claim, including Kant but also Hegel. Fichte called his project the Wissenschaftslehre.

Marx was definitely not a materialist in the usual sense. Just read his doctoral dissertation, he proposes a Hegelian idealist reading of Greek atomism. The hard materialist readings of Marx came after his death.

>>15685592
Lol. Hegel did not even attempt to write clearly or argue logically. Marx jettisoned Hegel's obscurantist blather long before he wrote his important works.

>>15685614
You didn't respond to what I said, only a part of it and that obliquely. Not very polite or conducive to conversation.

To respond to what you said, the most influential readings of Marx are currently Hegelian readings that say he was a lifelong Hegelian. 'Young Marx' theories a la Althusser are hard to defend. Consult Kolakowski's takedown of Althusser for instance. Even were this not true, Engels was a very close reader of Hegel and the Science of Logic specifically, as was Lenin, and Adorno, three of the most influential 'Marxists' you can find. Lenin and Adorno were deeply indebted to Hegel.

Are you an analytical Marxist? There is no shame in that but you should not try to pass it off as the 'real Marx' when there is a long commentary tradition on these subjects.

>>15685584
He did say something similar though.

>>15685318
>scientific
How so?

>>15685656
Nothing is Das Kapital is indebted to Hegel.

>>15685777
It's a schizo.

>>15685704
Nope. In fact, he anticipated the nonstandard analysis that emerged a century later.

>>15685777
He was a materialist who practiced philosophy as a Wissenschaft, emphasizing rigorous argumentation, logical consistency, and clear writing.

>>15685798
>rigorous argumentation,
>logical consistency, and
>clear writing.
I guess it's true what they say... people want what they don't have.

>>15685819
Elaborate.

>>15685590
You literally cannot accurately interpret Hegel without recourse to the supernatural. Maybe we should just move all our Hegel threads to /x/, so we can discuss his full implications.

>>15685792
You're quoting Wikipedia.

But the same article says he was unaware of current developments. This is a little lame for someone who wanted to change the world.

>>15685466
>What we must consider, then, is whether Marx is merely one of Hegel's stooges. Marx thinks he has escaped the spiritual component of Hegel, but has he really? Or has he merely become an unwitting avatar of Hegel's supernatural dialectic, unawares?
Damn that's actually a real solid take.

>>15685246
Why does nobody seem to understand Marx, not even Marxists?
I'd read his stuff myself but there are so many pre requisites and Kapital is too dry.

Jeez I just want to know the truth about what he thinks.

>>15685972
Oh, and he'd be branded a racist nazi by today's standards.

>>15685314
>gimme free stuff bro, i hate my boss.
whoa

>>15686078
>never even read Marx or Engels

>>15685972
This webm has great rhythm

>>15685982
I think he'd be a communist by today's standards

>>15686160
>racist
>antisemitic
>socialist
I dont think so

>>15685972
Because Marx is a continental and not "scientific" at all.

Physicists don't keep arguing about what Einstein meant by e=mc2.
Nor do contemporary analytic philosophers argue about, say, what Russell meant on his "On Denoting". They might argue about the subject, but they know what it means, just like we know what Mill meant by "utilitarianism", what Hume meant with the problem of induction, what Descartes meant by "cogito, ergo sum", what Aquinas meant with his five arguments for the existence of God, and even what Aristotle meant by "virtue". Maybe there might be a few varying interpretations, but they won't go too far away from each other, because overall those philosophers were very clear - a clarity which is nowadays present in the analytic tradition but has been abandoned in the continental one.

When you criticize John Searle's Chinese room argument, his defenders will argue with you about the subject. When you criticize Marx, Nietzsche (whom I love as a writer and psychologist), or Foucault, their defenders will say you haven't understood what they wrote, and that you should read them more, then they will force their interpretation of them on you, which happens to be completely different from the interpretations given by other followers.
Not so with the Chinese room. Everyone knows what it means, and if you don't just go and ask Searle and he will clarify it to you.

>>15686365
faggot, only me, jesus, buddha and krishna can criticize Nietzsche, those who don't have morality. jerk yo pee pee kid

>>15686441
I love Nietzsche.

But I didn't mean to say that continentals can't have great ideas: there are so many of them that a few will inevitably offer original and important insights. But the way in which they tend to present their ideas is more conducive to dogmatism than to philosophical discussion. It's like finding a great insight in a literary work, or in the Bible. They write I "assertive", not in "argumentative" prose.

Meanwhile, analytics will often just present their arguments in their bare substance, free from all rhetoric, showing each premise and the conclusion in the clearest possible sequence, as well as previously defining all the terms that they are going to use in the argument. Thus, readers are tempted to criticize and discuss, instead of spending a lifetime trying to find out just what the meaning of the argument was.

>>15686078
>The socialization of production must be met with the social appropriation of its articles

>>15686078
>GET IN LINE PEASANT

>>15686259
Racism is just a personal vice. It has no political or economic relevance.

>>15686259
>socialist
Well then he wouldn't be branded as a Nazi.

>>15686365
I respect analytic philosophy in general, but Searle is just a brainlet. And his 'Chinese Room' exercise is absolutely ambiguous in a number of ways. Marx is a thousand times more insightful, clear, and useful. To compare him to antiphilosophical poets like Nietzsche, or outright con artists like Foucault, is just absurd.

>>15685466
>There IS no "dialectical materialism". Marx's power is ENTIRELY spiritual. Why do communists get so fanatical about Marx? It's precisely BECAUSE Marx has a spiritual dimension. Communism is a fucking religion, that's why people will die for it. And this is all exactly as Hegel intended it to be.

>>15685466
>around the 16th Century or so
Long before that

>>15685614
Oh, but he did. Just not in the phenomenology (which is indeed very poorly written) but in his science of logic for example.

>>15685246
>He misinterpreted Hegel at the most basic level.
he STOOD HEGEL ON HIS HEAD you fucking tranny

>>15685267
fpbp

what the fuck is the right interpretation of hegel ??

>>15687222
heidegger's

>>15685246
>Why do people seriously consider Marx to be a philosopher?
Because they're easily duped by moralists since the masses don't actually care about philosophy and can't tell the difference between a moralist and a philosopher.

>>15686078
why is the average american this stupid. what went wrong. surely the system has programmed this level of stupidity into them

>>15686365
>"continental" before that split even existed
>thinks Marx isn't scientific
>thinks people don't still argue over Einstein, Russell, Searle etc.

>>15687055
retard

>>15685798
>rigorous argumentation
>logical consistency
>clear writing
>karl marx

These things do not go together.

>>15688651
>he doesn't understand marx

>>15688651
Perhaps you've misinterpreted fpbp on the most basic level

>>15687222
Hegel's

>>15685345
As a continuator of Hegel, he is extremely in the continental tradition, which is absolutely not opposed to scientific philosophy (see Bachelard, Meyerson and a good deal of phenomenology).

>>15685792
He didn't, not anymore than Euler and early precursors of modern analysis did, and those guys were doing maths decades before Marx's birth.

>>15685246

-Strictly speaking, a bad "X" is still an "X".
-his doctoral thesis was about Democritus et al.
-He explicitly states that he inverts Hegel on purpose.

>>15686480
>analytics will often just present their arguments in their bare substance, free from all rhetoric,
This isn't really possible, and analytics are often just as misleading as continental, only they mislead themselves by making unwarranted and unstated assumptions and holding fast to them.
I agree that they are more conductive to open discussion than most continentals (not all of them), but ultimately all those discussions tend to work only within a rather limited and self-confirming frame.

>>15685466
>What's Marx even getting at with "dialectical materialism" when Hegel's dialectic necessarily is NOT materialistic?
I wondered that myself until I read Capital. In much the same way as Hegel proceeds in the Phenomenology by taking theories of knowledge on their own terms until they reach a kind of internal reductio and are sublated, Capital Volume 1, up until the section on primitive accumulation, describes how capitalism itself takes commodity exchange, which is based on private property as Locke describes it (the right to private property is based on labor) and dialectically inverts the Lockean basis and creates a system of production wherein those doing the labor do not own the products of their labor, in spite of the fact that at no point in the theoretical description of the process nobody's private property rights had to be violated.
Dialectics can be applied to material social practices because Marx conceives of them in the same way as Aristotle conceives of the nutritive part of the soul - their form, or actuality, is not static like a crystal but self-replacing and self-reproducing. The forces and relations of production (technology and class society) are self-sustaining and self-reproducing, but like the absolute idea, develop internal contradictions as described above.
This is probably the biggest stumbling block to understanding Marx. People who are already leftists may or may not be receptive to his ideas without a solid understanding of the metaphysics of dialectical materialism, but there clearly is an implicit metaphysical basis that only makes sense intuitively to people who have a decent grasp on Aristotle and Hegel and have read Capital. Otherwise dialectical materalism does just seem like how Peter Singer presents it, a kind of vulgarization of Hegel that takes the idea of history being "progressive" and divorces it from the idealist narrative of how that works and applies crudely it to economic systems out of nothing but a kind of cherrypicking of things that seem dialectical about economic systems and having some faith in the progress of history.

>>15688629
>why do capitalists want their subjects to not understand and ridicule communist theory
gee anon I wonder

>>15685466
The fact that the supernatural exist doesn't contradict historical materialism. Marx never said that the superstructure didn't exist, or was just pure translation of the base requirement. He stated that the based was more important, regarding the living conditions, than the superstructure.

>>15685466
(...)
>Communism is a fucking religion, that's why people will die for it. And this is all exactly as Hegel intended it to be.
Yes, people will die for it, but still, Capitalism remain. Proof that the base has more importance than the superstructure. The base will change when the materialistic conditions of production will make it possible for it to change.

>>15690247
BASED post

>>15685972
>nobody seem to understand Marx.
>I'd read his stuff myself but ...