/lit/ - Literature

marx cited historical examples as evidence

this is retarded. why cant both ideas and material conditions shape the world.

>>17200924
You've read neither you pseud.
>Marx disagreed.
He didn't, you half-wit. If he did, he'd have become a carpenter or a scientist. Instead, he was a writer and a PHILOSOPHER, his job had everything to do with ideas. What he did say is that ideas (conciousness to be precise) is shaped by relations of production which are material and objective.
>Why didn't they just test their theories instead of sitting in a room arguing about this stuff?
He did, he illustrates his Lectures on Philosophy of History with many examples. As does Marx in his own right.

>>17200946
Because having a middle-ground view won't get you famous.
All philosophers are champions of an extreme idea.

>>17200924
Marx was obsessed with an apocalypse from a young age and he worked backwards to create a system that satisfies his poetic fantasies. He claims that his work is "scientific" yet fudges numbers and cherry picks information. He is disproved literally every single day when the capitalist system continues and working conditions have improved since the beginning of the industrial revolution when they were absolute shit. Just don't listen to any of these pseuds who build mountains of subtle sophistry to justify their beliefs. It's like when you prove 1 + 1 = 2 and laymen can't find where you went wrong in your proof except on a much larger scale and much more subjective than mathematics.

>>17200924
>Why didn't they just test their theories
Oh, but they did.

>>17200970
Ehem...

>>17200957
>Instead, he was a writer and a PHILOSOPHER, his job had everything to do with ideas.
He literally says in The German Ideology that the whole purpose of writing and philosophising was to clarify his thoughts, and that it wasn't going to engender anything.

My question was purposely simple so that people would reply. I've actually read both Marx and Hegel. Now try and answer my question but more intelligently please.

>>17200988
There was and will literally never be another like him though. Unless you're Aristotle that plain will never work.

>>17200924
>Why didn't they just test their theories instead of sitting in a room arguing about this stuff?
>Why do philosophers hate empirical evidence for claims that are clearly a posteriori?

Ah, but they did you see.
>Okay Karl, let's do this.
>Right on, Fred. Take out your petri dish and let's see who builds the better society.

>>17200997
You are mostly right. I think even Aquinas and Averroes and the like owe a lot of their fame to Aristotle, so I can't even argue against what you are saying. Philosophy has gotten more and more academical and less and less practical since the Enlightenment, so of course it would become a field where the new, far-fetched, completely divorced from reality groundbreaking theory becomes famous instead of something that is based on and approximates reality.

>>17201030
>Fred looked through his microscope to see how his idealistic dialectics were creating a prosperous and ever improving society of reason and logic.

>>17201033
>Then Karl took a look through his microscope to see that historical materialism wasn't doing so well.

>>17201039
>Then Fred (also called Georg or Willy sometimes) looked again to see how Caesar crossing the Rubicon was peak dialectics

>>17201046
>Then Karl looked again at his petri dish to see that nothing had truly changed, but a lot of people were dead or starving for some reason.

The end.

>>17201054
>>17201046
>>17201039
>>17201033
>>17201030
wat the fug

>>17200924
anglos have brain rot

>>17201054
quality answer

>>17200924
>material conditions for the printing press were always there
>printing press somehow not appeared until a few hundred years ago

If I curse "COUNTERREVOLUTION" and "CONFUSED" loud enough they won't notice.

>>17200924
>The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

Marx held the view that philosophers dont really investigate the driving forces of reality, dont analyse reality and do not want to develop the society further.

Marxisms philosophy is only a tool to understand and change (!) reality

>>17200985
No, Hegel tested it 30 years earlier in the first world war.

>>17200988
Lol nice meme.

>>17200957
Heidegger clearly saw Marx as inverted Hegelianism.

>>17200946
Yes, they both think that, the question is about which is the prime mover, Marx clearly put materialism in the base, and geist in the superstructure, which was retarded, just ask Gramsci or literally any non-orthodox Western Marxist.

>>17200924

all reductivism except for in hard sciences is retarded.

I don't follow either of these hacks. I prefer Kant

history is driven by material conditions and these are driven by ideas

the material conditions drive the creation of ideas

>>17202356
>>17202345
dialectics

>>17200924
>Hegel believed that ideas drive history
citation needed

>>17202631
that big peach coloured book

>>17200924
Someone might believe that material conditions drive ideas, but that itself is a thought, which may be influenced by material conditions fruits of ideas... Overall everything comes from God, as he is the origin of everything and the prima causa.

>>17200924
How can they test their theories?

Lol

>>17201721
>and do not want to develop the society further
And that's a good thing, progress has quite literally lead to trannies.

>>17203355
God is a wonderful cop out.

>>17200924
>Hegel believed that ideas drive history.
hegel didnt believe this. thats a misinterpretation on the part of marx. hegel's geist is not societal memes but a more general term thats meant to mean something like "the tendency of things"

>>17202596
this

material conditions vs ideas. body vs spirit. absolute vs abstract. thesis vs antithesis. sides of the same coin. picture a string. it makes sound by wiggleing back and forth. the opposites canceling each other out produces a frequency. then the sound dies out and its silence again. but of course sound and silence have the same dynamic. so when its all silent, sound comes in to fix the inbalance. this way being and nothing can coexist. their existance is made possible by their opposites. they coexist through "alteration." the frequency is geist. the process is phenomenology. the string is everything

hegel was a mystic

>>17206582
German philosophy didn’t make anything of worth after Kant and I can’t think of anything of worth before Kant

>>17206624
no argumentation and pure idolatry. i can respect that

>>17200924
>Hegel believed that ideas drive history.
No, Hegel believed that man striving towards the absolute drove history. Ideas were expressed through mediums to advance history

>>17200988
I get what you're going for but Aristotle was very controversial in his youth, antagonized everyone and had basically no friends
The Aristotle of the corpus aristotelicum is of course an elderly, more sophronius man

>>17206502
>>17206702
Hate these kind of posts. There's always someone that comes in and goes AKSHUALLY it's slightly more complicated. Yeah dude, all theories are slightly more complicated that's why they take up entire books. But a general thing that sets Hegel and Marx apart is their metaphysical view of historical change.

>empiricist fagbait inadvertently proves Hegel right

>>17206582
Based image. I love you.

>>17206939
its not slightly more complicated tho. hegels view is that change happens thru the interaction of ideas and material conditions and that the two werent actually different things. marx wasnt really disagreeing. really there shouldnt be a dispute here at all.

>>17206982
love u too anon :3

>>17200924
if you did, where would the people who've built themself up an identity around being an intellectual, but who cannot do math go?

>>17207918
I like this image. I wonder if its author was just being ironic and in fact knew that Deleuze considered himself an empiricist materialist.

>>17207918
>>17207957
Idk, thinking about desire as the production of production is kind of a fun perspective though.

>>17200924
Hegel was the earlier thinker, and so he was coming off of Kant, Hume, Berkeley, and Thomas Reid. The early 19th century problem in philosophy was "how do ideas in our heads relate to the external world?"

Hegel simply set out -- like many great philosophers/cringe-artists before him -- to create a more-perfect version of the philosophy that came directly before him (in Hegel's case, Kantianism). Hegel's thesis is that ideas relate to the external world through the process of becoming.

Marx in turn deserves credit as the actual intelligent one since he realized that this was no different than the emission theory of vision held all the way back in ancient Greece -- except with minds instead of eyes -- that concealed the bluntly obvious fact that it is not our minds that create the world around us, but the flowing of the world into the mind through the senses.

>>17208061
intelligent

>>17207918
retard

>s**jak
we really need these "people" permaB& on every board.