/lit/ - Literature

>>17650062
I haven't read them but wanted to reply.

Apologies for intruding in your thread without having read Marx, but a certain passage caught my eye:
>the material conditions rather than intellectual culture that drives history
It’s just that we’ve been living in an apollonian chamber since aristotle came around; the dyonisian will be born soon; it is already happening.

>>17650097
I don't think this is an Apollonian vs Dionysian thing. It's much simpler. Here is how Marx puts it:
>Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistic brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.

>>17650062
>There is no contradiction in being an idealist but also a Marxist,
Why are you replying in your own thread when you haven't read Marx.

>>17650266
I'm putting forward my opinion, contra Marx, that I wish to discuss. Do I really have to spell this out for you? Jesus.

Guaranteed if I had jezabelposted I would have gotten replies.

>>17650062
Real question is why did people stop establishing metaphysical premises to make claims about society. There are metaphysical presuppositions in all such claims

>>17651543
We can bracket those without contradiction in the same way I can bracket claims about metaethics when making ethical judgements.

>>17651494
>Guaranteed if I had jezabelposted I would have gotten replies.

And at the same time:
>Please don't reply unless you've read both Marx and Hegel.

No wonder you got no replies - you assumed people would read. Next time, lower your expectations.

>>17652847
Okay you changed my mind. Everyone reply.

>>17650062
do women really have a face on top of their heads?

>>17650062
I don't know what you are asking. What the fuck is a materialist social Hegelian.

>>17650091
based beyond our realms

>>17650062
>Please don't reply unless you've read both Marx and Hegel.
Okay

I've read neither Marx nor Hegel nor the rest of your post. In fact, I cant remember the last time i've ever finished a book

>>17650062
I have replied to your post, and I have NEVER read Hegel nor Marx. And probably never will. By posting to your post, OP, I transgress one more arbitrary, superficial man-made law that kept popping up without good reason hampering my Freedom, and by doing so, I brought justice not only to mySelf, but to the World. You played your part, so I say, according to my structure and thus I played my part well to consummate the theatric. Fret and tear up not, for your disappointment and feeling of being transgressed is all for the greater good. My good, if I dare say, because Im greater than you, and thus my good is the greater. But I must also thank you for without your intial post, the OP, the Original Post, I shalt have not the chance to transgress against your puny law, and thus ni chance to bring joy upon myself.

>>17653628 is more deserving of >>17653414

>>17654781
where did you learn to write like this

>>17650062
There is a contradiction between being a rational sane individual and being a Marxist

>>17655550
probably by reading nietzsche and not reading double digit iq pseuds like marx

>>17650062
Ask Frater. He's our resident Hegelian

>>17650062
OP just want to say, I've read both Hegel and Marx and know EXACTLY the answer to your question.

Not going to tell you tho

>>17650062
Marx was Jewish therefore a dissembler.

>>17650062
>Why did Hegel and Marx need to establish metaphysical premises to make claims about society?
First of all, Marx didn't. Marx rejected any explicit metaphysics, and argued that philosophy and the resultant metaphysical theories were fundamentally determined by material conditions. At best you could say Marx's "metaphysical position" was purely negative, in that he rejects all claims which can't be verified in experience some way (what Kant would call transcendent ideas).
>Why does it matter if one is a materialist or idealist to make the claim that it is the material conditions rather than intellectual culture that drives history?
Because it's a matter of determining a historical "first cause." There are actually many academic papers written about Marx just arguing whether he is a historical determinist or not, because it's not clear from the start. He also appears to contradict himself in places with respect to determinism.

Primarily, if one posits material conditions (in the form mainly of economic relations) as the "first cause" of human thought, which then results in the alteration of socio-economics in a historical loop, it allows one to brush off all historical philosophical thought (which flows on to politics, society, etc.) as merely derivative from material conditions, and therefore subordinate to them. If philosophy itself, and therefore politics and general society, is subordinate to material conditions, then it itself becomes a mere game of economic classes in conflict with each other, removing any objective meaning from all of it except where classes are involved. This reduces history to a process of class conflict, rather than a Hegelian development of ideas and the discovery of the Geist through philosophy (which is itself teleological, but with a separate "first cause".) Unfortunately, it's not easy to say whether or not Marx's historical theory is teleological, as one runs into the same debate I just mentioned about determinism. Some will claim it is, others that it's not. I personally think the strongest argument for Marxists is to assert it as teleological, as otherwise it becomes a mere fanciful interpretation without meaningful correspondence to reality (ie, it cannot even be empirically demonstrated as valid without the entire process already being completed).

So, why does it matter what the "first cause", ie the "metaphysical" presupposition, is? Because it allows one to make different predictions, which also tends to support the normative conclusion (although not necessarily) - like Hegel's ethical state, or Marx's communism. This is what it comes down to.

>>17655676
>Primarily, if one posits material conditions (in the form mainly of economic relations) as the "first cause" of human thought, which then results in the alteration of socio-economics in a historical loop, it allows one to brush off all historical philosophical thought (which flows on to politics, society, etc.) as merely derivative from material conditions, and therefore subordinate to them.
Debunked by Science, sorry bucko

>>17655676
>...if one posits material conditions (in the form mainly of economic relations) as the "first cause" of human thought, which then results in the alteration of socio-economics in a historical loop, it allows one to brush off all historical philosophical thought (which flows on to politics, society, etc.) as merely derivative from material conditions, and therefore subordinate to them.
Doesn't this seem contradictory? - if ideas are causally inert, how could subordinate them with other ideas? The premise is that historical thought is derivative, so wouldn't any subordination also be ultimately derivative of material conditions?

Anyway, my main question is still unanswered: the metaphysical views here are irrelevant. I could be a hard materialist and still view Hegel's geist as a correct abstraction of how history develops.

>>17655724
It honestly surprises me that there are people this retarded still alive today.

>>17655732
>marxist angry his entire system got debunked
Thanks for playing

>>17655732
>It honestly surprises me that there are people this retarded still alive today.
Not an argument

>>17652869
Hardly anyone on here has read Hegel and, from what I've seen, you don't want to talk with the kind of person whose read Hegel.

>>17655732
>I could be a hard materialist and still view Hegel's geist as a correct abstraction of how history develops.
I don't really see how personally. The Geist is a metaphysical concept, calling it an "abstraction" doesn't really change that. Of course, you could view Hegel's historicism as something which obtained a correct outcome heuristically, but then you'd just be begging the question: What is the more accurate (non-heuristic) materialist explanation? Hegel would have to be reformulated into a manner that is compatible with hard materialism if you don't want to be leaning on an empty concept which may well be wrong (because our metaphysical presuppositions preclude us from Hegel's type of knowledge and reasoning - ergo it is fallacious to rely upon him).

>Doesn't this seem contradictory?
Not really sure what you mean here. In the sense that it seems like a paradoxical infinite loop, then yes. But there are plenty of odd processes like that in nature which find ways to terminate or begin somehow.
>if ideas are causally inert, how could subordinate them with other ideas?
I was saying that ideas are subordinate to material conditions, in that they arise from them. And therefore that ideas are swept away, and created, by changing material conditions. This is the Marxist view.

>>17655766
Respond to >>17655724

>>17655784
Why? I'm not a Marxist or a Hegelian, I'm just trying to state what they think. I don't really care whether or not Marxism is debunked.

>>17655788
But do you think that post debunks your exposition of marxism? You're saying marxism says economic relations act as a first cause of human thought, but science says some forms of thought such as in-group preference is resultant from gene similarity via kin selection thus predating economic relations yet operating on the same material level as your exposition of marxism rejects metaphysics so it must directly contend with science.

>>17655804
I don't know if it debunks it outright. It does not necessarily conflict with economics, because economics as we know it may as well be resultant from the tendencies of our biology. Therefore when they talk about materialism, they're implicitly incorporating the basics of human nature as we know it and which has given rise to our various economic systems in the first place.

It might be worth remembering that humans themselves (their biological fundamentals) can be shaped and molded by the systems they've created. I remember Marx saying somewhere that humans can be totally reeducated and remolded, or maybe it was Engels. Either way, that was one aspect they considered, although not particularly relevant to history.

>>17655882
>because economics as we know it may as well be resultant from the tendencies of our biology
So not a first cause of human thought then

>>17655890
When you look at history from a materialist perspective, economics may as well be the abstraction of genetic factors blown out to a larger scale, in that sense they are one and the same thing, just at different scales. Either way, economics provides the better functional picture overall because it is more general, and that's why Marxists rely on it.

>>17655890
You could also see it this way: Humans have quite literally evolved since the advent of agriculture and the transition away from hunter-gathering. What caused this change in genetic makeup? Agriculturalism, which is a form of economic organization, and in this sense it acted as a first cause. For example, certain primitive cultures still cannot digest agricultural products very well because they have not adapted to that type of lifestyle, and they are more prone to diabetes and various other health problems from modern agricultural lifestyles and diets. Maybe one day the genes they possess which are not adequate will leave the gene pool through whatever process.
This is a quick and easy example of the plasticity of genetics, and how it is merely a product of its environment ultimately (which is exactly what Darwin proposed, only he was only concerned with the natural environment).

>>17655890
do people really act completely like genes though?

>>17650062
I have never heard of Marx but I'm still going to reply.

>>17650062
>There is no contradiction in being an idealist but also a Marxist
you are wrong
>>17650299
it would run complete counter to his understanding of the base and superstructure, as well as more advanced ideas branching off of commodity fetishism, and his understanding of history. Both of which are extremely important.

>>17655897
Okay so you dropped any function of economics other than "it's easier for Marxists to think about it"
>>17655908
>and in this sense it acted as a first cause
Why do you keep using this term? A first cause presupposes it's not an effect of a prior cause. Agriculturalism is obviously an EFFECT of something prior, and humans before agriculturalism already had thoughts. It's not a first cause, something caused agriculturaism which cause other stuff.

>>17650062
Because they want you to spend your time navel gazing and analyzing instead of looking at what is in front of you and acting.

>>17650062
I've never read Marx or Hegel, but I'm going to answer your question OP.
>Why did Hegel and Marx need to establish metaphysical premises to make claims about society?
Not sure, haven't read them. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say it's because they're attempting to ground their practical beliefs in the legitimacy of reason, because they can't use the bible or a national epic because it had gone out of fashion to do that.
>Why does it matter if one is a materialist or idealist to make the claim that it is the material conditions rather than intellectual culture that drives history?
It doesn't matter. All aspects emanate from the godhead, material conditions and intellectual culture are the same things.
>There is no contradiction in being an idealist but also a Marxist, or a materialist but also socially Hegelian.
This makes no sense. Yes there is a contradiction in being an idealist and also being a materialist - unless you view both perspectives as aspects of the godhead and that they are divine contradictions and that they are both correct precisely because they are paradoxical, thus reflecting the inescapable but illusory duality inherit in all things, then yes it makes sense.

>>17656002
>"it's easier for Marxists to think about it"
I said it is a superior field of knowledge for studying collective human behavior. When you study individual human psychology for instance, you're not worried about exactly how each neuron functions, you're only interested in the net behavior of the person. Likewise with history and economics, you're not interested in the psychology (or genetic makeup) of each individual person, but the net behavior of the collective.
>Why do you keep using this term?
Because it's relevant to the topic being discussed. The whole point of historicism in general is determining the driving force behind history, which is what I've called "first cause" for the sake of obviousness, even though it isn't the most perfect word. The point is when we reach the era of property rights, agriculture, this is where Marxism posits economic organization and relationships as the main driver of all future development.

>>17656053
fist cause is obviously hunger/sex. The wheels of history are lubricated with cum

>>17656059
Hard to deny

Because Hegelianism and Marxism is about the primacy of ideas over material circumstances. Hegel believed ideas moved history through his sublation process, e.g abstract, concrete, synthesis, whereas Marx thought society changes based on the internal contradictions of a given economic system. Marx also believed aspects of a former society are sublated into the new one, but that they are no longer movers of the society, e.g capitalist society still has aristocrats from feudal society(e.g. Barons and Lords), but unlike in feudal society they are now only the elite of society to the extent that they are also capitalists.

>>17656053
This has already been debunked. Please stop posting in my thread. I don't want to hear anymore of your drooling, shit-breathed opinions.

>>17656078
What is debunked?

>>17650062
Don't tell me what to do, anon. And all philosophy threads on this beard are required to discuss specific works, not be general discussion of philosophers.

>>17656095
They obviously require Capital and PoS retard

>>17656103
I wasn't asking which books are relevant to the discussion; I was pointing out that the entire discussion is irrelevant to this board.

>>17656111
And i was telling you it is because it discusses those two books you're too uneducated to identify as the prerequisites

>>17655766
>I don't really see how personally. The Geist is a metaphysical concept, calling it an "abstraction" doesn't really change that. Of course, you could view Hegel's historicism as something which obtained a correct outcome heuristically, but then you'd just be begging the question: What is the more accurate (non-heuristic) materialist explanation? Hegel would have to be reformulated into a manner that is compatible with hard materialism if you don't want to be leaning on an empty concept which may well be wrong (because our metaphysical presuppositions preclude us from Hegel's type of knowledge and reasoning - ergo it is fallacious to rely upon him).
The problem I see with this reasoning is that one could refute the entire system just by refuting idealism. Therefore even if the historicism is correct in all other regards, it would still be considered false. This is why i don't see idealism as a necessary foundation.

By analogy, imagine if I believed rape should be illegal, and you somehow show that morals are not objective, does that matter? No, it's actually irrelevant because those metaphysical foundations are bracketed.

>>17656066
Do you think a modern sociologist trying to figure out whether people act upon ideas or environment should be at all concerned with whether reality is ultimately physical or mental?

>>17656053
> The point is when we reach the era of property rights, agriculture, this is where Marxism posits economic organization and relationships as the main driver of all future development
But the point is that before these developments, we already had instincts and thoughts that marxists think would disappear if those things would disappear: such as in-group preference, which is present not only among mammals, but also among bacteria and viruses

>>17655724
>>17655737
>>17656078
DEBOONKERS

>>17656059
>The wheels of history are lubricated with cum
I absolutely love this

>>17656150
If he cares about philosophical consistency sure, but Marxism in particular isn't about whether people act upon ideas, they obviously do all the time, the point is that according to Marxism ideas flow *from* a material substrate.

E.g. when a criminal says he robs stores because he thinks robbery is fun, he is not lying, but he is cloaking the fact that the most important part of robbery is stealing the store's money because money is needed to survive.

>>17656138
>too uneducated to identify as the prerequisites
That's not what the rule means. By that logic, you could make a thread about literally anything, then retroactively justify it by mentioning a book that discusses the subject.
This thread is about twe philosophers, not two specific works by those philosophers. The fact that the philosopher wrote their ideas down in books that you would have to read to understand their philosophy is irrelevant.

>>17656177
Fuck off already, no one will give you the reading list in the OP. He mentioned the philosophers, you should be familiar with their main works in order to participate. It's obvious to anyone who's not an autist like yourself.

>>17656200
>no one will give you the reading list in the OP
I don't want the reading list, I want low effort, off topic philosophy threads off this board.

>>17656200
>no one will give you the reading list in the OP
but they already did >>17656103

>>17656207
It's not low effort. He mentioned the prerequisites and a clear question relating their works. I can bet it's higher quality than any other threads on the first page right now. You just don't like philosophy threads and you're trying to find ways to justify your rage.

>>17656173
>E.g. when a criminal says he robs stores because he thinks robbery is fun, he is not lying, but he is cloaking the fact that the most important part of robbery is stealing the store's money because money is needed to survive.
Or you equally argue that ultimately ideas have convinced him that material possession are an important status symbol... Clearly the flow is two-way. I don't see why there needs to be a reduction here - environment engenders ideas which effect changes etc. But again, this is beside the point. The social scientist in question is not thinking about material substrates or ultimate/prior causes or any of this stuff. The social scientist can think about 'environmental effects' in a very practical way without commitment to metaphysical ideas.

>>17656218
>you just don't like philosophy threads
yes... I haven't made any attempt to hide that I don't want 70% of the threads on /lit/erature to be completely unrelated to literature
>justify your rage
no need to "justify", they're off-topic. Read the sticky. Discussions of philosophy need to be discussions of specific works, not of philosophers themselves.

>>17656229
> Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
OP's thread fits. Cope & seethe fictionlet

>>17656238
>specific philosophical works
none mentioned
>to which posters can refer
how can they do that? no works have been mentioned

>>17656142
>Therefore even if the historicism is correct in all other regards, it would still be considered false
If you refute idealism, then that theory of history which relies on idealist postulates cannot be factually valid. Like I said, it might be heuristically valid, but you simply cannot trust it to be correct in any given situation where you are trying to glimpse the future or even understand the present. It's a little similar to how Newtonian mechanics were considered valid all the way up until Einstein, where it turned out that Newton's theory only mapped heuristically to reality, and that it was deeply flawed at the root and would result in massive divergences in "edge cases" (speed of light, etc.)

>imagine if I believed rape should be illegal, and you somehow show that morals are not objective, does that matter? No, it's actually irrelevant because those metaphysical foundations are bracketed.
It does matter in general, say if I thought rape were moral. In that case we would be in direct conflict over ethical supremacy. Does it matter to you? Maybe. Rape is a topic that is too agreed-upon, unlike history. If we swap the topic to abortion, then your opinion might change if you thought that, say, God proclaims thou shalt not murder (absolutely any human that is genetically fully formed), which is now no longer objectively correct. Now that God is dead, perhaps abortion is OK for the first trimester or something.

Anyway, ethical issues are different, they don't relate well to history which is more concerned with facts and prediction than "shoulds/should-nots." One can believe anything is right or wrong regardless of the metaphysics behind it because morality can never be justified in reality, thus if I refute whatever postulates you hold which lead to the conclusion that rape is wrong, you're still justified in believing rape is wrong because the belief only influences how you act, not what you think of what is real. If I refute the postulates of a theory of history, then you would not be justified in continuing to adhere to that theory, because the foundation upon which it is built are demolished, and it loses factual validity. If you still adhere to the theory, then you are either irrational or secretly still clinging to the metaphysical presuppositions which support that theory. Pick one.

>>17656222
>The social scientist can think about 'environmental effects' in a very practical way without commitment to metaphysical ideas.
Yes, but they can't make accurate predictions without a metaphysical understanding, they can only formulate models based on past occurrences (economists are particularly aware of how weak economic models tend to be for this reason, I'm not entirely sure about sociology but it's likely similarly as weak).

>>17656242
>none mentioned
Where does it say they have to be mentioned?

>>17656222
>Or you equally argue that ultimately ideas have convinced him that material possession are an important status symbol

Sure, but this is again a question of primacy. If there were no stores to rob, the culture that says robbing stores are important for status wouldn't exist. So yes, *when the economic system is already there*, you can have massive positive(or negative) feedback loops that move people to act in certain ways, but the underlying source of all those things is still the economic system in question.

>>17656255
literally the part I quoted
>to which posters can refer

>>17656151
>we already had instincts and thoughts that marxists think would disappear
like capitalism

>>17656173
ideas may flow from a material substrate, but material substrate is made from ideas and so on

>>17656242
btw, this argument is way less interesting to read than people sperg out over marx. you are actively making this board worse right now

>>17656334
>material substrate is made from ideas

Really? So the fact that a worker has to sell their labor to a capitalist or starve to death is "an idea" ?

Well then that's "an idea" in the same way that hunter-gatherers had to hunt animals or forage to stay alive is an idea, e.g not at all.

>>17656252
>say, God proclaims thou shalt not murder (absolutely any human that is genetically fully formed), which is now no longer objectively correct. Now that God is dead, perhaps abortion is OK for the first trimester or something.
This is a good point. I guess you're right here, the metaphysical assumption is important.

But I somehow don't feel that this applies to the Marx issue we're discussing. I feel like there is a disanalogy. Take the Newton example you've given. The error in Newtonian mechanics stemmed from a flaw in the model, not from any fundamental assumptions about reality. In fact, Newton was an instrumentalist with no commitments to metaphysics. When the operationalists came along, he wasn't bothered. And when the realists tried to make some conclusion from Newtonian mechanics, he didn't agree with them but they had zero effect on the efficacy of his theory. The point is that you can switch out metaphysical assumptions with no effect on the model. With relativity, the same thing applies. There is a conceptual difference between Newtonian and modern mechanics, not a fundamental one.

Now ask yourself the question with regards to historicism: how do your predictions change if you're an idealist, materialist, or anything else? It seems to me that they don't, and further that they don't affect ANY model of history or sociology.

>>17656258
so there's no way to think outside of whatever economic systems that have come before? depressing but makes sense

>>17656347
try to conceptualize selling your labor without a substrate of words and ideas.

>>17656343
>you are actively making this board worse right now
No, I'm not. I'm "derailing" an already off-topic thread. There's no value in this thread, it's continuing to be bumped anyway regardless of what I do. I'm helping it reach the bump limit quicker, which is good for the board.

>>17656350
>The error in Newtonian mechanics stemmed from a flaw in the model, not from any fundamental assumptions about reality.
I was thinking about mentioning this but I thought my post was already too long. You're right, that's why I said only a little similar. The difference rests in this: Not that there is some undiscovered evidence which could refute your theory (inductive flaw), but that the theory does not follow from the premise(s) (deductive flaw). If you reject the idealist postulates which are necessary for a given theory of history (so that the theory's assertions and predictions deductively follow), then you are not justified in adhering to that theory, whether or not the theory in reality turns out to be correct or valid. Reality may or may not conform to it, even perfectly, but if you as a person reject those postulates, which happen to be idealistic, then rationally speaking you have no reason to adhere to the theory. If you think Hegel's ideas about sublation and Geist and how they relate to (and determine, teleologically) philosophical history are not real, yet that is teleological view of history is somehow valid, my only question would be, "how do you justify that assertion when the premises are rejected?"
As I said a few posts back, maybe you can reformulate it in a way which utilizes different predicates, but at this point I would be stretched to term it "materialist Hegelianism" when it strays from all or most of Hegel's basic philosophical points.

>how do your predictions change if you're an idealist, materialist, or anything else?
The future predictions of old Hegelianism and Marxism are both pretty radically different.

>>17656353
The fact that centuries of ideological superstructure lies on top of a material substrate doesn't mean the material substrate isn't the most important thing.

>>17656351
>so there's no way to think outside of whatever economic systems that have come before?

It's obviously possible *to think* outside of it, but thinking alone doesn't change the world.

>>17656388
I think I understand. Thanks for the explanation.

>>17656517
Was this post you btw? Still trying to figure out who I actually pissed off here and how. >>17656078

>>17656529
No, I am OP and I don't know why that guy said "my thread". The only posts I've made here were strictly related to the metaphysical base of Marx/Hegel.

>>17656393
>it's real because it seems to be real
that's why it's called an illusion

>>17656292
posters can refer without a mention

>>17657130
Who are you replying to schizo?

>>17657855
probably the post I quoted retard

>>17657902
Nothing contained in your reply is an answer.

>>17650062
>Why did Hegel and Marx need to establish metaphysical premises to make claims about society?

The entire point of Hegel’s model is that his view of history derives from his ontological/Phenomenological observations. The phenomenology of spirit/his views on time, history and so forth are simply the logical result of applying his work in science of logic. The entire reason why He’s even making the claims that he is, is due to his view on ontology which manifests as his view concerning rights, state, man, freedom, etc. see philosophy of right, there’s no part of this which isn’t rooted in his ontology. Every single view of Hegel derives from his metaphysical and ontological framework. If you isolate the ontology from it, The model makes no sense and Hegel has no reason to say or explain his views as they are simply the ramifications.

The views of Marx similarly are based in his materialistic and dialectical conception, if his view was, say, idealist, his calculation concerning the result of history and the like wouldn’t be substantially different from Hegel’s. Ontological and metaphysical and epistemological beliefs form the rest of their beliefs, opinions and views because they’re working a systematic structure and not a more decentralized form. If they do not believe it follows their principles and logical investigations, it to them wouldn’t be scientific, it wouldn’t be to them genuine philosophy.


>Why does it matter if one is a materialist or idealist to make the claim that it is the material conditions rather than intellectual culture that drives history?

Highly reductionist view concerning both Marx and Hegel here. Again, if Marx believed the idealist schema and structure observable, logical, truth and without a doubt fact the ramifications would be different. These aren’t just decisions made at random but results of their models.

Further Hegel’s argument isn’t simply that “intellectual culture” causes change. His argument is that nature is in a process of unfolding into itself through a process of rationalization/becoming coherent and this is done through gradual cultural and material movements which manifest through a multiplicity of ways, each moment being harmonized, every single aspect of life being harmonized by this rationalization. Remember to Hegel “the rational is the actual”


Cont

>>17657995
>There is no contradiction in being an idealist but also a Marxist,

In latter forms of Marxism, neo-Marxism and post-Marxism this may be the case, but certainly it is not the case that you can be Marx and hold the specific positions in totality as he did without a drastic change to Hegel’s model.

>or a materialist but also socially Hegelian.


Hegel’s model without the ontology/metaphysical aspects literally has no manner of existing and sure you could claim you agree with some aspects of Hegel but unless you could justify them, their wouldn’t be a coherency in your model. Again the theories of Hegel are 100% results of his ontology. They can’t be separated and still said to be his. You can say you were inspired or the like but not that you’re really in agreement.

>>17656142
>By analogy, imagine if I believed rape should be illegal, and you somehow show that morals are not objective, does that matter?

Yes actually. If you said rape is immoral but then demonstrate that there is no objective morality then the question becomes subjective and intersubjective morality.

The intersubjective morality can be incredibly diverse and could consider moral what other groups consider immoral, similarly an individual may believe something is moral according to his own morality that everyone else does not believe is so.

Case and point: my own culture sees it as a morally good thing to lie and steal and the selling of children is as moral as purchasing and selling of a dog is. So no, if you remove the structure which creates the claim, any other structure could possibly be used which can either confirm or deny the statement. The truth value of the statement which once existed within the system does not carry over once the system/structure has been annihilated/divorced from the statement.

In this same regard, if you argued that it logically followed that Freedom only occurs through the actualization of freedom by the willing of a certain action and not by the capacity of arbitrarity(capacity to perform a number of acts/potential ) such a claim does not maintain its truth value when you annihilate the concepts of potentiality and the identification of rational=actual, and the nature of the begrif/concept also being annihilated from the structure. These of course being the most major aspects of Hegel’s conception or right, freedom and man. If you annihilate them you also annihilate the factual statement within his system that actualized Will=freedom which annihilates the chain of logic that stems from that identification.

>>17657930
I'm saying there's no such thing as material substrate, it's all made of ideas and words. even mountains and the weather and especially space.

>>17657845
then why'd you bother quoting my post number? just post your comment, it's obvious from its contents which post it's replying to

>>17658333
for readers' convenience

>>17650062
HAHA JOKES ON YOU I HAVEN'T READ EITHER OF THEM! EAT SHIT OP

>>17658343
exactly. that's why it's a rule

>>17658349
it's not a rule that it should be mentioned. you're actually retarded

It's not a rule I have to quote your post number to give you (You)s

Do you actually not understand what "to refer to" means? How can one refer to the works discussed in a thread if the works are never stated and instead (surprise, surprise) we're just discussing two philosophers and absolutely nothing related to literature?

>>17650062
BBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPsnnnnniiiiiiffffffffffff...oh yes my dear....sssnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiffffffff....quite pungent indeed...is that....dare I say....sssssssnniff...eggs I smell?......sniff sniff....hmmm...yes...quite so my darling....sniff....quite pungent eggs yes very much so .....ssssssssssssssnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiffffff....ah yes...and also....a hint of....sniff....cheese.....quite wet my dear....sniff...but of yes...this will do nicely....sniff.....please my dear....another if you please....nice a big now....BBBBBBRRRRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPPPFFFFFFFFLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPFFFFFF Oh yes...very good!....very sloppy and wet my dear....hmmmmm...is that a drop of nugget I see on the rim?...hmmmm.....let me.....let me just have a little taste before the sniff my darling.......hmmmmm....hmm..yes....that is a delicate bit of chocolate my dear....ah yes....let me guess...curry for dinner?....oh quite right I am....aren't I?....ok....time for sniff.....sssssnnnnnnniiiiiiiiffffffff.....hmmm...hhhmmmmm I see...yes....yes indeed as well curry......hmmm....that fragrance is quite noticeable....yes.....onion and garlic chutney I take it my dear?.....hmmmmm....yes quite.....BBBBBBRRRRRRRRPPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT Oh I was not expecting that…that little gust my dear….you caught me off guard…yes…so gentle it was though…hmmmm…let me taste this little one…just one small sniff…..sniff…ah….ssssssnnnnnniiiiiffffffffffff…and yet…so strong…yes…the odor….sniff sniff…hmmm….is that….sniff….hmmm….I can almost taste it my dear…..yes….just…sniff….a little whiff more if you please…..ssssssnnnnnniiiiiffffffffff…ah yes I have it now….yes quite….hhhhmmmm…delectable my dear…..quite exquisite yes…..I dare say…sniff….the most pungent one yet my dear….ssssnnnnniiiifffffffffffffffffffffff….yes….

>>17658383
yes, it's not a rule. no one's gonna ban you for it idiot
>>17658392
>How can one refer to the works
The same way I did without OP mentioning it? By not being a tourist

>>17658462
so you acknowledge that it's impossible to refer to the works, you just already knew the works so didn't need to refer
>by not being a tourist
you're the tourist, friend. This is a literature board. Go back to your dedicated board, /r/philosophy

>>17658590
>you just already knew the works so didn't need to refer
Yes, otherwise I'd have had to look up what are the most important works of those philosophers mentioned. You're the only r*dditor complaining you don't get spoonfed a reading list in the OP.

>>17658628
You're either retarded or just pretending to not understand my complaint
I don't need you to spoon-feed the reading list for me. There's only one work by either of these philosophers ever discussed on this board. That doesn't change the fact that those works aren't being discussed here -- philosophers are -- which makes this thread in clear violation of the rules

>>17658663
How the fuck do you discuss philosophers without referring to their corpus? Do you discuss their aesthetics? I see people above discussing their ontology which you can only understand if you read the books. You're an idiot and you should go back

>>17658716
>How the fuck do you discuss philosophers without referring to their corpus?
Exactly. Why would someone write a rule that says
>You must refer to a philosopher's works
if it is in fact it is impossible not to? They wouldn't. But the rule was written, so we are now at a contradiction. You can say the rule is silly to exist, but this post violates it (or, alternatively, no post could possibly violate it under any conditions).

>>17658763
The rule doesn't say that. You are a midwit who can't grasp concepts so it's pointless to try to understand this.

>>17658867
tell me what you think this means
>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
Which types of posts are allowed on /lit/ and which aren't? Explain, kind philosopher, for I lack wisdom and you claim to have so much of it.