/lit/ - Literature

So fucking true

>>22392175
if you give a man a house, he will think of how to fill it. based.

>>22392175
Thats cool however i should remind you that you will never be a real woman and you will never be a real revolutionary.

>>22392208
back to pol, faggot

>>22392175
It is very ironic that such passionate political ideal toward a future uncognizable, which has cost the lives of millions of people, which is profoundly moralistic and grounded on an ideal understanding of history implicating an inherent telos, is not idealism, somehow. It does not posit an Absolute beyond, but the Absolute immanence and experience thereof.

>back to pol,faggot

>Believes in materialism
>Doesn't believe in darwinian materialism which states that hierarchy, oppression, and competition are inevitable since resources are scarce while needs tend to be unlimited that's why alienated animal exists in particular habitat and that's why some animals went to extinct

Hahaha. Stupid bald vatnik ! Darwin was right. Malthus was right. Cope and seethe, tranny !

how do i get into marxism?

>>22392260
>step 1 get a lobotomy
>Step 2??

>>22392276
>Step 2
>Cut your penis
Still not a woman tho

>>22392260
Just read. In Materialism and Empirio-criticism Lenin calls upon Allah, calls things gemmy. It's a very human response to professional philosophers with stuck up loaded language. And very funny at times.

>>22392289

>>22392175
He’s right that realism and materialism (sorta) are true but this book is retarded. It’s basically “marx is a materialist, so it must be right.”

>>22392208
Materialism does not have the problem of souls and sanctity of life. There's no reason to allow homosexuals or trannies to exist in a true Marxist Leninist regime. They're defects and should be physically removed.

>>22392309
Have you read it? He regularly gives respect to any materialist thinker - Feurbach, Kautsky, Plekhanov get their respects. Engels is more cited than Marx - most of the time Lenin even quotes leading bourgeois philosophers. He quotes Berkley more often than Marx ffs.

>>22392322
Oh fuck forgot - Joseph Dietzgen as well. The first historical materialist, who developed the materialist conception of history independently and at a same time as Marx.

>>22392237
> anon states lenin didn't believe in "darwinian" materialism
> anon doesn't know that dialectical materialism supports Darwin
> anon equates the thinkings of Darwin and Malthuse, which were in fact very different
> anon is a retard

dialectical materialism is never explained in detail anywhere. marxists just refer to it as their doctrine, but it's never actually explained.

>>22392336
It, howthoughever, is.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

>Do you believe that reality can be understood, or do you think it's beyond comprehension?
these days even scientists claim that we wont be able to understand reality.

>>22392340
how is matter not an absolute idea?

>>22392342
>these days even scientists claim that we wont be able to understand reality.
Lenin addresses that in the book.

>>22392336
It literally is explained many times.
Just read
The Anti-Duhring - Engles
Dialectics of Nature - Engles
On Dialectics - Lenin
1933 soviet Textbook of Marxist philosophy
Dialectical materialism - Stalin

And if you want to learn the original outline that was (idealist) dialectics, just read Hegel

Stop being retarded.

>>22392347
because the material is the being in itself. Our observations are ideals however through the dialectical process, we approach them; matching the real even closer and closer as time progresses

>>22392346
Lenin addressed the latest developments in quantum mechanics and field theory? Woah! Certainly not a braindead religious zealot, this guy must be worth worshipping indeed.

>>22392381
you're clearly retarded

>>22392340
>Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and its laws
>Contrary to idealism, which asserts that only our consciousness really exists

>>22392385
>these days
>Lenin addresses this
you're clearly the average marxist dimwit

>>22392385
bro, latest shit like single photon interference experiment almost proves that we live in idealistic world

>>22392419
>proves that we live in idealistic world
This is laughable. It does the opposite of what you think. It breaks down any coherent idealist system and reinforces the view that all material is movement and all movement is contradiction.

>>22392175
"We should like... introduce an 8-hour work day and treat workers a little better."

>>22392419
>>22392417
There are two and a half chapters dedicated to describing the current crisis of physics and - had you pseuds read it - you'd know that the problems of yesteryear's physics and contemporary physics are still fundamentally the same debate: are the equations describing the processes faithful images of matter (which is equivalent to motion, because you can't conceive (literally! conceive, imagine) without the movement of matter in your head in some different arrangement compared to, say, a chimpanzee; or that the equations themselves are (literally! are) the reality. A = A, for the idealist the focus is on the = that he forgets to ask what it means that we still have conscious (and consequently the possibly of ideas) when the cells that make up our bodies all change ever how many years.

>>22392438
movement... where? where do these things move in? space?

>>22392455
movements in states, can be space but is also in terms of any stage of progression to another.

>>22392474
movement, change, difference, identity... are these not relational categories? what progresses, changes, moves, is an entity? is this unity as substance not an ideal category too? how can we know that what we understand through these ideas is part of the constitution of what we perceive?

Materialism literally does not make sense though. It is the result of being bound up rationality to the point of confusion. That this is the mainstream sentiment and uneducated people simply haven’t heard a contrary view is just incidental. Communists accept materialism for basically no reason at all and worse, they ignore just how alike they are to materialist bourgeois capitalists in places like America. I strongly doubt he had Americans in mind, but rather only Europeans. Marxism, after all, is just capitalism…but for the working class.

>>22392326
No tranny, they were not really different. Both believed the scarcity of resources breeds competition. This is observable and replicable (meaning that you can do it multiple times and the result will be the same: has consistency and reliability).

>>22392447
what it means that my room is not an insalubrious, inhospitable place?

>>22392510
>are these not relational categories
Not here. Apart from simple abstract being, what constitutes an object is it's quality. It's change is in terms of it's internal quality, not some external relation
> what progresses, changes, moves, is an entity?
The central contradictions that moves it foward.
> is this unity as substance not an ideal category too
no
> how can we know that what we understand through these ideas is part of the constitution of what we perceive?
Through the same empirical studies onto nature. The only change is that our range of hypothesis and tools have immensely increased

>>22392510
movement of what? you claim theres no matter only movement, movement of what exactly?

>>22392419
No it doesn’t, it proves that the experimenter can’t separate himself from the experiment.

>>22392511
You're conflating philosophical materialism with what we today understand as materialism. And the working class using capitalism is not Marxism you nigger.

>>22392538
What has that to do with material reality existing outside us? Or do you contradict all scientific evidence about Earth being a molten ball for millions of years with no hope of something conscious let alone -self-conscious. What illiterate people visit the literature board.

>>22392511
>bound up rationality to the point of confusion
Marxist refute rationalism because it is a form of idealism
>marxism, after all, is just capitalism…but for the working class.
this proves you don't even know what marxists claim. Marxism itself isn't even a prescriptive theory for some type of system. It is a critique of capitalism. You clearly don't know what capitalism is due to your asinine statement. It is a societal mode of production where what is produced is commodity. Learn what makes and doesnt make a commodity and then get back

>>22392529
>not some external relation
I thought movement also meant an external, not internal kind of change, that not necessarily every thing that moved changed its internal quality
>the central contradictions that moves it forward
these central contradictions are inherent, internal, to an entity?
>no
why not?
>through the same empirical studies
how is an epistemological stance the ground of the very epistemological problem said?

>>22392530
are you the same anon? I'm pointing to this very thing, that what moves are things

>>22392571
>Marxism itself isn't even a prescriptive theory for some type of system
What is the proletariat dictatorship? What is socialism? What are stages of regime toward communism? What does Communism mean?

>>22392577
All Movement is internal. Even movement in terms of relational space. Take anything moving, you invoke it's internal decisions (contradictions of desire and dissonance) (contractions of phyisical attraction and repulsion) (contradictions of chemical processes) so on and so on..., It is only when you abstract it to an ideal you lose this internal understanding and thus you become confused.
All matter is in both unity and disunity, a contradiction. All of matter is at once flowing into a new state by the changes of it's internally composed dialectical processes.
Contradictions exist due to both the mutualpenetration of opposites and the central contradiction of Movement (see Hegel)

>>22392586
marxism =/= socialism. Socialism existed in it's utopian form before marx and Engles. After them there came scientific socialism and later the differentiation between socialism and communism. Marxism is a critical tool however there is no set project

>>22392586
>What does communism mean?
Egalitarian society with workers own the means of production. Also communism is scientific because Marx found the historical pattern (dialectical history).

>>22392445
That would be Owen and de Sismondi. Reality proved them both right btw.

>>22392608
I'm saying that in Marxism, Socialism is a necessary historical stage, and in Marxian theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is its distinctive condition. Plus, Marx talks about Communism, about its qualities.

>>22392611
Didn't Heraclitus, especially Vico, Hegel posit this pattern of historical movement? Plus, this is taking for granted and historicist conception of man and society, or culture, in general.

>>22392623
The proletariat is not it's distinctive condition. It is the abolition of commodity production. He predicted that the tensions of the contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeoisie will lead to a revolt it reverse the power structure to it's opposite (worker control). This however does not describe a fully detailed system. Also, during marx's time, the terms socialism and communism were inter changable, it was until later the differences were fleshed out

>>22392630
The difference is Marx saw history materialistically. Class struggles are the backbones of history.

>>22392601
This internal contradiction of a thing implicates a composite thing, what is being contradicted internally? Other composite things which suffer internal contradictions in order to contradict internally that other thing? The point is that this substance abstraction is needed precisely not to fall into this endless regression. Plus: internal movement does not mean exclusively internal movement, the external movement happens.
What I'm saying is that I can't conceive how this dialectical immanence, contradictory processes don't imply ideal categories superposed onto nature, being, reality, world, whatever.

>>22392638
How did Vico not see it materialistically? The guy was literally a constructivist lol

>>22392638
>>22392654
Ah, also Heraclitus saw struggle of opposites as backbone of reality too.

>>22392635
I gave only one example, and no, Marx didn't predict it because 1) It had already happened and had already been understood by previous theorists; 2) these revolts did not reverse completely the power structure with the inferior being in total control; and 3) such a reversion has never happened.

>>22392635
>the terms socialism and communism were inter changable, it was until later the differences were fleshed out
Marx describes Communism as stateless. Do you mean that he also describes Socialism as stateless?

>>22392644
It does not fully negate ideals. It shows you the correct positioning and rational for these ideals. You are missing a key result from dialectical materialism. It posits that our ideals originally came from our material conditions. Once we gained ideals, the primitive onces, we were able to manipulate nature (material) and then it started to shape our ideals even more and so on and so on..... The ideals are important but are only valid to this extent

>>22392175
Nigga didn't understand nothing of Mach

>>22392363
Is a person a composite of "being in itselfs"?
What is the materialistic view on "time" and "progress"?

>>22392716
A person is partly a composite of these things but also they carry Qualities (contradictions) that detail their progression and thus separate them as humans. You must also stop saying "Materialist" when you mean "Dialectical Materialist". The latter is not a plain superset of the former

>>22392716
Progress is equal with general movement. Time is an aspect of progress that had reached a qualitative stage of development it had became quantitative.

>>22392548
I’m actually not and I think you just misunderstood the bit about Marxism just being capitalism for the working class.

>>22392680
Yes, I agree, our conscious and rational capacity comes from the development of the senses through experience. But you are also forgetting that these ideals inhere in language, which is an abastraction from the senses and experience.
And precisely, as you said, as we developed to manipulate nature it means we grew in power to position ourselves in and dominate the world, but not necessarily in purely epistemological authority. There is no necessary correspondence between the two. That’s why I think the historicist position is relevant but ends up losing itself by positing an authority to a principle that displaces itself but at the same time does not recognize it, as much as an ancient near eastern Weltanschauung (Fichte is important for what this term implies) worked for the establishment of say a 7 week, a bosom higgs field theory may work for our current understanding of physics.

>>22392571
> Marxist refute rationalism because it is a form of idealism
What a hyper-rationalist and confused thing to say lol

By the way, a prescription of “orthodox” capitalism but inverted would still necessarily be a critique of capitalism, just like how Marxism is a critique of capitalism while also being essentially capitalistic.

>>22392779
>but not necessarily in purely epistemological authority
Experience itself is epistemological. There is no authority needed. Through practice through the real world people gain better understanding. There was no need to scientific authorities to verify this natural progression. Labor provides experience and this experience can come into conflict with the ideaology of the old. I am fully aware that ideals are innately interwined with language, there is no disagreement there.

>>22392780
At this point I think you are just saying buzzwords

>>22392732
>>22392745
>You must also stop saying "Materialist" when you mean "Dialectical Materialist".

I'm sorry, anon, just trying to learn here: so, it deals only with matter or no?

>>22392913
It deals with matters and ideals. Ideals come from matter and our experiences with them

>>22392924
For Deleuze, who was still a materialist, >Ideal means the conjunction of subject and object

>>22392932
Yes, from our (Subject) interactions with nature (the object) we gain ideals

>>22392924
>>22392932
>>22392939
Seems like a contradiction with "materialism", but I guess it's just a name, then.

>>22392939
Kant explains how that leads to problems

>>22392952
You are not seeing the central difference between classic "french" materialism and the enhanced dialectical materialism. The former restricts itself so completely that it ends up to either subjectivism or rationalism which are both idealist. That later incorporates ideals but places material and the base of them. Idealism is not "when there are ideals" but thinking that there are ideals first and then everything else follows. Materialism believed that all ideals were to be forgotten and dialectical materialism states that material was always first and foremost and from it came ideals

>>22392823
What do you mean experience is epistemological? Experience may furnish a ground for a particular epistmeological stance.
>through pracrice through the real world people gain better understanding
Better understanding of what? What natural progression? Material progression? Do cell phones compensate lack of a harmonious social community, for instance? Hot water? What progression?
>labor provides experience
The senses provide experience, lol. The ideological use and connection of terms is blatant here you can’t even simply think of logical conceptual relations, you deform concepts like labor and experience by ideology.
The point is that it is not because language coming from sense and experience, that the ideals employed ideologically from language are justified, this ideological use is a particular organization of what os potential in language and its ideals.

>>22392959
Only if you assume ideals to be perfect representations which Dialecticians do not claim

>>22392970
>Better understanding of what?
The thing in of itself. The totality of motion.
>the senses provide experience, lol
Yes, through labour. Also senses do not mere provide experience for do you have a receptor of time? is memory a sense? How do you use inductive reasoning for only experiencing with these pure senses?

>>22392827
What exactly did you think was “just buzzwords”? I was poking fun but I thought what I meant was perfectly clear.

>>22392971
OK, but if there is an ideal like a sage that is conjectured to exist, be attainable, or approachable, it would require thoroughgoing determination. By making matter the sole rational element, you are cognizing the substratum that ignores the many that comes out of the one. If you start from a scientific perspective, in life, maybe politics, the entire environment becomes something that determines the ideal.

Maybe you are saying materialism cannot be perfectly represented, which I have never considered.

>>22393006
>Maybe you are saying materialism cannot be perfectly represented
Idk about "materialism" per se but the thing in-itself can never fully be perfectly represented due to the abstracting nature of language. However through a dialectical process we as individuals and as groups approach certain ideals that are closer to certain aspects of the thing in-itself that is needed for us at that time.

>>22393015
>the thing in-itself can never fully be perfectly represented due to the abstracting nature of language.
is this your pre-emption of me saying a logic needs to be finite to explain the world?

>>22393029
what? No clue what that has to do with anything. We are talking about the Ontology of Dialectical materialism. Not logic

>>22392982
Dude, I’m completely lost. How is an absolute understanding (conscious apperehension) of the totality of things, a sort of absolute understanding, not idealism? It is interesting that this collective peogress of unified Mind is always implied in Marxism, and it is irrelevant whether it is from bottom to top or from top to bottom movement of understanding. This apprehension of as you said the thing in itself is literally a kind of theosis.
>senses do not mere provide experience for do you have a receptor of time? is memory a sense? How do you use inductive reasoning for only experiencing with these pure senses?
Yes, memory depends on sense; inductive reasoning explained literally by Hume, repetition of sense perceptions. Time may be grounded empirically on observable change, but I have’t thought much about this.

>>22393040
it's over. a complete understanding of matter... all you had to do was say it but you didn't

>>22393046
The understanding vis a vis matter. Not materialism, sorry, Marxist will forever be dependent on idealism and moralistic historicism.

>>22393040
>How is an absolute understanding (conscious apperehension) of the totality of things, a sort of absolute understanding, not idealism?
Because idealism is the conception that there exists ideals outside of what is observable and what is observable is only an obscured form or reflection of that ideal. In idealism, all stems from the ideals, whether that be god, math, or subjectivism. Idealism rejects the central independence of nature. The "absolute understanding of totality of things" is an idea. However having ideas does not make you an idealist. What makes an idealist is if you believe it is a fundamental law that exists outside of us, immutable. We have came up with the idea of "Absolute understanding" however it is just an approximation of an aspect we are trying to convey. With a historical lens, it take many stages of societal development to have people producing the groundwork for such an idea, however it is in the next stage of material change one will take the contradiction between old idea and their observable reality and the produce the main idea in question

>>22393068
>Because idealism is the conception that there exists ideals outside of what is observable and what is observable is only an obscured form or reflection of that ideal
The totality of all things are not observable. That ideal of understanding of the totality of things being not observed in the things implies ideals upon the observed. This is very simple. This is universal apprehension, unification, hence henosis/theosis as said, non-dual subject-object distinction.
I think from Herder, Hegel, Schelling gets Mind, Spirit as higher organization of a common basic natural primal matter. But any organization by the mind of ideals from language at all does not imply truth correspondence, this is what a Weltanschauung, ideology, is, a particular point of view, an organized creation.

>>22393146
>But any organization by the mind of ideals from language at all does not imply truth correspondence, this is what a Weltanschauung, ideology, is, a particular point of view, an organized creation.
correspondence to what? thought and being? Hegel at least is a coherentist, so to say there is no correspondence here isn't the end of it...

also, on my reading of Kant and Hegel, the ideal itself is not really the main thrusts of their arguments. and to take it even further i don't think they were entirely concerned with the monism's actuality because monism is only a stage toward objective truth

>>22393146
>The totality of all things are not observable
Ok then provide me with the existence of an object that is non-observable.

>>22392175
Really? Because I’ve noticed the exact opposite

>>22393169
Well, if part of what constitutes his coherentism is incoherent then I think it is problem, no?

>>22393176
You misunderstood me. The observation of the totality of things is not observable, it barely makes sense without non-dual conjunction of subject and object.

>>22393233
>The observation of the totality of things is not observable
Yes of course it is not observable due to the contradictions of language I had mentioned earlier. Not only to mention the limits of out own brains. This is not a goal of Dialectical Materialism. It is a term used to help describe the asymptotic path that our development approaches to.

>>22393244
>contradictions of language
Describing an Absolute understanding discursively is indeed a problem (again nondual ideal implicated with recourse of apophatic language).
>our development
Again, not our epistemological development which is a permanent conumdrum since skeptics, Plato, Aristotle, Buddhists, etc.