/lit/ - Literature

>>5975872
I'm not sure if you're a troll or not since I haven't got to Schopenhauer.

In terms of the general conceptions of the clarity of his arguments though, I do not think think he is as famous as a Hume or Russell.

Huh? Are you implying that the divide between continental and analytic philosophy is over how 'lucid' and 'well-written' the philosophers are? Wtf?

Also no-one in the academy cares about Schopenhauer.

>>5975879
There do seem to be numerous attacks from the analytic tradition upon continental philosophy claiming that the latter is "obscure" in writing and thought presented.

>>5975907
Nothing obscure about continental philosophy, it only seems that way if you want to read advanced works without reading a fuckton of prior works. Advanced mathematics looks "obscure" to people who don't study the fuck out of what comes before it. For some reason people demand that philosophy as a discipline should also be easily accessible for people who haven't spent many years studying it.

>>5975922
>comparing mathematics with hacks like Zizek, Derrida, Badiou, Deleuze and Heidegger

>>5975872
who?

>>5976008
On what grounds are you calling them "backs" exactly? Most people who say this just aren't well enough read in philosophy to understand them, and go "hurr durr someone totally uneducated in philosophy can't understand highly advanced philosopher hurr durrr they're hacks".

>>5976019
>On what grounds are you calling them "backs" exactly?
Define "back".

>>5976026
Someone who writes and is mediocre at what they do, and downright awful contrasted with what their quality is represented as.

>analytic philosophy departments

you mean philosophy departments

>>5975872
kind of a good looking fellow in his youth

>>5976019
It's because their ideas are unfalsifiable, unscientific, and dogmatic. That's the reason analytics don't like continentals.

>>5976066
>unfalsifiable
And? I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a criticism, mathematics is unfalsifiable. Whether or not an idea is falsifiable in philosophy depends on what logical system it uses to support itself.

>unscientific
That's because it's philosophy, not science.

>dogmatic
Philosophy is the least dogmatic discipline there is by far. How can you possibly call it dogmatic when all the key philosophers often radically disagree with each other's premises?

>>5976077
>mathematics is unfalsifiable
*cringe*
>How can you possibly call it dogmatic when all the key philosophers often radically disagree with each other's premises?
that doesn't stop ideas like, say, Marxism from being dogmatic.
>That's because it's philosophy, not science.
This is what analytics don't like. Your baseless opinions on things don't matter in the search for truth. Analytic philosophy is about finding truth.

>>5976083
Explain how math is falsifiable.

>>5975907
They actually hate the metaphysical webs of german idealism. The obscurity is just a slur they use.

>>5976094
After the reconstruction of foundations of mathematics in 20 century, i.e. getting rid of the famous paradoxes (like Russell's paradox), the modern mathematics is based on the belief that no other paradoxes will appear again. Despite numerous efforts, logicians did not manage to prove that the systems of axioms of modern set theories are consistent (and at the same time they did not manage to find new paradoxes). This means that theoretically it is possible that in future somebody will find a new paradox, and this will have the corollary that some of mathematical results (maybe most part of them) turn out to be false. This can be considered as the evidence of the falsifiability of mathematics.

>>5976083
>that doesn't stop ideas like, say, Marxism from being dogmatic.
Marxism isn't dogmatic, that's the whole point. Do you realize how much Gramsci breaks with Marx's materialism, and how important Gramsci is as a thinker in Marxism?

>This is what analytics don't like. Your baseless opinions on things don't matter in the search for truth. Analytic philosophy is about finding truth.
Continental philosophy is about finding meaning for both the individual and society. Continental philosophy also realizes that meaning makes up the lion's share of truth in the human condition.

>>5976140
>Continental philosophy is about finding meaning for both the individual and society
And this is where it crumbles apart. Meaning and truth haven't walked hand in hand in centuries, the more we find out about the universe, the less room there is for feel-good teleological narratives.

>>5976119
If falsifiable simply means "if you can show this theory is not consistent with itself, it will be falsified", then all philosophy is falsifiable.

>>5976140
>Marxism isn't dogmatic
Yes it is. It is unfalsifiable historicism. Read The Poverty of Historicism .
>Continental philosophy is about finding meaning for both the individual and society. Continental philosophy also realizes that meaning makes up the lion's share of truth in the human condition.
You'll likely never find any truth without a methodology designed for objectivity. Continentals are just pseudo-intellectuals who failed maths and science. In fact, I am almost convinced that continental philosophy is just one big ruse wherein pseudo-intellectuals obfuscate basic claims in contrived terminology, attempting to dupe universities into giving them jobs. A clear, logical mind can see this wank for what it is.

>>5976148
Dude, you could not find anything out without meaning. Any and all distinction you make in the world is imposed meaning. Our reality is like a wall, and you imagine an arbitrary shape in it and say "that's a triangle", but it's a fucking wall, you can divvy it up any way you want. divvy the wall from the air is just as arbitrary, divvying anything from anything arbitrary in our reality.Reality might exist concretely apart from us, but we raw all the lines on it like boundaries on a fucking map.

>>5976156
Marxism is not, as it is a form of determinism that adapts itself when faced with evidence proving its predictions to be false.

>>5976162
>Yes it is. It is unfalsifiable historicism. Read The Poverty of Historicism .
How is it dogmatic when famous Marxists like Zizek and Gramsci radically disagree with Marx on several points?

>>5976166
And math likewise adapts itself, you just said so.

>>5976167
They have their own dogma and Marx had his, though it started as genuinely scientific, somewhat.
>>5976163
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Haven't read Schopenhauer. Is he worth reading when I could just read the tao de ching?

>>5976170
There is a difference between correcting itself and adapting itself. Marxism is an ideology that made false predictions, this showed its central notion, predictions of society, to be false. Mathematics is a broad term with many internal theories subject to scientific standards.

>>5976171
>They have their own dogma and Marx had his, though it started as genuinely scientific, somewhat.
What the fuck does "dogma" even mean here? Something you disagree with?

>Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
No, and by your own method I don't need any, since the you're the on arguing that something exists (non-arbitrary distinctions in reality), whereas I'm saying I don't see any distinction that isn't crafted and imposed by us following arbitrary criteria.

>tfw Aristotle has the best of analytic and continental philosophy
>tfw if I want mysticism I won't go to an academic professor, but an old sage or monk who devoted their life to mystical and ascetic practice

DUDE MODERN PHILOSOPHY LMAO

>>5976180
>What the fuck does "dogma" even mean here?
ideas not subject to correction and advancement.
>I'm saying I don't see any distinction that isn't crafted and imposed by us following arbitrary criteria.
We are civilised apes living on a floating rock in space. We aren't special. If we all died out everything would continue just the same in the universe. We can only observe and test the reaction of objects in relation to other objects to determine how they work.

>>5976179
Mathematics is used to predict things regularly, and these predictions are often wrong.

However, the actual Marxist prediction according to Marxist dialectic isn't wrong, we're just progressing toward it. Dialectic indicates that when the means of production are produced so cheaply that every regular worker can easily payback a loan to buy them within a couple of years, then production will fall into the lands of the workers instead of their being a owner-worker divide. We're already seeing the predecessor of this with 3-D printers. The state will eventually react to this by clamping down back in the other direction and driving up the cost of permits and education requirements, as intervening in larger companies more and more until things become nationalized to keep the state relevant as a power. Then everyone but those in the state will be proletariat, and that will culminate in a socialist revolution, turning national property into social property where all workers have a part in the country-wide enterprise unified by the state; eventually even the new state will wither away and production will become so efficient that work will be minimal and communism will be possible.

>>5975922
>For some reason people demand that philosophy as a discipline should also be easily accessible for people who haven't spent many years studying it.
People actually think this is what analytics want?

>>5976193
>ideas not subject to correction and advancement.
But they are, Marx revised his ideas plenty, and Gramsci corrected and advanced them.

>We are civilised apes living on a floating rock in space. We aren't special. If we all died out everything would continue just the same in the universe. We can only observe and test the reaction of objects in relation to other objects to determine how they work.
I'm not sure why you're offering me this banality, it certainly doesn't show that our distinctions aren't arbitrary.

>>5976200
1+1=2 is correct by definition. I'm talking about real mathematics.
>>5976197
>Mathematics is used to predict things regularly, and these predictions are often wrong.
due to incorrect formulae or use.
>However, the actual Marxist prediction according to Marxist dialectic isn't wrong, we're just progressing toward it. Dialectic indicates that when the means of production are produced so cheaply that every regular worker can easily payback a loan to buy them within a couple of years, then production will fall into the lands of the workers instead of their being a owner-worker divide
>just keep waiting, guys, just a little while longer. Don't give up hope now!

>>5976203
>The Marxist account of history too, Popper held, is not scientific, although it differs in certain crucial respects from psychoanalysis. For Marxism, Popper believed, had been initially scientific, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were not in fact borne out, the theory was saved from falsification by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses which made it compatible with the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a theory which was initially genuinely scientific degenerated into pseudo-scientific dogma.

>These factors combined to make Popper take falsifiability as his criterion for demarcating science from non-science: if a theory is incompatible with possible empirical observations it is scientific; conversely, a theory which is compatible with all such observations, either because, as in the case of Marxism, it has been modified solely to accommodate such observations, or because, as in the case of psychoanalytic theories, it is consistent with all possible observations, is unscientific. For Popper, however, to assert that a theory is unscientific, is not necessarily to hold that it is unenlightening, still less that it is meaningless, for it sometimes happens that a theory which is unscientific (because it is unfalsifiable) at a given time may become falsifiable, and thus scientific, with the development of technology, or with the further articulation and refinement of the theory. Further, even purely mythogenic explanations have performed a valuable function in the past in expediting our understanding of the nature of reality.

>>5976209
>due to incorrect formulae or use.
I seriously doubt there could ever be a formula that could predict market trends with 100% accuracy.

>just keep waiting, guys, just a little while longer. Don't give up hope now!
Marxist dialectic at it's core is not about hope anymore than Hegelian dialectic prediction is. Marx was ideologically about hope and he pushed it a lot, but pushing for a socialist revolution when he did was counter-intuitive to his own dialectics. Socialism isn't even economically possible until labor reaches nearly the value of the means of production (as in, you build a factory, and workers using it pay for the cost in a year), and communism isn't possible until labor exceeds the value of the means of production (as in the factory pays for itself within a week).

>>5976209
How is 1+1=2 not real mathematics?

>>5976174

his wisdom about life is the most down to earth that i have seen from continental philosophers. atleast he isn't delusional like Nietzsche or neurotic like Kierkegaard

>>5976224
Does Popper actually explain, with textual evidence, what the predictions were in materialist dialectic and how they were shown to be false?

>>5976230
Antinatalist detected

>>5976227
>I seriously doubt there could ever be a formula that could predict market trends with 100% accuracy.
Oh, economics isn't a science. Sorry.
>>5976228
By real mathematics I mean important mathematics. Not basic arithmetic.

>>5976232
Yes, in An Open Society and Its Enemies, in the second part which is about Marxism.

>>5976228
It is. Pic is from Rusell's principica.

>>5976232
In a Preface to the English edition of his pamphlet Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (completed in 1880), Frederick Engels indicated that he accepted the usage of the term "historical materialism". Recalling the early days of the new interpretation of history, he stated:

"We, at that time, were all materialists, or, at least, very advanced free-thinkers, and to us it appeared inconceivable that almost all educated people in England should believe in all sorts of impossible miracles, and that even geologists like Buckland and Mantell should contort the facts of their science so as not to clash too much with the myths of the book of Genesis; while, in order to find people who dared to use their own intellectual faculties with regard to religious matters, you had to go amongst the uneducated, the "great unwashed", as they were then called, the working people, especially the Owenite Socialists".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htm

In a foreword to his essay Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (1886), three years after Marx's death, Engels claimed confidently that "In the meantime, the Marxist world outlook has found representatives far beyond the boundaries of Germany and Europe and in all the literary languages of the world."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/foreword.htm

In his old age, Engels speculated about a new cosmology or ontology which would show the principles of dialectics to be universal features of reality. He also drafted an article on The part played by labor in the transition from Ape to Man, apparently a theory of anthropogenesis which would integrate the insights of Marx and Charles Darwin

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/

(This is discussed by Charles Woolfson in The Labor Theory of Culture: a Re-examination of Engels Theory of Human Origins).

At the very least, Marxism had now been born, and "historical materialism" had become a distinct philosophical doctrine, subsequently elaborated and systematized by intellectuals like Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, Georgi Plekhanov and Nikolai Bukharin. Even so, up to the 1930s many of Marx's earlier works were still unknown, and in reality most self-styled Marxists had not read beyond Capital Vol. 1. Isaac Deutscher provides an anecdote about the knowledge of Marx in that era:

"Capital is a tough nut to crack, opined Ignacy Daszynski, one of the wellknown socialist "people's tribunes" around the turn of the 20th century, but anyhow he had not read it. But, he said, Karl Kautsky had read it, and written a popular summary of the first volume. He hadn't read this either, but Kelles-Krausz, the party theoretician, had read Kautsky's pamphlet and summarized it. He also had not read Kelles-Krausz's text, but the financial expert of the party, Hermann Diamand, had read it and had told him, i.e. Daszynski, everything about it"

>>5976241
>important mathematics
Basic arithmetic is important, nigga. What do you mean by "important?"

>>5976258
The most important parts of mathematics are algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus (single variable and multivariable), analytic geometry, linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, partial differential equations, complex numbers, the complex plane, vector calculus and probability theory.

>>5976241
>Oh, economics isn't a science. Sorry.
Therefore you disregard it as a useless discipline? People make a lot of fucking money as market traders for you to be saying that shit is useless, son.

>>5976248
Does he actually address materialist dialectic, or just peripheral writing?

>>5976272
>Oh, gambling isn't a science. Sorry.
>Therefore you disregard it as a useless discipline? People make a lot of fucking money in casinos for you to be saying that shit is useless, son.

>>5976269
How would those branches be of any use without arithmetic? How are they more "important?"

>>5976284
Investment is hardly something to be simplified as gambling, considering science itself relies on it to function.

>>5976275
Did you read Open Society?
>>5976286
They are more useful in physics. Arithmetic is the fast food of maths. Just look at >>5976247 it is easy to digest and accessible to the layman.

I see there are posters willing to defend marxism here, so I'm curious: how would you guys defend Marx's labor theory of value? Would you defend it at all? Can orthodox marxism adapt to other theories of value?

>>5976302
Oh, you're confusing the meaning of "complex" with "important."

to put it simply:
"easy to digest and accessible" =/= unimportant

>>5976326
The labour theory of value wasn't created by Marx, it was common to all economists of the time. It just shows the folly of 18th and 19th century economics.

>>5976331
No, I define important as 'importance to theoretical physics'.

>>5976337
>>5976326
Marx also pretty much rejected LTV in the third volume of capital.

>>5976344
Remember all those branches of math you listed? Well, they wouldn't function without arithmetic.

>>5976302
>Did you read Open Society?
No, did you read Das Kapital?

There are people who think addition and the basic operations of arithmetic aren't vital to mathematics?

>>5976337
>>5976358
Ok, so how does the marxist theory adapt?

Can marxism be equally convincing using subjectivist theories of value? Or is there some othere objectivist theory?

>>5976358
>Marx also pretty much rejected LTV in the third volume of capital.

He didn't. He just dichotomized material value into production value and use-value.

>>5976374
That depends on what you mean by subjective; do you mean totally dismiss supply-and-demand as affecting value? No, it can't work then, but that would be ludicrous. Do you mean that scarcity has a positive but not perfect correlation with value that is influenced by other factors? Then yes, Marxism still works fine.

>>5976361
I have previously, but I don't see what bearing that has on the citations of Popper.
>>5976360
No shit.

>>5976374
In principle, Marx' account of value is subjective, just that the subject in question is not a human individual, but a societal formation.
>>5976376
That's in the first chapter of the first volume, pleb.

>>5976388
I think he's talking about the subjective theory of value. Basically that value is determined by demand.

>>5976393
Marxism's labor theory of value pretty perfectly correlates with demand value. The more time and skill required to make a good, the less output there will be of it, the more it will be worth. Now you might make a good with a lot of effort that there's no market for, so it's not perfect, but otherwise it correlates well. If the amount of labor required to obtain a diamond were the same as the amount required to obtain a rock, diamonds would be worth much.

>>5976392
>That's in the first chapter of the first volume, pleb.

Indeed it is, and he never refuted it.

>>5976408
>wouldn't be worth much

Most of /lit/ can't understand Wittgenstein. Worst place to ask about analytic philosophy.

>>5976389
>No shit.
So why were you arguing that arithmetic wasn't important then?

>>5976389
>I have previously, but I don't see what bearing that has on the citations of Popper.
Well none of the citations you listed actually have to do with the dialectic's conclusions, they're all peripheral

>>5976393
Exactly, I was talking about that theory.

>>5976408
I don't know, it will usually correlate yeah, but I still think they are very different. Labor theory is historical - it takes into account ONLY the amount of effort put into production.

Subjective theory of value, on the other hand, depends only on demand, it is, in a way, external and ahistorical regarding the process of production itself.

>>5976413
Most people in general can't understand Wittgenstein.

>>5976408
Nice time. Anyway, no, the labour theory of value isn't really compatible with the subjective theory of value. Diamonds aren't worth anything intrinsically and their value isn't determined by the labour in their extraction, cutting etc. it is determined by our desire for them. If nobody considered them valuable they wouldn't be.

>>5976430
That's because they're not from An Open Society, moron. There are free pdf files on the internet, you should look one up.
>>5976414
I'm having a giggle, you idiot. I thought you got that when I called arithmetic the fast food of mathematics.

>>5976431
Marx takes into account more than mere labor put into production, he also takes into account scarcity of the sort of labor required, etc. Yeah, supply and demand is ahistorical, but it would still work fine for Marx, since it doesn't really make ownership more of a contribution.

>>5976435
Yes, but scarcity plays a major role in social valuation.

>>5976464
>Yes, but scarcity plays a major role in social valuation.
Obviously, though that must presume that the valuable object is already considered valuable and is not valuable due only to its rarity.

>>5976443
You think being proven wrong is funny? Strange sense of humor you got there dude

>>5976486
>humor
Oh, you're American. Now I know why you didn't get it.

>>5976411
Can't find the part in the 3rd volume right now, but here's from his critique of the Gotha program:
>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.

>>5976485
>Obviously, though that must presume that the valuable object is already considered valuable and is not valuable due only to its rarity.
No, it actually doesn't. Just because value from scarcity isn't a natural law, doesn't mean it's not a damn fine indicator to gauge value with. Price fluctuations on the trading market, if you've ever bothered to look, correlate entirely with scarcity.

>>5976496
Maybe you're just not funny?

>>5976506
>Price fluctuations on the trading market, if you've ever bothered to look, correlate entirely with scarcity.
yes, but only because what is being traded is considered valuable independent of its scarcity. Correlation != causation.

>>5976511
You Americans just don't have a developed sense of humour, as evidenced by your deplorable media.

>>5976538
Correlation doesn't have to equal causation here.... Where a value is due to scarcity or simply correlates with scarcity, is very not important.

>>5976538
Not that guy, but are you trying to say there is no objective factor in value because people won't spend on things they have no use for? Now, that isn't even true, but even if it was, Marx had damn well accounted for that, as he won't shut up about use values, which unlike exchange values aren't based in labour, but in usefulness.

>>5976542
I dunno man, I'm finding your attempts to randomly sway the conversation to American media pretty amusing.

>What do analytic philosophy departments think of Schopenhauer?
History of Philosophy =/= Analytic Philosophy.

No one gives a rat's ass about Schopenhauer in the Anglo-Saxon departments of Analytic Philosophy. It's like saying "What do string theorists think of Aristotle?"

>>5976119
>getting rid of
No one got rid of anything. They decided to ignore the paradox by denouncing the principle of abstraction.

>falsifiability of mathematics
Are you 12? 'Falsifiability' is a concept used for assessing EMPIRICAL theories, not a priori axiomatic ones. In logic, we use 'consistency'.

>>5976552
You know the STV was made for the DWP, right?

>>5976575
>a priori
>he thinks there's the gap exists

>>5976575
>They decided to ignore the paradox by denouncing the principle of abstraction
>tfw you will never be this blissfully ignorant

>>5976616
The department for work and pensions?

>>5976618
>Two dogmas
>not literally irrelevant since the advent of Kripke et al.

Lol ok

>>5976624
Pretty sure I know more about Set Theory than you ever will, anime-posting weeaboo.

Analytic philosophy is to philosophy the same way scientism is to science; it's just another petty modernist fashion.

>>5976639
I no longer have doubts that the Romans still deliver bread to your house

>>5976632
>Pretty sure I know more about Set Theory than you ever will, anime-posting weeaboo.
What do you use it for?

>>5976632
You're on an anime imageboard, baka no toketsu

>>5976618
You know that a priori isn't the same as analytic by any account, do you?

>>5975872

>>5976197
>We're already seeing the predecessor of this with 3D printers
We're not living in fucking Star Trek and never will be. When we have okay consumer 3D printers we'll also have fucking amazing industrial 3D printers, and when we have fucking amazing consumer 3D printers we'll have absolutely goddamn incredible industrial 3D printers and so on(until we MAYBE hit the star trek level when every last human is dead and replaced with AI demigods). Because let's face it, we can own the means of production right now. The only caveat is that you'll have to live like in the viking age and knit your own goddamn sweaters. But you want the cheap-as-dirt cotton tshirts with cool prints and gene-modified burgers instead of grandmas knitted shirts and turnips, so that's why you follow capitalism.

>>5976654
>baka no toketsu
you should say that every time you post and maybe you'll turn Japanese

kek great thread guys, this is why I always check /lit/ when I wake up in the morning.

>>5976917
>Because let's face it, we can own the means of production right now. The only caveat is that you'll have to live like in the viking age and knit your own goddamn sweaters

Ahahahahahahhahaha you stupid faggot, I bet you actually believe that's what people mean when they talk about socialism.

Read more faggot before making a total fool of yourself.

>>5978031
k den

>>5978115
don't reply for me, it's weird
>>5978031
The point is that your beloved 3d printers are going to relegated to the role of the spinning wheel. Back in the days, a home-based 3d printer would be BEYOND the cutting edge of production. Now such a thing will be one of the cool consumer products that the capitalists sell you. I could buy a industrial-capacity sewing machine and start producing my own socks, but nobody will want to wear my socks because the catch is that my machine has a design from the 19th century and all my competitors have fucking awesome modern factories.

>I bet you actually believe that's what people mean when they talk about socialism.
You called the 3D printer "the means of production", why can't I do the same to todays "means of production"? We're both as wrong, but unlike you I understand why.