/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15729314]

What did Marx mean by this?

[Anonymous No.15729318]

>>15729314
he's saying that the antecedent of the paragraph (not sure who cause you cropped it out for some reason) is a mutt

[Anonymous No.15729358]

>>15729318
>Importunity: persistence, especially to the point of annoyance.

The importunity part is interesting. What did he mean that his importunity is nigger-like? Is the presence of niggers annoying?

[Anonymous No.15729521]

>>6558840
>There's nothing wrong with materialism
it's full of contradictions and offers no way to ground universal human values, human dignity, or morality. it also has epistemic contradictions, unable to account for the laws of logic or any universal laws actually, since they can't be reduced to matter and it's motions. it also has the problem of induction and relativism, making it basically impossible to judge other cultures/ideologies or systems coherently without refuting your own basic assumptions. these contradictions enter into all liberal/humanist systems, whether they are fascist right or marxist left, doesnt matter.

[Anonymous No.15729538]

>>15729314

[Anonymous No.15729540]

>>15729358
would you say it isn't?

[Anonymous No.15729554]

>>15729521
values don't need to be grounded in metaphysics any more than arithmetic needs to be grounded in set theory

[Anonymous No.15729620]

>>15729554
mathematics has to be grounded in some form of logic, which is immaterial and non-transient. mathematical truths presuppose a logical metaphysics implicitly.
Like an atheist going around making moral claims, not realizing he's actually making metaphysical claims, so is the mathematician who claims to be a materialist and denies metaphysics. absurd. You can't deny immaterial universal truths and then turn around and use them when it's convenient and remain consistent.

[Anonymous No.15729633]

>>15729538
lmao saved
fuck BLM and liberalism.

What are you currently reading btw?

[Anonymous No.15729650]

>>15729620
and who's gonna come and make me commit to consistency

[Anonymous No.15729695]

>>15729521
Why is materialism necessary in liberal systems? Is there any practical alternative that refutes materialism?

[Anonymous No.15729696]

>>15729650
you can lie and contradict yourself, that's a different issue

[Anonymous No.15729703]

>>15729696
or I can not lie and contradict myself

[Anonymous No.15729709]

>>15729521
>universal human values
>human dignity
>morality

[Anonymous No.15729710]

Why is there so much racial neuroticism in the west, that you don't see in Asia?
https://youtu.be/_q4D8wpYaR0

[Anonymous No.15729715]

>>15729314

[Anonymous No.15729725]

>>15729709
Treat others the way you wish to be treated

[Anonymous No.15729727]

>>15729521
>offers no way to ground universal human values, human dignity, or morality
Ah so your problem with Marxism is that it isn't liberal.

[Anonymous No.15729769]

>>15729725
>Treat others the way you wish to be treated
Make others treat you the way you want to be treated.

[Anonymous No.15729781]

>>15729620
>mathematics necessitates platonism
Cringe

And Platonisn doesn't disprove supervenience physicalism btw

[Anonymous No.15729791]

>>15729781
you just used an analytic word
you lose

[Anonymous No.15729792]

>>15729769
Have fun living in a never ending hell cycle

[Anonymous No.15729795]

>>15729695
by denying the transcendent in favor of the material liberalism creates a space for pluralism and individual freedom. If it admits the existence of objective, transcendent comprehensive truths and "goods" that are universal to man's nature regardless of culture/gender/race/preferences then it would be obliged to promote those in society, thus constraining the individual and negating pluralism.

liberalism, rejects or ignores the transcendent in favour of the material, the material doesn't come with any obvious imperatives or values; it centers around the individual and his freedom, with the view that the state should not coerce a society’s citizens to adopt, support, or follow some particular transcendental conception of the good. So we get Pluralism + freedom.
There are some obvious contradictions here already, since liberalism often speaks of universal human rights, yet has no way to ground them or justify them, also, specially when liberalism tries to justify itself to other competing paradigms, it quickly realizes its reliance on, a comprehensive (or transcendent) conception of the good... If the liberal theorist appeals to a conception of the good, he is vulnerable to the charge of incoherence or unfairness.

liberalism's rejection of a concrete social order organized around a particular conception of the good depends on a particular, and oftentimes rival, conception of the good. But if the theorist refuses to appeal to a conception of the good, then his defense of liberalism either rests on foundations too weak to support such a strong conclusion or ends up presupposing substantive axioms that make a mockery of liberalisms aspiration to axiological neutrality, pluralism and individual freedom.

[Anonymous No.15729796]

>>15729521
>offers no way to ground universal human values

Have you considered that you worship at the feet of spooks?

[Anonymous No.15729798]

>>15729314
Just a bit of banter among bros.

[Anonymous No.15729805]

[Anonymous No.15729806]

>>15729521
Imagine being this confused.

[Anonymous No.15729809]

>>15729791
>you just used an analytic word
>you lose

[Anonymous No.15729811]

>>15729796
there's no way to critique spooks without metaphysics. stirner can't argue against anything other than by appealing to his feel feels.

[Anonymous No.15729815]

>>15729792
Have fun living on your knees faggot.

[Anonymous No.15729816]

>>15729620
You don't need to reify some platonic realm of "logical objects" in order to reason logically, pseud.

[Anonymous No.15729818]

>>15729795
materialists and atheists btfo

[Anonymous No.15729834]

>>15729816
you won't be reasoning logically when your assumptions get challenged lmao

Like a atheist vegan can go around making moral claims about animals and human dietary rules, until his basic premises are challenged and his worldview falls apart

[Anonymous No.15729842]

>>15729695
Not within liberalism