[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 115 KB, 800x1005, whycantibehim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5262509 No.5262509 [Reply] [Original]

>you will never be born in to a multilingual family where you are fluent in multiple languages by the age of five
>you will never be educated at an elite boarding public school where you will learn to appreciate the classics at a young age, learn to speak ancient greek and latin, and be sheltered from the lower classes
>you will never have educated discussions about philosophy and literature with friends and family members
>you will never instantly go straight to a top 5 university to study the most impractical, useless for everyday life subjects known to man, but it would be your favourite
>you will never speak with an upper class southern posh English accent that instantly commands respect despite being viewed with reverse snobbery

>> No.5262527

No. But your children might.

Do the right thing OP, be the best you can be from now on and make sure your children will inherit it.

>> No.5262547

but most of all
>fluffy sideburns will never be in fashion again

>> No.5262553
File: 51 KB, 540x540, Worlds-Most-Epic-Sideburns-Hipster-God.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5262553

>>5262547

>> No.5262560

>>5262553
Maybe a Mennonite?

>> No.5262572

>>5262560
Mennonites are one of the peace churches so they are more hippies than hipsters.

>> No.5262592

How do you raise your kid to be a genius, /lit/?

I've already decided that regardless of how much money I make, I won't give him any luxuries because I want him to be humble. If he gets angry at me, even better because I want him to know anger from a young age.

I'm not sure how to make him intelligent though. Everytime you see parents forcing their kids into something, the result is always the opposite of what they hoped.

>> No.5262602

>>5262527
Exactly. Living precariously through our children is a long and beautiful tradition.

>> No.5262604

>>5262602
>precariously

>> No.5262621

>>5262509
>you will never speak with an upper class southern posh English accent that instantly commands respect despite being viewed with reverse snobbery
I can do this.

>> No.5262630

>>5262592
>I'm not sure how to make him intelligent though. Everytime you see parents forcing their kids into something, the result is always the opposite of what they hoped.
Obviously try to force him to be stupid.

>> No.5262636

>>5262592

Raise him in a library and give him no TV and limited internet (only Wikipedia, educational information, etc.)

It's the only way.

(The good news is, you can download an entire library to a Kindle these days, so that part is entirely possible.)

>> No.5262644

>>5262621
>mfw born in buckinghamshire
feels good

>> No.5262649

>>5262509
The first one really hurts. Learning languages is hard, time consuming shit.

>> No.5262658

>you will never be born in to a multilingual family where you are fluent in multiple languages by the age of five
born into multilingual family fluent in english, mandarin, cantonese, and german
>you will never be educated at an elite boarding public school where you will learn to appreciate the classics at a young age, learn to speak ancient greek and latin, and be sheltered from the lower classes
LOL public school. I went to private school
>you will never have educated discussions about philosophy and literature with friends and family members
ok u got me here op
>you will never instantly go straight to a top 5 university to study the most impractical, useless for everyday life subjects known to man, but it would be your favourite
went to top #1 (maybe #2 on some lists) uni and studied english literature and history
>you will never speak with an upper class southern posh English accent that instantly commands respect despite being viewed with reverse snobbery
have a posh english accent because I went to an english private school and all my teachers were english

get on my lvl

except you can't

and that's probably why I have no peers irl :(

>> No.5262668

>>5262658
>LOL public school. I went to private school

Fluent in English, top #1 uni, and yet doesn't know that public school IS private school in England.

>> No.5262676

>>5262658
>english private school
a private school in england is the equivalent of an elementary school in the US, it's just for young kids. a public school is a private boarding school, where 95% of our prime ministers attend

>> No.5262682

>>5262668
He was probably just saying that for the clarity of the boards overwhelmingly american users.

I think the more curious thing is how he/she doesnt have any peers despite going to one of these great universities.

>> No.5262689

>>5262658
what is your ethnicity?
which university?

>> No.5262697

>>5262658
chinese in england never have english accents, don't delude yourself

>> No.5262705
File: 67 KB, 1024x768, 1401095047530.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5262705

>>5262658
is this you??

>> No.5262733

I also didn't have a mental collapse when I was ELEVEN because my father pushed me beyond the breaking point.

>> No.5262819
File: 184 KB, 910x951, matisse.musique.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5262819

>>5262636
I used to think like this

but then you realise that this cycle gets played out all the time
>strict parents force X onto children, children become proficient in X but hate parents for it, come to hate X over time
>those children become parents, decide they're not going to be like their fascist parents, give their children free reign, those children waste their childhood on shit like video or Facebook etc, and look back and decide they're not gonna be like their lax, clueless parents
>force X onto children
>etc


I had parents of the second kind. I wasted a lot of time on stupid shit like most middle class kids, 'discovered' the arts by accident and grew to love it, as well as a bunch of other stuff I wish I had known earlier. I resent my parents a bit for it, but I understand what they were doing

you gotta walk a tight line between the two I think. surround the kid with things you want them develop (X, Y, Z) but let them think they've made the decision to develop X, Y, Z. when they do, encourage them firmly in that direction. & keep shit out of your home

>> No.5262825

>>5262604
a lot of idiots mess this up, have seen it 3 times already in this life

>> No.5262836

>>5262819
this man is correct, afaik

>> No.5262882

Parenting is difficult. I think the trick is to expose kids to lots of shit. Not violence or anything, just take them places. Take them camping, go to museums, take them to the campus of a university.

They won't really care about it, but at least they will be well rounded. Also, I think going outside is valuable. Shove your kids outside as much as possible. They learn all kinds of things just playing around. Physics, biology, engineering; they will have a kind of foundational knowledge of these if they are outside enough.

Of course, kids will just turn out how they will, but at least you can prepare them to make good decisions.

>> No.5262958

>>5262882
>I think the trick is to expose kids to lots of shit. Not violence or anything, just take them places.


glad u specified there anon

>> No.5262969

>>5262602
It's "vicariously" you genre-fiction-reading Kindle-using pleb.

>> No.5263025

>>5262882
This is very idealistic, really. We probably won't show them the world and feed their curiosity. We might try to, but they'll just ask us to leave them alone and continue to be shallow little cunts like always.

Only suffering leads to intellectual curiosity

>> No.5263029

>>5263025
>Only suffering leads to intellectual curiosity

Send them to the middle east with a kindle.

>> No.5263056

>>5263029
I'll just send them to have a conversation with u instead

>> No.5263092

>>5263056

You sure? I'll just poison their minds with marxist drivel.

>> No.5263116

>>5263092
I don't believe in marxists. Come on, it's the 21th century.

>> No.5263125

>>5263116

>Zizek

>> No.5263139

>>5263125
That guy is a marxist? A real marxist?
Maybe he's doing it to fill a niche.
Edgy kids who were born in the wrong century get to follow a living dude, he gets to rake in the money.
Capitalism in action.

>> No.5263241

>>5263139
>>5263116
There are many very classical marxists. They are just not as fashionable. I mean, you could just read Marx instead of them.

>> No.5263268
File: 55 KB, 485x409, 1354008316243.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5263268

>>5262509
Don't remind me. Is life even worth living at this point?

>> No.5263346

>>5263139
>>5263116

>That guy is a marxist? A real marxist?

I get that you're trying to impart the idea that this is some amazing rarity that belongs to a different epoch but I do feel the need to point out that you're just coming off as veeeery ignorant and out of touch because regardless of how much you hate Marxists you need to be a special kind of backwards redneck to be like "really? they exist???" when you hear of one

By pretending not to know who Zizek is I guess this is the angle you're attempting here: the whole down-to-earth, tell-it-like-is guy who has no time for them intellectual folk and is happy as long he has his meat & potato everyday, but neither that character of the "see-through-the-facade" you've attempted are going to be particularly devastating to any potential Marxist lurker ITT. If anything, you'll just feed their egos by implying this is the type of person that stands against them.

>> No.5263366

>>5263241
Why?

>>5263346
>tell-it-like-is guy who has no time for them intellectual folk
I don't see marxists as intellectuals just like I don't see catholic monks or islamic preachers as intellectuals even if those were considered intellectuals centuries ago.

>If anything, you'll just feed their egos by implying this is the type of person that stands against them.
Is that how they generate?
How fascinating.
It just sounds like one more subculture created by the great old capitalism.
Obviously there's a lot of people who stand against them, about anyone who was born in time to be alive in the 21st century I wager.

>> No.5263375

>yfw you realise that with one year of real dedication you could learn Latin and Greek to the point of fluency and read most of the important works on Bloom's gay canon
>yfw you won't do it because you're a fag bitch destined for mediocrity

>> No.5263383

>>5263366
>How fascinating.
>It just sounds like one more subculture created by the great old capitalism.

You're about as witty as a cement block. Carry on regular joe, average folk have always had great power over what thinkers and intellectuals believe. Your enterprise is bound to success - unlike the Soviet Union! Hahaha! Ohhh I'm gonna watch those Reagan communist jokes on youtube again.

>> No.5263390

>>5263366
>Why?
Why read Marx? I can't give a good answer as I haven't read him that much and think that there were improvements upon his ideas from other thinkers.
But to give you a bad one: he had a good touch for analyzing (i.e. breaking down) ideology.

>> No.5263417

>>5263383
>Your enterprise is bound to success
Having fun? Yep.

Can I ask you something Mr. Thinker, do you think the weak can beat the strong?

>>5263390
How do you rank ideology analyses?

>> No.5263454

>>5263417
>How do you rank ideology analyses?
I you're wondering which thinker I would rank higher than Marx when it comes to analyzing ideology, then for me it would be Foucault, who built upon him although tried to deny it because of the times he was writing in - French Communist Party (PCF) was very... weird and unproductive, so he didn't want to be associated with it via Marx.

>> No.5263466

>>5263454
How do you know someone makes a good ideology analyses?
Who's your favourite ideology analyse analyzer?

>> No.5263561

>>5263466
>How do you know someone makes a good ideology analyses?
By it making more sense with the rest of the context i.e. every social and historical phenomena around it than ideology itself. If it can explain more and better than the ideology it analyzes, then it does its job.
And paying attention to the context of history is what Marx did very very well, this is probably one of his more important legacies.

>Who's your favourite ideology analyse analyzer?
I don't know anybody that would go so low to make this their main job, but I've read plenty of papers and parts of books that did exactly that and did it well. It's just too hard to single out any author here, you read these things not as stand-alone works but more as footnotes, so you don't really remember anymore where you've read it and by whom.
But yes, there's plenty of stuff that would fit into this category. It's not like ideology analysis isn't another ideology. Hardly anybody would deny that today.

>> No.5263562

>>5263366

you should take what that guy is saying to heart, really listen, cuz you're not

your attitude doesn't really help fight marxism because clearly you dont understand marxism so nobody will take your opinion as evidence against marxism

>> No.5263570

>>5263346
>By pretending not to know who Zizek

>who is zizek?
>who am I?
>what is I?
>what am what?

>> No.5263597

>>5263561
>If it can explain more and better than the ideology it analyzes, then it does its job.
Don't you need an ideology analysis analysis to know that it explains better?
How can an ideology analysis, which is itself an ideology like you said, explain more than another ideology?
Isn't it eventually a matter of opinion?

>And paying attention to the context of history is what Marx did very very well,
Why does it matter?

>this is probably one of his more important legacies.
If it's one of the things that he's done, it might be important, but it needs to be relevant.

>>5263562
>evidence against marxism
You need evidence to analyse ideologies?

>> No.5263639

>>5263597
>Don't you need an ideology analysis analysis to know that it explains better?
Yes, and that's you doing the reading of the text and of its commentaries.

>How can an ideology analysis, which is itself an ideology like you said, explain more than another ideology?
>Isn't it eventually a matter of opinion?
>>And paying attention to the context of history is what Marx did very very well,
>Why does it matter?
Like I said, it makes more sense considering context, it explains more stuff, contradicts stuff less. So no, it isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of paying attention to details and context.

>If it's one of the things that he's done, it might be important, but it needs to be relevant.
It is relevant because we are still living in a world where time is one aspect of it.

>> No.5263648

>>5263639
So you do your own ideology analysis.
What's the point of Marx then?

>> No.5263663

>>5263648
>So you do your own ideology analysis.
I said:
>Yes, and that's you doing the reading of the text and of its commentaries.
You can take Marx to be a commentator in this sense.

>> No.5263697

>>5263466
>>5263648
>>5263597

I'm sorry, but you're really coming off as a bit of an idiot here.

Are you trying something? Like a debate technique of asking way too many questions where you see yourself as cleverly driving your opponent towards contradiction? Because I'm sure this isn't going the way you thought it would.

>> No.5263712

>>5263663
You're just adding one more layer.
It's gonna be subjective anyway.
So you consider Marx because you find the guy relevant to what you like.
That's why the 21st century is undermining marxism. Marxism is less and less relevant to living people as time goes.
Marxists should really step up their game if they want marxism to survive.

>> No.5263722

>>5263697
I'm asking questions. It's a good way to get answers. See you got an answer here. It works.

>> No.5263759

>>5263712
>You're just adding one more layer.
No, we removed one layer. You were asking about "ideology analysis analysis", then switched to "ideology analysis". And I said you both read the common ideology and Marx as a commentator of that common ideology.
But speaking of layers, it's ideology all the way down, friend, you can't stand outside of your own thoughts.

>It's gonna be subjective anyway.
The concept of subjectivity died with Nietzsche and its corpse was beaten into non-existence by 20th century. It's a left-over of platonism -> christianity -> descartes -> kant, to give you a brief history of the changes.

>That's why the 21st century is undermining marxism. Marxism is less and less relevant to living people as time goes.
Classical Marxism? Sure, in a way. What is relevant today are thinkers that improved his thought in radical ways, some people not even calling them Marxists anymore. Yet these thinkers are very much influenced by Marx although in non-screaming-obvious ways, so those who don't know anything about Marx don't see him in them. And you can believe when I say that they don't have to fear for their ideas surviving at all.

>> No.5263822

>>5263759
>No, we removed one layer.
Well first you said:
>It's not like ideology analysis isn't another ideology.
Then you said:
>>5263639
>an ideology analysis analysis
>that's you

We have:
>ideology analysis=ideology
>you do the ideology analysis analysis
Hence:
>you do the ideology analysis
Why not just read the ideology, analyze it yourself and drop Marx?

>The concept of subjectivity
I'm just saying it all boils down to your opinion, Marx is irrelevant.

>And you can believe when I say that they don't have to fear for their ideas surviving at all.
If marxism boils down to people needing Marx' commentary to understand some texts, and with the assumption that people are more interested in texts that are temporally closer to them, eventually no one will want to read the texts that Marx commented, and no one will read Marx.

With all that back and forth I still don't see why Marx' commentary is necessary, it seems equivalent to any other commentary to me.

>some people not even calling them Marxists anymore. Yet these thinkers are very much influenced by Marx although in non-screaming-obvious ways, so those who don't know anything about Marx don't see him in them. And you can believe when I say that they don't have to fear for their ideas surviving at all.
Yes, people eventually stop calling themselves marxists.
The idea to call yourself after some method is strange. Methods evolve and people change.
Basing your identity on what tools you use is strange. You're not a hammerist because you use a hammer, because you might just go and use a screwdriver instead and then what would be the point of calling yourself "hammerist"?
This is completely independent from the influence of the tool or method.

>> No.5263830

>>5262602
You fucking idiot.

>> No.5263858

>>5263822
>Why not just read the ideology, analyze it yourself and drop Marx?
Anon, why are you intentionally quoting things out of context? I also said commentaries, didn't I? Nobody's smart to do it on their own, you think Marx didn't read a ton of books and articles and whatnot?

>I'm just saying it all boils down to your opinion, Marx is irrelevant.
But my opinion is not only mine, it is shaped by society/history. Marx tries do analyze how that shaping happens and what are the contents of our opinions.

>eventually no one will want to read the texts that Marx commented, and no one will read Marx.
Eventually, yes.

>With all that back and forth I still don't see why Marx' commentary is necessary, it seems equivalent to any other commentary to me.
Well it may seem like that to you, but how much commentary have you read? Can you compare him to all other major commentators and argue that he is equal to all of them? Can you then argue that none of them should be read?

>The idea to call yourself after...
...shouldn't matter, it is historical and cultural, but such names can indeed be pretty stupid. However, it is usually most simple to adopt the name of the thinker you're influenced by since we live in a culture that organizes texts primarily by authors.

>> No.5263897

>>5263858
>Nobody's smart to do it on their own, you think Marx didn't read a ton of books and articles and whatnot?
So you just trust Marx because he was smart?
You could read a ton of books and articles yourself if you think that's the requirement to do a proper analysis. You don't need Marx for that.

>But my opinion is not only mine, it is shaped by society/history.
Marx' as well.

>Marx tries do analyze how that shaping happens and what are the contents of our opinions.
How is his version more interesting than anyone else?
You're goose-stepping around this.

>Well it may seem like that to you, but how much commentary have you read?
None I suppose?
I don't need comments to make my own ideology analysis.

>Can you compare him to all other major commentators and argue that he is equal to all of them?
Why would I need to?

>Can you then argue that none of them should be read?
Of course since I can do my own analysis.
I'd only read the comments to analyse them.

>> No.5263923

>>5262592
>I've already decided that regardless of how much money I make, I won't give him any luxuries because I want him to be humble. If he gets angry at me, even better because I want him to know anger from a young age.
Make sure to send your wife into his bedroom to snuggle with him every so often, invariably followed by you storming in and dragging her out of his bed. It teaches him to respect you.

>> No.5263943

>>5263822
>with the assumption that people are more interested in texts that are temporally closer to them

This is where you are wrong.

>> No.5263949

>>5263923
AHAHAHAHAHA
You are damned

>> No.5263951

>>5263897
>So you just trust Marx because he was smart?
I'm saying he wasn't smart enough, like I said nobody is smart enough. I trust him because he read tons of books.
>You could read a ton of books and articles yourself.
I am doing just that and I'm not reading primarily Marx at all.

>Marx' as well.
Yep. But his makes more sense than the common one because he tries to analyze the common opinion itself and put everything in historical & social context. In short, he is more reflective of all our opinions, his own along with them. While most just ignore everything altogether.

>I don't need comments to make my own ideology analysis.
You might think that you don't, but you read them anyway, when you analyze ideology because ideology is often its own commentary on it, although a non-critical one. And if you think you can do it on your own, you are probably too deep into common ideology itself and don't see how far it goes. It's not a one-person one-life job. Whole generations are working on it.

>Why would I need to?
If you want to say that something is equivalent to something else, you must first have full knowledge of that something and that something else.

>I'd only read the comments to analyse them.
Good. That's what everybody does already.

>> No.5263994

>>5263943
Why is the Fault in Our Stars selling more than than Gilgamesh's epic?

>>5263951
>I trust him because he read tons of books.
Plenty of people did.

>put everything in historical & social context.
Why does that matter?

>While most just ignore everything altogether.
How can it be an opinion?

>And if you think you can do it on your own, you are probably too deep into common ideology itself and don't see how far it goes.
Same could be said about anyone who read Marx. It's not a red pill.

>Whole generations are working on it.
On what? Making the best criticism of ideology?

>If you want to say that something is equivalent to something else, you must first have full knowledge of that something and that something else.
I don't need to look at every chicken egg to know that it's yellow and white inside.

>That's what everybody does already.
Obviously the marxists do more than that if Marx is so important to them.

>> No.5263997
File: 83 KB, 268x265, 1380149536273.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5263997

>>5262819
you're a genius

>> No.5264010

At least you will never be that ugly : )

>> No.5264038

>>5263994
>Plenty of people did.
Yes, the answer was just in context of the question. I gave my other reasons in that post as well.

>Why does that matter?
Because you can't make assertions without comparing them to experience and society and history are a much larger bank of experience than *just* your own.

>Same could be said about anyone who read Marx.
Yet Marx specifically deals with analyzing ideology. I'm not saying you have to believe him. But there are not many that did it and he is one of them.

>On what? Making the best criticism of ideology?
Understanding the contents of ideology and how it functions to better understand what are possible alternative and how to get there.
Ideology changes through time of course, industrial society is very different from post-industrial and this is where Marx was improved by others, to just give you one example.

>I don't need to look at every chicken egg to know that it's yellow and white inside.
To compare eggs to thinkers and say they are all the same by analogy... This is really base. Everything is the same by that stupid argument. Every fucking thing.

>Obviously the marxists do more than that if Marx is so important to them.
Marxists do it well. They're not the best. But they are good at it ;)

>> No.5264042

>>5263923

Hahahaha

>> No.5264062

>>5264038
>Because you can't make assertions without comparing them to experience and society and history are a much larger bank of experience than *just* your own.
Obviously any opinion you have won't be limited to your experience, otherwise there's no point in sharing it, it's called a diary.

>Yet Marx specifically deals with analyzing ideology.
How does that protect him from common ideology?

>Understanding the contents of ideology and how it functions to better understand what are possible alternative and how to get there.
Sounds to me like a tactic to shoot down competing ideologies.
Claim to be a scholar who merely "analyses" by cherry-picking whatever you want in history and then push your own ideology.
Better than just pushing your own ideology with its own merits and letting others be the judge of them for themselves?

>Ideology changes through time of course, industrial society is very different from post-industrial and this is where Marx was improved by others
Marx was not "improved", these people came up with these ideas without any involvement of Marx, the guy is dead, no need to give him credit for things he hasn't done.

>To compare eggs to thinkers and say they are all the same by analogy...
Any thinker can only come up with an opinion. That's why I find it strange to follow one, while you are already capable of coming up with an opinion.

>Marxists do it well.
They wouldn't call themselves marxists if they were good enough not to need Marx' as a crutch to their opinion.

>> No.5264130

>>5264062
>Obviously any opinion you have won't be limited to your experience, otherwise there's no point in sharing it, it's called a diary.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here. The point is you get a shit ton more phenomena to study by looking at history and society than just by examining phenomena that you experience yourself.

>Claim to be a scholar who merely "analyses" by cherry-picking whatever you want in history and then push your own ideology.
Give me examples of how Marx cherry-picks. Hint: he does, of course, like we necessarily do, but he does much less than most people.

>Better than just pushing your own ideology with its own merits and letting others be the judge of them for themselves?
First of all, yes it is better to explain your ideology by fucking situating it in the world than to just throw it in your face without giving any reasons for it.
And second of all, nobody is the judge for themselves and every ideology is pushing itself down your throat.

>Marx was not "improved", these people came up with these ideas without any involvement of Marx, the guy is dead, no need to give him credit for things he hasn't done.
Marx' influence is still felt in today's thinkers. Check Badiou and Žižek. And these two are very clear and known examples, there's a ton of others.

>Any thinker can only come up with an opinion. That's why I find it strange to follow one, while you are already capable of coming up with an opinion.
Like I'm saying the whole time, opinions are 1) not just person's own product and 2) there are better and worse opinions, I gave the reasons why in my previous posts. By reading a thinker you let him form your opinion - whether negative or positive in relation to him - in a more sophisticated way instead of letting other less sophisticated parts of society (e.g. TV) form your opinion.

>They wouldn't call themselves marxists if they were good enough not to need Marx' as a crutch to their opinion.
Most aren't calling themselves Marxists, you fool, yet this doesn't mean they will deny Marx' influence on them. Well, some actually even have denied it, because of people who like to lump everything into a basket of chicken eggs.

>> No.5264138

>>5264062
>Claim to be a scholar who merely "analyses"
Marx never did this, though. Incidentally Marx criticized other economists for claiming that (when they were peddling ideas for the people supporting them).

>> No.5264148

>>5264062
Forgot this one:
>How does that protect him from common ideology?
By trying to be aware of how common ideology works in his own thinking. You're more independent from common ideology if you try to analyze and distance yourself from it than if you just ignore the whole concept altogether and just let it shape your thinking. I thought that was pretty clear.

>> No.5264161

>>5264130
>I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
I'm just saying that there's no opinion independent of society and history.

>Give me examples of how Marx cherry-picks.
I'm not criticizing Marx, I'm criticizing the method of an ideology which primarily criticizes other ideologies before building anything itself.

>First of all, yes it is better to explain your ideology by fucking situating it in the world than to just throw it in your face without giving any reasons for it.
You don't need to analyze other ideologies to situate yours.

>nobody is the judge for themselves
Who else judges then?

>Marx' influence is still felt in today's thinkers.
Him and many others. It's foolish to say that there's a big building called Marx and whoever comes after who was vaguely inspired by Marx adds up to that building.
There's no "improvement", it's just a collection of opinions which are linked by some of the characteristics they have in common.
There's no reason to believe the new hot opinions to be better than Marx' original hot opinions, and thus Marx to have been "improved".

>By reading a thinker you let him form your opinion - whether negative or positive in relation to him - in a more sophisticated way instead of letting other less sophisticated parts of society (e.g. TV) form your opinion.
It's the same processes, you just have a bias for reading Marx.

>Most aren't calling themselves Marxists, you fool, yet this doesn't mean they will deny Marx' influence on them.
My point is that you don't need some dead guy's commentary to make your own commentary.

>> No.5264163

john stuart mill looks like a creepy satanist

>> No.5264168

>>5264138
>Marx never did this
Where did the idea that marxism is about analysing ideologies come from then?

>>5264148
>By trying to be aware of how common ideology works in his own thinking.
See this is the issue.
Criticize, criticize, criticize, and what do you end up with? Nothing.
Let's analyse and distance myself from my own biases. I just wrote a text so I'm gonna analyse it and distance myself from its biases,then I'll analyse the analysis and I'll distance myself from its biases and after that I'll analyse that other analyse and I'll distance myself from its biases...
How many analyses of his own ideology did Marx do?

>> No.5264173

>>5264161
>I'm not criticizing Marx, I'm criticizing the method of an ideology which primarily criticizes other ideologies before building anything itself.
There's value in both creation over criticism. Do you have to value one higher than the other?

>> No.5264175

how many more years of stagnation will marxism justify?

>> No.5264183

>>5264173
>There's value in both creation over criticism.
Can you criticize this statement?

>> No.5264184

>>5264168
>Where did the idea that marxism is about analysing ideologies come from then?
Someone else will have to answer that question. I do not know. I am talking about his economic and political analysis, which he never claimed to be 'mere analysis' (or objective, devoid of opinion, if you will).

As far as I know Marx never wrote an actual work on his method. His method has been pieced together from letters and journals and bits from his published work. I am not invested enough in it to be able answer your question.

>> No.5264185

>>5264173
>>5264183
Shit. I meant to write:
There's value in both creation AND criticism. Do you have to value one higher than the other?

>> No.5264190

>>5264185
You have to pick an opinion over another.
If an ideology is all about criticism of alternatives, you might want to pick something else because there's no point in spending your life criticising stuff.

>> No.5264199

>>5264190
I don't see Marxism as a (political) ideology. I see at as a criticism of capitalism. Nothing more.

>there's no point in spending your life criticising stuff
I disagree. If something is 'bad' or 'wrong' you criticize it. It's an initial step towards improvement.

>> No.5264205

>>5264199
>something is 'bad' or 'wrong' you criticize it.
Or you just ignore it if you don't have a solution.
You don't go pulling strings, connecting every event with another so that you can claim the issue you want to criticize is relevant to other people.

>problem: I'm out of soap
>marxist analysis: there is a soap crisis, you too could be deprived of your soap tomorrow. (Now go and buy me soap)

>> No.5264206

>>5264161
>I'm not criticizing Marx, I'm criticizing the method of an ideology which primarily criticizes other ideologies before building anything itself.
The steps are never entirely separate. When you criticize, you don't do it from outside of the world itself, you do it from an alternative position.
And if you want the alternative to happen, you can do it by showing that it is better than that other thing. Marx started with his dissatisfaction with capitalism of course.

>You don't need to analyze other ideologies to situate yours.
You don't need to, but sure as hell I'm gonna trust those that do more than those that don't even realize they are ideologies, that think they are the simple truth.

>Who else judges then?
I meant nobody judges for themselves *independently*. What judges are also social structures/relations that imply and need some sort of ideology. You believe in it not just because of discourse, but also because of material mechanisms.

>Him and many others. It's foolish to say that there's a big building called Marx and whoever comes after who was vaguely inspired by Marx adds up to that building.
Yes, thank god it's not a fucking building, because that would be stupid as fuck since Marx lived in fucking 19th century. It something that changes its shape through time.

>There's no "improvement", it's just a collection of opinions which are linked by some of the characteristics they have in common.
There is improvement. Thinkers after him understood some things much better but also in a different way. It's not one-dimensional, you know.

>There's no reason to believe the new hot opinions to be better than Marx' original hot opinions, and thus Marx to have been "improved".
Yes, there is. We have a clearer and wider picture of things now.

>It's the same processes, you just have a bias for reading Marx.
Same stupid egg argument.

>My point is that you don't need some dead guy's commentary to make your own commentary.
No, you don't need. It's sure much much easier though, people already did some work on it.

>>5264168
>Let's analyse and distance myself from my own biases. I just wrote a text so I'm gonna analyse it and distance myself from its biases,then I'll analyse the analysis and I'll distance myself from its biases and after that I'll analyse that other analyse and I'll distance myself from its biases...
You're just chewing yourself in a circle here and acting like solipsism put into practice.

>How many analyses of his own ideology did Marx do?
I'd guess many. He thought a lot about it.

>> No.5264208

>>5264205
>Or you just ignore it if you don't have a solution.
Other people might get inspiration from the criticism to come up with a solution.

>> No.5264217

>>5264206
>And if you want the alternative to happen, you can do it by showing that it is better than that other thing. Marx started with his dissatisfaction with capitalism of course.
Too bad he never got on showing that it would actually be better. Maybe that's why he got so successful, he never had a trial.

>You don't need to, but sure as hell I'm gonna trust those that do more than those that don't even realize they are ideologies
Which one are those?
You don't need to care about other ideologies to claim that yours is one. You don't need to build yourself in opposition with an ideology.

>I meant nobody judges for themselves *independently*.
Yes they do.

>What judges are also social structures/relations that imply and need some sort of ideology.
No, individual humans do.

>because of material mechanisms.
Yes, within the individual human.

>that would be stupid as fuck
I don't disagree.

>There is improvement. Thinkers after him understood some things much better but also in a different way.
They're still here with their hot opinions.

>We have a clearer and wider picture of things now.
I suggest criticising this statement.

>people already did some work on it.
Work that you have to critic anyway. Why not just critic the current situation?

>You're just chewing yourself in a circle here
Logical conclusion of marxism.

>I'd guess many. He thought a lot about it.
I seriously hope he folded it over 1000 times to have the edgiest opinion.

>> No.5264218

>>5264208
First they'd have to criticise your critic, might as well criticise the problem themselves.

>> No.5264226

>>5264218
I do not follow.

Criticism of criticism is perfectly fine. It helps people eliminate ideas that probably aren't worthwhile to pursue. Critique that stands up to criticism is probably on to something and given time and effort someone might come up with a solution.

>> No.5264232

>>5264226
It's simple.
Here's how it works with functional ideologies:
>problem spotted => find solution => apply solution
Here's how it works with marxism:
>problem spotted => criticize it => someone reads the critic => criticize it => someone reads the critic => criticize it => someone reads the critic =>... => solution?

Marxism was made to sustain intellectual masturbation basically.

>> No.5264233

>>5264217
>>I meant nobody judges for themselves *independently*.
>Yes they do.
OK, here I draw the line. If you can't realize you're not positioned in a vacuum, then I'm not gonna waste my time anymore.
But just to give you something to think about: are you using "private language" right now? Are the words you use yours? Did you create them and their meaning yourself? If not, where do they come from and who or what gave them and gives them meaning? Why do they have such meaning?
You don't have to answer, just think about it. And this only scratches the surface of one single aspect of why thought (and even behavior) is dependent also on something else than the author, so it can never be independent. But you should have really realized that already by now.
Cya ;)

>> No.5264241

>>5264232
Every ideology is subject to intellectual masturbation. Marxism is no different.

You are going to have to elaborate on the 'functional ideology' if you want a response. No system functions like that. There's always struggle between opposing opinions.

>> No.5264247

>>5264233
>If you can't realize you're not positioned in a vacuum
Of course, there's content to judge.
Vaccuum = nothing to judge. It's simple.

>Are the words you use yours?
Yes. They are physically present within my brain.
>Why do they have such meaning?
My brain gives them meaning.

>(and even behavior) is dependent also on something else than the author
Everything is a product of the environment, but saying that doesn't say anything.
The author is an illusion, you have a brain sitting in a body receiving informations and generating a mental activity, among which some activity has an impression of self.

>the author, so it can never be independent.
The author doesn't exist.
Mental activity is dependent on two things: mental activity and perceptions, dependent on the environment.

Saying that nobody judges for themselves independently is like saying that nobody exists independently. Obvious, trivial.
What you are is a result of the environment, there is no meaningful distinction to make here.
That's why one writer's hot opinions are just as good as an other writer's hot opinions, they're both merely mental activity caused by the environment.
That's why opinions on the world can't be independent of the world, they necessarily come from the world.
So marxist analysis which takes into account the world (society, history) is just an analysis. Marx just loved doing it, and he found a way to get generations of paper-pushers to earn a living.

>> No.5264252

>>5264241
>Every ideology is subject to intellectual masturbation.
Except when they involve doing more than writing/talking about other ideologies.

>You are going to have to elaborate on the 'functional ideology' if you want a response.
Ideologies that actually propose solutions and actions. Religious ideologies which demand their followers have children.
Expansive ideologies which demand conquest, territory expansion.
Educational ideologies, which require the teaching of a certain set of knowledge and practices.

>There's always struggle between opposing opinions.
The struggle between two functional ideologies isn't an ideology. That's why sometimes you have wars, not angry editorials or congresses.

>> No.5264269

>>5262509
>you will never instantly go straight to a top 5 university to study the most impractical, useless for everyday life subjects known to man, but it would be your favourite
I don't understand how an average middle class person couldn't do this. Harvard would cost me 12000 dollars a year, Oxford 140000 and I'm from an upper middle class Finnish family.

>> No.5264270

>>5262592
> I've already decided that regardless of how much money I make, I won't give him any luxuries because I want him to be humble
But this wont make him humble at all, it'll make him overindulge on those luxuries and be insecure about his family.

If you want to make him humble, give him all those luxuries but then make him feel guilty for them.

>> No.5264302

>>5264252
As far as I gather you classify ideology by:
Action is demanded by ideology:
1: Ideologies that demand action of subscribers
2: Ideologies that DO NOT demand action of subscribers

Response to other ideology:
A: Ideologies that are a response to other ideologies
B: Ideologies that are NOT a response to other ideologies

You then place Marxism in the category 2B and say that ideologies in other categories are superior.

That's fine, you can make that distinction, but I do not see like that at all. To me a much more interesting distinction is 'presentation of ideology' and 'ideology itself'. When we read Marx we are in the realm of 'presentation of ideology'. When we live our everyday lives and make decisions based in ideology we are experiencing 'ideology itself'. For the most part 'ideology itself' is imperceptible and I believe it's outside of our consciousness. Political and economical analysis is then a presentation of this unconscious. I also believe we can shape the unconscious through cognitive processing of ideas, e.g. reading Marx.

To me there's only ONE ideology in play here: capitalism. It's a big one, and it describes how we distribute the resources necessary to survive and how labour is divided among all of us. I perceive Marx's work as a criticism of capitalism and the dynamics of it. (Really, a criticism of the presentation of capitalism by other economists.) Material that criticizes a specific ideology does not an ideology make. It has affected my view on an ideology but I have not substituted that ideology with something else in my mind.

>> No.5264304

>>5264270
>If you want to make him humble, give him all those luxuries but then make him feel guilty for them.
This makes sense.

>> No.5264369

I INVENTED THIS TYPE OF TOPIC OP YOU FIXING PLAGIARISING THIEF

I agree though ;_;

>> No.5264380

>>5264269
>average
There's your answer. Average people don't get in, you need a combination of grades, money and family or, in the US, sporting skills.

Both universities are more expensive than you claim, btw, Oxford is about 10,000 GBP per year, Harvard much more.

>> No.5264529

>>5263997
no need to be snide m8

>> No.5264547

>>5262509
Implying this makes you a better person.

>> No.5264583

>>5264380
> Both universities are more expensive than you claim,
Yeah the given costs were the ones for me. Harvard has really great economic support - it'll cost max. 10% of your family's income, and since I live on on my own and make less than 17 000 quids a year, the tuition fees are reduces to 6000 a year and I automatically get a grant of 3000 quids a year which brings tuition + living costs to around 14 000 Euros for me.

>> No.5264588

>>5263375
>yfw you realise that with one year of real dedication you could learn Latin and Greek to the point of fluency and read most of the important works on Bloom's gay canon

unless you're a NEET and your mom takes care of shopping/laundry/everything in general, there is NO fucking way one can become proficient enough in Greek and Latin to actually read all those classics, don't fool yourself. and if you are a NEET, you'll just waste your time on 4chinz anyway.

>> No.5264598

>>5262604
Is it a mistake? Or perhaps, he is trying to express a deeper truth: is there anything more precarious than to place all your hopes for the future on another being? One who could deliberately refuse to be what you wanted them to be, or who might be too dumb to realize your dreams?

>> No.5264601

>fluent in multiple languages by the age of five

I relaly hate when the word fluent is used, since it is always almost used incorrectly.

>hurr I took 2 years of spanish I'm fluent now

>> No.5264616

>>5264583
Yes, money isn't really a barrier for most people to go to top school. But the kind of people who take the right classes and do the right extra-curricular shit that you need to be accepted tend to come largely from more upper class families who have to sort of upper class mind set to push their kids to do those things and who know exactly what they need to do.

>> No.5264693

>>5262509
:(

>> No.5264695

>>5262658
fascinating that with all those advantages you are still so dumb...

>> No.5265244

>>5262602

pfffffffffffffffffft

>> No.5265306

>>5264302
>Material that criticizes a specific ideology does not an ideology make
Well I don't know, that's where we got from a dozen of posts, that analyzing an ideology is an ideology in itself.
Marxism is an ideology it seems anyway, or a fan club, I dunno.
Nice chat.

>> No.5265312

>>5262636
Actually, the best way to ensure your children will be to a genius and successful is to not encourage them at all. Be a raging alcoholic, beat and abuse your spouse, and tell your child they will never amount to anything. Do this every night until they are 18.
Be sure you have stocked bookshelves that you never touch because you are so wasted, and put them in a room that your child will feel is a safe space.
Then when you're on your deathbed with cirrhosis, heart disease, and liver cancer tell your child who will probably have multiple Ph.Ds, a high-paying job, tons of books published, and a plane to catch that it was all and act. That you were such an awful parent to get them where you wanted them to be.
They'll leave you to die with a heartfelt "fuck you, dad." But, at least they'll know that they owe their success and genius to you.

>> No.5265344

>>5264583
>quids
>s
never, ever ever pluralise "quid"

>> No.5265345

>all these posts in this ITT reflecting the belief that genius is learned

>> No.5265373

>>5265312
>a plane to catch
I see what you did there! As for the rest of your post, I think Pierre Bourdieu disagrees with you.

>>5265306
Thanks for the chat.

>> No.5265386

>>5265373
>Pierre Bourdieu
well, let's leave him out of this for the sake of humor.

>> No.5265400

i would like to raise a child only ever playing him 12 tone music and see if he ends up finding it as natural as tonal music and conversely finding tonal music unbearably muddled and weird