/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6227010]

Richard Rorty: "If we could bring ourselves to accept the fact that no theory about the
nature of Man or Society or Rationality, or anything else, is going to synthesize Nietzsche with Marx or Heidegger with Habermas, we could begin to think of the relation between writers on autonomy and writers on justice as being like the relation between two kinds of tools - as little in need of synthesis as are paintbrushes and crowbars."

Is he right /lit/? Can you think of anyone who has successfully synthesized Nietzsche and Marx into a single system?

[Anonymous No.6227012]

sup

[Anonymous No.6227016]

>>6227012
Bonjour. I heard you were talking shit about me.

[Anonymous No.6227018]

>>6227010
>Marx is a writer on justice

NOICE ONE FRESH CUNT

[Anonymous No.6227019]

Deleuze+Guattari at least tried

[Anonymous No.6227020]

>>6227010
>Can you think of anyone who has successfully synthesized Nietzsche and Marx into a single system?
Weber and Spangler.

[Anonymous No.6227033]

>>6227010
>synthesize
Shut up Rorty you american cunt, that's not how you do dialectics. And neither Marx nor Nietzsche are offering a 'system' to begin with, so people under the influence of both will end up with something even less systematic, and often a mistrust of systems as such, e.g. the Frankfurt School.

[Anonymous No.6227034]

>>6227016

"...not a serious philosopher."

-Derrida on Sartre

[Anonymous No.6227039]

>>6227034
It is like watching two ugly whores fighting over a dead chihuahua.

-Anonymous on Derrida on Sartre on Philosophy

[Anonymous No.6227074]

>>6227010

I recall Adorno even admitting that " If Nietzsche was right then Marx was wrong, and vice versa".

[Anonymous No.6227129]

>>6227074
>I recall Adorno face fucking a dog in a Bengali latrine.

[Anonymous No.6227130]

>>6227033
>Shut up Rorty you american cunt, that's not how you do dialectics
It's how you do Hegelian dialectic.

[Anonymous No.6227173]

>>6227130
Sticking two sausages up your nose and yelling, "BIG BOYS, WANT TO WRESTLE" is equally how you do it, based on Rorty op. cit.

[Anonymous No.6227188]

>>6227173
No, Hegelian dialectic is about reconciling contradictory perspectives of reality.

[Anonymous No.6227195]

>>6227130
It literally isn't, you illiterate moron.
#itscalledsublation #doyouevenknowwhatsynthesismeans

[Anonymous No.6227213]

[Anonymous No.6227217]

>>6227195
Yes, if one is your worldview, it sublates the other. That is, it irons out the parts of the other than contradicts, and then incorporates it. But this only is apparent resolution, because it will cause contradictions elsewhere that crop up later, and so and...so forth. Until you arrive at the Absolute.

[Anonymous No.6227239]

>>6227217
>That is, it irons out the parts of the other than contradicts, and then incorporates it
Wrong. Spirit becomes aware of the unsolvable contradiction, and then speculatively leaps upward to a vantage point from which both positions are revealed to be mistaken in their one-sidedness. And while this new perspective carries more truth than both of the former postions or any compromise between them, it organically gives rise to a contrary point of view. This is also not just a rehash of the first contradiction, but a completely new one, except that it still concerns itself with determining what is essential and inessential.

[Anonymous No.6227254]

>>6227239
>This is also not just a rehash of the first contradiction
I never said it was. If you synthesize Marx and Nietzsche, it forms another worldview with inherent contradictions, but you probably won't find those in reading Marx or Nietzsche, but rather through another worldview you encounter which exposes the contradictions in the synthesis, which you will then sublate.

[Anonymous No.6227255]

>>6227010
>tfw rorty was a little faggy gayboy nerd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11CqZd3B8B8

[Anonymous No.6227270]

>>6227254
>synthesize
There's that word again, note how Hegel never used it to describe his approach. You cannot synthesize two contrary points of view, you can only compromize berween them, which is what you have in mind when you say synthesis, or you can overcome the contradiction through dialectics, i.e. sublation, which doesn't reduce the contradiction between them, but focuses on it as the means to leave both positions behind.

[Anonymous No.6227284]

>>6227270
No, but Fichte uses it quite a bit, and Hegel took his system of dialectics from Fichte.

You can certainly synthesize two contradictory points of view, it just requires a broader perspective. If you look at one side of a coin it will contradict with the coin from the other side, but it's the same coin, both are true. Hegel's idea of truth is that is neither side is true, but both together are.

[Anonymous No.6227319]

>>6227188
sausages and wrestling contradict each other just like Nietzsche and Marx do mate.

[Anonymous No.6227323]

>>6227284
>Hegel took his system of dialectics from Fichte.
He didn't 'take' it from Fichte, he used Fichte as an inspiration for his own, superior system.
>If you look at one side of a coin it will contradict with the coin from the other side, but it's the same coin, both are true
Horrible, horrible analogy, two sides of the same coin can hardly be said to contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.6227325]

>>6227270
>>6227284
>ESLs misuse synthesis in English.
>at least the cunt using sublation has gotten Hegel, even if he can't express it in English.

Here's a clue, strophe, antistrophe... synstrophe.

[Anonymous No.6227333]

>>6227325
>ESLs
Electronic Sports Leagues?
Also, yeah, Hegel is already difficult in german, so I'm probably making mistakes when trying to talk about him in english, what am I doing wrong?

[Anonymous No.6227335]

>implying the Union of Egoists doesn't supersede them both

[Anonymous No.6227344]

>>6227323
>He didn't 'take' it from Fichte, he used Fichte as an inspiration for his own, superior system.
Mmm, no. I'd say he just put in more coherent terms (albeit not more comprehensible)

>Horrible, horrible analogy, two sides of the same coin can hardly be said to contradict each other.
They do from phenomenological perspective, so to speak. They don't contradict, but we think they do.

[Anonymous No.6227349]

>>6227344
>They don't contradict, but we think they do.
Well, I don't think the sides of any coin contradict each other, and if they did, like one side giving a different value than the other, or one side denying the legitimacy of the institute that makes the coins, the fact that they're on the same coin wouldn't help at all.

[Anonymous No.6227351]

Can someone give me a brief explanation on why they're incompatible? I have a fairly basic understanding of both.

[Anonymous No.6227352]

>>6227033
>The Frankfurt School
>Philosophy
You idiots need to stop equating critical theory and serious disciplines.

[Anonymous No.6227358]

>>6227352
That is a very qualified argument, you really seem to know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6227359]

>>6227351
Well, for starters, Marx wants mankind to realize itself as a species in reconciliation with the individual, while Nietzsche wants Mankind to be overcome by machiavellian Overmen.

[Anonymous No.6227362]

>>6227333
Normally English speakers use "synthesis" to describe "sublation" because "sublation" is further from the familiar language of English discussion. Then again most English speakers get their Dialectics via Mao (not that bad tbh), who at least emphasises the difference between the opposition and antagonism between terms.

Also, most English speakers who at least know what an anti-thesis is know that it isn't dichotomous but rather actually in contradiction with the thesis.

Then again this is 4chan's /lit/ so I expect they got their dialectics from Fraggle Rock.

[Anonymous No.6227363]

>>6227362
>most English speakers get their Dialectics via Mao
Wut

[Anonymous No.6227366]

Nietzsche + Marx = catastrophy
socialism is for plebs, even in its first stages it can be seen that it's destined to failure

[Anonymous No.6227369]

>>6227362
Oh ok, but that's sure to create confusion given the every day meaning of synthesis as used by Kant or in chemistry.

[Anonymous No.6227374]

>>6227359
The Overman is a stage of social evolution, it is not the same as the "new caste" Nietzsche spoke. of. The "new caste" would the distant forefathers of the Overman, the Overman would look at man as man looks at ape, we can barely even imagine the perspective of the Overman, the child of Heraclitus. Our morality would look to them as oogooboogoo rain dancing, it wouldn't even be something they'd bother critiquing, it would just be an embarrassing reminder that evolution was for man in making him not feel divine or special.

[Anonymous No.6227379]

>>6227374
Very fascinating, but even a machiavellian ruler caste seems in clear contradiction to Marx' intentions.

[Anonymous No.6227380]

>>6227010
What does he even mean? What's the necissary difference between autonomy and justice? They can be different fields of study, but they absolutely don't have to.

[Anonymous No.6227384]

>>6227379
Nietzsche was extremely sympathetic toward the proletariat, he just didn't advocate a working class revolution, he advocated an exodus, he considered capitalism to be dehumanizing and damaging to creativity.

Regardless of whether a Machiavellian caste is in line with Marx's morality is beside the point, since we're talking about a pure analysis. In "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", Engels says the last stage of capitalism would be a nationalization of industry to the point that the bourgeoisie disappears as a class and there is a new ruling class of pure political administrators, this is very much in line with Nietzsche's idea of a new caste.

[Anonymous No.6227393]

>>6227379
sausages and wrestling bro. You need to demonstrate that Nietzsche arises from Marx, or that Marx arises from Nietzsche.

Hey, they're two complex intellectual phenomena, neither generative of the other—fucking hell, maybe they're not in contradiction, maybe they're just dichotomous.

>NO NO NO SAUSAGES NEGATES WRESTLING.

[Anonymous No.6227396]

>>6227369
Its English. Shit don't have to make sense. Sense is made of shit.

[Anonymous No.6227397]

>>6227393
Negation doesn't arise from abstraction, bro.

[Anonymous No.6227418]

>>6227397
Bro, there is no concrete relationship between Marx and Nietzsche in the least. Rorty is sucking his own nob.

[Anonymous No.6227490]

>>6227418
There's a concrete relationship between any two things, actually. Retroactively, there is one because of all the leftist academics citing both of them constantly.

[Anonymous No.6227549]

>>6227490
Add more epicycles, add more.

[Anonymous No.6227676]

>>6227374
You have a somewhat good understanding of Nietzsche but not a great one.

>The Overman is a stage of social evolution
No my friend, the Overman has transcended social evolution.
He has gone beyond the prevailing evolutionary paradigm, he has literally entered into a new evolutionary paradigm (one where we can intelligently control the evolutionary process). The individual is now no longer at the whim of the collective.

>Overman would look at man as man looks at ape
Man will be nothing but a laughingstock to the Overman.

Overman is not a caste, even the prototype of the Overman will not be a caste.
Even the prototype will have shredded any notion of caste.

>>6227379
That's the wrong terminology / definition.
It's not Machiavellian rule caste at all.
Completely wrong.
The Overman does not rule, he is beyond the Philosopher King.
He is not a caste but a whole new stage of evolution, a quantum leap in evolution actually.

>>6227384
I dont think he liked the proletariat as much as he disliked alienation and the constraints on the individual.
He saw what Weber predicted (a la rationalisation), he saw the consequences of the Death of God, i.e. the less than desirable issues with capitalism /democracy.
I think he would have agreed that there's no revolutionary potential in a 1-D society and the Overman is not "revolutionary".
He cares not about what class is the agent of change in the revolution, since the Overman makes the issue moot.
But that being said the Overman is not an agent nor does he change or revolt like Marx says.

[Anonymous No.6227690]

>>6227549
Are you implying there's no relation between Aristotle and Plotinus?
Are you that bad at dialectic?

[Anonymous No.6227691]

>>6227010
Nietzsche was writing against Marx, no.

[Anonymous No.6227768]

>>6227690
I see idealists, walking around with the dead hand of past labour strangling their living thoughts.

[Anonymous No.6227772]

>>6227691
It'd be hard to given that he didn't read Marx.

[Anonymous No.6227774]

>>6227768
Answer the question, don't dodge it. Idealism is correct, and dialectical materialism is a contradiction in terms.

[Anonymous No.6227782]

>>6227033
I don't think philosophy is for you.

[Anonymous No.6227788]

>>6227774
>Idealism is correct
Nice one, bring any two things into relationship with your mind, do it mate. You've done it all thread.

>Dialectical materialism is a contradiction in terms.
Yeah, interesting story about that, invented by Engels in a work that attempted to critique metaphysics, used primarily by Lenin and Stalin to try to hide their idealisms.

Now historical materialism, where the actual relations between people appear before them as objects of the mind, and are structured prior to their specific becomings as relations between people, and thus objects of humanity, they're readily dialectical and the categories in becoming produce over and over again readily rather than being one offs like German idealist intellectuals of the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.6227792]

>>6227788
I don't care about your stupid Marxist quabbles with successful revolutionaries.
Historical materialism is based on historical objects being presented to the mind? I'd call that historical idealism tbh. And what's dialectical about Marxism if you acknowledge that dialectical materialism isn't the proper name for the doctrine?

[Anonymous No.6227805]

>>6227792
>I don't care about Marxism
>Three detailed questions on Marxism

Now that's a contradiction, and probably the first one presented in this thread. Notice how the anti-thesis is present inside the thesis?

[Anonymous No.6227806]

>>6227074
That was Herbert Mancuse.

[Anonymous No.6227817]

>>6227806
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-TCNRnPp1UC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=If+Nietzsche+was+right+then+Marx+was+wrong,&source=bl&ots=TZYZWz_Rne&sig=9log6MhfoFKT2v2xO_dPKVMlHMI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VF34VP_uL6awsASFv4LYDw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=If%20Nietzsche%20was%20right%20then%20Marx%20was%20wrong%2C&f=false

[Anonymous No.6227828]

>>6227351
Nietzsche wants a strict class system and Marx wants class to be abolished

[Anonymous No.6227849]

>>6227805
I'm vaguely familiar with Marxist doctrine, but only in relation to things that I concern myself with more fully. As I said, I'm an idealist of the absolute variety, and I take issue with Marxist epistemology.

[Anonymous No.6227852]

>>6227034
>derrida calling others not serious philosophers

a
ah
aha
ahah
ahahahahaha

ahahahahahahahaha

ahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaah

holy
o
l
y
shit
h
i
t

my

KEK
E
K

'S

[Anonymous No.6227873]

>>6227852
Keks aside, he was right

[Anonymous No.6227878]

>>6227255
He went cocoon mode and became successful.

That's the best way to do it when life gives you shitty fagboy lemons

[Anonymous No.6227885]

>>6227873
I'd say Sartre is a mediocre pop philosopher.

I'd say Derrida is a retard hack.

[Anonymous No.6227977]

>>6227885
I agree.
'Mediocre pop philosopher'='Not a serious philosopher'

[Anonymous No.6228019]

>>6227885
>implying Derrida doesn't have enough experience being a retard to grunt disdainfully in Sartre's direction

[Anonymous No.6228023]

>>6227010

no. you can't. they are fundamentally opposed to each other. but that doesn't mean you can't take a bit of both for yourself depending on the situation.

[Anonymous No.6228060]

>"I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose. There are no such truths; there is nothing about death that Swinburne and Landor knew but Epicurus and Heidegger failed to grasp. Rather, it is because I would have lived more fully if I had been able to rattle off more old chestnuts—just as I would have if I had made more close friends."

[Anonymous No.6228134]

>>6228060
I like ol dicky boy, there's something very endearing about his face

[Anonymous No.6228153]

philosophers and critical theorists should only be thought of as interesting bloggers. cool ideas here and there, nothing more nothing less.

[Anonymous No.6228176]

>>6228153
Rorty would probably agree with this

[Anonymous No.6228177]

Pragmatism is plebby as fuck.
>If it's useful it's true
Literally 'your opinion is always right: the philosophy.' This flies in the face of every good argument every school of thought made before philosophy came to America, including the ones that say philosophy is worthwhile because it goes beyond opinion. No wonder Heidegger loathed Anglophones. The only worse philosophy is utilitarianism.
>The action that most good over time is the best, by definition
Whoa, Mr. Mill, how insightful! And what if I'm a utility monster rolling down a train track toward a group of people tied to it, but there's a guy who might flip a switch and save them, only to consign a singular someone else to death-but he doesn't know there are 20 more people further down the alternatw track that will die if he pulls the switch. What's he to do here? By trying to maximize the good done here he'll he doing the opposite and killing more than would die if he didn't try. But I, as a utility monster, view utility differently, I.e., I see it as something in and of twelf worth pursuing, and my utility involves killing the five rather than the twenty-one, so my view of the situation requires that I stay on the track I'm on, which means I can't let the guy pull the switch.
What's to be done? Well, I can abandon utilitarianism altogether and find a better philosophy, but there isn't much else to be done. This is a utility-free situation altogether.

[Anonymous No.6228321]

>>6228060
Lips remind one of a prolapsed anus.

[Anonymous No.6228724]

>>6228321
How profound. You quoting legacy of totalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.6229726]

>>6228177
You don't understand pragmatism faggot. See James' response to Russell on santa.

[Anonymous No.6230436]

>>6228177
You're not arguing against utility there. You agree with it but you dislike the fact that you will be accountable for taking a part in outcomes you couldn't predict.

Literally just do the best with what you have and shut up.

[Anonymous No.6230467]

>>6227270
>You cannot synthesize two contrary points of view, you can only compromise between them, which is what you have in mind when you say synthesis, or you can overcome the contradiction through dialectics, i.e. sublation, which doesn't reduce the contradiction between them, but focuses on it as the means to leave both positions behind.
This.
People seem to think dialectics is like a primary school teacher saying "nobody is completely right everyone is a little bit right, isn't it a beautiful world? :^)"

[Anonymous No.6232779]

Who cares? the only person who was every right was Wittgenstein. Every thing before and after is just for historical value

[Anonymous No.6232903]

Nietzsche's positive observations are completely compatible with Marxism. It's only his normative project that's "impossible" to synthesize with Marxism and that's the shittier part of his philosophy anyway.

[Anonymous No.6232924]

>>6227010
I have a pretty good grip on Rorty I think, and a pretty good criticism. First of all, he posits something pre-linguistic without owning up to it: a pain and pleasure experiencing thing that has the capability to choose between which language games to participate in (which 'final vocabularies' to have). Second, leveling all philosophies into tools is an attempt at synthesis. Finally, he doesn't understand the influence of Kierkegaard on Wittgenstein. The point is to believe in the language games sincerely as your participate in them, or else we are left with ironically withdrawn humans - exactly the opposite of what Wittgenstein imagined.

[Anonymous No.6233012]

>>6227010

Geoff Waite has done some good work in unifying Nietzsche and Marx; cf. his book, "Nietzsce's Corps(e)".

Rorty's philosophy is in large part just a confirmation of his weltschmerz anyway. He just found seemingly more rigorous ways to defend it.

[Anonymous No.6233120]

>>6227020

> believing the "Weber was a reader of Nietzsche" myth
> thinking that Marx had the slight influence on Spengler

[Anonymous No.6233181]

>>6232779
Why you postin' my boy Lyle on here? One of the most underrated songwriters of all time, BTW.