Videocy/Literacy

[Leyla Shen]

Lol

[Leyla Shen]

In nomeni patri et fili spiritus sancti. Amen.

j wrote:

I have no idea who Popper is.

Yeah, ain't God grand? That sneaky prick has a potent Way of inseminating all and sundry through the written Word.

O, great man of faith, you too can be a woman! Of heaven: unconscious and otherworldy... a Virgin Mary whose seed bares His One Divine Name!

And be deceived not that a woman should be telling a man of the nature of His Way; telling him who, in him as seed, is the earthly father, for I, in His service, am sent by Him to shake the pillars of your faith and thereby loose His seeds upon the world!

Love, Satan.
X

[Pye]

jupiviv writes: I have no idea who Popper is. Marx's claim that the class struggles in society are always neatly divided on economic lines and have a dialectical nature is clearly an absolute empirical claim that denies the existence of any other valid perspective.

That's why Popper called Marxism (Freudianism, economicisms, etc.) pseudoscience. They present theses in frameworks that cannot be refuted. Popper defined the only legitimate theses as those that could be disproved. Interesting, that. ;)

jupiviv: [1.]I don't think any of those books are inherently wise.
[2.]The only way they can foster wisdom is if they are read carefully, critically and heavily interspersed with one's own thought.

1. You could also take that up with your forum founders, the nipple at which you've suckled your own attachment to "Woman" for so long. (:P) So there.

2. duh.

jupiviv: [1.]. . . assistant professor is productive in any way whatsoever,
[2.] then you are either a fool or a wanton hypocrite.

1. omg don't you dare call me an assistant professor. I have nothing whatever to do with that hierarchy.

2. Oh. Well then, I think you are an overweening, unnuanced, intellectually ego-bladdered prat who's still frozen in the act of tearing himself away from Woman. neener neener, little wiener :)

[Kunga]

Don't mess with the Pye !

http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/pie-in-the-face.jpg


<3

[Dennis Mahar]

Delicious serving of Pye.
bliss.

[jupiviv]

Popper defined the only legitimate theses as those that could be disproved. Interesting, that. ;)

It's not just Popper who defines that. That is the common definition used for valid empirical theses.

Marx, like all economic and political theorists/philosophers, failed to grasp the fact that no system will better the human condition if the humans themselves are fools. The revolution must occur in every individual, not in categories of individuals (which may even, like in existentialism, include just one individual.)

jupiviv: [1.]I don't think any of those books are inherently wise.
[2.]The only way they can foster wisdom is if they are read carefully, critically and heavily interspersed with one's own thought.

1. You could also take that up with your forum founders, the nipple at which you've suckled your own attachment to "Woman" for so long. (:P) So there.

2. duh.

My point was that an academic philosophy type environment itself is more likely to impede rather than foster wisdom, since the people (the professors or whatever you are) in charge, and most of the students as well, are very likely to be fools. If, for example, someone in your class tells you that you are absolutely wrong about a certain point, which makes anything you say about a certain subject invalid as well, without any reservation, then you (and the other students who may like you) will most likely be prejudiced against them. You may also score two different answers equally even though one of them is wrong, based on the false idea that all answers are correct if they are explained and referenced properly, which may take hold of the students as well.

Also, there's the academic environment that would bind the student to a particular curriculum, thus preventing him for using his mind effectively. If a student dislikes most of the books that are in the syllabus, he will still have to read them. Also, he has to stick to what the class is currently reading, and the schedule prescribed by the teacher, which would disrupt thought. It took me three months to complete Thus Spake Zarathustra, and I completely ignored 80% of the stuff in Joyful Wisdom because they were uninteresting and derivative. I also don't think Aristotle is worth spending time on, so haven't read any of his books. I doubt I could do all of this as a philosophy student in uni.

I also haven't read any criticisms, analyses, histories, biographies etc. of philosophers/philosophies, because I think they are largely worthless. I bet I'd have to in an university philosophy course if I wanted to pass in the exams.

I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with a modern academic environment/curriculum, but it is certainly not compatible with a very mentally taxing and time-consuming, and solitary endeavour such as philosophy.

There's also the female-dominated, anglo-saxon, middle/upper-middle class neo-liberal/leftist environment in universities to be taken into consideration, which would snuff out any genuinely free and incisive thinking because it would inevitably violate the boundaries of political correctness and/or decorum.

jupiviv: [1.]. . . assistant professor is productive in any way whatsoever,
[2.] then you are either a fool or a wanton hypocrite.

1. omg don't you dare call me an assistant professor. I have nothing whatever to do with that hierarchy.

You are part of a hierarchy if you get paid to teach in a university. You may care what hierarchy that is, but I don't.

2. Oh. Well then, I think you are an overweening, unnuanced, intellectually ego-bladdered prat who's still frozen in the act of tearing himself away from Woman. neener neener, little wiener :)

I'm sure the parents of your students would be glad to know they're paying for their children to be educated by such an enlightened soul as you.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Popper defined the only legitimate theses as those that could be disproved. Interesting, that. ;)

It's not just Popper who defines that. That is the common definition used for valid empirical theses.

No it actually was Popper who first defined it like that or at least put it into a much needed context and application. He tried to formally distinguish science from the more "mythical" and in his time very present scholarly bodies of for example psychoanalysis and Marxism.

[Cahoot]

This subject has been of intense, if not consuming interest to myself - especially over the past 5 years of witnessing a quantum change in the manner, quality and form of thinking & communicating capacities with which university students enter their studies these days.

The Stupidest Generation
by Larry Eubank (November 2013)
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Larry_E ... eneration/

[Kunga]

My point was that an academic philosophy type environment itself is more likely to impede rather than foster wisdom, since the people (the professors or whatever you are) in charge, and most of the students as well, are very likely to be fools.

To study [any subject], one needs to have an open mind. The fools, are those with their heads full of prejudices, therefore their capacity to learn will be impeded.

I also think it's very interesting to study the psychological and environmental aspect of the philosophers, as to better understand how their philosophical ideas were shaped/evolved.

One can always reject philosophical ideas, [such as those of the misogynist variety], but before you can reject those ideas intelligently, it helps to understand why those ideas developed in the first place.
Mental illness , is one factor that may impede the mind of a misogynistic philosopher. Therefore, to study the biographies of any philosopher, is vital to comprehending their philosophical views.

Then you have the mentally ill student that come into the philosophy class....and that's another can of worms......

[Cahoot]

Then you have the illiterates who should not be in college, which addresses the systemic rather than the exception.

[Kunga]

Then you have the illiterates who should not be in college, which addresses the systemic rather than the exception.

yeah...illiterates should just stay illiterate, like the caste system in India....

[Cahoot]

Then you have the illiterates who should not be in college, which addresses the systemic rather than the exception.

yeah...illiterates should just stay illiterate, like the caste system in India....

Not if they want to be university students, though apparently systems are trending away from that paradigm.

Though, videocy probably makes that observation insufficiently counter-intuitive for clever times.

Given the purview of this forum, the point of inquiry becomes, is literacy necessary for awakening to the absolute?

[Pye]

Cahoot references:
The Stupidest Generation
by Larry Eubank (November 2013)

Yeah, like that too, ta.

Cahoot: is literacy necessary for awakening to the absolute?

Most exactly should that be a pointed question - the very question of the relationship between linguistic acuity and consciousness, logic necessarily inclusive.

jupiviv:

1. RE: what you read/value; what you don't read/value, I get what you want to show, that you are in yourself enough of a hub of cohering understanding to critique the misguidedness of any given philosopher, text or ideology being discussed. I've known guys like you. Their batting average is generally .500, the kind of hit/miss average acuity that most any human has the luck to cognitize. This in itself in no argument for why others might not take the project on to assess philosopher/text/ideology with more acuity.

2. RE: academic institutions as academic institutions, you're making a category error in not being able to distinguish between an institution and the individuals in it. The crowd is untruth, yo. This is the same kind of thinking that permits those who DO succumb to institutionalization to justify themselves.

jupiviv: I'm sure the parents of your students would be glad to know they're paying for their children to be educated by such an enlightened soul as you.

Now, now . . . we mustn't protect on the one hand what we throttle on the other.

Dennis: Delicious serving of Pye.

Nothing particularly tasteful even about parodying these kinds of summary, unnuanced judgments.

[Leyla Shen]

j wrote:

Marx, like all economic and political theorists/philosophers, failed to grasp the fact that no system will better the human condition if the humans themselves are fools. The revolution must occur in every individual, not in categories of individuals (which may even, like in existentialism, include just one individual.)

Bullshit.

Nietzsche:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Marx:

In Germany, no form of bondage can be broken without breaking all forms of bondage. Germany, which is renowned for its thoroughness, cannot make a revolution unless it is a thorough one. The emancipation of the German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence [Aufhebung] of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the realization [Verwirklichung] of philosophy.

When all the inner conditions are met, the day of the German resurrection will be heralded by the crowing of the cock of Gaul.

[Leyla Shen]

Pye, will pick up on our exchange as soon as I can.

[jupiviv]

1. RE: what you read/value; what you don't read/value, I get what you want to show, that you are in yourself enough of a hub of cohering understanding to critique the misguidedness of any given philosopher, text or ideology being discussed. I've known guys like you. Their batting average is generally .500, the kind of hit/miss average acuity that most any human has the luck to cognitize. This in itself in no argument for why others might not take the project on to assess philosopher/text/ideology with more acuity.

It is an argument for the fact that an academic environment does not help people to assess philosophers/ies with acuity, because it is based on false ideas of what constitutes assessment. The most obvious proof of that is the almost total absence of any academic philosophers who are philosophically competent.

2. RE: academic institutions as academic institutions, you're making a category error in not being able to distinguish between an institution and the individuals in it. The crowd is untruth, yo. This is the same kind of thinking that permits those who DO succumb to institutionalization to justify themselves.

No I'm not. Firstly, I wasn't talking about academic institutions as a whole, but parts of them - the humanities in general and philosophy in particular. Secondly, I didn't say that all people in any philosophy department are fools by definition, but are likely to be given the fact that most of them are.

jupiviv: I'm sure the parents of your students would be glad to know they're paying for their children to be educated by such an enlightened soul as you.

Now, now . . . we mustn't protect on the one hand what we throttle on the other.

Do you mean I want to throttle their education? They'd be much better off not being college educated at all, than paying money for a philosophy degree. This education does not enlighten them (for reasons previously stated) or grant them prospects of even a halfway successful career (for obvious reasons).

[jupiviv]

Marx:

In Germany, no form of bondage can be broken without breaking all forms of bondage. Germany, which is renowned for its thoroughness, cannot make a revolution unless it is a thorough one. The emancipation of the German is the emancipation of man. The head of this emancipation is philosophy, its heart the proletariat. Philosophy cannot realize itself without the transcendence [Aufhebung] of the proletariat, and the proletariat cannot transcend itself without the realization [Verwirklichung] of philosophy.

When all the inner conditions are met, the day of the German resurrection will be heralded by the crowing of the cock of Gaul.

Is this supposed to be a counter-argument? Because it seems to me to prove my point(!) Here Marx is creating a category of people and saying that anyone who doesn't think of himself as belonging to it cannot do philosophy.

I don't see how the Nietzsche quote is relevant.

[Leyla Shen]

j:

Because it seems to me to prove my point(!)

I don't see how the Nietzsche quote is relevant.

Yes, and all because you have dialectics confused with contradiction.

Here Marx is creating a category of people and saying that anyone who doesn't think of himself as belonging to it cannot do philosophy.

Your obsession with gods is again noted!

He is defining a socio-economic class based on the contradictions sustained by extant capitalist economics and political economy (the existence—or, if you prefer, reality—of which you’ve done very little [no, make that nothing] to refute, by the way, preferring to bang on erroneously over Marx).

To understand what the proletarian is, it is necessary to understand the key contradictions in capitalist economics itself that give rise to the conditions of proletariat. For instance, it is necessary to understand the contradiction in use (qualitative) and exchange (quantitative) value of a single thing, for example, a bar of soap. Is it useful, or is it exchangeable? Only useful to some and exchangeable to others? To whom, and why and how do each of these conditions of the same thing come about for different people?

Thus, a commodity—a thing which is apparently two things at once—represents the embodiment of contradiction.

And what is the cataclysmic essence of such contradiction?

Marx on Crises:

Thus the crisis manifests the unity of the two phases [purchase/use and sale/exchange] which have become independent of each other. There would be no crisis without this inner unity of factors that are apparently indifferent to each other. But no, say the apologetic economists. Because there is this unity, there can be no crises. Which in turn means nothing but that the unity of contradictory forces excludes contradiction.

"The unity of contradictory forces excludes contradiction". Well, does it, jupiviv?

~

To understand the relationship between the Nietzsche quote and the Marx quote it is necessary to have some comprehension of the actual socio-economic conditions (you know, those pesky things in reality) peculiar to the German Enlightenment (philosophy) itself, and Hegel in particular, which particularity in essence boils down to the State as “the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth”. From A Critique on Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx—

The legislature is the totality of the political state and, precisely because of this, the contradiction of the political state brought forcibly to appearance. Thus it is also its established dissolution. Entirely different principles collide within it. To be sure, it appears to be the opposition between the two elements, that of the sovereign principle and that of the Estates, and so forth. But in fact it is the antinomy of political state and civil society, the self-contradiction of the abstract political state. The legislature is the established revolt. Hegel's chief mistake consists in the fact that he conceives of the contradiction in appearance as being a unity in essence, i.e., in the Idea; whereas it certainly has something more profound in its essence, namely, an essential contradiction.

[Leyla Shen]

Pye:

Gone back over our discussion and I think my last post addresses your earlier reply to me.

What do you think?

[jupiviv]

Here Marx is creating a category of people and saying that anyone who doesn't think of himself as belonging to it cannot do philosophy.

Your obsession with gods is again noted!

Sorry, still don't get the relevance. Not being a placentafag, I can't understand convoluted references to things my conversant imagines to exist.

He is defining a socio-economic class based on the contradictions sustained by extant capitalist economics and political economy (the existence—or, if you prefer, reality—of which you’ve done very little [no, make that nothing] to refute, by the way, preferring to bang on erroneously over Marx).

A definition is a category. Anyway, if the "definition" of the proletariat just included anyone who was below a certain financial status, it would be valid per se. As it happens, Marx's definition includes a lot *more* than that. A few examples:

i> the proletariat is necessarily, and always, in binary opposition to the bourgeois, which is natural, whereas all the opposing forces within it are something artificial imposed on them by the bourgeois; the opposing forces within the bourgeois itself are negligible on account of their shared enmity towards the proles - all of this is fallacious.

ii> the two classes are necessarily, and solely, a direct product of the conditions limited to the functioning and organisation of human society. That is the only, or at any rate the most, valid way to categorise/conceive of human society - fallacious.

iii> The proletariat is necessarily justified in rising up against the bourgeois, whatever their collective or individual motive and goals - fallacious.

iv> Connected to <iii> - anyone who belongs in the category of the proletariat must start philosophy from the premise that he belongs to that category, is oppressed by the bourgeois, and therefore needs to rise up against it - fallacious.

v> Even though the two classes are, according to Marx, the product of historical forces, which (acc. to Marx) directly shape human society, which (acc. to Marx) in turn directly shape human thought, this state of affairs is to be considered inherently immoral and changeable to a different one. This should be done by everyone whose thought (acc. to Marx) is wholly shaped and limited by the current state of affairs.

Also, it never seemed to have occurred to Marx that the proletariat desire/motive for overthrowing the bourgeois may be the same as the bourgeois desire/motive for oppressing the proletariat, viz., blind selfishness and greed. If this were true, it would mean that any revolution based on such a desire/motive would be no better than the state of affairs preceding it.

Thus, a commodity—a thing which is apparently two things at once—represents the embodiment of contradiction.

Well, again, if his definition of a contradiction only went that far, it would be valid. However, Marx seemed to consider the disparity in the perceived value of something to be an *ontological* disparity (hence a "contradiction"). The only reason I can think of why he would do this is that he thought that things have a fixed value independent of human judgment, which is itself a contradictory idea because it is impossible to prove it, as all attempts to do so would involve valuation.

Thus the crisis manifests the unity of the two phases [purchase/use and sale/exchange] which have become independent of each other. There would be no crisis without this inner unity of factors that are apparently indifferent to each other. But no, say the apologetic economists. Because there is this unity, there can be no crises. Which in turn means nothing but that the unity of contradictory forces excludes contradiction.

"The unity of contradictory forces excludes contradiction". Well, does it, jupiviv?

Depends on what you mean by "contradiction". By Marx's definition, all finite things are contradictory forces, and the whole universe is nothing but a unity of such forces. But even without taking it that far, it doesn't make sense. It's impossible for something to have the exact same value for different people, because they are different people. This is a contradiction I suppose, but it can't be eliminated barring the discovery of a way to make identical copies of people.

The legislature is the totality of the political state and, precisely because of this, the contradiction of the political state brought forcibly to appearance. Thus it is also its established dissolution. Entirely different principles collide within it. To be sure, it appears to be the opposition between the two elements, that of the sovereign principle and that of the Estates, and so forth. But in fact it is the antinomy of political state and civil society, the self-contradiction of the abstract political state. The legislature is the established revolt. Hegel's chief mistake consists in the fact that he conceives of the contradiction in appearance as being a unity in essence, i.e., in the Idea; whereas it certainly has something more profound in its essence, namely, an essential contradiction.

If I understand correctly, he is saying that abstract ideas meant to define real things are self-contradictory, which makes this idea itself self-contradictory.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"The unity of contradictory forces excludes contradiction". Well, does it, jupiviv?

Depends on what you mean by "contradiction". By Marx's definition, all finite things are contradictory forces, and the whole universe is nothing but a unity of such forces. But even without taking it that far, it doesn't make sense. It's impossible for something to have the exact same value for different people, because they are different people. This is a contradiction I suppose, but it can't be eliminated barring the discovery of a way to make identical copies of people.

To be fair (while unfairly interjecting myself again into a conversation: boohoo!) the "something" you mention is a commodity, which is in itself already abstracted inside some large scale commodity market. The reason the value can be hold equal is because Marx believed in human labor having some kind of absolute "basic" value, even when only in abstract sense (the "socially necessary abstract labor embodied in a commodity"). Of course with so much abstracted away it becomes rather easy to talk about constants for a limited period. Truth is that very long running costs like pollution, cultural or psychological impacts are also abstracted away (and would be nearly impossible to calculate without omniscience). Which would mean that "real cost" or "absolute value" turn out to be rather arbitrary arrangements: at best tools to calculate with in a given situation. But with blind-sight already build-in like that, it wouldn't be very good for any long term stability. Which some maintain is exactly why all economical systems based on any labor theory of value will eventually fail.

The underlying error goes in my view back to Marxism itself: abstracting categories gone mad. The Hegelian love of the formulaic and the ideal of any "historical movement" including of course any materialist conception of history. Necessarily every theory or analytic method arising out of this, sets itself up for failure and ascends to the realm of vagueries and generalities: they never do materialize but are upheld instead like the old religions still are in their cathedrals of definitions.

[Leyla Shen]

Omfg

[Leyla Shen]

Sorry, still don't get the relevance. Not being a placentafag, I can't understand convoluted references to things my conversant imagines to exist.

No, you're just a turd off the ol' Hegelian block; discarded and aimlessly afloat in a sea of abstract sewage.

L: Thus the crisis manifests the unity of the two phases [purchase/use and sale/exchange] which have become independent of each other. There would be no crisis without this inner unity of factors that are apparently indifferent to each other. But no, say the apologetic economists. Because there is this unity, there can be no crises. Which in turn means nothing but that the unity of contradictory forces excludes contradiction.

"The unity of contradictory forces excludes contradiction". Well, does it, jupiviv?

J: Depends on what you mean by "contradiction". By Marx's definition, all finite things are contradictory forces, and the whole universe is nothing but a unity of such forces. But even without taking it that far, it doesn't make sense. It's impossible for something to have the exact same value for different people, because they are different people. This is a contradiction I suppose, but it can't be eliminated barring the discovery of a way to make identical copies of people.

No, he's not saying that. Neither is he saying, by the way, that logical contradictions do not exist! What he's saying here is that opposing forces within the whole are not themselves logical contradictions. And this because (leaving aside the economists themselves for a moment, who Hegel too ignored) Hegel himself thought that, the essence of man is reason; every opposition therefore was merely a matter of unreason working itself toward the Ideal---to reason; everything as a matter of dialogue waiting to happen. Hence, the State as Divine Idea as it exists on Earth. Fait accompli!

Marx: The legislature is the totality of the political state and, precisely because of this, the contradiction of the political state brought forcibly to appearance. Thus it is also its established dissolution. Entirely different principles collide within it. To be sure, it appears to be the opposition between the two elements, that of the sovereign principle and that of the Estates, and so forth. But in fact it is the antinomy of political state and civil society, the self-contradiction of the abstract political state. The legislature is the established revolt. Hegel's chief mistake consists in the fact that he conceives of the contradiction in appearance as being a unity in essence, i.e., in the Idea; whereas it certainly has something more profound in its essence, namely, an essential contradiction.

j: If I understand correctly, he is saying that abstract ideas meant to define real things are self-contradictory, which makes this idea itself self-contradictory.

That's fucking hilarious coming from you!

What politician isn't at the same time a member of civil society?

[Pye]

Leyla queries:
Gone back over our discussion and I think my last post addresses your earlier reply to me.

What do you think?

yes, notching.

Diebert writes: The underlying error goes in my view back to Marxism itself: abstracting categories gone mad. The Hegelian love of the formulaic and the ideal of any "historical movement" including of course any materialist conception of history.

There is always danger in any essentialism, including the assumptions of what, exactly, the next form of socio-economic exchange would take. I agree there is historical context for Marx in the pathologies of the age; the machine-like coherence of whole world, either spirit or material; the possibility of its historical predictability, its telos, its aim. There was desperation to squirm out from under Hegel's pernicious world-systemizing - it struck many as the apex of philosophical bubble-think whilst Rome burned. Marx could be said to have supplanted Hegel's dialectic in substance - future-predictability inclusive - but few (who?) since Hegel have dis-employed the bone structure of the hegelian dialectic.

That said, Marx did not critique capitalism from an abstracted mode. This was not future-predictability but concrete actuality. Marx's critique of the dynamics of capitalism is what stands here, in my estimation, irrefutably tall. Now, if you're assuming 'history' to be this dialectically moving thing, there is something else up ahead. What sort of socio-economic configuration would any of us posit as possible past capitalism? What possible configuration borne out of the exigencies of capital culture worldwide would others imagine? Have any of us the strength of vision to suppose something past it?

Human beings have only lived a bare fraction of their time under its configuration. The ones who can envision will be the thoughts that guide the acts; history, in this sense is no script fulfilled, but rather made in the making by specific people at specific times for specific aims and reasons, and Marx has already become that. You'd have to come up with something better, something 'next' that speaks as broadly the persistency of Marxist framework; the reality of its appearance in praxis, and esp. for me, the acuity of his critique of capitalism.

If one cannot see past this configuration, one can at least see that others have.

[jupiviv]

J: Depends on what you mean by "contradiction". By Marx's definition, all finite things are contradictory forces, and the whole universe is nothing but a unity of such forces. But even without taking it that far, it doesn't make sense. It's impossible for something to have the exact same value for different people, because they are different people. This is a contradiction I suppose, but it can't be eliminated barring the discovery of a way to make identical copies of people.

No, he's not saying that. Neither is he saying, by the way, that logical contradictions do not exist! What he's saying here is that opposing forces within the whole are not themselves logical contradictions.

He's saying that the "whole" itself is contradictory since it views the forces it comprises of as contradictory to each other. But two different things will necessarily be contradictory each other (A != !A), so it follows that *any* idea of a whole is contradictory! Unless, of course, Marx believes that the things that are being called different are actually the *same*. Must the use and purchase value of a commodity be identical by definition? I don't see why. It is an observable fact that different people can value the same thing differently.

You could say that it is immoral for someone to value something, like wisdom, differently from you. But you can't say that they are logically incapable of doing so!