GENIUS FORUMS

Changing the world for the better, on the surface it seems, is more about what you don't do, rather than what you do, do.

Nick Treklis wrote:Changing the world for the better, on the surface it seems, is more about what you don't do, rather than what you do, do.

IMO, this is an extremely important thing to realize. Pick up any newspaper and behold how many people utterly fail to.

Note that the "Thou shalt nots..." outnumber the "Thou shalts..." I seems they ought to be mastered first.

It seems so obvious, but it evidently is not. Good pertinent post, Nick.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Concrete freedom manifests for bourgeois society as the state. It doesn't manifest in an individual's daily life, but is abstracted into the state…

It’s a matter of definitions. I’m sure if you tried a few on, you’d have been able to make something out of it!

Sure, I can make something out of it, but that doesn't mean I'm making the right something out of it.

Nevertheless, private interest is, of course, about competition. The state abstractly (or, philosophically) expresses but directly, concretely, enforces the unity of the nation and of an abstract rather than concrete “we, the people.”

It’s so absolutely essential to understand what follows before one gets a full and complete understanding of the above (and Marx, period):

Inasmuch as philosophy as will turns toward the world of appearances, the [philosophical] system is reduced to an abstract totality and thus becomes one side of the world confronted by another side. Its relation to the world is a reflexive relation. Caught up in the drive to realise itself it comes into tension with everything else. Its inner self-sufficiency and rounded completeness is destroyed. What was an inner light becomes a consuming flame, turned outward. We thus arrive at the consequence that the world’s becoming philosophical is at the same time philosophy’s becoming worldly, that the realisation of philosophy is at the same time its loss, that what it struggles against outside is its own inner defect, that it is precisely in this struggle that it falls into the defects which it fights in its opponents, and that it can transcend these defects only by falling victim to them. That which opposes philosophy and that which philosophy struggles against is always the same thing as philosophy, only with the factors reversed.

Is that meant to be entirely self-contained? Seems impossible to make any definite sense of it without a lot more explanation and context.

Can you make anything out of it, or do you want me to do all the work for you? :-[ <—That's my moustache. Actually, since I'm Turkish, it should probably look more like this: :-]

You're going to have to do some work, I know very little about Marx or Marxism. But I'm willing to learn :-] <—That's your moustache again.

Sure, I can make something out of it, but that doesn't mean I'm making the right something out of it.

I promise I won't tell you off if you get it wrong. After all, the Hawks did kick pussy arse yesterday!

But, Jason, as long you either a) make something coherent out of it, even an argument against it, or b) bring some additional insight from having undertaken the exercise, then you would have done something. How do you know I haven't got it wrong? Most people just feel like it's wrong, which is kind of useless, ya know?

Is that meant to be entirely self-contained? Seems impossible to make any definite sense of it without a lot more explanation and context.

I'm beginning to think I have special powers. :) But, yes, I think it is complete. I paid attention to selecting enough of it for that very reason when I originally posted it. However, I will say that since I have read a bit of Marx there is the possibility that it isn't a complete, contextually contained thought---but I doubt it.

You're going to have to do some work, I know very little about Marx or Marxism.

Well, I've already done some work.

But I'm willing to learn

Then, it's your turn. You have to give something.

:-]

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Sure, I can make something out of it, but that doesn't mean I'm making the right something out of it.

I promise I won't tell you off if you get it wrong. After all, the Hawks did kick pussy arse yesterday!

Interesting, I'll let this standup bit from Jerry Seinfeld illustrate essentially what I'm thinking:

“Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. Because the players are always changing, the team can move to another city, you’re actually rooting for the clothes when you get right down to it. You know what I mean, you are standing and cheering and yelling for your clothes to beat the clothes from another city. Fans will be so in love with a player but if he goes to another team, they boo him. This is the same human being in a different shirt, they hate him now. Boo! Different shirt! Boo!”

Am I the king of finding relevance and connections or what?

Leyla Shen wrote:But, Jason, as long you either a) make something coherent out of it, even an argument against it, or b) bring some additional insight from having undertaken the exercise, then you would have done something. How do you know I haven't got it wrong? Most people just feel like it's wrong, which is kind of useless, ya know?

I think I might be about to crash and burn:

You were speaking of the abstract and imaginary nature of the state. That it largely gets its form, reality and power merely from the imagination of the population. This leads to a disconnect and contradiction between reality/human life and the state. Freedom too becomes an abstract concept, instead of being about personal daily life and experience it is instead identified with and projected into abstract laws and rights.

To protect these imaginary constructs, to protect the status quo, organized force is used against those who are thought to threaten it. War is then largely a battle between fantasies. The more a population identifies with the state the less in touch with reality and human life they are, and the more threatened they feel by other humans in general, and so they are more likely to build up armies and use mass coordinated force.

Am I anywhere near right?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Is that meant to be entirely self-contained? Seems impossible to make any definite sense of it without a lot more explanation and context.

I'm beginning to think I have special powers. :)

Don't get too excited - I think we may have all received these amazing "special powers" if we'd have studied Marx like you have.

Leyla Shen wrote:But, yes, I think it is complete. I paid attention to selecting enough of it for that very reason when I originally posted it. However, I will say that since I have read a bit of Marx there is the possibility that it isn't a complete, contextually contained thought---but I doubt it.

You've only read a bit of Marx? Maybe you do have special powers. I'm not going to have a crack at that Marx block of text just yet.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:You're going to have to do some work, I know very little about Marx or Marxism.

Well, I've already done some work.

Alright, more work then.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote: But I'm willing to learn

Then, it's your turn. You have to give something.

:-]

I'll give you something. :)

Hello, Jason:

The deeper truth is to be found in the commitment and dedication that comprise loyalty, even if it is largely unconscious in the majority.

What kind of a prostitute sells out on his team, I ask you?

Am I the king of finding relevance and connections or what?

Whoa there, Rex. Let’s see…

You were speaking of the abstract and imaginary nature of the state.

Yes.

That it largely gets its form, reality and power merely from the imagination of the population.

Rather than “largely,” the proposition is solely. And rather than “form,” the proposition is “ideal form.” It’s concrete form is the only thing it can be; actuality. That is, what it is caused to be, despite the idealised form. Thus:

This leads to a disconnect and contradiction between reality/human life and the state. Freedom too becomes an abstract concept, instead of being about personal daily life and experience it is instead identified with and projected into abstract laws and rights.

Yes.

To protect these imaginary constructs, to protect the status quo, organized force is used against those who are thought to threaten it.

Yes.

War is then largely a battle between fantasies. The more a population identifies with the state the less in touch with reality and human life they are, and the more threatened they feel by other humans in general, and so they are more likely to build up armies and use mass coordinated force.

Not that they’re more likely to, but he's very specifically talking about the illusion of freedom of the individual and individual rightscreated by the state that, contrarily, guarantee slavery (enter capitalism). Thus, they build armies of these free individuals and use mass coordinated force both locally (police) and internationally (military).

Am I anywhere near right?

Pretty good! But there’s more. Are you willing to tackle the essential philosophy, now?

Don't get too excited - I think we may have all received these amazing "special powers" if we'd have studied Marx like you have.

You've only read a bit of Marx? Maybe you do have special powers. I'm not going to have a crack at that Marx block of text just yet.

I’ve been studying and integrating the same three pages of Marx into life for the last 10 years! (OK, I’m being slightly excessive.) I call it “staying power.”

The trick is, to understand Marx, it helps to understand his contemporary, Hegel, too (and any number of other pre-WWI philosophers). It gives one the proper context, but it’s not necessary to study Hegel religiously—only to sufficiently understand his basic philosophy. Otherwise, you’re studying Marx in a vacuum that doesn’t exist and you end up with the same mediocre and irrelevant interpretation of Marx’s communism as just about everyone else, including many self-proclaimed communists.

Alright, more work then.

As I love to say: quid pro quo, baby.

I'll give you something. :)

You sure you have the stamina and appropriate attention to detail? Three pages of Marx, let’s say a more realistic one year…

Leyla Shen wrote:Hello, Jason:

Why the bolding?

The deeper truth is to be found in the commitment and dedication that comprise loyalty, even if it is largely unconscious in the majority.

Loyalty based on questionable grounds - as per the Seinfeld quote. I don't see that you've offered any deeper truth than that.

What kind of a prostitute sells out on his team, I ask you?

Maybe it would be better if they didn't barrack for such teams in the first place.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Am I the king of finding relevance and connections or what?

Whoa there, Rex. Let’s see…

I saw. The answer is obviously "yes."

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:War is then largely a battle between fantasies. The more a population identifies with the state the less in touch with reality and human life they are, and the more threatened they feel by other humans in general, and so they are more likely to build up armies and use mass coordinated force.

Not that they’re more likely to, but he's very specifically talking about the illusion of freedom of the individual and individual rightscreated by the state that, contrarily, guarantee slavery (enter capitalism). Thus, they build armies of these free individuals and use mass coordinated force both locally (police) and internationally (military).

Ok, well I'm in agreement with essentially all of that(including the bits I didn't quote.) These characteristics of the state, that I've described, fall under the definition of "nationalism" don't they?(That's not a rhetorical question, I'm not very knowledgeable of politics in general.) In this particular case with capitalism thrown in too.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Am I anywhere near right?

Pretty good! But there’s more. Are you willing to tackle the essential philosophy, now?

Why should I? Really, why do you think I should? Why should I care about or know about Marx and Marxism? I might look into it out of plain curiosity admittedly, but why else?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Don't get too excited - I think we may have all received these amazing "special powers" if we'd have studied Marx like you have.

You've only read a bit of Marx? Maybe you do have special powers. I'm not going to have a crack at that Marx block of text just yet.

I’ve been studying and integrating the same three pages of Marx into life for the last 10 years! (OK, I’m being slightly excessive.) I call it “staying power.”

Why have you been doing that?

Leyla Shen wrote:The trick is, to understand Marx, it helps to understand his contemporary, Hegel, too (and any number of other pre-WWI philosophers). It gives one the proper context, but it’s not necessary to study Hegel religiously—only to sufficiently understand his basic philosophy. Otherwise, you’re studying Marx in a vacuum that doesn’t exist and you end up with the same mediocre and irrelevant interpretation of Marx’s communism as just about everyone else, including many self-proclaimed communists.

Again, why should I even bother? There's an almost infinite number of other things that I have a reason and desire to learn about, why should I spend my time on Marx? Politics usually doesn't impress me much.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Alright, more work then.

As I love to say: quid pro quo, baby.

Why the hell are you playing so hard to get? Surely just the fact that I'm ready to listen to your understanding of Marx is enough? I thought you were passionate about these ideas. Doesn't it excite you to share them?

Jason:

Why the bolding?

Accent. If I don’t use the person’s name in the quote/s, my usual practice is to bold it outside of them.

Why the question about the bolding?

L: The deeper truth is to be found in the commitment and dedication that comprise loyalty, even if it is largely unconscious in the majority.

J: Loyalty based on questionable grounds - as per the Seinfeld quote. I don't see that you've offered any deeper truth than that.

I didn’t offer them, Seinfeld did! His character, his friends, the fact that he never achieves anything really great. You know, mediocrity. Seinfeld as satire personified—the whole picture—of which this little morsel of irony is merely a teeny part.

You don’t really think it’s about colours, rather than the colours being incidental to something else, do you? I mean, do all Hawthorn supporters support Hawthorn because they absolutely adore brown and yellow?

L: What kind of a prostitute sells out on his team, I ask you?

J: Maybe it would be better if they didn't barrack for such teams in the first place.

I was referring to a player (you know, the one who everybody loves until he changes teams). Seinfeld apparently sees this love as being about the player himself, rather than being about a love of values; commitment, dedication and loyalty.

Ok, well I'm in agreement with essentially all of that(including the bits I didn't quote.) These characteristics of the state, that I've described, fall under the definition of "nationalism" don't they?(That's not a rhetorical question, I'm not very knowledgeable of politics in general.) In this particular case with capitalism thrown in too.

Yes, exactly. There is a particular, co-dependent relationship that can be drawn between individualism, capitalism and nationalism, which I intend to detail here once I’ve fleshed it out to my satisfaction.

Why should I? Really, why do you think I should? Why should I care about or know about Marx and Marxism? I might look into it out of plain curiosity admittedly, but why else?

I can only tell you why I do. Two reasons, 1) all things in the world are interdependent and, therefore 2) the nature and truth of those interdependencies greatly concern (as in “involve”) me.

Why have you been [contemplating three pages of Marx for flippen ages]?

1) Many of his thoughts strongly resonate with my own, but I'm not satisfied my understanding of him is complete.
2) Marx is today an influential philosopher, and communism is alive and well and variously understood.

Again, why should I even bother? There's an almost infinite number of other things that I have a reason and desire to learn about, why should I spend my time on Marx? Politics usually doesn't impress me much.

Curious.

I’m not interested in twisting your arm over it, Jason. Why are you, as you say, bothering?

Why the hell are you playing so hard to get?

Ha! You’re kidding, right? This is the second time you’ve played hard to get. You just don’t seem to be aware of your doing so. My thoughts are as precious to me as yours are to you.

Surely just the fact that I'm ready to listen to your understanding of Marx is enough?

[laughs] Are you trying to be funny? Enough for what, exactly?

I thought you were passionate about these ideas.

I am. But I’m not a politician and other people's interest isn't rudimentary to my being impassioned by them.

Doesn't it excite you to share them?

Er, no. Excitement might comprise part(s) of the journey (a part/s I mostly ignore, if I can help myself), but excitement itself is so far from my mountain it's the last thing on my mind when I talk about something I care about deeply. Is it not the same for you?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Why the bolding?

Accent. If I don’t use the person’s name in the quote/s, my usual practice is to bold it outside of them.

Why the question about the bolding?

I haven't noticed that you do that before. I thought it might have been special for me, or had some other significance, but obviously not.

Leyla Shen wrote:I didn’t offer them, Seinfeld did! His character, his friends, the fact that he never achieves anything really great. You know, mediocrity. Seinfeld as satire personified—the whole picture—of which this little morsel of irony is merely a teeny part.

You don’t really think it’s about colours, rather than the colours being incidental to something else, do you? I mean, do all Hawthorn supporters support Hawthorn because they absolutely adore brown and yellow?

Actually, in a sense yes that is exactly what they are doing. The choice in picking between sports teams might as well simply be based on nothing more than colours. I was pointing to the lack of any important reason for deciding to support one team over another. I think there is a certain idiocy in it. I was also making a comparison between this and support of a particular state. They both involve projecting imaginary qualities that separate human from human. They both often lead to tensions, aggression and even violence between opposing supporters too, and for similar reasons.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Why should I? Really, why do you think I should? Why should I care about or know about Marx and Marxism? I might look into it out of plain curiosity admittedly, but why else?

I can only tell you why I do. Two reasons, 1) all things in the world are interdependent and, therefore 2) the nature and truth of those interdependencies greatly concern (as in “involve”) me.

Obviously those two reasons apply to absolutely anything whatsoever - you may as well spend your time studying dirt.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Again, why should I even bother? There's an almost infinite number of other things that I have a reason and desire to learn about, why should I spend my time on Marx? Politics usually doesn't impress me much.

Curious.

I’m not interested in twisting your arm over it, Jason. Why are you, as you say, bothering?

Because you raised it in relation to my original post, and I thought there might be something worthwhile in it.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Why the hell are you playing so hard to get?

Ha! You’re kidding, right? This is the second time you’ve played hard to get. You just don’t seem to be aware of your doing so. My thoughts are as precious to me as yours are to you.

Hello! Anybody home? Let's do a quick recap of what's happened:

I made a post in this thread that you responded to with Marxist quotation and thought. I said I wasn't sure that I could understand any of what you had written. Then, instead of attempting to explain it in a way that I might understand, you decided you wanted me to try to work it out for myself. I thought, ok, what the hell, might be fun, I might gain from it. I did that. You agreed with most of my decoding. Now you want me to go through that decoding again, this time with that dense Marx quote you posted?

Jeez, is it too much to ask of you to try to explain your ideas/posts if I cannot understand them? And you reckon I'm the one playing hard to get?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Surely just the fact that I'm ready to listen to your understanding of Marx is enough?

Are you trying to be funny? Enough for what, exactly?

Enough for you to fucken explain yourself further when I cannot understand what you're trying to communicate - instead of making me try to decode your posts and wait for you to either agree or disagree with my decoding!

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:I thought you were passionate about these ideas.

I am. But I’m not a politician and other people's interest isn't rudimentary to my being impassioned by them.

When I feel passionate about something it often also occurs to me that there is worth in sharing it with others. Sue me for thinking that good and valuable things should be spread, or at least offered, to others.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Doesn't it excite you to share them?

Er, no. Excitement might comprise part(s) of the journey (a part/s I mostly ignore, if I can help myself), but excitement itself is so far from my mountain it's the last thing on my mind when I talk about something I care about deeply. Is it not the same for you?

Certain thoughts, ideas, theories, understandings, discoveries, whatever, they can excite me, I can be very passionate about them, and although it's not always the case, talking about them can certainly deeply excite and thrill me.

These things can be so beautiful and amazing, I love sharing them. I love turning people on, if you will, showing them new and wonderful vistas. I can also, through empathy, feel their excitement when they are exposed to these new things. When I was a child I would constantly go around to people saying "Guess what?" and then tell them or show them some new thing I had learned or discovered or thought that I considered to be thrilling/fantastic/interesting/beautiful/amazing. I just love it, I always have.

What kind of boring intellectual landscape do you inhabit? ;P

Is everything with you destined to require such an effort on my part, Mr Boring Extraordinaire Seeking Excitement?

The Marx paragraph in question is complete, as I have already stated. It doesn't itself even require any understanding of Hegel. Clearly, you have demonstrated that after a bit of thought you didn't, in fact, need an explanation of my explanation.

That is the only fact of the situation I'm interested in, since any others fall subordinate to it.

Leyla Shen wrote:Is everything with you destined to require such an effort on my part,

You've made jack all effort. But given how solemnly you appear to approach(and want to approach!) intellectual life, I can understand that it might all feel like a long hard slog for you. Sad.

Mr Boring Extraordinaire Seeking Excitement?

Seeking excitement is a strong component yes, but seeking truth is fundamental. You should be jealous, although perhaps that would require too much heart for you.

The Marx paragraph in question is complete, as I have already stated. It doesn't itself even require any understanding of Hegel. Clearly, you have demonstrated that after a bit of thought you didn't, in fact, need an explanation of my explanation.

With the first attempt at translating what you wrote I was simply making guesses. You may have noticed I finished my attempted decoding of what you'd written with "Am I anywhere near right?" I've told you repeatedly that I don't know that much about politics, I might have been way off in my interpretation for all I knew - all I did was make good guesses.

Do you think that's a good way for us to proceed? Me attempting to guess at what you're trying to communicate, and then waiting for you to tick or cross each guess I make - apparently simply because you think it is too much work to explain yourself further when I can't obviously understand you?

Are you actually trying to present formed ideas and opinions or am I simply a Marx-translation service for you(and a crappy one at that)? Believe it or not: I'm interested in what you think.

That is the only fact of the situation I'm interested in, since any others fall subordinate to it.

Are you trying to sound clever and intellectual with that sentence? I bet you are. Guess what(!), the second part of the sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first - if you have enough vitality you can actually also be interested in "subordinate" things too.

Jesus Christ, man! Care for some pepper? Cinnamon and sugar and softly spoken lies, you never know just how you look through other people's eyes...

Are you actually trying to present formed ideas and opinions or am I simply a Marx-translation service for you(and a crappy one at that)? Believe it or not: I'm interested in what you think.

Hm. Backhanded compliment? How does the latter logically proceed from the former, exactly, given that assuming the former and the emphasis on "you" in the latter (as well as all your other snipes) clearly implies I'm not actually capable of thinking?

~

Well, Jason, I never doubted you were interested in what I thought. Can I just take the liberty to point out here that the paragraph now in question (which, as I clearly stated, underlies Marx's political philosophy) is philosophical and not political in nature?

Nevertheless, I'll be back shortly to give you what you ask for.

I don't mind the sun sometimes, the images it shows...

Leyla Shen wrote:Jesus Christ, man! Care for some pepper? Cinnamon and sugar and softly spoken lies, you never know just how you look through other people's eyes...

Maybe you should know that I sometimes have a mischievous little grin when I write to GF, that includes some of the stuff I've written in this thread. I don't think that it always comes across...

Leyla Shen wrote:

Jason wrote:Are you actually trying to present formed ideas and opinions or am I simply a Marx-translation service for you(and a crappy one at that)? Believe it or not: I'm interested in what you think.

Hm. Backhanded compliment?

Straight-ahead truth.

How does the latter logically proceed from the former, exactly, given that assuming the former and the emphasis on "you" in the latter (as well as all your other snipes) clearly implies I'm not actually capable of thinking?

I wasn't implying that you're incapable of thinking, and I don't believe that. A person can be capable of profound thoughts and yet choose not to present these thoughts publicly - for whatever reason. I'm not saying that this has been your general modus operandi on GF, but it appears to me that you haven't been too willing to share your own thoughts with me in this particular discussion. As I've said, I find that particularly perplexing given the passion you seem to have for the subject.

Well, Jason, I never doubted you were interested in what I thought. Can I just take the liberty to point out here that the paragraph now in question (which, as I clearly stated, underlies Marx's political philosophy) is philosophical and not political in nature?

Yes I realized that it was at least partly about philosophy, but it's so dense and lacking obvious context(from my perspective) that I see little use in trying to guess my way through an interpretation. I think it's written in such a way that many many different meanings could be read into it.

Nevertheless, I'll be back shortly to give you what you ask for.

Finally. I hope it's worth it....(imagine a mischievous grin....right....about.....NOW! Don't think that it completely negates the seriousness of my words though.)

Shut up, and pay attention.

~

Marx:

Inasmuch as philosophy as will turns toward the world of appearances, the [philosophical] system is reduced to an abstract totality and thus becomes one side of the world confronted by another side. Its relation to the world is a reflexive relation. Caught up in the drive to realise itself it comes into tension with everything else. Its inner self-sufficiency and rounded completeness is destroyed. What was an inner light becomes a consuming flame, turned outward. We thus arrive at the consequence that the world’s becoming philosophical is at the same time philosophy’s becoming worldly, that the realisation of philosophy is at the same time its loss, that what it struggles against outside is its own inner defect, that it is precisely in this struggle that it falls into the defects which it fights in its opponents, and that it can transcend these defects only by falling victim to them. That which opposes philosophy and that which philosophy struggles against is always the same thing as philosophy, only with the factors reversed.

Paraphrased:

To the degree that philosophy is engaged itself as action toward the world of appearances (reality), the philosophy itself (or, philosophical system itself) is limited to a state of total abstraction and, thus, excludes from itself the world of appearances and any interdependence between them.

Such a limitation on philosophy leaves it ever directed back upon itself and in constant tension with – separation from – reality (or, in terms familiar to this forum, what’s then left of the Totality since the Totality necessarily includes appearances). Thus, it defeats the glory in its own existence; the glimmer of insight into reality borne from it becomes an indiscriminate, all-consuming flame – with no distinction between reality and itself – utterly burnt to cinders by it. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that “the world’s becoming philosophical is, at the same time, philosophy’s becoming worldly,” that the realisation of philosophy, its entire goal, purpose and meaning, is an appearance in the world, and not the appearance of its abstract form, i.e., a form for its own sake.

The world of appearances (that which opposes philosophy and that which philosophy struggles against) is always the same as philosophy, only with the causes of its existence reversed.

The problem I see with this discussion is that for Marx the term philosophy is limited to ideals of how the world should or could be. This is why he can say that there's a struggle between some philosophy and the 'world of appearances'. But it's the same to say there would be a struggle between thought and feeling in a general sense. Marx looks at this struggle in terms of power and control: a thought, or system of thoughts that desires to be expressed in the material or lets say the sensual world. For Marx, there's no other process, no philosophical relevancy to anything outside this Hegelian dialectic.

Here you see the underlying problem with Marx the most clear: he deals only with philosophy as a force impacting the world, a shape changing influence, presumably for the better. But he doesn't address the role philosophy ultimately has in defining the [human] world itself, not as just an influence, but as sole creator, the source of [human] values and valuing. In doing so Marx sidesteps the existential issue of consciousness and fails to address the origins of immaterial desire and will. It's indeed a very materialistic and contemporary philosophy that remains, even upon today present in such incarnations as 'spreading freedom and democracy' or even 'change we need'.

Reading back, the following bit seems like an interesting side-issue:

Jason wrote:Actually, in a sense yes that is exactly what they are doing. The choice in picking between sports teams might as well simply be based on nothing more than colours. I was pointing to the lack of any important reason for deciding to support one team over another.

There might be more to color than just a random choice for one or the other:

Red is the colour if winning is your game.

Could red invoke issues of 'blood soaked' clothing which then would imply the ability to sacrify? According to Carolyn Marvin & David W. Ingle in their insightful book Blood Sacrifice and the Nation*, the national flag and its colors might be related to the "skin of the totem ancestor" being waved. And it's hard to see it as mere coincidence that red white and blue are so common in the flags of global warring empires. Blood, guts and skin or bone?

* a shorter article can be found in its completeness here

Leyla supports the Hawthorn Hawks football club. Their colours are brown and yellow. Can you think of any human bodily associations with those colours? :D

I'm red colour-blind and don't follow sports teams or political parties and am vegetarian. Coincidence?

I'm still not sure that I'm really understanding this.

Leyla Shen wrote:Paraphrased:

To the degree that philosophy is engaged itself as action toward the world of appearances (reality), the philosophy itself (or, philosophical system itself) is limited to a state of total abstraction and, thus, excludes from itself the world of appearances and any interdependence between them.

Such a limitation on philosophy leaves it ever directed back upon itself and in constant tension with – separation from – reality (or, in terms familiar to this forum, what’s then left of the Totality since the Totality necessarily includes appearances).

So he's speaking specifically of a type of philosophy which has, as its aim, acting upon the world. But he says there's a problem in that type of philosophy, a fundamental contradiction even - the philosophical theory will always be abstract and disconnected from the world that it is intended to act upon.

Thus, it defeats the glory in its own existence; the glimmer of insight into reality borne from it

I think I may detect a potential problem in this bit. If such philosophy is "total abstraction" and separated from and incapable of "any interdependence" with reality, then how does the philosophy ever attain any "glimmer of insight into reality"?

becomes an indiscriminate, all-consuming flame – with no distinction between reality and itself – utterly burnt to cinders by it.

So even though the philosophy and the reality are separate and different, the knowledge of this distinction becomes lost at some point? Maybe at the point that action is taken upon the world?

Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that “the world’s becoming philosophical is, at the same time, philosophy’s becoming worldly,” that the realisation of philosophy, its entire goal, purpose and meaning, is an appearance in the world, and not the appearance of its abstract form, i.e., a form for its own sake.

That sounds like it could mean that he fundamentally wants to rearrange the world, and that his philosophy is merely a useful tool to achieve that goal.

The world of appearances (that which opposes philosophy and that which philosophy struggles against) is always the same as philosophy, only with the causes of its existence reversed.

I don't understand that bit, especially "causes of its the existence reversed."

I'm suspicious of this idea that philosophy should or would oppose the world of appearance and struggle against it. That is the antithesis of what I consider to be philosophy. I think philosophy should be the ordering of understanding until the understanding no longer struggles against or opposes the world of appearance(or any part of reality.)

Your explanation of this Marx quote does give the general feel of being in sympathy with what Diebert said of Marx. If what Diebert said is true then I don't think I'd call these Marxist ideas philosophical in any deep way. I sense the driving forces of politics, agenda and power in his words - not the desire for understanding reality that I associate with real philosophy. It sounds more like political "philosophy"/theory taken to a rather abstract level.

What exactly is impressive about this quote to you?

I'm red colour-blind and don't follow sports teams or political parties and am vegetarian. Coincidence?

Which do you like eating best, if any: carrots, blueberries or cherries?

(Bloody hell. Next thing you know, you and Diebert will be working on my astrology chart.)

You don't see this essential struggle everywhere, Diebert? This struggle replete within philosophical circles between what is (appears) and how it ought to be even as it exactly concerns consciousness, will and desire?

Leyla Shen wrote:You don't see this essential struggle everywhere, Diebert? This struggle replete within philosophical circles between what is (appears) and how it ought to be even as it exactly concerns consciousness, will and desire?

So it's basically about humans' struggle to impose their ideas and wills upon the world? I do find that interesting.

Leyla Shen wrote:Which do you like eating best, if any: carrots, blueberries or cherries?

Carrots don't thrill me but I can't remember the last time I ate the other two or what they taste like exactly. I don't know which I would prefer.

Leyla Shen wrote:You don't see this essential struggle everywhere, Diebert? This struggle replete within philosophical circles between what is (appears) and how it ought to be even as it exactly concerns consciousness, will and desire?

The ought appears as just one flavor, one tactic in the struggle [or is it a dance] and perhaps it's closer related to ideology, a planning type of scheme, or scheming way of thinking. My point was about Marxism hardly qualifying as philosophy proper, although it builds on various philosophical ideas, no doubt.

Diebert:

Well, of course, the Communist Manifesto is a clear example of political ideology. Notwithstanding that, the paragraph quoted here is not what I would consider ideological. It is the philosophical basis for the political ideology.

The difference between philosophy and ideology is in logical (or critical) analysis. Ideology is ideology for as long as it is, for the individual, a set of doctrines rather than something arrived at by the individual through his own thinking. (And, oddly!, this is exactly the philosophical idea Marx is pointing to in the paragraph in question.) That is, the struggle – the inner defect – is over exactly when (opposing) inner philosophical defects are overcome (refer On the Jewish Question for further insight). That is:

…the world’s becoming philosophical is at the same time philosophy’s becoming worldly, that the realisation of philosophy is at the same time its loss, that what it struggles against outside is its own inner defect, that it is precisely in this struggle that it falls into the defects which it fights in its opponents, and that it can transcend these defects only by falling victim to them.

So, you see, Diebert, philosophically speaking, I think Marx was most definitely onto this. What do you think, and why is this not philosophically relevant to philosophy proper? That is, we do "struggle" to see enlightenment itself make an appearance, do we not?