GENIUS FORUMS

Bobo wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Liberation cannot be caused by ourselves. What one can do is not losing what's already given. If any quality should be used to describe human being, it's this propensity to get lost. And that's where the rational kicks. Antidote for confusion, both bastard child of consciousness.

And how do you think one can lose what is already given?

And why do you think it's distributed equally?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And why do you think it's distributed equally?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: When it comes to human nature, Marx talks like a woman. The theory never allows itself to become philosophy simply because the philosopher is not there. He's consumed with the concerns you'd expect from a woman.

Marx wrote:That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me, connecting me with nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds? Can it not dissolve and bind all ties? Is it not, therefore, also the universal agent of separation? It is the coin that really separates as well as the real binding agent – the chemical power of society.

[I've heard he is a jew too...]

Dennis Mahar wrote:Did Marx do what I postulated concerning Marx.

I haven't got a problem with winning formulas.
it's what we do.

Mind generates environmental possibilities.

Bobo wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: When it comes to human nature, Marx talks like a woman. The theory never allows itself to become philosophy simply because the philosopher is not there. He's consumed with the concerns you'd expect from a woman.

No doubt about that one.[I've heard he is a jew too...]

Marx wrote:That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. ... If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me, connecting me with nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds? Can it not dissolve and bind all ties? Is it not, therefore, also the universal agent of separation? It is the coin that really separates as well as the real binding agent – the chemical power of society.

Marx wrote: Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things – the world upside-down – the confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities.

Marx wrote: Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune.

Leyla Shen wrote:That's it? That's all you've got? That's the extent of your rebuttal; your genius "masculine" philosophy?

Marx wrote:if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love ... then your love is impotent – a misfortune.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's also a near perfect demonstration of Marx his underlying problem notwithstanding his impressive work: a complete mis-perception of human nature, philosophy and love.

Bobo wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's also a near perfect demonstration of Marx his underlying problem notwithstanding his impressive work: a complete mis-perception of human nature, philosophy and love.

And geography, genes, randomness, etc.

movingalways wrote:You must admit Leyla, Marx's statement about love is about conditional love, not love for (infinite) form, the unconditional variety. His "I'll give you love if you give me love back in return" philosophy assumes that subject and object are not unified, that one must find an object of love "outside" in order for subject "inside" to feel potent, does it not?

if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love ... then your love is impotent – a misfortune.