|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:i am just a baby dumbass who was radicalized in the gutter, comrade. in that case, ignore me. what i said is ultimately speculative nonsense at this point, because it's about how to advance dialectical materialism. but, if you want a good intro to the philosophy of dialectical materialism as it stands, this is a good source: http://www.readmarxeveryday.org/epop/contents.html Finicums Wake fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Aug 20, 2020 |
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:i am just a baby dumbass who was radicalized in the gutter, comrade. don't feel bad, Kerbdesple-whateverism is masturbation for the worst kind of "intellectual marxists" at best, and far more likely "Ad Hoc Committee"* type provocation at worst. In any case, whatever their motives, and whoever their paymasters, they do the same kind of work as the lowest form of so-called Trotskyists, villifying any and every target of the empire, from Tehran to Beijing. *“A specific example of the ability of [Special Agent] Stallings is the fictitious counterintelligence ‘Ad Hoc Bulletin,’ ostensibly published by the also fictitious Ad Hoc Committee.” — Personnel file of FBI Special Agent Carl N. Freyman, 1964.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
Algund Eenboom posted:And yet you continue to post here. Curious, no? One might even go so far as to infer causality
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:don't feel bad, Kerbdesple-whateverism is masturbation for the worst kind of "intellectual marxists" at best, and far more likely "Ad Hoc Committee"* type provocation at worst. In any case, whatever their motives, and whoever their paymasters, they do the same kind of work as the lowest form of so-called Trotskyists, villifying any and every target of the empire, from Tehran to Beijing. what? was this generated by one of those deep learning AI things? it reads as nonsense, to me
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:if you have a smart phone already, then wearing a watch is a bourgeois affectation. cool how my $10 Casio is a bourgeois affectation, but the $350 pocketwatch with apps apparently isn't
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
apropos to nothing posted:there is hope but its in the fact that despite the repression the workers still are organizing and fighting for better conditions, not that the CCP is ensuring the GDP goes up fast enough yeah I guess I just like takes like this more, good vibes
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:cool how my $10 Casio is a bourgeois affectation, but the $350 pocketwatch with apps apparently isn't if you already have the $350 pocket watch, yet choose to wear an additional watch, it is indeed a bourgeois affectation. if you wear the casio in lieu of the smartphone-watch, then it is not. as my post said
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:24
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:if you already have the $350 pocket watch, yet choose to wear an additional watch, it is indeed a bourgeois affectation. the need to tell the time at a glance without hauling a big plastic brick out of your pocket or wherever you're keeping it is surely a sign of bourgeois degeneracy and not at all something that happens when you perform actual labour with your hands
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:28
|
|
|
Comrade Koba posted:the need to tell the time at a glance without hauling a big plastic brick out of your pocket or wherever you're keeping it is surely a sign of bourgeois degeneracy and not at all something that happens when you perform actual labour with your hands you're right, i retract my previous statements
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:what? was this generated by one of those deep learning AI things? it reads as nonsense, to me Which part? Do the anonymous "intellectuals" you're recommending not denounce the IRI as fascist, and the PRC as settler colonial?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:30
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:Which part? Do the anonymous "intellectuals" you're recommending not denounce the IRI as fascist, and the PRC as settler colonial? george politzer? torkil lauesens? ?? kerpsplebat, or however you spell, it is just the publisher. are you trying to argue that, because the publisher held the view that x, everyone they published also held those views? if not, even if one of those authors did denounce those people, as you claimed, what does that have to do with their explanations of dialectical materialism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:george politzer? torkil lauesens? ?? I'm telling an honest worker not to worry if they don't immediately grasp the obscurantist wank you recommend, if I were primarily addressing you my language would not be nearly so temperate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
kersplebedeb space program
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
need more ussr history
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 07:44
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:I'm telling an honest worker not to worry if they don't immediately grasp the obscurantist wank you recommend, if I were primarily addressing you my language would not be nearly so temperate. lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 07:47
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:hot take: the most advanced metaphysics (and therefore theories of materialism) have been in analytic philosophy. and most of what dialectics is trying to get at is captured by complex systems theory and poo poo like that. so if you want a fully updated take on what socialists meant by dialectical materialism that'll pass for Science, you'll need to integrate insights from those. yet no one is doing this, so diamat, as it stands, is a degenerative research program i'd say that materialism and science were synonymous when marx wrote, but this is no longer tenable as the idea of a deterministic universe turned out to be an artifact of unexamined religious assumptions (a clockwork universe is one in which which every point in time and space may be precisely determined by a creator at the point of creation) that were already collapsing in the face of science (ie, Brownian motion) and yet continue to undermine popular understanding of science to this day while at the same time it has become very clear that in many fields, emulation of science is a process whereby one replaces knowledge with an elaborate cargo cult for the sake of capital, or worse, racial supremacy Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
That's as substantial point as I'd expect from your type, but it does serve to affirm my least charitable preconceptions. Sincere carriers of the infantile disorder would at least try to make an argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 07:52
|
|
|
I almost missed that, Torkil Lauesen, my god, a failed Scandinavian bank-robber turned Third Worldist, shouldn't the Norwegian sex-criminals who denounced Mao as as first worldist have turned you off? Ah, but that would require a capacity for shame, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 08:01
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:That's as substantial point as I'd expect from your type, but it does serve to affirm my least charitable preconceptions. Sincere carriers of the infantile disorder would at least try to make an argument. are you accusing them of being a fed? given that your least charitable preconception was that they're ""Ad Hoc Committee"* type provocation". because if so lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 08:10
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:hot take: the most advanced metaphysics (and therefore theories of materialism) have been in analytic philosophy. and most of what dialectics is trying to get at is captured by complex systems theory and poo poo like that. so if you want a fully updated take on what socialists meant by dialectical materialism that'll pass for Science, you'll need to integrate insights from those. yet no one is doing this, so diamat, as it stands, is a degenerative research program the issue with takes like this is that a lot of the big stuff in philosophy of science was literally invented specifically to reject the thesis of scientific socialism as scientific - both popper and lakatos are pretty clearly in this camp, for instance. analytical formalism has its place, but even on its own terms it becomes very silly very quickly. i've gotten more useful insights from reading gadamer alone than i have everyone from frege to kripke - actually-existing science, for example, only cares about popper insofar as taking falsificationism as a formal requirement, no working scientist seriously tries to falsify their own theories
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
this becomes especially clear in the most applied philosophies like ethics, where analytical takes inevitably end up in some ridiculous hyper-theoretical dead end which are entirely irrelevant to anyone's actual lives and which thus fail the most basic test, which must be if one can improve the world using this knowledge in short, i am with montaigne on this issue: the real use of philosophy is to prepare for death
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 08:38
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the issue with takes like this is that a lot of the big stuff in philosophy of science was literally invented specifically to reject the thesis of scientific socialism as scientific - both popper and lakatos are pretty clearly in this camp, for instance. edit: like 95% or more of philosophy departments, and therefore philosophical output, is in the analytic tradition today, and for good reason. what's being produced these days usually has little to do with frege or kripke or popper or the like, so i'm assuming that, despite lambasting these Great Old Philosophers Known by Their Last Names, you probably wouldn't find current philosophy all that distasteful the following articles are the kind of metaphysics i'm talking about : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-ontology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-naturalistic/ Finicums Wake fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 08:44
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:no working scientist seriously tries to falsify their own theories i dunno, the people at cern certainly talk a good game on being disappointed that results aren't giving them any clues to what is wrong with current theory i mean sure they're also looking for indication that alternative theories might be correct also the entire field of psychology is in danger of being reduced to toilet paper because they didn't do the part of science that is broadly falsification, and as a result both of us likely believe things about psychology that have less material basis than astrology
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 08:59
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:analytic metaphysics is different than phil of science. it was basically revived by quine, much to his chagrin i'm guessing. but nowadays there's plenty of stuff relevant to marxism going on under the title 'social ontology'--i.e. trying to understand how social relations are able to give rise to things like institutions and organizations. the people writing this stuff aren't marxists, but they're basically arguing for why marx's methodology and metaphysics were correct in the first place i was trained by one of these departments and almost nothing i learned was in any way relevant to reality, it was mostly basically paper masturbation i left after doing a bachelor's, so perhaps that was too soon, but i feel as though i gave it a fair shot at that point
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:02
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:That's as substantial point as I'd expect from your type, but it does serve to affirm my least charitable preconceptions. Sincere carriers of the infantile disorder would at least try to make an argument. what is my type lol? your responses are insane, to me. like you're getting mad over some guy Torkil Lauesen, who i have not read and had not heard of until that other guy said he bought that book. why are you flaming me over some guy who i've never suggested anyone read, and have no relation to outside of seeing his name mentioned in this thread? i'm having a hard time grasping what problem, exactly, you have with me, rather than these other names being mentioned in conversation
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:04
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i was trained by one of these departments and almost nothing i learned was in any way relevant to reality, it was mostly basically paper masturbation maybe this is where we differ. i have no formal, institutional training in philosophy. and i'm only interested in the areas of philosophy that i am because i worked my way backwards there from marxism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:06
|
|
|
my understanding is that analytic philosophy dominates the anglo world, with the most popular alternative being continental (ie from mainland europe)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:i dunno, the people at cern certainly talk a good game on being disappointed that results aren't giving them any clues to what is wrong with current theory of course people do try to attack whatever paradigm is in charge, but if i have an idea about how the world is which nobody else has had, i'm not going to actively look for ways to demonstrate that i'm wrong, i'm going to try and construct a compelling narrative that lets me explain why my point of view is at least reasonable to consider and valid. falsificationism has a place in this in that it's a good rhetorical device (both good in the sense that it's effective and the sense that it's good for society that science values it as a rhetorical device), but at least from where i'm standing in the life sciences i've never seen anyone actually take it seriously beyond that. the actual reason for the rise of analytical philosophy in professional philosophy has very little to do with merit or usefulness, it's because it fits the model of scientific publication and the standards of the basically industrialised modern academy better. you can produce some theorem explaining something novel about certain propositions fairly easily, and those can be subject to meaningful peer review, at least so long as enough other people are also doing the same sort of philosophy. since the biggest and most prestigious universities that carry what happens to be the international language of academia are also overwhelmingly analytical, analytical philosopy blossoms and everything else dies away apart from some weirdos in, like, italy
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:09
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:i'd say that materialism and science were synonymous when marx wrote, but this is no longer tenable as the idea of a deterministic universe turned out to be an artifact of unexamined religious assumptions (a clockwork universe is one in which which every point in time and space may be precisely determined by a creator at the point of creation) that were already collapsing in the face of science (ie, Brownian motion) and yet continue to undermine popular understanding of science to this day it seems to me that both results-- that mechanistic materialism is false, and cargo cult scientism is a dead end--are relevant to those wanting to update marxism so that it is properly a scientific socialism
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:10
|
|
|
the academy has a web of incentives and restrictions which are almost entirely banal, production-related things, just like everywhere else. the actual merit of a theory matters much less than its form, who's pushing it, how it's funded etc. we've left the model of the academy as trying to replicate the gentleman scientist of old; now it's treating knowledge as a commodity, and like any other commodity it drives towards scalability, uniformity of standards and uniformity of doctrine. it's very hard to get anything published or recognised if it's not in english these days, for instance, outside of a few very select fields, which massively boosts the centrality of english-language institutions. in some cases, this is good, like in my own field; in many other cases, it's Very Bad, such as in social economy where a demented cult of the stock market has supplanted the more useful administrative perspective of old - a cult directly related, by the way, to the drive towards analytical formalism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:18
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:of course people do try to attack whatever paradigm is in charge, but if i have an idea about how the world is which nobody else has had, i'm not going to actively look for ways to demonstrate that i'm wrong, i'm going to try and construct a compelling narrative that lets me explain why my point of view is at least reasonable to consider and valid. falsificationism has a place in this in that it's a good rhetorical device (both good in the sense that it's effective and the sense that it's good for society that science values it as a rhetorical device), but at least from where i'm standing in the life sciences i've never seen anyone actually take it seriously beyond that. it's taken extremely seriously in physics. if your experiment doesn't falsify the theory being tested it will simply never get attempted, ever. now there's plenty of useless papers that do nothing or very little to survive the publish-or-perish pressure of academia, but they take the form of analyses of toy models and existing data, not theories pushed without merit. for instance, MOND is basically unfalsifiable and it's treated as a joke theory in most physics circles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:19
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:of course people do try to attack whatever paradigm is in charge, but if i have an idea about how the world is which nobody else has had, i'm not going to actively look for ways to demonstrate that i'm wrong, i'm going to try and construct a compelling narrative that lets me explain why my point of view is at least reasonable to consider and valid. falsificationism has a place in this in that it's a good rhetorical device (both good in the sense that it's effective and the sense that it's good for society that science values it as a rhetorical device), but at least from where i'm standing in the life sciences i've never seen anyone actually take it seriously beyond that. it's more than attacking the current paradigm; the entire point of huge and enormously expensive particle colliders is that current theory is at a dead end. we know it's incomplete, and therefore wrong, but experiments keep confirming our expectations. we've poured enormous resources into new theory and ended up creating interesting new fields of math which do not seem to yield insight into physics. so it's an instructive point at which the problem is that without new empirical data our model of physics cannot be improved, and we're stuck going through a hypercharged version of medieval attempts to derive insight into material reality through Aristotle or the Tao. more in line with your understanding of the idea's value, though, the principle danger of having a novel theory and not actively looking for indications that it is wrong is that even if you don't check yourself, if you aren't open to the idea that you're full of poo poo when qualified people say you are, you just become one of the infinite cranks posting their pet theories in the comment section of pop science articles as proof that modified newtonian gravity solves everything
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:22
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:it's taken extremely seriously in physics. if your experiment doesn't falsify the theory being tested it will simply never get attempted, ever. i'll take your word for it, but also clarify since it's not obvious from my post that you quoted: what i mean isn't that people don't design experiments as showing X or the absence of X, it's that they'll design that experiment in such a way as to tilt the scale towards showing X rather than not-X, or to relativise the observation of not-X; in short, the scientist very much wants to see X. in life sciences, people will also frequently observe not-X without X being seen to have been conclusively falsified; this is probably different in most of physics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:28
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:it seems to me that both results-- that mechanistic materialism is false, and cargo cult scientism is a dead end--are relevant to those wanting to update marxism so that it is properly a scientific socialism sure, i'm just not sure that feeding it into whatever methodology is hot is a good place to start as i understand, the experimental phase of marxism is called revolutionary praxis, which is i guess a complicated subject?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:29
|
|
|
i'll lay my cards out on the table: i think any marxism worth having is going to be a scientific approach to socialism. if i have to look to analytic philosophy to help sort out the methodological and metaphysical issues, then so be it. whether analytic philosophy is only in vogue because it is easier for academics to publish that kind of work means nothing to me. i didn't finish an undergraduate degree, and probably never will. so arguments like: this type of philosophy is only dominant because it is a better fit for the imperatives of academia are irrelevant. the only thing i'm interested in is reconstructing marxism on a firmer, scientific foundation
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:30
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:what is my type lol? Umadbro? gently caress's sake, you terribly sad sack, I didn't know his name until you quoted him to me. You advocated for some NED adjacent Canadian pseudo intellectual publishing house, which based on its prior output, I despise, and I am not shy about saying so, but this comes nowhere near a substantial point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:33
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:it's more than attacking the current paradigm; the entire point of huge and enormously expensive particle colliders is that current theory is at a dead end. we know it's incomplete, and therefore wrong, but experiments keep confirming our expectations. we've poured enormous resources into new theory and ended up creating interesting new fields of math which do not seem to yield insight into physics. so it's an instructive point at which the problem is that without new empirical data our model of physics cannot be improved, and we're stuck going through a hypercharged version of medieval attempts to derive insight into material reality through Aristotle or the Tao. ah OK i misunderstood where you were going, apologies
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:33
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i'll take your word for it, but also clarify since it's not obvious from my post that you quoted: what i mean isn't that people don't design experiments as showing X or the absence of X, it's that they'll design that experiment in such a way as to tilt the scale towards showing X rather than not-X, or to relativise the observation of not-X; in short, the scientist very much wants to see X. in life sciences, people will also frequently observe not-X without X being seen to have been conclusively falsified; this is probably different in most of physics. Again, not really the case in physics. As Hodgepodge correctly stated, physics is at a dead end even though we definitely aren't done with it, and we need new data. So experiments that are designed are very robust, with falsification of theories as their first point. Do people stan for their theories? Sure, but that's just being human. But if you do not open yourself up to critique and analysis towards falsification, your theory is treated as what it is - a joke. It's an integral part of the process. Basically the last person to 'get away' with resisting falsifiability was Einstein (fun trivia: an ardent socialist!), and 1) he was literally Einstein 2) a century ago 3) and he still accepted the falsification of some of his ideas in the end. Now if you wanna argue that physics is exceptionally good at this and other sciences are not, yeah, I would agree, but there are plenty of scientists who want to do things right is my point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:37
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:Umadbro? gently caress's sake, you terribly sad sack, I didn't know his name until you quoted him to me. You advocated for some NED adjacent Canadian pseudo intellectual publishing house, which based on its prior output, I despise, and I am not shy about saying so, but this comes nowhere near a substantial point. the only thing i advocated for was george politzer's book about materialist philosophy. i asked the other guy who mentioned politzer to let us know, itt, whether the other guy's explanation (published by the cursed kerpsbleblap!!) of marxist materialism was good or not. what the gently caress is objectionable about that, you loon?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:ah OK i misunderstood where you were going, apologies it's cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:46
|
|