|
Captain Billy Pissboy posted:Thesis: I want to bang my maid i want to bang this post been laughing about it since yesterday
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
twoday posted:Actual question: the trivial cop-out answer is that marxist thought is an ongoing process that explicitly responds to changes in material conditions. that includes responding to an evolving understanding of history. marx was responding to and critiquing capitalism in his time as he understood it, and marxists today do the same in our time. the connection is the tools that we use (historical materialism, dialectics) and the point of view we bring with us (class, workers as producers of value and capitalists as appropriators of value). but i feel like you're coming at marx from a rationalist/empiricist standpoint if you're thinking about it in terms of "incorrect information yields incorrect theories". i suppose what you're really getting at is "how do we know marx was right?" from my standpoint, that's a simpler, but equally fraught way to think about it (whats it mean to be "right" in this context?) im gonna have to let someone who actually did the assigned reading unpack this for you
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
twoday posted:Yes, the first two paragraphs of your post were the conclusions I came to myself. marxism is strong because it doesn't require a rationalist or empiricist epistemology those epistemologies goof up right out the gate by presuming that knowledge can be independent from the knower -- that theres some independent Standard of Truth that exists outside the material world and outside of history by deploying the idea of dialectics, we know better to try separating knowledge from the knower. both are to be conceived as part of a holistic system -- the world, materiality the lesson to learn here is that your initial assumptions matter a lot. for example, if you assume there's such a thing as "class", and you acknowledge and affirm the limitless interconnectivity between "class" and "everything else", then you can comment intelligently on our present circumstances under capitalism. on the other hand, if you assume that a theory can be proven valid (that there IS a correct theory, and marxism is either it or its not), then you're getting away from dialectics and towards rationalism and/or empiricism. the problem is that you wind up asking questions that cannot be answered a better question to ask of a theory is whether it "works", whether it's useful. whether it's fruitful or whether it closes up on itself anyway sorry for the epistemological call out. god bless you for doing the reading
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
how about instead of epistemology its "piss tape-ology" and its the study of how to know that the piss tape is real
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
i was fortunate enough to learn about marxism and epistemology in a classroom setting but i never really learned about foucault, which is a shame because i guess he shows how those discredited epistemologies can be weaponized by those in power
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
thx 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2019 18:53
|
|