Thoughts, Observations and Questions.

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Re: Thoughts, Observations and Questions.

Postby promethean75 » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:31 pm

promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Thoughts, Observations and Questions.

Postby promethean75 » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:05 am

rosa lichtenstein wrote:Notice that Marx tells us that they do this "in its whole range", and that they "rule as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age." This must mean that Traditional Philosophy was, and still is, an integral part of ruling-class ideology.

In Ancient Greece, with the demise of the rule of Kings and Queens, the old myths and Theogonies were no longer relevant. So, in the newly emerging republics and quasi-democracies of the Sixth Century BCE, far more abstract, de-personalised ideas were required. Enter Philosophy and Metaphysics. It is no accident then that these disciplines emerged just as Greek society was changing in the above way.

Hence, a 'world-view' is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling "in the same old way". While the content of this ruling ideology has altered with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth can ascertained by thought alone, and may therefore be imposed on reality, dogmatically. Philosophy thus became a Super-Science.

Philosophers felt they could read their doctrines into nature, since, for them, nature was 'Mind' (or it was the product of 'Mind' -- so, the Universe was ultimately 'rational'). In that case, the human mind could safely concoct and then project its thoughts onto this 'rational' Universe. But this is a thoroughly Idealist method, as US Trotskyist, George Novack, pointed out:

"A consistent materialism cannot proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason, intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source. Idealisms may do this." [The Origin of Materialism.]


Interview:
https://libcom.org/library/anti-dialectics
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Thoughts, Observations and Questions.

Postby promethean75 » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:15 am

Robinson’s main point was that modern philosophy evolved in order to meet the needs of the rising bourgeoisie. It aspires to be universal but conceals the very particular and historical needs of the class which was coming to power in the age of Descartes. One of the purposes of Marxism is to make this connection and expose the class bias of bourgeois philosophy.


https://louisproyect.org/2012/04/26/guy ... 1928-2012/
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Thoughts, Observations and Questions.

Postby promethean75 » Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:32 pm

contrary to what all the post-modernist critiques are telling you, there is far less nihilism today than ever before, because there is a much greater circulation and dissemination of values and meanings than every before. and it matters not the 'accuracy' of values and meanings regarding their correspondance to 'objective reality', because the question here is not 'what is the truth', but 'what is valuable and meaningful to you.' objectivist's love to lay claim to some 'true' understanding of what reality is, and then call anyone in disagreement, a nihilist. and yet therein lies the irony; epistemological nihilism champions such things as the uselessness of objective, scientific knowledge in providing reason for valuing. the 'naturalistic fallacy' is one such example. the question isn't 'what is true', but 'why ought i do x because this is true.' unless objective knowledge can produce an existential foundation for purposefulness, it amounts only to indifferent truth. here, the nihilist, by recognizing this, is actually the non-nihilist, and everyone else who denies these existential philosophical circumstances becomes the nihilist... those who profess to know what is 'right' and 'wrong', 'natural and unnatural'... as they like to say 'more in line with nature, etc.' what a fantastic reversal!

the general tenents of nihilism - that ultra-skepticism - produce the only truly honest epistemological position a philosopher can take, and in doing so casts the burden on the philosopher to create values. now given the fact that social complexity has reached unprecedented proportions in the modern world, there are far more forms and kinds of valuing taking place than ever before... so the world is anything but exempt of value and meaning. again, the question isn't about the veracity of the correspondance of value and meaning to 'truth', but the persistence in the having and holding values, in creating multi-faceted meanings through the available sources, whatever they be.

any narrative that purports to diagnose nihilism in a negative light, is, by virtue of its gross confusion pertaining to what nihilism means, coming from a true nihilistic perspective. this reversal is difficult to understand and i'm not too interested in elaborating on it much further at the moment. i shall therefore call this intellectual disturbance a 'pseudo-nihilism' and class all philosophers mounting an attack on such imaginary chimera according to this typology.

hereafter, anyone who shouts 'nihilist!' is a nihilist. which means; clueless. afraid. still doesn't get it. still pretends.

as W once said of the battle between the idealist and the realist; it isn't a matter of who has possession of the truth, but rather the indicative mood of the battle cry. the pseudo-nihilist cries 'without these values, you're a nihilist', while the nihilist cries 'if you still believe in 'proper' values with imperative meaning, you're a pseudo-nihilist.'

do you understand the profound difference between hypothetical and imperative valuing in a nature that is non-teleological? does the fact that nature has no purpose and is changing such that what is once valued is eventually cast away, frighten you? can you handle sudden upheavals in culture, society, economics and politics? does it bother you that the future of man is not in danger, that everything you hold sacred and call 'normal' is already becoming history? a massive autopoiesis is underway, and you are little more than a fossilized anachronism.

imma a anarcho-nihilistic futuristic historical materialist, and i report the facts at the speed of light. slower traffic keep right.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1658
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Previous

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users