it's all just partly true. But not all true. — ssu

Indeed. And I suppose it would also depend on how big the true part is. But we shouldn't speculate on that because who knows what conclusions it might lead to.

What is true in the present or the future depends how things go. One might describe very accurately a specific narrative that would happen what in the end, because of a minor issue doesn't happen, and get it wrong. Or then by accident describe what actually happens straight to the letter. How the butterfly happens to fly does have an effect on what happens,

Sure, there are some who would call themselves Marxists, but they aren't the majority. — ssu

Don’t forget the post -Marxists. That would
include fans of William James, Sartre, Derrida, Heidegger, social constructionism , deconstruction , phenomenology, Freudianiam and neo-Freudianism, post-structuralism and post-modernism, just to name some figures and movements. If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840.

Well, being "post"-everything is so hip. Who wants to admit that everything they think has already been thought by a person that has been dead for ages?

[reply="ssu;530659"

Well, being "post"-everything is so hip. — ssu

I don’t know anyone who is post-everything, but I do see intellectualideas in developmental terms , so any particular philosophy can be placedas pre something and post something else.

Sorry, I think I don't get your bottom line, could you rephrase that what you said?

Who wants to admit that everything they think has already been thought by a person that has been dead for ages? — ssu

A more important question is how many believe that everything cutting edge in science has already been produced by people that have been dead for ages.
I would say almost none. And yet they think there can be this disparity between scientific advancement and innovation in philosophy.

I'm sure there are some who are Marxists even if they don't call themselves that. But it's good to know that they aren't the majority. — Apollodorus

I wouldn’t worry. In 50 years today’s left wing will be the moderate center.

A more important question is how many believe that everything cutting edge in science has already been produced by people that have been dead for ages.
I would say almost none. And yet they think there can be this disparity between scientific advancement and innovation in philosophy. — Joshs

I think that many believe that it's only the small details that are open questions now. They assume that the big questions have been already answered and now it's only for the fine print to be accurately written. Few understand that there are large questions to be answered out there. That for starters we have little idea what infinity is, just to give one example. Starting from "simple" things as that in mathematics, our logical system does still have holes that some aren't ready to admit. Then there's the problem of subjectivity in science that tries to be objective. Again a logical puzzle that we have not been able to go around. Or some view as a hostile attack against the scientific method altogether.

It sounds like your view of what science does is based on the ideas of one of those philoaophers who have been dead for 200 years

I wouldn’t worry. In 50 years today’s left wing will be the moderate center. — Joshs

I wasn't worrying. Just stating a fact.

it's good to know that they aren't the majority. — Apollodorus

I wasn't worrying. Just stating a fact — Apollodorus

Oh. Sounded like a worry.

What is true in the present or the future depends how things go. — ssu

And things usually go depending on what's true in the present.

If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840. — Joshs

One of the most important movements in political philosophy was ushered in mid-twentieth century by the work of Leo Strauss. He is not easy to understand but very easily misunderstood. For this reason opinions about him are all over the place. He is deceptively simple. His language is jargon free. He returns to the works of Plato and Aristotle, but as a corrective rather than a viable alternative. He is critical of political science and value free social sciences in general, favoring instead political philosophy and the recognition of irreconcilable tensions of political life.

If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840. — Joshs

Marx and "rigorous philosophy"?

You mean like this bit from "The German Ideology"?

“... in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner …”

More like utopian idealism IMO

Youre missing the point. Marx is just one among a long list of philosophers and psychologists after Hegel who put Enlightenment liberalism under critique. There are two ways to critique Marx ( or Freud). One is to recognize his innovations and go beyond him. The other is to misread him and thus to dismiss what you’re not really understanding. The only way to deal with and counter aspects of wokeness that you find objectionable is to effectively understand the underlying philosophical basis so that you can move beyond it. You don’t stand a chance by throwing classical liberal ideas at it. Those values are on their way out one way or the other. Critical theory began 70 years ago as the work of a small group of continental philosophers. Now it has gained acceptance in practically every large university in the U.S.

One is to recognize his innovations and go beyond him. — Joshs

What "innovations"? Utopian socialism? Communism? Atheism? Class war? Revolution? Economic theories? All borrowed from others!

What "innovations"? Utopian socialism? Communism? Atheism? Class war? Revolution? Economic theories? All borrowed from others! — Apollodorus

Do you know of a philosopher who didn’t borrow from others?

You were just involved in thread where you justified linking psychological research with politics. Give me a short list of your favorite psychologists ( would Piaget, William James, Freud or Vygotsky be on that list?) and I’ll try and link them with Marx.

Do you know of a philosopher who didn’t borrow from others? — Joshs

Sure. But Marx borrowed copiously. Even the Communist Manifesto (1848) was largely based on the Manifesto of Democracy in the 19th Century (1847) by Victor Considerant and the Communist Credo (1846) by Moses Hess.

What I'm saying is Marx is far less original than some people think.

What I'm saying is Marx is far less original than some people think. — Apollodorus

The ‘some people’ that I respect are among the the most notable philosophers ( and psychologists) of the past 100 years, and they find Marx to be a seminal thinker. So you would have to go down that long list and explain why those thinkers should also be de-valued.

btw, can you give me the names of a few favorite
psychologists of yours?

The ‘some people’ that I respect are among the the most notable philosophers ( and psychologists) of the past 100 years, and they find Marx to be a seminal thinker. So you would have to go down that long list and explain why those thinkers should also be de-valued. — Joshs

However, there is an extensive literature on the inconsistencies of Marxist theories and concepts and in my experience objective academics tend to acknowledge them when they are informed of their existence.

See for example:

Richard Adamiack, ‘The “Withering Away” of the State: A Reconsideration’

Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”

See also the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Criticism of Marxism

I've addressed this on the other thread, "Marxism - philosophy or hoax?" and there is no point repeating myself here.

I just want to add that Marx and Freud tend to be treated in a much narrow context in the U.S. than in Europe. Here the focus is typically on applied political theory only, whereas among Continental philosophers he is looked at as a philosopher
with wide ranging interests, including ethics , aesthetics and psychology. Freud is thought of here only in terms of a clinical approach , whereas in Europe Freudianiam means much more than that.

It sounds like your view of what science does is based on the ideas of one of those philoaophers who have been dead for 200 years — Joshs

They had good ideas just what the scientific method was about. 200 years ago, that is.

No need for a post-modern approach on that.

The characterization of postmodern left-wing philosophy and Critical Theory as being somehow lunatic actually, as a form of expropriation, makes a lot of strategic sense.

Alan Sokal's Fashionable Nonsense is often cited as evidence of charlatanism on the part of left-wing academics, to varying degrees of applicability. I, myself, began to find fault with a lot of what I had read after reflecting upon Francois Laurelle's A Critical Introduction to Non-Philosophy, which did admittedly read as if it had been written as the pure production of text. The focal point of Sokal's work is Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, which I had been extraordinarily influenced by. Though I do now think that their text was kind of irresponsible, I do not think that it is just simply nonsense.

Both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations in Israel, Mossad, have incorporated A Thousand Plateaus within their respective operational strategies. It seems extraordinarily doubtful to me that either of those two parties can have been all that taken what Sokal alleges are mere left-wing trends. The characterization of such works as being written by "lunatics", therefore, is a way for think-tanks and Intelligence agencies to expropriate them from the Left. They're basically putting their theories to use, all the while characterizing anyone who would be willing to invoke them in a critique of their various machinations as "insane".

While it seems that the Right is just simply lacking in a respect for difference, among those who are fairly intelligent, and they do exist, a rather complex strategic machination is actually underway.

The characterization of such works as being written by "lunatics", therefore, is a way for think-tanks and Intelligence agencies to expropriate them from the Left. They're basically putting their theories to use, all the while characterizing anyone who would be willing to invoke them in a critique of their various machinations as "insane".

While it seems that the Right is just simply lacking in a respect for difference, among those who are fairly intelligent, and they do exist, a rather complex strategic machination is actually underway. — thewonder

Well, I think "strategic machination" is employed by the Left as much as by the Right. Marx did borrow a lot from his rivals while at the same time criticizing and attacking them for allegedly being "ignorant" or "insane". Lenin borrowed his "state capitalism" from capitalists like Taylor and Ford, etc.

I don't think the charge of "lunacy" was motivated by the Right's desire to expropriate ideas from the Left. I think the main reason why the Left was called "lunatic" was that leftist policies sounded like "lunacy" to ordinary people, including sometimes to leftists themselves. For example, not everyone on the left bought into the Marxist idea of abolishing private property and this remains the case to this day.

And, come to think of it, there is no evidence that Marx took his own ideas seriously. His real intention seems to have been to inspire others to start a revolution after which he could present himself as its ideological father and possibly as political leader - or at least as advisor to the revolutionary government. This appears to have been his intention in his 1850 Address to the Communist League of which he was a leader.

Huge self-own by Marx. Wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 years, no evidence he actually believed a word of it.

Huge self-own by Marx. Wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 years, no evidence he actually believed a word of it. — Maw

Well, conceivably, he did believe some of it. However, there is no evidence that he believed everything. Certainly, most people didn't seem to be convinced.

If you wrote something like this, would you believe it?

“… in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner …” - The German Ideology

Or like this

“Hence, in the value equation, in which the coat is the equivalent of the linen, the coat officiates as the value of linen. The value of the commodity linen is expressed by the bodily form of the commodity coat, the value of one by the use-value of the other. As a use-value, the linen is something palpably different from the coat; as value, it is identical with the coat, and therefore looks like the coat. Thus the linen acquires a value-form different from its natural form. Its existence as a value is manifested in its equality with the coat, just as the sheep-like nature of the Christian is shown in his resemblance to the lamb of God”

Capital Vol. I p. 60

Obviously, I might be wrong but it seems hard to believe.

Yup these both sounds good and correct to me :up:

Wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 years, no evidence he actually believed a word of it — Maw

And if a fiction writer wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 or more years, that would be evidence that he actually believed every single word of it. That's why we all believe fiction writers.

Yeah the Lord of the Rings and Capital are pretty interchangeable