it's all just partly true. But not all true. — ssu
Sure, there are some who would call themselves Marxists, but they aren't the majority. — ssu
Who wants to admit that everything they think has already been thought by a person that has been dead for ages? — ssu
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 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.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 wouldn’t worry. In 50 years today’s left wing will be the moderate center. — Joshs
it's good to know that they aren't the majority. — Apollodorus
Oh. Sounded like a worry.I wasn't worrying. Just stating a fact — Apollodorus
What is true in the present or the future depends how things go. — ssu
If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840. — Joshs
If you want to escape the influence of Marx in rigorous philosophy, you generally have to find philosophers born before 1840. — Joshs
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! — Apollodorus
Do you know of a philosopher who didn’t borrow from others? — Joshs
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. — Joshs
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
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
Wrote thousands and thousands of pages over the course of 40 years, no evidence he actually believed a word of it — Maw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.