Who criticized him and for what? Marx called himself a materialist and differed only on what he called Hegel's idealism. — Jackson

Fine.

Let's start by looking at how Hayek and company were a reaction to fascism. Interested?

nice, didn't know :up:

I'm not insulting Marx by the observation that history has left him behind. It's just a fact. — frank

One only leaves a thinker behind by incorporating the valuable features of his work into a new whole, such as to think him better than he thought himself. I’m not convinced you or Hayek understand very much about the history of philosophy since Hegel, that is to say , all of the philosophies and social sciences which have benefited from his influence. A central feature of post-Hegelian thought is the appreciation that individual knowing is the product of interactive dynamics within a cultural community, that knowledge and values are in large part socially constructed through language. Post-Hegelians are thus moral relativists rather than moral realists.
Conservative post-Hegelians maintain that there are certain higher order universal valuative principles that are not themselves relative to culture, whereas postmodernists argue that all morality is culture -relative.

postmodernists argue that all morality is culture -relative. — Joshs

Would not agree with that assertion. Does any culture believe stabbing and murdering people is acceptable (outside of war!)?

One only leaves a thinker behind by incorporating the valuable features of his work into a new whole, such as to think him better than he thought himself. I’m not convinced you or Hayek understand very much about the history of philosophy since Hegel — Joshs

So. You're saying Marx is ground zero for everything in philosophy since Hegel?

Probably not.

Does any culture believe stabbing and murdering people is acceptable (outside of war!)? — Jackson

Are you asking if a culture believes doing immoral things is moral? The answer is no. You know why? Because labels like ‘murder’ already presuppose the condemning of the perpetrator as immoral. You need to ask the question differently. Let’s let social constructionist Ken Gergen lay out the issue:

“Constructionist thought militates against the claims to ethical foundations implicit in much identity politics - that higher ground from which others can so confidently be condemned as inhumane, self-serving, prejudiced, and unjust. Constructionist thought painfully reminds us that we have no transcendent rationale upon which to rest such accusations, and that our sense of moral indignation is itself a product of historically and culturally situated traditions. And the constructionist intones, is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy?“

Are you asking if a culture believes doing immoral things is moral? — Joshs

No. Just what I said. Stabbing people for fun. What culture thinks that is good?

You're saying Marx is ground zero for everything in philosophy since Hegel?

Probably not. — frank

You treat figures like Marx as though their ideas are hermetically sealed products that are either used or discarded, and bear little connection to a larger history of thought.

There is a rich, interwoven tapestry of philosophical
positions that spread out in the wake of Hegel , just as Hegel himself belonged to a web of ideas going back before him. Marx is just one of dozens of important writers who emerged beginning in the mid 1800’s who contribute to this fabric. There are so many interconnections between authors like Hegel , Marx , Feurbach, Kierkegaard, Freud, Habermas, Adorno, Focault , Derrida, Piaget Sartre, James , Lacan, Bergson, Nietzsche and Heidegger that it is silly to try and wall any of them off from each other as either useful or not , relevant or irrelevant. None of them are ground zero. Instead, they are all nodes in the larger network
of thought and all are still useful.

No. Just what I said. Stabbing people for fun. What culture thinks that is good? — Jackson

You just did it again. Saying someone stabs someone else for fun is interpreting their behavior as willfully immoral. We assume the person deliberately caused harm because they enjoyed being cruel. We assume they lacked caring and empathy. But to label them as immoral we have to stop the analysis there, and not inquire how someone could come to feel that way about others. We have various psychiatric labels which help, such as sociopathy and psychosis. But most of us tend to believe in a notion of willful evil.

Sure. But the economic ideology organizing the global economy is presently neo-liberal, not Marxist. That's the palpable relavence I referred to.

Is there left and right philosophy? Absolutism vs. Relativism? One objective reality vs. many?

Sustainable economy vs. economical growth?

The scientific method vs. Against method?

You just did it again. Saying someone stabs someone else for fun is interpreting their behavior as willfully immoral. — Joshs

What is positive side of killing someone for fun? Nothing to do with moral or immoral. Why would any society want people to do it?

What is positive side of killing someone for fun? Nothing to do with moral or immoral. Why would any society want people to do it? — Jackson

I thought we were talking about moral relativism.

postmodernists argue that all morality is culture -relative.
— Joshs

Would not agree with that assertion. Does any culture believe stabbing and murdering people is acceptable (outside of war!)? — Jackson

I thought we were talking about moral relativism. — Joshs

Okay, I should not comment anymore.

That's interesting. Neither extreme can accept diverse viewpoints, so in a sense they're both collectivist in their own ways. Is that what you mean? — frank

Yes. Being a moderate or independent typically means youre anti-extremist and anti-collectivist.

Yes. Being a moderate or independent typically means youre anti-extremist and anti-collectivist. — Harry Hindu

Are you a moderate?

What is the left now, and what is the far left? Who is the far left? — frank

Defining "the left" and "the far left" is like using a cheap microscope. The image jerks in and out of focus at the slightest touch; artifacts of light and cheap lenses distort the image, whether it is in focus or not. It's very frustrating and unsatisfactory,

More, the left and far left are not just one species. The 'left' of identity politics has nothing to do with the "left" descending from 19th century philosophers and revolutionaries.

For me, the "Liberal Left" means strong labor organizations, active governmental regulation, active government involvement in bringing about a more equitable society, and a strong program of civil rights. The "Far Left" or hard left means a program to eliminate capitalism, and institute a socialist economy, and which does not implicitly or explicitly require an authoritarian solution.

There are all sorts of social movements which are neither "far left", "left", "right" or "far right". Sexual liberation movements, whether it is about women, gays, or gender, are not "left" or "right" -- they are simply activism towards the affinity group's goals. There was nothing essential in gay liberation that involved economic reorganization.

It makes no difference, though, how you or I define "left" or "far left" because people will continue to deploy these (and a lot of other terms) in a helter skelter manner.

Little remains of the "left" or "far left" of my youth (60 years ago). The last generation of people for whom "left" and "leftist" had a fairly clear meaning are dead or will be gone in another decade. This passing isn't anything tragic or new; it's normal.

Defining "the left" and "the far left" is like using a cheap microscope. — Bitter Crank

Conservatives use the "far left" as a rhetorical device to devalue liberals. A meaningless term.

Little remains of the "left" or "far left" of my youth (60 years ago). The last generation of people for whom "left" and "leftist" had a fairly clear meaning are dead or will be gone in another decade. This passing isn't anything tragic or new; it's normal. — Bitter Crank

That was a helpful post. Thanks.

Do you know what has taken the place of the left-right conflict? Is there a conflict that's well formed enough to be named?

Do you know what has taken the place of the left-right conflict? Is there a conflict that's well formed enough to be named? — frank

In the US it is the GOP fascist party versus democracy.

The L vs R conflict was at one time fairly clear and structured. Labor vs capital, for instance. It isn't the case that labor and capital are now united. Rather, capital was fairly successful in suppressing the labor movement.

When clear, structured conflict faded, it was replaced by less well organized, more dispersed conflict. In the 1960s, there were hippies, women's libbers, gays, blacks, peaceniks, etc. all trying to achieve life-style changes, as opposed to major structural changes. In saying that I am not denigrating any of the various 'movements'.

The movements of the 1960s have played themselves out, to a large extent, or have run into very resistant barriers.

The movements of the current decades are even less well structured than those of the 1960s and 1970s and are even more personal and limited. They are further out on a limb, so to speak. The trans movement sometimes runs into conflict with right-wing movements, such as in Florida. The "right to life" movement has, after 50 years, almost achieved its goal of ending Roe vs. wade. On the one hand we have gender activists redefining sexuality and family, and conservatives defending their idea of family.

A lot of "what is going on" seems very "edgy" which is to say, not highly understandable, probably not widely supported. Four year olds switching genders and reactionaries who want to see women back in the kitchen in heels like 1950s advertisements, are both "far out". Left and Right just seem irrelevant terms for such of this (crap).

A lot of "what is going on" seems very "edgy" which is to say, not highly understandable, probably not widely supported. Four year olds switching genders and reactionaries who want to see women back in the kitchen in heels like 1950s advertisements, are both "far out". Left and Right just seem irrelevant terms for such of this (crap). — Bitter Crank

:up: Bizarre times indeed.

Happy International Workers' Day! :victory: :flower:

Happy International Workers' Day! :victory: — 180 Proof

It's 1 May... Not the first of April.

Well, at least you're 'literate enough' to read a calendar, lil troll.

Well, at least you're 'literate enough' to read a calendar, lil troll. — 180 Proof

A lot of "what is going on" seems very "edgy" which is to say, not highly understandable, probably not widely supported. Four year olds switching genders and reactionaries who want to see women back in the kitchen in heels like 1950s advertisements, are both "far out". Left and Right just seem irrelevant terms for such of this (crap). — Bitter Crank

It just sounds like you're saying the American culture has arrived in an ideological ditch.

Are we just in limbo in between wars and economic disasters? I think sometimes about how the 20th Century started with a pandemic, a world war, and an economic disaster, and in the US there was also an environmental disaster that affected the Great Plains and the Tennessee Valley. Could this century be repeating that? That’s probably too simplistic.

A drainage ditch, for sure.

In some ways "life is limbo". It's kind of fluxy. We might get to experience prolonged periods of placid pleasantness, but... rest assured: it will be disrupted eventually,

Epidemics were far more common prior to 1950 (thanks to antibiotics), Tuberculosis was the leading cause of death into the 20th century, Economies have periodic recessions, or depressions; what it gets called depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Depressions and recessions are recurrent events in US history. For instance:

The Panic of 1873 lasted 5 - 1/2 years, and was world wide. The economy shrank by 34%. Ten years later there was a recession where the economy shrank by 24% and lasted 3 years. There were two more recessions in the next few years. In 1893 there was another depression, quite severe, that lasted for 4 years, After that there were recessions every few years, or a depression.

Upheavals, actually, are more the rule than the exception. There are natural disasters, wars, epidemics, economic collapses, revolutionary technological changes, political revolutions, and so on. If it isn't one thing it's something else,

Upheaval isn't all bad; disasters can have a very stimulating effect. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake resulted in a lot of reconstruction -- good for business, good for jobs good for the GDP. The multi-city riots of 2021 were likewise stimulating--as the saying goes, "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good".

Should one, therefore, not worry? Remain Calm? Keep on the sunny side of the street?

That approach doesn't work for me, that's for sure. But we can at least expect bad things to happen -- plan on them, prepare ahead.

:up: