I'm just trying to figure out what you feel is or is not materialist or materialistic when it comes to interest in such things as music, poetry, science, gardening and, say, the arts. — Ciceronianus the White

Nobody disputes that music, poetry, etc. can be enjoyable and even beneficial. However, the way I see it, it's a question of balance. A person may enjoy listening to Classical music whilst another may be dying of starvation. Materialist concerns are alright as long as they don't deflect attention from other concerns, e.g., from the moral or ethical sphere such as social or economic justice.

If you see God as some universal principle of goodness, justice, etc., i.e., of things that are of value to the individual and to society, then anything that diverts attention from that is detrimental.

Theoretically, Popper's radical critique of all historicism including communism is what got me started. — Olivier5

Well, I read R H S Crossman's Plato Today that was read by Popper who said it was similar to his own views. Toward the end of his book, Crossman presents his views on why Plato failed to establish the ideal state he was talking about in the Republic.

The main difficulty is that there is a seemingly insurmountable disconnect between what political theory would like to do and what is achievable in practice. Ironically, the same happened with the Fabian Socialism that Crossman (who was a Fabian) was advocating, hence the Fabians' subsequent introduction of the "Third Way" concept that was later implemented by Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair, and which was another failure.

In the case of Marx, his political theory doesn't really hold water and his much-publicized Capital says absolutely nothing about what is supposed to replace capitalism. So, ultimately, while political theorists of all shades are squabbling over what the ideal political system should be and do, the forces that really drive the economy, the corporate elites, carry on running (and to some extent ruining) the world as they please.

Unfortunately, this isn't going to change any time soon if ever. If we can't change things, at least we ought to be honest about the facts and not pretend that neo-Marxists or neo-liberals or whoever have all the answers when they clearly don't.

Yes, communism did put some pressure on capitalism but at what cost and to what end result? Communist pressure on capitalism was the argument of the Fabians who presented themselves as a compromise between communism and capitalism, but because social and economic projects proposed by Fabianism involve huge public expenses, capitalism eventually won.

I think it does seem a bit hazy, but ultimately it comes down to the way you look at it. It's a bit like science stating that the earth goes around the sun when ordinary perception suggests that it's the other way around. Sometimes different perspectives can be reconciled and other times they can't. So, you can use different perspectives for different purposes and/or in different situations or go for a hierarchy of perspectives in which scientific, psychological, and philosophical/logical perspectives are arranged in some kind of order that makes sense to you and, if possible, to others.

Well, yes, because people's belief is based on their perception of change. In the case of the sphere the object retains its shape, therefore, psychologically it is "the same object" with a different color whilst the cup has changed into a candle and, psychologically at least, it is a different object.

The way we perceive or interpret things psychologically isn't the same way they are seen in scientific terms.

If you are trying to learn something, you're not doing what it takes. — Olivier5

Neither are you if you keep denying the sources. I simply posted the quotes to demonstrate how people have different conceptions of what is good. For some people the "extirpation" or "disappearance from the face of the earth" of entire peoples in a world war is a "step forward", and for others it isn't. Some think revolution or insurrection is a good thing and others think it's a bad thing, etc.

Plus, you've already admitted that communism was a failure but are still maintaining that communism "was better than Nazism" as if that was a valid comparison. It's like saying that murderer A is better than murderer B because A murdered fewer people than B.

IMO the point is not to measure one evil against another evil but to measure both evils against what is generally accepted as good. If you choose to think otherwise, then that's fine by me. I don't care.

I also do not believe that pure or absolute flux is logically conceivable. In my opinion, it needs a non-flowing counterpart that makes it understandable what flux means through the contrast. — spirit-salamander

The same applies to change in general. You need a non-changing background or counterpart in order to notice changes in a given object.

For example, if two trains are simultaneously moving in the same direction at the same speed then a person standing or sitting in one of the trains may not notice that train's movement in relation to the other train. But he or she will notice it against the background of fields and other stationary objects that the train passes by.

From that perspective, the world can be in constant flux yet at the same time and on a different level changeless in the same way an object may preserve its external physical shape whilst its constitutive elements are changing.

we cannot be sure that the near death experiences don't point to something significant which may come after death. — Jack Cummins

If there is life after death, then presumably, there will be some form of consciousness in which case our mind may be pre-programmed for it and some sleep experiences and, indeed, NDEs may be a preparation for after-death states.

So, I tend to agree that research into sleep consciousness may lead to insights into after-death states.

Omnipotence and omnibenevolence are obviously compatible, as I just explained. Omnipotence involves being able to do anything......which includes being able to be omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time. — Bartricks

Correct. If an agent is essentially omnipotent then it is impossible for that agent to be non-omnipotent in any regard.

To pretend that a quote says X when it says Y, is a lie. — Olivier5

That's exactly what I'm saying. You're pretending that Engels didn't write that world war and the disappearance of entire "reactionary" peoples is a "step forward".

To post the same quotes several time, when once suffices, is the behavior of a mindless troll. — Olivier5

You gave no indication that you had noticed the quote, so I thought that posting it once may not have been sufficient. Plus, you seem to have a tendency of repeating yourself. You mentioned the word "lie" several times when once would have sufficed.

So, if I'm interested in the music of Brahms because I enjoy it, or in the poetry of Wallace Stevens because I enjoy it, does my interest in them have a materialist content? — Ciceronianus the White

I don't know you, so I can't tell. As I said, it depends:

My position is that it depends on the meaning you give to objects and the purpose for which you use them. You can use a knife to cut bread or kill someone. — Apollodorus

If something has a materialist meaning to you personally or has the effect of making you more materialist-minded, etc., then I suppose you could say that it has a materialist meaning, content or effect for you.

By the way, you don't need to be religious to see it that way. A person may be into making money or accumulating material possessions and another one can be more interested in culture, moral values or interpersonal .relationships. You can look on "God" as an universal principle of goodness or justice, etc., etc. But people who have a phobia against religion will still accuse you of being an "evangelist" or whatever.

He'd have everyone reading scripture and praying. The very obverse of spirituality. Monkish subservience, chaste obedience. — Banno

Not at all. I very rarely read scripture. Maybe you do, seeing that you are so knowledgeable on the subject.

As if guitar playing and flowers were not spiritual. — Banno

Actually, that's your statement, not mine.

My position is that it depends on the meaning you give to objects and the purpose for which you use them. You can use a knife to cut bread or kill someone.

Incidentally, the same is true of flowers or plants in general. Plants or plant extracts can be used for medicinal purposes in small doses or to kill someone in larger doses or quantities, etc.

IMO that isn't "doctrine", it's fact.

Sorry, but if they're immaterial because they refer to immaterial things, I wonder then what immaterial things may be. Things which are not material? — Ciceronianus the White

No idea. The word I actually used was "materialist" not "material".

If they have a materialist content, which they tend to do, then yes. — Apollodorus

It was my reply to @jorndoe's question:

Do interests in hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy count as belief in material possessions? — jorndoe

The "materialist content" of interests was what I was talking about.

You mean a guitar to play, flower seeds and a garden, a book to read, ...? — jorndoe

Anything that distracts from God, religion or spiritual things.

If you use your guitar etc. for religious purposes, e.g., to play religious songs, then it would be a different story.

Ultimately, it depends on your attitude and on the way material objects influence the way you relate to God and to spiritual matters.

I think the original meaning of "wise" - at least in a Greek context - was to be knowledgeable and skillful in practical matters. It later acquired the meaning of being wise like the Gods or God. Hence the term "philosopher" came to mean one who loved or desired wisdom and aimed to become wise like God as far as humanly possible.

Becoming wise probably starts with the realization of the limitations of your own knowledge, after which the more knowledge, especially of the practical kind, you acquire, the "wiser" you become.

I am interested in most traditions of current thought, but I may be the only person interested in the tradition of transpersonal philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I'm not saying it isn't interesting. And of course I know of John of the Cross and others. The problem is that this is a field of knowledge that has been largely neglected by science and even by mainstream psychology with the result that when you discuss these issues it tends to sound like "New-Age speak" which puts some people off or gives the impression that it doesn't belong on a philosophy forum, especially one with strong materialist (not to say anti-spiritual) inclinations. This applies particularly when addressing personal experiences.

God knows, (figure of speech) we are not all geniuses here, and almost all of us lack a basic grounding in knowledge. — god must be atheist

Well, your genius definitely surpasses everyone else's here. It must be terribly frustrating for you, so I understand.

lol Very funny. I think you're talking about yourself. Other than that, if you think that quoting Marx and Engels is a "lie", then you should take issue with the original authors.

At the moment, I am reading on the transpersonal school of philosophy, and I wonder if you have read much in this direction? — Jack Cummins

To be quite honest, transpersonal philosophy or psychology to me tends to evoke the image of school leavers going off to India to fill the ashrams, babble about “shakti” and “chakras” and ingest rather too many substances of the kind I would advise even my worst enemies against. In other words, what 180 referred to as “New Agery”. For some reason Jung’s advice against dabbling in Eastern spirituality (I think it was in Yoga and the West) that I read a few years back has never left me.

I have read some stuff by Wilber but it sounds very much like Advaita Vedanta coached in Western jargon and I usually prefer to go to the sources than have them interpreted for me by self-styled “gurus” and “experts”. Other than that, if it has anything to add to Plato and Plotinus, I don’t mind having a quick look at it, time permitting. 180 apparently has a degree in psych so maybe he knows more about it.

Thinking of following the example and retiring to the vita simplex et contemplativa yourself then?

If quoting Marx and Engels is "insulting" to them or to you, then that only proves my point, thank you. As for your "suspicion", it has nothing to do with anything either.

Atheist philosophers sometimes try to lay some kind of claim to Buddha on that account, as if he’s an atheist, — Wayfarer

That has been my experience, too. Buddhism is often seen as a convenient tool for weaning people away from religion and herding them into the atheist and neo-Marxist fold.

IMO that's a rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything.

I would rather be a farmer under Stalin than a Jew under Hitler. — Olivier5

I don't see any difference. Millions of farmers under Stalin died from starvation, forced labor, or were simply killed.

Plus, it is clear from Marx and Engels' statements that it was their intention to seize power for themselves.

“If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed […] To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [the democrats], whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition”

Marx & Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, May 1850

Also, IMO it's better to be a "peasant" than to be dead.

Besides, during the forty years of wilderness Marx was talking about, many Hebrews died, some killed by other Hebrews, others killed by God’s plagues, etc.

Exodus 32:

"26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

God killed many more of them for disobedience through plagues, etc.

"35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made …"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32&version=KJV

This is what Marx and Engels were talking about: the reactionaries or counterrevolutionaries will be killed.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

And he advocated the “extirpation of entire reactionary nations” which you seem to agree with:

“The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too. Is a step forward” (238).

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - Collected Works, Vol. 8, pp. 227 – 238.

Marx's true objective was to seize power. That's why he financed the purchase of arms for an insurrection in Belgium and called on the Communist League to seize power in 1850. Which is why the League was closed down and its members (except Marx who was hiding in England) arrested by the German police.

Marx has been the most impactful philosopher of all times, — Olivier5

He may have been "impactful" due to the massive propaganda by Engels and many others and, as I said, through the actions of his disciples like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

However, Marxist political theory has long been exposed as deliberately ambiguous, inconsistent, and nonsensical. This is the true reason behind communism's abject failure. Marx was a fraud.

"The inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s.[1] Andrew Kliman argues that since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, this undermines Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it as well as the correction of Marx's alleged inconsistencies.[62]

Critics who have alleged that Marx has been proved internally inconsistent include former and current Marxian and/or Sraffian economists, such as Paul Sweezy,[63] Nobuo Okishio,[64] Ian Steedman,[65] John Roemer,[66] Gary Mongiovi[67] and David Laibman,[68] who propose that the field be grounded in their correct versions of Marxian economics instead of in Marx's critique of political economy in the original form in which he presented and developed it in Capital.[69]

According to Leszek Kołakowski, the laws of dialectics at the very base of Marxism are fundamentally flawed: some are "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", yet others just "nonsense". Some Marxist "laws" are vague and can be interpreted differently, but these interpretations generally fall into one of the aforementioned categories of flaws as well.[82]"

Criticism of Marxism – Wikipedia

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

Richard Adamiack, '"The Withering Away of the State": A Reconsideration'

Nobody did much to try and stop the Holocaust. Even the people in the known and able to do something impactful, like the allied, did very little to try and stop it. So why single out the CC now, if not because of some old anti-catholic prejudice? — Olivier5

Correct. And being a Nation of Islam supporter doesn't improve things either.

BTW you said that Marx achieved “far more than Hitler”.

Marx achieved far more than Hitler. You can say what you want of Stalin but the USSR was a country of peasants in 1917, and it won the space race less than 50 years later, while also winning the second world war in the meantime... So communism did work for them, in a way that Nazism did not. — Olivier5

However, Marx never achieved anything personally, did he? His only “achievements” were through Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and other dictators and mass murderers.

Of course communism worked for the Communist Party and the whole parasitic class of Marxist ideologists. Unfortunately, it didn’t work for the millions who died from starvation under Stalin or Mao.

And it isn’t true that the Soviets “won the space race”. The truth is that they managed to kidnap more German engineers and scientists and steal more German technology than the Americans and the British.

Operation Osoaviakhim – Wikipedia

It’s a well-know fact that the Soviet Union lived on stolen technology into the 1980s when Reagan stopped that (as well as cutting off financial assistance) after which the regime simply collapsed.

Do interests in hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy count as belief in material possessions? — jorndoe

They can do. Depends on the hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy. If they have a materialist content, which they tend to do, then yes.

The apology was for not having done anything to stop the Holocaust, not for "their role in the Holocaust". Try again, with less hatred in your heart. — Olivier5

It looks like @!80 is up to his usual tricks, which isn't surprising.

However, the way I see it, the apology was not "for not having done anything to stop the Holocaust" but rather "for failing to take more decisive action". Not for not doing anything, but for not having done more.

Emily Qureshi-Hurst is a D.Phil. Candidate in Theology (Science and Religion) at Pembroke College — Wayfarer

“I work in the philosophy of religion and its intersection with the philosophy of physics. This comes under the bracket of science and religion, which is an academic discipline or set of academic conversations, which is dominated by people who are normally committed to a particular religion. But I'm not religious myself. “

Science and Salvation | Spirituality & Health (spiritualityhealth.com)

So, Hurst works in the philosophy of religion but is not religious herself. Sounds about right. Just what I thought.

Might Marx be the Moses of his tradition, doing God's work to free people from slavery but in a way he could understand it? — Kenosha Kid

Good point. Messianic socialism seems to have been taken seriously by some in the past, and perhaps still is. But that would depend on a number of factors, such as how we define "freeing people from slavery". Can the Marxist "class dictatorship of the proletariat" be equated with "freedom"?

Killing "in the name of God" (or "destiny") is, IMO, a greater evil than killing in the name of the State alone (e.g. USSR, PRC, Khmer Rouge, NK) because in the latter case the killers know (and accept via indoctrination) that they sacrifice their guilt-less consciences to "the glory and defense" of the State, in contrast to those "doing God's will" and who thereby "believe" they are absolved of all guilt ("sin") — 180 Proof

Any evidence for that or is it just personal opinion?

I can't think of anything that is ideology free, can you? — Tom Storm

Not really. That's what I'm saying. Even scientific disciplines may develop their own ideologies and the same applies to all systems of thought. Obviously, even more so to political systems. But some seem to think that just because their system isn't religious, this somehow makes it automatically "better". In reality, a lot of human knowledge is based on belief, religious or otherwise.

Yeah, religion...or ideology. — Janus

The problem is some seem to imagine that ideology is somehow "better" than religion. Which of course isn't the case. There are lots of ideologies that are just as bad if not worse than religion. Any system that is too dogmatic tends to lead to more problems than it solves.

Yes, quite possibly, you are confusing me with more than just one other person.

In any case, I’m not aware of any belief in Platonism about a “God who forgets”. On the contrary, the only one who forgets is the human soul, which is why it descends into the world of matter (Enneads III 1, 15). And even the soul has the potential to remember its true identity and return to its original source.

Marx achieved far more than Hitler. You can say what you want of Stalin but the USSR was a country of peasants in 1917, and it won the space race less than 50 years later, while also winning the second world war in the meantime... So communism did work for them, in a way that Nazism did not. — Olivier5

You're just proving my point really. IMO it's better to be a "peasant" than to be dead. So we'll have to disagree on that one.

Besides, during the forty years of wilderness Marx was talking about, many Hebrews died, some killed by other Hebrews, others killed by God’s plagues, etc.

Exodus 32:

"26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

God killed many more of them for disobedience through plagues, etc.

"35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made …"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32&version=KJV

This is what Marx and Engels were talking about: the reactionaries or counterrevolutionaries will be killed.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

And he advocated the “extirpation of entire reactionary nations” which you seem to agree with:

“The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too. Is a step forward” (238).

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - Collected Works, Vol. 8, pp. 227 – 238.

If you remember your Bible, the Hebrews in question were not exterminated. — Olivier5

No one said they were. But if you remember your Bible many thousands died. This is what Marx was talking about. And, like Engels, he expected many to be killed as a result of the revolution the two of them were promoting.

It is an unfortunate polemical statement. It's very different from Hitler's "scientific racism". — Olivier5

Unfortunate or not, it was made, it was racist, and advocated the physical "extirpation of entire nations". It's the same ideology. The only difference is that Marx and Engels had no means of implementing their ideology whereas Hitler did. And before him, Lenin and Stalin.

Besides, Hitler didn't exterminate the Slavs either. In fact, he changed his policy from extermination to Aryanization.

Well then, you should be able to find a quote where he expresses the idea. — Olivier5

You should be able to read the quotes I have already provided.

Marx wrote:

"The revolution, which finds here not its end, but its organizational beginning, is no short-lived revolution. The present generation is like the Jews whom Moses led through the wilderness. It not only has a new world to conquer, it must go under in order to make room for the men who are able to cope with a new world"

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/ch03.htm

Engels wrote:

“… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution” (234) […] “the Germans and Magyars have assumed the historical initiative. They represent the revolution … The Southern Slavs represent the counter-revolution (236) […] “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too. Is a step forward” (238).

- “The Magyar Struggle”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 13 Jan. 1849

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - Collected Works, Vol. 8, pp. 227 – 238.

Engels was Marx's close friend and collaborator and was writing in Marx's paper Neue Rheinische Zeitung. As publisher of his own paper, Marx obviously agreed with what he was publishing.

Marx and Engels' idea of Germans making a united front with the Hungarians and others against the Slavs and exterminating the Slavs, appears virtually word-by-word in Nazi ideology.

Concentration camps have been used by many others including the US. The real Nazi innovation was the death camps, the factories of death. — Olivier5

Sure. However, you forget that concentration camps for political prisoners were used by Marxists like Lenin and Stalin long before the Nazis. You also forget the Red Terror launched by Lenin to exterminate "counterrevolutionaries". And you forget the millions that died under Lenin and Stalin before Hitler even came to power. You condemn one form of mass murder and genocide and condone another.

Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia

You mean by encouraging lucid dreaming? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not necessarily. Just soliciting some kind of answer to the question as to why you have no dreams or if you have, why you can't remember them.

Presumably, the subconscious is a form of consciousness that is part of yourself. If true, then it should understand the question and come up with some kind of answer.

You may not get your answer immediately, or you may get a "coded" one, or again, no answer at all.

But there is no harm trying it as a practical experiment. You've got nothing to lose and everything to gain should the experiment be successful. If so, it will be something we all can learn from.

I don't see Marx planning the final extermination of all Slavs in any of those quotes and links you posted. — Olivier5

Of course you don't. Marx was incapable of planning his own household let alone anything else. That doesn't mean that he didn't express the idea or that his idea didn't turn up in Nazi ideology.

There are many other things the Nazis borrowed from the Marxists: the idea of a mass party and ideology, the idea of revolutionary violence as a natural means for progress .... — Olivier5

That was exactly what I was saying. But you seem to have forgotten the concentration camps copied by Hitler from Marxists like Lenin and Stalin.

Gulag - Wikipedia