— substantivalism has engaged with you at length. It is not just my mere opinion that you change the topic, this can be verified. As for our exchange, which never even really occurred, and nor will it after observing your sophistry, I did not have the burden of proof. My activity on this Forum is certainly not that of a troll. This is all I have to say to you.

You have done more than enough for 3017amen. :grin: It's clear he just continues to change the subject. I have met some intelligent people on this Forum, he is not one of them, his intellectual insecurity is brutally painful to see. He is one of the most incompetent dialecticians I have encountered on this Forum. It's pretty obvious when he shows up in threads that he is limited to the same stale polemic ("explain your consciousness homie") and the same shallow techniques. I have no doubt this stuff works on people around him, but it is not the stuff of thought, it is lacking in honesty and intellectual integrity, which usually means a thinker is just trying to prove something to themselves or other people as opposed to going after truth. It's pretty clear that he's afraid to discuss his theism with any kind of transparency, because he's afraid he might lose it, which is a well founded fear.

I just kind of feel bad because you're clearly ideologically possessed. — BitconnectCarlos

Every person possess some kind of ideology, the question has to do with the concrete nature of ideology. It is ideological to see yourself as a self-made, autonomous individual, when as a matter of empirical fact, every quality you possess came from society. This is not my opinion, not my mere ideology, but the actual concrete, material fact of your being. Have you ever tried to account for the qualities or defects of a person? They do not arise spontaneously, human agents are products of the social processes through which they pass. You are no different, but your ideology makes you think you are better, it also deceives you into thinking that your cognitive abilities are the result of your effort and will. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is I who feel bad for you because you're clearly ideologically possessed. Again, this is not just my assertion or my opinion. The interplay between your right and left brain is crucial to your cognitive faculties, how your brain develops in this sense is not in your power, you are and were the passive recipient of this process.

In this way emotions, if even relegated to, or especially if most rigorously relegate to, the most infinitesimal term, actually rule the count. — Gary M Washburn

In my opinion this is basically the secret to the world of man as well as man himself.

In one of his works he argued in favor of torture and separately in favor of treating beliefs like actions. — Coben

What I have learned about Atheists and intellectuals in general is that they don't actually have an education until they understanding sociology and political theory, specifically the rich variety of humanist thought contained in the Liberal tradition. And this does not mean Libertarians or Ayn Rand. Many Atheists make the mistake of thinking that these are powerful liberal philosophies simply because they make so much reference to reason. This is how Atheists and so many others who are seeking to flee from superstition get sucked in. If an Atheist thinker really wants to begin in the direction of a good Liberal education he would do well to begin with something like Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man.

I guess what worries me here is the desire to describe Left vs Right as Good vs Bad guys*. — jamalrob

It can indeed become a blindness, ideological. It seems a bit too one sided and suspect simply to claim that all the tyranny in the world proceeds from the Right, and I would certainly not claim this. I think the present Left is quite dangerous (not as dangerous as the Right), but dangerous nonetheless. Guilt by identity is indeed a fallacy. I try to do my best to carefully think through things as dispassionately as I can. I would certainly not identify with the Left movement in America, of course, I am even further away from the Right, they truly frighten me because their first recourse is essentially violence. They seem to think strength can solve anything, and yet it is intelligence that accounts for the quality of life.

There are some from my own school of thought who could call this exchange "a fruitless endeavor," but I do not agree with this, and this is why: it is insufficient to prejudice the accuracy of one's position merely because one has convictions as to the nature of its truth. I reject this, I believe philosophy is best served as honest and diligent minds come into collision with each other. Further, those who say this, not putting forth the effort to defend their own views, are in danger of forfeiting truth to the victory of error. (Of course, this assumes their views are true). It is clear to me that what is required of serious thinkers is not merely to validate the cravings of their own egos, or to bask in their convictions, but to search out the nature of truth, even if its comprehension causes them the greatest psychological distress. It is hard for me to respect thinkers that are not willing to subject their ideas to coarse criticism. This does not mean one should apply themselves to every contrarian under the sun, but that qualitative objections should be discerned, sought out, and engaged. It greatly saddens me that so many dialectical thinkers have retreated to the Ivory Tower of theory. These thinkers do not fail to write books proclaiming the formation of their ideas, but when it comes to defending them, they fly off and hide away or dismiss the seriousness of their opponent's objections through the sheer arrogance of their convictions. Not I dear reader, I will do my best to apply thought where it deserves to be applied. I believe there are few things so valuable to the thinker than the resistance of other minds.

*********

The first distinction I should like to make is that being is an actual, concrete thing, not a mere concept or word. Words are objects that we create in order to make sense of being. We do not discover them, unless by "discover" one is talking about cultural integration.    

"Each material thing is a particular, an individual with a form proper to itself. This form is distinct from the essence of the thing, which is the form which human beings know in abstraction, because it consists of accidentals, whereas the essence does not." - Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't it actually the case that no material thing is a particular? You are in fact the one assigning this abstract identity to the object. Even the concept "particular" is not itself particular. Diversity and movement is found everywhere in being.

"Hegel argues that these three concepts [particular, individual, universal], though they seem quite distinct, are intimately bound up with each other. The understanding, however, does not see this and holds the three strictly separated. The understanding sees universals as externally related to particulars. In its extreme form, this may issue in an ontological separation between them, as in Plato’s philosophy, where universals or ‘forms’ are held to exist in a different reality altogether separate from their particular exemplars. Hegel rejects any such approach, and shows how in a real sense it is quite impossible to think the universal, particular, and individual apart from each other. For instance, if the universal is thought to be absolutely separate from individuals, and unique in its own right, then isn’t the universal an individual? Further, if an individual is understood as absolutely separate from universals, doesn’t it become an empty abstraction (i.e., a kind of universal) without specific quality? Hegel argues that the concepts of universal, particular and individual mutually determine one another." The Hegel Dictionary, Glenn Alexander Magee, Continuum International Publishing Group p.255    

"The essence of a thing is not concealed at all, nor does it abide in the thing, it is the form which exists within the human abstraction, what the human mind apprehends and determines as the essential properties of the thing." -- Metaphysician Undercover

It seems to me this is the crux of everything you are saying. How can you say the essence of a thing "does not abide in the thing," and then claim to "apprehend" and "determine" it from the thing? Further, it seems the way you make use of these determinations, extracted images, I will not yet call them "properties," is to wield them as totalities and finalities against the movement and diversity of being.  This seems exceedingly problematic to me, but there is more... what the mind apprehends is precisely the immediacy of an object, unless one goes beyond this mere apprehension (which takes one beyond bare identity) one cannot inform essence with totality from the narrow category of identity. Here you are trying to smuggle in content that cannot be furnished by bare identity alone. The fact that you are doing this, and that you must do this, only stands to demonstrate the accuracy of Hegel's critique of Aristotle.  

"What is concealed is the independent "form" of the thing, complete with the accidentals which the human being does not necessarily perceive." --Metaphysician Undercover

This seems to contradict your previous premise, when you said "the essence of a thing is not concealed," and while I note the use of a new term to overcome the limitations of your identity position ("accidentals"), I would also note that the actual concretion of what you are doing here seems to contradict your description. I think this is the part that really matters, I think it's the part that exposes the technique of your idealism, which appears to me as a form of sophistry. It seems you are trying to walk two roads at once in an attempt to retain the appearance of consistency for your formal position on identity, but when we actually examine the concrete process of your determination and formation, we find that it negates your description of identity. What you are actually doing, which is to say, what you must do, in order to furnish being with adequate content, forces you to go beyond the so-called law of identity.

"... formal logic deals with essences, not with actual things. But dialectics is not formal logic. How do you suppose that a person might create useful abstract categories without an appropriate understanding of reality? Creation of suitable abstract categories can only follow from a comprehension of reality." --Metaphysician Undercover

The point of dialectics is that you cannot arrive at an accurate essence (understanding of reality) through identity, but must make use of unity and difference, these not only negate the narrow Aristotelian formation of identity, but go beyond it. Just because one produces a formalism, through the method which you are here defending, doesn't make it accurate or comprehensive. One could in fact understand reality in such a way that they extract error from it, thus leading to an erroneous formalism. That is to say, a comprehension of reality can only follow from a dialectical process.  

"...if we reject the law of identity there are consequences which need to be respected. Initially, the assumption that there are particular, determinate individuals, beings or objects, in the real, or actual world, is unsubstantiated, unsupported and unjustified." --Metaphysician Undercover

Here your idealism shines through with vibrant colors. It is not a matter of "rejecting," I think this might be the problem in your characterization, it is a matter of incompletion, a lack of totality, Hegel demonstrates that the principle, as Aristotle forms it, is neither conscious nor consistent with itself.   

Perhaps the clearest formation of the refutation of the principle of identity presented by Hegel, is when he notes that A=A requires three different symbols linked in unity to even form the syllogism. Merely within the symbolic logic you have the diversity of Unity, Difference and Identity, which are all required and presupposed in order to make sense of identity. There is no identity without them, where there is identity, there you already have the negation of Unity and Difference.

You claim that if the Aristotelian formation is rejected that we cannot make sense of objects in reality, but this presupposes that we actually form our concepts through the narrow prism of identity, but we don't, this is the naive idealistic assumption, it is akin to the idealist drinking his own Kool-Aid. Hegel proved that every occurrence of identity is making use of other principles, namely, unity and difference.

I am well aware of the fact that you will likely claim I am attacking a strawman of your position. If this is actually the case then my argument has not made contact with your discourse. However, I think the reason you claim this, is because the thing you are claiming is not the same as what you are doing. You are saying that I am not making contact with your position because I am not validating your description of the process, but like Hegel, I am claiming that your actual process of identity is in tension with your formal description.   

Somewhere along the line my thinking become more bottom-up. Instead of thinking about vast systemic changes to eliminate poverty, I started studying personal finance and decisions which could be made on an individual level. — BitconnectCarlos

You mean you're special because your upbringing didn't impair your cognitive abilities and everyone else should just be like you?

And I hate to say it but maybe some people are actually directly responsible for their own poverty and routinely choose materialism and status over long term financially health, and they know it. — BitconnectCarlos

This is emotive thinking left over from the dark ages. Do you know how people end up with personality disorders? Do you believe it's all a matter of the will? What you don't realize is that every last ounce of your quality presupposes quality you inherited and were given!

There is no such thing as an individual, all individuals are products of social processes. The highest quality individual is not one who is biologically and intellectually superior, this is a myth, but one who has benefited the most from the advantages of society.

What's a snark,? — 3017amen

Read up on the burden of proof. You introduce the term you have the obligation to define it. All that has taken place here is juvenile evasion on your part. Your interaction doesn't even qualify as a form of skilled posturing. If you want to ask a valid question then don't pack it with controversial premises.

Jesus is God. — 3017amen

When you tell me that Jesus is a Snark I still need to know what a Snark is. Saying Jesus is one does not explain it.

God=Jesus — 3017amen

And so what is a God? I know Jesus to be a literary figure that may or may not have existed.

I took the liberty of moving this exchange to a new thread.

If you want to talk about the existence of Snarks you must explain what you mean by the term, the same is true of God. Your controversial term is not my intellectual burden to define.

Yes, I agree with much of what you said here, but even this category is not absolute enough to sustain itself. Conversations need to be had regarding psychologically induced states, clarifications need to be brought and verified. Not easy to do. Is the burden of proof on the depressed person? Social help is required. Interesting, this is not how conservatism works. They shout from the rooftops about the dignity and importance of life and then they do everything to remove the social structures that are necessary to life's quality.

As an atheist, are you acquiescing to a God then? — 3017amen

What do you mean by the term God?

The terms in most need of clarification in this sentence are "objective reasoning" and "God." If you want to avoid asking a loaded question then you must define these terms.

You have offered up tough-minded and reasoned replies. I have nothing but respect for this. It leaves me with much to consider. I will indeed reply, as soon as I can get to it. We are here having a serious conversation, this is not just forum banter, so it requires more effort in thinking, at least on my part.

Until you offer a positive formation of your position (objectivity,subjectivity) there is no conversation here.

You seem to have ignored the word "just". Was this a mistake? — jamalrob

Yes.

"Generally, your entire response is based on either (1) ignoring the definition of right-wing that I gave, quoted above, or (2) implicitly holding that the Soviet Union satisfied that definition."

Are you sure this is what I'm doing, because it seems to me I'm making an empirical argument that legitimately bypasses the presumption of formal authority?

The real question is why this is an invalid or inferior way to approach the topic?
I follow Fromm on this,

"The question of the socialist character of the Soviet Union can be
decided only by making a comparison between Marx’s vision of socialism and the reality of the Soviet system." Ibid. pg.68

However, that being said, I think there is a large school of thought associated with your position, and that I am most certainly in the minority (this does not make my position false). I think most people would say that the Soviet Union was a form of Leftist-totalitarianism. I do not accept this for several reasons, the Soviet Union functioned like a monarchy under Stalin, which is the preferred system of Right wing politics; the system was hostile to libertarian freedom, there was no democracy. These are serious empirical considerations that do much to support my premise.

"I conceded that the Soviet Union sometimes had a conservative and even reactionary character, but argued that the self-consciousness of the regime as a socialist one on the way to communism and the government's actions to destroy the old social structure and institute a completely new one, show that the the Soviet Union cannot be called right-wing."

I am not sure, maybe you can cite some concrete actions that Stalin and the party took that legitimately moved the Soviet Union in the direction of a democratic, liberal society? I do not see this.

"Would you claim that Lenin and the original Bolsheviks were also right-wing?"

Yes, I think so. All I have to go by here is their actions. Lenin is a hard figure, not as hard as Stalin, but difficult because he was exceedingly intelligent. It should be noted that one cannot move a society into communism, as Lenin tried to do, this is not the way it works. Communism is not an ideology in this sense, Marx understood it to be an organic development that would emerge from the contradictions of capitalism. Lenin departed from this and embraced state revolution, he was going to bring communism to the earth through the forces of a capitalist state. (The quote you cited proves this).  

Tragically when it comes to revolution one usually only hears one side of the story. The ruling class is desperate to hold onto its power, they will do anything to keep it. This means, when the people peacefully gather to democratically change the system, to resist exploitation, the rulers respond with violence in order to suppress the resistance, this leads to counter-violence. But the real problem is that the rulers will not yield to democracy! I think this is probably the most serious problem of revolution because it sparks so much violence.

"They were Marxists. You seem to be under the impression that to be a Marxist is to be merely a faithful follower of Marx, but this is not what it meant to be a Marxist in the early twentieth century."

That they used elements of Marx's thought to secure their power and justify oppression and tyranny, I do not deny, but the Soviet Union can no more be called a Marxist society than can North Korea. I am under the impression that Marxism is not state tyranny, not a monarchy, aristocracy, not state capitalism, but the democratic emancipation and empowerment of the working class by the working class itself. The question is whether this is possible, but even more so, if it is, would this really result in a better society? One thing is for sure, the working class is the concrete agent of all human progress. There is no way to get around this because it is the class that produces everything. 

"A Revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is."

I think Lenin is wrong about this, I think counter-revolution is probably the most authoritarian thing there is.

"If you wish to say that radical undemocratic politics is bad per se, and that politics is like a circle on which extreme left and extreme right meet, then I can respect that, but to label this meeting-point as right-wing is merely tendentious: if the circle of politics is true, then the meeting-point can be either left or right."

What we label the Soviet Union depends on its policies and actions, form and system of government.

However, it seems to me you are searching for some kind of admission on my part regarding the existence of Left-wing extremism*, well, what I can tell you is that as a matter of empirical fact, this is a very small threat and usually takes the form of isolated actors targeting infrastructures of power:

"Most left-wing terrorist groups that had operated in the 1970s and 1980s disappeared by the mid-1990s. One exception was the Greek Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17N), which lasted until 2002. Since then, left-wing terrorism has been minor compared with other forms, and is mostly carried out by insurgent groups in the developing world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_terrorism   

The very serious threat to our species comes from the Right, it has always come from the Right. One can only play with this fire for so long.

"In roleplaying situations, authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In a study by Altemeyer, 68 authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future entitled the Global Change Game. Unlike a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores which resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

"That Marx’s idea was deformed and corrupted into its very opposite, both by the Communists and by the capitalist opponents of socialism, is a remarkable—though by no means unique—example of man’s capacity for distortion and irrationality. However, in order to understand whether the Soviet Union and China represent Marxist socialism, and what might be expected from truly socialist societies, it is important that we have an idea of what Marxism means. That Marx himself would not have considered the Soviet Union or China a socialist state follows from the following statement: “This [vulgar] communism, which negates the personality of man in every sphere, is only the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. Universal envy setting itself up as a power is only a camouflaged form of cupidity which re-establishes itself and satisfies itself in a different way. The thoughts of every individual private property are at least directed against any wealthier private property, in the form of envy and the desire to reduce everything to a common level; so that this envy and leveling in fact constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism is only the culmination of such envy and leveling-down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. How little this abolition of private property represents a genuine appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the whole world of culture and civilization, and the regression to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and wantless individual who has not only not surpassed private property but has not yet even attained to it. The community is only a community of work and of equality of wages paid out by the communal capital, by the community as universal capitalist. The two sides of the relation are raised to a supposed universality; labor as a condition in which everyone is placed, and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.” Ibid. Fromm pg.73-74 


* I am open to it, but cannot confess to it in the case of the Soviet Union because it is such a violent antithesis of Marx's position.

I am well aware of this theistic game, it is one of radical skepticism, and that is why I will hold you to it. The burden of proof here belongs to you, so what do you mean by subjectivity?

Do you buy the notion that in general would-be suicides are making autonomous, self-determined decisions? — tim wood

Of course there's a problem here. Some people are severely depressed when they make this decision, but it is indeed hard to argue that we have the right to hold them to suffering. There is more to it than just the immediate state, this is brought about by other conditions. In order for life to be worth living it must have quality conditions. There is a hard logic here that people are not ready to accept, and that is the fact that life cannot be unconditionally justified, there are times when it is foolish to continue living. In these circumstances all one is doing is prolonging suffering out of fear or idealism.

What do you mean by objectivity?

can you make your argument clear? — 3017amen

That is, what does Jesus have to do with the explanation of consciousness?

Many aspects of the universe are orderly. We invented math to model these features. Why does this orderliness exist? — jgill

Is it really so orderly after all? There is new evidence that the so-called laws of physics aren't even constant throughout the universe. You're part of the old school, which is just now beginning to get bumped out. More critical scientists are emerging who aren't afraid to ask the question, what if symmetry isn't part of the equation, what if we are discovering chaos? Now this terrifies idealist thinkers, this is why they begin with the projection of idealism. (I should go gently here, not my strong suit, because reality is pretty damn scary when you remove all the idealist assumptions -- that is, when one has been programmed to derive their sense of safety and well-being from them). Nevertheless, the discovery of disorder and chaos doesn't actually change anything except for our beliefs. We can still use our intelligence to make a world that is valuable to life.

Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. You have a consciousness. And neither of which, it seems, can be explained using logic, right? — 3017amen

This is nonsense. You might as well try to bring Zeus into the picture, Jesus has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and you are here attempting to pass off a fallacy ("explain consciousness") as though it were some kind of competent, honest reasoning, it is no such thing.

Listen, little man, I will hold you to it. You want to play this game of explanation? Then subject your own positive claims to the same criteria... you can't do it, they wouldn't even last two seconds. Be honest, quit trying to posture, thought and philosophy are not on your side, but you are, in fact, crushed by them. You are not a deist, and neither are you a pantheist, and neither are you a polytheist, which means you are basically fucked, for lack of a better term. You have a very definitive and fantastical idea of God, one you cannot defend, and one that none of the arguments you are trying to make even supports. This is a game and you are trying to mess with people because you know a little bit of philosophy. Bring your nonsense to me and see what happens. I'm not here to play games.

So without further ado, are mathematical truth's invented or do they have an independent existence? — 3017amen

I was just conversing on this in another thread not too long ago, I don't remember it going in the direction of the mathematical supernaturalists. The tactic here is worthy of intellectual contempt in my opinion, as it seeks to leverage a high value symbolic structure (or negate that structure's value in the case of supernatural denial). Never mind that the specifics of your Christianity are a million miles away from this form of reason. Mathematical symbols are human inventions, they contain a high level of approximation and for that reason are exceedingly useful. You ask if they have an independent existence? Oh, do explain? This is classic idealism.

:smile:

No so my friend. I was not advancing an apologetic, I was citing a simplification of reasons to establish government. I don't have a problem with those principles, of course a conversation as to what they mean is necessary, but that is for another thread. My point was about the necessity of government.

Therefore, we come to the question of efficiency for what? Efficient at living? or efficient at producing as many commodities as possible? — boethius

Most excellent question here, and the real point is that capitalist culture only asks this question from the basis of the profit motive. Instrumentalism = tyranny through efficiency, negation of the question of life.

We have seen since the industrial revolution how overproduction is absorbed: war, planned obsolescence, growing the population (at first a happy side-affect of medicine, and later by a policy of immigration), manipulative marketing and debt. — boethius

Overproduction is likely a concept that (skeptical) readers on this thread are not familiar with. I have never thought about it in terms of its absorption (reconciliation of the contradiction). This is most accurate. It is a kind of hidden danger in capitalism, a contradiction that emerges from its production process.

So, the question arises that if the wealthy are constantly playing at being peasants for fun, shouldn't we just organize society so that everyone can do these things both to have fun and save money: that we make our rural landscapes like the idyllic beautiful places where the rich go for vacation, just that people happen to also live there? — boethius

A most interesting question. As you well know, acclimating to this idea is exceedingly hard for those of us who grow up in commodity driven societies. There is so much work to be done in the realm of education. However, what is most interesting, if a model could be successful in this direction, which is exceedingly problematic, given the fact that it would still exist as a bubble subjected to the market forces of capital, then I am probe to think it would catch on. People are starting to taste the real sting of capitalism's tyranny of economic coercion.

I want to interact with more of what you said but I don't have time. Thank you for taking the time to explain things, it's obvious that you are well educated in Marxist thought and political theory in general. I look forward to more interaction.

Your "arguments" are based on personal attacks without any depth on the subject and the discussion in question. — Gus Lamarch

I admit there is some truth to this, I consciously have chosen to approach a person like yourself with your dogma, from a different perspective. It's hard to offer a serious reply to something that is not serious to begin with. I did in fact make important and valid objections to your position multiple times. You don't even comprehend the presuppositions of your own premises and you are complaining about a lack of depth, how can one go deep with ignorance?

I just don't believe such concern should be forced upon me or anyone else through government. — Tzeentch

Every society in the world contradicts this principle. Would you then try to enforce this principle on the societies of the world? Why do humans form governments in the first place? This is what the American constitution says: "...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Without some kind of government it would be exceedingly unlikely that you would secure any of these things. The key is to put the power of this apparatus in check, not to abolish it altogether (though I am totally open to serious conversations on the possibility, they just seem to me like romanticism).

The Theory of the Leisure Class: Thorstein Veblen

1. Introductory
2. Pecuniary Emulation
3. Conspicuous Leisure
4. Conspicuous Consumption
5. The Pecuniary Standard of Living
6. Pecuniary Canons of Taste
7. Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture
8. Industrial Exemption and Conservatism
9. The Conservation of Archaic Traits
10. Modern Survivals of Prowess
11. The Belief in Luck
12. Devout Observances
13. Survivals of the Non-Invidious Interests
14. The Higher Learning as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture

""Right wing" is thus importantly ideological, i.e., it's not just about methods of governance."

I do not agree with this. Hard to see how political ideology does not contain premises regarding governance? This seems like drawing an artificial line. The methods of Right wing governance are literally in the direction of monarchy. While conservatives in America give lip service to democracy, they do everything in their power to abolish it, which is consistent with totalitarian methods of rule.

"But the purpose of this conservatism, certainly for Stalin, really was to preserve the gains of the revolution by any means possible, and consolidate socialism."

For me this is another problem. Socialism is not the same as communism. Further, it honestly matters little what ideology a political party or leader claims to be advocating, what matters are the authoritarian or democratic actions carried out by the party or leader. It is too naive as I see it, to take, for example, North Korea at its word that it's goal is to make a society for the workers. This is just the ideology that the totalitarian system uses to hold onto its power and increase its power.

"What I think we can say is that to the extent to which the Soviet Union was conservative or even reactionary (as with Great Russian chauvinism and anti-Semitism), it was so in the conscious service of a Left-wing cause, which by any standard makes it quite different from a right-wing state." 

It's exceedingly hard to sustain this premise in contrast to Marx's radical humanist philosophy of freedom. I again would not argue that a nation or state is characterized by its creed but by its political action. This is quite an important point because it's one of the ways people seem to be duped into totalitarian systems in the first place. The logic then goes, "as long as we have the right creed there will be freedom," and yet an administration shreds the actual democratic checks on political power, this is a large problem indeed. 

Eric Fromm writing directly on this topic said the following, "The Russians believe that they represent socialism because they talk in terms of Marxist ideology, and they do not recognize how similar their system is to the most developed form of capitalism. We in the West believe that we represent the system of individualism, private initiative, and humanistic ethics, because we hold on to our ideology, and we do not see that our institutions are, in fact, in many ways becoming more and more similar to the hated system of communism. We believe that the essence of the Russian system is that the individual is subservient to the State, and hence that he has no freedom. But we do not recognize that in Western society the individual is becoming more and more subservient to the economic machine, to the big corporation, to public opinion. We do not recognize that the individual, confronted with giant enterprises, giant government, giant trade unions, is afraid of freedom, has no faith in his own strength, and seeks shelter by identifying with these giants." May Man Prevail? pg.84-85, Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1961 

"Many Marxists don't like to admit it, but Stalin was a committed Bolshevik, communist, and Marxist, popular in the party for his ability to get things done and absolutely dedicated to the cause."

Marx did not advocate the implementation of a massive bureaucratic system. When we here speak of "the cause," it is doubtful we are talking about Marx's political humanism.

"Incidentally, this seems to demonstrate, better than the image of him as a dictator, the dangers of radical politics..."

I agree with you. This is the reason I am not a Marxist. My approach to the problem is not ideological or romanticized. However, radical politics are neither Left or Right, they are mindless! It is quite frightening to realize that the thinker is caught between emotional political extremes.The mindless from the Left is just as dangerous as the mindlessness from the Right. But in all of this I still see a lesser of two evils. (However, if we are talking radical revolutions then this lesser option is off the table). If totalitarianism has taught us anything, it is that we must always pay attention to the sabotage of democracy. It would not have been possible for Hitler or Stalin to do what they did if there were democratic checks on their power. This is one reason why American conservatism is so dangerous, it doesn't respect democratic procedure, it tries to circumvent it, deny its valid authority, and where it can, destroy it.

"Aside from merely maintaining power, all of their positive efforts were aimed at smashing capitalism and the remnants of feudalism and destroying the class structure, which in effect meant not only the confiscation of private property but also the literal destruction of the people of certain classes..."

It was a disastrous social experiment. However, the Soviet Union was a state capitalist welfare system.
Concluding with Fromm:

"The question whether the Soviet system is a socialist system has been answered in the negative. We have concluded that it is a state managerialism, using the most advanced methods of total monopolization, centralization, mass manipulation, and moving slowly from exercising this
manipulation by violence to exercising it by mass suggestion. It is, while resembling socialism in certain economic features, its very contradiction in a social and human sense, and is actually converging with the trends of the most advanced capitalistic countries..." Ibid.  

I know I'm in the minority on this, but IMO, the fact that we can do math, and make good predictions about the external universe doesn't prove that the universe is mathematical. — Mijin

Count me in that minority with you friend.

So it is not that the premises have to be “real”. — apokrisis

If by this you mean for theoretical purposes then I can understand it. I do not believe I am equivocating here but it seems you are going back and forth between concretion and abstraction. Of course a model would rely on abstraction, I am not attacking this claim, I was distinctly addressing your use of the term, "just modeling." My point, which it is clear we agree on, is that theistic models are not definite enough to be tested.

A materialist conception of reality is a social construct. — apokrisis

I have no problem with this, it's hard to see how it could be anything else. However, as long as one does not conclude from this that reality is a construct, mere abstraction, there is no tension between us. We do in fact shape our view of reality through reality, but I think you will agree, this is very different from equating a materialist conception with a theistic conception. While both are social constructs this does not make them equal. Why do I bring this up, simply to clarify that you are not making false room here?

What matters is they are definite enough to be tested. — apokrisis

I assuredly agree.

Could it be that you claim to be a supporter of immanent metaphysics, but are using as your prime bit of evidence a physicalism that is in fact based on a transcendent notion of mathematical law? That would be ironic, wouldn’t. So how do you answer? — apokrisis

I am neither a pragmatist nor an idealist. I am a supporter of thought making comprehension gains by observing reality through the medium of a dialectical awareness (and here dialectic is not a reference to the error of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis).

This exchange started when you made the following claim:

"Actually Plato provides a much more useful dialect than Hegel. After reading Plato and Aristotle, you'll be able to see where Hegel goes wrong in his dialectics, leading people like dialectical materialists into a violation of the law of non-contradiction."

This assertion has not been sustained throughout the course of this exchange.        

Hegel's position on being, as you seem to use the term, is that it is not only inconsequential, but dangerous insofar as it serves to distort essence: "For here we are not concerned with the object in its immediate form, but want to know it as mediated. And our usual view of the task or purpose of philosophy is that it consists in the cognition of the essence of things. By this we understand no more than that things are not to be left in their immediate state, but are rather to be exhibited as mediated or grounded by something else. The immediate being of things is here represented as a sort of rind or curtain behind which the essence is concealed. Now, when we say further that all things have an essence, what we mean is that they are not truly what they immediately show themselves to be. A mere rushing about from one quality to another, and a mere advance from the qualitative to the quantitative and back again, is not the last word; on the contrary, there is something that abides in things, and this is, in the first instance, their essence."  

You are free to insist that you are talking about the law of identity. You are also free to insist that your external imposition of negation doesn't imply a violation of the law, but the law of identity is an entirely positive formation. As soon as you bring in the negative you have gone beyond identity. You are free to pretend that Aristotelian logic deals with actual being, but it does not, it deals with abstract being, with dead images. Dialectic is thought suited to essence, Aristotle's axioms are principles suited to the creation of abstract categories, not the comprehension of reality.

Hegel commenting on Aristotle's logic: "Now if, according to this point of view, thought is considered on its own account, it does not make its appearance implicitly as knowledge, nor is it without content in and for itself; for it is a formal activity which certainly is exercised, but whose content is one given to it. Thought in this sense becomes something subjective; these judgments and conclusions are in and for themselves quite true, or rather correct – this no one ever doubted; but because content is lacking to them, these judgments and conclusions do not suffice for the knowledge of the truth."

So long as I maintain the separation between what is said about the object's identity, and the object's real identity, there is no problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

The object's identity and the object's real identity? Then what is the non-real-identity of the object that you are maintaining against the object's real identity? How is this not an exercise in abstraction? It proves that what you are talking about is nothing more than an idea, a stale and lifeless category.

Just because the abstract formation I put forward, describing the identity of the object, is not the object itself, does not mean that there is not an object, with its own identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

My position is not that the abstraction is not the object, but that it distorts our comprehension of the object, the actual being of being is its movement not its fragment. I am saying exactly what Hegel says, take your categories from the phenomena, do not impose them on the phenomena. I suppose you could assign multiple abstractions to an object if you so desired, but the danger is always the same: distortion of the comprehension of reality itself.    

Yes, you continue to assert that Hegel demonstrated "identity" to be faulty, or contradictory, but you have yet to produce the argument. The argument you have here does nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

In concise form, you will have to connect the dots through careful contemplation:

"Thus the principle of identity reads: "Everything is identical with itself, A = A'; and negatively: "A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time." -Instead of being a true law of thinking, this principle is nothing but the law of the abstract understanding. The propositional form itself already contradicts it, since a proposition promises a distinction between subject and predicate as well as identity; and the identity-proposition does not furnish what its form demands." Hegel

This has to be one of the most enlightened documents EVER written:

"The right to a self-determined death is not limited to situations defined by external causes like serious or incurable illnesses, nor does it only apply in certain stages of life or illness. Rather, this right is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence. Restricting the scope of protection to specific causes or motives would essentially amount to a substantive evaluation, and thereby predetermination, of the motives of the person seeking to end their own life, which is alien to the Basic Law’s notion of freedom. The individual’s decision to end their own life, based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence, eludes any evaluation on the basis of general values, religious dogmas, societal norms for dealing with life and death, or considerations of objective rationality. It is thus not incumbent upon the individual to further explain or justify their decision; rather, their decision must, in principle, be respected by state and society as an act of autonomous self-determination." Ibid.

Well it's clear you have thought a great deal about it, so I would like to thank you for sharing it. You have a very unique mind.

-

What led you to start studying all this stuff?

Even SEKHMET Is In The Picture Operating Advanced Machinery — The Grandfather Of Philosophy

What is this advanced machinery?

How do we get out of this simulation?