You may dispute that view on human nature off course, but ultimately it is an empirical claim and the evidence seems to be in favour of it. — ChatteringMonkey

No my friend, what the evidence favors is that human personality structures are conditioned by 1) attachment systems and 2) quality and stability of environment, this includes food and shelter (the vital parts of the brain must develop and mature without trauma or nutrient deficiencies). There is no such thing as "human nature," (a psychological predisposition to which all humans are subject) this is a false metaphysics.

Anyhow, this thread is not about the myth of human nature, which fascism so desperately needs to hold onto in order to justify its primitive narrative of good versus evil.

It seems you are under the impression that Marx rejected private property. Where did you derive this idea? Can you provide a citation? Marx was against the unintelligibility of capitalist formations of private property -- because they don't make any sense when you think of them in terms of the well-being and needs of the species. Everyone is in need of space in order to live, capitalism negates this fact, segregates it and begins to use it as a tyranny, coercion-leverage.

If you think you have figured out the social world because you make use of the false metaphysical concept of "human nature..." all I can tell you is that you haven't even entered the room where the adults speak, you are in much need of a critical education.

even if our freedom leads us to discover "The Truth" it won't really matter, because nobody will listen to us. — Hippyhead

A point of supreme importance. Who is being listened to and why? No one asks the question, "who should I listen to and why?" Not all thinkers are equal, most practice a futile and self-serving emphasis. Philosophy needs to be liberated from the culture of its commercialization. Philosophy has become one of the surest ways to forfeit one's life to the irrelevant emphasis of abstraction. Thinkers cannot see it because they are after something other than what philosophy has to deliver, namely social validation. But thought is the antithesis of conformity.

The serious thinker must put the question to himself: how do I make my thought serious; how do I become a practitioner of serious thought? Once he has solved this dilemma then he must proceed to the problem faced early on by Nietzsche, "how do I..." no doubt Nietzsche cracked the riddle. I leave off the answer and speak somewhat cryptically, because this is not the kind of conversation one simply throws out to starving philosophers. Those who don't merely want to become calculating machines, will have to find a path beyond the error that presupposes itself to be the highest form of intellectual relevance. You are likely correct:

My guess is that the best thinkers in human history quietly passed from the scene without anybody noticing they were ever here. — Hippyhead

I suppose you are a Libertarian? — turkeyMan

Assuredly not. Libertarians are not serious thinkers, but they are ideological thinkers, their approach to the world is fallaciously monological. To be a real Libertarian you must believe in magic, specifically the fairy tale of self-balancing markets. G. A. Cohen long ago obliterated their position. Libertarians present a serious threat to freedom and democracy.

Are you a Christian?

I'm curious what point you were trying to make? What was the purpose of your thread?

Never-mind, I found the thread. My goodness. Fella, you've been watching too much TBN.

You bring up many important points. The intellectual is not free from the institution, economic coercion regulates his original action, forcing him to conform. It's a bad situation where one cannot speak out for fear of economic retribution. This is a kind of violence we never hear about, Libertarians are fond of pretending like it doesn't exist. Coercion is not freedom no matter how you leverage it. Once theory has grasped the situation it must work its way toward praxis, but this is woefully lacking in intellectual culture. Fascinating that so many roads lead back to Marx. American thinkers only know him through false characterizations, I seldom meet an intellectual who has actually read him. He is the thinker that is most discriminated against in the world. It is all poisoning of the well and no substance.

But then at least don't go spouting around that I'm an insincere troll. — DoppyTheElv

I never said this. These are not my words.

The problem is I don't think we can make the generalization that religious belief and convictions are all the result of these psychological deficiencies — DoppyTheElv

You and I will not be talking again. It is clear to me that you are not serious, I took a chance because you said you were, although I had my suspicions. If you are serious you will have to inform yourself by educating yourself. I have already given you a place to start. I wish you all the best.

I'm pretty sure anyone would have issues accepting this at first and they ought to learn to live with this. — DoppyTheElv

Absolutely. And this is a good reminder of my own position. I was crushed by reality when I finally realized my Christianity was false. But oh how necessary it was to be crushed! :) If you are truly serious about understanding how and why humans manufacture delusion then it will be necessary for you to study psychology. Many many books* have now been written precisely on the topic of denial, self-deception and bias. One I can whole-heartedly recommend is, "The Truth About Denial" by Adrian Bardon, (Oxford 2020)

*Please note: the present body of literature has gone beyond mere speculation. The premises have been verified empirically. Denial, bias, self-deception are things we have seen repeated under controlled conditions.

Because I really do want to learn if I'm mistaken. — DoppyTheElv

If there is no God and the world is violence and chaos. Can you live with this, can you accept it if this is the nature of reality?

Going the intellectual route is a poor choice when it comes to resolving these issues. — EnPassant

But my dear, EnPassant, how ever do you get out of this circle once you enter in?

What I did say is that these psychoanalytic theories get us nowhere. — DoppyTheElv

Then there is not much more to say.

I don't see the psychological game. — DoppyTheElv

Then this must be proof that it's not there. After all, if it was there, surely you would be able to detect it? The same is true of all forms of bias --- we are not plagued by them precisely because they are so easy to detect! The sole criteria of its existence must be whether or not I perceive it in my intuition???

he just takes — EnPassant

It is so easy — EnPassant

Then clearly you have already violated your original premise regarding truth. Only here the problem is that you have evaded it in the wrong direction. One is free to deceive themselves all they desire, they are not free to deceive others (though this is the way of the world). The bottom line is that you are going to believe what you want to believe, after all, you have already admitted to the futility and bankruptcy of thought. There is little more one can say to divert such conviction.

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. — EnPassant

Here you have not transcended the presupposition of the criteria of radical skepticism. What you say you cannot attain is conditioned by a false idealism. The way around it is simply to identify the error of the formal criteria. It is absolute skepticism posited as an ontological finality and boundary. If you want your thinking to succeed you must learn how to transcend the culture into which it is born.

The human condition is steeped in pain and religion does not change that. But I am also wary of psychoanalytical definitions of religion. It is too easy to invent these theories and they come in all shapes an colours. — EnPassant

Please see Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death.

Often I hear the mantra "If I am wrong then at the very least I have lived a happy and meaningful life." — DoppyTheElv

This was C. S. Lewis' last attempt to hold onto his Christianity in the face of the encroaching resistance. He simply resigned himself to pragmatic hedonism, conveniently ignoring the fact that this approach presupposed the total collapse of his Christianity. It is no different for modern Christians. They are all, in reality, simply playing a psychological game with themselves, precisely because they can't face reality. This is quite easy to prove, simply ask a Christian to explain how he views the world in the absence of his ideals. You will be met with a cynical exposition of the supremacy of the negative.

Instrumentality is one of the main dangers of reason. Hard it is to get those born into slavery to see the error of slavery. It is no different when it comes to the culturation of intellectuals. Nietzsche repeatedly warned of the danger of scholars. It is no surprise that we cannot separate ourselves from our culture, but that is the very thing that is required of high level thinkers.

A serious thinker may eventually think their way to the realization that nothing made of thought can ever be the truth. Such a realization has proven itself uncomfortable to many a thinker. — Hippyhead

Here truth can only be posited in the most abstract sense, which renders it useless. The presumption behind the claim is a stacked deck, the thinker doesn't even realize, in the process of thinking thus, he has departed from reality to wander through an abstract aesthetic. No thinker needs to worry about such a formal charge, it is after all, rooted in an unconscious, radical skepticism. This kind of thought is merely playing games with itself and the world. The point of thought is to change the world -- it is not mere aesthetics, to handle it thus is to leave off its power and hope, is to play the game of thought without intelligence.

What, in your understanding, is this motivation? — EnPassant

The motivation is a subconscious drive to prevent psychological pain.

The truth can be arranged... — Judaka

This is a most interesting notion. It takes my mind to a further question, which is that of the value of truth arrangement, pending such a possibility. What is clear to me is that if truth can be arranged, then this means it can be controlled to some extent, which is most interesting. The onus would fall upon us to construct the most intelligent arrangement possible. In all simplicity, this was Marx's direction of thought.

At this point in my life, I think I'll skip negative dialectics. The time remaining is short and there are other avenues I wish to pursue. — Bitter Crank

Friend, I am not dogmatic. Not all intellectuals bear the same burden, context matters, social conditions matter. In my opinion, it is intelligence that regulates action from the basis of context. If one had five years left to live, I certainly would not argue that they should spend it learning Negative Dialectics.

What do you mean by serious thinkers? — turkeyMan

This is an important question. What, after all, makes a serious thinker serious? A serious thinker, among other things, is a person who wants to comprehend reality even if that comprehension results in the total negation of their vital, positive belief structure. It comes down to truth over comfort.

The specialization isn't a bad thing but without proper knowledge of what that may bring can be devastating. We need people who study the intellectuals and convene on what they have observed about them being in their specialization and how their attitude is to other disciplines. Also intellectuals should not continue themselves to limit themselves to a singular discipline in order to diversify thinking and problem solving. — River Lantzantz

I agree. :)

Do you think engaging intellectuals can be useful? If yes, why? — Hippyhead

Yes. Most certainly. You and I are both intellectuals. The problem is not that one is an intellectual, but that intellectualism has become of kind of culture phenomena, thereby draining it of its authentic power and reducing it to a caricature of itself. Most assuredly intellectuals are important, they do matter, thought directs culture past the emphasis of stupidity. Thought can continue to change the world, but only very slowly, possibly even too late, if it's confined to the seclusion of the Ivory Tower.

This suggestion, advice, actually an injunction, is to be found in every basic course in logic — TheMadFool

Indeed it does friend, but it's tragic that our psychological structure is so emotionally set against it, that even those who teach it still fall prey to it. I have seen it happen repeatedly. Even though this may be taught throughout the world my experience tells me that it's exceedingly rare. The problem is that it takes a different form in our own psyche, one we cannot detect. We don't even realize we're doing it.

his argument was stating that it would be hard to prove with science that there is or is not a god(s). — turkeyMan

Well, this is quite accurate now isn't it? After all, everything depends on how you define the being or beings you claim exist? It's a fun little game for theologians, but hardly an exercise for serious thinkers.

So how did he calculate the opportunity for effectiveness? — Hippyhead

I don't think Adorno ever did, keep in mind I have criticized critical theory for getting lost in itself. Nevertheless, the question is exceedingly important. I think one thing that stands out is that thought must know how to select the right emphasis. The way I have calculated is by reverse engineering culture through an analysis of effective historical action. However, we have much more than this. We have cultural psychology and social psychology, which help to guide the process. The answer is through a multi-disciplinary comprehension of the social sciences.

If intellectuals are irresponsible as you claim, and/or inept as I claim, what is the argument for engaging them? Before we consider such engagement to be productive action, don't we need some evidence that it will be successful in reaching some of the goals you have outlined? — Hippyhead

This was exactly Adorno's position, that we need to be able to calculate, in one form or another, that our revolutionary action will have some relevant level of effectiveness. What I would point out here is that such awareness is already light years ahead of average intellectual concerns. Most activists never even get to this level, they just assume that action is itself the wisest thing to do. Adorno takes it back to theory, allows it to pass through thought in order to increase its power.

But if you understand how reason itself operates within the domain of thought and language, then you would see that reason itself is 'transcendent' in that it provides the means to arrive at general ideas about all manner of subjects — Wayfarer

It's a fine tool, so are shovels, just don't start attaching God to these tools and we won't have a problem.

What you're saying is: be brave enough to be a nihilist — Wayfarer

Not even close. I am no Nihilist, one must be religious in order to be a Nihilist.

As much as we would like other people to behave better for ours and other's benefit, it cannot be done by appeal, but by example. — Philosophim

I think there is much truth to this. The responsible intellectual walks a hard road. However, I do not accept the one-sided nature of your position. Instruction and example are both important, there are many other factors as well.

They were thought not subject to change, because they were grasped directly by nous, not by the senses, which can always deceive. — Wayfarer

This reminds me of Plantinga's sophistry. 1) There's such a thing as a Holy Spirit that exists. 2) This magical being gives you a direct knowledge of God. 3) Therefore it is rational to have belief in God. Nonsense. Holy spirit, Fairy spirit, Tree spirit. What's most shocking is that people have taken his Holy Spirit assertions serious.

Analytical thinkers are scared to death of dialectical thinkers, if they can censor them they will. The irony is quite hilarious, analytical thinkers consider themselves to be the elites of the philosophical world, but theirs is just a more abstract form of idealism. When the dialectical thinker shatters their false presumptions of value, they sense the total loss of their authority and cultural relevance, and so they either run away or try to attack or suppress the dialectical thinker.

This is apparently judged to be a low quality proposal, so they moved the thread to the lounge. — Hippyhead

If this was the reason your thread was moved, that is disappointing. Adorno was a hundred times the philosopher anyone on this forum is, and he basically held the same position. For that matter so did Hannah Arendt. This is what happens when idealism dominates philosophy, thinkers locate value in the wrong place, that is, in the abstract as opposed to the concrete.

Can you expand a bit about that? Why is high level thinking about 'negativity'? — Bitter Crank

This is a super important question and I don't have time to explain it in detail, to do it the justice it deserves. What I recommend is that you get a copy of Adorno's lectures on Negative Dialectics. Get the lectures not the book, though the book is superior, it will be rough going. Adorno was a master of philosophy, studying Kant with Siegfried Kracauer at the age of 16. The reason negativity is so important, is essentially, to speak in high philosophical terms, because it is the surest path to the comprehension of essence --- not a dead image of reality, to use Hegel's terms, but a comprehension of reality itself in all its movement.

Have you read a lot of their stuff? I confess: I have not, though of the three I've read and enjoyed Marx most. — Bitter Crank

Yes. But not just them, I am steeped in the entire dialectic movement of thought, which began with Hegel.

Are you feeling peeved about not getting enough attention as an autodidact? I can understand that--there are many unofficial intellectuals who get no respect. — Bitter Crank

It's strange that this assumption repeatedly surfaces as I have discussed this topic throughout the years. The assumption seems to be that my objection is based on a negative experience of rejection. But rejection has not been my experience, the incompetence and immaturity of intellectuals has been my experience. Further, I do not long to be a part of the Elite academy. Here's an anomaly friend, I'm a true believer! What I am after is getting intellectuals to engage culture precisely to make human existence better. I don't attack intellectuals because I have been psychologically burned by them, but because I see the loss of so much valuable energy wasted, unfocused, misplaced. But I also see cowardice and a serious lack of responsibility. To try to make my position more clear, intellectuals like Chomsky, Bregman and Reich are all examples of intellectuals that have run toward their cultural responsibility.

Thinking is generally a friendly activity — Bitter Crank

Not as I understand it through the lens of the strongest thinkers: Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx. In this sense thinking is a painful and consequential activity. High level thinking is about negativity, if you don't know that then you don't know thinking.

A culturally responsible intellectual in Nazi Germany, for example, would precisely be one, not merely who disagrees with the status quo, but one who spends his intellectual energy trying figure out how to effectively resist the encroachment of Nazi tyranny. As Adorno so accurately said, "the point of philosophy is to ensure that nothing like the holocaust ever happens again." [paraphrased]

Intellectual responsibility is missing from our time. It is no surprise, therefore, that barbarism has proliferated itself. Whether the intellectual knows it or not, he cannot afford to remain neutral. Fascism is a threat to intelligence in general, this is because it doesn't use words to resolve contradictions, it regresses to primitive violence. Intellectuals have to learn to unite against barbarism and fascism, in this sense we are all in the same boat, for barbarism has many times wiped out the advancing world, and it is again on the rise. No intellectual is safe from it.

Tragically this is not the concern of institutional intellectuals in general. Many of them are not resisting the destruction of democratic culture, they are standing back and allowing it to take place. They are quite fond of simply thinking themselves to be above the struggle, arrogantly superior to it, they cannot be bothered to defend the uneducated man from fascist propaganda.