but you can see the difficulty? — Pop

Not really. Maybe if you explain more? I would only caution you to be mindful of equivocation in the sense of entering into another topic. Not that your topic would necessarily be invalid, but it might not make contact with the present position.

Who are you to simply pronounce that this pursuit "has a negative social value"? — Janus

I did not merely pronounce it, I provided a practical argument. Further the quote by Huemer, who has written 60 plus books (I don't like this game but will do it anyway only because of how analytical philosophers think, which is in terms of elitism) -- how many books have you written?

In what way do you think it has a negative social value, and what's your argument for thinking so? — Janus

Quite simple: people are communicating all over the place. Not all communication is the same, neither is it equivalent in terms of social value. Just take a look at this thread for instance, there are vast problems in the world and here we have a bunch of people talking about the abstract ideals of language, as refugees shuffle from island to island, as America collapses into authoritarianism, as the globe continues warming, as children lack essential nutrients and come from broken homes that shatter their cognitive quality and potential, and you stand here, bold faced, defending the doctrinaire, academic eccentricities of one Donald Davidson?

Let me tell you what the men who wrote the book I referenced have done with their communication. They have probed deeply into the damage that trauma inflicts on young lives, and they have sough to find a way to heal these poor, young, abused members of our species. There is no contest. The very fact that analytical philosophy has conditioned you to come at me the way you are is only further proof of its elitism, irrelevance and special pleading for its prolix form and idealist cause. Tell me, what are you really doing with your time when you spend it probing this kind of stuff? There is a vast world of productive and relevant communication beyond it! Communication that actually achieves real world value. And if you are not giving your time to this, then you are blinded, you are playing at mere abstraction, as Peter Unger said, a bunch of "empty ideas" that lead nowhere.

This is difficult, as only a philosophical zombie could argue unemotionally, but they wouldn't argue or do anything for that matter, as they would have no emotional impetus to do so. — Pop

This is equivocates from the original point. The point is not that people must be free of emotion, but that emotional evasions are inappropriate responses to strong critical positions. One can be emotional, what one cannot do, is use that emotion as an argument against (or to evade) a valid criticism.

The moderators will not ban this, and I don't think they should, but it should be classed to its own lounge, they can call it, The God Lounge. I do know Dfpolis to be an exceedingly skilled polemicist for his position, he would certainty not fit into any evangelical category, at least not his arguments from what I've seen. I'm quite sure he's a Christian, but he can handle himself on this front. Nevertheless, the above statement is quite indefensible. What I would say to the moderators is please stop defending people who say this kind of stuff. Let me tell you what I mean, don't protect them when we call them out in the same public forum in which they try to preach. The fact that they are offended that someone challenged their fantastic claims is just too damn bad, don't come to their aid or get all emotional about it. They're the ones that had the audacity to assert this stuff in a public philosophy forum. What do they expect? Please do not give their religion an a priory status of respect, if they want respect for their premises, then just like everyone else here, they need to be held to the same philosophical standard, they need to earn it. The moderators here should agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The man or woman who calls this stuff out is not doing anything wrong, quite the contrary, they are doing what so many others were not allowed to do. It is the right of philosophy to assault the positive. And if one cannot do this then one cannot practice philosophy. This is a philosophy forum not a religious forum.

Does fault imply decision or consciousness, then? — dussias

It doesn't matter. It matters for psychological reasons of explanation, but not for the present context. The present context seeks to uphold the integrity of intellectual standards above and beyond the regress (manipulation) of emotional states.

What makes you think that Davidson cares about whether his distinction matters "in the context of life. concrete existence". Does music matter in that context, does poetry or the arts generally? — Janus

I never claimed that one cannot ascend, rather, descend to an aesthetic pursuit of analytical philosophy. In that case we must stop pretending like it carries some kind higher relevance, or counts as some kind of higher social discourse. It doesn't, the real objective work is being done in other areas, analytical philosophy is an exercise in abstract games. I would even argue that this particular social form detracts from what can actually be achieved with language, it literally has a negative social value. This is not hard to prove:

Here I merely need to repeat my practical argument: 'You will still be using language just like we are still using mathematics after Gödel. And what matters most of all, is not papers like Davidson's, but those who figure how to use words to make the world a better place. Should we get a million people to read this paper by Davidson, or should we get a million people to read, "The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog," by Perry and Szalavitz? There is no contest. What these authors are doing in terms of relevance blows Davidson out of the water. And remember, life is short, so this is a decision we must make over and over again, and this is what I know: analytical philosophy loses.'

Language is psychological as well as developmental, you will not explain it by multiplying analytical philosophy's abstractions. If you miss vital stages of development you will be cognitively impaired, most especially in your language capacity. This is not an abstract consideration... analytical philosophy doesn't tell us anything here! What people are doing on this thread cannot even be justified in terms of real-world-relevance. As your response betrays, it's just an aesthetic game that analyzes abstract ideals. One is entitled to it, but one is not entitle to call it responsible philosophy.

"Another reason this [Analytical Philosophy] is fruitless is that the analyses we devise would not be particularly useful, even if one of them were widely accepted. The analyses that epistemologists now debate are so complicated and confusing that you would never try to actually explain the concept of knowledge to anyone by using them. So what is the point?..." Michael Huemer

However, I strongly believe that who's at fault is not the emotional one! It's whoever lets itself take aim at emotions, rather than rationale. — dussias

This is not settled by your feelings, nor is it settled by mine. In the present context the fault lies with the person who is trying to evade criticism (the burden of proof) through the medium of emotion.

Anger attempts to hide vulnerability. Whenever one gets angry at the words of another, one should ask themselves why those words are making them feel vulnerable. — Tzeentch

Absolutely, this is a most excellent clarification and approach to anger.

When approached as such, emotion can lead to great personal insights, so I don't see why it cannot have a place on this forum. — Tzeentch

What you are talking about here is emotion in an entirely different context. The place that emotion should play on this forum, that I do not know, what I do know is that it should not play the role of displacing or invalidating arguments.

Having a conversation about me? I already provided a formal definition, so I don't know what you're going on about here. I don't have a problem with formal definitions, these are the easiest thing in the world to provide. I have multiple dictionaries and philosophical, religious dictionaries in my home. I just don't find your approach to be very fruitful. Further, I agreed with you from the very beginning: "...I'm not saying this should never be done, sometimes it's forced by the context."

Pointing out that God-worship is not philosophy is not a hate crime. — Kenosha Kid

I will try to use this occasion to make a few important points, hoping you will add a few comments. The paper you posed on Natural Existential Morality, not only displays originality, but an exceedingly high level of polemical skill. No moral idealist is going to be able to simply pass by it, it throws down the gauntlet. I respect your courage to stand up for truth.

When people are born into an abusive home, their psychology often adapts to the environment, after time it's what begins to feel normal. Every time father gets emotionally aroused people adjust their behavior and fall in line to fulfill his wishes. It's no different with this forum. When people start to get emotional, be it religious people or analytical philosophers (who are actually worse in this sense), I have noticed that some of the moderators start to get emotionally confused, that is, they lose their objectivity and start adjusting their actions to cater to the complaints of those who are dysregulated. This technique should not work but it does. If we evaluate what I said on this thread, we arrive at the conclusion that it is dispassionate, I did not attack anyone and my objection was rational as opposed to emotional, I attacked an extraordinary claim that was being made in a public forum. Now when people start to bud in with their emotional responses, which is what unenlightened did, I suspect the moderators see this and get emotional themselves, assuming that because people are upset I must have done something wrong. This is false, it is completely lacking in philosophical objectivity. Philosophy is a critical and negative enterprise, there is no way around this, it is the ethos of its very ontology. To be a philosopher is to contradict what is positive, this causes people psychological pain, and the more immature they are in this sense, the more extreme and emotional their reaction will be.

As long as the moderators keep emotionally siding with people like the original poster, who spoke of hate crimes and the FBI, implying that I somehow attacked him because I challenged his extraordinary claim, then this kind of emotionalism, just like it does in abusive households, will carry on because it works: the dysregulator gets his way. What was my crime? Invoking the sanity of Carl Sagan? Pointing out an outlandish claim? Dear moderators, this is not okay, it is not okay to side with those who try to make their case and get their way through emotion. That is not what I have appealed to here, I have made an argument for objectivity, for sanity, for siding with philosophy!

Get rid of democracy and I'll be dictator forever. — Mr Bee

This was always in the man's heart, deep down it was just a nice thought, but his power has extended so much in these last few years, he can do whatever he wants, why not, it could be in reach. This is a well developed political theory, divide and conquer. The weakness and arrogance of the Left is to blame.

Your ex-cathedra pronouncement is hypocritical and inappropriate. The op is a practical exercise proposal that need have no relation to any god. There is no preaching going on, except your own. — unenlightened

Then he didn't need to mention God, but he did. He invited criticism when he did.

This man claims that God has given him something personally and that God is the only thing that matters. Sagan is still correct, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you deem me out of line for this, all I can tell you is that you're preaching the dark ages.

You are correct I could just say nothing and save myself from being rebuked from people like yourself, but then error goes out into the world. Who is reading this post? Impressionable young men? Would you argue that I don't have the right to refute error or call it into question? But this fella has the right to assert as many extraordinary claims as he wants without any rational accountability? How do you arrive at such a conclusion?

the potential that was given to me by God, because, in the end, it is only He who matters. — bcccampello

Preaching God is not philosophy.

You're still not getting the distinction. — Janus

Quite the contrary, it is you that is not comprehending the distinction that trumps the subjectivity you here refer to: 'You will still be using language just like we are still using mathematics after Gödel. And what matters most of all, is not papers like Davidson's, but those who figure how to use words to make the world a better place. Should we get a million people to read this paper by Davidson, or should we get a million people to read, "The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog," by Perry and Szalavitz? There is no contest. What these authors are doing in terms of relevance blows Davidson out of the water. And remember, life is short, so this is a decision we must make over and over again, and this is what I know: analytical philosophy loses.'

My argument is that the thing that matters to Mr. Davidson is not a thing that matters in the context of life, concrete existence, it is simply an abstract, formal consideration. Don't take my word for it: "I dip into these matters only to distinguish them from the problem raised by malapropisms and the like."

Further, philosophy can't explain this, it belongs to the domain of psychology. What a joke. Beware what you call profound friend.

Only if 'meaning' is understood as 'that which language conveys', and so the proposition is tautological. Otherwise what determines members of the class {meanings}? — Isaac

Is this what you ask your doctor? What about the farmers who grow your food? Unfortunately analytical philosophy is an elitist enterprise. As the world continues to warm and spin into civil chaos this kind of doctrinaire approach to existence will be seen for what it is, abstract irrelevance, nothing but a special interest, a hobby for those who want to escape the world. It greatly upsets me to see this class of thinkers attempting to dominate other people with their hyper abstraction, as if their narrowing somehow qualified as progress or an achievement. It doesn't. This has been proven by Davidson's own words, "there is no such thing as a language." And the only reason I assert myself here is because of the arrogance and elitism of the analytical response (see above). It wants to confound the man of common sense, to make him feel ashamed, to lord over him with abstraction. This is a kind of intellectual bullying, and I hope other people will join me in standing up against it. The question of relevance is the thing that refutes analytical philosophy, no other question is needed.

There is no end of life for religion. Therefore they cannot even comprehend what's at stake. Further, apocalyptic events are contained within the hand of God, therefore they cannot comprehend the reality of what is occurring here.

I'm not sure the reason of why people end up in these positions, necessarily negates the notion of these positions occupying a similar place in culture? I should mention, I am not dogmatic about any of this, my approach here is just a free flow of speculation. I find it to be an interesting question. Technology does hold a privileged position in culture, people devote themselves to it, we order our lives around it, but it is, like religion, just a thing we create, though it is more than idealism in this sense. What I think makes this topic important is the authority that technology has in culture; what also makes it important is what humans are willing to do for it, how they are prepared to submit to it.

I think we're talking about almost every cognitive scientist since Chomsky. — Srap Tasmaner

Hard for me to see them advocating this:

"a clearly defined shared structure which language-users acquire" Davidson

Further, if this is not the actual position, then Davidson is attacking a straw-man which he erects through the analytical edifice.

"We must give up the idea of a clearly defined shared structure which language-users acquire and then apply to cases" — RussellA

Can any of the analytical philosophers on this thread provide an example of someone actually making this argument about language? Whose idea is this exactly?

I'm still trying to come to terms with the idea of StreetlightX being magnanimous... — Banno

I'm still trying to come to terms with you being so dogmatic.

"A scientific analysis of religion rests on the premise that it is a complex social phenomenon, a system of specific ideas, feelings and religious rites, and in a class society also of institutions that bring together professional clergymen."

This I believe is not consistent with "technology". — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting... thinking in terms of an elite assemblage of people that technology casts into positions of status and power. Institutions are also assembled around and from technology, just like churches are assembled from Christianity.

measuring — Philosophim

What do you mean by measuring?

indicating — Philosophim

What do you mean by indicating?

insecure — Philosophim

What do you mean by insecure?

novices — Philosophim

What do you mean by novices?

One cannot get very far in this kind of exchange. Further, this is not the kind of exchange we are having, we are having the kind of exchange I referenced, where meanings are assumed so that conclusions can be comprehended.

A formal definition has been provided so you are free to proceed in terms of your method, it doesn't mean I will be joining you, but have it at friend.

Your objections here are nothing more than a personal complaint, you are free to it, but I am not interested in it. The topic of the thread: is technology a new religion?

we know which one you would think. — Philosophim

I wasn't aware that a masters degree gives one the ability to read minds?

Best of luck to you. :smile:

Can we institute an automatic ban on anyone who uses this phrase in an OP? — Banno

You want to ban every thinker on here who doesn't have your own skill in precision, come on man?

-

Wonderful stuff. A language isn't algorithmic; it does not conform; there are no fixed rules. The rules of any language game are subject to change, on the whim of the participants. Linguistics can never be complete - and in a way not too dissimilar to that described by Gödel for Mathematics. — Banno

Perfect, you've managed to squeeze Davidson down to a paragraph. Language isn't exactly like mathematics and it doesn't try to be, so I don't see why this matters so much? As for "wonderful stuff," that doesn't belong to Davidson, that belongs to all the social workers and developmental psychologists who are using language to try to help wounded humans. You can throw out the algorithm discovery all day long, but what does it do? You will still be using language just like we are still using mathematics after Gödel. And what matters most of all, is not papers like Davidson's, but those who figure how to use words to make the world a better place. Should we get a million people to read this paper by Davidson, or should we get a million people to read, "The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog," by Perry and Szalavitz? There is no contest. What these authors are doing in terms of relevance blows Davidson out of the water. And remember, life is short, so this is a decision we must make over and over again, and this is what I know: analytical philosophy loses.

If what you say is correct I should not be able to discourse on this topic with anyone until a formal definition has been established, but that is not what has transpired here. When two people learned in religion come together they can indeed ask this question and proceed forward with it. Nevertheless I will provide a formal definition:

"Religion: a specific form of social consciousness whose characteristic feature is a fantastic reflection in people's minds of external forces dominating over them, a reflection in which earthly forces assume unearthly forms. Marxism/Leninism considers R. a historically transient phenomenon of social consciousness and shows the main factors that determine its existence at different stages of society's development. The appearance of R. in primitive society was conditioned by man's impotence in face of the forces of nature because of the low level of the productive forces. The existence of R. in antagonistic class societies may be traced to class oppression, unfair social relations, the poverty and rightless status of the masses, which breed despair and a sense of hopelessness thus turning people's hopes to supernatural forces. By giving people false bearings and placing the solution of the vital problems of being in the other world, R. strengthens and perpetuates man's dependence on external forces and dooms him to passiveness, holding down his creative potential. In the society of antagonistic
classes it diverts working people from active participation in the struggle for changing the world and impedes the formation of their class consciousness. Marx called R. "opium for the people". A scientific analysis of R. rests on the premise that it is a complex social phenomenon, a system of specific ideas,
feelings and religious rites, and in a class society also of institutions that bring together professional clergymen. The above aspects are directly related to, and change with the social relations. This is distinctly seen in the present conditions when R. is being modernised under the influence of social, scientific and technological progress which has led to a crisis of R. The essence of R., however, remains unchanged and its disappearance, as predetermined by the course of social development,
is inevitable..."

To say there is no such thing as a language is not the same as to say there is no such thing as language. — Janus

I am aware of what Davidson said, but here your distinction doesn't matter: "I conclude that there is no such thing as a language, not if a language is anything like what many philosophers and linguists have supposed. There is therefore no such thing to be learned, mastered, or born with."

This is a mere formal conclusion in the sense that there is something to be learned. You would indeed teach your child a language. The sense in which there is no language doesn't matter! Like I already said, and my conclusion is accurate: This is a bearing on analyticity as opposed to language.

While your intent was to keep the ants away, you may have inadvertently lain down a sugar trail... — Banno

This is not philosophy, but it is a form of derogation. Elitist discrimination? I don't get it, not sure what calling me an ant has to do with Davidson? The Nazis used to call Jews rats and many other derogatory terms. What is it called when people do this kind of thing, I can't quite remember? Why do people do this?

"Name-calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to invoke fear in those exposed to the propaganda, resulting in the formation of a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an abusive argumentum ad hominem."

That's just how analytical philosophers roll though, right?

Let's get back to the point shall we, unless you want to carry on with your authoritarian emotivism?

Banno said:

Davidson's article is an example of language undermining itself — Banno

And my reply was, so what? 'We suddenly can't use it because it fails to meet Davidson's analytical criteria? Such a conclusion is impossible given the vast world of knowledge that language has spawned.'

My refutation bypasses the skepticism of Davidson's position because it notes that language is already doing things in the world. My point is that the arguments in this paper don't matter, it's just a bunch of abstract formalism. How do you refute my position? Please note: authoritarianism is not a refutation, and neither is calling me names because you're frustrated that I poked a hole in your program.

No one on this forum wants a lecture from you about how they should be spending their time instead; no one wants you to intrude in their thread to tell them you think it's pointless. Please stop doing that. — Srap Tasmaner

Pardon me, but Banno posted this thread asking every single member on this Forum what they thought about Davidson's paper. Reading the paper, does in fact, entitle me to comment on it, which I did. It's nonsense: "there is no such thing as a language."

There is a philosophical way to settle disputes and it is not the way you are going about it here. Your reply is authoritarian and emotive, it is not logical. A thread is not a place where all your friends get together and agree with your conclusions.

I have no illusions that the development of logical thought, in particular, will have a very essential effect upon the process of the normalization of human relationships; but I do believe that the wider diffusion of the knowledge of logic may contribute positively to the acceleration of this process. For, on the one hand, by making the meaning of concepts precise and uniform in its own field and by stressing the necessity of such a precision and uniformization in any other domain, logic leads to the possibility of better understanding between those who have the will to do so.

People are already doing this and have been doing it for quite some time, that is, having "better understanding." There are people who work with blind children, deaf children, abused children, they make use of language and they actually get somewhere with it!

What you are doing by citing Tarski is trying to validate your abstract program without actually having to engage your burden of proof. Because you like to play these kind of words games, of course you want to presume they have maximum value, but they don't. Bryan Magee in his book "Confessions of a Philosopher," speaks against exactly the kind of thing you are doing. He explains that he became disgusted with philosophy because of it.

This is a vitally important conversation, one where you do not get a free pass on your presumption of value. However, this is not the thread to hash it out on. I tried to contact you privately, I was not rude, I did not attack you, I merely called out your presumption of value, but you never got back to me.

Now will you please stop cluttering the forum with this drivel about what "true thinkers" should or shouldn't do. — Srap Tasmaner

Aside from being a poisoning of the well fallacy, the questions of relevance and intellectual responsibility do not fall into the category of "clutter" or "drivel," I expect something better than name calling or ad hominem from analytical philosophers. No one needs to take my word for it, Peter Unger, who is far more intelligent than you, has already said that analytical philosophy is "nonsense," just a bunch of "empty ideas."

Then your time is not entirely wasted, but makes use of your capacity to recognise a quality mind. — Banno

We are already getting into analytical semantics, not my cup of tea friend. I never said my time here was a waste, I said 'I consider these kind of considerations a waste.' And you should as well. You have a superb mind, why spend it on stuff like this? Davidson will not carry into the warming future as providing some kind of vital knowledge or clarification to humans. His considerations are just intellectual hedonism void of responsibility. My thought is that we must get beyond this kind of stuff. Thought is an incredible power, but it can waste itself by deliberating on what is futile. Life is the agent that thrusts the spear of relevance, we do not create it, life dictates it. Further, life is already discriminating against abstraction... but I am not against abstraction, who could ever sustain such a thing, I am against its irrelevance.

Then please, spend more time here telling of it... — Banno

Contrary to the assumption behind your premise, there is a value to it. That value is in recovering quality minds from the irrelevance of this abstraction.

Davidson's article is an example of language undermining itself — Banno

So what? And? We suddenly can't use it because it fails to meet Davidson's analytical criteria? Such a conclusion is impossible given the vast world of knowledge that language has spawned. I consider these kind of considerations to be a waste of time. They are formal in a way that doesn't even matter, for God sake man, look at Davidson's ridiculous conclusion: there is no such thing as a language. These are idealistic problems, they are not real problems, the world is full of real problems caused by idealistic reasoning.

Trying to move this conversation back to the topic of private property and away from the straw-man of State Marxism. This is truly an example of Marx's genius:

"Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they form a single whole. They are both creations of the world of private property. The question is exactly what place each occupies in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of a single whole.

"Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the antithesis, self-satisfied private property.

"The proletariat, on the contrary, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, private property, which determines its existence, and which makes it proletariat. It is the negative side of the antithesis, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and self-dissolving private property.

"The propertied class and the class of the proletariat present the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at ease and strengthened in this self-estrangement, it recognizes estrangement as its own power and has in it the semblance of a human existence. The class of the proletariat feels annihilated in estrangement; it sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of an inhuman existence. It is, to use an expression of Hegel, in its abasement the indignation at that abasement, an indignation to which it is necessarily driven by the contradiction between its human nature and its condition of life, which is the outright, resolute and comprehensive negation of that nature.

"Within this antithesis the private property-owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter the action of annihilating it.

"Indeed private property drives itself in its economic movement towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, which is unconscious and which takes place against the will of private property by the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, poverty which is conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, dehumanization which is conscious of its dehumanization, and therefore self-abolishing. The proletariat executes the sentence that private property pronounces on itself by producing the proletariat, just as it executes the sentence that wage-labour pronounces on itself by producing wealth for others and poverty for itself. When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property.

"When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today." Marx, The Holy Family, Chapter IV “Critical Criticism” As the Tranquillity of Knowledge, Or “Critical Criticism” As Herr Edgar

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch04.htm#4.4

What Marx has stated here is truly heartbreaking. He did not invent the proletariat class, it is a symptom of the capitalist organization of society. And as a symptom it imposes restrictions and limitations on that class.

What is most interesting is when Marx says, "When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary."

This class is not an elite class, Marx recognizes it because the social and economic conditions under which it is forced to live and develop impoverishes its quality and potential. He says this class must negate itself not proliferate itself. This is almost too much to bear.

"It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do."

This is so damn tragic upon reading it I nearly cried.

Are you assuming I'm a Christian? I'm not. — RogueAI

That was not my point. My point was your dogmatism.

This is unclear. — RogueAI

I like to ask Christians, 'is it possible that what the Bible says could be false?' They usually say no, which proves they are dogmatists, have invincible psychological conviction. One cannot reason with this, one can only refute it.

I would just like to take a moment and thank you for being a responsible thinker. Most thinkers are playing abstract games with each other until the day they die. This is the same as being religious, but thinkers like the Frankfurt School, Marx, Arendt, Foucault, Vygotsky and many others tried to figure out how to use thought to make a positive impact on society. I can see you are doing this and I applaud you for it.

First of all it's relation between critical thinking and problem solving skills. I was able to meet personally many people with very good fundamental education and strong critical thinking but quite weak problem solvers. — Skeptic

I think a few things might be going on here 1) poor quality in critical thinking skills, the materials I know of in this area are very comprehensive, and 2) lack of dialectical capacity, which is really where problem solving comes from within the context of thought. In terms of dialectic most people are lacking these skills because almost no one understands dialectic. This is why American philosophy (analytical philosophy) just keeps on inventing new categories, it tries to evade contradiction (believing that is the way to progress) as opposed to understand it.

I think we should continue this conversation in private message.

Although I'm not referring to religion per se, the question is about whether technology is a religion. — TheMadFool

Sorry, I can't help you here MadFool.

You quoted me without saying anything. Did you have a point to make? — RogueAI

Only that, "if you don't see no matter what," then I don't see the point of discoursing with you. You have already made up your mind.

You retreat from an incredibly basic request to clarify the term you were using and attack my character instead of attacking the argument. — Philosophim

Retreat I did not, what I did was explain why I am not interested in this approach and provide an argument. Your credentials cannot save you from an argument. You are already doing the exact thing I am talking about -- that's why we are not defining every word here. This allows us to actually have a conversation.

Do you see me going around with my nose in the air thinking that "I'm better than all of these novices"? — Philosophim

When did I say I was better? I just don't have time for it. Further, I would clarify that teaching and philosophizing are different activities. I weigh all questions equally, whether they come from scholars or beggars, on the basis of their value.

That knowledge is to be spread, shared, and engaged with by others, not hoarded like some treasure of personal superiority. — Philosophim

I couldn't agree with you more passionately, friend, I'm not the one you need to rebuke here. These lines need to be directed at American philosophy and academia in general, most specifically analytical philosophy. A large portion of my mental powers are spent trying to figure out how to do the very thing you are talking about.

You are not a dense person, so I leaning on the assumption you are using this as an excuse to avoid conversation when it becomes difficult for you. — Philosophim

Extracting a formal definition for religion is not difficult. Maybe try taking my own explication here (time/value) as oppose to divining my motives.

That is being an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite. You'll be a polemicist and yell at people all day — Philosophim

Yell? That is not polemics. Further, one cannot yell with words, one can emphasize, but one cannot yell.

Didn't you say thought thrived on conflict? Don't you constantly lament that philosopher's are not willing to engage you on points you find important? — Philosophim

I always qualify this because I am not merely stating an emotive platitude. Talking to an ignorant person in a specific way can detract both from intelligence and quality. Not every instance of negation is an instance of quality negation. Take Christianity for example, it is quite a large waste of life and resources to spend one's time refuting apologetic arguments. One is decreased by engaging the sophistry of creationism for example.

This is what I can tell you. I am not interested in debating the formal definition of religion. The real question is how far a philosopher's method can take him in the direction of knowledge. To do this effectively one must learn how to discriminate on the basis of intelligence, to speak in Nietzsche's terms, one must learn how to pass by.

However, if you simply must have it, if you cannot understand what I am here saying, then I will provide a formal definition to fulfill your request. (Notice that I have already been discussing this topic with other people, though we did not begin with a formal definition, some progress has already been made between us.)