/lit/ - Literature

>tfw Kantian
>tfw objectively right about pretty much everything and assign anything I don't know to the realm of noumena

Feels so, so great

Can someone explain the differences between all of the communisms?

Marxism
Communism
Stalinism
Maoism
Collectivism
Trotskyism
Leninism
Fourierism
Anarchosyndicalism

I actually like Stirners ideas

>>5991886
took me a long time to actually get what kant was talking about but holy shit the world of philosophy opened up when i did. kind of a dead end theoretically as a whole but so important.

>>5991886
>objectively outdated
Fixed.

You are living in a fantasy world.

>>5991917
>you are living in a fantasy world

kant would pretty much say the same thing!

>>5991886
>If a murderer comes to your door and asks for the whereabouts of your friend, it's better to tell the truth than to lie, even though you might be responsible for your friends death as a result

Kant was literally autistic.

>>5991906
>kind of a dead end theoretically as a whole but so important.
elaborate on the cul-de-sac please.

>>5991962
>>>If a murderer comes to your door and asks for the whereabouts of your friend, it's better to tell the truth than to lie, even though you might be responsible for your friends death as a result

I never understood this trickery : why would you end in such a situation if you were on the order of the categorical imperative beforehand ?
At this point is only a confusion between cause and consequence.

>>5991963
in a nutshell, there is no way that the whole noumenal thing is true. he presents a really important objection, that once knowledge crosses into the purview of the knower it is not possible to reverse that transaction and get the same result, but i don't think that his end result is metaphysically tenable. one only needs to read merleau-ponty to finally get the bow on the fuck you present to Descartes and all shadows of cartesianism. but the entire idea of the structures of the mind becomes so important in phenomenology that the first critique becomes sort of this all important tome if you'd care to take up that discipline (like me)

>>5991906
Kant is the ultimate autistic philosopher. He walked the same route at the same time every day. He hated noise. He wrote a book on how to avoid swallowing flies when you walk. His students said he had poor communication skills. He loved strict, logical systems that govern behavior. He disliked emotions and often belittled them.

>>5991892
>Marxism
Specific theories for achieving communism via workers state and world revolution.

>Communism
End-goal for most of communists, monyless,classless,stateless,collectivist and democratic society that is organized into worker controlled communes.

>Stalinism

Extension of marxism and follower up of Marxism-leninism, with goal of creating single-socialist state that is going to be vanguard for world-revolution, state is controlled by vanguard party that is controlled with democratic centralism within the party.

>Maoism
Same as previous with exception of new theory on class warfare,allowing and supporting guerila warfare as means for achiving revolution. Includes new definitions for those who simply don`t fit into workers vs. capitalists division creating new classes. Also cultural revolution is seen as central for cleaning the party form revisionism.

>Collectivism
Nothing to do with communism, just opposite of individualism. Needs of many overcome those of few, and sometimes rights must be limited for good of everyone.

>Trotskyism

Idea of constant revolutionary war against capitalism, anti-bureaucracy and clearly against idea of forming permanent socialist states.

>Leninism
Revolutionary vanguard party needs to lead the revolution and rule over the socialist state. Democratic centralism is upheld to allow debate within the party, but after decision is made it`s followed by unity of action and debate along criticism ends there.

>Fourierism
Some form of christian communism, don`t know much about it.

>Anarchosyndicalism
Syndicates(worker unions) will take over control of means of production and run all functions of society. Education and healthcare are provided by syndicates, and they seek to abolish markets and money, replacing it with work duty and such. Very localized direct democracy without central command hierarchy.

>>5991974
>there is no way that the whole noumenal thing is true.

>there is no way there might be and might not be a God

Toppest of keks m8y

>>5991892
They're all ideologies, so they're initially defined by individuals or small groups with varying degrees of relevance to reality. They gain currency, like all movements defined as ideological, through collective enforcement/vindication (whatever you like to call it) which has no relevance to reality. If you want to examine how they're distinct from each other, then you need ignore the cannon that's grown up around them, which is largely mythological, and dig up their roots.

>>5991886
>tfw cause & effect are just in the phenomenal realm

feels free mayne

>>5991986
Where do you fall on the political spectrum? Any of these categories?

>>5991986
>Specific theories for achieving communism via workers state and world revolution.
It's not theories on how to achieve communism, it's analysis predicting its inevitability.
>organized into worker controlled communes
There are no workers in a communist society, because class has been done away with.
>listing Stalinism before Leninism
I know the other anon did, but if you're going to offer explanations, please order them.
Can't be assed to read the rest.

>>5992019
I would be self-described authoritarian socialist/neo-reactionary thingy against idea of democratic rule.

Economically I would be supporting current model of Chinese economics(market socialism).

Culturally and on social issues I`m for state controlled culture and full censorship+propaganda press so that people could be directed towards those ideas that service collective needs of state.

>>5992034
Work is universal condition in communism, so for sake of simplicity I would consider it worker controlled collective.

Marx mostly did write critique of capitalism, but in the end ideology of Marxism is all about archiving communist society and steps necessary for that(ending of private property, destruction of family etc.) .

>>5992037
So you're basically a fascist that thinks he's using fascism toward some idealistic end goal.

>>5991849
Will the hard problem of consciousness ever be solved?

>>5992055
No, fascism is about protecting traditional values, I don`t value tradition or culture inherently. But otherwise I could be classified as fascist.

>>5991849
All philosophy ended with Wittgenstein and Nietzsche. Simply do not talk about things that are not quantifiable, and live your life as if you had to live it a million times over. Any philosophy past this point is sophistry, and reiteration. prove me wrong.

>>5992067
>Simply do not talk about things that are not quantifiable

yeah sounds like nietzsche alright dumbass

>>5992067
Seeing as a number of subjectively identical lives would be indistinguishable from just one, to the perspective of the subject, why not just say you have one timeless life?

>>5992064
>to cross a river you need to walk diagonally against the current rather than follow it diagonally
What a dumb idea.

HIDE AND IGNORE PHILOSOPHY THREADS

DO NOT PERPETUATE THIS SHITTY DISCOURSE

FILTER ALL TRIPCUCKS WHO POST IN THESE THREADS

>>5992064
>fascism is about protecting traditional values
>I don't have a tradition or culture

>>5992037
>I'm for state controlled culture

I don't know, man. I think we're splitting hairs here. You're a fascist at least in form.

>>5992067
>prove me wrong
>wants to engage in the sophistry and reiteration he claims all post-Witty philosophy is

>>5992050
>destruction of family
As someone who hasn't really studied communism, what do you mean by this exactly?

>>5992083
Authoritarian would be more fitting, since fascists are people who describe to ideology of fascism what is not about state dictating culture or changing it just for it`s interests sake.

>>5991986

Got anything that doesn't sound fucking awful?

>>5992103
It means that you shouldn't have special affection for blood relatives just because they're blood relatives.

>>5992081
>implying this is worse than booktubers/recent purchases/corn

>>5992108
>politics
>economy
>ideology
>not awful-sounding
Guess which one is mutually exclusive with the rest.

>>5992103
I`m refering to what Engels and Marx wrote about family unit, and how it would be reformed form our western model with marriages tiding property together. Children would not belong to their parents as property, but to collective(in somewhat similar fashion to native Americans, if I understand engels critique of family right)

>>5992110
To the point where a father should not be permitted leave from work to bury his son?

Just wondering how far this thing goes.

>>5992081
Please, this at least condenses the shitty individual question philosophy threads down to one mega thread.

>>5991886
>Kant
>not Hegel

Where my idealists at? Kant's transcendental idealism doesn't count, it's underdeveloped.

>>5992124
Hegel sucks.

>>5992124
>muh finalism

This is why nobody likes hegel.

>>5992103

The state strives to diminish and undermine the importance of the family structure (familial authority, familial duty, nepotism, value-transfer, household stability, etc) in order to make more people dependents of the state and thereby amenable to socialist constructs. Marx and many others saw the existence of a strong nuclear family as perpetuating class struggles and transferring traditional values.

>>5992129
Lol good one

>>5992124
Hegel is awesome

>>5992124

>2015
>still taking Heglel seriously

https://books.google.com/books?id=QsRkAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=schopenhauer+the+absolute&source=bl&ots=CGCnTGYPW1&sig=flYrlLLkWTtTeGoG5hEKxuuL8lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MlO1VM6hK-fasASe9oDYDQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=schopenhauer%20the%20absolute&f=false

>>5992117
Hmm. I can see the sensible rationale behind what it is I think you're suggesting, although I'm not sure I'd be able to jump on board with it (due to feelings that may be rooted in an evolutionary response to nurturing offspring, or a lifetime of conditioning of the Western family concept).

>>5992121
It's not about forbidding emotional attachment to people, it's about having and feeling the same responsibility towards everyone, blood relatives or not. Of course it'll be more painful when someone you're emotionally attached to (in a positive way) dies, but blood relationship doesn't carry particular meaning.

>>5992137

>calling Nietzsche 'evil'

he's chaotic good you autist

>>5992060
Why are you entertaining an empty idea? Just because some buzzword is trending, doesn't mean it has any underlying weight to it; it only has attached APPARENT weight. And by "apparent" I mean "look people r talken bout it therefore it exists". What are you going to solve? There is nothing to be solved. It is not an equation or a theorem to be proved. 'Consciousness' is loosely defined and might not, as I am sure it does not, exist at all. "Consciousness studies" can be easily summarized as follows: a bunch easily-distracted-by-flowery-concepts intellectuals that babble their way both publicly and academically about an illusory term referring to absolutely nothing and further contributing to the unfolding retardedness that is consciousness-talk.

Fuck off.

>>5992137
Chaotic evil ftw

>>5992148
Schopenhauer a shit

>>5992037
>I would be self-described authoritarian socialist/neo-reactionary thingy against idea of democratic rule.
>Economically I would be supporting current model of Chinese economics(market socialism).
>Culturally and on social issues I`m for state controlled culture and full censorship+propaganda press so that people could be directed towards those ideas that service collective needs of state.
Hahahahahahaa

That's an ingenious combination of the worst aspects of pretty much everything. Basically fascist.

>>5992064
>fascism is about protecting traditional values
EH?

>>5992155
a bunch of*

>>5992155
Why don't you think consciousness exists? Just because you think it's a spook it doesn't follow that it is.

>>5992152
I dunno, >>5992133 makes it sound like it is forbidding such emotional attachment.

>>5992149
Whole concept of communism and socialism can be condensed into following;

Rationally planned society&stability vs. society with individual freedom

>>5992159

mad because top autist hegel got btfo

>If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

>>5992155
I'm pretty sure the hard problem of consciousness is concerned with why subjective experience can apparently emerge from mere matter, namely brains. I'm not convinced you're expert enough in this area to dismiss a very large area of philosophy of mind as nonsense.

>>5992176
If that emotional attachment is built on the idea of the importance of blood ties, yes. Have you read Huxley's 'Island'? It details the workings of extended non-blood families.

>>5992173
>Why don't you think consciousness exists?
Because no empirical data or philosophical argument to date has convinced me.

>Just because you think it's a spook it doesn't follow that it is.
True, but also true if you invert the statement.

>>5992170
If we look at fascist states&political movements and their policy regarding culture we can determine that they are inclining towards defending traditional values in reactionary manner as traditionalists instead of changing those values.

>>5992195

>empirical data
>proving the existence of a subjective experience

ayyy

objective data can only corroborate subjective activity, not demonstrate or confirm the nature of such activity

>>5992195
>Because no empirical data or philosophical argument to date has convinced me.
Don't you have to be conscious to be convinced? You clearly already put a lot of weight on processes that are typically considered to be part of consciousness.

>>5992187
>emerge
It doesn't "emerge"; it just is. What do you mean by "subjective"? If we learn how to project someone's immediate experience onto a computer screen and do so by live broadcast e.g., would it still be subjective (in the sense of privacy)? Or, if by "subjective" you mean "is the red that I am seeing, the same red that you are seeing?" then I don't see why it isn't simply a relative peculiarity of our hardware (i.e. brains).

>>5992218
>falling for yet another buzzword that is "subjective experience"
Ayyyyy.

See >>5992251

>>5992220
No, you are begging the question. "Don't you have to be topkek to be convinced?"And what do you know; I just construed a speculative property of human psychology; and I am implicitly postulating it as I am using it, without any evidence whatsoever.

>>5992266
>you are begging the question. "Don't you have to be topkek to be convinced?
Convince me that an entity incapable of thinking can be convinced of something.
>And what do you know; I just construed a speculative property of human psychology; and I am implicitly postulating it as I am using it, without any evidence whatsoever.
I don't see your point.

>>5992075
>Seeing as a number of subjectively identical lives would be indistinguishable from just one, to the perspective of the subject, why not just say you have one timeless life?
it is the repetition which is supposedly here to drown you down if you make the mistake to not live according the eternal recurrence.

Did man discover knowledge or create it?

>>5992117
>Children would not belong to their parents as property, but to collective(in somewhat similar fashion to native Americans
And Sparta. God I miss them. Imagine all the problems resolved financially (welfare) and ideologically (equality of chance (before tweaking the genome))

>>5992154
>>5992154
>he's chaotic good you autist
He only says so, it does not mean that he is actually.

>>5992382

you're just buttmad because he rejects traditional christian slave morality

This is a relevant to the thread: >>5992374

>>5991984
>yfw Google "how to avoid swallowing flies kant"

>>5991962
>>5991984
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22065242

>>5992195
Of course consciousness exists.
Just take a look at how much information you are fed up, externally and internally, how much of this information is running in the background and how much of this info is actually available to you. Also, take a look how you can change this simply by concentrating on certain aspects of your experience
This is what consciousness is: this decision (conscious or not) of what you are going to be aware of and what is going to be running in the background. The problem of consciousness is knowing why this happens and how

>>5992137
True Good reporting in.

Feels strange man

Who carries the torch of Spinoza in modern philosophy? I've heard good things about Deleuze in this regard.

>>5992185
Lol, Schopenhauer is basically the shitposter of philosophy judging by that statement

>>5992451
Yes, it's Deleuze. Go read Practical Philosophy or whatever and be happy

>>5992451

Althusser seems to think that Marx is some kind of weird Spinozist, so you could look there

>>5992364
pls rspnd or I will make a shitty thread posing the question to the board at large.

>>5992468

No, god created knowledge

I'm reading philosophy chronologically, and I've spent the last few years reading Ancient Greek philosophy. I'm still stuck in the Presocratics and haven't even read Plato in full yet. Any recommendations on good translations of Plato which isn't Jowett shit?

Also, should I start on Ancient Egyptian, Indian, or Roman religion, philosophy, and history after I'm done with my mental masturbation over the Greeks?

>>5992479

>I'm reading philosophy chronologically

Dear god...

>>5992455

HIDF pls

Schopenhauer was lucid-tier, Hegel was incomprehensible-tier

>>5992479
>I'm reading philosophy chronologically

what is the difference between morals and conventional law? if there is one

>>5992500
>incomprehensible

next time use your brain when considering philosophy. Hegel is easy to understand if you understand what the arguments are.

next time don't read an intro to philosophy text that you googled lmao

>>5992509

'Thou shalt' versus 'I wouldn't, m8'

>>5992514
>Hegel is easy to understand if you understand what the arguments are.
>Hegel is easy to understand if you understand him

>>5992488
It's quite a task, but philosophy is my passion and a doctorate of philosophy is my goal.

It may be an absurdly idealistic, immense, and vastly autistic endeavor, but that hasn't deterred me yes.

>>5992506
I might catch up to 20th and 21st Century philosophy when I'm shitting the bed and forgetting the faces of my friends at 80, if I'm lucky.

>>5992527
>>Hegel is easy to understand if you understand what the arguments are.

Yes, if you understand Descarte's arguments, and the empiricists and what Kant was trying to do, understanding dialectics and idealism is not very hard

It's simple. Kant asserts phenomenon and noumenon. Idealism rejects the noumenon as a contradiction in terms.

Congratulations, follow that train of thought logically and Hegel is not hard to follow.

>>5992364
Define knowledge first

>>5992539

lel which school of idealism are you referring to?

The Subjective Idealism of Berkley?
The Transcendental Idealism of Kant?
The Absolute Idealism of Hegel?

also how do you figure the noumenon is a contradiction in terms? Kant resolved it as an unfathomable x. Schopenhauer gave it negative qualities.

>>5992689
>The Absolute Idealism of Hegel?
Obviously I'm talking about Hegel

Since I'd basically be repeating what's on here, read this: http://www.iep.utm.edu/germidea/

There you go. You have plenty of pages to read now.

>>5992689
For instance, you could say that "nothing" is itself an appeal to a thing-in-itself. Nothing is never actually nothing, nothing is always something, for it to even be considered by our minds it must be something.

What you need to do is stop thinking of all those stupid ways in which you were told to think about words and reduce what everyone says to ideas, because that's all they are

So then nothing is just an idea, and it's something we talk about, but we never see or experience a "true" nothing, and a "true" nothing is in itself a contradiction.

It's basically the purest philosophy possible, because nothing is cryptic in idealism

Also, read "on truth and lies in a nonmoral sense" by mah nigga nietzsche. It's a good introduction to idealist thought, ironically, because it discusses truth within language itself, and what it means.

>>5992557
Facts, information, and skills acquired by man through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject for example Mathematics and Sciences that generally hold true

>>5992738

I'm plenty well versed in philosophy. I've read Critique and Schopenhauer's collected works. I've also read most of Nietzsche.

I'm just trying to figure out what this dude is referring to.

>>5992738
>Also, read "on truth and lies in a nonmoral sense" by mah nigga nietzsche. It's a good introduction to idealist thought, ironically, because it discusses truth within language itself, and what it means.
Read Bernard William's "Truth and Truthfulness". Nietzsche is really out of depth there. But not surprisingly, since the advances in Logic and theories of truth came only after his death.

>>5992782

>english philosophy
>20th century

>>5991901
My lecturer today told us that he was the original anarcho-capitalist. Is that right. I made funny remarks about his private live, but she didn't know shit about that.

>>5992455
which of us truly sees the ephemeral and horrifying nature of life on a laotian caricature forum, the tripfag or the shitposter?

Been reading some of that young communitarian philosophy lately (Walzer/Sandel/ will get to Taylor and Macintyre eventually). Anyone have thoughts (criticism or support) about that whole category or any other suggestions. Thanks

How do i into modern ethics?

Sup guys. I have never read any philosophy before, but I'm looking to get into it. Can you recommend me a nice overview work, a book that briefly discusses the essential works of western philosophy and also provides a historical context? I tried looking something like this up myself, but I've been overwhelmed by how much choice there is. Thanks in advance!

>>5993889
Have you read ancient / enlightenment ethics?

>>5993996
Eastern philosophy is also important, too, man.

Read literally any of the primers or introductory works about philosophy, what it's about, and what to expect. Start there.

Search for "Introduction to Philosophy".

>>5994016
ye

>>5993996
Will Durant the story of philosophy

Yo dudes, where do I start with modal epistemology/epistemology of modality? I've already read Naming and Necessity. More Kripke? I want to get more technical in this shit. Dunno where to head though.

Generals are a sign of a boards imminent death

>>5995202
>I want to get more technical in this shit
What a mess. I mean I want to read more of the technical/formal stuff of it (not to disregard stuff like N&N, that was a fantastic read). I'm no babby and can handle mathematical logic in my philosophy so feel free to hit me hard.

>>5993996
Bertrand Russell: "History of western philosophy" is the best for what you want.

>>5995202
Kripke is about as technical as you will get without just doing modal logic.

>>5993889
Modern, as in, contemporary?

Bernard Williams is my favourite moral philosopher. Alasdair MacIntyre is great too and responsible for reviving virtue ethics. The Wittgensteinians like Cora Diamond are also very interesting. Then of course you have pretty basic utilitarians like Peter Singer but they're boring as fuck imo

>>5995212
A /ph/ - Philosophy & History board should already fucking exist. Either that or just renamed /lit/ to /hum/ - Humanities or /lib/ - Liberal Arts.

>>5995224
Really? I"m fine with that. Got any recs for straight up modal logic in the realm of epistemology?

>>5995238
Hintikka

>>5992131
This has nothing to do with Hegel.

>>5995276
It is indicative of the same unfalsifiable teleological beliefs that lay at the heart of Hegel's bullshit metaphysics.

RIP /lit/

>>5995267
Name sounds familiar. I'll look into his stuff. Thanks, anon.

>retard containment general

nice

>>5992251
this is stupidity parading as rationality.

To say "it just is" is to say that its always existed, which is bullshit. The universe has a beginning, and so does life. How does consciousness emerge from basic matter?

>>5992364
this is a dumb question that is alluding to (imo) one of the basic questions of Philosophy

Do we discover, or create Maths?

If Math isn't "real" what does that say for the entire field of Physics, which is hinged on the assumption that it is.

>>5992479
Indian, it's the only one thats still relevant.

>>5991906
agreed, philosophy didnt happen until Kant

then again, the trajectory that lead to Kant making the claims that he did may have overlooked something

>>5995552
We created it. Physics is just a tool for predicting.

>>5995488
>Ridiculing philosophy
Disparagement of any academic field typically indicates ignorance in that field by the disparager.

>>5995555
>quads
It's also very related to Ancient Greek philosophy as an influential source of Greek thought. Maybe I will.

>>5992451
Deleuze is so fucking good.
If you know what's up then you will shit bricks.

>>5992479

Yeah, no

Read Nietzsche's take on the pre-socratics

Read Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus

Then read Deleuze on Nietzsche
and then read Deleuze

>>5995559
What does this say about advanced Physics which point to things that seem ludicrous on the surface, but we accept as fact because it balances the equation? If Math isn't real can we really rely on it as a source of truth?

Im actually curious, and I'm not trying to imply anything here.

>>5995558
>philosophy didn't happen until Kant

Kant is nowhere near the level of Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Locke. He set out to correct Hume and failed big time.

>>5995552
Both.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Why_Math_Works.pdf


>>5995577
Nietzsche doesn't know shit about philosophy, motherfucker.

>>5995582
Read Quine and Putnam, mathematics is "real".

>>5992822
What about his private live?

>>5995577
>Jumping from Greeks to Deleuze
>Missing Aquinas
>Missing the Renaissance/Enlightenment political philosophers
>Missing the three Rationalists and Empiricists
>Missing German Idealism
>Nietzsche but no Schopenhauer
etc.

>>5995613
You really only need the three Rationalists and Empiricists if you are interested in academic philosophy.

>>5992386
Rejecting morality is a pretty big indication that you won't rank highly on a morality scale.

Socrates was an illiterate black slave.

>>5995636
[citation needed]

Alright then, Descartes and Hume.

>>5995622

No. Most academic philosophers have at least a decent run through of the Philosophy of History. Medieval Philosophy had the high point of logic right before the Black Death hit, and rhetoric got more popular because it was more pragmatic. Given modern Analytic Philosophy's focus on logic, Meideval Philosophy tends to be more similar in format to it than the Renaissance and Englightement period Philosophy That degree or rigor didn't come back until 19th century with Frege, from which guys like Russel took their cues from.

>>5995622
>>5995640

>>5995613
>>political philosophers
pick one

conjecture:
all philosophy is metaphysics

>>5995226
Thanks!

>>5995585
>>nowhere near

every philosopher today regards Kant as THE major thinker in the modern era

there is no discussion of this

you either failed to understand Kant or failed

>>literally fuming

>>5995587

>>implying a first grade understanding of nietzsche

you're probably a logical positivist

>>5995664
You're probably untermensch.

>>5995661
Kant has been a joke ever since the 20th century. His synthetic apriori is still the object of derision. Kantians all but disappeared when Einstein rolled in and described the geometry of space-time.

>>5995672
this

>>5995670
I've never seen someone misinterpret Nietzsche in a thread so quickly.

>>5992451
Steven Nadler is one of the better American/Anglo Spinozan scholars and has the most convincing solutions regarding Spinoza's metaphysics and epistemology. His shift of the question regarding Spinoza's atheism or pantheism to one that is rooted in psychology rather than theology or metaphysics/ontology is really ingenious (Nadler staunchly claims that Spinoza was an atheist, or rather had an atheistic rather than religious disposition to God/Substance/Nature).

Deleuze really excels in his exposition of the moral and psychological aspects of Spinoza. Practical Philosophy is really a great way to understand Books III-V of the Ethics.

Agamben and Negri apply Spinozan thought to politics and theology. I know less about this aspect of modern Spinozist philosophy.

>>5995672
[citation needed] on literally everything you said

>>5995664
>tfw logical positivists were so successful that the rest of philosophy is still trying to convince itself that their program failed.

>>5995672

>>in a philosophy thread
>>failing to distinguish physics from metaphysics
>>mfw

>>5995613

Objectively correct route in philosophy to live a joyous life:

Plato's Early Dialogues
Aristotle's Ethics and De Anima
Descartes' Meditations
Spinoza's Ethics
Hume's Treatise + Enquiry
Kant's Three Critiques, particularly 3rd
Nietzsche's Gay Science + Genealogy + Zarathustra
Bergson's Time and Free Will
Deleuze's Nietzsche + Practical Philosophy + Difference and Repetition

Route in philosophy to forever to mired in obscurity:

Plato's Middle and Later Works
Aristotle's Metaphysics
Aquinas
Kant's Three Critique's, especially 1st
Hegel
Heidegger
Pre-Socratic Fragments

>>5995753
lmao

10/10

>>5995719
You do know most analytic philosophers are no longer logical positivists right?

>>5995753
>>5995756

although it would take a lifetime to get through just Kant and Hegel

>>5995758
shhhhh
including later Wittgenstein

>>5995763
Refer to>>5992479.

Please help.

>>5995770
>>5992479

see

>>5995753

>>5995758
>>5995766
Even analytic philosophers go through fads, Logical Empiricism will make a come back.

>>5995763
Accounting for Secondary Literature:

1 st year:
Plato + Aristotle

2nd year:
Descartes + Spinoza + Hume

3rd/4th year:
Kant

5th year:
Nietzsche + Bergson

6th year:
Deleuze

>>5995753
both of those lists are good

>>5995749
>thinks it is meaningful to speak of metaphysics
>thinks there are truths beyond those of physics
>mfw

Can someone explain to me how cultural marxists destroyed the west? I keep hear it being brought up but Im not familiar with what they did.

>>5995775
Nah, I can't do that. I'd be skipping too much.

>>5995787

well you have my vote good sir

>>5995753
route in philosophy to reach knowledge
>Democritus
>Plato
>Rationalists (Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza)
>Empiricists (Hume, Locke, Berkeley)
>Frege
>Russell
>Moore
>Wittgenstein
>Logical Positivists
>Popper and Lakatos
>Quine
>Putnam

Everything else is arbitrary.

>>5995793
The failure of the enlightenment project destroyed the west. Adorno and co believe that that failure was already inherent in the project and was bound to lead to fascism and authoritarianism. Habermas says the 20th century was a woopsie-daisy and defends the enlightenment project and attempts to resurrect it.

>>5995789

>>thinks it is meaningful to speak of metaphysics

a claim that you can make due to Kant

my counterargument is that Kant was largely criticizing the trajectory of religion before him, and if we want to reopen the debate, must borrow from the lineage of the gnostics/others suppressed by the christians

>>thinks there are truths byond those of physics

axioms of logic. physics, like all of the sciences (following Kant and Hume) is inductive

>>5995809
where do the jews and the sjw's come in?

>>5995807
>Skipping to Frege
Analytic philosophers, everytime..

>>5995793
They have not destroyed the west, but they are certainly trying. The Frankfurt school came up with the idea of "marching through the institutions" to gain power, rather than rising up and imposing Marxism directly.
The current SJW feminist circus is an example of this.

>>5995813
axioms of logic are not about the world. They are analytic statements.

>>5995807
>tfw ol' Broad Shoulders the Faggot suppressed Democritus' 70+ books into obscurity
>they will never be recovered

>>5995814
The Jews conspire to gain power by destroying white culture through introduction of inferior races and cultures. At least I think that's the standard narrative.

>>5995818
there is nothing between that is worth reading.

>>5995825

and
you claimed there was no truth beyond physics,
which was obviously ridiculous.
And now you're confused why you look ridiculous

>>5995819
>implying SJWs exist

>>5995840
dude, go to tumblr and search up womens rights.

>>5995840
what are the foundational texts of the SJW movement, anyway? Or do they just make it all up

>>5995839
The truths of logic say nothing about the world. They are true in virtue of their meaning. The truths of physics on the other hand are about reality/nature/world.

>>5995846
lol really dismantling the patriarchy there

>>5995849
They mostly rely on blogposts by women who have completed gender-studies courses.

>>5995793
>>5995819
>Conspiracy
Reminder Frankfurters are just leftists

>>5995827
The idea that the soul is material is interesting notion no? Do you know any other philosophers who has a similar idea to this?

>>5992137
>>>5982113 →

Yes, I'm new to all this. Does someone mind naming each man, left to right or some simple manner? Much appreciated.

>>5995873
"just leftists". Stalin was just a leftist. Mao was just a leftist. What is your point?

>>5995856
cont.
The point is the laws of logic are not beyond the laws of physics. They are not metaphysical, they are statements which are true in virtue of their meaning, rather than in virtue of expressing some fact about the world.

Stupid question:

If I wanted to get into philosophy, more precisely, Absurdism, Existentialism and Nihilism, where do I start?

>>5995846
That indicates there are very deluded, disturbed, mentally ill, and misguided individuals in the world, not that they are SJWs or define SJWs or that SJWs even exist.

>>5995849
"SJW" is a conflation of conflicting ideologies embodied in a fictitious stereotype comprising hipsters, third-wave feminists, and social justice activists, neatly caricatured in a single buzzword concocted by theoconservatives and /pol/lacks trying to disparage and dismiss an entire side of sociopolitical philosophy in a single, broad stroke.

>>5995883
I mean the frankfurters aren't behind any wacko conspiracy called "Cultural Marxism"
pic related

>>5995892
What do you hope to gain from reading about those topics? You will not gain knowledge, only the belief that life requires "meaning" and the fact that there is none indicates that you must create it. You are better of just reading fiction.

>>5995901
I like to read about such things, and also maybe I will find something that is of value for me.

>>5995896
Well the Soviets did try and use the western socialist intellectuals to undermine the west, that is on record. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, the socialists are hardly trying to hide what they are working towards.

>>5995876
Left to right:
Kant
Socrates
Bakunin
Wittgenstein
William James
Sartre
Hobbes
Derrida
Nietzsche

>>5995901
>>5995892
Nihilism and existentialism are useful for challenging your current understanding of reality and dismantling everything you thought you knew about it. Many take this as an end and not a point of departure, however, and as a result grows into philosophical mediocrity. Don't do that.

Study nihilism and existentialism, but don't stop there.

Sorry, no good suggestions, though.

>>5995896
Holy shit that is some Tor/pol/ deepweb hyperautism tinfoil.

>>5995868
sorta depends on the issue

Judith Butler obvs

bell hooks and Audre Lorde are among the writers whose entire range of ideas seem most broadly accepted by the people seen as "SJWs", and come off as least dated

w/r/t race, Said and Fanon are significant

Simone de Beauvoir I think is relevant to the "gender is a social construct" thing, as well as much of the ongoing agenda of socially-oriented feminism

a lot of the "this seemingly innocuous thing actually helps entrench invisible systems of power" is basically politics read through Foucault

>>5995932
I have actually seen many women reading de Beauvoir's second sex in the last 12 months. It seems to be fairly fundamental in the SJW canon.

>>5995893
SJW detected

>>5995916
Thank you kindly, anon.

>>5995964
No, I wouldn't qualify as one given the criteria expounded in this article: http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

It is a heavily biased and attempts to substantiate "SJW" when it doesn't really exist, but it is at least the most comprehensive and detailed analysis and definition of the purported phenomenon I've yet encountered.

Try again, faggot.

>>5995975
>denying the existence of SJW

I don't think you can deny that SJW exist.

>>5995706
Which part do you want a citation for? Even neo Kantians often reject the synthetic a priori. Kant achieved very little, he certainly did not bring about the Copernican revolution of Philosophy, that he believed he had.

>>5996023
I've literally never seen them outside of 4chan.

>>5995856
>>being this unsophisticated
>>using terminology that is suspect in post-Kantian era

reality/nature/world are defined empirically by the senses..
you can only speculate their usage as empirical constants...
logical axioms are understood by mental reason, ergo reason itself is suspect---

the takeaway, you're right about the difference: logical truths are analytic
although Hume tried to say that they applied to the identity of simple ideas/impressions.

>>5995807
>skipping Kant
Why? I thought Kant was that guy everyone agreed was pretty cool

>>5996075
tumblr is their homeland
>go to tumblr
>search for 'justice gender privilege'
>https://www.tumblr.com/search/justice+gender+privilege#
>mon visage quand

>>5996241
No, logic is not empirical. You are confusing reason and logic.

The truth of logical laws is verified in virtue of their meaning. We define what means what, but once that definition is given it is impossible to change the meaning given new empirical knowledge. We may define a new meaning as a result of empirical findings, but the old meaning will not be invalidated. "A is A" is true as we have defined "is". So insofar as you accept that as a law of logic, it is true by definition.

We can make errors in reasoning, our minds are part of nature, but if we define what something means then we cannot be in error in assuming that definition.

>>5996279
Kant was influential as he was so wrong. Correcting his views has been a very beneficial exercise. So there is some value, but not in reading him as a primary source.

>>5996325

You're exactly the kind of pleb reader that schopenhauer hated so much.

>>5996341
Schopey would not approve? I will wear that like a bade of honour, next to my logical positivist badge.

>>5996349

reminds me of this funny pic :)

here, look

I read some of Rorty and he seems like a nice guy. Where do I start with him, and what background is necessary? I'm also interested in pragmatism in general.

can we see every philosophy as (a part of) a narration about the world, also known as metaphysics ?

>>5996827
Yes. Nowadays people like to say this or that philosophy is non-metaphysical but in our times this is not much different than claiming one's philosophy is the True™ one.
"Non-metaphysical" means "stop questing my metaphysics, I swear there are none!". In this sense any "non-metaphysical" philosophy is more dogmatic.

>>5996827
>a narration about the world, also known as metaphysics
>also known as
NO. JUST NO.
'a narration about the world' =|= metaphysics
back to square one
bad, bad doggie

>>5996864
I don't think anon's characterization is wrong, even if it's not particularly good or complete. It's like saying that metaphysics talks about the world; the term "narration" then emphasizes the talk aspect more that the world one.

Is Kripke still the final boss of philosophy or did someone overtake him?

>>5991986
>Some form of christian communism, don`t know much about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier

>>5992200
Futurism is a traditionalist aesthetic?

I think you're conflating fascism with Nazism. No doubt fascism later moved to appease Nazis, but the movement before Nazi influence was not traditionalist at all.

What's the difference between metaphysics and ontology? I read that the latter is a subset of the first and is concerned with what kind of things exist ultimately. But what there is left for metaphysics to do that is not ontology?

>Last thread has zizek in OP pic
>19 mentions of zizek

>Have Habermas in OP pic
>1 mention

>>5996911
Metaphysics are things that can only be discerned through reason.

Ontology deals specifically with non-static aspects of metaphysics. 2 + 2 = 4, for instance, is a static fact of metaphysics, whereas Being is by definition not static. Heraclitean metaphysics, basically.

>>5996911
Ontology is the study of being as being, and is often considered the first philosophy. Such is Aristotle's famous formulation.
This was most aggressively opposed by Kant for whom knowing was the first object of study instead of being, and this is then epistemology instead of ontology.
Metaphysics contains both insofar as any thought has some assumption about the world, but ontology is closer to it than epistemology insofar as we consider being to be more intimately connected with the notion of the world.

>>5996915
What is Habermas' thought exactly? He seems to have a bit of a conservative attitude towards some philosophical developments in 20th century.

GF recently said "my god. pure ideology" about a commercial. Should I check to see if she has cocaine in her purse?

>>5992822
An-claps consider violating muh Non-aggression principle to be a sin, I couldn't see Stirner agreeing with that.

Recently I started reading some Plotinus' Enneads.What do you guys think about his views?

>>5996999
>dating an obfuscating continental

>>5997090
What does /lit/ think Stirner talks about anyway? Worshipers seem to have a very very vague interpretation of him without any understanding of his position in the history of philosophy. And /lit/'s Stirnerianism often works like negative theology.

>>5995807
>no Kant
>confirmed to be an ill educated american

In philosophy it's impossible to ignore just 4 authors:
Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Kant

I like more Hume, Hobbes, Condillac, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche... But i can't ignore the importance of these 4. If uyou ignore, you take philosophy just a pleasure. You won't get the central idea, but just get a collection of sistems

>>5997125
Better people have a vague idea than those who have too much of an idea and get all autistic like Marx does and don't realize Stirner's dialectics are literally meant to be a joke.

>>5996999
>Should I check to see if she has cocaine in her purse?
nah, you should check those trips :^)

>>5997151
>Condillac
what works of condillac ? He did only the description of the statue

>>5996864
> regretting that a noob asks question
> saying NO NO NO
> not developping his stance
> thinking he his pedagogical

bad, bad doggie as you say

>>5996882
>Wittgenstein is not the reigning boss of philosophy

Just because he is dead does not mean he was beat. Kripke will never be on wittys level.

>>5997193
But Kripke is essentially an extension of Wittgenstein

>>5996920
2+2=4 has nothing to do with metaphysics. It is a fact of mathematics.

>>5997194
That's not how it works. That would make Russell the champion in light of having taught Wittgenstein, then Frege for having inspired Russell...and so on back to Plato and before.

>>5997162
Can you tell me what you think Stirner says then? And I mean what he says and not what he doesn't say.

>>5997201
that post is defending Kripke because he was a student and an extension of Wittgenstein, it is not putting Wittgenstein above Kripke because he was a teacher of Kripke. reading comprehension m8...

>>5997211
That metaphysical essences, including of actions and effects (morality), are no more reasonable to believe then ghosts, because these essences effectively "haunt" things.

That there are essences which we go so far as to try to absorb the physical into (family, state, humanity, etc.)

That these essences are the only motivation we can ever provide besides "pleasure" or "avoiding pain" for our actions. And since they aren't reasonable to believe in, it makes most sense to believe that pleasure or avoiding pain are the sole reasons we do anything beyond instinct.

The rest is mainly Stirner illustrating hypocrisy, making jokes and showing how the world would not collapse if everyone thought like he did, even though he wouldn't care if the world did collapse as a result..

>>5997221
Well he said "final boss". My assertion is Witty died the "final boss" and took the title with him. The fact that Kripke's thought is an extension of wittgenstein's does not mean he inherits the title of big bad boss of philosophy.

Anyway Kripke fails to wrap his mind around Quine's take down of the analytic synthetic divide.

>>5997241
Hegel died as final boss and Witty took it

What about Hegel and Schopenhauer?

>>5997243
Hegel was demolished so many times it's not funny.

>>5997247
>non analytics
We are talking about philosophy.

>>5995545
>this is stupidity parading as rationality.
Let me translate that for you: "I don't like it therefore it is not rational".

>To say "it just is" is to say that its always existed, which is bullshit
Do you have a problem with that?

>The universe has a beginning, and so does life.
It has a beginning according to one (out of many) of our cosmological models, which frankly speaking is not all that watertight.

>How does consciousness emerge from basic matter?
Not only you're begging the question by asserting the existence of consciousness and emergence, but you falsely assume that the latter must emerge from basic, and not, say, complex, matter, as most theorists think.

Read a book; your ignorance is dazzling us all.

>>5997262
Read Daniel Dennett. There is no hard problem.

>>5997267
Read my previous posts before chiming in. I am not advocating the hard problem.

>>5997230
This not much more than saying "there are ideas and values, but you better just believe in pleasure, because there are no ideas and values".
You're leaving a lot of shit out too, like his idea of egoism and individual autonomy.

Hey reading Leibniz atm.

Having trouble to understand the monadology. Any one care to help?

>>5995585
How'd he fail to correct Hume again? I think he did a good job of digging metaphysics out of the hole Hume buried it in

>>5997380
His hair seems so comfy.

>>5997380
Post some passages you're having trouble with.

>>5992195
Conscioussness, if it exists, can not in principle be determined to exist by any empirical means.

The same goes for physical objects. If external physical objects exists, then they cannot, in principle, be determined to exist by physical means.

If we are conscious experiencing subjects, then all our experience is by definition subjective. We cannot therefore say that physical objects or consciousnesses exist because neither other minds nor physical objects can enter into our experience. Anything that we experience is precisely that: our own subjective experience. As such, no empirical evidence can, in principle, be provided that guarantees the existence of anything beyond experience.

>>5997465
Sorry I meant to say "If external physical objects exist, then they cannot, in principle be determined to exist by any empirical means."

>>5997407
>digging metaphysics out of the hole Hume buried it in
>Noumenon
>Synthetic a priori

Kek

>>5997487
Synthetic a priori is Kant trying to explain what Hume couldn't.
And Hume is not free from metaphysics e.g. his bundle theory.

>>5992738
That isn't how Hegel works. Hegel postulates that the thing itself is pure thought. His work is an explanation of the three-step process by which thought comes to know itself through the thing itself's and the subject's attempts to meet in the transcendental space between them and failing to do so continually forever.

>>5992804
>Writing off analytic philosophy
>2015
It's like you think Zizek is the new Kant

>>5997454
For example the entire thing of how monads are supposed to be the driving force behind everything, but they themselves cannot interact with anything , confuses me. I jusst dont understand how that would work.

>>5997506
Pre-established harmony by God himself. In each monad is a whole casual history, so each is a reflection of the whole world, but getting more blurry when you get away from its center.

>>5997250
But he was right about history
And his metaphysics is supposed to be unfalsifiable

>>5997506
God programmed the monads. Each monad has its own law of program and as this is the best of all possible worlds all the monads are harmonious.
It can't work, it is a metaphysical fiction.

>>5992060
no

>>5997531
can't solve something that isn't a problem

>>5995753
Pretentious post-modernist elitist detected.

Anyone that writes a list of essential philosophy and include Nietszche, Begson, and Deleuze, but not Wittgenstein does not deserve to call them selves a student of philosophy.

First of all Deleuze is basically just academic snobbery. I'll admit there is some substance, but far more fluff then anything else. His work reads like poetry. It can't be used as a legitimate tool for analyzing the world or anything. It just provides an interesting way of looking at things. Moreover, his work primarily deals with socio-economic issues. Deleuze work lacks relevance outside of the context of modern western civilization.

Wittgenstein on the other hand deals with timeless issue: ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, knowledge, logic, and language. Moreover, he is able to systematically connect all these issues under the scope of a unified theory of language and logic, first in his Tractarian conception of language, and then in his later philosophy of language. Unlike Deleuze, Bergson, and Nietzche, he's also able to come to definite conclusions about these things instead of relying on intuitive speculation (e.g. his regress argument in Philosophical investigations and his discussion of the limits of certainty and doubt in On Certainty). Wittgenstein is a true gneius that stands above Deleuze, Bergson, Nietzsche, etc. He's not only just a great philosopher, but truly one of the most brilliant men of all time. Wittgenstein is like a brilliant logician, combined with an accute phenomenologist, combined with a mystic, all rolled into one.

>>5997569
Have you read anything else by Deleuze than a few pages out of Anti-Oedipus? Try Difference and Repetition.

>>5997569
>unified theory
>phenomenologist
seems like you've misunderstood some things

>>5997605
If you don't think WIttgenstein was partially a phenomenologist you're an Uberpleb.

>>5997614
>accute phenomenologist
>partially a phenomenologist
you're confusing yourself mate
i didn't imply anything, wittgenstein mostly refused the type of phenomenology professed on his contemporaries' philosophy, he was in a way a very particular type of phenomenologist but that was a minor aspect of his main points

>>5997628
I'm a new poster, not the guy you were replying to.
>wittgenstein mostly refused the type of phenomenology professed on his contemporaries' philosophy
But not all phenomenology. The Tractatus is an account of how the world is and an attempt to describe it. He references 'the mystic' in it and delves into ontology a bit. Look up logical atomism and tell me that it doesn't seem to have something to do with phenomenology.

>>5997605
Sorry perhaps I shouldn't have used the word phenomenologist. I understand that phenomenology is supposed to be about description and not building systematic theories (this btw is itself a theoretical system). Anyway Wittgenstein wasn't working within the phenomological tradition; my point was just that he had a nack for analyzing experience and paying close attention to detail without resorting to speculation. Describing his work on language as a system is of course somewhat inaccurate, but there's no other way to describe it considering its scope and inclusiveness. All he ever does though is describe the workings of language and deductively analyze certain aspects of it. In doing so he touches upon important issues concerning ethics, metaphysics, etc., etc. And while he wasn't working within the phenomenological tradition, you can find many similarities between his work and that of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty.

>>5991984
>tfw Kant avoid swallowing flies

What is it with the Pythagoreans and fucking beans? They made even Empedocles who was somewhat influenced by them say:
>Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans!

>>5996075
Twitter is full of them, just check out the "je ne suis pas Charlie" tag on twitter. It's usually young women who talk about Intersectionality and beyonce

>>5996023
Prove they exist.

>>5998514
>>5996281
That proves nothing.

>>5998568
>this post
holy fuck the fallacy

>>5996023
An SJW is to feminism as a Revlefter is to communism....in fact, what would you call that? Someone who acts like they're from Revleft?

>>5998584
It proves nothing because it is insufficient as evidence of the phenomenon of "SJW." It attempts to cite a general trend as substantiation for the claims while failing to explain how they prove the existence of SJWs; and moreover fails to properly addresses my criticisms regarding it. They do not define "SJW," nor do they adequately expound the relationship between the aforementioned trend(s) and the purported phenomenon of "SJW."

>>5991849
The philosophy general is killing this board. The only ones happy about this are the Christfags whose toes get stepped on by philosophy. Relative to the other posts philosophy OPs were actually somewhat meaningful. Stop trying to change /lit/ culture.

>>5998641
Then get moot to make >>5995234.

>>5998641
No, we're happy too. There seems to be less shitposting and less of obnoxious questions like "/lit/, is there any meaning?" and less of non-answers like "it's all just chemicals in the brain".

>>5998641
We don't want to constantly spin around the same stupid shit with "Christfags" and other fags anyway, that's why we're hiding in here. Don't tell on us.

What do people here think of pic related?

>>6000548
big kek

>>6000555

I'm genuinely curious. Can you answer?

>>6000548
He's grossly exaggerating his point to illuminate something largely ignored.

>>6000565

Can you elaborate?

>>5995883
Fiscally maybe (Gosplan), but Stalin's social policies would place him on the far right, esp. in regard to the way they had been under Stalin.
The juries out on Mao

>>5991849
Explain to me why God does or does not exist

>>6000555
Friendly reminder that Molyneux's system works of universal natural rights and morality, whereas Marxism has to force people to share.

>>6000570
While the family isn't the basis for all of society, as it appears he is claiming, the family has largely been ignored by (contemporary) sociologists, philosophers, politicians, and any assorted others who wish to affect society in any major way. In essence, the family has been made holy, untouchable even by those who wish to change society in any major way. That is (one reason) why progress hasn't happened in society.

Is this board just Marxists versus theists? Marxists replacing god with the state?

>>6000590

You're saying progress hasn't happened because the issue of family hasn't been illuminated but you also say that family isn't the basis for society. This seems to contradict, am I misunderstanding?

>>6000548
>Libertarian
>Calls himself a philosopher but only has a B.A in history
>Probably a Anarcho-Capitalist

>>6000583
this is like putting Hitler on the far left because of his economic policies.

>>6000548

>>5997092
Rationally perfect.
non-christian theology bangs.

What is post modern Christianity? And how do I get into it?

>>5997151
The only significant achievement Kant made was to figure out how to avoid swallowing a fly.

>>6000586

I found his arguments to be sound. People that come on his show (mostly Marxists and socialists) seem to get their arguments dismantled so easily. He bumps them up on the waiting list too.

People like this:

>>6000555
>>6000611
>>6000620
...make me drawn to him even more as they have no content in their criticisms. I'd really like someone to give a proper criticism, like find a flaw in his logic or reasoning.

>>6000607
I would say that the family is an important component of society, whereas Molyneux explains society as a result of family.

>>6000627
I'm not sure but I'd assume it would be an adapted, evolved form of catholic (little "c") Christianity which discards the antiquated doctrines of the religion and reforms its beliefs to be more conducive with contemporary society and science.

Basically, it'll be an improved form of post-reactionary Christianity stripped of its dogmatism and contradictory relationship with science and secular philosophy. It's the inevitable next step in Christianity, lest it dies out due to a lack of modernity.

>>6000644

>>6000644
>Molyneux explains society as a result of family.

Have you seen his presentations such as "The Bomb in the Brain"? He has very strong arguments for this. There are many others as well.

>>6000561
This dude seriously put the development of the western family under some serious scrutiny in On the Origins of Family, Private Property, and the State. Sees the things in the title as a the structure caused by Agricultural Mode of Production & it's Division of Labour in a way that parallels the development of classes in the Industrial Revolution.
>matriarchal prehistory
This is certainly bullshit(unless your definition of matriarchy is some bizzaro Esther Vilar shit) , but it's a small part of the whole work.

>>6000656
I haven't, but it does seem quite interesting, even if I disagree with it currently. I'll be sure to check them out.

>>6000660

Can I have a link to that? Or can you explain further, you're just saying it's bullshit.

>>6000615
>Strasserism

Market regulations aren't the same thing as a central planning, no matter what delusional ancaps say.

>>6000643
He's a classic liberal, and classic liberalism is an ultimately reactionary (hence the classic.) affirmation of a historically specific mode of production, this amounts to moral aestheticism.

>>6000670

I was skeptical at first too, but his presentations get to the point and are not too long. He has another one on fatherless children. The statistics on that one are what really convinced me.

>>6000673
I'm not saying it's bullshit, I'm saying the term Matriarchy is wrongly applied in the case, as the term matriarchy would imply a state ruled by women. In Engels' prehistory, there is no state. Before the discover of paternity (Clan of the Cave Bear is a good book for speculation on attitudes towards this subject) the woman was limited by the fact of her reproductive organs to raise children alone, as random predatory men would swing by an rape her.

>>6000702
>He's a classic liberal
>this amounts to moral aestheticism.

He identifies as anarchist, and I think you're wrong on the second part. He has a book called "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics," in audio form on Youtube for free.

>>6000733

Everything is going over my head here. Can you show me where he has said these things?

>>6000643
>I'd really like someone to give a proper criticism, like find a flaw in his logic or reasoning.
This whole channel is dedicated to bashing his logic.
https://www.youtube.com/user/PhilosophyLines/videos

>>6000769
>private property
If the state as a body that is legally bound to protect his property, he can't be an anarchist, for the anarchist, private property would be only what he himself has the power to protect without the state supporting an subsidizing his weakness.

You can read Engel's stuff here, it's very short.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/

>>6000823

Well I'll have a look at all those videos, though so far it seems mostly defamation and instances taken out of context. Molyneux says he encourages critics to come on his show, I'm surprised this person won't come on his show if he believes Molyneux's logic is so flawed. so he can set him straight.

>>6000847

He doesn't say the state is to protect private property in a stateless society. I'll have a look at that link but to be honest, the amount of holes I've seen picked in Marxist theory make me reluctant.

>>6000956
Don't even trip.

New thread >>6001504