Maoists BTFO

twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910351113676783617

Maoists BTFO.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910375826163736581
massline.org/Philosophy/Others/Knight-Mao-NegOfNeg.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=U8skCQq2fb8
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=8RP8u5BGRBQ
web.archive.org/web/20170413132652/https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/1566523.html
archive.is/YZjAe
web.archive.org/web/20161003061832/http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/952164.html
archive.is/0VseH
maoistrebelnews.com/2013/06/23/understanding-maos-on-contradiction/
twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910727883718410240
twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910368810292654080
twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910368960650113024
taoism21cen.com/Englishchat/maoandtaoism.html
books.google.ca/books?id=rYWrAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=mao taoism dialectics&source=bl&ots=QIblgQHqtm&sig=dXU6J7hN9m_DPzUweulc5v9wVhk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjiL-M4LfWAhWiz4MKHdVaD50Q6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=mao taoism dialectics&f=false
youtube.com/watch?v=iZycAUnuPnU
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm)
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
academia.edu/9989816/Matter_and_Consciousness
marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/index.htm
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бассин,_Филипп_Вениаминович
youtube.com/watch?v=o57X9jHPnbc&feature=youtu.be
history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v18/d58
robertmwallace.blogspot.com/2014/04/hegels-god-how-we-know-it-and-why-it.html?m=1
leftofwreckage.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/theory-review-maos-on-contradiction/
youtube.com/watch?v=mdB1DBFEmx0
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

he literally didn't say anything, just throwing personal insults at Mao.

LOOK LOOK MY FAVOURITE TWITTER PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL SAY SOMETHING MEAN ABOUT A POLITICAL LEADER I DIDN'T LIKE

What a fucking pseud, Mao rejected the Dialectical Materialist conception of negation in favor of a more complex notion of what negation was. The Marxist-Leninist notion of what Negation was is already a misunderstanding of Hegel, so Mao's rejection of it is actually a move in the right direction.

I hate that I have to defend an ideology I don't like from this fucking moron because he's so fucking unreasonable. What a faggot.

Strange, I thought the same thing about his posts.

He goes over that in other responses.

...

No he doesn't. I have never once seen A.W. denounce MLs for getting Hegel wrong, and here he places the blame solely on Mao rather than on Mao's ML roots. Viewing the negation of the negation as a corollary of the interpenetration of opposites is something you can see the roots of in Lenin's works. A.W. is a brainlet who pretends to know about Marxism and Marxism-Leninism (and I guess Maoism now) when he really doesn't.

Additionally A.W. seems to think that Mao completely rejects the negation of the negation, which is just wrong.

Lmao, the guy hasn't even read Mao and he's making claims about what Mao supposedly thought. Classic A.W.
twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910375826163736581

What's this 'complexity'? I'm here, teach me something.

I have literally never read/heard of what you just mentioned. The fuck does this mean?


Source?


So… you people get mad that I openly admit I actually don't know something and am going off superficialities I've encountered, and you also get mad when I (rightly) tell you I know my shit and prove it. Which is it, user?

As I said in that chain: I don't care about, nor am I about to read, anything about or by Mao for my own sake. He has, as far as I can tell from responses, nothing of value for me to be seeking.

I ask once more: Someone feel free to enlighten me on why I should give a fuck about Mao. So far, just blowing hot air with claims as empty as mine.

Look, I dislike mao and I'm to much of a brainlet to understand hegel. What can I tell is that mao was the most intellectual out of all the socialist leaders and what he wrote still the best out there when it comes to socialist poetry and political theory/philosophy.

Nick Knight’s Discussion of Mao’s Supposed Rejection
of the Concept of the “Negation of the Negation”

massline.org/Philosophy/Others/Knight-Mao-NegOfNeg.pdf

I'm not reading anything. Look, do you people >ever try to explain things yourself

Read Mao's On Contradiction, moron. Mao's take on dialectics isn't nearly as reductive and simplistic as you make it out to be.
Exactly, and you've never heard this phrase because you haven't read Mao, idiot.
Your tweets, dipshit.
Nope, wrong. I get mad that you're making definitive claims about stuff you know nothing about. Additionally I'm mad that you come here to shit on people who do the exact same thing that you're doing in these tweets.

This quote sums up your modus operandi perfectly.

Tell me here what Mao says. I'm not reading shit because you're an idiot who can't explain, that's just even more telling that it's not worth my time.

Here's Hegelian negation of negation:

1) Abstract: affirmation by exclusion
2) Concrete: affirmation by absorption of the excluded.
3) Negation of the dialectical elements as independent.

Now, what does Mao say?

I'm not going to spoonfeed you. On Contradiction is not very long and not very difficult. You're the one making claims, which means that I shouldn't have to help you understand basic shit.
actually linked you an amazing article on this topic and you're a fucking asshole for dismissing it without engaging with it first. You should thank them for giving you such a wonderful educational resources, brainlet.

So you all admit you just seriously can't explain it despite being a really simply concept that I can sum up in two paragraphs max.

You know it's not about spoonfeeding. I didn't come here to ask you to teach me Mao as if I care, I came here asking you to stand your ground and tell me. Of course, that's to be expected of morons who read, but do not comprehend. I mean, you have the incapacity to do this much, how much worse is it for your 'theory' grasp. This is why you morons are nothing, 'communists' in name only.

A.W is the most cancerous pseudo-intellectual in this board I have ever seen. I'd prefer another Rebel, at least he wasn't pretending to know what he talks about all the time.

I thought they died when /leftytrash/ became a thing

fuck me I forgot to sage

Lmao, keep deflecting A.W. it's really fun to watch. Even if I did try to spoonfeed you some basic Maoist theory you probably wouldn't understand it very well and I'd probably be unclear at some points so it wouldn't be a very productive argument. There's literally no point in arguing with you about this topic, so I'm not going to bother rephrasing arguments for you. Read you stupid fuck.
That's not an argument, A.W. ;^)
Lmao, said the guy who rejects Marxism

/leftytrash/ is "voluntary" and people get mega asshurt if their shit threads get "suppressed"

Antonio, don't even bother talking to Jason Unruhe. He doesn't understand shit about philosophy, and the video he did back in 2012 on the negation of the negation (this one: youtube.com/watch?v=U8skCQq2fb8 ) was ghostwritten by a then-friend of Jason's who later ditched him and joined RAIM.

Notice how *he* hasn't responded to any of your tweets about the topic of Hegel vs. Mao. If he truly was fluent in Mao's methodology, he would have responded to you and debunked you in an instant.

Who said argument?

If I honestly cared about Maoism I'd go read Paul Moufawad's blog since he's a serious no-bullshit Maoist philosopher who can actually explain things.

moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/

Anyway, I know the Roo isn't bright. Idk why people think I want to 'debate' Maoism when that makes no sense. I'm not a Maoist, I'm not going to debate Maoism from within. All I want is to have a discussion of what it is to him, and what he thinks it is in Hegel. On that single ground is the only 'debate' I'll have because it's the only one that interests me in this crossing.

What do you mean "Maoism makes no sense"?

What the fuck would you call this? A debate? Lmao. knowing how pretentious your are about your Hegelianism, let's just agree to call this a "dialogue".
Being a bad writer (which I am) isn't the same as not knowing what I'm talking about. Regardless you missed the point here, which was that there's no point in arguing with someone ignorant about the topic being discussed.
Mao is Hegelian. He was very clearly influenced by Hegel.Your opinion that he isn't a """""pure""""" or """""true""""" Hegelian is irrelevant.
That wasn't even my argument. I was just laughing at the absurdity of a non-Marxist acting like they're more communist than Marxists are. It was just a cheap jab. I was literally just making fun of you, I wasn't making a serious point there.

Roo is pretty stupid. I mean, REALLY stupid. When he responds to his critics his responses always take the form of something very terse ("this is WRONG") without much substance. The only reason why he wins debates is because 1. he has a kind of forcefulness to his voice and persona which gives him some impression of authority and 2. TBH the people whom he debates are even dumber than he is. Listen to the debate he did with /r/socialism. Roo flubbed multiple times but the host of the debate was smug as hell. The Ulster chick was pretty on-point though.

Mao was a Daoist/Buddhist, not anywhere close to Hegel.

I didn't mean Maoism makes no sense, I meant it makes no sense for me to debate Maoism as if I have any interest in disproving something about it from within or from outside.
I don't care what Maoism >is< because I see not a single reason to think there is anything there for me to learn that I don't already get ground for in Marx or Hegel to an even more fundamental degree.

I just wanted to know what Mao (or Maoists) think the negation of negation means, what they think it means in Hegel/Marx, and just argue whether what they're attacking is what it is in Marx/Hegel.

See: his first response to Muke was 2:30 minutes long, whereas his second one was just a two-minute tirade ending with him telling Muke to an hero.
youtube.com/watch?v=8RP8u5BGRBQ

Sorry user, in this case it >does< mean you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't some intuition or math equation, this is a concept which is known and exists as a language construct. If you can't speak it, you can't know it. Nobody cares that you 'feel' you know it.


Proof (in your own words or at least copy pasted from someone else) required.

Implications are not spoken nor intended, user. That's the beauty of being stupid, you say things without knowing.


I'm not a Marxist, nor am I a communist. How you think this is strange.

This seems like a pretty big claim, and it's more than a bit Orientalist tbh. Mao gave up Buddhism when he was young, and he was fairly harsh towards Daoism during the cultural revolution.
But even if this were true, I don't see it's significance?

Daoism and Buddhism have their own dialectical systems.

>Sorry user, in this case it >does< mean you don't know what you're talking about.
No it doesn't. Concepts need to be encoded into language first to be transmitted, and I'm bad at writing. Mao's conception of dialectics is pretty nuanced, and I'm not great at capturing nuance.
You're the one who made the claim that he isn't Hegelian in the first place. I'd expect you to have some evidence backing that up to make such a claim tbh.
You clearly misunderstood though, which is why I clarified for you. "hurr durr you don't like me because I don't share your beliefs" isn't an argument, is retarded, and furthermore isn't even what I was saying.
What I think is strange is your continued insistence that you're an authority on these subjects even though it's been showed time and time again that you really aren't.

YOU have to prove Mao was Hegelian. AW doesn't have to prove shit.

So? That's irrelevant since Mao was neither a Daoist nor a Buddhist. And even if he was you'd still need evidence if your were going to claim that he incorporated either into his philosophy.

Why'd you drop your trip A.W.?

Mao believed in the unity of opposites as opposed to the standard thesis-antithesis-synthesis model, the former of which is a big thing in Daoism.

We have faggots sucking A.W's dick now?

Go to bed, Jason.

Put your trip back on if you're going to be arguing with me please. Also, Mao's conception of the unity of opposites was much more nuanced that you're claiming. Earlier I used the phrase "interpenetration of opposites" and you should spend some time reading Mao to try to understand what it meant :^)

Lmao, that's how it always is with A.W. isn't it? He doesn't have to explain shit because he's so smart and above us all, but we're obligated to spoonfeed him.

Elaborate using your own words. None of this "read this MIM pamphlet pls". Also, I'm not AW.

Funny post, it just strikes me as fucking ridiculous to see people defending someone who has shown himself a retard with not enough attention every time since he came here years ago.

I was suspicious that you weren't A.W. when you used the phrase "thesis-antithesis-synthesis model" (which is more than a little incorrect), but I just assumed that was him trying to throw people off his trail. Anyways if you're not A.W. then I have no idea what your claims about Mao's conception of dialectics are so I don't really have anything to say.

You need to explain Mao's dialectics and how they're "more complex".

Ah, back when Jason actually had hair. A shame

Lmao, no I don't. I'm only here to shit on A.W.'s bullshit claims about Maoism, I really have no motivation to explain Mao to you. posted a really great article on the topic that you can read if you'd like. It's only 8 pages.
Everyone can tell that this is you A.W.; You're not fooling anyone

I miss A.W. posting here. He was by far the most well read person on this entire fucking board.

I'm not reading it. You can copy/paste key parts here if you're that bad.

...

It's only 8 pages you lazy git.

Also the fact that you dropped your trip to make arguments is utterly pathetic. Lmao I'd bet anything that is actually you too.

I'm not reading it. Copy paste what you want me to know.

I've already said it: I aint reading no Mao of my own free will, so make me by pasting it here so that for this one thread his words are yours and I can btfo you.

Tell you what, for this sake of argument I'll endorse everything contained in that article and you can cherry-pick stuff from it yourself to BTFO me with? How does that sound? I know that you really love to cherry-pick, and this is a huge oppurtunity to do that!
Lmao, and yet you're making claims about what Mao thought. RMMT.

That you are this afraid to be tacked for one thread with a set of ideas is amazing.

You can't even copy paste haha.

I literally endorsed everything in that article, Antonio. That's literally me tacking myself down with a set of ideas.

And the most ridiculous part about this whole thread is that I'm not even a Maoist anymore. I'm literally defending ideas that I don't believe in anymore because you're so completely full of shit on this topic.

So let me ask you this grand Hegelian: how many socialist revolutions did Hegel's dialectics lead to?

Nah, you do that here. Copy paste what you want me to know. In the very capacity for you to pick our key sections you'll show individuality. I'll see you >:)


Hegelian theory doesn't lead anywhere revolutionary in your sense, it's not capable of prediction, nor is Marx's. Marx posited a state of being that we should have. This happens on tiny scales quite a lot more often than you think.

Wonderful, so you're essentially proving Hegelian dialectics are useless. All while Mao was successful in doing a socialist revolution with his dialectics.

Dialectics never led to anything. Ever.

Unless you're a moron who calls regular pragmatism dialectics.

You know, you're not really better than anyone else here.

Why does it matter to you if I pick the sections out or not? It seems like this is your tried and true rhetorical strategy in which you avoid making claims while insisting that others satisfy your demand for claims. I really don't think this matters tbh. Although you did say that you needed an excuse to read Maoist theory, I think you picking out the sections would be a useful exercise, no? ;^^^^^^^]
I don't respect you, and your approval is the last thing I want. You wrote some (very arguably) decent intros to Hegel. But you're still a pseud, and an insufferable, hypocritical one at that.

Spoken like someone that has never read an actual philosophical text.

Haha, brainlet indeed.

Mao's dialectics were proven to be correct when put into practice. Hegel's were not. This is just basic scientific method. Mao's method was put into practice and tried and it worked. Hegel's didn't because there hasn't been a single revolution based on Hegel. Grow up.

????

You're literally asking for small pieces of a philosophical work to be presented without the context of the rest of the work to be delivered to you. I am pretty sure I have a screencap of you arguing that this is exactly the way that someone should not read philosophical texts.

That's the way people rip fascism out of Plato.

Alright, thanks for the fun , I'm out. I really do like how people can just say 'no u' without saying anything else for endless posts.


I'm better than everyone here. There is no question about it. Look at what I do, and what you pathetic ideological hipsters do, no comparison at all.


Lad, 'dialectics' aren't something you do.

Bye, brainlets.

Nice ragequit.

No problem! I gotchu fam ;^)
That's literally what you did though.

For everyone else's reading pleasure here's a bunch of archived threads in which A.W. gets BTFO. He really is the most reliable lolcow our board has. Treasure him.
web.archive.org/web/20170413132652/https://8ch.net/leftypol/res/1566523.html
archive.is/YZjAe
web.archive.org/web/20161003061832/http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/952164.html
archive.is/0VseH

I feel like I have to add to this because I was way too mean here: I don't respect you because you're mean and dishonest. You're clearly a smart guy, but instead of using your intelligence to raise people up you use it to cut people down. There's a lot of things that you don't know but that's not reflective of your worth as a human being. You seem to always insist that you're right about everything when challenged, and you also go out of your way to seek out challenges. I'm not going to speculate on your psychological state because I don't know you, but there's probably something going on there that you need to address.

Please reflect on why you feel the need to cut people down all the time. Please reflect on your obsession over "correctness". I hope you see this A.W.

Daily reminder Roo wrote an entire book on Mao's dialectics:
maoistrebelnews.com/2013/06/23/understanding-maos-on-contradiction/

Wew, he's doubling down on his bullshit. Nice.
twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910727883718410240

Roo will never speak to AW. As autismo as AW is, he would run philosophical circles around Roo's idiocy.

Christ get a grip you fucking sissy

WTF does this mean?

People on chans are often edgy and rude, but A.W. is edgy and rude to the point of being a lolcow. There's clearly something going on with the guy. It'd be nice if he'd stop being such a faggot.

He's trying to claim that Mao can't explain anything without the negation of negation because negativity is internal to affirmation. What he doesn't get is that Mao doesn't actually reject the law of the negation of the negation, he just views it as a consequence of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites

obsessing over "negation of the negation" is sure sign you're a brainlet still hung up on the excluded middle.

Rate my dialetics AW

You people are so diluted.

What is this user trying to convey?

your brain on communism

It's a very important part of the dialectical process.

But he's right. Just take the time to explain why you're linking an essay and what the essay says. Otherwise you're the one that looks like a pseud who doesn't explain why AW is wrong, because you actually can't. It doesn't mean AW is right, but that you are at least less reliable than he is.

AW should make a video critiquing Mao, and then Roo will no doubt respond with bouts of anger.

not gonna lie, aw is unironically good. he just needs to shitpost less and keep reading.


yeah but it became this bizarre free floating motif due only im sure to marx having said it once.

in other words, you don't know and/or don't understand it enough to explain it to others

AW gets easily dismissed by people because he's a fucking asshole most of the time, that's his biggest fault

A.W. Is looking for something to "Btfo" me with, he's not really interested in learning or discussing anything, so I'm not interested in spoonfeeding him. If it were anyone else asking I would humor them.

No, his biggest fault is his inability to have productive discussions on any topic due to his narcissism and dishonest rhetorical tactics. Read the threads at for examples of this.

You think Roo could do a better job of destroying AW?

Roo has a pretty bad grasp of Maoism, and if A.W. actually bothered to read Mao I think that he'd probably get it right. A.W. isn't stupid, he's just narcissistic, pseudo-intellectual, and lazy. Being a pseud doesn't mean that you're dumb, it means that you pretend to know what you're talking about when you don't, which is what A.W. constantly does.

He really is awful.

Elaborate. How does Roo's Maoism suck?

>AW is pro-censorship as a consequence of having a totalitarian world view, most likely got it from his past as a tankie.
He used to be a tankie?

Well to be fair I'm not extremely familiar with Roo, but his article here:
maoistrebelnews.com/2013/06/23/understanding-maos-on-contradiction/
describes the particularity of contradiction as if the contradictions were determinate, which undermines the idea that matter is in motion. A particular thing has a unique contradiction that is essential to it's being, because if it didn't then it couldn't be understood as existing apart from everything else. Every particular contradiction differentiates each object from every other object. So it's actually the forms of contradictions (and the ways that they're categorized in relation to one another) that Mao is interested in, not the particular contradictions. The specific ways that each contradiction may be handled depends on the category that each contradiction falls into. What Roo misses here is that the universal and the particular are very richly linked together.

Idk if I'd really say that his Maoism sucks, but there's some issues in his understanding to be sure.

Do you agree with AW that Mao's dialectics are "metaphysical" or "mystical" in any way?

I don't, and the fact that he makes these claims shows how little he knows about Mao. Uneducated people make exactly the same arguments against Hegel, so I find it fairly silly that A.W. is making these claims without any hint of self-awareness.

This.
A.W. has contributed nothing valuable to this board, ever. Every thread where he appears is just a dump of bragging and butthurt, and not even the fun kind of butthurt, like Hoochie Minh does it. Just the "tell me why are you so full of yourself" kind of butthurt.
He even said Douglas Lain was a theorylet once, while the guy can't even participate to any thread in a constructive manner. It's all "dude muh Hegel muh dialectics you are just a bunch of brainlets lmao" without any substance whatsoever. He comes across as an insecure 19-year-old who just discovered philosophy memes thru /lit/.
Stop giving him attention. Stop taking the bait. Even Afroplasm has more interesting things to say than this faggot. A.W. is just a narcissistic pseud and will remain so till the end of times.

So Mao, if you are correct, only understands dialectics of determinacy(Being), but not dialectics of essence nor concept.

Intredasting.

Keep claiming I'm saying things I'm not, people can just read the discussion chain for themselves. Unlike you I admit when I'm full of it, but for Mao I honestly don't care if you people don't care enough to let me know what's wrong.

Wrong.
Wrong again.

Read On Contradiction before making another stupid post. You're embarrassing yourself.

Seriously though, how the fuck did you get this out of my post? I have no clue how you came to this conclusion from what I said.

So, what you're saying is that you indeed don't know what Hegelian dialectics are, because these are quite common in the Hegelian world (including Hegelian Marxism).

That you don't know there are different structures of dialectics which apply differently depending on level of concept is all I need to know.

I know what you said, you, however, don't know what I said. Fair enough.

That's literally not what I was saying, moron. I was saying that it was unclear how you came to the conclusion you did from my post. You didn't outline the line of reasoning you used.
Good thing that Maoism doesn't lack those qualities then, huh?
Lmao, love that you're putting words into my mouth, faggot. That's a classic A.W. rhetorical trick. Incredible.

An easy way to solve this issue is if AW explained how he came to understanding your statements the way he did.

Since you asked


Logic of Existence: Something - Other dialectic. This is the logic of external opposition as constitutive of internal affirmative being. Something is by not being something else.


Only in opposition, that is, the dialectic of externality in the >logic< of something and other.


And yet the only example you give is ONE very particular logic of contradiction, one which is very common in the Eastern Indian/Chinese philosophy of dialectical monism. The forms of contradiction are just that: forms, and they are many. In the Science.of Logic there are about 70 forms of specific contradictions, and three general forms of it: logic of Being, Essence, Concept.

So what I said was in relation to what I know of this. I have two blog essays I'm writing in this issue of Marxists seemingly not knowing the Logic is a logic of logics, that every concept is a logic, a way of thinking, itself. The absolute method is simply the logic which develops the specific logics.

The spacing in this post is horrendous A.W. it's practically unreadable. Anyways.
Your entire argument depends on me only giving one example, but I only gave that example because that's where Roo got it wrong.
Jesus Christ, here you go again with this bullshit. Daoist dialectics affirms a naive nominalism that is infinitely simpler than the one you find in Mao. It's not even close to being the same.
I don't care. Your blog is stupid and puerile.

answer this

Adding to this because I know you're going to try to get me on this: Mao is a nominalist in the same sense that Hegel is, in that he thinks that universals are inaccessible.

Hegel is not a nominalist at all. Want me to get the quote where he calls it literally retarded?

This is how it shows you don't know what Hegel means by his structures nor movements as such. The universal is quite real for Hegel, your very mind is the most certain one.

So why not show the detail? I can show you Hegel's and Marx's, why can't you do it for Mao?

Literally this whole thing is because you won't do what will settle the argument completely: get to the real thing. We can talk about and around it all we want, but if we aren't dealing with the real structure and movement we can play semantics and citations all day.

As said, I'm not reading Mao, so why not learn a bit by teaching a pseud like myself? School me for once.

Hey A.W. I would like to ask you something, could you explain this?

1) "I can't say I care since I think materialism is garbage, and Marx was not a metaphysical materialist." twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910368810292654080

and this

2) "And without the metaphysics, to call oneself a materialist is to say nothing at all." twitter.com/AW_Hegel/status/910368960650113024

Thanks.

Sure, go ahead.
And it's quite real for Mao as well. Notice what I said in this post: ? I didn't mean "nominalism" in the sense of denying the existence of universals.
Do you or don't you have direct access to ideas? Can one directly and immediately access categories of pure reason?
Because I was just answering someone's question, brainlet. In retrospect, it seems like it was probably you with your trip dropped.

Because you argue dishonestly and arrogantly. You consistently avoid making claims at the same time as you demand claims so you can always be the one attacking ideas. It's bullshit.

What is your source for this?

My source is my understanding of Daoism? If you think that I'm wrong don't be afraid to correct me. I'm not an arrogant ass like A.W. is, so I'll actually appreciate you trying to help me understand. I'll also read sources you link me without being a dick about it.

Sure, I only want to check it out, and I do not care about "correcting" you.

Well sorry, I don't have a source that I can remember off the top of my head for you.

Can you explain this through using a concrete example so we can get a better understanding of why Mao's dialectics suck?

Don't take things personally man. I know you've been here a while, but just remember that all of this online shit is meaningless.

How's it bullshit? I'm sorry, but this is what actual academics who know their limits do. Why be an idiot and make positive assertions when your interlocutor can provide the material for the argument? The claim is Mao is a Hegelian, fair. Now show it, and I can respond according to what you show.


Materialism proper concerns a metaphysics of matter, which Marx never held to. It's very clear that whatever 'material' means for Marx, it in fact has nothing to do with the metaphysics of matter. Materiality for Marx is relationality, and specifically the order of essential determination (the 'in the final analysis' famous phrase) in unconscious objective relations—except for when Marx speaks of the necessity of consciousness to achieve communism. Marx is on this about as Idealist as Hegel, since Hegel is the first to speak of life determining ideas: we first already live a way of life, and only after it is dead do we realize what it was and that it was just our ideas making the world that way.


This is fun for me, so it's ok.


Sounds like a baseless assertion since I never had heard such a thing. Daoism isn't absolute monism like Advaita Vedanta, it makes no claims about individual matters nor universal matters, only the 'way'… something so vague it can even be made to coincide with Hegel's absolute as the same kind of way.


Sense Certainty is a kind of nominalist metaphysic and epistemology where no universals, only existent individuals, are real. This is nonsense even by mere experience, where things have specific conditions and ways of developing of their own accord in struct unity (universal form).

Jason Unruhe wants to know why you think Mao wasn't materialist. He says he sees nothing in Mao which would indicate he was idealist in any way.

Mao probably >was< a materialist, considering he seems to accept Engel's mechanical materialism (matter in motion bulshit).

Marx, however, never cared about that nor argued from such a metaphysical standpoint.

Give details pls.

I don't think that's a controversial claim at all.

So Mao was a materialist, just not a dialectical one?

taoism21cen.com/Englishchat/maoandtaoism.html

why should I care about a pseudo-intellectual that posts on twitter ?

Neato.

Wrong. Academics don't avoid making claims so they can constantly attack others. That's absurd.
Additionally, academics who know their limits don't speak on shit they don't know about in the first place, which is exactly what you did.

Regardless I'm tired of you constantly mis characterizing the things I say and selectively replying to me, so I'm done with you here.

Cool. I kinda wish this weren't biographical and actually had any theory in it, but w/e. Of course Mao would be culturally Daoist, that much is obvious from the period and place he lived in.

books.google.ca/books?id=rYWrAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=mao taoism dialectics&source=bl&ots=QIblgQHqtm&sig=dXU6J7hN9m_DPzUweulc5v9wVhk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjiL-M4LfWAhWiz4MKHdVaD50Q6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=mao taoism dialectics&f=false

Not exactly a great source, user.

Well considering these posts, it's better than the guy who refused to state even one thing, and the user who is pissed off I'm not going to argue against him from an external point, and just want him to say something so I can confirm or reject what he says Mao believes as Hegelian. So far, not looking good.

Yours truly, reading 'On Contradiction' and commenting.

youtube.com/watch?v=iZycAUnuPnU

You've been more flimsy and evasive than anyone else in this thread.

The thread is its own proof, why do you feel the need to lie in front of the refuting facts? Afraid?

Listening now. 7 minutes in. Good so far.

What a shite video. You pause ever couple of sentences to say how you don't understand what you're reading. It's pure retardation.

I barely finished reading the thread. It's still my opinion that you're an attention whoring shitposter with nothing valuable to say.

If only you did that with your life, everything you read,everything you think, and everything you say.

You're clearly a brainlet, how sad.

That doesn't make any sense. Pausing occasionally to say how much I don't understand things wouldn't make my life better. It's a stupid and annoying thing to do. I try to not say stupid, pointless shite when I open my mouth. You should consider trying not to either.

You really need to stop, it makes me feel embarrassed for you.

I haven't done anything embarrassing. You went and made a smug video in which you commented on a text without any context and repeatedly emphasized how little of it you understood. Commenting on a text you haven't read or understood first is the most brainlet thing you could do.

Jason Unroo is going to bed in an L-shaped coffin tonight.

Are A.W and his hater in a dialectical relationship?

So it is 'ideas' for Hegel but 'practice' for Marx?

Mao was the Joseph Smith of communism, a con artist who changed the fundamentals of Marxism, especially its method, just so it would suit him. Once he took power he kept making excuses for selling out: giving the bourgeoisie power during New Democracy was justified with bullshit, strengthening relations with the US and other imperialist/rightist powers like Pinochet's Chile or Mobutu's Congo was justified with bullshit, etc. And we all know he wanted Lin Biao dead for personal reasons. Fuck Mao.

Here's something you rarely hear: all the German Idealists were 'activists', philosophers of action at the very core. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel all have activity as the fundamental reality, but they look at it in different ways.

Hegel's concepts are substantive activities: the logic is the >doing< of thoughts—thinking. Capital is a way of >livingis< an Idea. Feudalism is an Idea. Communism is an Idea.

I Hegelian terms: Marx's concept of communism >has to be< the real practice which will bring it into being, only in that capacity can the concept of communism really be the idea of communism, and only in that manner can you consider communism a rational reality.


I can believe it, but I don't know much.

But then if Lin Biao is right then there is Maoism beyond Mao, Maoism-Lin Biaoism!!!!

To answer your question directly: it's the same for both.

Hegel: life->ideas->life'->ideas'
Marx: life->Ideas->life'->ideas'

The point is where in the life they look and what ideas they're focusing on. Hegel focuses relatively little on material reproductive activity and focuses on many other life activities from psychological to philosophical. The Phenomenology of Spirit is an interesting 'world views' catalog about fundamental ways people view themselves and how said views make a certain way of life, as well as how these ways of life clearly generate these very ways of thinking.

Marx's materialist reduction is something he clearly never committed to, and one can see he practically lived in the opposite of what the reduction proclaims. He didn't expect automatic revolution, a subjective factor has to be engaged, and it is very important to engage it and bring a change of ideas before communism happens. The only thing material factors do is open up a space for certain ideas to take hold thanks to the conditions enabling them. Ideas have a time and place to come to realize as material force.

Most Maoists (and I mean real Maoists, not tankie idiots like Roo who pass themselves off as "Maoist") would argue the only time Mao was "worth it" was during the 60s. After that he became a full-on revisionist (granted, this was not necessarily his fault; the Sino-Soviet split put China and the USSR in conflict with one another to the point where China feared a Soviet attack, hence reaching out to the US as a safety first measure). Actual Maoists will even go so far as to say the Gang of Four was better than Mao and should have ousted him during the Cultural Revolution.

On Contradiction is terrible though, definitely one of Mao's weakest. Primary vs. secondary contradiction makes no sense from a genuine dialectical standpoint and, like you said, can be taken as a means for Mao to make excuses for his class collaborationism.

That does indeed sound like some bad practice as well as bad theory.

IMPERIALISM IS THE PRIMARY CONTRADICTION.

DEFEND TINPOT GENOCIDAL DICTATOR WHOM THE WEST DOESN'T LIKE AGAINST WESTERN IMPERIALISM.

Well, at least you got consistent with what you keep telling us to do. I retract my earlier objection, if you care and i doubt you do

What's your definition of metaphysics?
Sure? Let's see. «Marx’s philosophical materialism» (as Lenin called it, see III part marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm) has the following notions of matter:

1. We must distinguish a scientific conception of matter from a philosophical one.
2. The philosophical conception of matter is the dialectical result of the contradictions between the very scientific conceptions of matter (matter is not the same in chemistry as in physics).
3. Philosophical concepts, which would be better to call them universal categories, are therefore different from scientific concepts.
4. We materialists, especially for a dialectical materialist, distinguish between definite matter/indeterminate matter.
5. This is a simple way of saying the following: everything is matter, matter is infinite and subject to movement, there are infinite forms of material reality (there are different genres of materiality), matter is not reduced to the physical but that there are material but not corporeal realities, precisely because matter is infinite can not be fully encompassed and therefore we must distinguish dialectically between the determinate matter (all genres of materiality) and indeterminate matter (the non-hypostatized dialectical result from the determined matter).
6. Different forms of material reality may be the following: (1) "physical" materiality, (2) "subjective" materiality and (3) "ideal objective" materiality. Examples: (1) commodity, (2) use value and (3) value.
7. For value, Marx was clear: «The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition.» marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

I could continue but first I must get your point.


Explain. We have different understandings of Marx.

Hey AW, what do you make of Zizek's Introduction to On Practice and On Contradiction (PDF related), he specifically accuses Mao of falling into "bad infinity" (I am no Hegelian, don't ask me what it means)

The link provided in also reminded me of something from Zizek, the traditional Chinese idea of "tossing the pancake" is similar to Zizek's characterization of Mao as a "lord of misrule"

Here are two screencaps where Zizek talks about the bad infinity of Mao, the third capture is the reference to the lords of misrule from medieval Europe.

A.W. if you're still here, you're cute af(no homo) and should camwhore more. it works for other youtubers who are nowhere near photogenic as you. use all you got.

his Mohawk is sublime

I would like to have his answer

Metaphysics is the assumed split of the world into 'fundamental' kinds and ways of being. Practical science, for example, is a huge metaphysics. If anything, 'scientific' metaphysics are some of the worst excesses of metaphysics because they're done by people who have no interest in coherence unlike philosophers.

Sorry, Descartes is the one who came up with this split—it's a philosophical one.


Uh, no. The philosophic conception of 'matter' originated as a philosophy of nature prior to modern science, and endured long before it as well as after this shift. Corpuscular materialism died with the popularity of the indeterminist QM interpretations, but philosophical materialism just shifted its object away from atoms towards spatiality/externality. Scientists themselves give no fucks about what matter as such is, just look at what modern physicists say. One can also easily look at the etymology of 'matter' as well to see where this notion even derives from.


Only if you make an arbitrary distinction. Look at Marx's concepts in Capital, they're Hegelian scientific, meaning, certainly connected and emergent.

…as if *anyone* but philosophers need to do that. You know who came up with that? Aristotle. For completely metaphysical reasons.


Typical vulgar materialism, the exact opposite of what Marx ever cared or intended.

This is it. This is where you know he HAS no actual concept of materialism. From a philosophical standpoint, when your concept is *literally everything*, you don't actually have a concept of said anything. Andy Blunden (marxist) has a good paper about the meaning of ideality and materiality as ontological and epistemological concept.
academia.edu/9989816/Matter_and_Consciousness


Precisely, right from Marx's own work. Not *everything* is material, value is purely ideal, meaning its existence is in minds. Value has objective reality because a social relation by real 'material' individuals nonetheless enact this subjective ideality en mass, generating an objective order from individual subjective arrangements. Value is not atoms, it is not physics equations, it is not energy. Value is a concept to explain the assumed equality of ratios of exchange.

Materiality is relationality, meaning that anything with external relations is necessarily material. How do you know reality is not ideal? Because the world and people resist your imagination and desires with their own independent being. That is materiality for him—to be in a conditioning relation to things independent of us.

Lenin doesn't speak for Marx, nor does Engels. Read the 1844 manuscripts, and read Capital, and even the German Ideology: materiality never had to do with metaphysics, it was merely this conditioning relation we had with the world, a relation which runs both ways in the end and not just from nature to us.

Question: right off the bat in your video you say Mao was "already starting on a bad foot" in regards to "dialectical laws". Can you TL;DR why Mao dun goofed here?

Dialectics have no general laws, they are uniquely individual logics. All that you can have is frankly useless descriptions that don't serve in doing anything.

General paradoxes, as well as Kantian dialectics, are *very easy* to generate with no rule necessary. Somewhere about 3/4ths of the reading I play with 4 on the spot in a manner Mao does not in order to show he misunderstands how the contradiction of dialectic works, and it just naturally comes when you notice certain things.

Straight abstract dialectics are stupidly easy. Hegel's developmental dialectic is brutal.

That's your own definition, not Marxist one nor philosophical one attached to all different traditions. If Metaphysics were what you said, all could be inside that definition (a pretty general one). That is to say: all is Metaphysics and not only what you call "practical science". And if all is Metaphysics, nothing is Metaphysics. That means that your own definition of Metaphysics has no explanatory capacity.


Not really. Also it's not like a "split", like a kind of "surgeon cut".


Not really. Also that doesn't change the matter: scientific conception of matter =! philosophical conception of matter. What I said in other words is that 1) philosophical categories do not arise ex nihilo, 2) philosophy (in its various disciplines) must take into account the research and results of the sciences and because of 1) and 2), 3) precisely because the conceptions of matter between the different sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) do not exhaust even their own field of action, the philosophical category of matter has a more general, universal scope.


Since vulgar materialism, that is, that which reduces materiality to the purely corporeal, to matter in the manner of a bundle, is immediately superseded by dialectical materialism itself, which arises precisely in a much more advanced scientific context. The materialist philosophy must be updated and incorporate the new scientific developments in the philosophical field. This is elementary and hence the dialectic between science and philosophy (materialist in this case).


Not true. To say this is practically to pass materialism through Cartesianism.


There isn't any arbitrary distinction.


Well, it's Philosophy. Also I could say that Christianity contributed in large part to the history of materialism. My question is, and?

On Aristotle… not only him. In a certain way the Platonic χώρα could be coordinated, critically, with a certain notion of indeterminated matter. And we could keep talking of philosophers way long.


False. Vulgar materialism has nothing to do with Marx.


False again.


That reminds me of your own concept of Metaphysics. Saying that everything is matter doesn't mean what you said. It's materialism 101.


Also you could read Evald Ilenkov.
marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/index.htm


Everything is material but there are different forms of material reality. It's not hard to understand if you do not get stuck in a dualism (in which I think you are). Let me explaing you something that I would like to know your opinion. I have differentiated between three genres of materiality (on determined matter of course). Check this example to understand my point, because I see you tend to reduce materialism to vulgar materialism also to physicalism. At least that's my feeling reading what you say.

Let's think the following example:

Be a Newtonian mass endowed with uniform rectilinear motion; its trajectory, projected in a plane gives a straight line, at a given moment is deflected (accelerated) by the influence of a constant force, taking the form of a parabolic line. With "dotted line" we trace the inertial trajectory from which the reference body has deviated. We will say that the parabolic trajectory is the real (phenomenal, physical, that is to say, first genre of materiality - let's call it M1); How to interpret the dotted line? This does not symbolize any M1 material reality. Shall we say that it is "mental" (second genre of materiality - let's call it M2), which does not exist, therefore? In no way: if the dotted line expresses only one mental entity, the parabolic deviation would be only by relation to a mental line and, therefore, the force, as cause of the acceleration, would not be necessary, because it does not need any force necessary to divert the trajectory of a mobile with respect to a mental line that we take as reference. The dotted line designates something real (material), only that its materiality is neither physical nor mental; is objective, ideal, that is to say, third genre of materiality (let's call it M3). But why should it be considered segregated from physical movement, hypostatized as a content of an ideal metaphysical world? The example shows how M3 contents can be recognized without the need to "detach" them from the world; because the inertial line appears intrinsically associated (and as "induced" by it) to the mobile that is diverting from it.

Another example:

"Nonessential entities" also belong to the third genre of materiality, but individual and concrete, though already irrevocable, as all realities are to the extent that their present being no longer belongs to the first genre of materiality (Caesar is not a part of the world physical), nor to the second genre of materiality (Caesar distinguishes himself from the psychological thoughts on Caesar).

I think it's quite simple.


Value =! subjective ideality.


Matter is one thing, materiality another, and characterize relationships that may be established of any kind (relationships between people, goods, abstractions, etc.) as materials, another. Reducing materiality to relationality would allow us to introduce anything under that notion. Nothing helpful.


He really does.


Materialism has nothing to do with metaphysics. That's right.

Try to explain things and not use ad hominems, apart you need to reassure yourself that you do not know who you are talking to (what studies do you have?). At the moment you have not argued much.

It's a pretty common philosophical one. Idk why you think Marx or Marxists get to define things already defined by a huge tradition that gives fuck all care to what they say as their own dogma. You're doing metaphysics even if you say you aren't, deal with it.

Nowhere do you actually argue anything I've said, you're literally having a 'semantic' spat of being called something you *don't want to believe you are*.

You're a metaphysician buddy, accept it, and move on with your life. Nobody cares. The sooner you accept it, the better you'll be since you might actually read up on how to make a not dog-shit metaphysics for ignorant pseuds.


Blunden worships his ass more than you do, except the big difference is Blunden and Ilyenkov are actual philosophers. Both know full well what they are, they know it's propaganda.

Not really.


It's not about that. Let me explain. We can highlight three meanings of "Metaphysics":

1) Metaphysics as knowledge whose objects transcend sensitive experience (God, spirit, etc.). It is the acceptance assumed by the empiricists (David Hume) in his anti-metaphysical attitude.

2) Metaphysics as totalizing knowledge, as knowledge of reality or of the universe as a whole (Bradley).

3) Metaphysics as a substantializing, hypostatizing or immobilizing thought, that is, as a thought that establishes reifying disconnections of that which is connected, or that "paralyzes" that which flows. This is the meaning recognized by Marxist thought.

From the point of view of philosophical materialism, we (materialists) consider the third meaning as the most powerful, since from it we can arrive at the first and the second. Thus we will understand by metaphysics any systematic doctrinal construction, any idea, & c., Which, starting from an empirical foundation, transforms it into a direction, preferably substantialist, such that the abstract (ie, non-dramatized) (As in the case of mythological constructions) is thus situated in places which are beyond any possibility of rational return to the world of phenomena (examples of metaphysical ideas in this sense are: Soul, God, World as total reality, Matter in the sense of monism, absolute spirit, understanding agent, nothing, & c.).


Yeah! You are absolute right. That's the point I wanted to reach: wanted to know your own understanding of Metaphysics because, under it, Marx was doing Metaphysics, that is, he had what you said he hadn't ("metaphysics of matter").


You do not have to deceive me. What I can not understand is that attitude you have. As far as I know, I have been speaking normal, talking quietly to learn and discuss interesting issues with someone who I believe has a background in philosophy. At least I already graduated from philosophy years ago.


Under your own definition, yes. But A.W., metaphysicians are not the only proprietors of ontology. Materialists also deal with ontology and gnoseology. That is why there is also a materialist ontology contrary to all metaphysics.


That's cool but could you try to debate calmly without having to cut fast with everything when your arguments are weak? No one is born knowing. Don't worry.

Wut?

AW, totally unrelated question: where are you from and what's your ethnicity? I ask, because I'm trying to pinpoint your accent. You say you're in California; are you Mexican?

Why do the Chinese always have to be special snowflakes?

Nonsense.

Actually a nonsense.

Is it just me, or does it seem as though Mao denies evolution on a macro level? If so, he seems similar to those creationists who essentially believe the same thing ("why doesn't a dog birth a cat? checkmate Darwin").

Who is the guy from your pic?

Quantitative changes over time lead to qualitative differences. A cat literally cannot give birth to a dog no matter how much time passes. That's not how evolution works, brainlet.

This guy: ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бассин,_Филипп_Вениаминович

That A.W. seems to me that is the prototype of arrogant pseudo-intellectual of 20 years old (more or less). What a mess.

Of course. I meant that in a mocking tone.

So you were mocking A.W. then? Because if not the point you made in your post was entirely wrong. Evolution is incremental and changes don't actually occur on the macro level. If Mao denys that evolution occurs on a macro level then he'd be correct.

Agreed, that's what these autists need to understand. Newton was a mystic. couple retorts:
Ideal doesn't even really mean that. Plato's Ideas most definitely were not "in" the mind.

I understand what he was trying to say, I just disagree with his overly dismissive characterization scientific (crypto-)metaphysics. A vast majority of that activities that make up "doing science" is designing experiments and collecting data, which are activities that only depend on the theories being tested/evaluated and don't necessarily depend on any particular metaphysical position. A.W. takes the position that bad metaphysics taints any intellectual project it's attached to, which just isn't the case.

all the theories they test however have a specific metaphysical content from the generally accepted background, particular domain specific ontologies that may not be directly inter-reducible, and the causal regime accessed and established most generally by physics, much is presupposed by the very activity of science. 'metaphysics' doesn't really mean a theoretician indulging in speculation then asserting it as a dogmatic position.

...

I never said anything about practical science's results and metaphysics. I like material science, and lean towards experimentalist sides of theory in practice rather than theoretical speculators. From practical science we actually find quite a bit for analogical conceptual unification, hence good material science can make for very good theory.

Actually, it does. It happens all the time, especially with the theoreticians against the practitioners. I'm not much interested these days, but I use to be very interested in the friction between experimentalists against pure theoretical scientists for the very reason of the metaphysics they espoused. The experimentalists have information which points towards new metaphysics, while the old theoreticians work to reformulate particularities of their theories to integrate what otherwise disproves them. A favorite insult in those debates is 'epicycles'.

Reading section 3, and the last part I'm reading from this work by Mao.

youtube.com/watch?v=o57X9jHPnbc&feature=youtu.be

Whoever said he was Hegelian: Fuck you for wasting my time. Whoever recommends this to anyone, jesus christ what's wrong with you?

history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v18/d58

In this conversation between Mao and Kissinger, Mao claims to have read Hegel and shows interest in how Hegel wrote about the "unity of opposites". However, he also mentions that he only reads Chinese, which severely limits the works available to him.

That is literally what metaphysics is. You're commenting on something that you have no actual information on, only the inferences you can make.

Your understanding of how experimental science relates to theoretical science is extremely poor. You pretend that practical science is itself a "huge metaphysics" rather than a method of inquiry so that you can claim that philosophical incoherencies have any effect on the predictive power of a theory, which isn't true.

there are theorists who are inclined to push the envelope sure, and then those many who are receptive or practically oriented, but insofar as metaphysics refers to the absolute limit it's always beyond what is communicable in mere language, and most people, hell most philosophers, generally don't directly read it, nor will they agree on the same material. epicycles type debates are too particular, generally on a level well above metaphysics though there's grey areas.

fell for the "it's just epistemology" meme i see?

The distinction you make between "experimental" and "theoretical" science is utter bullshit. There cannot be experimentation without theory, so when you side with experimentalists you're basically just saying "I like well-established theories more than less established ones".

Epicycles is specifically about metaphysics, specifically the kind not perceived as 'scientific'. The attack is based on a perception that older grand theory has reached a point of incoherence either internal or external, but which is not seen because it is patched by endless epicycles of theory which hide this incoherence. The experimentalists buy into the ideal of pure theory like Popper's scientific disproof, for them all theories must be torn down and the competition of theories opened up whenever experiment refutes theory—they don't accept theory patching as legitimately scientific.


I'm sorry you're not aware of these terms, but they exist and I'm talking about them. The inverse is the case, btw. Experimentalists are the ones who are happy to tear through old theory with no interest in positing grand theory, only practical theory. It's not that it's more well established, rather, it's the one that is evidentially established by functionality and not theoretical justification. Experimentalists are the "it just werks" people who don't want to invent too many 'metaphysical' ideas to explain why it works. The theoreticians are the grand theorists who are interested in integrating and working upon the 'tried and true' foundations which experimentalists ironically provide. Of course both are theorists and practitioners, but they have two views of science: the ideal of pure theory and the ideal of pure practice, both which are very antithetical to the same degree that rational empiricism and empirical rationalism are essentially incompatible.

I'm aware of the terms, I just don't see them as being opposed to one another as you claim.
This isn't true, and you even go on to contradict yourself on this when you say that theorists "work upon the 'tried and true' foundations which experimentalists ironically provide". A belief in 'experimentalism' is just a belief in verifying theories, and once you go beyond theories that have already been established this belief becomes meaningless. inb4 you whine about "muh falsifiability" and pretend that theoretical scientists aren't interested in verifying theories

please add a wordfilter 'i'm dumb' in place of read a book

It is the trajectory to be realized that is deviated when impacting an object. Is different. And what is exemplified by this is that one can not say that the initial trajectory of an object is "mental" or "fictitious," just as it can not be said that the new trajectory taking into account the deviation is also "mental "or" fictitious".

Also there is the other example I showed with Caesar.

I do not understand why dualism is so strong in you, why you perform a surgeon's cut and say that it is "material" on one side and "ideal" on the other. The world is just constituted by intersection of the three genres of materiality that I explained. There is nothing ideal on it. Its unity or multiplicity is knowable and through it, same as all determined matter. Idealism in general, at best, can be immanentistic and ends in monism or worldliness. But that's not materialism. At best, might be vulgar materialism.

What could be "ideal" is the philosophical category of world. But that's another thing. Examples I showed reveal what's materialism and his understanding of determined matter, without any metaphysical world.

Again, it depends on your own definition of Metaphysics. That has already been clarified.

Absolutely agree: positivism is pure metaphysics. In fact, positivism is a beautiful example in the history of philosophy, in general, and the history of the philosophy of science, in particular, of self-destruction because of reaching its ultimate consequences.

Philosophical categories =! "metaphysical artifacts"

I think that such a strong dualism you have, with those cuts of surgeon between "material" and "ideal" (which is typically positivist), leads to reduce everything that is not "material" (understood in the manner of a "package") to what you call "metaphysical artifacts". Let me show you an example of what means the strongets meaning of Metaphysics, with which the other two meanings can be achieved.

Regressus and progressus constitute the two meanings of a circular operative course which, starting from certain positions, reaches different ones (regressus) to return, reconstructing them when possible, to the starting points (progressus). The determination of the meaning of the terms in each case depends on the "parameters" set as starting points, since a change of these will convert a given regressus into a progressus and reciprocally. For example, at the beginning of the whole, it will be a regressus the course towards the determinations of the parts, and a progressus the construction of that with them; if one starts from the parts, it will be a regressus the road to the whole and a progressus the reconstruction of the parts, if possible. The terms regressus and progressus are part of the philosophical method since Heraclitus, when he affirmed that "dialectics is a way up and down" and was shaped by Plato as a return to Ideas from the world of phenomena to form an explanatory theory and progress again towards phenomena to explain them, so we will speak of a regressus of phenomena to essences and a progressus from essences to phenomena (the "return to the cave").

Having said this, one example of traditional or classic metaphysics, already since Aristotle, that cuts off all that classical process (regressus/progressus) is the Pure Act of Aristotle, which was developed by Aquinas.

Materialism can't accept substantiation, hypostatization or immobilization. That's metaphysics, and that's why materialism has nothing to do with metaphysics. But, again, idealism in general and metaphysics in particular are not the sole owners of ontology and gnoseology. I note that apart from dualism and surgeon cuts, you reduce ontology to metaphysics. That is why you use that definition of metaphysics and under it falls anything.


I totally agree with you. It's funny because they talk as pure positivists. What they say on sciences is utter nonsense and pretty simplistic.

Dogmatic definition, can and is denied.

Dogmatic definition, etc.

Categories >are< metaphysics. Of course, you can define things otherwise, but who cares? This is why Hegel is pretty good to read for theory: no arbitrary definitions, only structures.

Says the guy reducing the world to one absolute metaphysical category that is meaningless. How funny.

These aren't concepts, they're indexicals.

dogmatic definition

tl;dr: this user basically thinks that if you define things in a certain way, then it makes it immune to others who define the same thing in another way. This is a semantic spat and nothing to do with meaningful content. Literally fighting about words because it makes him butthurt to be defined into one he hates. For someone who hates metaphysics, this user sure loves to talk from a standpoint that is purely metaphysical and idealist.

0 arguments

False.

>Categories >are< metaphysics.
False.

At this point, the only one who has explained all how everything is developed and how certain concepts come. I do not understand the difficulty that you have to argue, and in case of doing it of counterargument later.

Nobody reduced the world to an absolute metaphysical category. Make the effort to read.

Didn't understand anything about that. Try to read what people tend to explain you.

False again. As I said before, all explained.

Pure psychological projection as a defense mechanism.

That's what you've done till now in an attempt to cut this quickly since min 1. By steps:

1. You were asked what you understood by metaphysics; you gave your own arbitrary definition. In my case, I exposed the different conceptions of main metaphysics according to the philosophical tradition and showing how from the last, the Marxist conception, can be reached all of them.

2. Once you are unable to read what people explain you through different ways, refuse to continue the debate cutting it fast and diverting attention to a fallacy of straw man.

3. Despite of that, I continue exposing well-founded philosophical developments. Your answer: circle the same thing, about your semantic matter with the metaphysical word that, as has been shown, apart from being wrong and not attending to the philosophical tradition (it is your own concept), it has no explanatory capacity.

4. End of this debate: "arrrg metaphysics arr idealism!!! I don't want to listen anymore!!!"

With that attitude, if you begin to study the career of philosophy, I do not augur a good future.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well, A.W. or someone else.

I'm not here to debate. I don't care, nor ever want to, debate. Your ground is different from mine, there is nothing to debate here other than two walls clashing and refusing. I refuse to accept your ground, you refuse to accept mine, there is nothing I or you, or anyone reading this, can or will gain. As I said, we basically are arguing word definitions, and that is the most worthless of 'debates'. I'm not going to respond further.

After reading the first three sections from 'On Contradiction', I agree. Mao has no concept of sublation and continuity of contradiction. For him contradictions just arise forever one after another, there will always be contradiction as conflicting views and actions. This is 'bad infinity' in that it is an endless repetition of the same abstract thing.

Hegelian contradiction is >NOT< conflict contradictions. For Hegel dialectics only seem like a contradiction when we absolutize them and take them to be self-standing. When we accept the dialectical contradiction as two sides of one single absolute, the 'contradiction' is not a contradiction any longer, it is not a paradox or logical mishap. Hegel's contradictions make perfect sense, they're quite rational, and that is what sublation is: the harmony of 'opposites' and their mutual constitution.

capitalism as such< the current reality of capital is not good for it—what benefits capitalists actually does not benefit capital.

Don't know why are you getting this like a "duel". Jesus.

That's what you WANT to get this to, but it isn't. All started from when I asked you your definition of metaphysics because you said


At the end, it's funny to see how you ended calling all of that metaphysics contradicting yourself, that is, «Marx’s philosophical materialism» is metaphysics and «materialism proper concers a metaphysics of matter» (under your understanding that's not linked to all philosophical tradition as I showed). And that's the point I wanted to reach.

Agree but that debate it's not about that. Another thing is that you want it to be that way, going back on your own words, dissolving/rectifying all and finally disappearing.

Shut up whitey

Usually happens with A.W.

Hold on now… That doesn't sound too different from what you describe Hegel is doing. I'm not sure I follow where the disagreement is unless you're suggesting that for Hegel, there's some end goal? I have no idea.

>Mao: merely takes contradiction to be conflict, not an inner necessary contradiction. Takes the resolution of conflict to be a destruction of the underlying ground of the contradiction, which then leads to the arising of a new contradiction with >no explanation< as to why this new one arises and by what measure it is to be taken to be better or higher. Contradiction shifts are just taken as is, and their being is taken as is. He gives examples like peasants vs workers as a contradiction for example, a merely contingent conflict. Mao simply has no theory of contradiction to speak of, he only notes the regularity of endless conflict in history and how if the condition of conflict is removed so is the conflict, but that just opens the door for another conflict to arise and do the same. It's typical eastern dialectical monism: the world is made of opposites by essence.

A.W. is just a dumb college kid who thinks his education means he has to be smarter than everyone. He latches onto some novel idea, but doesn't have the intelligence to properly rearticulate it, or know where it's limitation are, so we end up here again. If you've actually heard him in conversation, like in all the discord book readings, you'll come to understand he's incredibly daft. Like most tripfags, he only manages to be notorious by shear force of hubris.

Bumping.

You have a very soothing voice, like philosophy ASMR.

Classic Holla Forums. You people are jokes and will never accomplish anything. Stay pathetic!

Thanks.

Pointing out that something isn't an argument isn't an argument either. You then go on to call Holla Forums users jokes who will never accomplish anything without making an argument. Do you honestly not have any self-awareness A.W.?

I also find your voice soothing, but only because you sound like an effeminate faggot and because the words that come out of your mouth have absolutely no force behind them.

You're one sad user, I'm sorry for you.

I find feminine voices to be easier to listen to, but really it's the lack of content in your speech that makes your voice truly soothing.
You'll never be the little girl btw. People will always be able to tell

which fucking morons think he is?
they get the wall and severe blunt force trauma, theyre not worth a bullet

Roo will never respond to AW. AW is clearly the victor here.

Roo does. He won't talk to AW because he's horrified at the thought that his idol doesn't hold up to his assumptions about him.

"""trajectories""" (surely you mean geodesics?) ARE completely 'fictitious' though. they are less fundamental than elementary space and time, inertia and mass-energy, and even that is not truly ontological, as science never reaches the absolute substrate such that it can be re-presented to the mind (which IS after all, one of the esoteric aims of Communism - total mastery over the laws of nature). Newtonian arcs are expectations and traces, which can be represented as curves in the eye, and as mathematical objects may be manipulated as much, or as they appear to us, we may consider a range of possibilities of abberration (but most certainly NOT all of them simultaneously - in continuous space these are infinite), or update our expectations with new information as it appears to us. They have reality in the sense that geometry and all other 'pure' mathematical structure does. Which is the far deeper question to my mind. Pondering this does not make me seek escapism in plane of imagination cleaved at the joints from this one, like, oh, I don't know, COMMUNISM? After all this was arch-liberal Popper's (dumb) exact same argument leveled against Plato, who he blamed for both the supposedly Hegelian Nazi's and Marx.
If you wish for a response I might get back to it. I appreciate your detailed replies in this discussion. Too often I'm forced to try joust with the more sophisticated philosophical old school Marxists as they appear in my mind.
Why is the Cartesian bogeyman so troubling to you? Unity, coincidence and interpenetration of opposites right?

In what sense was it surgical? Descartes was a deterministic mechanist (only matter in motion in absolute space and time) in physics, but he noted that the logic of thoughts themselves, the same thoughts that lead to the science of mechanism, do not appear to have anything like a mechanistic causal structure, which he simply then took as a primary evidence that therefore cannot be logically (where causes and effects were thought to mirror the necessary entailment of the syllogism or demonstration) overruled by anything subsequent.

For you, it seems, you've merely alienated the basic duality, exteriorizing it into outer phenomena, and thereby trapped it behind a locked cabinet, solely in order to try deny the "dangerous" priority of inner sense. This prohibition is very similar to religious prohibitions against mysticism which tends to result in withdrawal from society. For example when Judaism outwardly took a turn away from "false hope" of the afterlife to focus on the here and now in improving their material lot (which didn't work so well considering the Sabbateans). Or Calvinism with its fatalism, early Christians vs the gnostics, secular humanism and positivism, and so on.
This is a dogmatic assertion and you are assuming the permanence of fixed categories while arguing against the same elsewhere. Flux and change right? For example: "unity" and "multiplicity" and all quantifiers themselves are metaphysical prepositions that come to you enveloped in language, and you assume basic facts about universal human experience that are inaccessible to you, no matter how much you read in history books. "Knowledge" itself is a bourgeois preoccupation. Sophia = wisdom. Plato's Socrates felt knowledge claims and wisdom were incompatible.

This is a characteristic of Marxist psychological diagnostics. The same with "revisionism" and other deviations in ideology that you cannot actually explain because they seem to spontaneously occur in the mystified material-social nexus which then obscurely imposes its forms onto concrete human thought with the weight of necessity. The Marxist program is about foresight and planning for what may come. But you cannot provide a reason why these ideas might come to entail eachother, or describe what is so potent about one species of notion that it takes hold of the mind so powerfully and leads it into destructive antinomies, or what the fuck "precludes a rational return to the world" might even mean (and I could very much say the same for Marxism!), outside of alluding to inductions. This is because you have an obsession with denying any causal relationship between "idea" and "history" or "practice". As if Hegel might have caused a counter-renaissance of drunken spiritualism, which is itself self-refuting, because then at least one mystical idea - namely Hegel's - thereby ARE effectual in history in themselves!

I will answer the rest if I have the time. I think this covers much of what I would say. My point is "metaphysics" is the scapegoat of everyone who wishes for prohibitions on certain patterns of ideal thought for their own purposes, always packaged with their own diluted metaphysics rebranded to sell. It was never detached from the world because it can't be. From the start it was concerned with illuminating basic experience rather than noxiously weaving new illusions. Call it ontology, physics, nature, epistemology, whatever you like. Its substance is always the Absolute, same as logic itself.

Whoever you are, keep doing whatever you do. This is more effort than that user deserves, but dayum. You made the transcendental undercut to their argument, but I doubt they'll accept you did.

Good critique (as opposed to typical vulgar criticism).

Stop replying to yourself.

I second this

I will never stop replying to myself.

And just to add to this, this is still classical, albeit Einsteinian view, taking into account relativistic acceleration, which rubbishes Newtonian arcs. For almost 100 years we've known this picture is hopelessly ideal itself, and the real physical content of the world is far different, so much so that it seemed to necessitate a kind of Kantian apparatus to even be translatable into any sort of human language such that experimental results can be compared (Copenhagen).

I'm not AW you developmentally disabled faggots.

NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

A.W. is notorious for replying to his own posts and dropping his trip to pretend to be other people. If you're not him then you wrote a post in a similar style and format as him and you took all of the same positions he took earlier in this thread. What a coincidence! Gee whiz.

...

Notorious for it as of this thread, as of this very post.


I was looking for this image to post, nice.

Nice try, but I read the threads linked in and people call you out for doing the same thing in them.

Mods can prove it right here, right now.

DO IT YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS

Notorious apparently means the (you) repeating the same thing everywhere. Good to know.

AW, I'm having a hard time determining your accent. Are you Mexican?

Believe it or not people other than me can see through your shit

What shit?

Hey, AW, do you remember how in a thread quite a while ago somebody linked you or posted a picture of a philosophical book for you about epistemology?

You replied dismissing it by saying that epistemology alone was useless and stated that one should be like Kant and have ontology be one's epistemology.

Do you remember which book it was?

Fuck, I forgot to put in my name

You seem to have a habit of doing that, don't u? ;)

nice stylometry faggot.
i already made fun of some of his arguments earlier itt. i find his naive autismal panlogicism amusing, he needs to pull up on the 20th century so it can crash and burn already. plus he reads hegel and thinks its anti-metaphysical, surely he must of only been kidding about all that God stuff!

Since you brought it up can you speak about Hegel's religiosity? Was he a Christian atheist? A Lutheran? Or what?

Oops left my Sage mode on

This blog explains it pretty well:
robertmwallace.blogspot.com/2014/04/hegels-god-how-we-know-it-and-why-it.html?m=1

Esoteric/mystic. Christian Platonist with likely some Qabalah influences. Boehme, Proclus, Cusanus, etc.

though it's Hegel. there's many ways to read him.

And you two are not the same person? Is that right?

No shit it's right. fuck the young hegelians for distorting him so much

Nope I (the guy who posted the link) am a completely different person from the guy you asked

No, but if you want to know the issue, it's not epistemology as such.

Epistemology as first philosophy is a problem as much as ontology as first philosophy. Both assume their other is given without problem. There was epistemology before the moderns, and ontology after them, the order of investigation is just reversed and the problem remains about justifying how we know what we are supposed to know.

I don't remember that book, but you're not missing much. Just read the Phyrronian Skeptics, or about the Munchhausen trilemma to know why it's hopeless. Kant's ontology is interestingly the first true 'epistemology first' philosophy, thus the only real epistemologist we ever had. Kant says that to know objects the objects must conform to our knowing, thus he goes on an investigates how we think in order to see what we can think.


Would you look at that, a blog i recommend a lot. Thanks for posting it, (you). It's like I'm not a neo-Kantian or something.

...

What do you mean at the end of the video when you say the primary vs. secondary contradiction thing isn't "dialectical"?

Also, do you believe Maoist Turd Worldists will be on suicide watch en masse after watching your vids?

I think I mentioned in the second part that Maoists are such an insignificant group to argue with in the 1st world. Third world people clearly like ML and MLM because it panders to their desires and needs, and I don't think it's our place to be telling those people what to do about their lives tbh (as if they'll listen to us anyway).

Primary vs secondary contradictions are subjective and contingent (meaning they're existing because of just historical chance and random factors). It's obviously pragmatic to deal with problems in order of urgency and importance to your goals, but that's all it is: pragmatic and fit only for its own situation. Pragmatism has limits, however, in that what is pragmatic now is not pragmatic tomorrow, and what was pragmatic will likely bite you in the ass if you sleep on it. Stuff like national liberation as inter-class alliance is obvious pragmatism, you have to do it if you're not an idiot (if national liberation is your current goal on the way to liberation from capital), but obviously bourgs will not be your friends after and just give up power.

I don't think they care, and frankly I don't want them to care. I'm not going to engage debates on this. I have no interest in their ideology, I have no interest in helping them see their faults and improve it, I just did this because that one user said Mao was not anti-Hegelian.

I'm also writing a condensed blog on this just to have a more at hand response if this ever comes up.

Jesus, dude. Read some modern philosophy.

I have. Why?

Why do you keep making such a heavy distinction between theory (dialectics) and practice (pragmatism).

Because one is an autistic logic about conceptual necessities, the other is an arbitrary logic about arbitrary things. They're different logics.


Also, whoever posted this on /r/communism, thanks for possibly sicking one of the tankiest corners of the internet on me. At best Paul Moufawad (Maoist philosopher who lurks on that reddit) will listen to the first 6 minutes and call me an idiot.

Moufawad isn't that petty. He's actually a theorist.

He doesn't waste much time, he's dismissive when he can be (in this case he can).

Well he's actually fluent in Maoism.

Also, what do you think of Althusser's aleatory materialism?

Don't bother talking to Maoists. Most Maoists are die-hard dogmatists and most Maoist organizations function closer to religious cults than political groups (RCP, NCP, RAIM, LLCO come to mind). I'm not kidding. I know people in one of the groups I namedropped, and it's completely fucked. The group in question tries to control every aspect of their members' lives, down to what material they read, to what media they consume, to whom they're "allowed" to be friends or in a romantic relationship with, down to every word they utter from their mouths. It's only a matter of time before they start policing how their members eat and dress too. Also, you can get thrown out of the party for the seemingly most miniscule of things.

is right, and I'd add Maoist orgs really are closer to the Mormons than any other Marxist parties.

I know Moufawad is quite fluent in it. He's also very opposed to dialectics of the kind I'm arguing from. He's more analytic about it, but he also grasps these more than Mao did.

I had some small exchanges with him years ago, not arguments, just comments and explanations. Even if he comments, however, I'm likely to not respond because I'm not about to enter an argument which I never intended to engage in the first place. None of this was to refute Maoism, or Maoist practice, but just me reading to see if this was as another user said.

Someone posted this on /r/communism (which I'm banned from for arguing about dialectics in a no name thread) calling it a 'critique', which I did not make this as. It's critical comments, but with no intention of debating Maoism with Maoists as if I care about their project and theory and want to correct them about it.

Have a spine you fucking pussy. Stand behind your words.

Oh I'm well aware from reddit subs they dominate (you have to be >very< careful with what you say and how you say it). I also read Paul's blog when I was still searching out Marxist logic, he's smart but he also has that rigid 'self-criticism' thing going on which is the same as Christian 'confession' sessions and self-guilt tripping to atone.


I'll stand behind my words on Mao and Hegel, but I'm not arguing Maoism with Maoists.

Why do you think that is, that Maoists are the ones who go apeshit over language and whatnot? I've never seen armchairs, AnComms/AnSynns, or even Trots pull that shit (at least, not to the extent Mautists do).

If P.M. would say anything about me getting Hegel wrong, oh you bet I'm debating.


I am almost certain it's precisely because of this 'contradiction' interpretation of dialectics. Mao has a determinist causal-nexus outlook without sublation. This leads to a belief that individuals are purely products of their social relations and have no free individuality, are not capable of being subjects capable of detaching themselves as individuals from this social web or relations causing them to be as they are. Because of this they cannot conceive the individual as a subject that can escape into itself, or gain a self-determination that negates the external 'negations' of the world against them.

So basically, Maoists deny human agency?

Yeah, it's a type of structuralism. Thinking of it now, this actually would explain why P.M. likes Althusser a lot when it comes to the 'interpolation of the subject' and the repressive state aparatus. Maoist metaphysics does not allow for the possibility of a free subject that can desire something which their immediate social world has not provided a basis for, or for a psychology of an individual with a 'strong' will and a strong stance on who they are regardless of what others say.

I hate to play armchair anthropologist, but…

I think this is typical of Asian cultures (including Arabs), generally speaking.

In the "East" you don't really have a concept of individuals as free subjects so to say. Rather, individuals are seen as products of external forces (God/Allah, environment, karma, caste, family upbringing, etc.). The easterner is constantly pressured to deal with their environment in a way so that they come out on top (think about how Japanese businesspeople are often ruthless) and if they don't, well, that's shame. It's why those said Japanese commit suicide if they go bankrupt, and why Arabs kill their sisters or daughters if their sisters/daughters engage in behaviors which shame the family.

Could also be why Roo loves his graphs and charts in order to justify Turd Worldism.

i really hope you're joking

Not at all. I've studied abroad in Jordan and have been to Japan twice.

It all makes sense now.

There's a pretty substantial difference between the ways westerners vs. easterners play the blame game.

Usually, when westerners blame something for their own faults it's to avoid injury to their ego and ensure their self-esteem (so for instance, Becky blames her parents for the F she gets on a math test she didn't study for). In the East, people direct their blame at whatever they feel is preventing them from preventing evil or upsetting the status quo (Ahmed blames his sister Aisha for singing in public and tempting the men around her, thereby damaging their family's reputation).

...

Westerners blame for their own self-gratification, easterners blame out of fear.

Gee

Sounds pretty ridiculous fam. What about BBC/anuddah shoah or the rapefugee fearmongering? Its all self aggrandizing bullshit at the end of the day, amirite?

What westerners "fear" in this case is being deprived of their way of life and civil liberties. That's why there's such villification of Muslims in the media.

How is this self aggrandizing then? Is wanting to maintain your own laws and culture self aggrandizement?

Not saying I agree with 's idea here, but going off that it's easy to say it: it's the denial of the West's responsibility for creating the very problem that created this problem. By not taking responsibility one never accepts the blame, but lays it all on the other and calls it just their 'essence' and incompatible with our 'western essence'.

It's actually the opposite: the West is able to accept blame for what it's done and right the wrong, whereas the East flees from any kind of blame. Yes, there are islamophobic Americans, but there are also plenty of Americans who protested Trump's ban and who want to take in refugees (not just from Syria but also Somalia, Libya, etc.). You don't see that kind of shit in Japan which is one of the most racist countries on earth.

Aren't fictitious. It's another form of material reality:


It is something as elementary as that matter is not reduced to the corporeal. In this case, not everything material is reduced to the "physicalist referents" (that is, the "newtonian mass").

I can not understand that physicalist stubbornness, in the grossest sense of the term, that you manage not recognizing other types of material realities that are not reduced to the corporeal. The system of the five regular polyhedra is neither in France nor in Germany nor in the head of the French or the Germans, for example. These forms of material reality are neither "exterior" nor "interior", such as: projected projected space, parallel lines, infinite set of prime numbers, Saussure's Langue, moral relations, and so on. These aren't "essences coming down from heaven": are resulting from carrying to the limit, following logical operations, certain practical, empirical configurations. But these "abstract objects" thus obtained are constitutive of the experience itself, or contents of the first and second genres of materiality, since if the process of the reversion of the "circumference limit" to the practical "rondures" did not take place, they would not reach the condition of a concept. If it were possible to establish a general criterion for the analysis of the connections between the contents of the third gentr and those of the other two, perhaps the least committed was the one that began recognizing that each third genre content must correspond to at least one pair of contents from the other two genera (although not necessarily 'in the same proportion' in each case).

Physicalism has long since been overcome, at least materialism has far exceeded it.


That doesn't make any sense. I would like you to expose the reasoning, the explanation, every time you say something because simply denying something does not mean that you refute it or counterargument it (as I do).

Unity, coincidence and interpenetration of opposites have nothing to do with my words against your Cartesianism. Those surgeon's cut you stablish between things, exactly as a typical positivist (that is, pure metaphysics), are what I can't get nor are explained. Are pretty arbitrary.

Also if you want to talk about the one and the multiple, the all and the parts, I am delighted to do so. Just ask.


In the sense I explained: you just simply can not establish such a cut between what you understand by "material" on the one hand and "ideal" on the other. I do not think it necessary to explain the problems that this entails and where the positivists ended up doing so.


Wrong. What I'm saying all the time is that you can't cut both sides. I have been explaining the dialectical relationship of all planes in a non-metaphysical way for several days.


There isn't any dogmatic assertion, it's impossible if you have read what I explained till now. There aren't any fixed categories. If it were so easy to prove things by just saying them…


Wrong again. Nothing metaphysical on them. It's quite strange the use you do on your own understanding of metaphysics, twisting it depending on the context accepting the philosophical tradition that I have taught.

You are aware that this is a sovereign bullshit, right?


Has nothing to do with some kind of psychoanalytic analysis you doing.

The fuck are you talking now about? It is a bit regrettable that you have to resort to fallacies of the straw man through pretending another identity.

The what? If you wan't to go this way, explain your position and don't say thing randomly. Because of having four basic ideas of a whole philosophical system, the Hegelian, does not mean that you can speak properly of the rest of things, like passing them through a filter. You can not even speak properly of Hegel.


Accepting that you are wrong and contradicting yourself in every answer is not bad so you can advance in intellectual development, A.W.

That is your main error and what explains your Cartesianism that I refuse. It's all upside down. And, yeah, thoughts and its logic have a structural cause, as structural as at the base of them is consciousness, behind it language and at the base of language human work. This is something so basic that is known from the beginning studying the origin of an apparently harmless number: 0. And by extension the numbers in general.

Yet again, empty concepts. Admit it, you don't mean anything by material if this is the case. You're basically talking about 'being' and renaming it as if it makes a difference.

Explained all: matter, scientific concepts, philosophical categories, ontology, gnoseology, determinated matter/indeterminated matter, how to indeterminated matter is "achieved" dialectically critically from the determined matter, the different forms of material reality according to an ontology centered on the given determinated matter, whose are "the contents" of third genre of materiality, how they are "produced" and are not "detached" from the world and it's not needed any ideal metaphysical world classical from idealist philosophical systems, etc, etc.
Same answer till now through different froms: "aaaaarrg cut it off fast, cut it lalala don't want to listen lalala arrrr metaphysics muh metaphysics!!!!!"

Holy fuck! Congratulations, you have just understood the basis of all ontology and in this case you are on the verge of understanding the materialist ontology.

It's quite basic in materialism to say that the world, by its nature, is material and is composed of matter in movement that passes from one form to another. Matter is the primary data while consciousness is the secondary; consciousness is the product of highly organized matter. Nobody till now said "matter empty concept" (also his different forms) to philosophical materialism until A.W., nor to scientists in their respective fields, knowing that everything there is composed of matter, and they study a "parcel" from their own scientific field that does not exhaust everything, does not encompass everything at once.

To say in the field of philosophy that "matter" is an empty concept as its various forms (the various forms of material reality), an unprecedented and completely arbitrary statement, is as much as telling scientists that the scientific concepts of matter they employ are empty and that when they speak of antimatter is equally empty. It does not make any sense.

You've completely disregarded my counter to simply reassert your own argument, and now accused me of physicalism, which I am very far from. While it is you defending the archaic Newtonian approximation of trajectories in Cartesian space and time, which has been already completely superseded. Newton is not even LOGICALLY consistent. There is no absolute simultaneity, and the problem of reference frames in relative motion was known already in Galileo. And any speed limit means the geometry must at least be Lorentzian (isomorphic to Minkowski spacetime). Acceleration of inertial frames and the necessary equivalence of the form of physical laws under change of frame or coordinate system, gets you already psuedo-Reimannian, all a priori!
I have done no such thing. Dualism in its simplest form recognizes that consciousness cannot be reduced to the corporeal.
I can't really extract much sense from this, but here you are still heavily reliant on yet more jargon coming down from dogmatic metaphysics: "possibility", "necessity", "genera", "concept", "recognition", "content", "correspondence". What does "constitutive of the experience" itself even mean? Constitution is Kantian.
Again, knowing about physics does not make me physicalist, in fact I specifically already argued against physicalism. What is the nature of this "overcoming"? Isn't this merely presentism?
I already gave an argument on Descartes' behalf for why it was NOT arbitrary, for him, though it was quite simplistic, and of course I'm no mechanist nor positivist. You're simply trying to paint your opponents as the blind followers of Saint Rene, a very popular rhetorical strategy I find amusing, hence my defense of Descartes' argument specifically, which does not commit me to rejecting any further elaborations. What precludes me, as a simple dualist for the sake of argument, from also accepting Heraclitus?

I'm asking you to defend your dogmatic adherence to ancient metaphysical icons such as mereology and to hen, while waving your hands and claiming you are free from such theological prejudices, simply by calling it something else. The name isn't what matters, except for nominalists I guess.
You haven't really explained this at all or why your "surgeon's cut" analogy has any relevance to any argument for dualism, especially my arguments that you already in some ways cryptically presuppose a variety of it. What is it we are supposed to be "cutting"?

I often use 'positivism' as an umbrella term for varieties of modern scientistic and logicist beliefs which are all really identical in content be it known as empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, and so on, but the specific doctrine "positivism" was incredibly short lived and amusingly everyone feels the need to refute it and curse its name forever after, not unlike Descartes. If you read closely I argued AGAINST all such doctrines as an arbitrary limited metaphysics of thought and knowledge, which already presupposes such a thing as "knowledge" and "thought" and "sense data" and its connexions so on. While also ironically resembling religious proscriptions against "mystical" thinking.

Again, saying one kind of belief invariably "leads to" another is the worst kind of historical idealism in the sense Marx was accusing Hegel in particular of. This is not just giving ideas in the mind a detached motive principle on their own, unfolding by necessity according to an inner logic, but a pretty deterministic one as well. You've given no argument for how your utterly mystified system of material conditions in any meaningful sense would generate such a process. And of course it didn't go down this way at all, because as we see Descartes lead to Hegel, who specifically called ego cogito the antithesis of the Parmenidean thesis of the dialectic, after all that's what Absolute Knowledge MEANS. And then Hegel lead to Marx!

Also, I specifically said "ideal" doesn't simply mean "thought", but is a pattern of thought that interstices with reality at its most foundational, without which any of this, including your position, would be unthinkable at all. Plato's Ideas were NOT "in" the mind or the soul, and the modern notion of the mind wasn't around back then. And of course long before Hegel Plato's school was dealing with Triality and other sophisticated elaborations, long ago already having dealt with Aristotle's hylomorphic reply.

And I accept not much could be "expressible" or "thinkable" in thought without language, which has an irreducibly historical character, loaded with frozen metaphors and spiritual residues, and is mysterious in its possible relation to all of this to say the least. So where is the straight "cut"?

And I accept not much could be "expressible" or "thinkable" in thought without language, which has an irreducibly historical character, loaded with frozen metaphors and spiritual residues, and is mysterious in its possible relation to all of this to say the least.

Marx himself spoke of "the brain" and consciousness etc. Perhaps you could elaborate the FOUNDATIONS of your "totally non-metaphysical ontology" rather than just asserting its correctness via its purported superiority to various 'otherworldly' strawmen. And you completely evaded many of my more substantive points, in fact the whole debate on what is and isn't metaphysics is a sideshow really.

e.g. How can Communism, the whole end goal, be so worldly and down to earth as you claim, with your philosophy of the carpenter but not the Christ? It's both an absolute horizon and yet still has some primordial shapes to it. How does our mortal language grounded in 'work' or 'practice' reach out to such a world, even "dialectically"? As Engels said "this 'positive' you want doesn't exist", yet they still prophecied some of what it would look like, despite it completely surpassing everything human, and even the "laws of nature". Seems there's a pretty big disconnect here?

Of course metaphysical speculation was always dialectical, moving, and never eternally fixed, it's built into the real history of the rival schools! And the "dogmatic metaphysicians" themselves changed their own views over their own lifetimes! It goes without saying, but what you're practicing is the very rational theology you protest, by analyzing the systems and their INTERNAL logical consequences in an abstract manner completely detached from their living history as human products.

I've been showing you it is still intensely metaphysical. Metaphysics isn't actually bad though. I'm trying to illustrate that zealous "anti-metaphysics" is just an uncritically accepted fixture of contemporary mythology.
At the very least then FLUX and FLOW or whichever else are fixed and unchanging. Try follow along. Simply asserting you have no presuppositions and are now systematically free from ideology doesn't make it the case.
Yes, it's my own philosophical position, and I'm arguing for it, as I think the taboo against "muh metaphysics" is an obscurantist polemical device and pedantic at best.

what?
So if you're annoyed at my imprecision, should we talk about "Reformist Delusions" and "Sluggish Schizophrenia"?
I'm critiquing your metaphysical ideology in general. Sorry if my argument was unclear.
I'm more relaxed about the terms I throw around because I often find them more illustrative than exact jargon. I've read Hegel, what four basic ideas? I hope you're not talking about unity of opposites as if he invented it.
I was defending Descartes. I'm not a mechanist, his idea of causality was already dealt a heavy blow by Hume.

I could critique the picture you've given here by poking a few holes, such as the thinkability of pure consciousness without thought/content, how it makes sense to say "below", how something can be below language if language constitutes absolutely everything thinkable, the regress and solipsistic isolation this entails, and so on. But as its only the rudimentary sketch and I'm sure captures little structural richness, it'd be better if you gave me the best book on the materialist ontology to read rather than us arguing in circles.

Oh forgot to get to this:
So how is the nonessential, individual and concrete (three very old categories) "ideal"? How are you not still committed to subjectivity and objectivity, with an adapted Kantian argument about the objects of possible experience?

Are you really referring to the real Caesar here, such that there is an arrow of intentionality reaching back to the man as he was… Or is it more that his name, through being so notorious, is in the language as more of an archetype, a stock role? Because in your sentence "Caesar" is an entirely arbitrary choice, standing as an example, just an X, which could be substituted with any well known (which you also assume of your audience) name for it to still make sense, so whatever this refers to is NOT actually Caesar individually and concretely.

And certainly there is Caesar the man and Caesar the myths. What of historical characters that later turn out to be fabrications? To whom did sentences mentioning them refer? It could turn out by some remarkable new evidence that even Caesar was not historical after all.

So really here, you are implying or presupposing several positions about the structure of temporality, the unreality of the past, historical narrative, cultural icons, intentionality, and so on. This "third genre" appears to simply be the stage where speculation is deemed acceptable, while it also seems to be the case that the objective ideal reality of the other two, on which it rests, are also contained within it. The real tautology as it were, the panacea of German Idealism.

Even if Descartes is as corrosive as you say, which he clearly was not (Hegel and Marx not to mention his contributions to science), it's a ridiculous oversimplification to claim the other major 'offenders': Leibniz (probably greatest genius of all time) or even Spinoza were engaged in depicting Elyseum, if anything your position is probably closer to the latter than you realize.

You're just flatly asserting the groundlessness of everyone else's position without any actual argument at all, simply repeating old canards like the "surgeon's cut" (why not butcher's slice?), and arguing that the supposed fixity of some categories might result in the stasis of thought. Yet on the evidence, it most certainly did not, and you haven't shown yourself to be free of "immobilizing hypostasis" by a long margin, merely assuming the self-consciously (and extremely self congratulatory - which might give one pause who claims to resist all dogma) dialectical character of your thinking safeguards you against it somehow, while steadfastly adhering to a century old doctrine of VI Lenin.

leftofwreckage.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/theory-review-maos-on-contradiction/

You continue with the same without adding anything new twisting your own concepts, that is, contradicting yourself at every step. The best example of this, the most "notorious", is that you now admit that


Something that me and another user told you, in the same direction of value (that isn't subjective, that is, in the mind or the soul). I've been saying that those kind of realities, that I showed as another form of material reality not detached from this world (and it's not needed another one, that is, an idealist metaphysical one), aren't "exterior" nor "interior". But you keep banging your head against the wall so you do not admit your mistakes (most of them because not understanding what people tell you because you just don't read what we tell you).

In order to escape from the materialistic approach that I have been exposing for several days, you have changed your conception of everything. The example of this is that you first gave a notion of metaphysics that had nothing to do with the philosophical tradition, now you handle another one that is closer to what I defined as metaphysics according to the philosophical tradition; the second is that you reduced matter to the corporeal, to the purely physical materiality, that is to say, you were holding a materialism so vulgar that it frightened you, that is why you are accused of being a physicalist (although now you say that you did not reduce matter to the purely corporeal, physical); then precisely by these two points you were imprisoned by a purely positivist logic, that is, that "matter" is on one side and "the ideal" on the other, something absolutely arbitrary but coherent as a result of your initial proposals.

An example of this third point is to reduce all kinds of philosophical categories to metaphysics, which has also been explained and denied of course. This is a direct consequence of all that is being stripped of your argument. We can see clearly with your next words:


It is impossible to deal with a person who does not deign to read even two lines. You fill everything with fallacies of man of straw and loose a verbiage that does not have sense, that has no direct relation with nothing of what is said. Constitution isn't Kantian. When I say:

Has no relation to what you are now talking about Kant. Try to read it carefully. What you mean by "Kantian constitution" is experience as constitutive, as an element or process constituent of the subject (taken in its most generic sense), so that it itself conforms the set of conditions of possibility for the opening to the world and the realization of new experiences, it is more, it is the whole that determines such openness and experience. Nothing more radically contrary to what I have said. When it is said that the forms of the third genre of material reality (five regular polyhedra, projective space, parallel lines, infinite set of prime numbers, etc) "are constitutive of the experience itself" it is something pretty basic if you read all what is before that phrase: these "abstract objects" are obtained as a result from carrying to the limit, following logical operations, certain practical, empirical configurations, like if the process of the reversion of the "circumference limit" to the practical "rondures" did not take place, they would not reach the condition of a concept. They are given and can only be given through the other genres of materiality. That is what "are constitutive of the experience itself" means and something frankly basic, elementary, if one does not want to fall into the accusation of unknowability (that happens in the Platonic dialogue of the Parmenides precisely against positions that you hold).

On the "newtonian mass", jesus, again you went far away from what it is like you do all the time. I answer directly to everything, frontally, and there is no way to make you understand anything. I am going to simplify it: in the present wars there are pieces of artillery that shoot projectiles. That is understood, right? What is meant is that if you shoot for Syria, for example, the predicted trajectory deviates by impacting another projectile or whatever against your projectile, changing the initial trajectory. What is being told to you is that the projectile fired from your artillery piece, your excitement of bursting ISIS positions (or your appendicitis pain that has been generated during the war) and scientifically predicted trajectories (both the trajectory as the deviation) are all material but different forms of material reality, and none of them are detached from the world nor is needed any ideal metaphysic world apart from this one. So that's why it is said:

All explained. Your positioning has been moving in a physicalist, dualistic and positivist philosophical coordinates since the first day. Evidently from that type of coordinates it is impossible to face everything I say.


Done it many times.


Done but what you can not ask me is to answer all your misunderstandings and new problems that you get that arise precisely from not understanding anything (not because you can not but because you do not want to, because you do not take the trouble to read anything).


I am glad you accept that all your straw man fallacy about a "semantic debate over the metaphysical word" was that, a pure invention of yours.

Failed all the times.


I do not understand why you ascribe some kind of "antipathy" to my materialistic positioning, that is, contrary to metaphysics and idealism in general. Whether metaphysics is bad or good does not matter to me.


Didn't talk about that. Pretty wrong and basic what you say, it is often heard in school. If you want to debate on Communism just say it, but do not change your positions and issues every time you receive a response from me, because in the end we will end up talking about apples and you saying that you never talked about metaphysics.


You started saying that materialism didn't have any "metaphysics of matter", remember? Then said it had it through other words, then denied it and now saying yes again. Damn it A.W.

On that pic, everything wrong and nobody "simply said that all is just matter". Another fallacy of a straw man. Also Heidegger didn't understand shit of what Marx started with "technology". It is not technology but production. The incorporation of the idea of production by Marx amounts to the foundation of a new ontology (a materialist ontology). Marx clearly knows the difference between mere external "fabrication" and production: the architect -says in the Manuscripts also in Das Kapital- differs from the bee in which it is represented in advance what he is going to build. It is about, for my part, to draw attention to the connection between that anticipated representation and the idea of ​​"appearance", even ideologically. This representation is an appearance, because it still lacks an actual prior correlate to verify it. Moreover, while production is a social process, which is given in the division and confrontation of classes and social groups, appearances always occur in a context of consciousness such that it can be compared to a camera obscura -by the way, configures a geometric chiasm- that inverts the reality, that is, the reality that is going to be generated by those appearances. The production takes place in an "upside down world", at least partially. (The totalist conception of appearances, in Mannheim's way, is itself ideological.) And by throwing its results, it is constituting objects that destroy the appearances by which they were constituted. Herein lies the materialist historical dialectic, which presupposes a non-metaphysical reality, given substantially, but by means of the activity (of industry) of man, which is, for the moment, no more than one of the real terms in respect to which any other part of the World comes into reality, while those "other" parts are not substances, they exist only in a context. Therefore, it can be said that only practice is the one that can allow the cancellation of appearances: it is not possible to show that bourgeois ideology is erroneous, but that the bourgeoisie will be overrun by the proletariat to refute the bourgeois world of appearance. Not even Das Capital has "refuted" capitalism by itself, but by the mediation of the realization of socialism, as long as this realization comes to an end.

That's why Engels said that communism is not a state to be implanted, an ideal to which reality must be subjected. We call communism the real movement that annuls and surpasses the current state of affairs. The conditions of this movement are derived from the presently existing premise. Also Marx and Engels said that the theoretical propositions of the Communists do not rest much less on ideas, on principles forged or discovered by any redeemer of humanity. They are all a generalized expression of the material conditions of a real and vivid class struggle, of a historical movement that is unfolding in the eyes of all.

The fuck are you talking about. Try to read what people explain to you.

That doesn't have any sense. Nothing related to what I said.

Nothing to what you talking. No "arrows of intentonality". It's more simple: any dead relatives of you, president of your country, mayor of your locality, worker of the work center where you are working, teacher of your school… all them are material realities although their present being no longer belongs to the first genre of materiality (are not a part of the world physical), nor to the second genre of materiality (are distinguished from the pure psychological thoughts that you have of them). And as with the example of the "newtionian mass" (the artillery piece, the projectile and the trayectories) they aren't detached from the rest of genres of materiality.

Exactly, can't be anything related to any first genre of materiality. Congratulations, you understood it!

Psychological projection as a defense mechanism, again.

Says the one with Hegel. Nice argument.

Thanks for the reply, I have nothing further to add to this having exhausted my main arguments so it would just be fruitless from now. But I'd just like to point out for clarity that I'm not AW. I was the user who first replied to him with the correction on the meaning of Plato's Ideas though.

The fuck is that Cyrillic typeface man.

I can be distinguished from AW because I'm who he wishes to be. :^)

Actually I will say this, also to clarify. And considering as you are defending a more coherent position than I on the offensive, I will now defend my own. While you are herding a veritable pasture of sacred cattle from the philosophical tradition, and trying to exonerate a well defined position from all charges and uphold its precepts as the supreme incarnation of all that is worthy within that tradition (naked traditionalism being a jarringly odd crutch for a hardcore Marxist I must say), I am taking a more radical/skeptical stance and attacking all of them with their pretensions of indubitability and pristine exactitude in themselves, where all errors they generated resulted from misinterpretations. Arguably representing the much more flexible and critical stance than yours.

I argue the big names of the 20th C, most of whom attempted to carve out new thought by shitcanning the whole edifice, never fully escaped even Kant's grasp. Even when I use a term such as "intentionality" borrowed from the later tradition (borrowed from the schoolmen) with its fucking tedious obsession with words themselves, it is not without irony. On reflection, I admit this is a fault of my writing that makes it obscure and frustrating to follow, because I will tend vascillate between attempts at faithful rigor and loose satirical butchery without notice. If the author weren't dead (and Marxists had much real faith in other human beings), in my defense I'd like to say this is meant to push this whole thing forward rather than some malicious obscurantism.

While Marx wrote much of value, the AIM is to STOP CAPITAL. Marxists want to use the REAL MOVEMENT to install COMMUNISM, a horrifying and nonsensical proposition. This is my motivation for taking to its floor with the hammer.

By pointing out your uncritical deployment of "metaphysical artifacts" therefore I seek to illustrate the irreducibly Kantian and/or ancient CHARACTER of much taken as given in the Materialist Ontology(tm), regardless of the particular exoteric lexicon you have chosen to frame it all within and expecting it to all just be completely literal, self-transparent and faithful to itself. Which would make it a product of the de-estranged human mind reconciled - such a being which you profess does not and cannot actually exist until AFTER Communism reaches systematic immanentization.

And I was asking you to defend these antique Notions on SOLELY material grounds, without just deferring to "muh tradition", and your academic credentials, as if you can just grant moratoriums against such inquisitions because you happen to find your own selections "useful" (which wouldn't surprise me given the ouroborous of auto-fellatio that runs deep in the thought of Marx's self appointed heirs), OR simply the authoritative thinkers on it such as Marx, which is exegesis, not philosophy, nor even much of a hermeneutics, let alone a materialist one in the sense you claim to mean.

I of course have less skin in the game than you, it seems, with your need to brand your school as label X, while putting the rest into basket Y in order to characterize it as suspect/invalid and preclude the mind from seeking them out as false idols and opiates… Which was sort of the aim of my excursions into the SUBJECT of "metaphysics" VS any one of its rebellious edgy patricidal offspring, and the comparisons were because I find them suggestive of a hidden braid worth unraveling. The whole thing, I might add, is very similar to the universal damnation of "scholasticism" during the early modern period, apparently a prerequisite cleansing ritual for the enlightened readership to take you seriously, while of course you were then free to lift from it as much as you like without giving due credit.

As you, in presumably following along with the reasoning given by the masters and agreeing with it, have too seen fit to surgically extract what you decide is honest from the tradition and dustbin the rest. Thus what I was asking for is an explicit, fully elucidated, and rational, SELECTION PROCEDURE against which ALL traditional concepts (not some, but ALL) can be interrogated. That is, beyond your own incredulity, meta-political agenda, and nonsensical statements about incapacitation and "rational return" (which I illustrated were false and self-refuting). A procedure which assesses the concordance of any granular Concept with your system of co-determined triadic active inhabitance-in-the-World (sorry "three genres of materiality").

Lacking details, I'm moved to believe you possess little but a sublimated, ("reified"?) background sketch of the full Kantian authorization procedure. There is very little different, going from what tiny summary you have given me of it, while of course differing in results and basic architectonic (the transcendental critique VS your Trinity of Immanent Worldiness, sorry I mean "3 planes of the material"). Kant already ruled that PRACTICAL Reason was superior to and even the ground of theoretical reason, with the latter's apparently malign inclination to speculative syntheses which leave the world behind, and so on. Kant however gave a very sophisticated rationale for all of this, a toolkit if you will for detecting and evicting erroneous ideology and illusion - namely metaphysics that was beyond the objects of possible experience… (But only so as to recover the TRUE, scientific metaphysics.) You have provided no such thing.

The deeper meaning for this will be because ALL transcendental schemes have contain fundamental errors themselves, which makes them the deceptive cocktail of luminous and shadowy at once, like ALL the originary great works of myth, which will remain the human condition perhaps forever, despite however intolerable you may find the sensations within you when considering the prospect of such a futurity.

You can't even believe it.

"For the power of the Soviets!"

Roo already made a video four years ago explaining "dialectics".
youtube.com/watch?v=mdB1DBFEmx0

bumpp

can we keep e-celeb garbage inside the e-celeb garbage thread?