Hey everybody. Don't shoot me for this, but I saw this in a different thread:
If that's true, then why bother writing philosophy? I know that obviously no sane Marxist is going to say, "Well, don't bother ever thinking again, just move your body around and do stuff." But if thought *qua* ideology/philosophy has no political relevance, then why would you go around writing books of philosophy?
I am not trying to agitate here. I'm sure that a more nuanced understanding of Marxism will make this clear. So educate me.
Okay, so now for the next step: how does this "active thinking" of Hegel's dialectic square with writing books of philosophy? Is Marxist philosophy a fundamentally new and different thing that is politically relevant, unlike all of the other philosophy?
Jack Allen
It's not so much that those things aren't relevant it's more that those things are directly formed and shaped by our material conditions So if you want to really change society ideology and thoughts alone cannot do it
Easton Thomas
So culture and ideology are adaptive, like biological traits in evolution?
James Rivera
I don't think it is, Stirner's writtings are politically relevant to egoists, Proudhon's are relevant for marksocs and so on
however Marx was able to criticize capitalism unlike any other philosopher before him
Yes we form ideas and justifications for things as they are and can only really conceive of things like God or Capitalism because of what we perceive and experience in the material world around us
Mason Cruz
What do we mean by "manufactured", here? As in, somebody consciously puts it together?
I dunno, this one looks like it will fall afoul of Kant. The brain has some hardware that just kinda grows there, doesn't it?
Ryder James
yes
Xavier Adams
Ideology is not hardware it's software Explain how one forms the concept of colors of they are born blind and are never introduced to the concept?
Dylan Robinson
that is very hard to rationalize, have a better one
True, but all the same, there is a blurry line between hardware and software.
Think of it this way: a person born blind can't form a concept of color, but how could you experience anything without it being filtered/assembled/constructed by your mind in the first place? Experience is needed for any conception, of course, but experience by itself doesn't account for thought (or even for itself).
Aaron Garcia
Most people here do hate philosophy unless it's nihilists, crypto-nihilists, or Hegel.
The truth is that Holla Forums is a walking bundle of cognitive dissonance that doesn't want to admit they want communism due to feels reason and MUH HUMANISM, so they endlessly dickride Stirner (who famously caused Marx to have an autism meltdown) and pretend they are simply egotists who wants communism out of self-interest (which clearly explains why they get so butthurt over exploitation in some bumfuck third world shithole).
Austin Rodriguez
Big difference between philosophy and scientific materialism
Jonathan Turner
Whoa, what? Source?
Eli Garcia
You seriously don't know that story?
Jackson Lopez
I'm new to this kind of theory.
Luke Davis
Marx also had an autistic meltdown because of Big Daddy Produhon lel
Aaron Ramirez
Seriously, though, I can't find anything on Google. Link me up?
Brandon Martin
The German Ideology
Jayden Scott
...
Aiden Morales
Meant to say >thought, feeling, ideology and beliefs Are all material conditions
Asher James
Basically with the Enlightenment you had all these fedora tippers like the young hegelians (marx & co) who laid the foundations for materialistic world views. Along came Stirner who made fun of all of them for being unable to take their materialist worldview all the way to its conclusions ("our atheists are pious people") and proceeded to lay out just such a world view in his work The Ego and its Own, which wikipedia explains it well enough imo
Marx couldn't deal with the fact that Stirner's work irrefutably showed the real consequences of materialism (for example Stirner basically said people like Marx had simply replaced "God" with "Humanity", but it's still the same spooky bullshit), so he proceeded to write like 500 pages of nothing but polemic, ad-hominem insults against Stirner, more pages than Stirners own work was, but didn't even end up publishing it ("The German Ideology"), probably because he noticed how retarded it was.
Pic related is kind of in the realm of non-serious history, since i've never seen sources for all his claims and supposed quotes, but the author (LSR project) has written on that stuff extensively and he basically argues that everyone who read Stirner was unable to refute him, but because they couldn't accept his conclusions they therefore tried to sweep him under the rug, never to be mentioned again. Pretty spooky tbh
Nathan Lopez
This Stirner guy sounds like a boss. Will read him.
Aiden King
So you view Stirner's conclusions as the ultimate outcome of materialism, then?
Henry James
no you won't lol
Austin Smith
Reading "The Ego and Its Own" right now, actually.
