Redpill me on rafiq posts. are they more ascended than even zizek?

t. rafiq

If you think Rafiq never wrote anything pants-on-head retarded, you haven't read enough of his posts

Has anyone actually seen or met rafiq?

I miss rafiq, does he still post anywhere or has he vanished off the face of the earth?

has anyone ever seen rafiq and zizek in the same room?

I don't think anyone knows. his account is still active everyday, but ultimately one way to find out would probably be to PM him.

I have always abhorred the tone of his writing. It's his combination of elitism and righteous indignation.
I can't make it through any of his posts.
The guy is a douche.

someone post the retarded rafiq rants about pet ownership

see

Okay so I gather this guy really does not like biological determinism, evolutionary psychology, arguments about human nature etc. But he does not seem refute them, or even to be very interested in whether or not they factual basis. Isn't that extremely pertinent to what he is talking about?

Does everyone on RevLeft have this sort of a priori knowledge that 'Human Nature' is irrelevant? Or is he the only one on that particular crusade.

"Human nature" is itself a human creation. That is, it's something we're constantly inventing and reinventing as a determinate limitation on what "the nature of being human" is to us and in what way we are limited (whether by "biology," original sin, god-given nature, etc.). I'm not sure if this opinion is common on that site, but it should be a non-issue if you treat the concept dialectically instead of empirically.

...

Hate to break it to you but "human nature", unlike physics, isn't a natural science with its basis in mathematics that has thousands of years of academic tradition behind it.

How do you strawman someone this badly?

Sure must be noble to have lasted that long, almost essential, something about how we function ordinarily - how we access space and time mayhaps?

And I'd say anthropology started in the academies too my friend. What was the sign Plato had above his about geometers?

zzz

What the fuck are you even saying?

Please don't post until your high has passed.

t. pet owner

Both physics and mathematics have changed significantly as fields over the millennia. Those would be poor examples of fields with essential natures.

And just to go back to your original response:
We can and have imagined ourselves around what we've considered our physical limitations (whether in the form of scientific laws or else). We can't overcome these limitations arbitrarily because our current physical capabilities in material reality prevent us from acting in contradiction to them, but that isn't to say these limitations are eternal, either because we've misconceived reality in such a way as to make something actually possible seem impossible or because we are able to modify that reality through invention to make what was formerly impossible possible.

Physics, as a school of thought, implies a continuous, non-arbitrary anthropology. As does your implicit selection procedure determining some tradition's status across time and into cultures as phenomenologically remote as ancient Athens or Persia. As does the transcendental "we" that gets bandied around in these types of recitals. And so on, ad infinitum.

Que?

This is outstandingly absurd. I just don't know how to deal with people that can "think" like this besides trying to use satire to break through whatever it is keeping you like this. I'm sorry.

Your next paragraph is such a Moebius strip of pseudo-rationality coiling back around on itself I don't even know where to begin.

Does modern physics still talk about the final causes as in Aristotle? Is geometry still limited only to that which has been derived from Euclid's axioms? The only thing outstanding here is your utter ignorance.

Try reading a book for a change.

Euclid still holds to absolute precision where the parallel postulate is not taken as a necessary axiom. Newton's laws are still an astonishingly accurate picture in almost all cases, and still hold except in the limit when relativistic effects must be accounted for. The Ptolemaic model of planetary motion was pretty damn accurate. Final causes are still being discussed seriously today.

Instead of just falling back on your self-ascribed genius, try even so much as reading Kuhn, where your inane bromides substituting for reason partially derive from.

I can't tell if this is an affront to meaning à la postmodernism or if you're deliberately evoking esotericism in an attempt to be wholly unintelligible.
No scientific consensus has been reached on his works other than the represent no material relation to our universe, so no - his geocentric model of planetary motion was neither accurate nor is it presently discussed

You're not addressing any matter of value, and you're preferring to consult your thesaurus so that your baiting looks better - though all you've managed is an incomprehensibly pretentious word avalanche that digs at some void of meaning. Say something worth saying or say nothing. Or if you're just parodying rafiq in his Lacanian style of writing - congrats, you're doing well

Are you not capable of expressing yourself without seeming like a massive pretentious twat?

If you knew the first thing about Marxist thought you'd know that Karl Marx was himself a Darwinist who developed his theories with regards to Darwin's theories. He acknowledged that there was a naturally selfish element to the nature of humans that is almost constant throughout but he didn't see it as evidence enough to justify the M-C-M cycle as an intricate part of human nature. Merely a side effect of the society they've been placed in, and how they've adapted to prosper within it.

In other words humans are selfish and highly adaptable to whatever situation they find themselves in. Capitalism being just one of which they've brought themselves into. Also comparing physics to "human nature" is still retarded and you should feel that way about having made the comparison.

Holy shit I'm arguing AGAINST post-modernism. Read about what happened with Kepler and Copernicus. It was based on elegance and simplicity moreso than a notable advance in accuracy.

Relativity means geocentrism is as good as any other model, only reason it's abandoned is due to the excess epicycles.

Well I'm arguing against self-described Marxists and anti-postmodernists repeating pomo babble, not Marx himself.

No, Euclidean geometry is based on the preservation of the parallel postulate (and, regardless, it's a truism that a system derived from axioms holds true when those axioms are held to be true). Again, pure ignorance.

In modern physics as a field?

Yet it isn't depending on the cases (and the "almost all cases" you're referring to, as this wouldn't hold in many branches of physics).

I'm not sure what to say. Maybe I should simply repeat you: "I just don't know how to deal with people that can "think" like this besides trying to use satire to break through whatever it is keeping you like this."

I was only speaking of your own ignorance rather than my genius, although admittedly it may seem that way from your perspective.

Incorrect actually.

Geocentrism is a superseded theory, it's no longer of any appreciable significance to the modern scientific community, and I'd hardly deign to discuss the particularities of it's being rendered obsolete as I'm not privy to its specifics.
No one here is arguing for the trite skepticism and empty cultural logic of postmodernism, in either its scientific or its political forms

Stretching. I miswrote, you know what I meant. "non-Euclidean" geometry is just elaborations on Euclid minus PP. Physics is dependent on this. Counter-example?

It's shifted sub-headings, but it's alive.

Almost all of ordinary experience. Galilean relativity was known BEFORE Newton, mind you.

You don't know how science works. In any case, you're still missing the point entirely, and are trying to just act like you know more.

Who did this to you then, user?

Backing down by nitpicking exactly who you were arguing against is literally not an argument.

You started by challenging the leftist concept of human nature and you're getting schooled on the Marxist take on it.

You're not getting it.
Oh but you are, and it's evident in your ramblings about human nature being entirely constructed. I guess you could argue you are Lockean instead. Still just as nonsensical, and Marx would have laughed at you.

I've posted twice in this thread, neither having to do with some kind of amalgam of human nature. My distrust for the ideological logic of capitalist "human nature" should not belie a mistrust for the existence of some biological imperative or cues for humanity.
I, myself, am a Hegelian, so I think Marx wouldn't have a particular bone to pick. I'm hardly an immaterialist, through and through

Nobody is arguing this. Not even the PostModernists believed that human nature was entirely society dependent. You'd know this if you'd actually bothered to study any of them instead of using Jordan Peterson lectures as your only source of knowledge on the subject.

Is Rafiq in this thread?

If the myth of Rafiq and "no fun allowed" is to be taken at face value, potentially yes

Oh please. How many times must you be throttled before you stop with this?

I was responding to this:

A strain of gibberish all too frequently encountered coming from so called anti-pomo Marxists, which you'd know if you weren't literally 14 and had some life experience in dealing with your own comrades.

And then there's this:
t. Hegel ahahaha

Of course I know Marx isn't a retard like these anons. None of you are Marx though, nor are you Hegel-tier. Stop hiding behind your actually smart daddies to try conceal the cerebrocortical atrophy you try pass off as an education.

The exact opposite of what you said? How am I supposed to keep track of the nonsense you're spouting about math?

Once again, no, because many forms of non-Euclidean geometry also introduce new postulates to replace the parallel postulate (whether introducing an axiom that there are no or multiple parallel lines). And these aren't simple elaborations to be glossed over, particularly because the trigonometric properties of the geometric spaces are always changed with the introduction of these new axioms.

.If you can find modern physics papers in major journals treating Aristotelian final causes as a serious thing to be researched, sure, I'll believe you.

That's only to say that it represents experiences most of us would consider ordinary socially which may have little to do with fields in science–even thought the latter is what we were talking about.

You're the one trying to pretend physics is still looking to Ptolemy.

That's rich coming from someone who's just completely botched his own points about geometry.

I'm in agreement with you, fuckstick. You're the one now making assumptions on ideological character. Has it not yet occurred to you that the manner in which you 'dispute' is little more, at least thus far as I've seen in this thread than incoherent ramblings on the sciences, aided by your trusty thesaurus and deliberate misrepresentation of your "comrades" in place of dispute or even discussion.
No one is aspiring or asserting that they represent the full breadth of their ideas, but in defense of themselves - that they should otherwise find themselves unduly cloistered amongst reactionaries and the dim of mind.

Unless you're meaning to otherwise - that we deliberately interpret it as such - we all recognize that behind the thin façade of sarcasm or constructed irony, you're baring fang towards people of like sentiment for no better reason than to wax on and on about pedantry

You've missed the point entirely and are still going point by point pedantic. I'll try spell it out, even though you literally have autism and can't get it period at this point. What I said was meant to be illustrative of the fact that there has to be an anthropological ground for these discussions to remain continuous across time across vastly disparate cultures that we have no possibility of contact with, like ancient Athens, which was in response to the specific "reasoning" given in the post I was responding to. Not to what Marx said.

You think you caught me out about geometry, but the point is about what geometry even is in the first place. There was a poster insisting MATH (which is completely inseparable from modern mathematical physics) has undergone a fundamental transformation in some arbitrary way, which is only correct in the most useless sense for what we are arguing. And would be closer to what we'd expect if human nature had no true referrent that was accessible outside of culture-bound, contextual "discourses"; the quintessential pomo standpoint. It leads to insanely circular reasoning / rationalization, which is what I was trying to make light of. Apparently that prolapsed some anuses though.

Relax, fella. A sharpened wit through relentless (self-)criticism can only help the cause.

...

Emojis should be a bannable offense tbh.

Then why did you make the fucking arguments if you don't want them addressed? You can't argue in favor of something using examples, some of which were entirely your own, and then accuse someone of "autism" for arguing against the examples used to support your argument.

I said it had changed, but I never said it changed in an arbitrary way. I was explicit that such transformations weren't arbitrary in that very same post, in fact. Reading helps:

It was illustrative of the fact basic science progresses more often through generalization, And then expansion of expressive power by the opportunities provided by that generalization - often through the removal of axioms, as in the case of Euclid to Reimann, and Newton to Einstein. Or re-contextualization, as for peripatetic telic finality, or an Occam like procedure, as was the historical case with Copernicus - which was more a (generative) revolution of perspective (see also Kant's) than forced by evidence at the time. Little is truly discarded at the fundamental level as the scientistic meliorist mythology would have it, and as opposed to a true paradigm shift which implies incommensurability at the joints or foundations.

Your meta-discursive formulation of discourse of the human as derivative of (or mirrored?) in the productive base as constitutive, is still at serious risk of collapsing into regress without a definite human subject.

How can a thread about someone on an internet forum get so heated unless he's in it?

Generalization is one process among many others in the transformations of mathematics and the sciences, including its opposite narrowing, as well as the addition and removal of concepts in particular sciences (concepts from other fields in the sciences, or from the sciences to math and vice versa). I'm not sure why you'd emphasize only a single process.

The Kantian revolution was strongly inspired by the empirical sciences at the time and the insufficiencies of the Wolffian/Leibnizian philosophy and Humean skepticism which attacked the bases of the sciences (e.g. causality). That isn't to say Kant's philosophy wasn't revolutionary, but it was certainly provoked by evidence from the sciences as well as philosophy at the time.

It would mainly be derivative rather than mirrored exactly because the histories and ranges of meanings that adhere to words are expressed and emphasized as a function of the developments of material relations, but, because of the discursive history, can't themselves be wholly equivalent to material reality (at least not simply so). We do in turn act upon and transform both those discursive meanings within that given range as well as material reality which in turn transforms that range and our expressions of it.

i love how a dude I know (well, sort of) from revleft became a meme lmao

this tho

if he is, he is hiding his power level

where's the islam one?

Third one is best

...

bretty cool tbh

I have some fundamental disagreements with him though.

Best Leftist internet man vs best Rightist internet man go head to head. Who wins?

The best Rightist internet man is Thomas777 btw. Here is a collection of his posts.
salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/the-gospel-according-to-thomas777.4482/

He is a Not Socialist, drug addict and former lawyer. He frequently disappears for months or years at a time on drug benders and he saw his heroin dealer overdose or something.

pics related are some choice cuts.

why the east german emblem?

...

the most intelligent, most loquacious, and most well read right wingers are NRx technocrat types like Moldbug and Land

End your life

anyone got the post where he shits on nationalism and national liberation?

example?

i think you're thinking of this post, which isn't rafiq's
revleft.space/vb/threads/196476-Patriotism-and-communism?p=2882573#post2882573

what do you think? read the threads that rafiq btfos reactionaries in

ITT: rafiq sucking his micropenis

no u