How do I become a good theorist?

1) You must already be theoretically minded, meaning, you must already have a tendency towards making sense of things and unifying as much as possible under one framework.

2) Analogical thinking, meaning, structural thinking is key to systematic unification. Noticing structural similarities across various and seemingly disconnected phenomena is important for making sweeping theoretical reductions to one unifying principle.

3) Read Hegel and learn his method. I don't think I have ever thought anywhere near as clear and systematically as I have after I began to think through his work. It doesn't strike you immediately, but you'll be thinking in unifying and dialectical terms without being aware of it once you do.

aka as obsessive autism

Do one really need Hegel? Are there alternatives?

Nice

So sophists were the self-help gurus of ancient Greece?

I.F. Stone argued they were democratic intellectuals who prioritized reason who were unjustly shat on by the elitist Greek philosophical schools whose work survived to the present day.

Read these five groups of books, in the order provided. They are quite long, so depending on how much free time you have, this should take you anywhere from a few months to a few years.

1. Bertrand Russel's ''A History of Western Philosophy".

2. GFW Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences", The Phenomonolgy of Spirit and finally Science of Logic''.

3. Sam Adam's The Wealth of Nations.

4. Karl Marx's Capital: Critique of Political Economy. (Yes, all three volumes.)

Optional, but recommended: The German Ideology.

5. Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. This one is not nearly as long as the other, but equally as important. Do not skip it if you in any way wish to participate in a contemporary discussion of economics.

Then you will have read all you need to be a good dialectical, and economic theorist. If you also want to be a good theorist in terms of socialism itself (what it is, what it isn't, and how do we get there), you will need to read the following:

1. Marx's/Engels' Critique of the Gotha Programme, Manifesto of the Communist Party, and Socialism: Scientific and Utopian.

At least one additional work from each of the following Marxist theorists: Kautsky, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bhukarin, Bordiga, Gramsci, Mao, De Leon, Dauve, Debord, Cockshott, and Angela Davis. Once you have read something from each of them, you should have a pretty good sense of what your tendency is, and who you should read more of.

3. At least one work of each of the following anarchist theorists: Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Malatesta, Rocker, and Chomsky. I would recommend doubling or tripling up on Malatesta and Chomsky in particular, as they are by far the best classic and contemporary anarchists respectively. You should also read Chomsky for the purpose of understanding geopolitics. Anyone that tell you he is a liberal, is mostly correct, but can still go lock themselves in a mop closet and masturbate until they die of dehydration. His work is essential, even if he is a liberal.

Lastly, and most importantly, don't waste your time with Bookchin.

The italics on item 2 got fucked up, and I forgot the number 2. on the second section. Please forgive me.

People in the thread are right that you need to read a shit ton, but you also need to actually practice said politics in the real world to actually become a good theorist yourself.

I need to become capitalism or what

Dialectics describes the process of thinking, so thinking in explicitly dialectical terms seems like the kind of reflective shit Hegel would be against practically.

...

I wish I could become capitalism so nameless individuals on the internet would cheer for my demise.

"The Wealth of Nations - Always a Good Decision"

Sage for joke

No, it doesn't. It >is< the process of pure thinking, not just any thinking. Common thinking is externally reflective and analytically disjointed, that's why it's neither dialectical nor immanently unified.

But dialectics doesn't actually allow you to overcome the disjointedness of thought, and thinking in dialectical terms without an awareness that you're doing so defeats the point of dialectics entirely; it's supposed to be systematic.

you fucks realize that Marx's understanding of political economy comes from Smith and Ricardo

The joke is that it's Adam Smith and not Sam Adam, calm your tits. I know that Smith and Ricardo influenced Marx.

Well, I don't know how that says something different than what I said. Obviously pure thinking is necessarily systematic if it is only to think with itself.

Normal thinking is dialectical only in a fundamental structural sense of categories of opposition, such as subject and object. There is also a difference between pure dialectics and developmental systematicity such as the method generates.

I don't believe it's just reading books. I've been reading books for years and I'm still a brainlet. Either I'm doing it wrong or there's more to it than just reading.

Actually I've found some hints on how Marx did it:

marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1890/xx/marx.htm

the worst shit you can do is try to become a good theorist rather than just evolving into one naturally. set yourself goals to study for the sake of the cause, not your own.

practice, see
studying just for the sake of being a smartass wont get you anywhere

Most people who are actually brainlets think they're geniuses. Ya see how it works?

Are you telling me to read Socrates?

I'm saying if you've read a lot of books and still think you're dumb you're probably smarter than most.

Or if that's what you meant, I guess I'm the dumb one

I hate myself so much

Don't worry comrade, both can be trained.

But how?

There are all kinds of methods and exercises, if you want I can describe some. But the most basic is to just do it more. If you want to fix your attention span, just focus on a single thing for increasingly longer periods. Get a timer, try to get somewhat distraction free, and during the time period focus on a single thing (reading, studying, whatever). At your age you should start with 25 minute blocks, but you can adjust it if it's too hard or too short and the timer just interrupts your concentration. For memory, memorize things, and practice recalling them.

This, honestly. You can read Capital, but how much will you actually retain? I sure don't remember much of it…

Thanks user. I was exaggerating when I said it's all gone, I still read on a fairly regular basis.

What I do is that every time there is something I don't understand I take a pose, I reread it, And I don't continue until I understand it. Same when there is something I disagree with, I wait until I really understand the argument and why I don't agree with it until I continue. It may take long to finish a book but at least you really learn.

I have my notes I can just look things up if I forget something.

bump

this is your brain on hegel

My teacher used to ay you have to learn and forget something seven times before knowing it for life.

even though you must know deep down how bad this is for you, after all you've clearly invested in it, i can only hope it eats you up inside until nothing's left, which is the least of what you deserve tbh. last guy that tried was fucking woeful, not even wikipedia-tier. i mean you claim to have read all that and you still apparently can't even have a guess, even though you know i know you know it realistically is the systematic refutation of the entire corpus.

I'm bumping this thread OK?

underrated post

Think really really hard about stuff

Read The Birth of Theory by Andrew Cole.