Is reading Leibniz of any use to leftism in the same way Spinoza and Hegel are?
Monism, in general, has been a pretty big influence on the left for the second half of the 20th century, most notably in Mao, Althusser, and Deleuze. Does this metaphysic get the /leftyphilosopher/ seal of approval?
Other urls found in this thread:
...
encapsulates state and side-effects
A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors.
What?
What's the problem?
I have literally no idea what you guys are talking about.
Meaning, monism leads to idpol.
who is this semen demon
Is category theory of any use to leftism in the way algebra is?
Why, Miss Kobayashi of course! Her show could've been "Alienation: The Anime" if it weren't for the intercession of fantastic beings.
Actually, someone oughta write a fanfic like that. With a happy ending of course.
"interbeing"
The suggested replacement word for the verb "to be," coined by Vietnamese Buddhist Monk and scholar Thich Nhat Hanh. It means to inter-dependently co-exist. The meaning of interbeing recognizes the dependence of any one person or thing as to all other people and objects.
Not only is no man an island, but rather his interbeing is shared with the plants and animals he eats, the people who make his clothes and food, the people who populate his home, country and the very world he percieves, the insects that pollinate the trees that yeild his fruit, shade him from the sun, and provide lumber for his house.
Deleuze is so fucking vague that I don't even have a clue if he's connected to any kind of politics whatsoever
My lecture on monads is in 10 hours, ill get back to you later.
I see.
:^)
Is Leibniz's philosophy consistent with DiaMat at all?
No, Leibniz philosophy holds that the essence of a thing is fundamentally unknowable, the existence of monads is prior to the distinction between the material and the ideal.
So why postulate Monads to begin with? How is it different than skepticism?
Let's say I have box, I do not know what is in this box, its contents are unknown to me. This not-knowing of the contents of the box does not mean that I'm skeptical of there being a box with unknown content.
Ok, sell me this "box" then.
How do we know this "boxes" exist at all?
(If summing up this issue is too much work, I understand. You can just link me to some resource that explains it and i'm fine with that too).
This subject is better addressed without the christian apologetics of monads.
If a box were simply its sum of relationships, then it would be nothing, for those relationships require there to be a thing to have a relationship with. If it were simply its values (weight, colour, size) it would also be nothing, for there would be nothing for those values to be the values of. If it were its surface (that which the values and relationships attach themselves to) then it would be nothing, for this surface wouldn't be the surface of anything. Therefor every thing, from a box to a nation, needs to have a core, a thinginess, that is nothing but itself and unknowable to everything else.
Our favourite pseuds read a book on him. The amount of pretentiousness from both sides is highly irritating.
youtube.com
only when you install gentoo
Stop linking to them, please.
What's wrong with AW?
I don't get the reference.
Stemfag shit, when people from a computing background think of Monads, they don't think of philosophy, they think of functional (computer) programming in haskell and the mathematical field of 'category theory'. Monads play a big role in the haskell programming language, and its actually what i thought of when i saw thread title
take a gander at the half (½) channel's guru forum.
...
Funny because this is exactly what Mao believed as well. He never talks about essences, only subjective contradictions.
I don't know, I've never read Leibniz, i only know about him because he invented calculus along with newton.
Bump