Why did he make Marx so butthurt?

pls no bully

Marx "rediscovered" Hegel when he was writing A Contribution to the Critique of Policitical Economy. He outright rejected Hegel's method and system altogether in his younger work. We can see hints of this in his criticism of Proudhon that he rejected Hegel's idealistic methodology… Until he needed to use it.

Stirner destroyed everything Marx wrote up until the publication the The Unique One and Its Own, and Marx had to start again.

Does Stirner respond to Marx? If anyone's read "Stirner and His Critics"; I'd love to know. I realize that The German Ideology was not published during Marx's lifetime so it probably didn't happen.

...

AFAIK no, and it's suggested that "Stirner and His Critics" is the reason Marx never dared to published his garbage.

Stirner is boring, I don't really take him seriously as a philosopher.

You can say I am hypocrite because I haven't read him, but really you might as well be arguing for me to be reading Plotinus.

I get that he something of sacred cow among anrchists/memers, but I couldn't give less of a shit about it, since Marx btfo him more than 100 years ago.

The average tankiecuck everyone

Because he pointed out (correctly imo) that people such as Marx elevated "man" into the same exact positions that the Christians had elevated "God" into and thus did not care about actually advancing (if that is possible) mankind as an entity but only cared about forming systems to act toward and for something which supersedes yourself but doesn't actually exist and thus gives you no fulfillment because you aren't striving to satisfy your voluntary egoistic desires but the desires of a nonexistent external being which can never be satisfied precisely because it doesn't exist.

Stirner's point wasn't that "lmao dude nothing's real" the way a lot of retarded memers try to act but that in the development of the world humans always overthrow old Gods for new ones that appear more and more not to be Gods. This made Marx butthurt because Marx was a materialist who believed that Fuerbach was correct in elevating man to God status. Marx then "rebutted" Stirner by completely (and probably intentionally) misreading him and writing than empty polemic against him.

Except that's not what happened. Marx basically gave Stirner an extended version of what he gave Proudhon. A polemic filled with ad-hominems, strawmen, and insults and very little actual criticism of what the other actually believed.

Isn't that the most embarassing part though? That he spent so much time critizing someone and then finding out it was total garbage unworthy of being published. If it wasn't for the USSR worshipping him as a god, we wouldn't have this "classic" piece of work.

I feel like insulting him for something he didn't publish because he realized it was shit is kind of shitty.

what's the source of that?

Yeah, Marx was always a Hegelian and there is no denying it. In Kapital the classes of prole/lumpen/bourgeoisie, the abstract and the concrete,the transformation of value etc. follow a dialectical movement.

chrisarthur.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/towards-a-systematic-dialectic-of-capital.pdf

The abject denial of Marx's Hegelian methodology came from the idiotic Stalinist soviets , that took dialectical materialism as a literal scientific system that interprets nature.

Lukács was fucking right in his "History and Class Consciousness":

And yet he was the most vindicated by the tankies of his time.

My point was that he wasn't "always" though. He found Hegel useful in his mature works, but he was pretty anti-Hegelian for most of his career. But I guess we agree where it matters about him somewhat Hegelian contra USSR beliefs.

He's long dead, but if we want to talk about insulting – have you actually seen what he wrote about Stirner in that book? He was a complete asshole.

Even when he does give credit Hegel; he still points out that his method is distinct from and the opposite of Hegel's.

spooky.

Yet again someone who has never read enough Stirner to understand his philosophy at all tries to use his notions of spooks (incorrectly) as a way to criticize the whole of Stirner's philosophy

it's fucking hilarious every time

lsr-projekt.de/poly/en.html

tl;dr whenever someone appears that takes materialism, atheism, nihilism etc. to their logical conclusions, people around them FREAK the fuck out and banish them with the silent treatment, dismissing their ideas without actually confronting them.

Laska's works on Stirner are obligatory reading to anyone who likes Stirner imo. It's a shame not everything he did is translated.

lsr-projekt.de/poly/eninnuce.html

If anyone is interested in a bit of the Marx/Hegel historical intellectual connection, this sheds some great light on it.

palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9780230360426.0005

I'm a Marxist, and I very much like Marx's theoretical contributions, but he really didn't understand Hegel until Capital, and not fully then either.

This is one of the arguments that Rene Berthier makes and it's pretty damning. At one point, I think Marx said he wanted to summarize Hegel's logic into a three page essay. He wanted to shorten a ~1000 page book into several paragraphs. Yeah…

I admire his ambition!

The subject is immaculate though.
Don't see the issue here.

This post is 100% true.

Great point. Marx bought into the vulgarities of humanism and brought the Hegelian and Stirnerian idea of consciousness down into the form of man, another idol to be worshiped and adored instead of allowing the individual subject of history to realize Absolute Knowledge.

You might say, they became… …spooked

Immaculate in what sense?

Feuerbach doesn't elevate man to the level of God, tho. He says that the essence of man appears to him in the image of God. That's not equivocation but the description of alienation from which later Marx distantiates himself…

He never went through with it. I wonder if it was because he wasn't really serious about it or if it was actually just impossible…

Entirely unsurprised that you wrote this abomination and are encouraging the general misapprehension of Marx.

Marx never dogmatically accepted Feurbach's thesis, nor did he 'draw man down into another idol ot be worshipped'.
His criticism of Hegel's Phenomenology is an entire detail of this.

Consider reading something that you can understand for a change.

Engels had attempts. Complete failure; great intentions.

Only if you buy into the Kantian delusions that whatever is perceived by the subject is what necessarily correlates to the outside world. read Meillasoux.

That's because Stirners subjectivism is contradictory with those positions.

Not if fucking isn't tripfag, everyone accpets the proposition that Marx took ONLY the methodology of Hegel kicked out the idealist elements. If Marx took from Gans the juridical/social part of Hegel then the proposition still stands. With the material causes giving rise to consciousness, take a dialectical form in base/superstructure, etc. Dialectics are a heuristic tool in Marx, not a way to build a system, since nature cannot be totalized.

WTF??? Where did you get this fucking bullshit from? Are you fucking strawmaning Marx through the rhetoric of Kołakowski? Pathetic!

Fucking idiot! Marx abandoned humanism after the 11 Theses on Feurbach. Where the fuck is humanism in any of his works???

Species-being is not the humanist subject, man is JUST ANOTHER ANIMAL, inhabiting the world as practical active being, it has nothing to do with the idealist bullshit of Hegel and Marx, since species being is not defined by consciousness, but by PRODUCTION and life within nature.

Man is just another collection of relations be they biological,historical or social that always change, where the fuck is absolute knowledge there? Life and activity are the objects of mans WILL, not the other way around.

Fucking sophist.

Rude. Also: Feuerbach. F-E-U-E-R-B-A-C-H.

I'm delighted that another Stirmeme thread got turned into discussion about things that matter.

idealist bullshit of Hegel and Stirner*

Fucking hell, time to take my Xanax, thats how mad your stupidity made me.

In the sense that the subject is opposed to being reduced into any smaller aspects of subjectivity because it posits the infinity of its own production.
Feuerbach's man is an alienated figure of the divine, while Marx's man is an alienated figure of society, from the structure of political economy in any past and current historical development. What Marx and Feuerbach miss out on is the central Hegelian analysis that man as a self-conscious subject is alienated from themselves to begin with, alienation is the founding structure of subjectivity, before the divine or before society come into the picture. The beginning alienation is an alienation from natural consciousness, the elevation of the subject above nature's existence. The mistake of Marx resides in…

…this. Marx buys into the atomism of Democritus and misses the entire point of the Master-Slave dialectic, that nature is the MEANS of the liberation of the subject through labor, not the constituent of the subject itself. The subject as a species being is not just living under nature or simple production for production's sake, but it produces in order to overcome the object of its external Master, the first relation and the birth of self-consciousness, of society.

It wasn't a Stirnermeme thread though

also

nice spook

He's yet to define 'immaculate'.

As far as politics is concerned, I'm tempted to say that Stirner's project is the solidarity of solipsists.

I don't think that's possible…

[STEM INTENSIFIES]

Completely false.

Yet "mans will" [sic] doesn't easily surface.

Calm down, brah

Wew, m80

What the fuck are you even going on about? You post is confusing and you seem to disagree for disagreements sake.

Marx is a materialist, of course nature is the means of liberation, because man inhabits nature, he does not exist outside it.

Pure nonsense, life is THE OBJECT, man produces in order to live, and all subsequent relations exist to fulfill that purpose.

And what the fuck does society and the master/slave dialectic have to do with species being? Man is totalizable under all pre-existing relations within nature, absolute consciousness does not exist because absolute knowledge also doesn't exist. Self-consciousness is meaningless a term to define historically within the dialectic because man is pure-self activity, the Fichtean philosophy you are parroting is MEANINGLESS, because it cannot explain how man acquires consciousness within nature,and it would furthermore make nature as monolithic and unchanging as well as set man outside it.

So… Immaculate is a shitty word to describe it?

Still not sure.

The essential part of man is exactly outside nature.

The distinction between the two forms of alienation is a moot point; the Hegelian conception of alienation is rightfully subsumed under the materialist method. The primitive existence of man has no other form in history but a social one.

Again, your misunderstanding of what Marx has actually written is hardly surprising. You're simply projecting a Hegelian criticism you are aware of onto his writings and then tearing it this down, without actually having to come to terms with what Marx achieved.

Or, as Hegel puts it:

"However much that sort of activity is supposed to count for more than just the beginning of cognition, that is, if it is supposed to count as actual cognition itself, still it is in fact to be reckoned as being little more than a contrivance for avoiding what is really at stake, that is, as an attempt to combine the semblance of both seriousness and effort while actually sparing oneself of either seriousness or effort. "

You didn't produce arguments why I am wrong.

Please provide them so I can reply to them

Nothing to with stem, dialectics is just one philosophical method to arrive to conception o the "whole". From Plato to Hegel dialectics synthesize elements and ideas to resolve seeming contradictions. And there is nothing contradictory about historical materialism.

If you've read Marx or Engels you would know that they defended Schelling's conception of the unconscious against Hegels totalizing reason. Will can be both conscious and unconscious. Where is the unconscious? In the residue of history and in the the indivisible remiander of the non-totalizable element of nature. Read Zizek's book on Schelling.

Who the fuck is the humanist now?

???

Yes, this is my point of disagreement with Marx. I believe that he was wrong to say that there is no hard divide between man and nature. Man uses nature, but for decidedly unnatural ends, he uses nature as production outside of nature's boundaries, which is inevitably the realm of the subject considering this natural stock to be an object of production. I don't see how man inhabits anything resembling the natural world, so if you could explain your reasoning as to why that would be then I would be interested.
Production is not necessary to merely 'live', Its necessary goal is to thrive. Animals do not require production in order to sustain their bodies. Man, however, uses production of natural stock to go beyond day-to-day survival and construct a society for each and every self-conscious member.
How? Please elaborate on how these claims are true.
Again, consciousness already exists within nature in animal form, SELF-consciousness of man's subjectivity finds its origin not in nature, but rather out of a deadlock of nature, a lack of ability. Nature's continual combination destruction and recombination is bound to produce a form of life that recognizes its own self, because nature is nothing but a series of inherent potentialities, so it is inevitable that at least one of these potentialities will be actualized by random selection. You know what they say about monkeys and typewriters!
Nature is monolithic and unchanging precisely due to the simple process of evolution that dictates it's every working. There is no development towards higher stages in nature, just adaption to specific environmental circumstances. Nature does not build a house upon itself, it functions as a static entity of meaningless change until this randomness throws out a self-conscious being into existence.

Yeah, it is a shitty word to describe it. I'd rather use actualized.

You say these statements but you're not understanding mine to begin with. I don't disagree that man has no history outside of society, my point is that Marx's emphasis on man existing within nature is at opposition with his elaboration of man's historical dialectic. Man must either be beyond nature, and thus possessing actual dialectic, actual development, or within nature, and he experiences no history, no development. Nature is the abyss of history as I've elaborated above, one cannot have it both ways like Marx tries to do without running into problems.
See right above.
The unconscious does not exist in-itself. Nature cannot totalize itself but the self-conscious subject can because it understands nature as an object of physicality and nothing more. Unconsciousness is rather what remains a potential in the process of history: it serves as another natural object to be overcome by the dialectic because it is the lacking of actualized thought.

Yeah, that's not the 'philosophy' I advocate for or give credence to. The history of philosophy isn't just a collection of differing methods. The "whole" is just as excellent from the standpoint of philosophy.

Oh, ok. Guess there's no faults of the past, let's just move on and build on already existing premises (le Stalin).

I don't think that the two can be intelligibly separated after Freud.

Fam, it's on the list (not just Z, but the original too).

Sorry, I was posting from a mobile phone. You are right to criticize me if you took me for continuing Feuerbach's legacy – which was not my intention. I'm saying that language as such is not reducible to nature and that nature can never be recuperated from the position of language. In this sense the unnatural is the essence of man.

grr, problemati c

youtube.com/watch?v=zVb2Jw3_dWQ

youtube.com/watch?v=zVb2Jw3_dWQ>>741069
Yui you tripwhore, etc., you need to sell your merchandise more efficiently. It's not just that you don't agree with Marx on this point, but that (as would Zizek say) it's a far more materialistic point (coming from the POV of idealism, in your case).

>Production is not necessary to merely 'live', Its necessary goal is to thrive.
underdeveloped, cf.

Really inefficient way to render being for-itself and being.

plz, no

Again, semantics, m8: unchanging vs. development. There is change in nature, but no development.

Otherwise you see that we are trying to make a a very similar point.

Cheers!

or hegel

Why is the relative margin of nature an either or? Man simultaneously occupies the two as both a natural being and a producer of history.

Your inability to go beyond this differentiation speaks for why you don't actually understand Marx.

How the hell does this not seem self-evident? I mean it's basically Darwin you have to read, not Marx. The object man is life, he utilizes his will to manipulate nature, but only because he is an active being within nature. There is nothing unnatural about society, it too inhabits the stock of nature. Ants have societies and so do lions.

Where the fuck did you get that from, since this is unrelated to the present debate whether Marx was a humanist, I don't think it's worth an answer. But even then how can you claim that animals don't produce? They produce nests,dwellings and even tools. But what separates animals from man is precisely self-consciousness, the ability to actively control your will and look at yourself as the universal being, man is THE animal, not just an animal, man is animality itself,because he is conscious of his activity as an animal:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

You mean prove to you why absolute knowledge doesn't exist? I think this is pretty much self-evident. Unless you can provide proof that it exists. But that would be impossible because nature is itself contingent, "absolute facts" do not exist.

Yeah but how does this prove that man exists outside nature? If anything self-conscious man would have to be a contingency among all others. Just because he can see the mechanism (something which can also be disputed) doesn't mean he is gods anointed child.

Your distinction between nature and man is entirely a false one, and the first premise which Marx lambastes in the German Ideology.

Because the existence of a a being of the ontological order of Spirit makes a radical break with nature's givenness through conceptual closure of thought. The kind of being human beings are, are capable of escaping all immediacy and givenness given the full development of their capacity to reason. They no longer act merely on animal instincts, they call forth social concepts that have no basis in nature.

What, for example, has human flourishing and "shoulds" have to do with nature? Why in the world is it that we have ethics and norms we argue about when all other animals merely accept strength?

And yet all your great shitposts are lost to time, like feces in the tubes.

Alas

The ability of reason does not exclude the human or place it prior in existence to; nor does the cultivation of reason subject the human through the illusion of agency to any ontological order prior to that of nature.

The capacity to divert the issue as one of exclusion by an innate given, thought, then suffers the question of how thought can transpire to set against itself the same material conditions which dominate it and find expression through it. I.e. why does materiality condition the division which separates man, and man not condition the divisions which separates himself from himself, and others there to.

Reducing that which is not man through the category of the for-itself stems from the division of that which is man and which is not man, which is an affirmation of nothing more than the contradiction which comprises man and fails to go beyond it.

Because we haven't fucking understood that this is so yet on a social level. Hegel and Marx both run on this very thought. We make history, we have setup the institutions of our subjugation to each other, we put irrationality above us and make it order us.

I've literally been explaining why man is an unnatural being
If man existed within the natural world, then there is no production, no historical development, production is the central constituent of an unnatural world. Nature does not produce. As put: "There is change in nature, but no development."

So how can man as subject possibly be in both?

You keep saying things are 'self-evident' but that's not substantial reasoning. Subjectivity/self-consciousness are the bedrock of societies, how are ants or lions capable of that? And you still have yet to explain why man as a subject is a within nature.
To be conscious of animality is already to be beyond it, I am not disagreeing with you on this point. But animals do not produce, again, nature does not produce. Animals may craft nests, nature may form a mountain: but what do these produce? Nothing, they do not involve production. A nest does not produce eggs, a mountain does not produce stone. They merely exist as objects, objects that may be utilized, but they do not utilize themselves. It takes a self-conscious being to create production, to make a mountain into stone, to make a chicken nest produce eggs in a farm.
So you cannot answer why you think what you do? A pity.
Good thing that we exist outside of that ol' contingent nature! Absolute knowledge is simply the knowing of knowledge itself, the recollection of history.
Because it is man himself who posits a division between his mind and the outside world of other subjects. The division does not exist until man is self-conscious of a division between thought and other thinkers.

One which is answered very plainly in Marx's thesis on Feuerbach:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

And I Refer you to this lecture set from Richard Dien Winfield going through the Theses and critiquing them.

archive.org/details/19thcenturyphil

Lectures of interest are 1-4.

The issues with Marxism, including Marx's Theses, is that they are dogmatic and in some points really incoherent in the end (especially Marx's claim of the supremacy of production/activity as human and as epistemological).

Well, you're right about that. Knowledge is a convention, Knowing, however, is what Hegel cares about. Hegel's Absolute Knowing is basically Spirit's realization that knowledge has been its creation all along, and a so far dogmatic and unworkable one at that.

Marx himself falls into this pre-Hegelian mode of epistemology, shame.

The probs with this is that it reduces man to its biological origins and excludes language altogether.

No. For Marx man isn't just "ants with consciousness."

You are using the very human term 'production' to describe non-conscious behaviour. Please don't do that.

Well… not really.

Man is THE non-animal, and conversely, THE animal is non-man.

aren't the same as Hegel's Absolute Knowledge.

But the realm of the subject is as an instrument of historical being and thus, by extension, a subject of this material history of subjectivity which begins with the natural history of man. The capacity for man to extend beyond through expression does not render his being as a natural subject obsolete.

You've explained nothing of the unnatural being man preoccupies except that his objective conditions are determined by himself. Your bifurcation into nature as that which produces itself and that which is not is based on the idea of an excess which stems from the opposite end of the same piece of string from which you begin and then claim to deny.

Hence why you're endlessly inventing meaningless categories for the definition of nature.

This is fucking embarrassing.

You're making a mistake in seeing the enabling conditions as equivalent to the conditions made capable.

Biological being is a necessary condition for Spirit, but it is not determining of Spirit which is itself fully self-determining without appeal to givens such as a ground in nature.

Are you referring to:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.

...

YUI
dubtrack.fm/join/leftypol-comrades

To that, which I think Winfield tears down easily.

I'll be honest, I seriously had not questioned Marx much until I listened to that lecture series by Winfield. It really shook me up. As a Marxist, I recommend you listen to them.

Yet man's social being is determined and determining of the subject. So that the claim to full self determination is made in reference to the conditions which determine the subject.

I'll listen to the lectures, but I'm expecting a misinterpretation of what the phrase means and how you have previously viewed it. My understanding is that the constituency of change and interpretation begins from the principle of action, such that any division between the two is one made falsely.

I've explained why man, by virtue of his subjectivity, is an unnatural subject beyond his physical birth. You, however, have yet to explain how a dynamic, historical elaboration of the subject's dialectic can be harmonious with the static, non-developing unawareness of nature as such. Where is this connection between the two, let alone an extension?

Because you use an antropocentric idea of a "society", you think in absolutist Kantian terms that man possess a higher form reasoning beyond nature, but that's impossible because it is absolute idealism, which we know is impossible to prove or argue with philosophically.

You are arguing semantics, production is a force, everything is production. Man is subject to the flows of production because he is himself a machine like all other natural machines in nature. An egg produced in a farm is not different ontologicaly from an egg produced in the wild. You can argue that it is art that man truly can produce alone among the animals, but even then art, as Plato tells us, is nothing other than "mimesis" of nature. So again man being an animal being conscious of being an animal.

It's impossible because it's dogmatic metaphysics. No answer is absolute, except mathematics, which even then they cannot be reduced all knowledge, but are isolated to ontology and logic.

But history is contingent though, and nothing escapes contingency , there are only "facts", but these in turn are up or revision.

No, if that was the case a materialist conception of the social is impossible, and we might as well be neo-platonists. The division is an artificial one and regardless of the "I'/"Thou" relationship, subjectivity is merely a contingent fact among others. Self-consciousness does not distort the relationship between man and nature. Nature is indeed this one epty space of projection for man, but mans own relationship to it is one of ancestrality and recognition of his own will as being congruent with nature. Science tells us that gravity exists, this is a law of nature, you cannot use your will to make gravity stop. So it is with the formation of societies that were banded together to alleviate their hunger through co-operation. There is no magical spark that makes man God on earth, and the ultimate arbiter is still Darwin.

But the real social being of humans is not biological, it is cultural (spiritual). It is crafted in and through mind which supervenes on material life, but is not beholden to material life. This is why ideology is possible in the first place. Activity itself is not transparent to the human being as a practical understanding, it must be judged by a theoretical understanding which knows itself to have a foundation for truth within itself and not from a given outside.

There is literally no reason to argue this unless you're a Marxist of the reductionist materialist kind, which is terribly antimarxist.

As for Winfield, he's a Logic Hegelian, his critiques are all from the standpoint of systematic philosophy.

Read the theses on Feurbach you daft cunt

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.

"Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. Hence, in The Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of “practical-critical”, activity."

Lrn2materialism and read Schelling.

According to your silly human reasoning lol

If all is production, nothing is production. You destroy the meaning of the concept by erasing the opposition.

Do you know what an absolute is? It is what all else is relative to. Unless math is your absolute and is what you judge all else through, you must admit that relativity itself is the only absolute.

History=/contingency. History is not a collection of accidents. History is the human accumulation of concepts and their activities around said concepts.

Yet it is man who posits this difference through thought. There is no point in wondering about a distortion.

Hello, Kant.

You've only explained why this subjectivity is unnatural by reference of proof to the division between it and the division which it establishes.

I'm saying that this division is constituent of the foundation which enables the subject's premise but is not essential to the subject, nor its defining factor. You've done nothing more than set up an abstract category and explain why man is not that thing.

Again, the division between the cultural and the biological is a false one.

But the basis for the establishment for this theoretical understanding begins 'from the outside', as defined and and socially reified by activity.

Hence ideology taken as a by-word for alienation. ideology taken as real social practice begins from the material interjection into thought through action's transformative capacity. The false diorama is in placing an essential subject before material life and defining thought as its comparative method. This theoretical understanding is only made possible by truth outside itself, vis a vis thought necessarily imposed by materiality.

Thus the misapprehension of the statement. Interpretation is change by change itself.

Not anthropocentric, I'm talking about self-consciousness and subjectivity. Man is simply the only vessel for these concepts that we're aware of at the moment. Please reconsider drinking your speculative realist kool-aid.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing in favor of, an absolute idealist position.
…it is? Because I've been doing so for this whole thread, not sure what else that would be.
You evade answering me again, I'm somehow getting the impression that you don't have any to offer.
Mathematics is an abstraction of logic, it has no actuality.
How is history contingent?
That's because it is.
Gravity as we understand it would not exist if we didn't have a concept for it, it would just be empty physical interaction between objects. Man's will is absolutely not congruent with nature, and ancestriality: our concept of dinosaurs has nothing to do with the extinct creatures themselves, it is a human species-being.

Quoting Marx and then telling one to read something isn't quite as compelling as I believe you would have it be.

Then what would be the subject's defining factor, if not for… subjectivity? I'm seriously lost on what you're answer would be.

sage

2spooky5me – what kind of access do we have to Reality?

So… You are saying that materialism 'knows' the 'real,' sensuous activity 'as such'?

Seems to me you are describing art and attributing to it more than it can handle.

Does he achieve it, tho? With him Marx? And again, later Marx should be distanced…

Touché.

As opposed to you? What did you do exactly?

How is thought such?

Honestly I cannot debate every single autistic semantic point you redirect, because I have work to do.

But honestly, when you say:

It's YOU who is the Feurbachian humanist. You perceive man as a seperate distinct being with a set of cognitive,social and spiritual qualities. It's obvious that you haven't read Marx, because Marx adresses that very point in the 11 Theses, but instead of spending 5 minutes of your time to consider them you spout sophist bullshit and arguing like idealism matters. It DOESN'T matter, and I'm not going to debate with someone who has ignored any evolution in philosophy and is basically a non-materialist subjective idealists. I might as well be arguing with a spolipsist over why gravity exists independently of him.

And this is were you miss the whole aspect of philosophy, mathematics and being are the same , the way we understand the world as being is through mathematical abstractions. And this can only be done with logic, which is actual and real. Not only are you an idealist, but you are also a bad idealist , that didn't even get the Platonic memo, and is just parroting "Introduction to Hegel".

Not necessarily.

[whatever]

Ok, why not? But how does this statement undermine his position and defend yours?

Not even Platonists would say this.

The condition of subjectivity is not being redefined in terms of the dichotomy of the language in which it occurs but the real material existence of the subject. By denying the subject's natural existence you deny the conditions which reciprocally determine the subject, through a relationship where man is predominant only in a relationship to himself.

This is quite clearly not the case.

Man is being defined socially, where the conditions for his sociality are produced by himself, including his capacity for reason.
The recognition of the natural state of man as an unnatural being cannot explain how this state progresses nor derives from itself its constituent reason, no matter how valid the observation of the ontological state may be. That man has no language natural to this unnaturality is obsolete. Man invents this language through a shared social production. His individual labour in this effort is only constituent of his wider being. In short, his historical being.

Nothing but critique these concepts for what they are.

How is thought imposed by materiality, or how does thought impose itself on materiality?

Please be joking, A=A is not fucking real? 2+2=4 is not real? Give me a break. Logical propositions directly correspond with a set of a given reality.

Platonists would argue that it is the ONLY thing that is truly real in our world.

How is thought NOT something entirely different from both (materiality, outside materiality), in other words, how it is not its own category?!

you wish

Where did Plato say this?

You analytic? Do you shower sometimes?

The comprehension of the category cannot occur within an expression which does not alienate itself. I.e. that which is thought or self-comprehension must appropriate via sensuousness. But the real object of this alienation is the material world. Thus the material world transforms thought. Thought cannot transform itself, else it would be nothing but nature.

Fuck off feels poster.

wut even mean?

You can't halve an apple without cutting it.

You can't even be borned without your mum beink fuggds by my father, tbh, m8

Freud was not occupied w feels

When you become smart you tend overlook simple things.

or drunk… or idealist…

Anons snark disproves about a hundred years of philosophical development yet again!

Those are concepts, not actually existing things.

holy fuck why are there so many shit threads. it's like summerfag city in here.

ayy another filthy speculative realist on the board. Now there are two of us to trigger Yui :^)

...

Because Marx was pseudo intellectual daddy's boy.

probably bc he was popular and wasn't jewish