Can Platonism be reconciled with Marxism?

Badiou FTW.

...

yes, transform Platonism into materialism and you've got hegelian marxism

Thanks for permanently fucking Western thought, Plato.

Plato was the first dialectician. Going beyond Plato leads you to Hegel, and turning Hegel on his head (or arguably, because materialism being a flavour of idealism, just like every metaphysical ideology just altering it a little) leads you to Marxism.

What

Go to bed, Nietzsche.

Absolute idealism is more like ideal-realism. It bridges the gap between so-called irreconcilable ideologies, an idea which sickened Hegel.

All metaphysical ideologies deal with spirit in some form! That's why he said "the rational is the real and the real is the rational".
The phenomenology closes the gap between spirit and matter.

What is a non-metaphysical ideology?

Why the fuck would you want to? Platonism a shit.

The fuck does this mean?

It means that materialism presupposes idealism, much like every other ideology. The perception of matter is mediated by consciousness.

An ideology that doesn't pertain to a systematic view on metaphysics?

Example.

Materialism: there's no spirit without matter.
Idealism: there's no matter without spirit.

No, you see, if you thinking is idealism! Thus, materialism = idealism

Not that hard tbh.

Rebel is retarded

that's absolutely not what materialism is. Spirit and materialism are irreconcilable. How can you conceive of matter without mediation by consciousness?

You've misinterpreted Hegel tbh

My opinion is that of yui's. So you're basically calling the Hegel genius an idiot right now

Just goes to show how you don't even read anything besides what some tripfag posts here.

and Yui is a "hegelian" genius now.

My god, how have we fallen.

Unsocratic/10 but anyway, I know where you're going with this.

You're basically conflating with metaphysics with ontology if you say this is metaphysical:

monism

I think I'll let your statement stand on its own for how silly it is.

Are you sure? I don't think Yui would've agreed with that.

I'm flattered, but I'm no Hegelian genius right now, just a learner.

Platonism is pretty cool though, in an abstract sort of way. It's not that compatible with Marxist ideology though, they wish to address different subjects.

Thanks, Yui.

I've had my disagreements with you over Zizkek in the past, but other than that you're pretty good

I don't give a fuck about Hegel or his shitty idealist system. It's very easy: if you are a materialist, you acknowledge that the spirit/thoughts/etc. is a product of the material.. If you are an idealist, you believe that there's some spooky Spirit or Thought-realm or whatever bullshit you retards believe in that's separate from the material reality and by some magic dominates it.

literally how can you say that with such a lack of self-awareness?

Okay, Rebel. Can you stop shitting every thread in this board?

Are you seriously this fucking retarded?

No, you missed the point. I'm not saying idealism = materialism, I'm saying Marx based his materialism off of Hegel. So by calling Hegel "shitty" you must necessarily think Marx is shitty, especially since the process is similar.

Looting is one thing, but to loot an ideology and then say "lol this is shitty" is basically calling what you looted shitty.

Depends what kind of platonism you're talking about. Lots of people who are otherwise materialist do endorse some version of mathematical platonism, and I know of at least one physicist (Max Tegmark) who has speculated that our own physical universe is just one of the infinite collection of mathematical forms (since there is no reason to think fundamental particles and fields have any properties beyond the purely mathematical ones attributed to them by our physics equations), getting rid of any duality between the platonic realm and the physical realm. But platonism about more nebulous "forms" like "the form of a man" seem harder to reconcile with any sort of modern materialism (not to mention that imagining there are fixed eternal forms for biological entities like humans, dogs etc. is hard to reconcile with Darwinism).

He based his DIALETICS off of Hegel.

Materialism has nothing to do with idealism.

And, what the fuck does this have to do with Plato? Fuck off, and stop shitting the thread.

No, Marx used tools he copied from Hegel, but he threw away his retarded idealist system like any sane thinker would do.

his materialism = dialectical materialism
Come on you are just grasping at straws now.
Just admit Hegel has his merits, but you disagree with him on its applications and move on. There's no need to be a faggot about it.

Don't respond to him with anything but christian sonic

Dialectical materialism = dialectical idealism applied to political systems.

His "system" is exactly what *wasn't* thrown away. It's the applications that were changed. The process is entirely the same!

I don't have any.

No, just no. Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.

If you even cared about this, you'd know that Marx's materialism has everything to do with Feuerbach - not Hegel.

But you only know what other tripfags say.

Stop shitting the tread.

Fuck off.

It's painful to watch.

google "christan sonic" or go on deviantart, should be enough material

FUCK forgot to sage

You're being very childish. You understand that Marx can have multiple influences right? We've already moved past that the materialism itself is based on Feuerbach. His *systematics* are Hegel-based!

...

What does this have to do with the fucking thread, you shitposting tripfag?

Who cares what influenced Marx? I'm sure Democrito was much more important to him than Stiner, Kierkegaard or even Hegel.

Stop shitting the thread.

That in no way makes him idealist or makes materialism idealist. Just admit that you don't know shit and stop posting on Holla Forums.

The posters who asked, friend =)
I don't think Kierkegaard has anything to do with this.

Point is that Platonism mostly can be reconciled with Marxism, because though the dialectical method is different, they both do make use of similar systematics.

I didn't say it made him an idealist. I said all materialist systems have a flavour of idealism. You're being desperate now.
We've moved past that discussion.

Nigga, you said
not that materialism was influenced by idealism.

Going beyond Plato leads you to Hegel, and turning Hegel on his head (or arguably, because materialism being a flavour of idealism, just like every metaphysical ideology just altering it a little) leads you to Marxism.

Going beyong A leads you to Y, and turning Y on his head leads you to L.

Of course

Sure, I coulda phrased that better, but it's not as simple as influence. The dialectic bridges the gap between realism and idealism. I think Marx understood this.

Uh, we are talking about materialism, not realism.

Stop responding to him you dumb nigger

...

...

...

you don't half talk some shit.

How do you all feel about Aristotle?
What of Stoicism?

I don't see exactly why so much animosity exists towards one school of thought or the other. You don't need to adhere to one philosopher's views at all to recognize the value of their writings, specially when contextualized to the age in which their works were done.

*shrug*

I'm very conflicted on Aristotle. On one hand, I feel as though his maxims were incorrect on the bases that Hegel criticised. On another, I really love virtue ethics, though not his specific type. On another, either/or tbh.
It's difficult for me to decide. I have respect for Aristotle. I don't treat him like a "filthy liberal" like some posters ehem yui

I feel the need to read a shitton of philosophy so I can engage in these kinds of discussions.

Second.

I enjoy Plato's works far more than the ones by Aristotle. But I do think Aristotle is very good, being very easy as "door" to philosophy in general.

And the stoics…Oh man, I feel very conflicted towards them - being some kind of a leftist. But I really enjoy them aswell (specially Seneca).

Well, I think engaging and being proven wrong on things is one way to learn. I don't think you need to read a shitonne of books, but essays and lectures certainly help. Knowing your theory is always good!

Idk if there's anything in particular I could get you as a resource?

This, honestly.
Greek trio ranked
Socrates > Plato > Aristotle

I've read Marcus Aurelius, and it really helped me personally. I take his stuff about accepting hierarchy as deference to those with experience and training. I accept that a plumber knows more about water lego than me, and that a bus driver is more competent at operating the vechicle and knows the routes. I wouldn't accept either ruling over me, as this is unjust. If an institution or individual is unjust, they should be challenged on that basis.

I think the best way to deal with the stoics is like this:

As an objective philosophy and a school it's horrible. It's just rhetoric and there's no substance. But as a lifestyle? It's probably very helpful. It's more self-help than any serious philosophy honestly.
I really liked Marcus Aurelius' Meditations honestly.

Materialism is an idealism, lads. Why? As Hegel points out in his lectures on the history of philosophy ALL philosophical positions are >de facto idealist< by putting forth concepts purporting to penetrate into the truth of the world and making it intelligible. If you can say "matter is " you've overstepped the realm of the empirical, which is nothing but appearances without thought determinations. To say there is a concept of the material, the physical, etc. is to already fall right back into what everyone who hates Plato claims to be climbing away from, you're right back to the forms of reality.

Marx tries to be to Hegel as Aristotle was to Plato: they bring the universal forms back into unity with matter. Problem is that Hegel basically already did that and Marx didn't really do much except flesh out one of those specific concepts, particularly the concept of the economy of capital as such.

I completely agree.

And Aurelius is goat

I mainly just want to read the source material.
I'm interested in Economics and am reading Smith and want to read Ricardo and eventually Garl Margs (DBUH).
I'm interested in philosophy and want to read the Greek trio, maybe Kant and Hegel, Nietzsche, some of the modern ones, maybe Zizek *sniff* and so on.

SPIRIT IS A BONE

Yeah, I'll pass on your advice, I don't want to end up as retarded as you.

Is there substance in philosophy? From my limited perspective, it just seems to be one thought experiment and subjective view on top of another.

*shrug*

If you mean by substance, an absolute truth, then I don't think so, unless you define the absolute in a Hegelian or Kierkegaardian manner.

If you mean use, absolutely. Dialectics is extremely important. I used to think it was just a meme but it really is revolutionary.

There's an anti-philosopher by the name of Cioran who is basically a satirical philosopher. His entire thing is using rhetoric to subvert literally anything, he proves that rhetoric can be used to justify *literally anything*.

But thought processes and methods don't fall into that IMO.

Most philosophy amounts to fiddling while Rome burns, particularly philosophy of the analytic variety.

As ol' Uncle Karl said, the point is to change the world, not interpret it.

k den

But how can you properly change the world if you can't interpret it?

Go with your instinct. Left/pol/ is essentially right. Capitalism a shit. And if you just stuck religiously to shouting down the super-rich, the 1%, you'd probably have won this by now. It's all the divisive baggage that comes with leftism that keeps it near irrelevant.

This was one of the criticism Heidegger made towards Marx.

Zizek too has written about the Thesis 11. I remember him point that every single philosopher compiled some kind of system to mold reality into a perfect entity - and the only one who made the compromise to only, and only, interpret was Hegel.

But Thesis 11 is much more about Feuerbach, and his impotent proto-materialism, and not so much about Hegel imo.

(youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ)

I agree.
I still believe in liberal spooks like personal freedom, hewmon rites, markets etc. I just want everyone to have a stake in ownership in the labor they have to perform. I think this would do a lot to solve the contradictions of capitalism. A hedge fund manager or CEO will ruin millions for a quick buck, but would a worker outsource xubb's own factory? Would people poison their own backyard to increase their share of private capital?

duly noted.
t-thanks.

Heidegger is pretty great. Just wanna put that out there.

That's the neat thing about dialectical materialism. You can interpret the world and change it at the same time.

Now see if you just put it to Holla Forums like that then we'd all get along and be chewing down on crispy banker by tomorrow afternoon.

Plato's theory of Forms is one of the most pants-on-head-retarded ideas I've ever heard, be it in philosophy or any other field of study. Yet it's also one of the most influential ideas. Explain this shit.

It's you who is the retard, user. The theory of forms is actually ingenious considering why he put it forth.

But they'd just call me a Judeo-Marxist cuck. Or is that the point you're trying to get at?

I'm a grade A retard, but something about this doesn't seem right to me.

No. What is real is what is tangible. Science has moved on a lot since Plato. The understanding of the Atom for example, and the first law of thermodynamics. Things can change and remain (physically) real.

Nah. That's reserved for all the other shit that falls into 'leftism'. Sure you'll get some FMIDF shouting at you. But just mention roads at em. Seriously though, as you're stereotypically retarded Holla Forumsack I can confirm that when it comes to income inequality, a good half of 4/pol/ is with you. At least on the very basics as you laid out above.

You are indeed a grade A retard. Reality and existence are two different terms in philosophy for specific purposes, illusions of things exist, yet they are not real.

Your point about science, and the physical, is actually an >ideal< realization that never can be derived from experience. The reality of matter, the intelligibility, is actually not something gained from sense experience. Science has come basically nowhere after Plato, you ignore that Plato himself thought matter was eternal alongside the forms, it is real, but in virtue of the knowledge of its form.

honestly didn't understand a word of this.

So because I think human rights are a thing I'm Holla Forums.
I never thought Holla Forumsyps would seem reasonable.

wait. no. what.

*your

As I said. I'm retarded.

Empirical science deals with what exists and makes claims about reality. In order to make claims about reality you must see into the necessary nature of what you speak of. Matter as mere matter without form is not empirical, fields as mere fields are not empirical, forces, etc. These are all ideas, literally the very forms Plato talked about in another name. Science today is ridiculously idealist in the worst way.

hey, don't worry about it. A.W. is being a prick, but his (correct) point is essentially this:

Scientific discoveries come from rational inquiry rather than direct observation. Even the realisation of laws comes from mediation by thought. You don't directly perceive a law. You see the world as it is, and you think about the recurring patterns.

You're still being overly complicated in your explanation. You could just say "these are constructs of thought rather than objective models of reality as it is".

This is a pretty blatant misunderstanding of thesis eleven for Marx on Feuerbach. It's not 'act first, ask questions later (if at all)' nor is it a blind call to activism. Instead he tried to deliver some kind of philosophical legitimation for engagement with acts of social struggle (against oppression, exploitation, colonialism, &c) and shows his desire to situate philosophical thinking about social problems within history rather than outside it.

I possibly confused matter by jumping in feet first here>>775017

This is where IDs help…

I don't into philosophy so I should probably just have 360'd out of the thread, but here I am.

Lesson learned. Don't jump in when you've no idea of even the basics.

I apologize for being insulting with my responses. I thought you were the typical poster here.

Don't worry about it m8. Been here or here-abouts long enough now.

I am reading en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms now.

I see now that we were almost talking in different languages.

I still lean towards materialism, but can kinda see the value of Forms.

This guy again

Didn't mean to fuck up you guys' debate. Get back to it.

Not him, but the way I understand Plato is that when you consider an object you don't just have "the form" of the object in your mind as an idea. In terms of objects this is quite simple to understand since the most abstract objects are basically mathematics and numbers, they exist in our reality and correspond to it but only ideally since we have to abstract the world from the concept to come up with "5 coins". Science doesn't really have an answer to this problem because it deals only with sense reality and not with concepts and how they are formed. Frege touches on this and basically says that science not only will be never be able to solve it, but that a theory of everything is itself impossible because when you refer to the "Prince of Wales" you don't refer to the actual prince but the sense to what you are referring (the idea of the Prince of Wales) since you are just referring one particular aspect of the Prince of Wales and not his "full name" (the Prince of Wales as Charles Stuart ,son of Elizabeth II etc.) . Plato says the forms of objects are eternal and unchanging, but only because he has in mind the fact that you cannot really find a perfect square in the world of sense reality, so the perfection would have to exist in a realm of pure thought.

The problems start when Plato tries to argue about what sort of definition (or ideal form) ideas like justice,piety,love,knowledge etc. So Plato goes into a lot trouble trying to pin down what is "x as concept" through discursive dialogue to arrive at the truth, but it becomes apparent that never does he arrive at a perfect definition. So it's obvious to me that Plato has a correspondence theory of truth whereby you intuit what is false and contradictory and you cannot argue or think about what is not, but at the same time you can only approximate the Perfect forms since they are ideal and don't actually exist in their true nature in the sensible world.

Setting aside his theory of recollection , I think Plato wasn't really this kind of two-world dualist he is presented as. Instead I think he believes that what is truly ideal and abstract can only be reflected upon and it would be foolish to think that "perfect justice" as a definition inhabits a separate realm outside of humanity or can be really encountered in a real situation. He is certainly not a materialist in the full sense, but he does touch the relation between thought and reality. The idea that thinking was to have a different substance than matter came much later with Descartes.

This is my simple understanding of it.

This whole thread is making me feel reeeeel dumb. Maybe it's time I READ A FUCKING BOOK

Just start with the Greeks

What is his system though that makes it so shitty?

Now there's something I can get my teeth into!

Nah thanks man that's handy list.

there's also this one, which you may find useful