1.) Is there any reason to not murder in Stirner's philosophy?

1.) Is there any reason to not murder in Stirner's philosophy?
2.) Is there any actual evidence for dialectical materialism?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Also, if morality is a spook, why shouldn't capitalists steal from you?

Well, if morality is a spooks, why shouldn't I just kill capitalists when they steal something from me?

Oh, wait…

No


Because I can murder them and there would be nothing wrong with me doing that

So, Egoism is an excuse for being psychotic?

Define evidence.

I'll go with the scientific standard, since Marxism is supposedly scientific

Yep, it's pretty much the same shit as Objectivism.

The answer is no. Dialectical thought is idealism.

Alright then, do you have logical proofs?

Then no, it doesn't. It's preposterous to expect a philosophical theory to correspond to scientific standards, that'd be like expecting a dolphin to exhibit the same behavior as a gorilla.

I agree, but I don't claim that philosophy is science. How about logical proofs?

Forgot to remove flag.

If there are I'm unaware of them.

So it's baseless conjecture?

Not necessarily. Egoism just means doing what is in your "will" to do.

As far as I can tell yes.

Well in that case, I think I can put Marxism in the bullshit pile.

That's what sociopathy is

Welcome to the club

That assumes that it's in everyone's will to be a sociopath. The vast majority of people have natural empathy.

If morality is a spook, why are you appealing to morality?

Someone doesn't get it.

You can't prove logic with logic. DiaMat is non-A logic, basically.

All science is baseless conjecture.

Only solipsism is provable.

Maybe not, but I'm not autistic enough to deny reason

How am I appealing to reality?

*morality

Wasn't this what Trostky's brilliant proposition "A= Not A" tried to prove?

And what would that reason be? Because we need to agree on what exactly it is.

Especially if you have approximately zero understanding of Marxism.

It's semi-empirical argument, not logic.

How is Dialectical Materialism empirical? By what do you judge DiatMat to be true?

I was talking about Trotsky's argument (A = non-A) that included sugar as an example (or what did he use) to refute applicability of formal logic to real world.

I do not. You are missing the whole point here. Existence of DiaMat is outside of definitions of "truth" (well, except that "yes, it is truth that is exists as a set of ideas").

Then why believe in DiaMat?

Who said you should believe in DiaMat?

You're a marxist aren't you? Wouldn't that mean you believed in DiaMat?

It doesn't benefit you in any measurable way. If you are a mental case, you probably don't care about philosophy.
Diamat is an M-L thing, not an original Marxist concept. It's honestly kind of retarded.

Indeed, why shouldn't they? It is in their self interest to do so, just as it is in ours to stop them and seize their own wealth.
When we say morality is a spook, we aren't always just being edgy.

Not really. Some Marxists are Hegelians. Like I could've sworn I've hear Zizek call himself an idealist on multiple occasions. And then there are the analytic Marxists that reinterpret a lot of his philosophy.

Yeah. I would also note that Marx never used the words "dialectical materialism" because it actually doesn't make any sense as a term.

Yes.

No. If someone believes in DiaMat he isn't Marxist.

No, they aren't Marxists. They are cancer.

[citation needed]

...

[citation requires source]

And it should be Marx's quote, if he actually considered that it doesn't make sense.

It's from Rene Berthier's Proudhon and German philosophy. I can't attribute any quote to Marx on the subject because Marx never used the term "dialectical materialism". His argument is that the term doesn't make sense because dialectics refer to a mode of thought and that Marx would have probably realized it.

...

Logic is merely a subset of philosophy; it's not what underlies philosophy itself. Nearly all our ways of thinking (and I'm
including philosophical and scientific) are non-deductive to a certain extent, and thus logically fallacious.

Which doesn't mean they are wrong ways of thinking

The claim was that term "actually doesn't make any sense as a term", and that was the reason why Marx didn't use it.

Both point need to be based on something.

The term certainly made sense to Engels.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by authority of anarcho-syndicalist's work. It's not like it's the first time someone "refutes" Marxism.

What is a "right way of thinking" then?

no. whatever you cant defend isnt yours. the price for freedom isnt cheap.
its total shit

There isn't a single "right" way of thinking; there isn't a One True Framework out there that can explain everything

11/10 for the correct question. Now we are getting somewhere.

So, do you have an answer?

He also takes issue with Engel's "Dialectics of nature" for similar reasons. But I don't think it's worth posting that part. I wasn't looking for an e-debate, friend. You asked for a source for why I said what I said and I provided it. I didnt expect you to agree with it.

Spoilers.

Well, I don't. Just because Marxism got reworked later in a more cohesive form and labels got put on things to better understand them, doesn't change anything.

And even if that was true, there wouldn't be so many marxists that do not follow Stalin's "contributions".

Third International didn't consider it revisionism. And it is Third International's version of Marxism 99% of people use.

Not sure what that means. Say it clearly.

No. Do you?

Well, then your education misses on some very important stuff, don't you think?

We had a whole Scientific Revolution thing not too long ago. I advise you to catch up on it sooner, rather then after the elections.

Why are you mentioning the scientific revolution when you seem to reject empiricism and rationality in favor of idealism?

Lysenkoism is literally The Proletarian Scientific Revolution (tm). Praise Lysenko, Praise Stalin!

I had overstayed my welcome, it seems.

...

this thread has officially gone full retard

...

It wasn't meant to be, I was mocking you for not paying attention during philosophy 101

...

Alright, since you're so gung-ho about arguments, explain to me your non-argument from earlier: what makes empiricism and idealism incompatible with each other?

I never said that they were, only that he seemed to reject empiricism in favor of idealism.

But that doesn't make any sense? Empiricism is an epistemological position, whereas idealism is metaphysical. You can't reject one for the other.

I don't know about that. Hume's empiricism and skepticism seemed to have a lot in common with Berkley's idealism minus the part about God. The distinction seems murky to me.

That's because Berkeley was an idealist and an empiricist. Him, Hume, and Locke are grouped together for a reason.

1. Because it likely isn't something you'd want to do. However there's no specific "rule" against it. There's not really any "rules" against doing anything in egoism. However, that being said, you should probably still think your actions and the consequences through.

There is no moral reason for them not to because, indeed, morality is a spook. There's some logical reasons such as the fact that it causes conflict but that's not a moral reason.

Murder would be wrong to an egoist if it was against the self interest of the egoist. Which I guess would be measured by whether or not it takes away from the happiness of the egoist, goes against his freedom, is not good for his well-being in the short term or long term, etc. idk I'm not an egoist, but I feel like that would be a consistent answer.

Yes, When you are an egoist, it is very likely that you will see the uniqueness of others, and murdering others will decrease their usability to you to zero. You will also break the union of egoist if you choose to do so. If you choose not to be an egoist and kill people, there is nothing stopping other egoists to form a union to stop you.

A 'murder' is any unjustifiable killing. So the real question is: what criteria would make a killing unjustifiable for Stirner?

Honestly following Stirner's thought consequently to the end would just lead to a Hobbesian social contract.

If and only if not everyone is an egoist. If everyone is an egoist conflict would decrease because everyone can see the uniqueness of others.

There's only me and my property.

Yes, when you see the uniqueness of other, you expand the usability of others to you. Tell me in a rpg game without saves do you kill all the npcs offering unique quests? or do you not kill them because it is content?

Berkley was both an empiricist and idealist, as you hinted at, and i don't understand how idealism is incompatible with science. You can argue philosophically about materialism/idealism/neutral monism/dualism, but idealism in itself does not harm science.
When I here talk about idealism i mean the notion that either the world consists only of ideas, or we are only justified in relating to ideas.

Finally, a world without spooks.

If those NPCs will stab me in the back the moment I cease being useful to them I'd rather kill them.

What if you are caught?

no, class should be the only propaganda point, sex, race and anything besides it is just idpol shit.

The world isn't composed of ideas in itself, but our conception of it is. Unlike Kant, I don't believe we can have understanding of the 'ding-an-sich' via use of pure reason; we can not escape the use of mental concepts to explain the world around us.

Long story short, you're falling for the old right-wing mantra that society will collapse if people don't follow a strict code of laws and morals.

No, the fact that there's no moral (or philosophical, if you will) reason not to murder does not mean that people will suddenly start going around murdering everyone. Or that nobody would stop the few sociopathic retards who do.

What do you mean by this?

what
no
it's a purge
m8
we are purging
completely different and legitimate thing to do

notice the italic of for "believes"
DiaMat is not a believe system
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

yes
denying diamat is just as ridiculous as denying evolution