How do I stop being so intellectually lazy?

So it takes me months and months to read a single book and I usually try to read multiple things at once cause I get bored after a while if I read the same thing for a long time. Plus I balance theory, philosophy and sociology etc with pleasure reading. I know a lot of people can read a fuck load of books within one month like it's nothing. As of now most of what I know comes from wikipedia and from other people's online discussions either on here, plebbit, and youtube. I am literally the sterotypical pseudo-intellectual leftist. How do I improve leftypol and become a 100% srs revolutionary leftist who can impress the normies with my superior knowledge?

Other urls found in this thread:

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit?pli=1#
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Start with the best! Pic related, or Plato.

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit?pli=1#

Can you explain this argument circle thing to me? I somewhat get the words that are in there, but don't get how the lines work.

They are severely oversimplified dialectical diagrams of the development of those concepts.

They're not really useful at all other than showing people who don't know a thing.

Get yourself some of that legal meth every university ends up hitting in order to cram. Makes you superfocus on whatever you start getting into doing.

fml I need to read more, i'm struggling to understand those dialectics in the green arrow segment

Start with whatever you're interested in and learn about that. Don't force yourself to understand jpg tier explanations from some retard who hasn't even read Marx.

I think you should right way make a file for every field of study you're interested in, and start working towards a personal study guide.

First you make the proper divisions. So for example, if you want to learn more about Marxism, you should write down a few categories such as Marxist economics, Marxist sociology, history of Marxism, Analytical Marxism, Introductions to Marxism, etc. And then dump every seemingly good book, article, paper or lecture you stumble upon there, organizing them from whatever seems easier to whatever seems tougher.

Of course you're not going to read every title, some will be filtered away, considered superfluous as you gain more knowledge and so on, but having a plan will give you perspective. And perspective can really help push you foward. Not to mention that it can make it easier for you to open your study guide and just find a title that fits your current mood.

Another way is to always keep track of how much you read. Try to always get 5 pages or whatever more than the previous day. Or, if you're not really a reader, 1 page will do. Or just wait until the moment when you feel like putting the book down and tell yourself to force your way through X more page, and every day you add 1 to X. Just approach this shit like you would approach gym basically.

Not everyone needs to have read Capital or whatever to be a revolutionary comrade, don't beat yourself up over it.

You can read all sorts of less complicated things and get as good of an understanding as you need. For instance, try reading Wage Labor and Capital by Marx, it's intentionally simple.

And download dictionaries, encyclopedias and glossaries of Philosophy, Sociology, Economics, Marxism etc. When you read, keep them open for consultation.

Download that massive Holla Forums archive of Fascist and race literature.

So many redpills.

thx for the encouragement lad.


killing myself>harry potter 8>all "fascist and race literature"

2 far

would it be correct to say the synthesis somehow explains the relationship between the thesis and antithesis?

It's the result

...

Source is (Probably): David Harvey's "Companion to Marx's Capital"

WOW.

How useful. I'll have to refer to that guide in the future. I'm still really, really adverse to starting with the Greeks though…

The fuck is any of this supposed to mean? "Being" and "nothing" are just concepts.

...

Being is a thesis, nothing is the anti-thesis.
Becoming would the synthesis, meaning every thing is always in the process of becoming something else.
Beware tho this is Hegelian and not Marxist dialectics, aka full idealism, zero materialism

i can't even read a full book lmao

no bully user.

This shit don't make no sense, don't pretend this shit makes sense. It don't make no sense.

You need to get familiar with the hermetic tradition if you want to understand Hegel. I'm sure >>>/fringe/ can help you with that.

If this is how dialectics works, how could it be materialism at all?


Why would I want to understand idealism? It's pure trash.

I thought you were referencing the first post in this thread.

Welp.

Sometimes, not always. There are things which are "syntheses" which come before their constituents, and it is the constituents that explain the synthesis.


In Becoming Being and Nothing are made logically different by differentiating their moments of Becoming: Being is {Being vanishing to Nothing (Ceasing to be)}, Nothing is {Nothing vanishing to Being (Coming to be)}. Being and Nothing in Becoming are only a vanishing into each other in their respective moments. Each moment is an immediate unity of Being and Nothing (a sublation, hence Being is already a sublation with nothing since it is "Ceasing to be"), different only as vanishing with an inverse order.

Becoming, however, only is insofar as there is a difference between Being and Nothing to vanish into. Being and Nothing cannot, then, be merely these moments of Becoming, the vanishings of each other which are themselves only immediate unities of each vanishing in inverse order. These vanishings, the contents of Becoming, in order to be vanishings, must vanish themselves into Being and Nothing. Becoming sublates (enters into unity with its opposite, vanishing unites itself with the vanished) itself and vanishes into Being and Nothing; it vanishes itself as the mediation of Being and Nothing and enters into each so that Being and Nothing are once again in immediate unity, Being with non-Being. Both Being and non-Being are, and as this immediate unity they are a whole that itself is; this unity that is the unity of being with non-being is Existence.

Basically, yeah, you have to read the whole chapter to get it. The green part is actually one with a few disputes over what exactly happens right at the vanishing of vanishing. I've so far read three takes on it, each makes sense in its own way.

It's Hegel, I gotta explain shit :/

But it is, and it actually makes perfect sense. I have never read anything that made so much fucking sense in my life.

Even if you go the Heideggerian route of ek-sistenz meaning to "stand out" from the background of being, what Hegel means by the concept of Existence is precisely how things come to stand out to us. A being with a non-being is a being that is bounded in some way and made definable by that boundary (determinateness). Determinateness is, basically, what existence as a concept has always really been. To exist is to be a bounded something in a relation of difference to some other.

It doesn't "mean" anything. It's just showing how concepts we use relate to each other. It's the structure of the logical relation these concepts have. It's not about anything in particular, it's simply about universal categories of thought which we use uncritically, yet more or less have an intuitive understanding of.


Completely false, ignore this poster. There is no materialist dialectic or idealist dialectic. There is only dialectic, which is only the true method of scientific knowing.

I have this problem too. Im too depressed and anxious to focus on reading. I also am a more visual learner so I learn things better when there is a visual to what is being talked about.

Sounds reductive and dogmatic tbh fam.

kek, everytime


it's also correct

Hegelianism is a religious belief dressed up as philosophy. It's followers are cultist, not scholars.

Anonymous are retards dressed up as unbiased information sources. It's adherents like to make super hot opinions over forums, not facts.

kek

...

Can't do apologia for something that the other person doesn't understand =)

1. Yes you can, what would stop you?
2. "You don't understand" is, to quote Molly, not an argument.

Next time if you shitpost please include a smug anime girl so I can feel a little better about wasting my time with retards like you.

Y-you just d-don't get it, maaaaan! Maybe one day you'll be in the right emotional state for the idea to appeal to you the right way, and you'll finally agree with meeeeee.