this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
163 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13535 readers
947 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sourquincelog@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago (5 children)

The older I get, the more vindicated I feel by choosing to completely ignore philosophy as a concept

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The pinnacle of Western philosophy is 100% Marxism. Marxism represent a qualitative leap of Western philosophy. The problem is that since academia tries very hard to pretend Marx doesn't exist, they are forced to teach Western philosophy without teaching the pinnacle of Western philosophy, which is why you are forced either read about dudes who have been dead for centuries or a bunch of bunk bullshit by some dude talking nonsense. The rationale they give to teaching Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, and so on is some bullshit about "being a better critical thinker" when the real reason why you should read them is because their works are the foundation in which Marx, who was also Western philosopher, would use for his works. You read Hegel so when you get to Marx, you can appreciate how Marx took Hegel's incomprehensible bullshit and turn it into something that even illiterate workers can understand and more importantly, apply towards a liberatory political project.

The analytic vs continental divide in academic philosophy is basically a divide between a branch of Western philosophy that pretends Marx doesn't exist vs a branch of Western philosophy that at least acknowledges Marx exists but isn't itself Marxism. And it should come as no surprise that in the completely reactionary environment that is the Anglosphere, it's the branch of Western philosophy that rejects Marxism that is completely dominant where you get to read philosophers who spend 200+ pages to prove that 1+1=2 or argue about qualia. It's only recently that students are starting to get taught influenced-by-Marx-but-not-actually-Marxist philosophy.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You read Hegel so when you get to Marx, you can appreciate how Marx took Hegel’s incomprehensible bullshit and turn it into something that even illiterate workers can understand and more importantly, apply towards a liberatory political project.

I had some fun moments when i read Lenin's notes about philosophy and in all other cases he notes something to explain things to himself making it easier to understand, but in case of Hegel he was like a low key "wtf".

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

I unironically think that dialectics were basically Marx&Engels attempt to explain concept of feedback loops with language available to them at the time.

[–] Chronicon@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Originally I thought philosophy as a discipline was basically so far up its own ass as to be useless, then I took one or two philosophy classes and had some genuine interest, then I got politically engaged and read more philosophy outside of a classroom environment, and ultimately decided my original feeling was mostly correct.

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I feel like every time I go down a philosophy rabbit hole I'm getting on a train to go to some destination only to realize after a few circuits that I stepped into a carousel.

The only exception being dialectical materialism because it destroys and remakes itself constantly as the world around it shifts.

Instead of trying to pigeonhole and describe the world in a system, why not just have the system be the world as it is? Apply the scientific method you fools.

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Totally agree on dialectical materialism, though there is no such thing as a universally accepted scientific method. I say this as a scientist working in a technical field: science in capitalism is ripe with contradiction.

[–] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago

Agree on that too. The basic concept of it though is still pretty rare in philosophy. The fact that your theory is meant to adapt and change over time as you gain more information about the world.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

I feel like every time I go down a philosophy rabbit hole I'm getting on a train to go to some destination only to realize after a few circuits that I stepped into a carousel.

The only exception being dialectical materialism because it destroys and remakes itself constantly as the world around it shifts.

This is by design. You really think the ruling class would actually teach people how to actually analyze and change the world? Better to mislead the intelligentsia into getting stuck in mental carousels.

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

you could've warned me

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Y'all actually read this theory shit? I thought it was a joke

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Even Marxist philosophy is saved by it being more science than philosophy.