Which is fine and dandy, but it doesn't get to the root of the issue of metaphysical claims.

These are two separate things. You have to be a believing Hegelian to have relevance to this critique.

This fucking guy.

Hegel was a Protestant.

Saving that picture

That's a good one too

Where are you getting these?

I found this website called Google.

I see

I'm going mad.

Feuerbach does not exactly say there is no need for God. He says that God is explained by anthropology. The God that man projects is not the same God posed by Aquinas. He establishes God's essence through logic not inference of common traits.

Did you actually read Feuerbach?

I'm reading it right now https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/

I never read Aquinas and probably will never do.

I'm not sure what is a problem.

My understanding is if there is a first mover - he is the one to move first by itself. In this situation universe is criticized as being unable to make the first move and in the same time first mover is able. For me it is just an imaginary situation. The universe is eternally moving as far as we know.

If the first mover can move by himself than the universe also can.

The need of the first mover is not obvious to me.

The first mover is necessary, it is called 'contingent being'. You can read about it here if you want to. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Anyway, I'm just flapping about being a drama queen. For a normal person ambiguity is not a problem. But my personality does not allow it.

>The first mover is necessary, it is called 'contingent being'.

For who?

Not necessary for me.

Yeah, I'm not explaining it.

Not necessary for most philosophers past 1800

That's because they haven't examined the arguments.

No, they disagree with arguments.

Not that I have seen.

You just disregard the arguments.

That's an insult.

You did disregard my argument and it is not even my. Everybody agrees on this.

Agrees on what?

If you have something able to move by itself - like the universe, than there is no need for the first mover. But you deny universe the ability to move by itself. You think it is about causality. And the cause is just an abstraction.

The reality is different from abstractions of 1300 priest.

Whatever reality is

Is anything pushes atoms to move or they move by itself?

Do they have some kind of charge?

From the first mover?

Where is it registered?

By who?

Necessity is defined as 'unable to cease to exist'. A necessary beingness must exist, either its the universe itself or God. For the universe (matter/energy), the Principle of Conservation of Mass-Energy says matter and energy are never lost but rather transmute into each other. The problem is that we do not know if this law is eternally true. If it ever changed, or had emerged the way it is sometime in the past, it would mean that the universe could cease to exist. Also if matter and energy are also necessary then no changes could take place because it would destroy the relations within the universe, which are supposed to be necessary (unmovable). Further if the universe infinitely regresses, there is no ultimate explanation of necessary being, and it is impossible to prove. The universe existing 'for itself' is not a defensible position.

@Deleted User I'm losing you now.

I am trying to condense a lot in small format.

Do atoms have a charge from first mover or they move by themselves?

It would be much easier if you read Aquinas.

@Deleted User I've read Christian philosophers 15 years ago. Was not impressed at all.

Sure.

I switched to Buddhist

They been more rational.

The idea that matter 'moves by itself' has no explanation. It is just a vague statement.

It is an observation.

No, the observation is that matter moves. The cause is not determined by only observation.

The cause is not important. It is abstraction.

The observation is correct.

So you observe that matter moves. Congratulations.

@Deleted User You just not make abstractions on top of it.

Is it hard to do?

I guess not. But then you statement is wrong. You said matter moves by itself. But really only abstractions can allow you to think about how it moves.

@Deleted User That is correct.

The question of what kind of abstractions. How much are they detached from matter.

That's fair.

Commie cancer

In Marx's opinion Hegel had absolutely correct abstractions. But all results of his thought were wrong.

The only thing you are good at is starving yourselves

Even correct abstractions detached from matter are incorrect.

Not to mention incorrect ones.

Hitler will bomb your ass with his amazing Stukas

Watch how he fucks over Poland in just a few weeks

Losing 80% of your army to starving Slav is not a good look for the Aryan Supermen.

(((Hitler)))

The only thing you Commies did that was good was kill those Muslim towelheads

did any of you vote for comrade corbyn?

14/88 and have a blessed white day, fuck Commies
KKK
KKK
KKK

@Firefly That's correct. You need to base your abstractions on observation.

Would you like to read Aquinas?
"Regarding the unity of the divine essence, we must first believe that God exists. This is a truth clearly known by reason. **We observe that** all things that move are moved by other things, the lower by the higher. The elements are moved by heavenly bodies; and among the elements themselves, the stronger moves the weaker; and even among the heavenly bodies, the lower are set in motion by the higher. This process cannot be traced back into infinity. For everything that is moved by another is a sort of instrument of the first mover. Therefore, if a first mover is lacking, all things that move will be instruments. But if the series of movers and things moved is infinite, there can be no first mover. In such a case, these infinitely many movers and things moved will all be instruments. But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent. This would be like fancying that, when a chest or a bed is being built, the saw or the hatchet performs its functions without the carpenter. Accordingly there must be a first mover that is above all the the rest; and this being we call God."

@Deleted User thats from the time you couldn't know atoms moving themselves, right?

>But even the unlearned perceive how ridiculous it is to suppose that instruments are moved, unless they are set in motion by some principal agent.

'Atoms moving themselves'?

Do you really believe in that?

It's an analogy about instruments.

I'll move your ass to hell with my Stuka and my MP40

Prepare for ass-whooping

It's why a 'perpetual motion machine' is impossible.

Do you believe atoms are not moving by themselves?

That doesn't make any sense. Atoms have energy, of course they move.

Kys

@Deleted User They move without a push?

Gtfo of your shitty safe-space and fight us like men

Atoms have energy. The energy is the push.

The energy is transfered.

Did they gain energy from some source other than themselves?

They contain energy, not gain it. Just because they contain energy doesn't mean they are the source of it.

@Deleted User where did the energy of atoms come from?

That's an abstraction science struggles with.

It seems priests already know the answer.

That's what their theology tells them. It is just faith. It is not supported by reason.

But it is hard to disprove.

And Aquinas is based on reason.

Marxism is based on matter, not reason.

I don't see how that is possible.

Matter is an abstraction. It's definition is open-ended.

Matter does not need definition.

or abstraction.

Matter exist without abstractions.

>ideology based on matter

>ideology

>based

>on

>matter

That's pretty based yo.

yes

Matter exists is a positive statement. You need to support this claim.

**Brain fucking explodes*

@Anglican ideas are derivative from matter.

Which you can, but not without abstraction.

@Deleted User Statements are also not important.

Or their defense. They are just an abstraction

I think statements are important because without a system of language no thought is possible.

@Deleted User thought is not important for matter.

It is how it is without or with thought.

Oh, it's a spook. I get you now.

Everything not matter (whatever that means) is a spook. Gotcha.

@Deleted User abstractions not based on matter are spooks.

And the one that are based on matter mostly spooks too.

You don't even know what matter is without abstraction.

You pretend that you were born with the knowledge.

You don't know. But that does not matter.

The matter is irrational.

Is it? How do you know?

When you make predictions out of logic most of the time you are wrong.

We can rationalize matter.

To some degree.

Using abstractions.

And it is helpful for human brain. But the matter itself does not require your rationality.

Most human are irrational too and animals are.

They don't follow logic.

Logic is a spook.

it is very necessary if you work with abstractions.

But it is very limited at the same time.

You arrive at all these conclusions via magic?

Logic has limitations. They are great. they are spooky.

You don't see billions of people doing logical for them but limited things?

Every day

It depends. Are they using logic correctly, and are the premises sound?

It also depends. Logic used correctly, like in Hegel's case, is also a spook.

Hegel went so far away from reality people can't even understand his writings.

And the result of his writings is idealism, mistake and nonsense.

Hegel strayed too far from observations.

You are going billions of years from observations. Hegel did better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVdBnwm9Qqc

I no longer need cosmology. Aquinas has arguments that work with an eternal universe.

All time is relative.

Arguments again.

You can make observations about the past.

Most people can't make observations of present.

Which means...?

Their logic is a spook.

Their data is a spook too.

But they usualy persist.

Not sure of the reason for that.

I would argue that their methodology is flawed. Who am I to say why people ignore contrary results?

It is possible to show why people get things wrong.

Irrationality is demonstrable.

The world is not completely rational. They are irrational too as part of the world.

Of course.

But if you can get far with reason, why jump off?

Logical arguments are abstractions, yes. Logic is an abstract system. It is not 'wrong'. The premises, though, can be wrong, which makes the conclusions also wrong. But if the premises are accurate, the conclusions will also be accurate.

As observations improve, so do the abstract conclusions.

Always improving.

So why jump off?

>But if the premises are accurate, the conclusions will also be accurate

That is not true

That was Hegels mistake

I mean they are accurate relative to observation.

Correct logic based on correct observation can be also wrong. Most of the time it was wrong in our history.

No observation is 100% accurate. But observations improve. Is that what you mean by they were wrong?

'Wrong' is not the correct word.

Correct logic based on correct observation may lead to the false conclusion and false prediction.

Wait, logic is not only about making predictions. Also, how can correct logic/premise lead to false conclusions?

Have to walk my wife out. Thank you for your time. I'll try to answer this later.

No worries.

@Deleted User Hey I wonder, are you Polish too or just likes his music?

What's up my fellow comrades

do yall hate jews

yes

@millie Yeah, why we shouldn't? Most leftist founders hated the juice.

is this a tankie chat

there are tankies on here yea

but is it like all tankies

or just

kinda tankies

Im a DeLeonist

oh

ok good

This is a very diverse discord

Diversity is our strength

oh

this place is mostly just all kinds of people's common battleground and occasional non-autism

Basically

so

how exactly is this for "communists and anarchist"

aren't those terms the opposites

Both are progressive and heavily leftist?

They are different in their stance on authority.

i guess i can see that

both are pretty retarded aswell

>penis butter vajelly

>calling people retarded

>it's only a reference to the greatest adult animated show BoJack Horseman

>ideologies are not people

let's argue i want to fight

dead server

fuck all you niggas

ya'll just a bunch of posers

ok

The only way we can defeat the Fascist meance is by working together!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATb7CXX-Kc0

Until Day 1 after the revolution. Anarchists et al. have no coherent plan to survive it. Authoritarian Socialists will steamroll disorganised anarchist territories. Not just because they can, but so that you do not fall into imperialists hands with your lack of professional armies and whatnot.

In the modern world, I am a fundemntalist. In reality, I am a conservative.

Like how proudhonists and blanquists could work together

but marxists and anarchists can't

So is international a porn channel now?

sad!

are

we

vetting

now

Somebody was posting erotic content. We had to see it.

😡 👨🏻 💣 🔥 ✝ 🔥 🚒 🚑 🏥 👼🏿

they're not even

spamming outside of <#308950154222895104>

Yeah

thank goodness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW1hD9YzwZk

@everyone

WHo is krushev

a corn hoarding revisionist

Explain

his de-stalinization program damaged the soviet union's industry and led to the decline of the economy

after stalin's death in 1953, niktia changed the stalinist economics policies which want good for the country

@Deleted User a traitor to the working class.

@wiggles You sure you're not forgetting the war?