i mean are you just saying we're subject to cause and effect...?

again, there are rationalist critiques of this stuff. David Hume posed epistemological problems for science which have never been overcome

oh cool. can you find TCoS online? I had trouble

>If you want to seriously argue against anything but strict determinism
what does this mean, if I want to argue against determinism?

I have no problem with determinism, fatalism is of course similar. to me the difference can even be expressed within science. If time is not a natural kind but rather an emergent property, then there is no determinism because there is really no temporal line in which one thing causes what happens "after" it. there is no after

I obviously cannot prove that time is not "real" but the topic does come up in science. for example there is no time for light i believe

word. oh wow

why not simply an eternal universe

also at that level you're saying that everything is determined by the start of the universe. then the idea that the superstructure is determined by the base is wrong-> both are determined by the big bang

but we don't really know what happened at the big bang we can only get to within the last split second but its still important. there are competing theories

Right but that just shows science can't explain everything lambo

hahaha

no sir

I should I guess, only german

but if it can't exlain everything it can't really explain anything

But I'm not really against materialism, it's not a big deal to me. My big issue then is that "ideas" are just as material as the sun. I hate the constant harping about "idealism" because brains are material objects and i think marxists neglect the role of ideology as the software of human brain hardware

word ill check the libraries

but aren't ideas material? answer me

five sure. also check out comments on society of the spectacle if you haven't yet I love that one

I'm in full agreement

It's just to me that means it's clear that we have to engage with ideas- they are part of the material conditions!

i never said im for idealism

but people call baudrillard idealist because he's interested in symbolic relations, not just economic interest

but all material conditions are the product of material conditions....

I think this is an easy excuse though when your ideas are not good enough or you haven't found the right way to communicate

then you just say "oh we were right and all the material conditions werent right yet"

thats peterson right

thats definitely not wrong, but I think the comments are way better than the original book

and from the original, I love the phrase on page one: "the liar has lied to himself" very strong image to me

I like to compare it to descartes evil demon, and i think-> instead of thinking the demon is tricking you, what if you are the demon, tricking yourself?

I love this idea so much

but ideas are not temporally after this chain of science- each idea is directly biology, chemistry, physics

If I have an idea of nationalism, for example, that idea is just a relation in my brain which is firing on certain receptors

It has to do with the media I consume, which is also a material relation. cyberspace seems ephemeral but all media are material objectsa

all signs are written in matter, all ideas are gotten across that way and are present on the physical hardware of the brain (and the brain is the most complex and significant physical object there is)

To me idealism can mean 1) you think everything is ideas, or 2) you imagine that the world should conform to your ideas.

When I get called an idealist by marxists, I guess I think they mean #1

To me, I think what everything is made of is simply a mystery. I don't claim to know it is ideas, but when you say everything is matter, well, what is matter exactly? we don't know

so it's just like saying "everything is made of the stuff that everything is made of"

What I'm saying has more to do with the physics- we don't know what the particles are made of

even staying within materialism, we just don't know what the stuff "really" is, that's all

so in a way matter remains a concept, an idea, within materialism. Hence I think it is simply a silly debate. But I don't insist on a positive position, i.e. that I "know" what everything is. Hence I don't think I'm an idealist

I am very interested in the controversy about monism in the soviet union I wish I knew more about that

i don't get it

oh word

Well when I bring up Baudrillard on leftypol that's just the immediate reaction. Sorry for venting

the imageboard

I mean I do think it

is an interesting philosophical debate or discussion, but it seems like many people use concepts so they don't have to think

but it's ok, I learn alot from the discussions. This is my first time on this server but I'll come back I like the more fast paced discussion

and I like the challenge 😉

lambo

@DOLBATIC that looks awesome I'm just an insufferable JB sycophant because I haven't read more haha. His writing is super contradictory so the parts I like are contradicted by other parts haha. My aim isn't to rep him so much as bring him up because that's where my thoughts are, wanna move forward

I see JB kind of in the skeptical tradition, which I really enjoy. The problem of how to apply skepticism politically is the huge problem but one I want to confront

I was asking the other guy is JBP means Jordan peterson

I guess it is, that's all

I do agree that Marxism is also identity politics, but all politics is

In the sense of relying on the logic of identity/difference

"we are so-and-so, we have attribute X. We are against other group Y because they have attribute Z"

They are but poetic thought is about getting beyond concepts. It's like Buddha pointing at the Moon. The finger is the concept, the Moon is the ineffable

Yes I think that's a common view. Baudrillard visited Japan one time and people there said "we don't need you anymore because your thought is just how things are now"

I would be interested to see if he defends his concept of class struggle

Well you asked me "what?" I was clarifying what I thought you wanted clarified. And I was just laying out my understanding above

So do you see yourself as in a social group with common interests and principles?

Word I meant that the concepts people use to define themselves don't really mean what they think they mean. Ideologies are always simplifications of the world, it comes down to the idea that language doesn't really convey truth or meaning in the way many think it does

I'm curious how this plays in the marxs idea that capitalism leads to communism. I mean negating capitalism is the same as completing the project of capitalism for Marx, no?

And then what is clouscard saying we should be doing, what does class struggle look like in these updated conditions? I'll read both those articles tho five sure

So I read the two articles, translated the one on Baudrillard. Found a way to translate PDFs also but not large ones, sad face. I guess I can split it into sections

I do agree with the section of the first piece where it is written that Clouscard thinks we need "collective destiny," I think this is a very good starting point

It's interesting how he thinks the national is now important to defend when it's being overcome by transnational capitalism. I can see that, I do agree that a good transnational movement will likely work its way through the various nations (although it working through other nations will be something that will be recognized within each national process)

Still, his positive program is not very clear, probably it is outlined in his book

i.e. his idea of class struggle is not clarified, it's clear he wants to update Marx in some ways and remain faithful in others, but it's not specific about which parts to leave and which to take

I'm with you. I mean to take an example, nationalism. People identify with their nation because of material conditions: there are a lot of people in the world, we're vulnerable to violence, so we band together to try and protect ourselves from the larger social outside. Nations are connected to religions, since both are based on myths having to do with origins (national history / creation myths) and a sense of purpose perhaps

I think this is a Marxist position, perhaps: simple denunciation is no good, you have to address the root causes of the behavior and ideas which impede communism. Where this intersects with the economism debate is that people aren't just about material interests, it's more that they are about the meaning of their life, being faithful in some way to whatever the respect, whether that's the government/army, or their ancestors (cultural heritage). So a problem we face is that people insist on having things just the way they want them, as part of a demand to recognize the reality of their culture

This is something that all kinds of people do, but the desires of the powerless are of course ignored (eviction of the lakota from the black hills for example)

But, when it comes to people who have relatively more power, their irrational expectations for reality have material consequences since they will behave irrationally to try to make the world fit their vision of their cultural destiny

In other words, ideas are not only downstream from material conditions-> they also change material conditions

of course, I think ideas themselves are material conditions, so it's just that different aspects of material reality are mutually influencing each other

Google translate

the book pdf is too big though, but I got the article about Baudrillard

I can also read the french wikipedia page on clouscard, it's longer than the one in english

haha

One idea I do have is whether Clouscard would think it important to point out how intelligence agencies have dominated society. Baudrillard doesn't talk about stuff like that but I think it's very important. Although there's also the question of how exactly the civilian gov't, military (and intel), and corporations interact, that could be the kind of thing Clouscard means by understanding the front of class struggle today

Singapore is so small they need a major power to back them, that's obvious

Great awakening got banned of Reddit. Notable maybe

Yeah but gay backwards is just yag so

Sounds pretty yag fam

Yag yag yag

Hey lay off they're... resilient

Not really fam taliban >> isis at this point. Do you think it is 2014 lambo

Omg y'all are literally bots

I think we like swear words because they're basic and primal

Also it has the edge of the thing you're not supposed to do

Yeah it is

Go in public see how you feel

Just like in a way the ur text is just like FUCK BITCHES THEYRE SHIT ASS KIKE NIGGERS

Sorry did I get mad

I didn't lambo

Just said nigger is a swear

And I think we go for swears because it's basic and primal