Prolly not.

But you're dismissing Marx entirely because of a preconceived notion that because some folks interpreted his words as gospel and in their own way that it means all of Marx's theories are completely authoritarian.

Which... honestly, simply isn't true.

There is a difference between socialism and social programs. But we have been socialist in legal standing since FDR.

Indeed. One has to understand Marx to actually dismiss him.

You cant just quote some superficial lines.

same as with everything else. If you want to disprove Platos republic, you have to understand it first.

One should not make the mistake of assuming Marxism is identicalto Marx.

Marx was a wacked out mind that imagined what he didn't know.

Right. So how do you feel about his core premiss. The H. materialism?

He was a dude with some unrealistic ideas and some valid critiques.

is that a right or wrong premiss?

Of course back when drugs were legal, there were a lot of wacked out minds. Not just Marx. Mark Twain played around a bit also.

Marx put all his emphasis on the cart and Hegel on the horse. They both forgot that the driver is a human, and humans are rationalizing, not rational.

so Hegel is wrong too?

explain?

Humans are not driven by ideas nor are they driven by materials. They irrationally choose from either under conditions which always fail to have adequate information. Humans are never rational, only rationalizing. That their rationalizations sometimes are pragmatic does not change the randomness of their approach.

Ehhhhhhhhh.

that is a statement.

Humans are pretty material.

explain how that disproves Hegel?

I never said either were disproven. I said they made an emphasis that was based on a false premise. The false premise that humans are rational, and that humans make rational decisions based on thoughtful analysis of material or ideal observations. Those happen, but the human is not rational and all thought is subjective, never objective. Objective thought is a myth.

rationality is not a prerequisite for hegelian dialectics, no.

Debateable in philosophy.

No mind thinks outside itself. All though is subjective.

You are just repeating your own slogans, it would seem.

if you feel rationality is necessary for hegelian dialectics, you are pretty much alone on that. Please do elaborate?

Hello

I am stating conceptual facts in the Harmony of the Spheres.

Hello and welcome @Apollo

@Whithers I see. Then discussing anything seems pointless.

For the dialectic to work, for either, the operator must be a rational and correctly informed person. Humans are neither.

I see where you would collide with academia now, but I suspect it isnt really about politics.

It is the same failing that Ayn Rand makes.

@Whithers why would it have to be rational?

Philosophy is just that, philosophy. There is no real concreteness to philosophy, in my honest opinion.

you still need to explain why rationality is needed for dialectics, or you will fail this course. 😄

@Maw It lies in its ability to predict.

Agreed on that point.

And its ability to create models which makes it possible to successfully influence the world around it.

There are philosophical systems that are more popular than others, agreed.