@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.