Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...

I recognise that the quotations put forward here show that Marx himself was aware of some of the shortcomings of the system around him - which is probably why Popper was at pains to point this out in the quotes i gave. His analysis terms have been absorbed by modern economics and yet he still goes on using such terms as the proletariat and the bourgieosie as well as the idea of class striggle itself - the interpretation of his writings seems to go towards a class struggle between simplistic groupings and even here there have been a few coming out with the argument that you are either with 'us' or against 'us' which is intrinsically divisive.

It is the defiant reluctance to recognise these shortcomings which makes it difficult - even Popper pays a debt to him and yet tries to counter these and other weaknesses he lists. The discussion on class is not allowed to adopt more accurate phrasology due to the Marxists fear of addressing issues with more accurate terminology.

The conversation about class is being stymied by the Marxists who refuse to allow the terminology to evolve. Ironic considering the admiration of evolution shown by Marx himself.

Popper's analysis might be seen as an evolution - he is pointed in his admiration of Marx but his criticisms are not even considered by the true believers here, who would prefer to avoid such discussions which are outside their comfort zone. This makes Marxism more like a religion.

The Bible can be made to seem relevant to modern life especially by the true believer and his followers, but that doesn't mean it is anything more than easy answers for questions which are more complicated than that.
 
Amazing. Has he bothered to define what historicism is yet? I take you have read all the volumes of the open society and its enemies mart? Thing is gman you're not aware of how much you do not know. The truly scary thing is that he's a teacher
 
Geri said:
Amazing. Has he bothered to define what historicism is yet? I take you have read all the volumes of the open society and its enemies mart? Thing is gman you're not aware of how much you do not know. The truly scary thing is that he's a teacher
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that I have acted in some way dishonest or dishonourable?
Have you even bothered to take what I have said and commented?
I stand by my words and have not caused any victim, so is there any place for tolerance in your judgmental view of life?
 
Gmart said:
Are you suggesting that I have acted in some way dishonest or dishonourable?
Have you even bothered to take what I have said and commented?
I stand by my words and have not caused any victim, so is there any place for tolerance in your judgmental view of life?
Click to expand...
That's no then. And he's turned into thoreau as well.
 
Gmart said:
Are you suggesting that I have acted in some way dishonest or dishonourable?
Have you even bothered to take what I have said and commented?
I stand by my words and have not caused any victim, so is there any place for tolerance in your judgmental view of life?
Click to expand...
Tolerance for plagarists? Are you Johan hari?
 
Does he stand by poppers words though? What do you understand by historicism gmart? Lbj asked you this yesterday and no answer was forthcoming.
 
Gmart said:
The quotes I posted covered it adequately - are you considering adding your words of wisdom as to whether Popper's analysis of Marx is justified?
Click to expand...
No they did not. Where is popper' s definition of historicism, and why do you feel it is useful? Is it yours too?
 
I define historicism as a reference to apparent 'Natural' Laws in an effort to find 'meaning' where there is none, and when this fails there is a progress towards further authoritarianism as the leaders seek to force their morality on others.

I am arguing for an empiricism and rationality to have dominance instead of stories such as the Bible or Das Capital.
 
Gmart said:
I define historicism as a reference to apparent 'Natural' Laws in an effort to find 'meaning' where there is none, and when this fails there is a progress towards further authoritarianism as the leaders seek to force their morality on others.

I am arguing for an empiricism and rationality to have dominance instead of stories such as the Bible or Das Capital.
Click to expand...
You're an idiot.
 
This is the same as **** right? the genius behind phonetic spelling thread?

give up now. This one is beyond help or parody
 

Seeking to avoid replacing one authoritarian system with another seems a reasonable position. If it is my grouping the Bible with Das Capital, then I fail to see why there is much of a difference. With both the readers convince themselves that it has relevance when the passages are just general. Certain basic insights are fine, but the simplistic groupings are just too simple to take seriously - just like the Bible...
 
Gmart said:
I define historicism as a reference to apparent 'Natural' Laws in an effort to find 'meaning' where there is none, and when this fails there is a progress towards further authoritarianism as the leaders seek to force their morality on others.

I am arguing for an empiricism and rationality to have dominance instead of stories such as the Bible or Das Capital.
Click to expand...
That's a meaningless definition of nastiness. The mad thing is that it's marx's historical method that had proven most useful and has become the default across much of academia and critical inquiry. Things just 'aren't.' He used empiricism and rationality (neither of which are immune to crass historicism, in fact both form the ground for it) to establish this. Do you know the context in which Popper wrote? What his aim was? You need to. Little bit of marx there.
 
butchersapron said:
That's a meaningless definition of nastiness. The mad thing is that it's marx's historical method that had proven most useful and has become the default across much of academia and critical inquiry. Things just 'aren't.' He used empiricism and rationality (neither of which are immune to crass historicism, in fact both form the ground for it) to establish this. Do you know the context in which Popper wrote? What his aim was? You need to. Little bit of marx there.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is absolutely true. The Marxist approach to the study of history - as you say, that, simply, things just 'aren't - has been profound. To understand history, you have to understand historical processes. Few historians would dispute that.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yep, this is absolutely true. The Marxist approach to the study of history - as you say, that, simply, things just 'aren't - has been profound. To understand history, you have to understand historical processes. Few historians would dispute that.
Click to expand...
I would say the same about Popper's falsification doctrine and its effect on science truly great and now simply accepted as many of Marx's insights are too, but it wouldn't mean he (M or P) was right about other subjects. I don't know what this part of knowledge is, so instead of going to Wiki and making a fool of myself again, perhaps I could ask what it is without being jumped on?
 
Popper's falsification doctrine is an interesting contribution to the philosophy of science. It is wrong in the sense that it should not be adopted dogmatically, however. By Popper's definitions, string theory is not science, for instance. IMO (and this is only my opinion - opinions are divided on this) Popper was overly enamoured of his own idea in this case - and as a doctrine, it does not work. Scientific method has to be more flexible than that to allow for scientific investigation in places where falsifiable hypotheses are not possible.
 
Gmart said:
I would say the same about Popper's falsification doctrine and its effect on science truly great and now simply accepted as many of Marx's insights are too, but it wouldn't mean he (M or P) was right about other subjects. I don't know what this part of knowledge is, so instead of going to Wiki and making a fool of myself again, perhaps I could ask what it is without being jumped on?
Click to expand...

Popper's falsificationism is very far from being "simply accepted", even in the hard sciences. Biology for example doesn't tend to use falsificationist strategies. Besides what Popper was doing in that regard was trying to codify certain methodological tendencies and their underlying assumptions into a coherent and explicit framework. He didn't "invent" falsification.
 
Kizmet said:
Better to be overly enamoured of your own doctrine than someone else's.

That's not aimed particularly at you lbj.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm guilty of this sometimes. It's a really easy thing to do. TruXta's right, mind you, that most scientists don't really concern themselves with philosophy. As far as they're concerned, philosophers agonise over things that they don't have any problems with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

danny la rouge
Scottish velar fricative change by age, gender and class in Glasgow - hypothesis
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
maomao
maomao
ska invita
Government debt, do you understand it?
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
gosub
gosub
Jeff Robinson
How should a just society deal with abusers?
2 3
Replies
84
Views
3K
Eivets Rednow
Eivets Rednow
Kate Sharpley
British class struggle anarchists in the Miners' Strike 1984-1985
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Kate Sharpley
Kate Sharpley
Cloo
Lack of empathy, or just history?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
4K
Puddy_Tat
Puddy_Tat
Back
Top Bottom