Neo Marxism

[kyser_soze]

Oh, i thought you meant you'd read up on neo-'marxism' - whatever that is.

Fuck no, hideous term.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Oh, i thought you meant you'd read up on neo-'marxism' - whatever that is.

I thought neo-marxism was Frankfurt School onwards to the present day, being specifically any aspect of Marxian philosophy, be that historical materialism, various treatises on economics, etc that has been reexamined since the death of Marx. I'm presuming this would also include Marcuse when he was a pupil of Heidegger's (e.g. A Phenomenology of Historical Materialism)

 

[Knotted]

My issues with the use of Satan is, as I said, it's too centred around specific cultural origins. It's clearly a Hegelian argument - the 'spirit' of humanity but the bad, evil part of us - but by using an exclusively Xtian view, you're not only ignoring much of the world, but also this stupid argument that 'only' specific types of philosophy could have produced it; rubbish! Our culture is the sum of all our creations - modern capitalism is the result of ALL of the European traditions, not just the anglo-saxon! FFS, the whole notion of 'markets' as some kind of entity is Hegelian, and it's talked about blithley by 'anglo saxons' all the time.

I don't think it has anything to do with Hegel whatsoever. Hegel would have regarded this type of talk as barbaric. Hegel was a pedantic bugger, even in his insults. Barbarism, for Hegel, is the mixing of the sublime with the mundane - ie. magic, mysticism etc. (treating the speculative as you would empirical reality or the 'interpentration of idea and matter' as Phil would have it.)

Why are we taking Phil so seriously? I know I tend to be a sucker for daft sixth form arguments but its freaking me out that others are falling for it as well.

 

[kyser_soze]

Phil's a Hegelian, and this is Satan as the 'evil geist', as opposed to the 'Spirit Of Man' geist that gorski goes on about driving us forward to ever better, higher, more wonderful intellectual, social and moral pastures.

Capitalism is the opposite of that spirit - authoritarian, immovable, attractive because it looks easy, unwilling or incapable of achieving genuine change, yet crafty and eager to please...

 

[Knotted]

Phil might say he's a Hegelian, he also says he's a Marxist. He's neither. There are no points of contact with either. Its plainly absurd to give Marx an occult spin. Its just as absurd to give Hegel an occult spin, even if it isn't as obviously absurd.

Hegel's geist is not a spirit which imposes itself onto society like a spot of bad weather or an evil spell, it is not seperable from society at all. It is rather that the evolution of social structures is seen in terms of their ideas and their relations to one another as ideas and ultimately the relation to the absolute. It makes no Hegelian sense to give a reductionist/foundationist characterisation of capital as 'satanic'. Put aside the bizarreness of the satanism and just observe its simplistic reductionist character.

The talk about the interpentration of ideas and matter demonstrates a complete rejection of Marxism and Hegelianism. Its a crafty attempt to make occult jibber jabber sound sophisticated. Hegel couldn't even stomach the romanticists' fluff nevermind this stuff. I don't know where Phil gets his ideas. Alister Crowley maybe?

 

[Demosthenes]

Well you say it's absurd, but you haven't said why, and it looks as if you don't have an argument or a counterargument. Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of "demon".

 

[Knotted]

Well you say it's absurd, but you haven't said why, and it looks as if you don't have an argument or a counterargument. Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of "demon".

I am willing to go through the argument, but it relies on Phil replying to the points I've already made. I have very carefully gone through the stuff about money supposedly being an ideal form already.

Note that what I am saying is that it is absurd to pervert Marx and Hegel in this way. It is very easy to demonstrate this absurdity, even if it is a rather painful process of looking up the relevant quotes. I haven't said anything about whether money is satan etc. which I'm not even particularly interested in.

What is more interesting is the anthropological stuff about witchcraft and the onset of capitalism. I've got no reason to draw Phil's conclusions on this though. He hasn't made a case for anything yet, so there is nothing to reply to.

 

[Spion]

Spion - how sure are you about the ending of witchcraft? I suspect you're thinking about a Macbeth style trio, not the actual idea.

My response to Phil re witchcraft (or more precisely on the belief in it as demonstrated by witch trials etc) was specifically to counter his assertion that as capitalism arose evidence of witchcraft (and therefore evidence of 'satan', in his argument) became more common. The historical record - the facts of the matter - point in quite the opposite direction. IE, that evidence of witch trials is a phenomenon of the pre-capitalist 16th and 17th century. Namely under a regime in which religious/obscurantist beliefs were the ruling ones, and that after the 1640s it dies away rapidly in England and Scotland.

I'd say that not only did the belief in witchcraft never die out, but more than it's been forced to engage (as have all the mystical/faith based parts of our socities and psychology) with modernism on modernism's terms.

Well, you'd be quite wrong to deny a rapid decline in the witch phenomenon after the mid 1600s. I'm perfectly happy to accept that 'mystical/faith based parts of our socities and psychology' have persisted to this day, and we can bracket them with with witchcraft at that level of abstraction, but we need to be quite concrete about analysing those forms, their origins, causes and functions in society.

The world is not the deeply rational place you want it to be, so to dismiss withcraft as having gone away in any society is deeply, deeply premature.

Well, to me the irrational is usually a rational response to social being, as all these beliefs have a function, and their mystical forms are usually the idiom for (not so well) hidden social needs.

So while I agree with the concept of capital=Satan, and think that long term you're right about materialist Marxism having to re-engage with 'spiritual' issues in some way (Marxism is never going to help you cope with a loved one dying) but restricting your Hegelian argument to a Judeo-Xtian image is wrong IMO.

The trouble with the capital=satan thing is that it is hopelessly abstract and as such inherently lazy and useless as a tool for understanding. Also, propogating such an idea assumes any audience to which you want to disseminate it among is incapable of understanding a concrete analysis of capitalism, and runs the danger - should such an idea gain currency - of becoming a weird christian 'socialism of fools' with all sorts of (unintended? ) consequences.

Don't get sucked in, mate. You're an intelligent guy. Get yourself reading some of the real dope on capitalism

 

[Spion]

(Marxism is never going to help you cope with a loved one dying)

Well, I've had a few relatives and friends die, and as a Marxist I am as comforted as I can be by knowing that their being, in society, and the way they are remembered for their lives and works is all there ever really can be after death. I'd be no better off believing in something with as much substance as a Santa Claus myth to deal with such events. Having a global, and social, view on human life also puts things in perspective - people are born, they live and they die. At root all we really do is remember them.

I've no problem with ritualising and memorialisng death and there are all sorts of ways it can be done that chime with the natural rhythms of life and death in nature that could be the basis of a future society's way of dealing with such things - without superstition.

A bit off-top there, but It'd be an interesting thread topic.

 

[gorski]

You lot really have no clue... no idea what you're talking about... It would take you a few years of study before you can be anywhere close to being vaguely qualified to criticising Phil with any mild precision and relevance... And I am not kidding! Fancy someone coming into Maths and stars talking through their arse, not having studies anything properly - how laughable would that be?

Really, get a life!!!!

 

[Spion]

Hear this, Gorski - you can either engage properly with people's arguments, or you can sit on the sidelines throwing peanuts and go on more and more peoples' ignore lists and be seen as an empty-headed heckler who tries to wrecks threads. It's up to you.

 

[Knotted]

Fancy someone coming into Maths and stars talking through their arse, not having studies anything properly - how laughable would that be?

That happens all the time. There are plenty of amateur mathematicians, some never studied maths at university. Some of them are excellent. Probably the greatest mathematician (Srinvasa Ramanujan) of the last century was an amateur. As was the greatest philosopher (Ludwig Wittgenstein). Neither had any formal training. Sorry gorski, you'll have to wave your certificates at someone else.

 

[gorski]

Bullshit!!! I did and I do. But you, Spion didn't come back as promised, so I say British hypocrisy, as per usual. What happened to British sense of fair play and all that. The times, they are a-changing...

 

[gorski]

Btw, K: it is highly unlikely that it happens all the time, just as a Nietzsche doesn't happen to Philosophy all the time. And let's be brutally honest here for a moment: none of the non-Philosophers [by formal education] on this thread or this forum isn't going anywhere far in Philosophy any time soon...

 

[Knotted]

Btw, K: it is highly unlikely that it happens all the time, just as a Nietzsche doesn't happen to Philosophy all the time.

Its really quite a common occurance.

And let's be brutally honest here for a moment: none of the non-Philosophers [by formal education] on this thread or this forum isn't going anywhere far in Philosophy any time soon...

Non of the formally trained ones are either. If you want brutal honesty, I know considerably more about these things than either you or Phil. LittleBabyJesus knows more about philosophy. Fruitloop knows more about it as well. Jonti is more clued up than you. At the same time I don't know nearly as much as I should do about the subject I was formally trained in. Ask me about Grobner basis and you will see that I don't have clue and I've got a PhD in abstract algebra ferchrissakes. Your romance about academia annoys me slightly but bewilders me considerably more. You know about what you care about. You care very little about this stuff, Phil cares even less. You both seem to treat Marx & Hegel etc. as a matter of convenience for your rhetoric. You care nothing about what they really said.

 

[butchersapron]

Non of the formally trained ones are either.

gorski is, he's off to Sweden with his modernised speculative illusion.

 

[Fruitloop]

Probably the greatest mathematician (Srinvasa Ramanujan) of the last century was an amateur.

It can't be true can it. Without a 'systematic' education he must have been wrong about everything. Einstein too, that rank amateur....

 

[butchersapron]

Maybe it only applies to people from the UK and Ireland?

 

[Fruitloop]

You need an empire to qualify for the status of reduced humanity and mental capacity I think. So just the British, Mongols, French, Dutch, Portugese, Arabs, Chinese (Qing, Ming, Han and Tang). I may have missed a few....

 

[Fruitloop]

At the same time I don't know nearly as much as I should do about the subject I was formally trained in. Ask me about Grobner basis and you will see that I don't have clue and I've got a PhD in abstract algebra ferchrissakes.

I feel the same way actually. My Schenkerian analysis is probably pretty damn rusty compared to my colleagues who are still in the biz. Ask me about computational complexity theory though and I can bore the socks off you.

 

[gorski]

Its really quite a common occurance.

No it isn't, not at the highest level!!!

Non of the formally trained ones are either. If you want brutal honesty, I know considerably more about these things than either you or Phil. LittleBabyJesus knows more about philosophy. Fruitloop knows more about it as well. Jonti is more clued up than you. At the same time I don't know nearly as much as I should do about the subject I was formally trained in. Ask me about Grobner basis and you will see that I don't have clue and I've got a PhD in abstract algebra ferchrissakes. Your romance about academia annoys me slightly but bewilders me considerably more. You know about what you care about. You care very little about this stuff, Phil cares even less. You both seem to treat Marx & Hegel etc. as a matter of convenience for your rhetoric. You care nothing about what they really said.

Show me exactly where I stated we [the formally trained Philosophers on this thread] are going to the highest levels of Philosophy in a hurry... Such a poor troll you are...

And now to the point I MADE, as opposed to what you insinuated, as per usal, fighting your very own strawmen:

It'll be £50 an hour for your private tutorials with me... [And still: none of you are going anywhere in Philosophy!]

Btw, if I'm in a good mood I may even include an autograph in the price...

 

[kyser_soze]

It'll be £50 an hour for your private tutorials with me...

You couldn't teach a fish to swim mate, let alone philosophy.

And WTF does it mean 'going anywhere in philosophy'. What, you mean not going anywhere in academia? Thanks, you can keep it.

 

[gorski]

gorski is, he's off to Sweden with his modernised speculative illusion.

You can only drool over the prospects of having a really great, strong Swedish Union to back you up in getting whatever they are having, in every direction, you fiercely modern creature out of this time and space...

I bet you never ventured there, either physically or intellectually, which is why you're spouting this baseless bullshit full of envy and ostrich games shite, which serves your delusions...

Sad sod...

 

[gorski]

You couldn't teach a fish to swim mate, let alone philosophy.

And WTF does it mean 'going anywhere in philosophy'. What, you mean not going anywhere in academia? Thanks, you can keep it.

Who asked you for advice? Thanx, you can keep it, it's worthless [this is like Antiques Roadshow now ]...

 

[gorski]

It can't be true can it. Without a 'systematic' education he must have been wrong about everything. Einstein too, that rank amateur....

You have no idea: Nietzsche was the only one ever acknowledged... But never mind...

And no, it is NOT happening all the time, as if it's that simple and easy. Only truly great and seriously talented and hard working sods can actually get there and they are the EXCEPTION to the rule. Get over it!

Einstein's poor maths is well known: his first wife, Mrs Maric, was doing the maths for him: http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/milevastory/index.htm . Without her he was making elementary mistakes, so he had to withdraw books for those high-school silly errors... Her role in the theory is largely unrecognised...

 

[Fruitloop]

You couldn't teach a fish to swim mate, let alone philosophy.

And WTF does it mean 'going anywhere in philosophy'. What, you mean not going anywhere in academia? Thanks, you can keep it.

Progress in the Academy was about publication output, social filtering and good old-fashioned arse-kissing as far as I could see.

 

[Fruitloop]

You have no idea: Nietzsche was the only one ever acknowledged... But never mind...

And no, it is NOT happening all the time, as if it's that simple and easy. Only truly great and seriously talented and hard working sods can actually get there and they are the EXCEPTION to the rule. Get over it!

Einstein's poor maths is well known: his first wife, Mrs Maric, was doing the maths for him: http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/milevastory/index.htm . Without her he was making elementary mistakes, so he had to withdraw books for those high-school silly errors... Her role in the theory is largely unrecognised...

The first sentence is not a sentence.

What about Ramanujan's work, was that all just shit? And plenty of Einstein's work was not particularly mathematical (350 scientific papers or so wasn't it?). Like the explanation of Brownian motion for example....

Off now, back in a couple of days. Enjoy!

ETA: He was a bit of a shit to his first wife though, if accounts are to be believed....

 

[gorski]

Maybe it only applies to people from the UK and Ireland?

Hypocrite: when we were debating the Irish vote on the EU referendum you stated that you needn't bother reading any of it because you're Irish. Your arrogance and idiocy are really showing through.

I claim there is a considerably greater chance that a person from he UK/US/Australia/etc. will have greater difficulties understanding the "European" tradition for very obvious, rational, cultural and historic reasons [many of which can easily be discerened on this forum, too] - nothing to do with what you're insinuating, you sad, sad sod!!!

 

[gorski]

The first sentence is not a sentence.

What about Ramanujan's work, was that all just shit? And plenty of Einstein's work was not particularly mathematical (350 scientific papers or so wasn't it?). Like the explanation of Brownian motion for example....

Off now, back in a couple of days. Enjoy!

1) It is, at least for those with brains and/or good will... If either are missing... Oh, well...

2) How does that negate what I actually stated? If you feel autistic - what does that have to do with me?

3) Inform yourself before you start embarrassing yourself, I say...

 

[Fruitloop]

BA is Irish? I always assumed otherwise from the sig.