Spiel FFS!
How dare you ımpose your bourgeoıs speelıng standards on us vanguard of the proolytorıot.
Zizek: seems like a nob
- Thread starter el-ahrairah
- Start date
How dare you ımpose your bourgeoıs speelıng standards on us vanguard of the proolytorıot.
Actually he's alludıng to the debate about transubstantıatıon, as he often does ın Capıtal. Yet another example of how modern ıgnorance of theology bars many from an accurate readıng of Marx.
Yes, and Hegel thınks that ıt can have a solutıon ın some post-apocalyptıc future. Yet another example of hıs essentıally theologıcal conceptıon of hıstory.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
What's hegel have to say about usury?
I really must take ıssue wıth your speel here.
You seem to be suggestıng that the bog standard Kantıan epıstemologıcal speel was nothıng more than whether some people mıssed out on what was ımportant ın marx or not theır Kantıan epıstemologıcal had even then degıneroot back to marx when both these thıngs--ın your speel--are the same. As what you descrıbed as the most speelıng kınd of speel (whıch those dıogererereretees mıısed out) ıs somethıng that couldn't not be derıved purely fromthe kantıan epıstemologıcal speel anyway. So both routes lead to the same thıng, except that one speel ıs another man's degoonerıght.
Wanker.
He calls usurers ''the worst of men.''
Does somebody else want to field this one? I'm sure I've done my fair share of pointing out why Phil Dwyer is wrong.
revol68
what, fucking what?
He's not wrong on this one though, a commodity is an article faith, value being not simply dependent on properties internal to it but rather relying on a community of believers to impart it with special powers.
It's like hearing an amazing guitar riff played by a highly competent musician who keeps getting the same chord wrong. A beginner does it because they can't help it, better players do it to annoy or for effect. So the effect you were aiming for was what? Apart from getting me to walk right into that one?
A man after your own heart (or at least hobby horse) then.
Aye. Marx's whole theory of commodıty fetıshısm ıs based on Luther's crıtıque of transubstantıatıon, as he makes clear several tımes: ''Adam Smıth was the Luther of polıtıcal economy... the Scots hate gold...'' and lots of other cıtatıons that I can't be bothered to dıg out at present.
Well modesty really does forbıd... let's say ıt's more lıke the other way around...
It's like hearing an amazing guitar riff played by a highly competent musician who keeps getting the same chord wrong. A beginner does it because they can't help it, better players do it to annoy or for effect. So the effect you were aiming for was what? Apart from getting me to walk right into that one?
well that's my point - you said that the speel of the real ıs nothıng but a steal and those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity and those who regarded Hegel's speel and the whole deegeroot idealist tradition as outdated and superceded and degooerıte actually missed the speel of what was most important in Marx and were left with a neo-Kantıan philosophy which returned to an earlier Kantian epistemological problematic but then when asked what was the most important Kantıan cunt in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those who wouldn't have not returned to an earlier kantian epistemology as they speeled on the what was not least important in the Marxıam epıstemology yet when asked what this most important thing was you give a standard kantian epistemology bog spee standard thıng - but maybe i've not picked up on the context in which this is being discussed as its looks boring as shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx or not theır speel end up at the same place your kantian epistemological speel but whether they digenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your speel were not even the same as what you described as the most important part of marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway so both routes lead to the same thing except one of these routes you see as positive and the other deginerate speeling up the bum.
Sweetie, kindly desist from channelling methlab. If you don't want to engage, nobody's forcing you to.
I refer you to the reply I gave earlier. The commodity character is imparted by the underlying social relation - those social relations are not a product of belief that (presumably) can be explained away. You've got to stop trying to understand Marx by reading contemporary manglings of him.
Nobody ıs denyıng any of thıs, nor ıs ıt remotely ıncompatıble wıth what I saıd earlıer.
You and revol think you are in agreement but you aren't. Don't confuse his subjective idealism with your objective idealism.
I am quite aware that what I say is not in contradiction with what you say. If you want to make your case make it - at the minute all with have are a few nudges and winks.
I am quite aware that what I say is not in contradiction with what you say. If you want to make your case make it - at the minute all with have are a few nudges and winks.
Now waıt just a mınute - you said that those who held Marx's deginerate bog standard epistemology neo-Kantıan speel to be the last word in philosophical modernity and who regarded Hegel and the whole idealist neo-Kantıan tradition speel as outdated and superceded your bog standard epistemology speel actually missed what was most important in Marx - both these bog standard epistemology things - and were left with a philosophy which returned to an earlier deginerate Kantian epistemological problematic speel but that was before you saıd when asked what was the most important in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those who returned to an earlier kantian epistemology as they missed out on the what was most important in Marx, yet when asked what this most important thing was you give a standard kantian epistemology you said that the speel of the real ıs nothıng but a steal and those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity speel and those who regarded Hegel's bog standard epistemology speel and the whole deegeroot idealist tradition as outdated and superceded and degooerıte - both these things - actually missed the speel of what was most important in Marx - both these things - and were left with a neo-Kantıan philosophy which returned to an earlier Kantian epistemological neo-Kantıan problematic speel but then when asked what was the most important Kantıan cunt in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian deginerate epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those neo-Kantıans who wouldn't have not returned to an earlier kantian bog standard epistemology as they speeled on the what was not least important in the Marxıam epıstemology yet when asked what this most important thing was bog standard epistemology you give a standard kantian epistemology bog speel standard thıng - but maybe i've not picked up on the deginerate context in which this is being discussed as its looks boring as bog standard epistemology shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx - both these things - or not theır neo-Kantıan speel end up at the same place your kantian epistemological speel - both these things - but whether they digenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your speel were not even the same as what you described as the most important part of deginerate marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway so both routes lead to the same thing except one of these routes you see as positive and the other deginerate speeling up the bum now maybe i've not picked up on the neo-Kantıan context in which this is being discussed as its looks boring as bog standard epistemology shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in neo-Kantıan marx or not - both these things - they end up at the same place, your kantian epistemological neo-Kantıan as whether they degenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your words, are the same as what you described as the most important part of neo-Kantıan marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway. So both routes lead to the same thing - both these things - except one of these routes you see as positive and the other bog standard epistemology deginerate speel.
Both routes lead to the same thıng.
BOTH ROUTES LEAD TO THE SAME THING.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
calm down dear, it's only a bulletin board
No they fucking don't.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
They may well do.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Stop telling me things im quite aware of, I don't need an abc on Marx from a gimp like yourself. You also need to stop mistaking subjective with some stupud atomised individual perspective and certainly not as being immaterial.
To be perfectly honest revol, you come across as being almost but not quite completely unaware of anything Marx ever said (at least Phil has read Marx in order to pervert him - you're not even aware that you are perverting Marx, you are so far gone!).
Now I haven't mistaken subjective with individual perspective nor with being immaterial. This is not what idealism is - the idealist can recognise the material but insists on describing the material in terms of the ideal. Which is precisely what you did.
Now I haven't mistaken subjective with individual perspective nor with being immaterial. This is not what idealism is - the idealist can recognise the material but insists on describing the material in terms of the ideal. Which is precisely what you did.
revol68
what, fucking what?
You think because i pointed out the theological elements in Marx's writings that i have embraced idealism. I think its more idealist to overlook the role christian theology has had on western philosophy and therefore how it is interwoven into the fabric into the thought of even materialists like Marx.
Similar threads
