Why did people take him seriously?

no guys karl marx is totally redpilled and based. Marxism must be someone else

>put words next to a picture of someone and put -Person's name
>people will think they actually said it without doing any real research

This is so convoluted it's perfect.

He invented a cult* which spoke to people at the time, and which still does. He told a new type of story which explains things (Lyotard called them metanarratives). Human beings love these.

The story alternately blended rational thought and unthinking emotion (people alternately like these, at alternate times). It had simple elements which were easily understood by the lowest pleb (they appreciate this), and it had complex elements to keep smart people busy (they appreciate this). Ironically there is probably some dialectic in precisely these two poles I've just raised, which have probably been treated in one way or another already as they relate to Marx.

*I use "cult" as opposed to religion both in order to specifically denigrate Marxism, and generally to lump Marxism in with all other popular cults, which (one thing I share in common with Marxists) I also disdain. Further, in English, the word /religion/ itself connotes both certain literal (the cult's tenets are the case, and describe reality, /true religion/, etc) and metaphorical (the cult makes me feel good and therefore the cult is true) truth-value, pride in tradition and so on which I would deny to all Marxists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews, among others as being invalid feelings on the parts of the adherents. There has never been any such thing as a religion. There have only ever been cults that stuck, Marxism among these.

people go such lengths to produce representations of marxism in a negative light while simultaneously never addressing it's core claims

>The story alternately blended rational thought and unthinking emotion (people alternately like these, at alternate times).
How so?

What makes marxism a cult to you rather than a theory of history? As a theory of history it does involve a metanarrative structure but identifying this in no way constitutes a refutation. Also, Marxism doesn't make people feel good lol, it's a depressing picture of the world. Speculating on the psychological motivations which may lead someone to adopt a view in no way is relevant to the truth claims of the view itself btw. Even if what you stated were true, Marxism would still be true.Unless of course you could demonstrate that you know anything about the theory (other than stating you don't like the people who believe it) that might refute it.

>even if what you stated were true (that Marxism is false), Marxism would still be true

Now you're sounding like Lukacs.

The joke was pretty subtle, I guess.

>theory of history
His was that idea's didn't spawn events, it was materialism. Material conditions are behind everything, which goes against how those material advancements came to be in the first place.

>What makes marxism a cult

The fact that a prophet tells you in his books a bunch of things about winners and losers, and losers took that and thought it would be a great idea to inter their dead (like Saint Lenin) in the open and write their 12 commandments(the 1974 ethics for the builder's of communism). Their heaven is better because it could really happen on earth and instead of needing a bearded sky daddy you could have a bearded NEET daddy who spent his whole time writing fanfics that somehow aren't opiate. Even though they're specifically made to appeal to the masses.

>Marxism would still be true

Except it's all bullshit.

>Unless of course you could demonstrate that you know anything about the theory

Sure. At the end of Ch2 of the Communist Manifesto he calls for ten things to be done in order to create a socialist state. Things like "nationalize government control of ALL transportation and communication" (not just the means of production). That includes the car your mom lets you borrow and the desktop you're typing on. Obviously this was shortsighted as fuck because capitalism didn't just round the coasts like he said- it put the power of instant communication and excellent transportation by land,air,and sea in everyones hands.

Then in Kapital he bullshitted his value of utility. He said value wasn't subjective(protip:it is, there is no standard human value for any object it's entirely based on wants/needs and purchasing power).Then he made up some example in the first chapter about how triangles fitting in a square could be used to measure the value of a given mass. Obviously that doesn't work because a 2x2 of feathers compressed isn't the same value as 2x2 of gold. More to follow...

Desperate people turn to irrational ideologies.

Cont....

But then he btfo of his own example by saying that utility value is based on what that material is for. Which completely undoes the BS examples he just made up, and then he never goes on to give a real example of how to standardize value based on use and not the subjective needs of people and organizations.

If this ideology tried to appeal to smarter,better people it would never work. He was wise to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Bourgeoise Jews were hardly desperate people.

The people who lead these revolutions tend to be the smart ones who realize that they can gain power and wealth off the loyalty of the useful idiots.

...

Marxism is the most pseudo-scientific """""""theory"""""" of history to ever be invented right up there with whig history which is only slightly less retard.

>even if what you stated were true (that Marxism is false), Marxism would still be true

I was referring to its characterisation as a feel good cult but i appreciate the reference lol

>His was that idea's didn't spawn events, it was materialism.
Yes and no, material conditions are the primary motor of history, ideas being derivative of their social conditions, but it's not material determinism.

>Saint Lenin
Lenin himself was against idolisation of individuals

>heaven
The idea that it's a cult because it offers a preferable alternative to the current state of affairs is an interesting idea. Are all political theories cults?

Private industry (and property) has no place in a socialist state sure, but that doesn't extend to personal property. Australia used to have nationalised communication, it didn't mean the government owned our phones lol

>utility value
There is a distinction between use and exchange value, the latter referring to market value derived from relevant needs of the community

>triangles fitting in a square could be used to measure the value of a given mass
I don't remember this but that does sound weird

The quote's real. Problem is /pol/ is quotemining and didn't read the essay it's actually from. The passage is speaking of Jews in their role as a legally distinct banker caste, as they were for much of European history. The text a a whole is about how capitalism turns everyone, regardless of religion, into your stereotypical happy merchant, whatever the Torah or Bible says to the contrary.

>material conditions are the primary motor of history
Except idea's aren't dependent on material conditions at all. That's how material conditions are broken in the first place. Did Hero need to make a steam engine? Not really. Did anyways.

>Lenin himself was against idolisation of individuals

Except communists are huge on cult of personality.
>Leningrad
>Stalingrad
>Kaliningrad
>statues of the saints and prophets everywhere
>giant posters of the prophets everywhere,especially during parades

>"The idea that it's a cult because it offers a preferable alternative to the current state of affairs is an interesting idea. Are all political theories cults?"

No and it's not a cult because it's different. Like I said, it's a cult because it acts like a cult. In/out groups, specific language used for the ingroup that defines itself, the world, and especially the hated outgroup(imperialist dogs, bourgeousie fat cats,etc).

>Private industry (and property) has no place in a socialist state sure, but that doesn't extend to personal property.

And what is personal property based on? Basically whatever communists currently feel like it should be based on. The only reason the USSR relaxed it's rules on cars is because the west was blowing them the fuck out in terms of standards of living. We had fridges, microwaves, dish washers decade(s) ahead. And cars were another example of western daily superiority over communist countries that ideologically Marx was against personal ownership over. Marx really had no idea that capitalism would improve the conditions of the everyday citizen to such a degree. That's why his theory is outdated.

>There is a distinction between use and exchange value, the latter referring to market value derived from relevant needs of the community

I already made the distinction. Utility value doesn't actually exist, at all. Marx specifically tries to use it as a replacement for subjective value.

>Except idea's aren't dependent on material conditions at all.That's how material conditions are broken in the first place.
We'll have to disagree on that front. material conditions can be transformed by ideas but not ex nihlo surely. Even the education required to produce radical inventions are products of a social arrangement that is derivative of material conditions, abundance of food reducing demand for labor etc. Like i said, it's not determinism, nor does necessity drive material change.

>Except communists are huge on cult of personality.
Not really, the USSR did eventually devolve into an authoritarian dicactorship which in order to legitimise its oppressive reign took great lengths to establish a cult of personality around Stalin and his "predecessors", with statues and the renaming of geographical locations like you mentioned. Lenin hated statues. There is nothing in Marxism about prophets and "saints" of the revolution, these are political tactics used by a dictatorship. There is a cult aspect to that but only Stalinists actually act as though this were somehow communist/Marxist. Communism as a stateless/currencyless society has no relation to establishing a cult of the state.

> it's a cult because it acts like a cult. In/out groups, specific language used for the ingroup that defines itself, the world

This is so incredibly broad that almost all cultures and subcultures are now cults.

>And what is personal property based on? Basically whatever communists currently feel like it should be based on.
This is tricky because a communist society has not existed post-mass production. We are not after toothbrushes though, only private property such as land and means of production should be re-distributed.

Furthermore,

>Marx really had no idea that capitalism would improve the conditions of the everyday citizen to such a degree.
He actually did, there's a reason no one thought a revolution would come from Russia, it's material conditions not assumed to be sufficient to achieve the transition. However, consider the conditions of the worker who produce our luxuries under global capitalism, i would not say that the lives of those subject to war by capitalist interests nor the children mining for minerals have been improved. One of the reasons Stalin was not a Marxist is that he ignored the international aspect of the fight against capitalism, "Socialism in one country" is not only impossible it is a contradiction in terms

>material conditions can be transformed by ideas but not ex nihlo surely
Except that's what happens constantly. Quality of life is dependent on the thought changing the material. He thought the material preceded the thought only because he thought in terms of struggle and human reaction to scarcity. He didn't consider that the majority of experimentation isn't necessarily ad hoc for survival.

>Not really, the USSR did eventually devolve into an authoritarian dicactorship

It started out that way, and judging on the trends, they tend to move that way. Even to hereditary rulership ie N.Korea and Cuba.

>Communism as a stateless/currencyless society has no relation to establishing a cult of the state.

State isn't the same thing as government. State is the government plus the culture of society, which is why the communists tried to destroy everything outside the government, like religion, in order to create their utopia they thought only the communist culture and it's controlling body could be permitted and all else purged. In the back of Ch2 of the Manifesto that I mentioned earlier, Marx calls for a MASSIVE government. Any government with that much power is not going to be small government. It has to be large and bureaucratic in order to perform the functions he outlines(although some on that list are give-mes, like education). In short Marx was advocating for a big government and nothing outside of the government(aka the state, as the idea of state emerged from estates).

>This is so incredibly broad that almost all cultures and subcultures are now cults.

But it sounds like there was no defense for the idol worship the USSR created, it's cult of personality, or it's contrived us/them grouping system.

>communist society has not existed post-mass production

The USSR claimed it achieved full communism. So have multiple states with over three billion people who lived and fought for communism. I think they knew what communism was.

The rhetoric appealed to organized labor during the dawn of the industrial revolution when living conditions were truly terrible for most working people. The teleological nature of his philosophy made it very easy for Marxist revolutionaries and leaders to justify almost anything they wanted to do. I think he's an important part of Western canon as one of the great prototypical thinkers that helped shape our times but anyone who follows Marxism is the worst kind of person. A dangerous and delusional person that is capable of the worst things if ever given power.

>We are not after toothbrushes though, only private property such as land and means of production should be re-distributed

That's the problem. There are no natural rights in communist societies. One day you could be after industry, the next sending people to the Gulag for holding church services. There's no consistency in doctrine and excesses were always taken by those who called themselves for,fought for, and often died in the name of communism. MoP could mean anything. It could be saws and sowing machines. It could be the vast number of tools I and my family own. It's innocuous. Even worse, by seizing the means of production from individuals and giving it to a controlling body, the government, you've just reduced the opportunity for the average person since the average person already has access to the means of production. You want to remove something without giving back. Not to mention your stance on home ownership and land. Are you going to be the one to tell your grandmother she no longer owns her home when the local soviet decides migrants need a place to stay for cheap?

>He actually did
Except he said that capitalism was only good for rounding the coasts and nothing more. He was against you owning the computer you're typing from. In his system, you'd have to see a government official in order to get permission to access Veeky Forums, which itself would be owned by the government, if a communist government would bother funding Veeky Forums at all. Your prophet wasn't very prophetic.

>there's a reason no one thought a revolution would come from Russia
Who is no one? Russia was the likeliest candidate before the end of WW1.

Look at the time he lived in, OP. 19th century and early 20th century workers lived in shit conditions. We might take our rights for granted today, but back then labor laws were weak and there was virtually no welfare, leading the common citizens to be rightly angry but misled into the wrong solution.

> it's material conditions not assumed to be sufficient to achieve the transition

Capitalism doesn't build socialism. It's the other way around. The USSR with it's moderately high population, industry,massive amounts of raw resources and land only reached 57% the GNP of the US, in 1974. Every other country that tried to achieve communism shifted away from it.

>However, consider the conditions of the worker who produce our luxuries under global capitalism

Ah, when communism fails fall back on polemics. Well, without communism the worker has:
>been given a rapidly increasing quality of life, even in areas low in resources like Japan or low in quality manpower like Congo(as well as high in corruption)
>quality of life has included ability to own land, own homes, have access to modern appliances that ALL communist states failed to properly introduce in a timely manner
>freedom of speech and expression
>freedom of religion

I'm going to stop short right here. There is nothing that communism that can offer that a non-communist or capitalist society can't do much better. Communism offers nothing but a set of hindrances.

>nor the children mining for minerals have been improved

I don't know where you're living at, but children where I am go to school and play video games. I've been all over the world. The children aren't grinding their souls away in mines under the baleful eye of a man wearing a monocle.

> "Socialism in one country"

The idea is of Trotskyists is that other countries must create their own communist parties and at some point merge together. I don't think there's one example of this ever happening or coming close to happening.
Stalin did not ignore the impulse for communism to subjugate the world into it's own slavery. He thought that foreign communists would not surrender their nations and Stalin wanted world conquest through one unified authority.

>But it sounds like there was no defense for the idol worship the USSR created

I addressed this in my second post, i should have clarified they were both me

>In short Marx was advocating for a big government and nothing outside of the government
This isn't really true. I've only started hearing this term "big government" recently, it must not exist in my country. Communism is the absence of governemnt, socialism is the transition, this transition by means of government reownership would be a temporary thing. Obviously this is the biggest thorn in Marxist thought.
The reason communists took such a harsh stance towards the religion of RUssia (Russian orthodoxy) is because of its involvement with the ruling class (monarchy). Marxism is not anti-religious, its just acknowledging that activities of religious institutions are subordinate to political interests which most often benefit the ruling class at the expense of the general citizenry.

>The USSR claimed it achieved full communism.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic, let's not confuse the rhetoric of states with the actual political affairs.
The only thing close to socialism in the world atm that i can think of is Rojava and the Zapatista movement in Mexico.
.

>Who is no one?
Lenin for example haha, if you read his work he's more surprised then anyone. Germany was the biggest candidate before the Nazi's got into power

>He was against you owning the computer you're typing from.
This is a bizarre view. A computer is not private property, it is personal property.

>Are you going to be the one to tell your grandmother she no longer owns her home
That's not how it works. Private property is wealth generating, land and houses that are rented out, factories that generate surplus value etc. If my grandmother owned more than one house which she rented out to someone i would be happy to see it reappropriated

>I don't know where you're living at, but children where I am go to school and play video games.
Have you ever been anywhere outside the first world? Capitalism is not exclusive to the countries it benefits, it is a global system and the exploitation is at it's most severe at the very bottom. It's almost impossible to wear clothes in the first world that weren't produced by sweat shops. This is not the fault of the consumer, it is that ethical consumption is borderline impossible under capitalism. YOu don't see the exploitation as much but it's still there

because they're lazy

The only defense for idol worship was that "Lenin didn't like it". Which is based on an assumption, if anything. It's not a refutation.

>Communism is the absence of governemnt, socialism is the transition, this transition by means of government reownership would be a temporary thing.

Amazing. You managed to get every single piece of that wrong. Let's break this down:
>Marx at the end of Ch2 says the government must control ALL transportation and communication
>everyone must be heavily progressively taxed
>wants the government to control everything

Look at that last one. It's the whole reason why cultural organizations(even the "people's Church" of the 80's) and the means of production must be controlled by the communists. In order for them to be controlled, they must either be privatized(a big no no in Marxist and communist eyes) or be controlled by the communists themselves, which self evidently requires government. In order for people to make a democratic decision, that process is applied through government. Assuming communists would ever achieve a satisfying worker control over the things somebody else built.

Now look at socialism. Socialism is the economic system of communism. Communism was intended to be the socio-political system of society. We see this in the USSR's 1936 "constitution":

constitutii.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1936-en.pdf

>ARTICLE 1: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist, state of workers and peasants.

>ARTICLE 3: All power in the U.S.S.R. belongs to the toilers of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Toilers' Deputies.

And this is the article where the USSR fundamentally carried out Marx's vision of control:

> ARTICLE 6: The land,-.mineral deposits, waters, forests, mills, factories,-mines,railways,water and air transport systems, banks, means of communication,large state-organised agricultural enterprises (state farms,machine and tractor stations and the like) as well as municipal enterprises and the principal dwelling house properties in the cities and industrial localities, are state property, that is, the possession of the whole people.

And in order for the "whole people" to theoretically have a say, that process must be bottlenecked into the hands of a few. Isn't it Stalin who said something like "it only matters who counts the votes"?

>The reason communists took such a harsh stance towards the religion of RUssia (Russian orthodoxy) is because of its involvement with the ruling class (monarchy). Marxism is not anti-religious

Bullshit. They sent people to go to the Gulag for meeting up for a spiritual book club. In China today Christianity is still banned for communist party members and the government suppresses it. These weren't even the only two communist governments to suppress religion. They all did and do to varying extent.

>Lenin for example haha, if you read his work he's more surprised then anyone

No, he said that if Russia didn't collapse in 1905 it might never be subverted. This implies he was counting on Russia to be the first to collapse in the first place.

>This is a bizarre view. A computer is not private property, it is personal property.

According to Marx, ALL COMMUNICATION should be in the hands of the government. It's literally in the communist manifesto. Above, in the 1936 constitution, article 6, it says specifically "means of communication". That's computers. Communists just didn't have the foresight to imagine that individuals could own machines like these.

>That's not how it works

It very well could be. Communist governments don't seize additional houses past the first. They don't allow ANY home or land ownership. You even mentioned earlier that land can't be owned. You're trying way to hard to outright lie about communism in order to make it sound amenable and flexible. It never has been.

>Have you ever been anywhere outside the first world

Yes. All over.

>Capitalism is not exclusive to the countries it benefits, it is a global system and the exploitation is at it's most severe at the very bottom

There's a book, I hate to mention it, called "Where Am I Wearing". The author was surprised when westerners would try to shut down companies for using underage workers for sowing and such, and those workers boycotted the westerners and tried to kick them out because they WANTED to work and these companies were giving them wages far beyond the national standard. You're that well meaning but totally ignorant westerner who ends up paving the road to hell with bricks made of good intentions.

Ever noticed how almost all unironic communists are college aged petit bourgeois or bourgeois white males?

You know there is something fishy going on with an ideology when its biggest supporters are the ones the ideology advocates murdering in the streets.

>You know there is something fishy going on with an ideology when its biggest supporters are the ones the ideology advocates murdering in the streets.

ha no kidding

During his lifetime, Marx was not taking seriously by really anyone. He was a fringe author known only to a few.

When the first world war broke out, the vast majority of people still didn't take Marxism seriously. The German SDP, the French socialist party, and the other parties in the second internationale voted for war credits. Most people cared more about their own country then class conflict. Nationalism proved more important to people then class conflict, which is a significant problem for Marxism.

To deal with this problem, the Marxist-Leninists had to stop taking Marxism too seriously, they had to considerably adjust the theory. In a world so obviously dominated by nationalism, nationalistic interests had to be brought to the forefront. The world revolution was abandoned. The primary conflict was determined to be between imperialist and anti-imperialist states. The class conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie played a defining role only in those exceptional cases where nationalism wasn't too strong to counteract it.

When the socialist revolution occured in Russia, much of the world including Africa and Asia were still colonies. The Soviets founded the League against Imperialism, which was counter to the League of Nations, and which was the first international anti-imperialist and anti-colonial organization in history. One reason that Marxism-Leninism became such a serious issue is that it attracted the interests of certain groups around the world interested in national liberation. This was amplified by the fact that third world countries appealing to Marxism-Leninism could hope to get aid from the Soviet Union (whose power and reputation was increased by the victory in world war two) making this an even more serious issue. Often these groups were only interested in national liberation and not class conflict, so they introduced their own New Economic Policy afterwards anyways like in China, Vietnam, and Laos.

This.
What Marxists fail to understand is that we are hardwired to place in-group preference (nationalism) above ideas like class.

>the first international anti-imperialist and anti-colonial organization in history
>meanwhile on the streets of Hungary, an empire imposes it's might on a hapless colony for expressing counter communist dissent

>You're trying way to hard to outright lie
There's a disconnect here, English is not my first language so im not sure how to go about it

>There's a book, I hate to mention it, called "Where Am I Wearing".
One of the central ideas of Marxism is that charity is not sufficient, and in some cases, downright immoral as it does nothing to fix the conditions which produced the suffering in the first place. I'm not surprised they were kicked out, western companies want cheap work but in order to maximise profits must siphon the workers from the other options. Of course shutting down these factories wasn't going to be well received the whole point of marxism is to radically restructure society on an international level not fix a few isolated issues, because as you have noted it doesn't work like that.

>You're that well meaning but totally ignorant westerner
I'm not sure what my identity has to do with anything, not that you've got it right either.

Because Capitalism brings intense psychological stresses

>I'm not sure what my identity has to do with anything, not that you've got it right either

I don't think he was saying you are a Westerner,he's saying you're the Westerner in the example. That's what it looks like to me

More than 40million countrymen dying,two of the worst famines their country had seen,no freedom to do or own or think things- and this is just the USSR. Not Cambodia,or china, or n Korea.

>More than 40million countrymen dying
nice lies over there.

marx was the farthest thing from a cult leader
marxism is explicitly anti-religion and anti-ideology
communists are essentially just bandits who like the color red

maybe if youre a fucking troglodyte
the desire for resources is in your genes, not your culture.

It's been broken down ad nauseum. The high number is 60 million. We've already seen a commie try to tell us marxists aren't anti religion except for being anto religious everywhere then tell is no one should own land or homes but then change his mind when he realizes granny loses her home too. You're the one lying here and frankly that's disgusting to cover up these kinds of atrocities. Of your ideology kills that much in short periods and removes all rights from people, you shouldn't have to cover it up.

>implying culture isn't a product of genes

>It's been broken down ad nauseum
oh yes... epic stormfag ms paint debunking...

>social norms that developed over the last 50 years are part of your genes

Why does a German who grew up in the USA have a different culture than a German who grew up in Germany?

>1920's westward push, war with Baltic and Poland = +300k
>Famine of 1921-22 = 5-7 million
>Holodomor = 4-9 million
>Winter War = +300k
>Communist civil war = 7-12 million
>Purges = Yezhovshschina killed over 2 million and was the third wave. The number is generally agreed upon to be just over 2 million. Beria created the second wave, and undoubtedly killed more. Yagoda had contributed even higher to the kill count and was part of the first wave along with the early Soviet general authorities in the aftermath of the civil war. All told, at least 20 million died through exile, execution, penal colony(of which mortality rates were massive), and the Gulag(which were more in line with standard concentration camp setups).

Next you ask me where the sauce on the purges are. Then I name a few and you try to discredit each one. Then I ask you for sauce and you namedrop a couple of leftist sympathizers with phds and carry on trying to discredit my academics. Then I point out the sheer volume of subject matter released and confirmed by Russian's themselves and you double down, which only makes you look more like a blind follower than you already do.

>different culture than a German who grew up in Germany?
Because it's illegal to be honest about one's culture in Germany.

>Americans have a more genuine German culture than Germans

>Except idea's aren't dependent on material conditions at all.

So, the material brain, from which these ideas spring, which resides within the material body, is not influenced by the material conditions around it? Preposterous.

>So you think that the human brain is complete detached from the physical body and environment it's found within

Idea's certainly are. Again, what material condition compelled Hero to build a steam engine? The Greeks are an outstanding example. They used rationalism to think beyond empirical senses in subject areas that weren't relevant to them at all(like atoms for example, useless trivia for 2000 years).

>every number multiplied by at least 2
>try and ask me for the sources on those lies so I can give you some more info from independent American historians and soviet dissidents!
thanks, but I'll pass

Karl Margs killed 800 billion people, made cultural marxism which destroys the white race and he also be a collectivist which consolidated my parents power over me so i cant go to bed late

>when you realize the brain isn't the same thing as idea's

And yes, a brain made out of materials can come up with idea's it's never been subjected to. It can devise answers to questions that aren't immediately relevant, or even immediately confirmation ready at the time of conception. This is the real reason why communism attracts atheists, because they respect empiricism but have no fundamental understanding of rationalism.

See? You're never ready to be prepared to accept new information which invalidates what you *desire* to think. There's no information which can dissuade you, and you've just admitted that. You're a zealot.

Strasserism when?

>Idea's certainly are.

But ideas aren't distinct from the brain, which is a material structure. You're engaging in a dualistic model of mind without sound reason.

>Again, what material condition compelled Hero to build a steam engine?

Why do you think that a materialist conception of social and intellectual development would only address things based on need? The material conditions that allowed him and encouraged him to develop a steam engine were his own affluence, free time, education, and brain. I don't think even Marx says that ideas only formed to address material needs, just that material conditions guided them.

>The Greeks are an outstanding example.

Of material conditions influencing ideas. They existed in a temperate area with extensive trade options and the ability to form an agricultural society with a strong division of labor necessary to maintain an intellectual upper class.

The brain is not separate from its ideas. Ideas are formed within the brain through material means, in response to the material conditions surrounding it and the body.

>they have no understanding of rationalism

If rationalism means "can think up anything at any time ex nihilo" then it's a fucking idiotic concept that needs to be forgotten. Thankfully that isn't rationalism.

Idea's are in the brain, but not confined to the limitations of the sum of the parts. Brains are obviously capable of calculating results far past their sensory environment. We do that when we launch rockets, or plot geographical courses based on weather predictions.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for the mind-body duality or anything like that. The mind is capable of thinking beyond it's environment is the effect, even if it isn't the cause.

>The ones around him. Likely his own affluence, free time, education, and brain (which is itself a material condition).

So an assumption that there had to be something, but no evidence.

>Of material conditions influencing ideas. They existed at the temperate center of a trade nexus, in a society that due to extensive use of slavery allowed an intellectual upper class with copious free time to form.

They weren't empiricists by any stretch. They were trying to uncover the mysteries of the universe which had no direct impact on their life style, or were even observable by the senses. What material condition influenced necessity to uncover atoms or suppose cosmic creation? Or conjecture on cycles of government they weren't currently using? Are you saying that you can't conceive of something if it isn't put to your senses first?

Actually, an example of a material event influencing an idea would be Hiram Stevens Maxim's development of automatic firearms, which was spurred by his being knocked back by a gun's recoil.

Idea's can be conceived of through sense alone, nobody is arguing that, but there's also non-sensory inputs in the mind at work. Well, not for all of us it seems.

>Idea's are in the brain, but not confined to the limitations of the sum of the parts.

The only, and I mean ONLY way this would be possible would be if the mind were dualistic. Otherwise ideas would be limited to the brain itself, which is influenced by its material conditions.

>We do that when we launch rockets, or plot geographical courses based on weather predictions.

No we don't. The brain makes calculations based on information present within its environment.

>To be clear, I'm not arguing for the mind-body duality or anything like that. The mind is capable of thinking beyond it's environment is the effect, even if it isn't the cause.

Yes you are, you just haven't put sufficient thought into your position.

>So an assumption that there had to be something, but no evidence.

You have zero evidence he came up with it ex-nihilo.

>They weren't empiricists by any stretch.

Sense-experience was considered an important source of knowledge.

>They were trying to uncover the mysteries of the universe which had no direct impact on their life style, or were even observable by the senses.

Which has nothing to do with their ideas being influenced materially. It was you that baselessly insisted that materialist theories of mind and society could only be about addressing needs.

>What material condition influenced necessity to uncover atoms or suppose cosmic creation?

It doesn't have to be necessary for them to have been influenced materially. You're asking for the material psychological specifics of men that died thousands of years ago, it's a ridiculous form of pleading.

>Or conjecture on cycles of government they weren't currently using?

You're talking about Plato, right? That would be the recent upheaval of Athenian society followed by Socrates' execution.

>Are you saying that you can't conceive of something if it isn't put to your senses first?

You cannot work with tools you do not have.

Seriously, read Spinoza.

But that idea wasn't conceived through sense alone, and a materialist theory of mind has nothing to do with strict empiricism, neither does rationalism fail under a strictly materialist theory of mind.

Like what, do you think Hero just one day sat up with a jolt and said "IMMA BUILD A STEAM ENGINE" for no fucking reason?

>"IMMA BUILD A STEAM ENGINE" for no fucking reason?
No, because of his soul and radical free will.

>The only, and I mean ONLY way this would be possible would be if the mind were dualistic.

A claim which is neither self evident nor supported by evidence with evidence to the contrary. Excuse me if I discard this as soon as I read it.

>Otherwise ideas would be limited to the brain itself, which is influenced by its material conditions.

I've got to repeat this, because I think you missed it. The Cartesian system attempts to explain a cause, not an effect. Dialectical materialism is attempting to explain how effects evolve in reasoning(it's a dialectic after all). Just because a mind isn't made of something other than brain matter, doesn't imply in any way that the brain can't function past what's immediately available to it. Idea's can be spurious, out of place, and drawn from(to use a term that might've actually been intended for it) the aether. Haven't you ever had a dream of something that you've never seen? An idea of something that has never been?

>No we don't. The brain makes calculations based on information present within its environment.

Not necessarily. We make calculations based on things happening outside of our presence all the time. It's how physics has evolved today, and how astronomy and geography evolved before.

>Yes you are, you just haven't put sufficient thought into your position.

Arrogant and wrong.

>You have zero evidence he came up with it ex-nihilo.

A lack of evidence for the alternative is the argument user. If you say he had material input, put it forward. The onus is on you. Rationalize. Try it.

>Sense-experience was considered an important source of knowledge.

It still is. It's the basis of the scientific method. You're saying that only empiricism matters. I'm saying empiricism & rationalism matter.

I don't think I have a concave head wojak variant small enough to adequately respond to this post.

>It doesn't have to be necessary for them to have been influenced materially. You're asking for the material psychological specifics of men that died thousands of years ago, it's a ridiculous form of pleading.

You're the one that was confident in asserting that their thoughts and idea's came from material influence-despite these philosophers specifically teaching the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. You say read Spinoza, but you haven't even bothered with the Greeks!

>You're talking about Plato, right? That would be the recent upheaval of Athenian society followed by Socrates' execution.

Oh so you got one reference. I'm guessing you saw it on the thread last month. I find it hard to believe you would've read that and not read the more basic material.

>You cannot work with tools you do not have.

We found atoms without sensory observation. It wasn't until Rutherfords Gold Foil experiment we figured a way to study the phenomena via senses, and that method had to be rationalized.

>free will libertarian
>empiricist that spits at rationalism
>claims to know Greek philosophy but argues that there's no way to know what inspired their methodology despite them blatantly shilling for rationalism the entire time

No words to describe.

The people here man. The people. I finally understand the one with the block hole and dividing by zero.

>A claim which is neither self evident nor supported by evidence with evidence to the contrary.

The evidence for it is ample. There's a reason knowledge is an accumulative process built on previous principles. If your theory of mind were correct, anyone could at any time create any scientific theory because the mind is neither limited to the brain nor its environment. This is stupid.

>Just because a mind isn't made of something other than brain matter, doesn't imply in any way that the brain can't function past what's immediately available to it.

Yes it does, because there is nothing the mind can interact with than itself an the environment around it. The only way it could go beyond this is by being distinct from the brain.

>Not necessarily. We make calculations based on things happening outside of our presence all the time.

So the brain makes calculations based on things outside itself? What imparts this knowledge?

>Arrogant and wrong.

Humble and correct.

>A lack of evidence for the alternative is the argument user. If you say he had material input, put it forward. The onus is on you. Rationalize. Try it.

We can't even conclusively prove most ancient figures even exist, and you're going to hide in gaps of the specific particulars of their psychology? When we don't even know the specific particulars of the psychology of most modern thinkers? Can you for even a second consider how fucking unreasonable that is?

>It still is. It's the basis of the scientific method. You're saying that only empiricism matters. I'm saying empiricism & rationalism matter.

But I'm not, you fucking moron. Spinoza had a materialistic and deterministic theory of mind, but he wasn't a strict empiricist. Hell, basically nobody outside of Hume is a strict empiricist. You want to talk about arrogant? Rationalism does not require that you be able to think up ideas out of nothing.

>You're the one that was confident in asserting that their thoughts and idea's came from material influence-despite these philosophers specifically teaching the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. You say read Spinoza, but you haven't even bothered with the Greeks!

I've read Epicurus, Plato, and Aristotle's works. Philosophers teaching something contrary to reality just means they're wrong, and those thinkers are thousands of years out of date. Our understanding of mind has advanced long past them.

>Oh so you got one reference. I'm guessing you saw it on the thread last month. I find it hard to believe you would've read that and not read the more basic material.

I've read Plato. He was a groundbreaking philosopher with some ridiculous ideas.

>We found atoms without sensory observation.

Metaphysical atoms are not scientific atoms. They named the latter atom because they thought they had found a fundamental particle, proving philosophical atomism correct. They were wrong.

>free will libertarian

I'm a compatibilist.

>empiricist that spits at rationalism

Your assumption, not mine.

>claims to know Greek philosophy but argues that there's no way to know what inspired their methodology despite them blatantly shilling for rationalism the entire time

Considering we're only just starting to develop effective models of human psychology and neurology, there's a damn good chance they had no idea what inspired them.

>The evidence for it is ample. There's a reason knowledge is an accumulative process built on previous principles. If your theory of mind were correct, anyone could at any time create any scientific theory because the mind is neither limited to the brain nor its environment. This is stupid.

user. I can't believe you would think this is how it works. It's like your mind is reaching out through smoke to grapple at idea's that vaguely have words associated with other idea's and using grappling them. No, I'm not suggesting that minds conjure up at will anything they desire. I'm suggesting that it's possible to imagine things that have never been perceived. You could right now imagine a beach which you've never been to. Even implant hallucinatory sensations if you try. The argument is not for omniscience, it's for original thought. Not all knowledge is even cumulative. Those would be "eureka" moments, where a series of steps click into place. There's a reverse method too, which is cumulative but works backwards on a problem, solving it without knowing what the steps building up to it were. If you worked with machinery you'd probably be familiar with that.

>Yes it does, because there is nothing the mind can interact with than itself an the environment around it. The only way it could go beyond this is by being distinct from the brain.

Why would you think that? Everything you assert is just an assumption it seems. The brain can devise original thought, true or false? If it's true, then it can devise concepts that aren't based in the environment or material.

>So the brain makes calculations based on things outside itself? What imparts this knowledge?

No, the brain can make calculations based on idea's it's built up, which may seemingly be unrelated. The two things don't have to be material. They could be immaterial concepts with similar patterns of behaviour, or two materials with seemingly no correlation between them.

...

>I'm suggesting that it's possible to imagine things that have never been perceived.

And they would be built from things present in the brain. This is the reason you've never seen a "eureka" moment as you describe it discovering something that was truly impossible to the environment is was birthed in.

>The brain can devise original thought, true or false?

Define original thought.

>No, the brain can make calculations based on idea's it's built up, which may seemingly be unrelated.

Oh, so you mean things it's learned from the material environment around it, and ideas its formed from the things it's learned? Oh go on and tell me how material environment isn't influencing ideas.

>The two things don't have to be material.

If the brain is material and you're not a dualist, then they have to be.

>They could be immaterial concepts with similar patterns of behaviour, or two materials with seemingly no correlation between them.

There is no such thing as an immaterial concept. Every concept has a material existence as process and structure within the brain. The ideas themselves having no correlation doesn't change the fact they still have a material basis.

>I've read Epicurus, Plato, and Aristotle's works
I'm extremely confident the only thing you read all day is shitposts on Veeky Forums.

>We can't even conclusively prove most ancient figures even exist, and you're going to hide in gaps of the specific particulars of their psychology?

They told us what their methodology was user. You just said you read Plato and Aristotle. You wouldn't lie would you?

>But I'm not, you fucking moron

This is one clue what I'm dealing with.

>those thinkers are thousands of years out of date

In some ways. In some ways, they were vindicated. For example, the atom was named for the most indivisible structure of reality. It turns out it can be divided. Were they wrong? It looked that way until we discovered elementary particles, and now it looks like instead of being one step ahead, we were one step behind and misnamed the concept we thought we were looking at.

>Metaphysical atoms are not scientific atoms. They named the latter atom because they thought they had found a fundamental particle, proving philosophical atomism correct. They were wrong.

See example above. We were the ones that were hasty to name atoms that, and thus misnamed the wrong thing. There are atoms, but they're elementary particles. That was modern physicists mistake.

>Your assumption, not mine.

It's not an assumption if you failed to describe rationalism, how it works, and then label the idea put into practice in the modern world as outdated.

>I'm extremely confident the only thing you read all day is shitposts on Veeky Forums.

And you want to talk about arrogant.

>They told us what their methodology was user.

No, they explained the reasoning behind specific ideas. Not the sources of those ideas themselves.

>This is one clue what I'm dealing with.

Someone calling you out on leaping to assumption about what I think.

>In some ways.

In most.

>Were they wrong?

Yes. Since they behave nothing like philosophical atoms.

>It looked that way until we discovered elementary particles, and now it looks like instead of being one step ahead, we were one step behind and misnamed the concept we thought we were looking at.

This isn't the first, or even second time we've named something a fundamental particle. An elementary particle is just a particle the substructure of which is unknown, and thus it is unknown whether they are composed of other particles, not conclusively proven they are not.

>It's not an assumption if you failed to describe rationalism, how it works, and then label the idea put into practice in the modern world as outdated.

But I haven't even attempted to describe rationalism, nor have I called it outdated. You so far seem to be the fucking imbecile that thinks that rationalism requires you to come up with ideas out of nothing for it to be rationalism, and believes that it's somehow at odds with empiricism and materialism.

>Considering we're only just starting to develop effective models of human psychology and neurology, there's a damn good chance they had no idea what inspired them.

So you're argument was that we don't know how they came up with their ideas. Then I told you 101 information: they told how they came up with their ideas. So instead of insisting there's no way to know, because there obviously is and if you read them you would've actually known that, you insist they didn't really know what they meant. No offense user, but I'm choosing them over you. It's not even a question of neurology.

>And they would be built from things present in the brain

Not at all. Again, if you dream of a place you've never been or seen, then how did your brain devise it?

>Define original thought.

Jesus Christ.

>Oh, so you mean things it's learned from the material environment around it, and ideas its formed from the things it's learned?

I was confirming empirical connections because for some reason earlier you thought I was against it. I wasn't. And just because two things are material in nature, they may not readily seem like materials in nature(light and radio waves are transverse waves, but it might not occur to treat them that way to a layman).

>Oh go on and tell me how material environment isn't influencing ideas.

Literally the entire point of bringing that example up was to inform you that rationalism does not imply there can't be empirical causes, but you're argument implies there are no rationalist causes. It's weird how you thought you were a step ahead but you were a step behind.

>If the brain is material and you're not a dualist, then they have to be.

Explain that,because that's in no way implied or self evident.

>There is no such thing as an immaterial concept.

So if I name one, you'll be happy? Like time, for instance.

>Every concept has a material existence

Wow. Read above.

>being this chemically addicted to (yous)

/thread

>No, they explained the reasoning behind specific ideas. Not the sources of those ideas themselves.

Never claim you read the Greek greats again.

>Yes. Since they behave nothing like philosophical atoms.

Physical atoms don't behave like the atoms they supposed, because modern physicists named the wrong thing atoms. That's not the fault of the original conception of the idea. That's the fault of scientists who didn't know what they were looking that and took the liberty of naming some other thing atoms.

>An elementary particle is just a particle the substructure of which is unknown, and thus it is unknown whether they are composed of other particles, not conclusively proven they are not.

It could be there is another layer,yes.

>But I haven't even attempted to describe rationalism, nor have I called it outdated

I really should take this time to link you your own words, but it's up here for archiving and for you to reflect on. I'm off.

>So you're argument was that we don't know how they came up with their ideas.

We don't, because we don't know the particulars of their lives.

>Then I told you 101 information: they told how they came up with their ideas.

No, they explained the process of some of their ideas (though not actually THE process behind the idea itself, just the process as they felt best to educate the reader on the idea) not the origin of the idea.

>Again, if you dream of a place you've never been or seen, then how did your brain devise it?

From ideas present within it.

>Jesus Christ.

No, I don't think that's the definition.

>I was confirming empirical connections because for some reason earlier you thought I was against it.

Because you strongly suggest you are. You suggest the ideas just form out of nothing in the mind, but if that's the case, why can't the mind form any idea at any time?

>Literally the entire point of bringing that example up was to inform you that rationalism does not imply there can't be empirical causes,

No, it's you that started that whole "empiricism and rationalism are at odds" thing by saying that I'm an empiricist that spits on rationalism.

>but you're argument implies there are no rationalist causes.

Exact quote please.

>It's weird how you thought you were a step ahead but you were a step behind.

Man, you really enjoy the taste of your own dick, don't you?

>Explain that,because that's in no way implied or self evident.

Because if you aren't someone who believes in something separate from the material (i.e. some form of dualist) then you are a materialist (we could quibble about monisms, but the point is you are some sort of monist which means everything is one substance).

>So if I name one, you'll be happy? Like time, for instance.

A) time exists as an idea within our brain, represented as physical structures and processes within it. B) there is no reason to think time is distinct from the movement of material particles.

Well yeah, all the bolshevik leadership bar Stalin were middle-class, upper-class peeps and intellectuals while Stalin was actual dirt poor peasant.

>Never claim you read the Greek greats again.

But I have. Give the specific source of the idea of the form of the good, hot shot.

>Physical atoms don't behave like the atoms they supposed, because modern physicists named the wrong thing atoms.

Elementary particles don't either. I've read Epicurus.

>I really should take this time to link you your own words, but it's up here for archiving and for you to reflect on. I'm off.

I was mocking rationalism as *you* portray it.

Friendly reminder that anyone posting in Marx threads who hasn't read any material past the Manifesto is a literal brainlet.