Why arn't most philosophers marxists

So much ideology in one post.

Stupid tel.

btw differential calculus can be extended in its complexity

how does it prove that he understood calculus

he had no such understanding

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_manuscripts_of_Karl_Marx

Literally says he had no influence on mathematical development

The world is more complicated than your philosophical coloring books.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Marx had a better understanding of Calculus than you will.

Writing a calculus textbook won't further mathematical development, but it does show that you have an understanding of the subject.

I know people that have mathematics textbooks published.

They thereby understand the subject at least somewhat well, that does not mean they have impacted anything.

He is no where near the level of say David Hilbert or Grothendieck or Von Neumann when it comes to mathematical understanding

Name any modern philosophers of merit.

Not defending Marx, just point out that we are living in an age of smart technology and stupid people.

Why do Marx' calculus skills even matter, you spergs.

>Nietzsche totally had a C- in German once, philosophy discarded.

>Name any modern philosophers of merit

Saul Kripke

its just sad how you lit/humantiies/continental fags just always suck at mathematics, logic, anything that requires actual thought

But you're not good at either of those. Those most likely to obnoxiously praise themselves and their standards in an argument are most likely to be otherwise blind (purposefully or not) to how much they fail them.

Yes im a genius when it comes to mathematical logic...I also tend to be specialized in Algebraic Geometry and Set Theory

what about you?

lol
so good that you brag about it on Veeky Forums
i got up to linear algebra and its intersection with multivariable calculus

>Yes im a genius when it comes to mathematical logic...I also tend to be specialized in Algebraic Geometry and Set Theory

No you're not

>what about you?

Basically college educated at little above minimum. Which would be similarly or less than you.

It's honestly not a good idea to lie on the Internet. Nobody here that's left is that smart. Especially people who argue as fruitlessly as you do. For someone educated and proud of it within "mathematics and logic" you would think you were smart enough to see how basic your argument is, and how similar it is to every Joe Schmo who bitches about communism on Veeky Forums like it will change anyone's minds.

Are you a communist, because you didn't have the raw intellect to make into a math or physics field?

all of my math classes were filled with commies
i mean its obvious youre a troll but at least be good at it ffs

>mathematics, logic, doesn't for the most part just require rote learning and procedural equations that unless at the highest levels always have a right answer.

Analysing inferential arguments and making good arguments requires more actual thought than mathematics or logic, bub.

Are you here complimenting your accomplishments you never made and or haven't graduated to yet because didn't have the raw intellect to "make into a math and physics field"?

and yet none of the greats are communists...

The greatest logician is Saul Kripke who isn't a communist

get fucked, and i highly doubt they were all communists

I love bait!

I can name many important leftists who made important contributions to mathematics and physics.

The majority of my pure mathematics friends are firmly on the left whenever we talk about politics.

because they're petty-bourgeois scum and can never achieve true class consciousness ayyy

>and yet none of the greats are communists

Except that one time they sent the first satellite and man into space before the United States. Or industrialized rural areas faster with forced labor camps than America otherwise had with forced labor camps with slaves

China is fairly close to overtaking the United States in terms of geopolitical influence by the end of the century.

Honestly since I'm using your definition of communist (which is any planned economy) they did pretty well.

Also you're demonstrating your intelligence incredibly well using philosophers in toto in their ideas on a sliding scale/intelligence power ranking of sorts.

You are honesty a brilliant thinker and we should all aspire to be as confident as you are that you can win arguments on the Internet

logic is a fucking cakewalk compared to most of the work that humanities scholars do.

Underrated comment

But it's not an argument

literally no its not....lol are oyu serious

Logic is much harder...STEM in general is much harder than humaniteis

do you really think humanities are as hard as say String Theory..

you don't know shit

It's an appeal to aesthetics which is like 90% of all political discussion

So here's an argument
Equality of Oportunity (capitalism as it should be) is better than Equality of Outcome. While one focus on giving everyone the chance to rise up in society and achieve their goals, the latter puts those who are dedicated in the same level as those who just don't give a shit lol.
Besides it also being morally superior.

>b-but we don't have meritocracy in our capitalism!
Yeah, fag. That's because you gay bitches, instead of supporting the only thing that makes riches, which is economic individualism, and instead of focusing your fight on destroying lobbyism and meristocratic barriers,
instead of doing something decent
you
sit
bitching
about
how "t-the one percent has to m-much"
while ignoring pic related.

I've done both you retard. I aced every logic class, getting grades in the 90s very easily when I was at university. It's much harder (in some ways) to come up with good and original inferential argument, and to actively read and take the most out of rhetorical material. It always requires creative and critical thinking, ingenuity and perseverance. If STEM subjects are more difficult, it's mostly because of the tedium of learning a lot of the material.

Mathematics isn't hard either, it just requires dedication.

The fact that you're making these distinctions, anyway, just shows your immaturity. It's pointless to debate "how hard" things are, like that is indicative of their merit.

This was meant for:

You're assuming that everyone is responsible for their own abilities and determination though. Liberal egalitarian political philosophers would argue that you aren't necessarily responsible for your own ability to achieve. So would Marxists.

The implication of your argument is also a minimisation of the role society plays in allowing individuals to achieve in the first place. Everyone makes their money in the system we all live in. Just because you take a specific role in society, one that other members have necessarily helped you achieve, does not mean that you should profit grotesquely disproportionately to everyone else, yeah?

That's a purely aesthetic argument

i doubt you aced logic classes

its much harder to come up with breakthroughs in STEM..because its harder

there has never been a humanity achievement that requires the raw intellect that Einstein did with General Relativity or String Theory

>b-but we don't have meritocracy in our capitalism!

> Yeah, fag. That's because you gay bitches, instead of supporting the only thing that makes riches, which is economic individualism, and instead of focusing your fight on destroying lobbyism and meristocratic barriers, instead of doing something decent

this is a really weak argument because it stipulates that for meritocracy to work as you outline it, everyone has to think like you and embrace your version of meritocracy as just and moral. But that's an extreme and most would say impossible goal to meet. It's a bit like saying we could end all war if we just convinced people that killing is always wrong. Or we could end all rape if we just educated people not to rape. In the end these sorts of arguments are just idle talk that propose no real solution to anything.

>i doubt you aced logic classes

Do you have an inferiority complex which compels you to judge the intellectual merit of certain activities and other people. You have no basis to doubt my grades in logic.

Logic IS able to be aced, because there is usually a right answer, at least when you study it as an undergraduate. There are no "right" answers for most of the humanities, and because of this, it requires a different kind of intelligence.

If you must know, my best grade for a logic class in my undergraduate degree was 97. My best grade for other subjects (including humanities subjects) was 92.

I honestly doubt you've ever taken a humanities subject.

>there has never been a humanity achievement that requires the raw intellect

The fact that you're saying this indicates you aren't experienced in the humanities. There are no "achievements" in the way there are in science, that whole sentiment makes no sense. You can't have a "breakthrough" in humanities.

>raw intellect that Einstein did with General Relativity or String Theory

There have been geniuses who've dedicated themselves to other fields other than science, you know, including humanities, the arts, finance, whatever. Science doesn't have a monopoly on smart people. It's just far easier for most people to tell if people are incredibly talented in science, because of the way it operates.

Maybe your university just sucks at humanities or something.

Never really put determinism and free will in the equation. That's actually really interesting, since it seems to explain more about why leftists view economic inequality (someone having more than other) as bad.

I'd like your opinion on something, however. You know demand and supply, right? Those jobs that pay more are often this way because of simple supply and demand. And money is a motivation for people to choose many jobs that society needs.

We're stuck in this little war forever. Or at least until we can achieve our perfect utopia of genetic modification and robots serving us. I just like to be, non-dogmatically, defending that position that's the most viable to follow until we achieve that and talk shit to commies. However, as I said with "non-dogmatically" and showed with the reply above, I'm willing to change my opinion. The last thing I want to be is delusional.

Forgot a fucking sentence, mr I'd like to know what would be the social coercion for people to put effort in difficult jobs, in your ideal society.

the fact that you said mathematics isn't hard and just requires remembering huge amounts of material puts all what you said into question

cause you would know that mathematics is extremely creative...look up Von Neumann and Grothendieck?

>I'd like your opinion on something, however. You know demand and supply, right? Those jobs that pay more are often this way because of simple supply and demand. And money is a motivation for people to choose many jobs that society needs.
>I'd like to know what would be the social coercion for people to put effort in difficult jobs, in your ideal society.

This is the problem all communists face, and die hard leftists have never come up with a particularly convincing answer to how it would work. Many Marxists think they will eventually solve this problem, the problem of getting people to work efficiently without the competitive incentive, and I'll briefly go over a few answers that have been given.

Marx himself thought that if people were no longer oppressed by a ruling class and were no longer alienated from the products of their labour, that they would feel an incentive just to contribute to society and an enjoyment of work. He thought the only reason people don't like working that much, and why they might not want to work, is because their work was alienating as a result of capitalism. Basically it would result in people feeling duty bound to contribute, and if anyone didn't want to do this, Marx basically thought there was something wrong with them.

Obviously there are a few problems with this, and people have pointed them out over time. Firstly, not everyone wants to be communst, and the experiments with the USSR's communism showed that you can't necessarily convince everyone to feel like they're in a brotherhood of man.

So this leads to the darker side of communist thought: That people people should be brutally forced into roles and dissenters should be violently punished until society sort of starts to become more stable and naturally communist. This is basically Leninism.

Others believe that you can allow people to make quite a bit more money than others, but that there should be a cap and perhaps that there should be a limit to the amount of income individuals of the business class can make from their corporate ventures.

Many disagree with Marx, that a communist society will emerge suddenly as the result of resolution, especially now in our late capitalist age. But instead they believe that society will eventually become more and more abundant, and our moral and ethical structures can be replaced, gradually and naturally, to be more "duty" bound, harkening back to Marx. That is, that it will become shameful not to contribute, even if a lot of your money goes to the infirm, sick, or those unable to work. In this sort of society, it would be deeply shameful to be able bodied but unemployed, or to not pull your weight. Some say this could only work in small communities, syndicalism.
Anyway, I'm no expert, by any means. I'm barely even a marxist. Sorry I didn't really take much time with this.

I'm aware of that.

But the higher ends of any field are like that. They require genius, intense abstract thought, creativity etc.

>I'd like your opinion on something, however. You know demand and supply, right? Those jobs that pay more are often this way because of simple supply and demand. And money is a motivation for people to choose many jobs that society needs.

Also, those jobs that get more money generally still do in communist countries. Doctors get paid very well, for instance. Not that I'm saying any communist country that has existed has been a great place to live.

In regards to the supply and demand issue. Just take corporations for instance. Marxists argue that corporations push and create desires (fetishized products that people don't need) simply to keep capital movement. It is true though, that corporations also fulfil many demands of society, but marxists would argue that the amount of compensation the organisers (CEOs, board members etc) is disproportionate compared to their level of input, education and labour, and also unfairly disproportionate to the payment the labourers at the bottom receive.

That is, that supply and demand can still exist and be satisfied by businesses, but there have ebeen experiments in some countries where corporate structures are more or less democraically controlled by the workers, who are all give shares, although there are still managers etc.

I know this is poorly written but I'm pressed for time.

I would say humanities is way easier to pass in than STEM subjects, but harder to really highly perform in.

That's irrelevant.
>I took a 100 level history course once: the post

Holy fug.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Not even memeing.

a rather large number of philosophers of merit are marxist, or work in a marxist paradigm, or who are influenced by marx in some way.

>marx calc 1.jpg
>having anti-marx images saved on your HDD
The ideology is strong in this one.

Got tired of quoting all these posts so this will have to do. Why are you so hung up on this weird ad hominem about Marx "not understanding calculus"? Even supposing this were true, what relevance does it have to the truth value of his social theories? The fact that you don't seem to realize this makes me seriously doubt your critical thinking capabilities. Also, just wanted to point out that 'Marxism' is a method of analysis that was started by Marx AND Engels and has since been expanded by many other philosophers. It is not merely the writings of Karl Marx.

Side Note: Your insistence on "science" and "anything that requires actual thought" reveals your own deeply rooted ideological biases and contempt for the arts and humanities. What are you even doing on a literature board, let alone in a philosophy thread? I suspect you have not read a single page of anything Marx wrote, nor would you be able to comprehend it if you attempted to.

Just like you have a contempt for science, mathematics and logic

you probably never tried to understand String Theory,or you probably just don't have the intellect to comprehend it

Plenty of them are, because ressentiment is experiencing a remarkable renaissance in the 21st century.

>Just like you have a contempt for science, mathematics and logic
I never said or implied this. It's also not true. I simply don't exclude all other academic pursuits from having any value or "requiring any actual thought" as you ignorantly put it.

>you probably never tried to understand String Theory,or you probably just don't have the intellect to comprehend it
I have never tried. In all likelihood I probably wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of it. Everyone has different strengths, smart guy. Yours obviously isn't constructing a coherent argument because you replied to my post with irrelevant personal attacks. Just like your irrelevant personal attacks directed towards Marx. The difference between us is that I don't go onto the science board and shitpost about how String Theory "doesn't require actual thought".

What part of the Western world are you whining in? Certainly not in the vicinity of any academics, that's for sure.

Anyway, I think part of the issue is that our current Zeitgeist is very accommodating untoward Marxism. You'd have to try very hard to find anyone who doesn't agree with at least a few of Marxism's claims/principles/etc, which testifies to how successfully it has subverted the Western (and even global) psyche. This has been achieved via education/media/etc, but unlike most I don't think it's down to any sort of conspiracy. Every ideology propagates itself with whatever means it can.

What we're seeing in recent times however, is the subversive being subverted - namely, Marxism/Class Struggle/etc has been subverted by Identity Politics. This is why you can find plenty of 'old school'/'old guard' Marxists on Lefty/pol/ and elsewhere, complaining endlessly about the fact that Identity Politics is some sort of bourgeois distraction from Class Warfare/Struggle/etc (an actual conspiracy theory).

Are none of you cretins going to acknowledge this genius right here??

It went without saying desu

>This is why you can find plenty of 'old school'/'old guard' Marxists on Lefty/pol/ and elsewhere, complaining endlessly about the fact that Identity Politics is some sort of bourgeois distraction from Class Warfare/Struggle/etc (an actual conspiracy theory).
Sounds pretty tin foil hat but there is some truth to it. Notice how class is discussed by the new wave of leftists focused on feminism/race/LGBT/etc rarely if at all. The fact is that many of these people are from backgrounds middle class or better.

Disclaimer 1: race/gender/sexuality/etc. are super important and there should absolutely be dialogue about how people are marginalized by these factors
Disclaimer 2: I don't think it's a "distraction" from social class. I just think that the people who tend to be vocal about this stuff gloss over class because it's a privilege they have that they would rather not acknowledge.

Also, to be honest, class is the most important privilege. You can be a genderqueer pansexual POC womyn, but if your parents are wealthy, you have infinitely more opportunity and "privilege" than a straight, white man born into abject poverty. This is why it's frustrating that the identity politics crowd stubbornly refuses to ally with the lower class.

marx is shit
funny since most die hard followers of Marx usually start from the middle class or higher

What did he mean by this? It seems like a prelude before jumping with shit about how tribes in african are the ones who have it figured out

Well he didn't have much to offer in terms of pure philosophy. Kant basically destroys him.

With it being Evola, he was probably pointing towards something esoteric/spiritual. I prefer Nietzsche's spin on things, however: genius and greatness matter most.

>Kant

That Russian guy that got into a fight over kant, was he for kant or against him?

>why are only a small portion of philosophers in the western world marxist?
Because of Marx's economism.

All you need to understand the world in an economistic mindset is economics.

Religion, ideology, etc. are all due to the economic system, a superstructure over the economic base.

If you believe that and live by that, you wouldn't be a philosopher, you'd be an economist.

Yes >>>>>>Kant You unread 20-something.

...

That's an interesting take on things, I honestly don't believe besides the religion one though, I think most art is apolitical

All art is still influenced by the economic situation at the time of it's birth

> I think most art is apolitical

That's certainly an interesting opinion. Care to share your reasoning? I think its the opposite.

I might retract my statement, but I just don't think politics play that big of a part in art

Because Marx is a materialist(Both historical *and* philosophical), and materialism is unfalsifiable nonsense.

Because outside of the weak minded and evil, most people found out that red ideals are best left on the ash pile of history.

Renaissance of Ressentiment in the 21 century is much more linked to the rapidly rising numbers of people sharing Natsoc and fascist views, in reaction to marxist brainwashing

^This, even Cohen dropped materialism

>materialism is unfalsifiable nonsense.

Elaborate.

It is impossible to gather direct evidence of matter, as there is no direct experience of matter; all that is experienced is perception, whether internal or external. As such, the existence of matter can only be assumed from the apparent (perceived) stability of perceptions; it finds absolutely no evidence in direct experience.

Stefan Molyneux

Why would philosophers be Marxists?

>differential calculus is high-school leven somewhere in this planet right now
just fuck my shit up. i wasn't taught limits until college.
>tfw i'll never be on the same level as 1st worlders no matter how much i try
STEM WAS A MISTAKE

Base vs Super structure isn't true

You both said sorry. So cute, man.
Thanks for the replies! Enjoyed reading them. It helped me understand a little more.

Nick Land

Imagine if we could try like a randomized trial for Marxism. Like maybe cut a country in half and make one capitalist and the other marxist and see what would happen.

oh wait, we already did this twice and the exact same thing happened both times

Vietnam was successful

Nietzscheans always talk about ressentiment, like Fred himself wasn't super butthurt about the lower classes and unattractive people.

"In origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest class: Socrates was plebs. We know,
we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an
objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all?
Ugliness is often enough the expression of a development that has been crossed,
thwarted by crossing. Or it appears as declining development. The
anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly:
monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo . [“monster in face, monster in soul”] But
the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? At least that would
not be contradicted by the famous judgment of the physiognomist which sounded
so offensive to the friends of Socrates. A foreigner who knew about faces once
passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum --
that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely
answered: "You know me, sir!"
Socrates' decadence is suggested not only by the admitted wantonness and
anarchy of his instincts, but also by the hypertrophy of the logical faculty and that
barbed malice which distinguishes him. Nor should we forget those auditory
hallucinations which, as "the daimonion of Socrates," have been interpreted
religiously. Everything in him is exaggerated, buffo , a caricature; everything is at
the same time concealed, ulterior, subterranean. I seek to comprehend what
idiosyncrasy begot that Socratic equation of reason, virtue, and happiness: that
most bizarre of all equations which, moreover, is opposed to all the instincts of
the earlier Greeks."

But he looked pretty ok though, and if plato buttfucked him he must've been cute at some point

It was socrates who buttfucked plato lmao

The greatest cultures do not operate on Marxism, so no one gives a shit about it. That's why.

>Implying

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

He deemed the ugly and the plebeian inferior - that does not at all imply butthurt.

Merely disgust and disdain, which is a world away from what ressentiment implies:

>(T)he problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has thought it out for himself, demands some conclusion. It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good?" then there is nothing to carp with in this ideal's establishment, though the birds of prey may regard it a little mockingly, and maybe say to themselves, "We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb."

All cultures today operate on capitalism, therefore they operate on "Marxism"