Incredibly complex philosophical concept [a] that has been historically re-interpreted through different centuries with...

...

External reasons do not exist.

Any reason which a subject has to do something intentionally is the result of some motivation the subject already has. So, a socialist state could only exist if the entire population had a subjective motivational set such that every individual had reason to do work for the benefit of the collective and at the same time had reason to believe that every one else was doing the same.

This is why Marxism does not work. Because you cannot control people's desires, the state must motivate the population by way of fear and force. Capitalist societies do not have this problem because individuals are self motivated to work and make money for themselves and thus benefit society as a whole indirectly.

The socialist system would work only by way of genetically engineering people to be something other than human.

This kills the Marxist, and this is the reason why your professor thought Marxism could be readily dismissed.

That would be great if it weren't for three things.
1) You haven't defined any terms
2) You haven't presented an argument in a proper logical form
3) Marx advocated the withering away of the state

Does there exist any other forms of knowledge which are not either A Priori or A Posteriori?

All that is claimed is that you rely more heavily on one or the other.

It was really demoralizing because this was the last philosophy class I took before getting my B.A. I realized then just how much of a scam philosophy programs are at universities are. I'd suspected it for most of the time I was in school, but this seminar was what confirmed all of my worst fears.

>study German idealism and Greek philosophy intensively for decades in the first half of the 19th century
>a German friend of mine tells me to read this new book by this new, young German philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche
>read it
>realize that what I have studied was bullshit all along
>realize what the future really looks like
>mfw I the Veeky Forums part from my /litfit/ essence, embracing only the Veeky Forums part, in a life of physical excellence and mindless, almost brutish hedonism

5,5/10

The problem is that it's inaccurate to describe Aristotle as being an empiricist but not a rationalist. There are plenty of places, like in the Metaphysics, where Aristotle veers off into rationalism. There is absolutely a speculative side to Aristotle, and calling him an empiricist in contrast to the 'rational' Plato (whose mystical inclinations are far from the rationalism of the future, especially when the word 'rational' is a derivative of a Latin term that Plato never used.
The empiricist/rationalist dialectic was a distinctly modern one, and even then the line isn't nearly as clear-cut as Kantians would have you believe.

>what about hooman nature margs? ;)
You act as though people fucking enjoy working under a capitalist system which they don't. You act as though people will only ever work for money, which they don't. You only present two possible scenarios in your entire argument, with the other being a negation of the first, and act as though these are the only possibilities which could ever be conjured.
>capitalist states don't motivate people with force and fear
LAUGHING MY FUCKING ASS OFF RIGHT NOW FAMILY!

1) I'm not going to post Bernard Willams's entire essay on Internal and External Reasons for action in this thread. Here is a link
plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/#Int

2) I am not going to present the argument in a "proper" logical form, see the essay for that.

3) Even if Marx advocated for the withering away of the state, I am arguing that the socialist state is nevertheless absolutely necessary for motivating people to (giving reasons for action) work for the benefit of the collective rather than themselves directly.

>I can only think in rigorous proofs.
There is a time and a place. To demand that level of rigour in a casual conversation with a stranger is akin to demanding your food pre-chewed. Be bold enough to masticate and digest your own mental nourishment once in a while.

I hope you realize that I'm not advocating for socialism, just telling a story in which an emeritus professor teaching a seminar on political philosophy and distributive justice only mentioned Marxism once in an offhand, comical manner.

If you're going to make a bold claim about the nature of the mind and of society, then you ought to be willing to back it up with reason and evidence. Fortunately that poster provided a link to an essay.

>You act as though people fucking enjoy working under a capitalist system
Enjoyment isn't the issue here, but a system that fundamentally aligns with natural human conclusions about causality.

Of course people don't only work for money, in the same way that vintners don't always press grapes for the wine that is the end product.

I can't excuse all of that user's posts because they're being extraordinarily sloppy, but hopefully I can set you straight on some of your confusion.

>but a system that fundamentally aligns with natural human conclusions about causality.
This is astoundingly vague.

It would be nice if you didn't straw-man my post, bro.

The point is, the capitalist system does not have to tell you to work because the individual motivations (like the desire to eat and the desire to do only the necessary amount of work to satisfy said desire) already provide the individual with a reason to work.

If the individual knows that he will be provided food by the state and that his desire to eat food is satisfied, then what reason does he have to work to make food? He will eat whether he works or not, and even if there is some penalty leveled against him for not working, then he would only have a reason to do the minimum requirement of work.

Marxism is a doctrine that was made with an impoverished view of reasons for action, and these misconceptions of reasons for human action are the fatal flaw of Marxism.

This flaw has manifested itself in the real world many times already and every proponent of Marxism denies this fact saying that X failed state was not real Marxism.

All of this is evidence that Marxists are deceiving themselves because they are not motivated to know whether or not Marxism is right or wrong about being the ideal system, they just want it to be right.

It's not about rationalism, it is about on what form of knowledge the philosopher relies most heavily.

It is in essence deduction vs induction.

>infallibility is bad because muh reddit
infallibility is unfalsifiable.

>The point is, the capitalist system does not have to tell you to work because the individual motivations (like the desire to eat and the desire to do only the necessary amount of work to satisfy said desire) already provide the individual with a reason to work.
But the capitalist system DOES have to tell you to work. In no country did a working class spontaneously emerge out of nowhere. Claiming that there isn't a coercive aspect of capitalism is ridiculous.

Stoicism is trash.

The idea that Aristotle and Plato are fundamentally at odds with each other is just plain fucking wrong, though. Where exactly is the difference that you're talking about? Can you please provide specific textual examples?

>External reasons do not exist.
Why?

>rejecting knowledge entirely
>proper mysticism (revelation/divination)
>proper nihilism (nothing exists, knowledge is ignorance)
>proper absurdism (knowledge is a poor attempt to rationalize existence)
>proper pragmatism (what I want to know is what I know)
Fucking STEMshitter, taking an intro class doesn't make you an expert. Not everything is so reducible.

>eternal anglo

Aristotle is a refinement of Platonism. 'muh opposing views' is freshman nonsense.

do not take this statement as fact or to have any validity, as it's only my own perspective, and I am of no authority, however, my dealings with people have led me to hold Marxism as the ultimate idealist conception. For never in my life have I, when accompanied by more than 5 people, found universal human appraise for a collective body existing. More over, and to build upon the previous statements, a system in the image of a Marxism doctrine holds not only internal/external reasons as in opposition, but that too of undetermined axiomatic presuppositions on human nature.
I'm aware of the possibility that capitalism has changed our nature, or has obstructed our true selves; but of this we can have no certain proofs. Ironic enough, these proofs are supposed true by a Marxist doctrine, without any validation.
You are to have must discovered the truth of human nature to establish the required philosophical axiom on which Marxism lies; without, you're left with a broken theory, no better than that of any other.
I apologize to the poster I've responded to, for this is more of a general remark, rather than a refutation or an agreement with your comment.
For those in disagreement with me, feel free to enlighten me on the universal truths you must host for your perspective to have validity.
This is not to favor capitalism in any way, but rather to address my own feelings towards Marxism and it's rather irrational nature.

>no dude, you're wrong, man.
You are presupposing the coercion. State the coercive aspect of Capitalism if you want to have a real debate. If it is "le really obvious XDD," then it should not be difficult to do so.
At no point did I say that they are at odds with each other.

Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are both extremely important, however inductive reasoning is only as good as the deductive argument which stands behind it.

The difference between the two philosophers is only the difference in the approach taken in solving problems.

To put it very roughly:
Plato came to conclusions in a more mathematical fashion.
Aristotle came to conclusions in a more scientific fashion.

These are not my personal conclusions on reading their work, they are merely what I gathered from the statement in question:
Every man is either a virtual Plato or a virtual Aristotle.

So is the concept of enjoyment.

You're right that the reason for activity under capitalism is located outside anyone individual and imposed by the cyclical forces of the business cycle but what capitalism does is progressively it destroys the necessity for "work" but at the same time ties the distribution of its product to work itself
The amount of labour personified in food decreases and less and less work is necessary to produce the same amount of food while our intake is limited by physiological factors
Capitalism is progressive because it destroys work and the necessity to work but it is contradictory because it cannot adequately deal with its own progressive powers to eliminate the necessity of work altogether
You got to wonder if individuals can control their own activity without external forces because that's where capitalism is moving us, if you think no then we are going to end up a totalitarian mess

>Every man is either a virtual Plato or a virtual Aristotle.
Wrong.
>Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are both extremely important
Wrong.

In order to support any claim about the proper organization of society, one must have an understanding or at least be able to present an argument in favor of a particular view on human nature. What you say isn't applicable solely to Marxism, it's applicable to any system that makes unfounded claims about how human beings behave in relation to each other and the world in which they live.

I'm aware of this and, albeit vague, applied it to my disconnect with capitalism as well, towards the bottom of my post.

This has to be the best post I've read all day.

>You are presupposing the coercion.
"You need to sell your labor to a capitalist or starve to death" isn't coersive? "You need to stop striking or the state will send in security forces to break the strike" isn't coercive?
This doesn't clarify anything at all.

To point out hubris is only edifying if the listener is equipped for it.

Look, faggot, I want to understand what you're saying. Do you want me to understand you or not? If not then please, keep doing what you're doing.

Trying to understand an ahistoric universal "human nature" is wrong-headed. I doubt palaeolithic man had the same psychological motives, fears, etc, etc as modern man has imposed upon him. You can talk about how social structures impose upon our physiology and psychology and such and conditions our root nature. Capital follows its own developmental logic and imposes its necessities onto humans. Sales and exponential growth have to occur or else bankruptcies and collapse follows. Ancient societies "had to" offer sacrifices to gods to have good crop harvests and impose social codes to preserve society from collapse. This all changes.

"You need to do whatever it takes to get food or starve to death" isn't coercive; it simply informs on the natural state of caloric dependence exhibited by living things.

Your false dilemmas in the either/or form are pretty disingenuous.

No, the reason for activity is located in the individual.

An individual only has a reason to do something if and only if they already possess some sufficient motivation.

The aim of capitalism is to make individual work more effective and thus give the individual more time to do what they want. Capitalism saves people time and energy, that is why our society can afford to feed people who do nothing but study at a university.

You mean to tell me that deductive and inductive reasoning are NOT extremely important?
Are you mad?

Nothing is stopping you from moving to the country side and living off of subsistence agriculture. You do have a choice in the matter.

Paleolithic man only had a reason to do something if he already possessed some sufficient motivation to do so.

>No, the reason for activity is located in the individual.
We must do what the market demands, individuals in key positions manage and design those demands but overall the reason for activity is a result of market forces.

>An individual only has a reason to do something if and only if they already possess some sufficient motivation.
The motives are generated outside but the final indiscretion comes from within.

>The aim of capitalism is to make individual work more effective and thus give the individual more time to do what they want. Capitalism saves people time and energy, that is why our society can afford to feed people who do nothing but study at a university.
I agree the effect of capitalism is to continuously increase the efficiency of productive methods and techniques but capitalism has no means to diminish the time we actually spend working [beyond legally imposed regulations on the work day which is a political thing]. All that capitalism can do is increase quanity and quality of output without constraints, the more you produce the more you must sell. Our energy efficiency increases but our consumption continuously increases.

I didn't say "You need to do whatever it takes to get food or starve to death." I was referring to strike-breaking. If you weren't retarded then you'd realize that the use of force to make workers return to work is a form of coercion.
>The aim of capitalism is to make individual work more effective and thus give the individual more time to do what they want. Capitalism saves people time and energy, that is why our society can afford to feed people who do nothing but study at a university.
y o w z a

Firstly that's illegal and secondly that's psychotic behaviour

ok I get it, you're trying to get at some type of pure praxeological reasoning here. If you want to totally reject sociology altogether go for it but you'll end up with a shallow understanding of real activity

That isn't in any sense a response to my point about strike-breaking. And I also don't have the money to buy land on which to grow my own food, or the experience necessary to grow food for myself and the family that I don't have.

I don't know where you live. However, this is not possible in many European countries. Either due to lack of space (Benelux), or because you aren't exempt from high taxation on property (Scandinavia). Also, people in third world desert countries can't do this, either because of war, terror or poor weather and tech.

>how DARE YOU QUESTION MY IDEOLOGY

>a guy this dumb is calling others retarded
You give ideology a bad name.

Capitalism forces business owners to increase their profits. If not they will go bankrupt. Which means they will have to innovate. Sadly it is a lot easier to just exploit both humans and nature. Saving money by not dealing with waste, and instead, they dump it wherever, which leads to ecosystems being destroyed and even human drink water supplies being poisoned. The increased production has lead to unnaturally high concentrations of gasses in the atmosphere. And we don't know exactly how they will affect the climate. With most scientists fairly assuming the worst. The standard of living will go down in the west. Either due to workplaces moving overseas, or businesses going bankrupt, which means more people without work. Or due to immigration by people from exploited countries, which causes the labor force to increase, and with it, the wages to drop due to increased demand for work. Welfare programs have to be cut due to more people on welfare. Or taxes increased which means less money to spend. Which again causes businesses to lose profits, either directly due to taxes or due to less spending power. Capitalism is like shooting yourself in the foot. And only by a miracle are we still standing, but only by forcing the rest of the world to live like peasants. The problem is that we are moving towards steady-state capitalism. Where no profits can be made, due to risking ecological catastrophe, or to risking market instability and bankrupting a country or two. This would require either extreme human coordination, without anyone trying to backstab the rest of humanity for profits (like how America and China don't want to deal with CO2 pollution). Or a totalitarian world government. Sounds familiar? Capitalism will lead to the same thing people claim communism will lead us to. And no, I don't have a failsafe solution.

I don't see an argument or anything resembling one.

Just an observation and an accusation.

OK, thanks for your input.

>strike-breaking
The strikes only need to be broken if there is some form of *collective bargaining* present, which would not be allowed under a capitalist system. There would be no need to break the strike if it wasn't illegal for the company in question to fire striking employees and hire new ones.
>praxeological reasoning
I'm not saying that everything that humans do is purposeful. My argument only involves intentional behavior (purposeful behavior) which does not reject society entirely because the argument is a general one. A society can give an individual reason to do something insofar as it affects that individual's motivations.

I also don't know what kind of messed up society makes it illegal to become a subsistence farmer. You might believe that it is psychotic, but that does not mean and individual who is motivated to do so would also have a reason to do so.

>We must do what the market demands
That is backwards, the market only does what the individuals demand. The market does not control your desires. The market only acts on some preexisting desire which the individual already possesses.

>The motives are generated outside but the final indiscretion comes from within
Sure, your motivations are a result of your desires and you do not get to choose what you desire. This point is irrelevant because society does not determine desires. Society only acts on preexisting desires.

>capitalism has no means to diminish the time we actually spend working
You agreed that capitalism increases the efficiency of producing goods. So, if at time T you needed to work 4 hours in order to buy a chicken and at time T+1 (after the capitalist system increased the efficiency of farming chickens) you now only have to work 2 hours to buy a comparable chicken, then you have been saved 2 hours of your time which you could spend on whatever else you so desire. Thus Capitalism saves people time.

>arguing about capitalism without defining what is is and isn't capitalism - where it starts and where it ends, both in theory and in practice
>blowing your load on impotent cockfencing over a strawman ideology
I suppose those with a poor sense of history really are doomed to repeat it.

>collective bargaining is not allowed under a capitalist system
wat
>the market only does what the individuals demand.
So individuals are conditioned by their material need for food, but not by social forces?
>I also don't know what kind of messed up society makes it illegal to become a subsistence farmer
lol

Stop writing about Plato and Aristotle, you have no clue what you're talking about.

>some autist claiming that reason is an ideology
how can you put your shoe on in the morning if you do not use reason to do so?
The answer is, you can't.

>mu-mu-muh book tell me reason are bad
you cannot stop reason just like you cannot stop physics. It is simply a brute fact of the real world that there exist reasons for why things happen and no matter how many books you read you will not be able to escape it even in death because there is a reason why you died and there is a reason why you killed your self.

>collective bargaining is not allowed under a capitalist system
That made me laugh, too. It reminded me of a conversation the other day where an user insisted that Free Market ideologies suffered no middle ground, only an ideologically pure Free Market belonged; whereas Protectionism covered the entire rest of the spectrum.

>So individuals are conditioned by their material need for food, but not by social forces?
So social forces aren't determined by individuals and the environment they are a part of?
Do you even soft-determinism bro?

>So social forces aren't determined by individuals and the environment they are a part of?
I didn't say that, did I? You're the one implying that the relationship goes one way. It's a matter of overdetermination.

>it isn't an ideology because i said so
kekek
>The answer is, you can't.
Your point?
Facts don't exist.

Why do you keep mentioning books? I barely read.

>if people weren't paid to work they'd just play video games until they starved to death!
ok dad

Do you even know what collective bargaining is?
No, you clearly don't.

Collective bargaining (striking) only works if most or all of the employees choose not to work. By them not working and by the business being unable to replace those workers (thus being unable to make money) the striking workers are able to demand something of the business. This ability to collectively bargain is achieved by forming a union. The union is able to maintain control of the business by forcing (usually by law) new employees to join the union.

In a capitalist system, you are allowed to form unions. However, you are unable to force new employees to join the union, and you are unable to prevent the business from firing employees who are striking. Because of this, striking does not cause the business to capitulate to demands made by the strikers, and this is because the business can simply choose to fire the striking employees, then hire new ones. So, striking will only result in losing your job in the capitalist system.

Therefore, a capitalist system will not allow a law to be made such that it prevents a business from replacing striking workers.

>Collective bargaining (striking)
Stopped reading there.

>claims facts don't exits
>the claim is necessarily a fact if true
>but facts don't exist, so it can't be true

Nice static paradox you have there bud.

>paradox
There's that ideology of yours again

I knew a kid like you in university. He would always wander into an empty room and record himself for youtube talking about economics and the problems with society. Long story short after some months he was reported to security for some shady actions and it turned out he didn't even study there, he was just some bum who recorded sessions in a classroom setting to - in his own words "lend some credibility to his theories in the eyes of youtube viewers".

You can't escape ideology, only put it to good use.

>good use
More of your ideology

The ad hominem is rich.

Go run off to your safe space pal. Let the adults talk for a bit.

>You agreed that capitalism increases the efficiency of producing goods. So, if at time T you needed to work 4 hours in order to buy a chicken and at time T+1 (after the capitalist system increased the efficiency of farming chickens) you now only have to work 2 hours to buy a comparable chicken, then you have been saved 2 hours of your time which you could spend on whatever else you so desire. Thus Capitalism saves people time.

Ironically that time you saved doesn't show up on your paycheck. You know how this goes right? Save more and more time, until there is close to no work left to do. Most of the people don't have to do work, and can't earn money in a capitalist society. Because free handouts would hurt profits.

>adults
You think that the only form of collective bargaining is striking, I find it hard to believe that you're an adult.

>people who criticize society just aren't successful and deserve to be homeless bums

please tell me this isn't what you wrote

>*punches stoicist user in the face*
>???

This is the Deep&Edgy I remember.

is this the real D&E?

Not everything is a parable. He wasn't funny because he was a bum or because he criticized society; he was funny because he was a pretender.

The time saved does not show up on your paycheck because the time saved is what you can buy with respect to the money you get from your pay check.

The point is: you do not have to spend all of your time working just to feed yourself any more. You can now spend that money you have left over on books or something else you want.

What about this is hard to understand?

>The point is: you do not have to spend all of your time working just to feed yourself any more. You can now spend that money you have left over on books or something else you want.
Who is the 'you' in this situation? I'm confused as to why you think people no longer need to pay for food and water.

I honestly don't get philosophy at all. It all just seems like dicking around with abstract symbols and terminology.

I dont have any stories to tell because Im a loser who couldn't get into college

I doubt you read my original post.

I in no way suggested that striking is the only form of collective bargaining. I merely explained how striking works and that it is a form of collective bargaining.

Stop being disingenuous, and stop misrepresenting what people say. Children do that.

>benefit society as a whole indirectly.

Are you retarded?

Let me spell this out for you.

If I have $10 and the food that I need costs $10, then if I do buy the food I have $0 left.

If I have $10 and the food that I need now costs only $5, then if I do buy the food I have $5 left over. I could then chose to spend that $5 on something other than food because I already have enough.

Is there anything wrong with this reasoning?

You are lying through your teeth, my man. That or English is not your first language and you are wrong to berate others for your clumsiness with it.

Is what was written not an example of collective bargaining?

You literally defined "collective bargaining" as "striking," e.g.
>Collective bargaining (striking) only works if most or all of the employees choose not to work
Now you're just backpedaling. It's pretty embarrassing

col·lec·tive bar·gain·ing
kəˈlektiv ˈbärɡ(ə)niNG/
noun
noun: collective bargaining
negotiation of wages and other conditions of employment by an organized body of employees.

You guys don't know what you're talking about. That is an example of collective bargaining.

A body of workers could bargain collectively without choosing not to work. By saying
>Collective bargaining (striking) only works if most or all of the employees choose not to work.
you have equated all collective bargaining with striking, which is a false equivalency by virtue of the definition you yourself have posted.

You are an abysmally poor debater. I would pity you if I met you IRL

That is a simplification of how capitalism works. We now assume chicken will take half of the time to produce, this means that we can produce double the amount of chicken in the original time. The labor value of chicken has thereby gone down. Since it only requires half the payment for the labor performed per chicken. This doesn't result in the price of chicken going down, it results in the price of chicken staying the same. The owner gets to pocket the money from selling double the amount of chicken than usually. Now comes the race to the bottom. Owners will sell at lower prices than the original price to outsell their competitors. Until the competition between the chicken farm owners has reached a point where they can't ask less for their chicken. The total price of chicken has now become cheaper and people can afford more chicken. This is the usual story of progress and innovation.

What it doesn't take into account is that the race to the bottom will cause many problems. If a business can't follow up on the innovation used by others, they will go bankrupt. Which means people lose jobs. No jobs, no money, no chicken. The businesses which can obtain a monopoly might even decide to not lower prices, while others might make agreements to not lower prices. Which means the innovation didn't change anything. Some might just innovate and not keep workload constant, keeping the price the same, while using fewer resources (including labor) to create the same amount of chicken. Which again means people without work or money. Sometimes there isn't a market large enough for chicken, which would result in the same as last mentioned example. This is without even mentioning how this innovation/progress came into play. Modern farms have animals who are barely able to stand, some pigs can't even walk, chickens fight each other due to crowded spaces, or can't move at all in small cages. Overproduction leads to poor resource management. It is efficient but not renewable. The rain forests are an example of this, also elements used in computers are becoming more scarce while tech becomes more widespread. Pollution is a common problem as well.

The cycle comes to a halt once innovation can't be brought further. This is the end of the line. Businesses will have to lay off workers to decrease costs, increase work hours to decrease costs, decrease wages to decrease costs. The only way to stop this is if the companies agree on set work hours and wages, which are enforced by government institutions. You might think: "Great that is what we did". Except they just moved companies to countries without these laws. So it only stops with a one world government. Now ask youself if that sounds great.