In order to have process; i.e. actions; i.e, motion, you need entities with identities that interact over time. If you doubt this, and I hope you do, try and have a process without something proceeding and time through which they proceed. For motion, you need space, time, entities and energy
So, turns out to be that Dialectical Materialism method is just a method for rationalization. As Hegel ignores the fact that the concepts of unity and plurality are based on the concepts of entity and individual identity, by which one can build classifications and know that a "one" is included in the "many", he proceeds to call unity and plurality as contradictory out of dumbness. Then, as Marx adopts that epistemology, he just adapts it slightly to conform to his materialistic premises. As such, diamat is just avowed negation of logic and praise of whim.
@@SpacePatrollerLaser I have no ability to change anything after posting. Do you? Many posts, mine and others, have been cut off. And sometimes I cant find something I posted. YT has programming bugs.
@@TeaParty1776 Yes. I'm using a touchscreen so you'll have to figure out how to do it with the mouse. move the pointer to the right (always a good idea) of your post. You should see a small column of dots, click on it there should arise an image of a pencil with a trash can under it. Move over it and click. Your post should change to edit mode. Make your changes then click either "Cancel" or "Save"
Honestly i wish i could have gotten more out of this. Knowing what i do now, it is nearly impossible to regress my mind to the point where these teachings could have been something worthy of devoting my life toward.
Your discussion of the Young Hegelians appears to be the roots of Existentialism more than Kierkegaard. Note the connection between Existentialism and alienation However, I find it to be a bit pointless in one respect. Sometime between late summer 1957 and spring '58, I heard something that nobody seems to have gotten. I forget whether it was on the radio or television while not looking at the screen. It was a report of "The poset-Existentialism Intelligentsia". What it said was that the Intelligentsia is "trading Existentialism fot Nihilism" because " Existentialism does not provide 'answers'". So off I went to my dictionary to look up Nihilsm and what I found was patently absurd. However. It did cause me to "see" two things. 1. A picture that I had of an airport beacon shining out. A black fog appeard at the far ends of thw two beams and gradually obscured them. 2. At the time, it was ckustomary for things like supermarket openings, to create a big splash, to have these giant searchlights beam into the night sky and then "draw" a circle in the sky. What I saw was that scene. What then happened was that the circle dimmed slowly, However it was not that the light was dimming, it was that the nature of light was being changed and obliterated at it's root. That the intellectuals, whose jobs were to ENLIGHTEN were "going there" scared the bejeezis out of me When I found that, in 1959, Rand said "The intellectuals are trying to put themselves out of bsiness" over a decade later. I wondered if she heard this samre report
I was wondering why the comments are so condescending, even for my standarts. Then i looked at the channel name. Yeah i aint watching that. Maybe some prideful Objectivist will be kind enough to give me some pointers, or maybe im innately uninterested in your philosophy, only Rand knows. ('the communists have the music' - great song btw)
To me this is all such speculative nonsense. How did they arrive at the notion that the essence of man is production? Surely that would face some obvious objections.
Brilliant in what sense? I never got that impression...I found him muddled on many points, fantastical on others, and immoral on all. Part of that can be blamed on editing, but the guy should be judged based on his ideas...ideas I will point out that the man did not not change in any real sense from those of his early childhood. Stagnation and dependence...those are the central themes of Marxism. They're the ideas of a child.
@@MegaLotusEater The Manifesto, Das Kapital...mostly Das Kapital. It's largely incomprehensible unless you know something about Marx's life. It's appeal is to like minded parasites who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. I consider Communism to be the slavery people deliver themselves into based on the hope that Socialism will deliver the promise of a "forever kindergarten." I'm more familiar with his ideological predecessor, Hegel. As a young Hegelian Marx proved himself an insufferable bore and a bully to everyone around him. I don't think he worked a single day in his life other than to spew his hatred for productive people.
If contradiction is OK, then dialectics are meaningless since dialectics are to resolve contradictions: Thesis + Anti-thises > New Thesis. If one accepts contradiction then you do not need to resovle them
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I love John's giddyness at times where you can tell he just cannot believe anyone thinks this way. The mirror bit was pretty funny.
I’ve been reading into the topic and have been desperate for some clarification.
Thank you!!!
Are the lecture notes which John Ridpath keeps referring to (as a handout or outline or collection of numbered quotes) available anywhere?
This should really be lecture two of this series.
In order to have process; i.e. actions; i.e, motion, you need entities with identities that interact over time. If you doubt this, and I hope you do, try and have a process without something proceeding and time through which they proceed. For motion, you need space, time, entities and energy
RIP Dr Ridpath
Do you really need a theory of error if you are a determinist?
Wonderfully enlightening, thank you so much for sharing.
There is no determinism in Marxism, do some reading
Ridpath was a great voice of reason.
So, turns out to be that Dialectical Materialism method is just a method for rationalization.
As Hegel ignores the fact that the concepts of unity and plurality are based on the concepts of entity and individual identity, by which one can build classifications and know that a "one" is included in the "many", he proceeds to call unity and plurality as contradictory out of dumbness. Then, as Marx adopts that epistemology, he just adapts it slightly to conform to his materialistic premises. As such, diamat is just avowed negation of logic and praise of whim.
Love the intro music!
My big question to the Marxists regarding motiona and contradiction is "Who's on First?"
Yes.
@@TeaParty1776 This doesn't look like it did the first time I looked at it. Did you doctor it?
@@SpacePatrollerLaser I have no ability to change anything after posting. Do you? Many posts, mine and others, have been cut off. And sometimes I cant find something I posted.
YT has programming bugs.
@@TeaParty1776 Yes. I'm using a touchscreen so you'll have to figure out how to do it with the mouse. move the pointer to the right (always a good idea) of your post. You should see a small column of dots, click on it there should arise an image of a pencil with a trash can under it. Move over it and click. Your post should change to edit mode. Make your changes then click either "Cancel" or "Save"
@@SpacePatrollerLaser How about that! It worked. But I rarely have occasion to edit my posts.
Honestly i wish i could have gotten more out of this. Knowing what i do now, it is nearly impossible to regress my mind to the point where these teachings could have been something worthy of devoting my life toward.
Yes, Marxism is a dead end.
Oh, Hi Brian. Nice and natural to see You here. How are you after seeing that Anti-Rand Cult? I'm honestly dissapointed of USA.
Intuiting a transcendental dialectic is faith in God.
test
Your discussion of the Young Hegelians appears to be the roots of Existentialism more than Kierkegaard. Note the connection between Existentialism and alienation
However, I find it to be a bit pointless in one respect. Sometime between late summer 1957 and spring '58, I heard something that nobody seems to have gotten. I forget whether it was on the radio or television while not looking at the screen. It was a report of "The poset-Existentialism Intelligentsia". What it said was that the Intelligentsia is "trading Existentialism fot Nihilism" because " Existentialism does not provide 'answers'". So off I went to my dictionary to look up Nihilsm and what I found was patently absurd. However. It did cause me to "see" two things. 1. A picture that I had of an airport beacon shining out. A black fog appeard at the far ends of thw two beams and gradually obscured them. 2. At the time, it was ckustomary for things like supermarket openings, to create a big splash, to have these giant searchlights beam into the night sky and then "draw" a circle in the sky. What I saw was that scene. What then happened was that the circle dimmed slowly, However it was not that the light was dimming, it was that the nature of light was being changed and obliterated at it's root. That the intellectuals, whose jobs were to ENLIGHTEN were "going there" scared the bejeezis out of me
When I found that, in 1959, Rand said "The intellectuals are trying to put themselves out of bsiness" over a decade later. I wondered if she heard this samre report
I was wondering why the comments are so condescending, even for my standarts. Then i looked at the channel name. Yeah i aint watching that. Maybe some prideful Objectivist will be kind enough to give me some pointers, or maybe im innately uninterested in your philosophy, only Rand knows. ('the communists have the music' - great song btw)
If some of the new socialist knew that Marx thought that motion is contradiction, there would be less communists and socialists in the world.
Maybe that’s why so many of them are so overweight, socialism would fix that problem though.
@@JudoMateo that's funny 🤣🤣
Man, Brazil's universities are the concrete proof that this assumption is mistaken.
"Senses are valid" would need to be justified in the field of metaphysics. His definition of it is lacking.
To me this is all such speculative nonsense. How did they arrive at the notion that the essence of man is production? Surely that would face some obvious objections.
Marx was a brilliant mind. I wish more people would read him today
Brilliant in what sense? I never got that impression...I found him muddled on many points, fantastical on others, and immoral on all. Part of that can be blamed on editing, but the guy should be judged based on his ideas...ideas I will point out that the man did not not change in any real sense from those of his early childhood.
Stagnation and dependence...those are the central themes of Marxism. They're the ideas of a child.
@@A_friend_of_Aristotle which texts have you studied?
Marx was a leech who drafted the most lethal ideology in human history.
@@conveyor2 So you've never read him.
@@MegaLotusEater The Manifesto, Das Kapital...mostly Das Kapital. It's largely incomprehensible unless you know something about Marx's life. It's appeal is to like minded parasites who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. I consider Communism to be the slavery people deliver themselves into based on the hope that Socialism will deliver the promise of a "forever kindergarten."
I'm more familiar with his ideological predecessor, Hegel. As a young Hegelian Marx proved himself an insufferable bore and a bully to everyone around him. I don't think he worked a single day in his life other than to spew his hatred for productive people.
If contradiction is OK, then dialectics are meaningless since dialectics are to resolve contradictions: Thesis + Anti-thises > New Thesis. If one accepts contradiction then you do not need to resovle them
Neither Marx or Hegel said contradiction is ok. They observed the fact that it exists and that it motors history
bs