Other philosophies/philosophers?

[Sixiang]

This a question aimed towards Marxists on dialectic materialism. Does Marxism reject practically all philosophy? I've read a few times on here that Marx rejected philosophy in general as just distortion of words. So then, as Marxists, are we to reject Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Hegel, etc.? Does Marxism align itself with any other sort of materialism or other materialist philosophers? Is Marxism compatible with any philosophy that is pre-Marx? Are all the classical philosophers wrong in this sense? Is Marxism simply just that? It seems to me that existentialism is incompatible with Marxism, but what about any other sort of philosophy?

[Widerstand]

Dialectic Materialism is inspired by Hegel's dialectic. It's a stretch to say Marxism is opposed to philosophy, as Marxism definitely has philosophical moments, and DM is undeniably a philosophical concept.

Also, Marxism is very much compatible with philosophy. Satre was a Marxist for example.

Operaism, Post-Operaism and Autonomous Marxism combine classical Marxism with ideas of Spinoza and Machiavelli, as well as Post-Structuralism, which although historically opposed to Marxism and posed as an alternative to it, has been picked up by many Marxists (and vice versa).

[Comrade1]

Dialectic Materialism is inspired by Hegel's dialectic. It's a stretch to say Marxism is opposed to philosophy, as Marxism definitely has philosophical moments, and DM is undeniably a philosophical concept.

Also, Marxism is very much compatible with philosophy. Satre was a Marxist for example.

Operaism, Post-Operaism and Autonomous Marxism combine classical Marxism with ideas of Spinoza and Machiavelli, as well as Post-Structuralism, which although historically opposed to Marxism and posed as an alternative to it, has been picked up by many Marxists (and vice versa).
Couldent have said it better myself ^ :lol:

[Sixiang]

Dialectic Materialism is inspired by Hegel's dialectic. It's a stretch to say Marxism is opposed to philosophy, as Marxism definitely has philosophical moments, and DM is undeniably a philosophical concept.

So did Marx praise (maybe that's not the best verb, but I can't really think of another one) any specific philosophers that came before him? I know he came out of the school of Hegel, but I know nothing about Hegel and for some reason I always got the impression that Marx grew to reject his philosophy.

[BIG BROTHER]

So did Marx praise (maybe that's not the best verb, but I can't really think of another one) any specific philosophers that came before him? I know he came out of the school of Hegel, but I know nothing about Hegel and for some reason I always got the impression that Marx grew to reject his philosophy.

He did not reject exactly, but pretty much thought Hegel kinda sold out in his later times.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

patbuck:


This a question aimed towards Marxists on dialectic materialism. Does Marxism reject practically all philosophy? I've read a few times on here that Marx rejected philosophy in general as just distortion of words. So then, as Marxists, are we to reject Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Hegel, etc.? Does Marxism align itself with any other sort of materialism or other materialist philosophers? Is Marxism compatible with any philosophy that is pre-Marx? Are all the classical philosophers wrong in this sense? Is Marxism simply just that? It seems to me that existentialism is incompatible with Marxism, but what about any other sort of philosophy?

Indeed, Marx did reject philosophy, as we saw here recently:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-anti-philosophyi-t144875/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924628&postcount=12

The philosophers you mention aren't 'wrong' in any straight-forward sense. That is because all of traditional philosophy is non-sensical, as I have argued here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

It is not possible for non-sense to be wrong; it is far too confused to make it that far. It is no more 'wrong' than this is:


'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

[Only, it is far more difficult to see this with respect to traditional philosophy than it is with nonsense rhymes from Lewis Caroll.]

Traditional philosophy is non-sensical because, as Marx himself pointed out, it is based on the distortion of language:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

And that includes that fourth rate 'theory' sometimes known as 'dialectical materialism'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Widerstand:


Also, Marxism is very much compatible with philosophy. Satre was a Marxist for example.

That no more shows that Marxism is compatible with philosophy than it shows mass murder is too just because some alleged Marxists have engaged in it.

And Sartre's a priori, dogmatic work is no less non-sensical than Plato or Descartes's 'theories' were.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

patbuck:


So did Marx praise (maybe that's not the best verb, but I can't really think of another one) any specific philosophers that came before him? I know he came out of the school of Hegel, but I know nothing about Hegel and for some reason I always got the impression that Marx grew to reject his philosophy

He thought very highly of Aristotle and Hegel, but progressively, and wisely, abandoned the latter as he matured.

[Palingenisis]

Operaism, Post-Operaism and Autonomous Marxism combine classical Marxism with ideas of Spinoza and Machiavelli, as well as Post-Structuralism, which although historically opposed to Marxism and posed as an alternative to it, has been picked up by many Marxists (and vice versa).

What ideas do they take from Spinoza?

[Zanthorus]

I've read a few times on here that Marx rejected philosophy in general as just distortion of words.

Marx doesn't reject philosophical thinking as 'just' a distortion of words. This would be explaining false ideas by an error in thinking, an approach which Marx is generally very careful to reject. For Marx, errors in thinking are not the result of errors in processing information, but the information which is to be processed itself. Features of our social life have distorted appearances which hide what is actually going on. In The German Ideology for example, he explains the errors of the Young Hegelian philosophers by the social conditions existing in Germany at the time. Wittgenstein, who our anti-philosophers like bandying about, also believed that philosophical errors were the result not of errors in thinking, but of the conditions of life in which people lived, and hence he could not found a school, for the only way to solve the problems would be for people to find a new way of living.


So then, as Marxists, are we to reject Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Hegel, etc.?

Not reject as such. Marx does not merely reject other theorists who he disagrees with, but his general approach (For those thinkers who he respects at least) is to try and find the 'actual in the rational', the rational content which is contained within the mystical shell created by the original thinker. Hegel in particular is appropriated by Marx in his critique of utopian theories of revolution, which create the blueprint for an ideal society and then hold it up against the existing world. For Marx, on the contrary, we must proceed from existing social conditions, and through their critique bring out the society which must replace the existing one, a society whose preconditions are created by capitalist society itself, which produces on the one hand ever more gigantic productive forces, and on the other hand a mass of human beings dispossessed from these productive forces. His critique of capitalism is an 'immanent critique' of the kind which Hegel embarked on in his Phenomenology of Spirit, only the latter engaged in the immanent critique of modes of consciousness, whereas Marx proceeds on an immanent critique of modes of production. Marx borrowed the idea of the state as a 'political community' seperated from 'civil society' from Aristotle and Hegel, and Das Kapital actually contains numerous references to Aristotle.

In general, the Marxist approach is to appropriate the rational content of various thinkers, while discarding the aspects which distort this content. The user ZeroNowhere also mentioned to me that this was also Wittgenstein's approach in, for example, his treatment of solipsism. I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject though, so you'll have to enquire with someone else about that.


Does Marxism align itself with any other sort of materialism or other materialist philosophers?

Marx was certainly interested in other materialist thinkers like Epicurus (On whose philosophy of nature he wrote his doctoral dissertation) and Ludwig Feuerbach. However, he critiqued the focus of all previous materialists on an 'abstract man' and 'abstract' nature', and instead tried to refocus things by adding in the idea that human beings are social creatures who interact with, create and recreate their own environment. Both humanity and nature have histories, and histories which are interlinked.


Dialectic Materialism is inspired by Hegel's dialectic. It's a stretch to say Marxism is opposed to philosophy, as Marxism definitely has philosophical moments, and DM is undeniably a philosophical concept.

Marx' dialectic was certainly influenced by Hegel's, but Marx rejected the idea that the world is ruled by any kind of logical structure such as that expounded in Hegel's Science of Logic, and as Engels said "comprehend[ed] the real world — nature and history — just as it presents itself to everyone who approaches it free from preconceived idealist crotchets." (Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy) Since Marx embarks on the investigation of the real relations between things, his dialectic is a form of social theory, not philosophy. 'Dialectical materialism' is vague. If it just means a materialist use of dialectic, then it is certainly an integral part of Marxism, but it is not really a philosophical theory as such. If it refers to the ideas thought up by Georgi Plekhanov which posed the idea that the material world was ruled by a logical structure in a similar manner to that posited by Hegel, then Marx and Engels both explicitly reject this idea. Apart from that, I'm not really sure what philosophical moments Marxism has. Marx does deal with problems which are traditionally concieved as philosophical problems, problems of human freedom, the relation between the individual and society, between humanity and nature and so on. But he deals with these problems through his investigation of human society and political economy, in a practical way which is quite different from philosophy as traditionally concieved.


I always got the impression that Marx grew to reject his [Hegel's] philosophy.

Marx rejected Hegel's idea that the world was governed by a kind of logical structure, but he still appropriated various aspects of Hegel's outlook, and criticised the 'epigones' who pronounced Hegel a 'dead dog'.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Also, Marxism is very much compatible with philosophy. Satre was a Marxist for example.The current Dalai Lama claims to be a Marxist too, does that mean Marxism is compatible with Tibetan Buddhism as a philosophy? Throughout the existence of the Soviet Union lots of people claimed to be Marxists, Sartre being one of them, but his ideas were never compatible with Marxism, he filled entire books trying to convince the world that his brand of existentialism should replace dialectical materialism as the philisophical outlook of Marxists. He wasn't a Marxist because he took Marx's ideas and replaced them with his own, and these ideas were only compatible with Marxism in the sense that he claimed they were.

[Palingenisis]

How is Satre's existentialism incompatible with Marxism?

[ed miliband]

I'm not even slightly an authority on Sartre (or Marxism, or...) but I believe that his notion of Marxism was flawed from the start, and even he essentially came to that conclusion. By the end he basically said that he supported the PCF because they'd destroy the bourgeosie, but that they'd also destroy him (or something like that).

For him I believe Marxism was nothing but an intellectual excercise.

[Palingenisis]

His novels are cool though and his introduction to The Wretched of the Earth is amazing.

Also he made a point of selling their newspaper when Proletarian Left were banned.

He wasnt all bad.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Marx doesn't reject philosophical thinking as 'just' a distortion of words.

Indeed, but it was an important part of his rejection of it.


This would be explaining false ideas by an error in thinking, an approach which Marx is generally very careful to reject.

But, 'ideas' based on distorted language cannot be fasle, nor can they be true, any more than the Jabberwocky (posted above) can.


Features of our social life have distorted appearances which hide what is actually going on. In The German Ideology for example, he explains the errors of the Young Hegelian philosophers by the social conditions existing in Germany at the time. Wittgenstein, who our anti-philosophers like bandying about, also believed that philosophical errors were the result not of errors in thinking, but of the conditions of life in which people lived, and hence he could not found a school, for the only way to solve the problems would be for people to find a new way of living.

I'd like to see where Wittgenstein said any of this.


Hegel in particular is appropriated by Marx in his critique of utopian theories of revolution, which create the blueprint for an ideal society and then hold it up against the existing world. For Marx, on the contrary, we must proceed from existing social conditions, and through their critique bring out the society which must replace the existing one, a society whose preconditions are created by capitalist society itself, which produces on the one hand ever more gigantic productive forces, and on the other hand a mass of human beings dispossessed from these productive forces. His critique of capitalism is an 'immanent critique' of the kind which Hegel embarked on in his Phenomenology of Spirit, only the latter engaged in the immanent critique of modes of consciousness, whereas Marx proceeds on an immanent critique of modes of production. Marx borrowed the idea of the state as a 'political community' seperated from 'civil society' from Aristotle and Hegel, and Das Kapital actually contains numerous references to Aristotle.

Marx' dialectic was certainly influenced by Hegel's, but Marx rejected the idea that the world is ruled by any kind of logical structure such as that expounded in Hegel's Science of Logic, and as Engels said "comprehend[ed] the real world — nature and history — just as it presents itself to everyone who approaches it free from preconceived idealist crotchets." (Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy) Since Marx embarks on the investigation of the real relations between things, his dialectic is a form of social theory, not philosophy. 'Dialectical materialism' is vague. If it just means a materialist use of dialectic, then it is certainly an integral part of Marxism, but it is not really a philosophical theory as such. If it refers to the ideas thought up by Georgi Plekhanov which posed the idea that the material world was ruled by a logical structure in a similar manner to that posited by Hegel, then Marx and Engels both explicitly reject this idea. Apart from that, I'm not really sure what philosophical moments Marxism has. Marx does deal with problems which are traditionally concieved as philosophical problems, problems of human freedom, the relation between the individual and society, between humanity and nature and so on. But he deals with these problems through his investigation of human society and political economy, in a practical way which is quite different from philosophy as traditionally concieved.

Except, we already know that by the time he came to write Das Kapital, he had rejected Hegel root and branch:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/scrapping-dialectics-would-t79634/index4.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158574&postcount=73

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1158816&postcount=75

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161443&postcount=114

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1163222&postcount=124


The user ZeroNowhere also mentioned to me that this was also Wittgenstein's approach in, for example, his treatment of solipsism.

In fact, Wittgenstein rejected this earlier approach to such theories in his later work.


Marx rejected Hegel's idea that the world was governed by a kind of logical structure, but he still appropriated various aspects of Hegel's outlook, and criticised the 'epigones' who pronounced Hegel a 'dead dog'.

As you have had pointed out to you many times, Marx pointedly put this in the past tense:


"I criticised the mystificatory side of the Hegelian dialectic nearly thirty years ago, at a time when is was still the fashion. But just when I was working on the first volume of Capital, the ill-humoured, arrogant and mediocre epigones who now talk large in educated German circles began to take pleasure in treating Hegel in the same way as the good Moses Mendelssohn treated Spinoza in Lessing's time, namely as a 'dead dog'. I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even, here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him." [Kapital, pp.102-03. Bold emphasis added.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Palingenesis:


His novels are cool though and his introduction to The Wretched of the Earth is amazing.

Also he made a point of selling their newspaper when Proletarian Left were banned.

He wasnt all bad.

Maybe so, but he was a rubbish philosopher.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Sartre was fine and so is existentialism to a certain degree. But existentialism tends to promote the individual as the highest possible authority, which contradicts the Marxist and especially the Marxist-Leninist view that collective needs come first. It's true that existentialism is more about individuality that individualism, but the line becomes blurred when existentialists talk about "moral individualism", which relies on the individual to choose his or her destiny, as opposed to everyone finding their collective destiny. Some existentialists also argue that "values" and "ethics" are not universal among all human beings. I don't know too much about it, Sartre is a good read though.

[Zanthorus]

Indeed, but it was an important part of his rejection of it.

And I didn't deny that.


I'd like to see where Wittgenstein said any of this.


ZeroNowhere pointed it out in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1780586&postcount=78), mentioned Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, and quoted the following:


The sickness of a time is cured by an alteration in the mode of life of human beings, and it is possible for the sickness of philosophical problems to get cured only through a changed mode of thought and life, not through a medicine invented by an individual.


I am by no means sure that I should prefer a continuation of my work by others to a change in the way people live which would make all these questions superfluous. (For this reason I could never found a school.)


Except, we already know that by the time he came to write Das Kapital, he had rejected Hegel root and branch:

Well, we know you have a particularly peculiar interpretation of the afterword to the Second German edition of Capital at least. And that the latter is all you have to support your claim that Marx rejected Hegel wholesale.


As you have had pointed out to you many times, Marx pointedly put this in the past tense:

Putting something in the past tense does not mean that you know reject your previous actions. Indeed, in the passage that you quote Marx refers to Hegel as that 'mighty thinker', and his language with regards to the epigones woudl certainly suggest that he did not think much of them.

[Lucretia]

Marx rejected philosophy because of its idealist tendencies and the fact that it doesn't produce any new knowledge. Philosophy does hold value in making explicit knowledge or ideas that are already implicit in a critique. What I think Marx was criticizing was philosophy divorced from actually existing political ideas and movements.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, thankyou for this quotation from Wittgenstein:


The sickness of a time is cured by an alteration in the mode of life of human beings, and it is possible for the sickness of philosophical problems to get cured only through a changed mode of thought and life, not through a medicine invented by an individual.

The 'sickness' he refers to here is the modern day reliance on science to answer everything, including philosophical 'problems'.

But it has nothing to do with the generation of those problems in the first place, which, for Wittgenstien, arise solely from confusions in language. Social change won't alter that.


Well, we know you have a particularly peculiar interpretation of the afterword to the Second German edition of Capital at least. And that the latter is all you have to support your claim that Marx rejected Hegel wholesale.

Well, you need to show where I go wrong.


Putting something in the past tense does not mean that you know reject your previous actions. Indeed, in the passage that you quote Marx refers to Hegel as that 'mighty thinker', and his language with regards to the epigones woudl certainly suggest that he did not think much of them.

It does if:

1) He never put this in the present tense.

2) If the very best he could do in Das Kapital was 'coquette' with obscure Hegelian jargon, and

3) If the summary of the 'dialectic method' Marx endorsed contained no Hegel at all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lucretia:


Marx rejected philosophy because of its idealist tendencies and the fact that it doesn't produce any new knowledge. Philosophy does hold value in making explicit knowledge or ideas that are already implicit in a critique. What I think Marx was criticizing was philosophy divorced from actually existing political ideas and movements.

Except, the evidence from what Marx said suggests otherwise:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-anti-philosophyi-t144875/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924628&postcount=12

[Zanthorus]

The 'sickness' he refers to here is the modern day reliance on science to answer everything, including philosophical 'problems'.

But it has nothing to do with the generation of those problems in the first place, which, for Wittgenstien, arise solely from confusions in language. Social change won't alter that.

Well, I'm no expert on Wittgenstein, so I will have to concede the point. However, I think if Wittgenstein does believe that philosophical problems arise solely from confusions in language, and not from features of society, he would come under critique from Marxists for positing an ahistorical theory of how these problems arise.


Well, you need to show where I go wrong.

To be honest, I can't really be bothered. Since there doesn't seem to be much disagreement between us apart from on how much Marx's ideas are influenced by Hegel and your continued insistence on needless nitpicking of language, it doesn't seem worth my time attempting it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Well, I'm no expert on Wittgenstein, so I will have to concede the point. However, I think if Wittgenstein does believe that philosophical problems arise solely from confusions in language, and not from features of society, he would come under critique from Marxists for positing an ahistorical theory of how these problems arise.

Not so. The 'sickness of the time' is the reliance on science in philosophy, and that has nothing to do with linguistic confusion.

And pointing to the confusion in language as the source of philosophical 'problems' is no more 'a-historical' than pointing out that all religious affectation is based on alienation (which is common to all class societes), and no more 'a-historical' than this:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118.]

You:


To be honest, I can't really be bothered. Since there doesn't seem to be much disagreement between us apart from on how much Marx's ideas are influenced by Hegel and your continued insistence on needless nitpicking of language, it doesn't seem worth my time attempting it.

1) If so, my case stands by default.

2) I suppose you'd accuse Marx of 'nit-picking' when he carefully distinguished, say, the relative from the equivalent form of value, eh? The careful use of language in fact prevents us making crass errors (of the sort that Hegel and those who look to him regularly make).

[Widerstand]

What ideas do they take from Spinoza?

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude) (yes I was lazy):


Multitude is a political term first used by Machiavelli and reiterated by Spinoza. Recently the term has returned to prominence because of its conceptualization as a new model of resistance against the global capitalist system as described by political theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri [...].

[Sixiang]

Indeed, Marx did reject philosophy, as we saw here recently:
So then does that mean that dialectic materialism or just Marxism, are not philosophies? What is a philosophy? According to dictionary.com, it's "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" and "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Can't I say that my belief that Marxism is right then guides my actions (conduct) and sets up a sort of principles for me in practical life? Then isn't it a philosophy?


The philosophers you mention aren't 'wrong' in any straight-forward sense. That is because all of traditional philosophy is non-sensical, as I have argued here:

It is not possible for non-sense to be wrong; it is far too confused to make it that far. It is no more 'wrong' than this is:
So then all philosophy is nonsense?


And that includes that fourth rate 'theory' sometimes known as 'dialectical materialism'.
Not trying to be condescending, I am seriously curious: Why are you against dialectic materialism?


Marx doesn't reject philosophical thinking as 'just' a distortion of words. This would be explaining false ideas by an error in thinking, an approach which Marx is generally very careful to reject. For Marx, errors in thinking are not the result of errors in processing information, but the information which is to be processed itself. Features of our social life have distorted appearances which hide what is actually going on. In The German Ideology for example, he explains the errors of the Young Hegelian philosophers by the social conditions existing in Germany at the time. Wittgenstein, who our anti-philosophers like bandying about, also believed that philosophical errors were the result not of errors in thinking, but of the conditions of life in which people lived, and hence he could not found a school, for the only way to solve the problems would be for people to find a new way of living.
That makes sense to me. Basically, we can't blame them since they didn't have the right conditions at that time and at that place to come up with the right answer?


Marx was certainly interested in other materialist thinkers like Epicurus (On whose philosophy of nature he wrote his doctoral dissertation) and Ludwig Feuerbach. However, he critiqued the focus of all previous materialists on an 'abstract man' and 'abstract' nature', and instead tried to refocus things by adding in the idea that human beings are social creatures who interact with, create and recreate their own environment. Both humanity and nature have histories, and histories which are interlinked.
I see, thanks for that.


Since Marx embarks on the investigation of the real relations between things, his dialectic is a form of social theory, not philosophy.
So then Marx is more of a sociologist than a philosopher, it seems.


'Dialectical materialism' is vague. If it just means a materialist use of dialectic, then it is certainly an integral part of Marxism, but it is not really a philosophical theory as such. If it refers to the ideas thought up by Georgi Plekhanov which posed the idea that the material world was ruled by a logical structure in a similar manner to that posited by Hegel, then Marx and Engels both explicitly reject this idea. Apart from that, I'm not really sure what philosophical moments Marxism has. Marx does deal with problems which are traditionally concieved as philosophical problems, problems of human freedom, the relation between the individual and society, between humanity and nature and so on. But he deals with these problems through his investigation of human society and political economy, in a practical way which is quite different from philosophy as traditionally concieved.
That might be what drew me into Marxism in the first place.


Marx rejected philosophy because of its idealist tendencies and the fact that it doesn't produce any new knowledge. Philosophy does hold value in making explicit knowledge or ideas that are already implicit in a critique. What I think Marx was criticizing was philosophy divorced from actually existing political ideas and movements.
Philosophy does tend to be all about abstractions and no application to history from what I've found.

This is all a lot of information to take in. It's really complex. Can't we just say that capitalism sucks and needs to be replaced with socialism and then communism and be done with it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbuck:


So then does that mean that dialectic materialism or just Marxism, are not philosophies?

Dialectical Materialism [DM] is certainly a philosophy. Marxism, or rather, Historical Materialism, is a scientific theory.


What is a philosophy? According to dictionary.com, it's "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" and "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Can't I say that my belief that Marxism is right then guides my actions (conduct) and sets up a sort of principles for me in practical life? Then isn't it a philosophy?

Well, as I note in one of the posts to which I linked:


Since Ancient Greek times, 'philosophy' has come to mean much more than this -- traditionally it relates to an esoteric form of 'wisdom'/'knowledge', pertaining to a hidden world underlying appearances that is more real than the world we see around us, and which is accessible to thought alone.

And, there are many other disciplines that also guide actions that aren't philosophies. For example, religious belief systems, superstitions, the rules governing games, professional codes of conduct, highway codes, safety codes, rules of etiquette, rules governing this board, and so on.


So then all philosophy is nonsense?

Well, you will note I employ the word "non-sense", not "nonsense". I do this to distinguish a technical use of the latter word from its ordinary use. There are many different sorts of "nonsense" but only one of "non-sense". The meaning of the former can range from "patently false" (e.g., the claim that Marx was a shape-shifting lizard would be "nonsense" in this sense) to "plain gibberish" (e.g., "%^&Y^$57" would be "nonsense" in this sense).

"Non-sense", on the other hand, relates to indicative sentences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood) that resemble ordinary sentences but which are incapable of expressing a sense -- that is, they resemble sentences that are uncontroversially capable of being true or false, but it turns out that they cannot be true or false. You will find several examples of these in one of the posts to which I linked earlier, in addtion to a fuller explanation of this point:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5


Why are you against dialectic materialism?

Well, I have explained this so many times here at RevLeft that the ink is beginning to fade. So, I wrote this to explain why (and to save me having to explain yet again!):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1706819&postcount=1

Forgive me therefore if I avoid answering that question in this thread.


Can't we just say that capitalism sucks and needs to be replaced with socialism and then communism and be done with it?

Sure we can, but that won't help us understand how to go about it.

[Sixiang]

Dialectical Materialism [DM] is certainly a philosophy. Marxism, or rather, Historical Materialism, is a scientific theory.
I see. So do you consider yourself a Marxist while at the same time not a Dialectic Materialist? I never even thought that possible.


Well, as I note in one of the posts to which I linked:



And, there are many other disciplines that also guide actions that aren't philosophies. For example, religious belief systems, superstitions, the rules governing games, professional codes of conduct, highway codes, safety codes, rules of etiquette, rules governing this board, and so on.
That's a good point. Philosophy is more than that. So is philosophy non-sensical because it is composed merely of abstractions and it exists only in thought?


Well, you will note I employ the word "non-sense", not "nonsense". I do this to distinguish a technical use of the latter word from its ordinary use. There are many different sorts of "nonsense" but only one of "non-sense". The meaning of the former can range from "patently false" (e.g., the claim that Marx was a shape-shifting lizard would be "nonsense" in this sense) to "plain gibberish" (e.g., "%^&Y^$57" would be "nonsense" in this sense).

"Non-sense", on the other hand, relates to indicative sentences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood) that resemble ordinary sentences but which are incapable of expressing a sense -- that is, they resemble sentences that are uncontroversially capable of being true or false, but it turns out that they cannot be true or false. You will find several examples of these in one of the posts to which I linked earlier, in addtion to a fuller explanation of this point:
Ah, I see. I wasn't sure if they were the same thing. I know that some words are spelled by people more than one way, so I wasn't sure if you meant the same thing.


Well, I have explained this so many times here at RevLeft that the ink is beginning to fade. So, I wrote this to explain why (and to save me having to explain yet again!):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1706819&postcount=1

Forgive me therefore if I avoid answering that question in this thread.
That's a long post. I'll try to read it one of these days. :p


Sure we can, but that won't help us understand how to go about it.
Good point.

So I guess this brings me to the real core of my question in this thread: is it even worth it to read up on different philosophies? Since it's mostly just abstract non-sense, then is it just a waste of time to read through the Complete Works of Plato or whoever else? People have been trying for centuries to figure out "the big questions" and there are a million different philosophical outlooks out there. Does this in itself prove that it's just a waste of time to come up with all of these abstract explanations that are really just clever word play? I doubt that one can really figure it all out just from knowing everything there is to know about Kant or Nietzsche. Forgive me if you find this a silly string of thought from me. I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

[∞]

Its basically science>contemporary philosophy. Thats all you need to know in a nutshell all this ultra-abstract pondering is not worth anything.

[Widerstand]

I see. So do you consider yourself a Marxist while at the same time not a Dialectic Materialist? I never even thought that possible.

Why? DM is completely irrelevant to both understanding and "practicing" Marxism, consequently to being a Marxist. Even though there always are a few who will claim that "understanding DM" or "using DM" will offer you some sort of "insight" that can't be attained through classical logic (sounds rather cultish, huh?).

[Sixiang]

Its basically science>contemporary philosophy. Thats all you need to know in a nutshell all this ultra-abstract pondering is not worth anything.

That's good to know. I already thought that way anyway.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbuck:


So do you consider yourself a Marxist while at the same time not a Dialectic Materialist? I never even thought that possible.

1) Well, it's no more impossible than it is to accept, say, Isaac Newton's scientific work while rejecting the mystical rubbish he spent 3/4s of his time upon.

2) The core theory of Marxism is Historical Materialism (which works quite well without the dialectic method glued on), which I fully accept.

3) Marx himself did not accept this theory -- or, there is no evidence he did.


So is philosophy non-sensical because it is composed merely of abstractions and it exists only in thought?

Well, philosophy is non-sensical since it is based on the systematic distortion of language, part of which involves the use of philosophical abstractions.

And, it is worth noting that I did not say philosophy "exists only in thought", but that the alleged truth of the theses philosophers invent are accessible to thought alone. [I have explained in detail what I mean by that in the links I posted earlier.]


So I guess this brings me to the real core of my question in this thread: is it even worth it to read up on different philosophies? Since it's mostly just abstract non-sense, then is it just a waste of time to read through the Complete Works of Plato or whoever else? People have been trying for centuries to figure out "the big questions" and there are a million different philosophical outlooks out there. Does this in itself prove that it's just a waste of time to come up with all of these abstract explanations that are really just clever word play? I doubt that one can really figure it all out just from knowing everything there is to know about Kant or Nietzsche. Forgive me if you find this a silly string of thought from me. I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

Well, Plato was a consummate writer, so I'd only recommend reading many of his works because of that, but do not expect to learn much from them -- other than how to go wrong.

Moreover, the 'big questions' you refer to are also the result of the distortion of language, as I try to show in that long post you have yet to read.

To use an analogy I have employed here many times: suppose someone were to ask these questions (or say the following) about, say, the game of chess:

1) Ok, so if there is a Queen and King in chess, who married them?

2) Who was the architect who designed the castle, and did they get planning permission to put it over there in the corner?

3) Where did the Bishop study Theology?

4) You say the Queen can move only in this way and that, but you are wrong, I picked it up and threw it out of the window.

5) The real aim of the game is not to get the King in check, but to hold my door open, since that is what I have just done with the Queen.

If anyone were to raise the above points we'd think they were either taking the p*ss or they were off their heads.

Now, while it is less easy to see this in relation to traditional Philosophy, it is possible to show that the same is true of the 'big questions' philosophers ask -- they are just as empty.

And, you mention Nietzsche, but he came to more-or-less the same conclusion.

[Sixiang]

1) Well, it's no more impossible than it is to accept, say, Isaac Newton's scientific work while rejecting the mystical rubbish he spent 3/4s of his time upon.
Good point. When you say these things, they seem so obvious to me that I wonder why I didn't think of it before.


2) The core theory of Marxism is Historical Materialism (which works quite well without the dialectic method glued on), which I fully accept.

3) Marx himself did not accept this theory -- or, there is no evidence he did.

I see.



Well, philosophy is non-sensical since it is based on the systematic distortion of language, part of which involves the use of philosophical abstractions.

And, it is worth noting that I did not say philosophy "exists only in thought", but that the alleged truth of the theses philosophers invent are accessible to thought alone. [I have explained in detail what I mean by that in the links I posted earlier.]

I see. Now I get it.



Well, Plato was a consummate writer, so I'd only recommend reading many of his works because of that, but do not expect to learn much from them -- other than how to go wrong.

Moreover, the 'big questions' you refer to are also the result of the distortion of language, as I try to show in that long post you have yet to read.

To use an analogy I have employed here many times: suppose someone were to ask these questions (or say the following) about, say, the game of chess:

1) Ok, so if there is a Queen and King in chess, who married them?

2) Who was the architect who designed the castle, and did they get planning permission to put it over there in the corner?

3) Where did the Bishop study Theology?

4) You say the Queen can move only in this way and that, but you are wrong, I picked it up and threw it out of the window.

5) The real aim of the game is not to get the King in check, but to hold my door open, since that is what I have just done with the Queen.

If anyone were to raise the above points we'd think they were either taking the p*ss or they were off their heads.

Now, while it is less easy to see this in relation to traditional Philosophy, it is possible to show that the same is true of the 'big questions' philosophers ask -- they are just as empty.

And, you mention Nietzsche, but he came to more-or-less the same conclusion.

That's an interesting comparison. So if all of these things are empty, as you put it, then what's the point of anything? Then isn't there no "meaning in life" (I know, a philosophical concept)? Why should we ever go on if it's all meaningless. I certainly have my opinions of how things should be (for the most part) and I do have some sort of code that I've come up with over years of existing that I try to live by, in a sense. But if it's all meaningless abstract non-sense, then what's the point of anything? I think that communism is right, but then what is right? What makes something right? That's abstract, and thus empty. Ah, now I am asking philosophical questions... It's like I'm running in circles.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbuck:


That's an interesting comparison. So if all of these things are empty, as you put it, then what's the point of anything? Then isn't there no "meaning in life" (I know, a philosophical concept)? Why should we ever go on if it's all meaningless. I certainly have my opinions of how things should be (for the most part) and I do have some sort of code that I've come up with over years of existing that I try to live by, in a sense. But if it's all meaningless abstract non-sense, then what's the point of anything? I think that communism is right, but then what is right? What makes something right? That's abstract, and thus empty. Ah, now I am asking philosophical questions... It's like I'm running in circles.

I'm afraid that the question whether life has a meaning is far too vague to do anything with, but that does not imply there is no point to doing anything.

And, isn't religious alienation one aspect of the attempt to find the 'meaning of life'? Would we want life to have a meaning that we didn't supply for ourselves? Do we really want some outside source to dictate such things to us?

Count me out.

Finally, you will run in circles if you try to engage in philosophy of any sort. Philosophers have been doing this for well over two thousand years.

[Sixiang]

Patbuck:



I'm afraid that the question whether life has a meaning is far too vague to do anything with, but that does not imply there is no point to doing anything.

And, isn't religious alienation one aspect of the attempt to find the 'meaning of life'? Would we want life to have a meaning that we didn't supply for ourselves? Do we really want some outside source to dictate such things to us?

Count me out.

Finally, you will run in circles if you try to engage in philosophy of any sort. Philosophers have been doing this for well over two thousand years.
Good response. My reading of philosophy has only done a few things for me: created more questions than I had before, confused me to the point of wanting to throw the books against a wall, and caused me to return back to the same questions that only a few days before I thought I had figured out.

One more question: So are dialectics and materialism both philosophies as well as dialectic materialism together? Materialism seems a lot different from other types of philosophy to me. It seems to me that materialism basically says "This is it and there's really nothing spiritual about it." It's like materialism is completely concrete, as opposed to existentialism and the like.

I liked that part I bolded.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbuck:


So are dialectics and materialism both philosophies as well as dialectic materialism together? Materialism seems a lot different from other types of philosophy to me. It seems to me that materialism basically says "This is it and there's really nothing spiritual about it." It's like materialism is completely concrete, as opposed to existentialism and the like.

Well they are all philosophies, but Historical Materialism isn't, it's a science.


"This is it and there's really nothing spiritual about it."

Forgive me, but this is just another example of philosophical non-sense.

Moreover, who but a simpleton would be persuaded by it?

[Sixiang]

Well they are all philosophies, but Historical Materialism isn't, it's a science.
I see. So do you disregard all philosophies in favor of science?




Forgive me, but this is just another example of philosophical non-sense.
I guess so.



Moreover, who but a simpleton would be persuaded by it?
No idea. It just seemed... well... simple to me. I guess it is ridiculous.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbuck:


So do you disregard all philosophies in favor of science?

Well, you have seen me say that all of traditional philosophy is not only non-sensical, it's full of empty questions.

I most certainly prefer science since it is at least rooted in the material world, but I don't make a fetish out of it, like many here.

[Sixiang]

Patbuck:



Well, you have seen me say that all of traditional philosophy is not only non-sensical, it's full of empty questions.

I most certainly prefer science since it is at least rooted in the material world, but I don't make a fetish out of it, like many here.

I see. Interesting. This thread has provided lots of insight for me. Thanks for all of the answers and time put into it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No probs. :)

[Sixiang]

No probs. :)

I might come to you in the future for more questions on these sorts of things.

[Widerstand]

Well, you have seen me say that all of traditional philosophy is not only non-sensical, it's full of empty questions.

Do you regard Wittgenstein to be a philosopher?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Widerstand:


Do you regard Wittgenstein to be a philosopher?

Well, he wanted to re-define the discipline so that it became an endeavour aimed at unravelling the confusions we get into when we misuse langauge rather than a sort of superscience that revealed fundamental truths about reality by means of thought alone, which it had been (in the 'west') since ancient Greek times.

I prefer the term 'anti-philosopher', though, since it causes less confusion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbuck:


I might come to you in the future for more questions on these sorts of things.

Sure. PM me or start a thread.

[Sixiang]

I prefer the term 'anti-philosopher', though, since it causes less confusion.
Any people that you would consider anti-philosopher that are worth reading?



Sure. PM me or start a thread.
Will do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Patbuck:


Any people that you would consider anti-philosopher that are worth reading?

Well, they tend to write rather technical books and articles, most of which depend on a prior knowledge of Wittegenstein (http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/) and Frege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege).

For example here:

http://michaelgrant3.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-anti-philosophy.html

Check the beginning of this thread out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wittgenstein-and-anti-t100627/index.html

However the link I posted to my site is out of date; here is the correct link:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Wittgenstein.htm

Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche) was another interesting anti-philosopher, but, alas, he ended up formulating philosophical theories of his own -- so, he was not really a consistent anti-philosopher.

However, much of my site is devoted to anti-philosophy -- mostly aimed against dialectical materialism -- but Essay Twelve Part One (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm) is aimed at all of traditional thought, as is Essay Thirteen Part Three (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm).

[Sixiang]

Patbuck:



Well, they tend to write rather technical books and articles, most of which depend on a prior knowledge of Wittegenstein (http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/) and Frege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege).

For example here:

http://michaelgrant3.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-anti-philosophy.html

Check the beginning of this thread out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/wittgenstein-and-anti-t100627/index.html

However the link I posted to my site is out of date; here is the correct link:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Wittgenstein.htm

Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche) was another interesting anti-philosopher, but, alas, he ended up formulating philosophical theories of his own -- so, he was not really a consistent anti-philosopher.

However, much of my site is devoted to anti-philosophy -- mostly aimed against dialectical materialism -- but Essay Twelve Part One (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm) is aimed at all of traditional thought, as is Essay Thirteen Part Three (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm).
Okay. I guess I have a lot more reading to do.

[Zanthorus]

Any people that you would consider anti-philosopher that are worth reading?

Engels work Anti-Duhring is simple, clear, concise and full of wit to boot. It is also considered one of the classic texts of Marxism.

[Sixiang]

Engels work Anti-Duhring is simple, clear, concise and full of wit to boot. It is also considered one of the classic texts of Marxism.

Cool. Thanks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Engels work Anti-Duhring is simple, clear, concise and full of wit to boot. It is also considered one of the classic texts of Marxism.

The first half of which is perhaps among the worst books ever wrtitten by a Marxist - taken apart here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-duhring-t80412/index.html

and more thoroughly here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

[Zanthorus]

If all you got from the first part of Anti-Duhring was stuff about the 'laws' of dialectics and matter as contradiction then you really missed a hell of a lot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


If all you got from the first part of Anti-Duhring was stuff about the 'laws' of dialectics and matter as contradiction then you really missed a hell of a lot.

And exactly which parts of it are worth more than the paper they were written upon?

[∞]

Z:



And exactly which parts of it are worth more than the paper they were written upon?

I know you don't believe there are such things as ad-hominems. But when you use such perverse language I cannot take you seriously on the grounds that I feel you are making a desperate and rather pretentious emotional appeal. Other than I expect to see a decent response to Marxist texts.

[∞]

If all you got from the first part of Anti-Duhring was stuff about the 'laws' of dialectics and matter as contradiction then you really missed a hell of a lot.

Science does kind of confirm this, take the existence of anti-particles for example.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackened Marxist:


I know you don't believe there are such things as ad-hominems.

Where have I said that?

What I have argued is that most RevLefters misunderstand this term and equate it with abiuse and personal attacks.

On that see here:

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html


But when you use such perverse language I cannot take you seriously on the grounds that I feel you are making a desperate and rather pretentious emotional appeal.

Oh dear! I have to answer that particular objection every few months, mainly from new members who have no idea what has gone on here at RevLeft over the last five years.

Here is why I adopt the tone that so disturbs you:


How Not To Argue 101

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

The above page contains links to forums on the web where I have 'debated' this creed with other comrades.

For anyone interested, check out the desperate 'debating' tactics used by Dialectical Mystics in their attempt to respond to my ideas.

You will no doubt notice that the vast majority all say the same sorts of things, and most of them pepper their remarks with scatological and abusive language. And they all like to make things up and lie about me and my beliefs.

25 years (!!) of this stuff from Dialectical Mystics has meant I now take an aggressive stance with them every time -- I soon learnt back in the 1980s that being pleasant with them (my initial tactic) did not alter their abusive tone, or their propensity to fabricate -- nor reduce the amount of scatological language they threw at me.

So, these days, I generally go for the jugular from the get-go.

Apparently, they expect me to take their abuse lying down, and regularly complain about my "bullying" tactics and my acid tone.

Apparently, these mystics can dish it out, but they cannot take it.

Given the damage their theory has done to Marxism, and the abuse they all dole out, they are lucky this is all I can do to them.

And, in fact, it's the fans of 'the dialectic' here at RevLeft (and elsewhere on the Internet) who become emotive, as the above link will confirm if you follow it.


Other than I expect to see a decent response to Marxist texts.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the point of that comment.


I cannot take you seriously

Difficult though it will be, I think I'll just about get over that serious body blow.:(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackened Marxist:


Science does kind of confirm this, take the existence of anti-particles for example.

1) How does this show there are 'contradictions' in nature?

2) According to the dialectical classics, such 'opposites' should 'struggle' with one another, and then turn into each other (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31). Do they?

In fact, they annihilate one another.

[∞]

Well electrons do absorb and emit photons, sometimes actually heading back into to time and absorbing that. Photons are their own anti-particle. So I guess thats not dialectical either. And when a positron and an electron collide they do annihilate. DM can't seem to explain this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BM:


Well electrons do absorb and emit photons, sometimes actually heading back into to time and absorbing that.

Once more, even if what you say were true, how does that show there are 'contradictions' here?


Photons are their own anti-particle. So I guess thats not dialectical either. And when a positron and an electron collide they do annihilate. DM can't seem to explain this.

In fact, the only dialectical things we know for certain exist are human beings engaged in argument.

[∞]

Once more, even if what you say were true, how does that show there are 'contradictions' here?

It does sound ridiculous. But that is the held belief about light emission, reflection and the like. Thats what I read from Feynman and Hawking. I am not trying to defend nor go against DM.



In fact, the only dialectical things we know for certain exist are human beings engaged in argument.

It starting to seem so.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BM:


It does sound ridiculous. But that is the held belief about light emission, reflection and the like. Thats what I read from Feynman and Hawking. I am not trying to defend nor go against DM.

I know the physics. What I do not understand is why you (or others) want to call such things 'contradictions', when they aren't.

[∞]

I don't know what to call them...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why not leave that up to the scientists? The revolution does not depend on whether electrons go backwards in time, or whether quarks fight it out inside protons.

[∞]

Science is the correct application of philosophical questions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BM:


Science is the correct application of philosophical questions.

Not so, since philosophical questions make no sense.

I explain why here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

[Widerstand]

Science is the correct application of philosophical questions.

I'm sorry, how can I "apply" a philosophical question in a manner that is "correct?"

[∞]

By observing it through mathematics and the like. I didn't phrase that correctly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BM:


By observing it through mathematics and the like. I didn't phrase that correctly.

I'm sorry, but this does not seem to make much sense. How do you view philosophy through mathematics?

Can you provide an example?

[ComradeOm]

I'm sorry, but this does not seem to make much sense. How do you view philosophy through mathematics?

Can you provide an example?Beauty = truth ;)

[Apoi_Viitor]

[Only, it is far more difficult to see this with respect to traditional philosophy than it is with nonsense rhymes from Lewis Caroll.]

Traditional philosophy is non-sensical because, as Marx himself pointed out, it is based on the distortion of language:

What about non-traditional philosophy?

[Sixiang]

I'm sorry, but this does not seem to make much sense. How do you view philosophy through mathematics?

Can you provide an example?

I'm also curious to see an example of this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade OM:


Beauty = truth

And the mathematics is where?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Pat:


I'm also curious to see an example of this.

Don't hold your breath, there aren't any.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


What about non-traditional philosophy?

And what does that involve?

[∞]

E=mc^2

(2π / V)d

+ _
e e --->2y.
Annihilation that may or may not prove DM wrong.

Mathematics is the language of logic.

[Apoi_Viitor]

And what does that involve?

Well, you made numerous references to 'traditional philosophy', not philosophy in general, so I was wondering what is non-traditional philosophy and why is it different from traditional philosophy?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BM:


E=mc^2

(2π / V)d

+ _
e e --->2y.
Annihilation that may or may not prove DM wrong.

I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish.


Mathematics is the language of logic.

Where do you find partial differential equations, matrices and Hermite polynomials in logic?

A case can be made for the reverse, that mathemarics is founded on logic, but that Fregean (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/) claim is still controversial.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


Well, you made numerous references to 'traditional philosophy', not philosophy in general, so I was wondering what is non-traditional philosophy and why is it different from traditional philosophy?

Well, I do that (i.e., I use the term 'traditional philosophy' and not just 'philosophy') to avoid others pointing out that Wittgenstein was also a philosopher -- meaning that I then have to explain his different use of that word.

And to avoid that trap, I then go on to point out that I prefer to call him an anti-philosopher (a term, I think, he would have rejected).

So, if pressed, the answer to your earlier question that I would prefer is:

"Non-traditional philosophy is in fact anti-philosophy."

[∞]

BM:
I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish.
.

Those equations I pointed out help figure out how we exist. Russell described mathematics as being analogous with questions a philosopher may ask about their existence. The math I pointed out should be held with physics though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BM:


Those equations I pointed out help figure out how we exist.

Maybe so, but what have they got to do with Philosophy?


Russell described mathematics as being analogous with questions a philosopher may ask about their existence.

1. Russell might have asserted this (but I'd like to know where he said it), however, that does not mean he was right. [We need independent proof of this.]

2. The questions philosophers ask about existence are non-sensical; mathematics isn't.


The math I pointed out should be held with physics though.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of this.