Superabound posted:

drwhat posted:

"just schizophrenic enough" is also a central theme to Ernest Becker's "Denial of Death"

the best part of that book is where Becker argues that schizophrenia and depression exist because "people really wanna be heroes", and not because of empirically identifiable, physically-existing brain/genetic structures and chemical proclivities

wow you really got him. Becker thought he could get away with his big lie but you figured it out. the real question is what's with all the people who ignore obvious empirical evidence? must be some kind of grand academic conspiracy, probably related to the whole 'humanities' discipline which is just one big fraud. i mean, college is to make money and not to learn, why are they teaching things which don't even matter to wage slaves?

jools posted:

btw, bhpn do you dislike kolakowski because he owned you before you were born:

“The 1950 Marxist knows that Lysenko’s theory of heredity is correct, that Hegel represented an aristocratic reaction to the French Revolution, that Dostoevsky was nothing but decadence and ... also that the resonance theory in chemistry is reactionary nonsense. Every 1950 Marxist knows these things, even if he has never learned what chromosomes are, has no idea in which century Hegel lived, never read one of Dostoevsky’s books, or studied a high school chemistry book. To a Marxist all this is absolutely unnecessary so long as the content of Marxism is determined by the Office.”

"in the realm of thought humanity has not been making progress at all. history, philosophy, economics, even biology and physics are in much worse shape than they were in the 60s and the 30s."

you dont even have the excuse of supporting a historically progressive state either...

"The controversy among Soviet geneticists has been largely one between the academic scientist, represented by Vavilov and interested primarily in the collection of facts, and the man who wants results, represented by Lysenko. It has been conducted not with venom, but in a friendly spirit. Lysenko said (in the October discussions of 1939): 'The important thing is not to dispute; let us work in a friendly manner on a plan elaborated scientifically. Let us take up definite problems, receive assignments from the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR and fulfil them scientifically. Soviet genetics, as a whole, is a successful attempt at synthesis of these two contrasted points of view." -J.B.. Haldane

More bourgeois propaganda you uncritically accept because of the ideological limits of empiricism

jools posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

jools posted:

yes, so why did haldane end up leaving the communist party in 1950 lol

cause he went nuts and become a weird hippie. I'm very skeptical of the story of lysenko as it is used as an ideological cudgel against Stalin in general.

who cares? its not like the capitalist abuses of science are somehow excused or not as bad if you say lysenko was bad. stalin is dead, the soviet union has been dead for not much less time than i've been alive, you still somehow think you have a stake in this? you're just some nerd on the internet

defense of stalin and the USSR is more important that ever, since all the '21st century leftist' movement are making the same mistakes communist movements already made and learned from. all because it's easy to reject outright Stalin, Mao, and actually existing communism.

dismissing the history of socialism, our experiments with science and philosophy, and accepting capitalism as being more progressive (which is what you end up doing by accepting the bourgeois history of scientific progress) is not a good look. you think that pure science is beyond ideology, and the results speak for themselves. in every instance of proletarian science vs. bourgeois science (the cultural revolution probably being the major turning point) you side with the bourgeoisie.

jools posted:

i mean it sounds more like youre railing against the ideological limits of reality than anything else duder

this is basically what I'm saying. you believe in some objective reality outside ideology and the class struggle. not only that, you believe that it is accessible through some perfect method (the scientific method) which is also outside ideology and the class struggle. you may think philosophy is unimportant, but this right here illustrates why it is so very important. 'pure scientists' and trotskyists have always in reality ended up on the side of the bourgeoisie, and your attempts to 'objectively' (unlike those subjective idiots in actually-existing socialist countries) look at the world has time and again become a condemnation of socialism and a defense of the bourgeoisie. many critiques of capitalism are allowed, but the final critique, which is a defense of socialism, is never allowed. your attitude of 'a pox on both houses' is always welcome.

I think what we ought to do is to try to understand the truth about the world. And the truth about the world is usually quite unpleasant. My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.

The point is that the useful and significant political actions are those that have consequences for human beings. And those are overwhelmingly the actions which you have some way of influencing and controlling, which mean for me, American actions. But I am also involved in protesting Soviet imperialism, and also explaining its roots in Soviet society. And I think that anyone in the Third World would be making a grave error if they succumbed to illusions about these matters.

of course he immediately contradicts himself. but this is an extremely important point, where he doesn't go far enough. not just that condemning someone else's actions over your own has 0 value, it actually has negative value because it fits into a propaganda discourse. words only have meaning in their immanence, there is no such thing as a condemnation, a theory, a science, or a philosophy free of ideology, discourse, and the real world. this is why theory is so important, because it is part of the real world and not separate from it (this is idealism).

a communist condemning the USSR or Syria or whatever is nothing more than a useful fool for bourgeois propaganda. who cares if you condemn Stalin or Assad? What value is your search for truth outside of your actual role in the material world? your only value is as a thorn in the side of imperialism, because this is what you're morally responsible for (I dislike Chomsky's way of putting it but he's one of the few people with the humility to touch on this fundamental issue)

babyhueypnewton posted:

jools posted:

lol what do you think i think about the cultural revolution

weren't you the one who compared it to witch trials? I may be thinking of someone else but I'm pretty sure it was you.

what the hell

jools posted:

lol this is exactly what i mean, you fire phrases like "proleterian vs. bourgeois science" from your blunderbuss without actually considering what they mean

like look at this

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/Proletarian%20Science.pdf

lysenko is purely discussed it terms of error, the approach is almost that the western critics of lysenkoism did not go far enough because they would have ended up against the limits of their own ideology. your marxism is a pathetic thing, simultaneously overwhelmingly strong such that any action taken by historical keepers of its apostolic succession are, in the end, justifiable, and mewlingly weak, unable to cope at all with the invidious claims of anti-communists without blind affirmation of everything that happened under its name.

you are dishonest, you have a history of being dishonest and vicious, and I have no time for it which is why I tried to end the debate on an amicable note. my defense of lysenko as correct science is purely in your head, you've seized on a cheap argument to try and win without actually analyzing your own beliefs. i have spoken of the discourse of anti-lysenkoism without commenting whatsoever on his correctness. that you cannot imagine this is a function of your own arrogance, in which your opinion on everything actually matters or is informed at all. I have also spoken of proletarian science and the idea of the idea of progress in marxism, which are huge ideas, and you have repeatedly failed to keep up with me. you are too boring to be able to have conversations about philosophy with, and you've justified this with a rejection of all philosophy. whatever helps you cope.

i am perfectly capable of defending marxism against an anti-marxist, because at least they have conviction in their beliefs. I have no desire to defend it from marxists like you and getfiscal who exist only to feel more righteous and correct than other marxists and have no actual interest in debate or learning.

babyhueypnewton posted:

One of the best Chomsky quotes:

I think what we ought to do is to try to understand the truth about the world. And the truth about the world is usually quite unpleasant. My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.

The point is that the useful and significant political actions are those that have consequences for human beings. And those are overwhelmingly the actions which you have some way of influencing and controlling, which mean for me, American actions. But I am also involved in protesting Soviet imperialism, and also explaining its roots in Soviet society. And I think that anyone in the Third World would be making a grave error if they succumbed to illusions about these matters.

lol p fucking funny coming out of the mouth of a guy known almost exclusively for pointing out other peoples atrocities while offering literally zero solutions of his own

jools posted:

i get vicious when people pump out blather like "the ideological limits of empiricism" like so many farts in the breeze

yes and when someone dismisses some of the most important philosophers (and philosophy itself) with the wave of a hand my initial instinct is to laugh at them. you really do think you are more intelligent and more correct than althusser and have the gall to call others 'nerds on the internet'. but instead I used this as a chance to post some interesting stuff and try and extract your philosophical assumptions and some of my own. now that this debate has been dragged into the mud I'll just go back to laughing. I don't know why my earnest posting pisses so many people off here, but you all made the mistake of voting me mod, so i would suggest this be the end of the argument.