Personally I think it’s silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience… Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I’ve been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism… Maybe I am just tripping idk

  • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I dont even know what we are arguing about man. I am probably one of the most dogmatic marxists you can find, I just dont think dogmatism is virtuous so I try to avoid it in my arguments. I love hexbear, nowhere else on the internet would I have this conversation and it reminds me of my demsucc days lol

    • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I am arguing that you need to finish reading Capital lol and not just vibe it out, because the principles that exist within it are still incredibly relevant to the modern economic formation. That’s it.

        • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think it is hypocritical to tell someone to read something you haven’t read yourself imo, but this conversation has started circling and I’m not a strict Maoist so you do you I guess.

          • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I read Capital (in laymen form) when i was in my teens and have internalized it into my later years. Sure I could’ve internalized it better, but “look toward some form capital” as some form of disbelief has worked for me for many years.

            Googling “If Marx was correct about LTV then what prevents marketing people from getting paid” is basically Vol 2. I don’t need to have read all several volumes of Capital, for the some reason. Marx didnt have Marx when he was writing capital: for the human condition, Capital is blatantly correct. At least to myself that is true.

            I concede I am too far drunk to elaborate though

            BECAUSE OF CAPTALISM

            gottem

            • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Lol. Look, none of what you just said made any sense to me, but enjoy your night.

              I will say one thing, correct, Marx didn’t have Marx when writing Capital. However, that doesn’t mean we have to reinvent the wheel. Stand on the shoulders of giants.

              • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Imagine if Lenin decided to stand on the shoulder of giants instead of trying to make himself a giant. Idk seems like we can take what’s work and try to improve it.

                To never imagine yourself as a giant is selling yourself short. I am just as capable as Marx, as Marx was simply describing reality.

                • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Please tell me you are trolling.

                  Lenin constantly references Marx and Engles throughout his works, with most of his critiques of his opponents stemming directly from what he believed to be misinterpretations (revisions) of Marxist thought. Lenin was always, always, sure to tie his particular analysis of the material conditions within Russia back to Marx’s original observations, littering his works with direct quotations from Marx that would refute his opponents. He literally wrote one of the most comprehensive known biographies of Marx.

                  You don’t understand the metaphor. You can be giant while standing on the shoulders of giants. If there was ever a giant that stood on the shoulders of a giant, it was Lenin. If you want to be Lenin, then you have to read Marx.

                  • itsPina [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.netOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    You act as if Baudrillard, Debord, Sartre, or Beauvoir don’t literally cite Marx directly constantly. Same is obviously true for Lenin.

                    Marx took someone else’s Labor Theory of Value to prove his point about surplus extraction, do I need to read Adam Smith and Ricardo before I read Marx? No. They’re baked into what Marx wrote. Would I understand more if I did? Sure, that’s true for literally any damn pursuit of knowledge.

                    I legit don’t understand what you’re saying. I’ve read Vol 1. I’ve read various passages from the other volumes of capital, ive read critique of the gotha program, I’ve read Gundriss. I’ve done all of that and have defended Marx and Engels work to prove they did not sneak in teleology, in an academic setting.

                    I still think you’re missing a whole world of philosophy by thinking Marx had everything figured out. He was clearly very bad at predictive history to say the least.