Is there any material difference between a man that knows how to fish and one who doesn't? Both men are able bodied...

Also the "albanian filth" kicked the asses of your glorious ubermensch

But historical materialism argues that the material world is what causes the development of history not ideas. How can technological innovations not be considered ideas? Their power is that they cause material changes but in of themselves they are only ideas.

Personally I don't

Attached: thumb-gorillaaboutus.jpg (500x340, 37.7K)

You misunderstand, ideas ARE part of the material world. The idea of fishing wouldn't have happened without fish and hunger.

Attached: IMG_20190313_203449.jpg (324x196 13.74 KB, 30.67K)

did you just come out of /b/? this is the kind of shit underage edgelords do

Just delete this fucking thread already.

/thread

Attached: 1c55ba36bafd6d7afaaaeb207bc46bd03a0927615ded46d580272c4079177610.png (1024x707, 867.06K)

Ideas are things that happen in people's heads. It literally costs energy to organize electrochemical signals in your brain to create an idea, it has a cost to maintain that idea. Materialism accounts for ideas easily.

Okay but then how can anything be called idealism then? If I think ideas can change reality then by virtue of them being material can't they?

So far in the last two days we've had a fascist furry with a rape fetish, an actual faggot fascist with obsession about "repressed energy", and a "goyl" fascist who's highest aspiration was either being raped in the streets or being used as a passed around whore in the future "ethnostate". Your nothing really new tbh, so please send better.

There's a reason we don't subscribe to idealism here.

We need to put these degenerates to good use with forced estrogen hormone therapy and communal wall sockets where we put the degenerates in and let the commune use their holes. Vid related.
youtube.com/watch?v=X6n_y50v9bA

Idealism subscribes to the idea that the "world" of ideas is "more real" than the material world, eg. Plato's Forms.

More accurately, idealism subscribes to the worldview that things are instances of thoughts made manifest, materialism holds that ideas are particular instances of matter.

leftycuck fears the boonposting

i guess mods wanted to be extra faggy today by not deleting shit threads

L

No reason to delete this thread, wtf

t. mod

>>>Zig Forums

t. man who has been told to have a nice day as his previous situation was understandable

To expand on this, the energy used to create ideas is glucose. If you think too hard about something, you can use up too much glucose and get a headache. If this happens, rest and eat food to replenish your Mana.

also brains are squishy, an essentiao feature of of material things

The value of knowledge is the amount o labor required to teach it. It's a fundamental part of the economy and fits in the LTV.

So the difference is: the man that knows how to fish carries extra value in his work when it comes to fishing. A shitty fisher will be cheaper to hire than a good one because in general it costs more time to make a good fisher.

Exactly, the brain is mostly fat, and deforms in water, that's why they're frozen in storage.
If you get stuck on an island after your plane goes down or such and have to resort to cannibalism, do NOT eat the brain as you can develop a prion (infected protein) disease called Creutzfeldt-Jakob's Disease.

You guys seem to be conflating Historical Materialism and the metaphysical doctrine of materialism. Historical materialism is the idea that the development of human society as a whole is shaped by developments in the way we produce the means of life. So for example, the development of agriculture is what made early statecraft viable by way of division of labor. Another example would be how capitalism leads to the commodification of culture.

Historical materialism doesn't have anything to do with the ultimate ontological nature of reality, and it certainly doesn't mean that ideas don't play a role in historical development.

This isn't to say that Historical Materialism isn't based on metaphysical materialism. Marx certainly saw his theory of history as being informed by his metaphysics as evidenced by the following quote.

Some fags like Anal Water will try to tell you that Marx was an idealist which is silly, but what is even more silly is all the trots that go around claiming that "Idealism is when you think that great ideas are what drives history."

Attached: snnn.jpg (480x600, 27.96K)

based living smonk

I wasn't talking about historical materialism at any point. I was explaining what materialism is, which is obviously the first step to understanding historical materialism, and it should make clear why his question is kind of weird.

Only if the person you're eating already had it.

You deserve a medal for getting Marx this right, I was arguing on reddit this morning with a bunch of Marxists who think Marx's materialism is metaphysical.

On the other hand, however, you misunderstand what Marx says about the primacy of matter over mind. Over all his works Marx emphasizes that he's interested in the grounding conditionality of things from human to natural affairs. Marx does think it has to do with an objectivity impinging on human subjectivity, but Marx does not care about matter as such nor does he dwell on it. It all boils down to the fact that no conscious mind is itself the source of the world, and one could easily put this forward in terms of Idealism, neutral monism, or materialism.

When I say Marx is an Idealist all I'm saying is that he is doing philosophy which by Hegelian conception of concepts is de facto always idealism in that what we posit as the most real is never a thing we experience, but a concept. Matter as such has never been seen or experienced, and yet we talk of it.

shut the fuck up anal water no one cares

What..?

ur brain on hegels

I believe he means that we experience our subjective sensations but we cannot experience matter directly.

He's talking about Phenomenology (I hope).

You should try reading a history book before you tackle Marx.

wait
Marx was Zizek all along?

C'mon guys. I'm not going to say that you need an intimate knowledge of German idealism in order to participate in discussion around Marxism, but you should at least try to develop a cursory understanding of the philosophical context in which Marx was writing.

When you look at a chair are you directly perceiving the matter which makes up the chair? Do you see atomic and molecular structures?

The notion that matter–or at least matter as a thing-in-itself—is not directly perceived doesn't actually originate with Kant, but it was Kant's formulation of said notion which opened the door to the project of German idealism. All later German idealists–if not all subsequent philosophers–took this for granted, it was at the height of this philosophical movement that Marx wrote.

Here are three articles you should read. I'm not saying you can't be a communist without reading the Phenomenology of Spirit, but if you are going to participate in discussion of any sort of philosophy you should at least read the first two, and if you want to talk about the philosophy of Karl Marx as opposed to just Marxist politics you should also read the third.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

Nigger, where have you been? Your autistic ass hasn't posted to your blog since December.

I agree that the majority of Marx's theories could be understood in terms of idealism, materialism or neutral monism. In fact, they could probably be understood just fine in terms of dualism as well.

I don't agree that Marx was altogether uninterested in metaphysics, even if he didn't waste too much ink on the subject. His position is implicit in his writing, and in what he says of the relationship between his own method and that of Hegel. I won't be able to provide quotations to support my reading, but any other interpretation of Marx would simply paint him as an edgy kid embracing the materialist label to differentiate himself from his predecessors.

Hegel's conception of history was intimately related to his metaphysics, as I know you understand. Marx fully grasped the elegance of this connection, and wished to preserve it in his own work. When Marx said he was turning Hegel on his head, this was not–as most vulgar Marxists seem to think–simply to divorce Hegel's correct dialectical method from his bad spooky idealism. Instead, it was a complete inversion of Hegel's system. Rather than developments in the noumenal idea birthing processes in the phenomenal world, it became the precise opposite. Processes in the noumenal material world are filtered through sensory faculties, reflected in the human mind, translated into forms of thought, and it is in the interplay between these forms of thought that we may find insight about the material processes under observation.

Patently absurd. What is there ever to be said of experience?

This is the correct way to respond to namefaggotry.

Attached: smonk.jpg (500x344, 16.96K)

Yes it is, and that position is explicit in one place: the 1844 Manuscripts. It's called "Naturalism" or Humanism. It only has the guise of materialism, but never is materialism in essence. Marx is not a mechanist, which is *the* philosophical purity of materialism as such, and Marx does not believe us to be machines. There is a major difference between epistemic claims about the origin of ideas in the mind and the ontological reality of ideas and the mind. Marx very well believes in "free will" as well as the power of ideas to change things. A man does not spend his entire life working on theory under the belief that it's all in the material base with no requirement of ideas entering consciousness and reflexing onto the base.

Please read the Philosophy of History again, because this is not what Hegel claims. This belief is common precisely because people have a completely erroneous and baseless misunderstanding of what Hegel's idealism is. The Idea(s) are not Platonic forms in some other realm, the Ideas *are* the real things of this world when we comprehend them as what they truly are in their independent being from our subjective beliefs and contingent material configurations. It's like empirical science: we are interested in knowing things in their purity and make experiments and models to attempt our best to observe that purity.

You don't experience experience immediately, do you? If such was so easy to determine it wouldn't be a philosophical puzzle what 'consciousness' is. The Phenomenology of Spirit itself answers to your whole deal about experience first, and then answers to the questions of matter later. Worth a read if you learn how to read the book.

I've posted two things recently to my blog and over last year I mostly wrote things for Epoché which were linked on my topics list but not put forth explicitly on the blog itself. I've just been busy mulling over other things and doing revisions and expansions of other things that are long term writings.

Relevant to the "materialism is idealism" claim.

epochemagazine.org/hegel-were-all-idealists-just-the-bad-kind-f7e1b5c55655

What do you guys think of this explanation of the distinction?
For Hegel, thought is primary. You are in the first place a person reflecting on the world. The world itself is only a special kind of result of this reflection. Thinking is being.
For Marx, however, what comes first is the human acting in the world, laboring upon it. Thought is only a special self-directed form of this process. Laboring is being.

I'm not sure if there is any true functional difference between these two. It feels like a matter of just choosing a name for being, and thus connecting it to a moment of our lived experience. To Hegel, this moment is the moment in which we are philosophizing, which makes sense since Hegel is a philosopher. To Marx, it is the moment we are laboring on the world, which makes sense since he is a communist. I'd say both of these can be equally viscerally real to a person.

Why did Marx insist on making this change? Maybe it is just that he thought Hegel to be incredibly elitist in choosing thought as being. This is how elated philosophers like Hegel himself would have approached it, but it has nothing to do with the common laborer. A laborer doesn't spend endless hours silently reflecting on the world, he goes out into the world and labors, perfects his craft of processing the world for his own use.
Next to this, Marx wanted to stop merely reflecting on the world and actually work to change it. Having thought as the locus of your system then doesn't seem very appealing.

RADICAL VEGAN GANG!!!

Attached: carnist memes vegan meat vegetarian.jpg (1200x872, 131.56K)

well if you know how to fish, but there isn't any fish, you are fucked.
Because fish are a material good, part of another material good called land.

Of course he isn't, but this doesn't mean he wasn't a materialist. Materialism =/= Determinism.

What is the relevance of this distinction? Did I conflate epistemic claims with claims about the ontological nature of ideas? The relevant subject of conversation is the relation of ideas in the mind to objects and processes in the world. Any claim about this subject would have both epistemic and ontological implications.

Again, you are conflating materialism with determinism. I never said that Marx didn't believe in free will, or that he believed ideas to not influence the world.

Hence, noumenal. I don't see how you are even contradicting me here. My point is that for Hegel, ideas are the real world, and for Marx they are but mere reflections of the material world. I'm not claiming that they don't share a reality.

Attached: smikk.jpg (500x500, 23.92K)

there aren't any fish on land you dumb cunt

Attached: pepe smiley.png (499x499, 75.13K)

Just read these:
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/
marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

Brain structure and shit is different in someone who has learned something. It's not exactly the same but similar how a hard drive with data on it is different than one without it. The matter may be pretty similar but the arrangement is different. Then you can get huge differences when structural changes lead to emergent properties.

Take a river for instance. The same amount of water flowing through the same land area can be radically different depending on how it flows. If the soil is loose and rocky you might get a straight-flowing river that blasts through pretty fast. If the soil is well anchored by plants the river can meander slowly and stuff that can't handle rapids will grow there. Animals will be able to cross where they might otherwise get swept away/drowned. And because of the food chain/web, if you significantly impact one species you will probably impact several others at least. If a keystone species has its habitat altered the entire area can be transformed. With a slower river, beavers can build a dam and create their own smaller ecosystem, altering the flow of the river even more, and so on.

Part of historical materialism is that technology changes things. Being able to make something is a material concern. How effectively you make it is a material concern. Whether the reason is what you know, or if the reason is what you can practically do - if you gave model T blueprints to a medieval king and explained the engineering so he understood it, he still couldn't make it because he lacks the other technology and heavy industry necessary.

Yes it does. The moment you allow for free will (not indeterminism) you allow for an order above the material to exist, reflexive mind which determines itself in the mental and over the material such that you at the very least no longer have matter over mind but matter and mind with the same ontological and logical weight.

The relevance of the distinction of epistemic and ontological origin of ideas regards your remarks about the Philosophy of History. What you describe as
is an epistemic origin of thoughts, not of their ontological nature. That material being comes into a cognitive process in thought only tells us of what ideas we may immediately begin with naturally and culturally, but not what the nature of thought/cognition has in relation to matter. Marx, unlike Engels, *explicitly* does not hold the basic and false empiricist notion of the reflective theory of cognition where ideas are just reflections of sensuous experience—they very clearly are not. It is precisely because thought does not ontologically originate in matter or as a reflection of matter that we can reason beyond the immediacies of existence and project into past, future, and essences. It is because of thought's non-material basis that you can have the very thought of 'oughts' in moral and non-moral concerns, etc.

If you believe in free will and that ideas influence the world then you de facto do not believe that materialism is true in the final analysis. The true materialist belief belongs to those Marx calls vulgar materialists, the fools who believe that revolution lies in the mere technological base which will "naturally" generate the ideas in the superstructure without any need for revolutionary work on the ideological level.

You don't see that we're not saying the same thing with "Idea"? When I say Idea I'm not talking about what you're talking about. The Ideas *are* what Marx calls the real material world. They don't have a different nature, they don't exist in a different way. To clear the confusion: Idea is the name of natural existent objective reality, and has nothing to do with anything else. In that Marx believes matter to be this, and by matter he only means the natural existent objective reality, then Marx's matter is the same thing as Hegel's Idea. That said, Marx has no interest in such matters and is strictly focused on social materiality, which is in essence not about matter but about social mediation under the limitations of economic need regardless of its metaphysical nature.

Rescuing this because materialism itself could use more debate.

This niggarade in particular nailed it.

I don't see why that can be. Our current understanding of is that it is a probabilistic one, yet it doesn't require an immaterial factor.

Attached: Agent Smith pondering existence.jpg (752x581, 153.91K)

Indeterminism (probability) does not equate to free will. These are very basic concepts in this silly debate. There can be no coherent concept of free will in any form of materialism, and there can be no coherent concept of materialism without mechanism.

You have to shift ontologies: Marx chose Naturalism/humanism, not Materialism. That he calls it materialism does not make his philosophy or theories such.

I agree, but free will as a concept is retarded and only fit for use by catholics and other mental midgets.