Chud¹:

>you will always be a spook

Chud²:

>Fuck off we don't want your kind here

Chud³: Both are inbred Hegelian thinkers

Chud⁴: Both are larper

polarian: sugly people will get the bullet

polarian: @Chud:

>hegelian logic... LE BAD!

<He held that that the members of racial groups essentially shared certain fundamental, heritable, moral, intellectual and cultural characteristics with one another that they did not share with members of any other race and that these differences were such as to support an objective ranking. This shows that Hegel took the category of race to be the sort of category we today would characterize as 'racialist'. Hegel's concept of race was the racialist concept of race.

Chud⁵⁽³⁾: @polarian: More reason to hate the incoherent fucker GEG.

"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."
-Arthur Schopenhauer

polarian: @Chud: i thought it was going to read an actual deconstruction but it was just a kantsissy seething over hegel's influence on philosophy. wasn't schopenhauer than one antinatalist tard that tried to integrate indian thinking into the west via moral self-flagellation? yeah NGMI KEEEEEEEEEEK

Chud⁶⁽³⁾: @polarian: Both Schopenhauer and Kant clown on poor Hegel who couldnt write a coherent sentence if his life depended on it. Also whats wrong with those 2 things? Both are better (especially the former) than being a prussian agent writing slop to please the ones in power. There is nothing to deconstruct when it comes to Hegel, dude couldn't even explain himself.

Though Kant and Schopenhauer were Continental philosophers and idealists, the analytic philosophers of the 20th century did away with Hegel. They were actually sensible and took back philosophy from Hegel's babble. Contemporary philosophy owes most of its existence to them and everyone who detested Friedrich before them. So kiss yourself Hegelian scum

polarian: @Chud: You genuinely think a historical chronology centered around suffering and irrationality is any more logical and coherent than a historical chronology centered around continuous advancement and sublation? We'd still be primates assraping eachother had there not been synthesis and refinement of thought and thats the entire reason why human thinking has been reduced to aimless bloviation about the most simplistic of ideas. Human reason is intrinsically dynamic and implying it to be cyclically static and self-deprecating is so reductive I cannot believe those "analytic philosophers" weren't rendered obsolete beforehand. Maybe because everyone else was starving and slaving away in sweatshops to correct them. Nevermind the fact that Marxist logic that arose from Hegelian dialectics gave birth to a space-faring nuclear global economic superpower that directly controlled half of the entire developed world at a single point.

>EVERYTHING IS BLIND AND IRRATIONAL! THERES NO REAL MEANING ONLY REPRESENTATION OF SUFFERING! LET ME SMOKE MY WEED AND GOON NOW

And these greedy personish noons blame Karl Marx and Communists, those who are concerned with concrete and pragmatic analysis, for being lazy. This is the raisin I would feed my goyslaves if I wanted them to keep them emaciated and docile.

anonymoose: Yeah, I'm thinking this is an Egoism win

polarian: @anonymoose: Straight to the camps. What the fuck is the purpose of an egoist?

Chud⁷: Brimstone

Chud⁸⁽³⁾:

>You genuinely think a historical chronology centered around suffering and irrationality is any more logical and coherent than a historical chronology centered around continuous advancement and sublation?

Why add "irrational"? I agree that suffering is the reason why we do what we do, in every single situation. Suffering is the mover of us, but logic exists itself without our presence or attention. To be frank most of your little brapping here is the reason why contemporary philosophers clown on you guys. You talk about stuff that I didnt even mention, stuff you couldnt logically connect to my last reply.

>Human reason is intrinsically dynamic and implying it to be cyclically static and self-deprecating is so reductive I cannot believe those "analytic philosophers" weren't rendered obsolete beforehand.

GEEEEEEEG, of course youre one of those "reductionism le bad!!!" guys. Given your post about science youre a quantum mystic/woochad diddynoon. But human thought didnt "evolve". It never did. We simply had things we willed to do and we got them done, after that facing another struggle, until we got here. It's not like the laws of logic changed, like Hegel suggests (or maybe he does not, literally no one not even secondary authors of him could decode his leakage), which he uses as an excuse to endorse blatant falsehood. We only become more enlightened with the world and how it appears to us. The ideals we had, be it of perfection or struggle, were stripped when we got 1st hand qualitative experience of what those ideals entailed. Though not related, Realdialektik (of Julius Bahnsen) is not much different in its description. Bahnsen, in his early years, was a Hegelchad like yourself. He later saw through the lies of poor Georg and his appeal to pure rationalism. Only later did he read Schopenhauer and become one of his greatest students. The way that early pessimists used the term "irrational" is not in the mathematical "p is not p" way. That would be absurd as Schopenhauer himself built his project on logical basis. Though you could argue that yes, they had their fair bit of lunacy, thats nothing compared to Hegelian thought (which gave birth to raisinstain thought of Marxism, psychoanalysis and post-modernism, though they could be argued to be in opposition to big H. Nonetheless they still used his raisin terminology and had no problem with mystical falsehoods). I dont even subscribe to Schopenhauer's metaphysics. I know that the analytical philosophers critiqued everyone who was an idealist back then, Schop being no exception. But his ethics, and axiology of pessimism are of great value. Luckily we got modern negative utilitarians who are agnostic on the whole substance issue, and antinatalists such as Benatar to carry his torch.

>Nevermind the fact that Marxist logic that arose from Hegelian dialectics gave birth to a space-faring nuclear global economic superpower that directly controlled half of the entire developed world at a single point.

Go back Hegelnoon. That was Gallileo's work, and the empiricism necessary for science existed in Hume or Locke. Later the philo-scientific world flourished with the addition of Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Duhem etc. None of those knew of Hegelbabble. Did I also mention Lysenkoism, the ACTUAL product of Hegel and his logic? Or maybe even the fact that Hegel being the clear writer he is made Marx a materialist, the antithesis of idealism? Seems Hegel is like a raisinty anime with no clear meaning, like a jigsaw puzzle where everyone says whatever they want and substitute it with a couple of his quotes.

>And these greedy personish noons blame Karl Marx and Communists, those who are concerned with concrete and pragmatic analysis, for being lazy. This is the raisin I would feed my goyslaves if I wanted them to keep them emaciated and docile.

Lets see. Marx is a "dialectical" materialist, the Soviet Union switched to property dualism, and most commies online are reductive materialist atheists. Can Hegel relate?

Chud⁹: Wordswordswords

Chud¹⁰⁽³⁾: Galileo* @Chud:

Chud¹¹⁽³⁾: @Chud: To add on to this, Schopenhauer saw our use of reason, while logically sound and all that, as having no power in mapping out reality or other individuals. Being honest, he knows that all attempts to "rationalize" this reality with higher ideals are futile. By "rationalize" I dont refer to the mathematical definition.

Chud¹²⁽³⁾: @polarian: In conclusion, youre a filthy Hegelian Commie coon. The Hegelian project is the Lysenkoism of philosophy.

Chud¹³: ^ brap above

Chud¹⁴: @Chud:

>wordswordswords

The left can't meme

Chud¹⁵⁽³⁾: @Chud: Ironic since the noon im responding to is a Marxist spirit demon or something

Chud¹⁶:

>WORDWORDSWORDS WAAAAAH I'M A BRAINLESS WORTHLESS GOYCATTLE ZOOMER AND I CAN'T COMPREHEND ANYTHING WAAAAAAAAAAH WHERE MUH CHINKTOP SLOP AND GOYTAGRAM REELS AND greedy personTUBE SHORTS WAAAAAAAH

polarian: @Chud:

>I agree that suffering is the reason why we do what we do, in every single situation. Suffering is the mover of us, but logic exists itself without our presence or attention. But human thought didn't "evolve". It never did. We simply had things we willed to do and we got them done, after that facing another struggle, until we got here.

I refer to reductionism in the naive realist sense, not insinuating you're even capable of actually analyzing and decontrusting the components of phenomenology. For example, Human activity within technical empiricalities are at a direct manifestation of neurochemical brain function and response to stimuli of the external environment, to which that's dynamic in of itself as neurology and the human psyche is a changing field same with the environment and technological development. You can already observe this with how people define the confines of reality of the most advanced technology of the time, whether it be clocks or computers or simulations. It's meaningless staticism where in order to solve the core contradictions of your theory you automatically default to the most primitive confine of reality, being "muh suffering" literally in parallel to pop culture ancient greek theology where everything came from chaos. You are literally fighting fucking air with this sentiment, same with how you assume that nobody understood Hegel while saying Hegel still somehow influenced society. I'm not even saying that Hegelian logic is the only true logic as that's reductive in of itself, including the thinking that any frame of reference that isn't entirely relativistic is bad. Not even close to what I'm saying at all. You beguile yourself via simplistic thinking to never actually think beyond infared, archaic instinctive reason, an echelon of consciousness only evolutionarily fit for subhuman primates and their undeveloped epistomology at the time. Because it's easy. It's easy, no matter how reductive, to apply the same static frame for even basic modern phenomenology. This is precisely what I mean about being reductive. Actual reductivism to study the fundamental components of phenomena would force you to engage in dynamic reasoning. I'm not even going to engage with your brabble about the nauseating personal identities and gripes that these philosophers have with eachother including the verbose use of buzzwords to replace actual reasoning on your part.

>Hegelian Logic gave birth to postmodernism and evil scary Marxism!

Hegelian logic literally conflates with Postmodernist thinking you spastic diaperugly person. Hegel sought a whole and holistic culmination of logic while Postmodernists are anti-systematic, fragmented and entirely relativistic. Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation of human sociological superstructures and concepts and how they derive from logistical capacity of trade, exchange and labor including the social relations under the economic frameworks we live under, something you can test for time and time again. And something genuinely observational unlike your necrotic kant polycule.

>@Chud:

>I agree that suffering is the reason why we do what we do, in every single situation. Suffering is the mover of us, but logic exists itself without our presence or attention. But human thought didnt "evolve". It never did. We simply had things we willed to do and we got them done, after that facing another struggle, until we got here.

I refer to reductionism in the naive realist sense, not insinuating you're even capable of actually analyzing and decontrusting the components of phenomenology. For example, Human activity within technical empiricalities are at a direct manifestation of neurochemical brain function and response to stimuli of the external environment, to which that's dynamic in of itself as neurology and the human psyche is a changing field same with the environment and technological development. You can already observe this with how people define the confines of reality of the most advanced technology of the time, whether it be clocks or computers or simulations. It's meaningless staticism where in order to solve the core contradictions of your theory you automatically default to the most primitive confine of reality, being "muh suffering" literally in parallel to pop culture ancient greek theology where everything came from chaos. You are literally fighting fucking air with this sentiment, same with how you assume that nobody understood Hegel while saying Hegel still somehow influenced society. I'm not even saying that Hegelian logic is the only true logic as that's reductive in of itself, including the thinking that any frame of reference that isn't entirely relativistic is bad. Not even close to what I'm saying at all. You beguile yourself via simplistic thinking to never actually think beyond infared, archaic instinctive reason, an echelon of consciousness only evolutionarily fit for subhuman primates and their undeveloped epistomology at the time. Because it's easy. It's easy, no matter how reductive, to apply the same static frame for even basic modern phenomenology. This is precisely what I mean about being reductive. Actual reductivism to study the fundamental components of phenomena would force you to engage in dynamic reasoning. I'm not even going to engage with your brabble about the nauseating personal identities and gripes that these philosophers have with eachother

>Hegelian Logic gave birth to postmodernism and evil scary Marxism!

Hegelian logic literally conflates with Postmodernist thinking you spastic diaperugly person. Hegel sought a whole and holistic culmination of logic while Postmodernists are anti-systematic, fragmented and entirely relativistic. Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation of human sociological superstructures and concepts and how they derive from logistical capacity of trade, exchange and labor including the social relations under the economic frameworks we live under, something you can test for time and time again. And something genuinely observational unlike your necrotic kant polycule.

polarian: @polarian: somehow the text copied
rip

Chud¹⁷: @polarian: snca of a nvke

Colorlesspy: @polarian: @Chud: @polarian: copypasta

polarian: @polarian: >That was Gallileo's work, and the empiricism necessary for science existed in Hume or Locke. Later the philo-scientific world flourished with the addition of Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Duhem etc. None of those knew of Hegelbabble.
The Soviet Vnion's scientific ecosystem officially operated under dialectical and historical Materialism which were expanded by vi1sionaries such as Lvnin or Sta1lin, both of those you'd accuse of being products of Marxism which in turn are products of Hegelian philosophy. Literally just plain false.

>on Lysenkoism

Engels literally defended Darwinism and neither did Marx or him oppose genet1cs and the holistic model of hereditary bio1logy. All he did was exploit dialectical materialism as a rhetorical tool for his works on "prvletarian science" (Rivaling Cl1ter's sectarian "gemmy physics") to recieve approval from the Soviet Union. In 'hegelbabble' he ostensibly tied it to being the antithesis to the thesis of Darwinism to which would be the stepping stone to synthesis. He invoked Dialectical terminology with no substance at all kind of like when a soyteen calls his favorite autistic obsession gemmy for zero reason. Stalin only supported that schizo1d because it vaguely aligned with his collectivist agricultural policies. Nobody operated under flawless hindsight back then.

>Marx is a "dialectical" materialist, the Soviet Union switched to property dualism, and most commies online are reductive materialist atheists. Can Hegel relate?

One, there was no dominant switch from fucking dialectical materialism within Soviet policymaking and philosophically rejected it. Any actual convergence that may have been percieved via refovrm was superficial and/or rhetorical. Two, you're conflating comm1ies with anvrchists and eg0ists. And three, Hegel can't because hes dead.

<words had to be constantly censored because of soybooru ugly personjannies using wordbans like seriously its so fucking annoying fix your site jannoids

polarian: @Colorlesspy:
I revised my text on a notepad because the jannyugly person wordfilters constantly omitted me from posting ferret, tell the current nameflamboyant person that runs this site to remove the word banlist

Colorlesspy: @polarian: a janny MUST post whatever the fuck those banned words are cause most of the time there are no banned words yet the comment still keeps filtering it

Chud¹⁸: Absolute diamond post and comment section, and that's coming from a marxist. I think it's beautiful to see discussion like this here
Keep going. Total stirnerugly person death

Chud¹⁹⁽³⁾: @polarian: >I refer to reductionism in the naive realist sense, not insinuating you're even capable of actually analyzing and decontrusting the components of phenomenology. For example, Human activity within technical empiricalities are at a direct manifestation of neurochemical brain function and response to stimuli of the external environment, to which that's dynamic in of itself as neurology and the human psyche is a changing field same with the environment and technological development. You can already observe this with how people define the confines of reality of the most advanced technology of the time, whether it be clocks or computers or simulations.
That has nothing to do with phenomenology you commiediddycoon. Thats metaphysics and part of epistemology. Phenomenology is overrated trash anyways but thats the stuff Hegel can scam people out of. Its easy. Also your reductionism is a brainrot version that no philo-scienceGOD is familiar with. Its a narrow notion. I could just reduce human activity to our preferences being changed and influencing the world around us. In other words just reduce it to preferences, or a will (scary Schopenhauer word). This talk about technology influencing the world around us and how we come to think of it as being a final substrate is nothing more than a narrative Hegelians like yourself parade around as some sort of "proof". First of all, simulation hypothesis isnt even the most popular hypothesis of the "confine of reality". There exists dualism, materialism, idealism, neutral monism and only then the simulation hypothesis. Second of all, Hegelians like yourself are like roaches, impossible to kill. When confronted with Hegel's raisinty logic and epistemology, just say that his project is a "holistic" one. "Holistic" in this sense, implies that you can jump between different paradigms when they dont yield the desired results. In other words, become unfalsifiable raisinskin. Though this is philosophy after all, so testability doesnt matter, you'd still be able to falsify/verify some concepts using established propositions. And yes, its easy to be reductionist because we have the teeth to bite the bullet, instead of dancing around like specialgel, who knew he had no spirit for philosophy or reasoning, so when his logic ultimately collapsed, he said "but I predicted it would happen, and a better one would replace me!!!".

>You are literally fighting fucking air with this sentiment, same with how you assume that nobody understood Hegel while saying Hegel still somehow influenced society. I'm not even saying that Hegelian logic is the only true logic as that's reductive in of itself, including the thinking that any frame of reference that isn't entirely relativistic is bad. Not even close to what I'm saying at all. You beguile yourself via simplistic thinking to never actually think beyond infared, archaic instinctive reason, an echelon of consciousness only evolutionarily fit for subhuman primates and their undeveloped epistomology at the time. Because it's easy. It's easy, no matter how reductive, to apply the same static frame for even basic modern phenomenology.

Chud²⁰⁽³⁾:

>Hegelian logic literally conflates with Postmodernist thinking you spastic diaperugly person. Hegel sought a whole and holistic culmination of logic while Postmodernists are anti-systematic, fragmented and entirely relativistic. Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation of human sociological superstructures and concepts and how they derive from logistical capacity of trade, exchange and labor including the social relations under the economic frameworks we live under, something you can test for time and time again. And something genuinely observational unlike your necrotic kant polycule.

You fucking dumbass, the postmodern thinkers engaged with Hegel and his stupid narrative play. They were 2 sides of the same incoherent coin. I even mentioned this (hence "opposition to big H"). To anyone that isnt a specialed Hegelite, Georg reads like a relativist. Nobody knows when this raisinty spirit will reach asbolute knowledge (whatever the fuck you noons call it). Until then, enjoy the relativism about to ensue. And nobody understood Hegel, not even the man himself. What Hegel did is have his rotten ahh face hailed as one of the philosophers. Everyone that was a noon was able to project and find themselves in his babble. To be honest, I am guilty of that myself. I took on your raisinty narrative play where you sai a bunch of disconnected stuff. My writing style probably similar to that of you roaches. So listen here noon, define "dynamic". Perhaps then you wont be able to roach out with the holistic excuse.

>The Soviet Vnion's scientific ecosystem officially operated under dialectical and historical Materialism which were expanded by vi1sionaries such as Lvnin or Sta1lin, both of those you'd accuse of being products of Marxism which in turn are products of Hegelian philosophy. Literally just plain false.

Before you said

>Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation

Think Hegel the rat couldve replaced Hume and his skepticism? Better yet, think he couldve competed with any of the philo-scienceGODS I mentioned above? Absolutely not. Hume

>Kant

>Hegel

>Marx

>Sov1et "science"-->noon (you)
To defend the greater Kant himself, he wasnt trying to build a scientific theory you monkey. Its philosophy. Not meant to be tested. The fundamental unit of society is the individual, or the experiencer (to the dismay of your statist fantasies). Hey, thats proposition p1!

>Engels literally defended Darwinism and neither did Marx or him oppose genet1cs and the holistic model of hereditary bio1logy. All he did was exploit dialectical materialism as a rhetorical tool for his works on "prvletarian science" (Rivaling Cl1ter's sectarian "gemmy physics") to recieve approval from the Soviet Union. In 'hegelbabble' he ostensibly tied it to being the antithesis to the thesis of Darwinism to which would be the stepping stone to synthesis. He invoked Dialectical terminology with no substance at all kind of like when a soyteen calls his favorite autistic obsession gemmy for zero reason. Stalin only supported that schizo1d because it vaguely aligned with his collectivist agricultural policies. Nobody operated under flawless hindsight back then.

Doesnt matter. The fruits of Hegel's project couldnt filter the rat out. Lysenko still fooled you guys. Stalin didnt give a rat's ass about testability. Hegelites only care about their ferretrdly ideology. Thats it. Dont claim Hegel made science any better than it was. Methodological materialism has no connection to him and never did. Science owes itself to empiricism.

>One, there was no dominant switch from fucking dialectical materialism within Soviet policymaking and philosophically rejected it. Any actual convergence that may have been percieved via refovrm was superficial and/or rhetorical. Two, you're conflating comm1ies with anvrchists and eg0ists. And three, Hegel can't because hes dead.

Never implied that. I was just stating that Hegel was a metaphysical idealist, while Marx, the Union, and Marxists of today arent anywhere close to him. Property Dualism is a type of materialism, where matter is the ultimate substance, and the mind is a (nonphysical) property of it. Reductionistic materialism is plain and simply the ultimate rejection of idealism. All of these are true.

Chud²¹⁽¹⁴⁾:

>>I refer to reductionism in the naive realist sense, not insinuating you're even capable of actually analyzing and decontrusting the components of phenomenology. For example, Human activity within technical empiricalities are at a direct manifestation of neurochemical brain function and response to stimuli of the external environment, to which that's dynamic in of itself as neurology and the human psyche is a changing field same with the environment and technological development. You can already observe this with how people define the confines of reality of the most advanced technology of the time, whether it be clocks or computers or simulations. That has nothing to do with phenomenology you commiediddycoon. Thats metaphysics and part of epistemology. Phenomenology is overrated trash anyways but thats the stuff Hegel can scam people out of. Its easy. Also your reductionism is a brainrot version that no philo-scienceGOD is familiar with. Its a narrow notion. I could just reduce human activity to our preferences being changed and influencing the world around us. In other words just reduce it to preferences, or a will (scary Schopenhauer word). This talk about technology influencing the world around us and how we come to think of it as being a final substrate is nothing more than a narrative Hegelians like yourself parade around as some sort of "proof". First of all, simulation hypothesis isnt even the most popular hypothesis of the "confine of reality". There exists dualism, materialism, idealism, neutral monism and only then the simulation hypothesis. Second of all, Hegelians like yourself are like roaches, impossible to kill. When confronted with Hegel's raisinty logic and epistemology, just say that his project is a "holistic" one. "Holistic" in this sense, implies that you can jump between different paradigms when they dont yield the desired results. In other words, become unfalsifiable raisinskin. Though this is philosophy after all, so testability doesnt matter, you'd still be able to falsify/verify some concepts using established propositions. And yes, its easy to be reductionist because we have the teeth to bite the bullet, instead of dancing around like specialgel, who knew he had no spirit for philosophy or reasoning, so when his logic ultimately collapsed, he said "but I predicted it would happen, and a better one would replace me!!!".

>You are literally fighting fucking air with this sentiment, same with how you assume that nobody understood Hegel while saying Hegel still somehow influenced society. I'm not even saying that Hegelian logic is the only true logic as that's reductive in of itself, including the thinking that any frame of reference that isn't entirely relativistic is bad. Not even close to what I'm saying at all. You beguile yourself via simplistic thinking to never actually think beyond infared, archaic instinctive reason, an echelon of consciousness only evolutionarily fit for subhuman primates and their undeveloped epistomology at the time. Because it's easy. It's easy, no matter how reductive, to apply the same static frame for even basic modern phenomenology.

about an hour ago - Reply Chud20: >Hegelian logic literally conflates with Postmodernist thinking you spastic diaperugly person. Hegel sought a whole and holistic culmination of logic while Postmodernists are anti-systematic, fragmented and entirely relativistic. Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation of human sociological superstructures and concepts and how they derive from logistical capacity of trade, exchange and labor including the social relations under the economic frameworks we live under, something you can test for time and time again. And something genuinely observational unlike your necrotic kant polycule. You fucking dumbass, the postmodern thinkers engaged with Hegel and his stupid narrative play. They were 2 sides of the same incoherent coin. I even mentioned this (hence "opposition to big H"). To anyone that isnt a specialed Hegelite, Georg reads like a relativist. Nobody knows when this raisinty spirit will reach asbolute knowledge (whatever the fuck you noons call it). Until then, enjoy the relativism about to ensue. And nobody understood Hegel, not even the man himself. What Hegel did is have his rotten ahh face hailed as one of the philosophers. Everyone that was a noon was able to project and find themselves in his babble. To be honest, I am guilty of that myself. I took on your raisinty narrative play where you sai a bunch of disconnected stuff. My writing style probably similar to that of you roaches. So listen here noon, define "dynamic". Perhaps then you wont be able to roach out with the holistic excuse.

>The Soviet Vnion's scientific ecosystem officially operated under dialectical and historical Materialism which were expanded by vi1sionaries such as Lvnin or Sta1lin, both of those you'd accuse of being products of Marxism which in turn are products of Hegelian philosophy. Literally just plain false. Before you said

>Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation

Think Hegel the rat couldve replaced Hume and his skepticism? Better yet, think he couldve competed with any of the philo-scienceGODS I mentioned above? Absolutely not. Hume>Kant>Hegel>Marx>Sov1et "science"-->noon (you)
To defend the greater Kant himself, he wasnt trying to build a scientific theory you monkey. Its philosophy. Not meant to be tested. The fundamental unit of society is the individual, or the experiencer (to the dismay of your statist fantasies). Hey, thats proposition p1!

>Engels literally defended Darwinism and neither did Marx or him oppose genet1cs and the holistic model of hereditary bio1logy. All he did was exploit dialectical materialism as a rhetorical tool for his works on "prvletarian science" (Rivaling Cl1ter's sectarian "gemmy physics") to recieve approval from the Soviet Union. In 'hegelbabble' he ostensibly tied it to being the antithesis to the thesis of Darwinism to which would be the stepping stone to synthesis. He invoked Dialectical terminology with no substance at all kind of like when a soyteen calls his favorite autistic obsession gemmy for zero reason. Stalin only supported that schizo1d because it vaguely aligned with his collectivist agricultural policies. Nobody operated under flawless hindsight back then. Doesnt matter. The fruits of Hegel's project couldnt filter the rat out. Lysenko still fooled you guys. Stalin didnt give a rat's ass about testability. Hegelites only care about their ferretrdly ideology. Thats it. Dont claim Hegel made science any better than it was. Methodological materialism has no connection to him and never did. Science owes itself to empiricism.

>One, there was no dominant switch from fucking dialectical materialism within Soviet policymaking and philosophically rejected it. Any actual convergence that may have been percieved via refovrm was superficial and/or rhetorical. Two, you're conflating comm1ies with anvrchists and eg0ists. And three, Hegel can't because hes dead. Never implied that. I was just stating that Hegel was a metaphysical idealist, while Marx, the Union, and Marxists of today arent anywhere close to him. M Property Dualism is a type of materialism, where matter is the ultimate substance, and the mind is a (nonphysical) property of it. Reductionistic materialism is plain and simply the ultimate rejection of idealism. All of these are true.

Chud²²:

>>I refer to reductionism in the naive realist sense, not insinuating you're even capable of actually analyzing and decontrusting the components of phenomenology. For example, Human activity within technical empiricalities are at a direct manifestation of neurochemical brain function and response to stimuli of the external environment, to which that's dynamic in of itself as neurology and the human psyche is a changing field same with the environment and technological development. You can already observe this with how people define the confines of reality of the most advanced technology of the time, whether it be clocks or computers or simulations. That has nothing to do with phenomenology you commiediddycoon. Thats metaphysics and part of epistemology. Phenomenology is overrated trash anyways but thats the stuff Hegel can scam people out of. Its easy. Also your reductionism is a brainrot version that no philo-scienceGOD is familiar with. Its a narrow notion. I could just reduce human activity to our preferences being changed and influencing the world around us. In other words just reduce it to preferences, or a will (scary Schopenhauer word). This talk about technology influencing the world around us and how we come to think of it as being a final substrate is nothing more than a narrative Hegelians like yourself parade around as some sort of "proof". First of all, simulation hypothesis isnt even the most popular hypothesis of the "confine of reality". There exists dualism, materialism, idealism, neutral monism and only then the simulation hypothesis. Second of all, Hegelians like yourself are like roaches, impossible to kill. When confronted with Hegel's raisinty logic and epistemology, just say that his project is a "holistic" one. "Holistic" in this sense, implies that you can jump between different paradigms when they dont yield the desired results. In other words, become unfalsifiable raisinskin. Though this is philosophy after all, so testability doesnt matter, you'd still be able to falsify/verify some concepts using established propositions. And yes, its easy to be reductionist because we have the teeth to bite the bullet, instead of dancing around like specialgel, who knew he had no spirit for philosophy or reasoning, so when his logic ultimately collapsed, he said "but I predicted it would happen, and a better one would replace me!!!".

>You are literally fighting fucking air with this sentiment, same with how you assume that nobody understood Hegel while saying Hegel still somehow influenced society. I'm not even saying that Hegelian logic is the only true logic as that's reductive in of itself, including the thinking that any frame of reference that isn't entirely relativistic is bad. Not even close to what I'm saying at all. You beguile yourself via simplistic thinking to never actually think beyond infared, archaic instinctive reason, an echelon of consciousness only evolutionarily fit for subhuman primates and their undeveloped epistomology at the time. Because it's easy. It's easy, no matter how reductive, to apply the same static frame for even basic modern phenomenology.

about an hour ago - Reply Chud20: >Hegelian logic literally conflates with Postmodernist thinking you spastic diaperugly person. Hegel sought a whole and holistic culmination of logic while Postmodernists are anti-systematic, fragmented and entirely relativistic. Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation of human sociological superstructures and concepts and how they derive from logistical capacity of trade, exchange and labor including the social relations under the economic frameworks we live under, something you can test for time and time again. And something genuinely observational unlike your necrotic kant polycule. You fucking dumbass, the postmodern thinkers engaged with Hegel and his stupid narrative play. They were 2 sides of the same incoherent coin. I even mentioned this (hence "opposition to big H"). To anyone that isnt a specialed Hegelite, Georg reads like a relativist. Nobody knows when this raisinty spirit will reach asbolute knowledge (whatever the fuck you noons call it). Until then, enjoy the relativism about to ensue. And nobody understood Hegel, not even the man himself. What Hegel did is have his rotten ahh face hailed as one of the philosophers. Everyone that was a noon was able to project and find themselves in his babble. To be honest, I am guilty of that myself. I took on your raisinty narrative play where you sai a bunch of disconnected stuff. My writing style probably similar to that of you roaches. So listen here noon, define "dynamic". Perhaps then you wont be able to roach out with the holistic excuse.

>The Soviet Vnion's scientific ecosystem officially operated under dialectical and historical Materialism which were expanded by vi1sionaries such as Lvnin or Sta1lin, both of those you'd accuse of being products of Marxism which in turn are products of Hegelian philosophy. Literally just plain false. Before you said

>Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation

Think Hegel the rat couldve replaced Hume and his skepticism? Better yet, think he couldve competed with any of the philo-scienceGODS I mentioned above? Absolutely not. Hume>Kant>Hegel>Marx>Sov1et "science"-->noon (you)
To defend the greater Kant himself, he wasnt trying to build a scientific theory you monkey. Its philosophy. Not meant to be tested. The fundamental unit of society is the individual, or the experiencer (to the dismay of your statist fantasies). Hey, thats proposition p1!

>Engels literally defended Darwinism and neither did Marx or him oppose genet1cs and the holistic model of hereditary bio1logy. All he did was exploit dialectical materialism as a rhetorical tool for his works on "prvletarian science" (Rivaling Cl1ter's sectarian "gemmy physics") to recieve approval from the Soviet Union. In 'hegelbabble' he ostensibly tied it to being the antithesis to the thesis of Darwinism to which would be the stepping stone to synthesis. He invoked Dialectical terminology with no substance at all kind of like when a soyteen calls his favorite autistic obsession gemmy for zero reason. Stalin only supported that schizo1d because it vaguely aligned with his collectivist agricultural policies. Nobody operated under flawless hindsight back then. Doesnt matter. The fruits of Hegel's project couldnt filter the rat out. Lysenko still fooled you guys. Stalin didnt give a rat's ass about testability. Hegelites only care about their ferretrdly ideology. Thats it. Dont claim Hegel made science any better than it was. Methodological materialism has no connection to him and never did. Science owes itself to empiricism.

>One, there was no dominant switch from fucking dialectical materialism within Soviet policymaking and philosophically rejected it. Any actual convergence that may have been percieved via refovrm was superficial and/or rhetorical. Two, you're conflating comm1ies with anvrchists and eg0ists. And three, Hegel can't because hes dead. Never implied that. I was just stating that Hegel was a metaphysical idealist, while Marx, the Union, and Marxists of today arent anywhere close to him. M Property Dualism is a type of materialism, where matter is the ultimate substance, and the mind is a (nonphysical) property of it. Reductionistic materialism is plain and simply the ultimate rejection of idealism. All of these are true.

Chud²³: specialed nonsense wall of text above

Chud²⁴⁽²⁾:
==

vaguely aligned with his collectivist agricultural policies. Nobody operated under flawless hindsight back then. Doesnt matter. The fruits of Hegel's project couldnt filter the rat out. Lysenko still fooled you guys. Stalin didnt give a rat's ass about testability. Hegelites only care about their ferretrdly ideology. Thats it. Dont claim Hegel made science any better than it was. Methodological materialism has no connection to him and never did. Science owes itself to empiricism.

>One, there was no dominant switch from fucking dialectical materialism within Soviet policymaking and philosophically rejected it. Any actual convergence that may have been percieved via refovrm was superficial and/or rhetorical. Two, you're conflating comm1ies with anvrchists and eg0ists. And three, Hegel can't because hes dead. Never implied that. I was just stating that Hegel was a metaphysical idealist, while Marx, the Union, and Marxists of today arent anywhere close to him. M Property Dualism is a type of materialism, where matter is the ultimate substance, and the mind is a (nonphysical) property of it. Reductionistic materialism is plain and simply the ultimate rejection of idealism. All of these are true.

==

tong: @Chud: greek

gemmy

playing with xis whitey twink

Chud²⁵⁽²⁾:

Chud²⁶: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^noonbunch

Chud²⁷: As funny as this whole argument was to read max stirner went on to become a critic of hegelianism after departing from it.

veironn: i liked stirner until i found out what kind of people stirner appeals to the most