Discussion in 'Community' started by Outsourced, May 6, 2020.
Theorists are holy peo-oh, you're talking about ideological theorists, not physics theorists.
To be fair I do tend to think theoretical physicist are operating on another level.
Along that vein, I suppose it boils down to the old Feynman/Gell-Mann argument - trying to bridge the gap of understanding with non-specialists versus keeping the purity of knowledge from being diluted in a futile quest to make people 'understand' concepts they can't comprehend.
As long as non-specialists don't interfere with the funding of scientific experiments or the education of those in school, I don't see why it even matters whether they learn the wrong physics or no physics at all. Honestly up to them. I'm long since over being upset over NASA warp drive nonsense.
This. There are environmentally friendly ways to run industries. That’s what all the bull**** conspiracy theories about climate science are about, the assumption that it’s a prop to expand green industries and/or government overreach.
I answered that the environment is important enough to protect despite some “human suffering” with the mindset that some people actually believe that reduced oil profits, loss of jobs in the oil and coal industry, and not getting to eat meat three times a day is “human suffering.” The closest to actual human suffering there would be the job losses, and those can be made up through green industries.
Well, I tried. I had thought I might find common ground, but.. well...
Isms, in my opinion, are not good...
I wish you each of you long life and happiness.
lol that's a Ferris Bueller quote
One should not believe in an ism. One should believe in one's self. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me".
That’s just egoism.
That's Ferris Bueller in a nutshell, spending the movie being rampantly selfish. Pretty easy to not believe in anything when you're living a comfortable life buoyed by parental indulgence.
I don’t even think it’s a coherent “belief in nothing,” it’s just a lack of self-reflection and naïve prioritization of the immediate. Hegel says *alarm goes off*
I really only meant it in jest. Please don't read too much into it. I was not trying to come at anyone.
I mean, say what you want about the tenants of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
You do not, in fact, have to hand it to them.
I'd like to report a murder.
The description seems a bit woolly to me. Social democracy was at 77% and seems more accurate based on the description.
Okay, new theory, the secret cabal that makes up the USPD remnant emerged from their underground cryogenic bunkers after almost a century of total dormancy and programmed this quiz.
Trotsky has already been there and did that.
Has anyone quoted Life of Brian already?
By the way, I got Eco-Marxism with Orthodox Marxism (85.5%) and Council Communism (76%) as my next options.
As someone with literally a book on ecological economy on the nightstand and who often quotes Löwy unironically, yeah, pretty much.
and things ended so well for him
turn the alarm off, I wanna hear a Hegelian rant
In this current environment I need to be a newspaper editor like I need an icepick to the head.
*ghost of Ayn Rand has entered thread*
I just saw the post about theorists as holy people. Honestly Lenin is the guy I would say breaks away from that. He gives trotsky some **** over treating Marx as a perfect guideline as if word of god. Lenin was very focused on material conditions of revolution and not purity of theories.
Lenin fought against the notion that Russia could transition the way Marx thought things would. Orthodox Marxists thought Russia needed to industrialize to a point of capitalism before it could be socialist. Lenin disagreed; if Marx was right that socialism cannot happen till a society becomes peak capitalist and reaches crisis, well then Russia would be stuck to suffer under the same unjust economy as before. Lenin had been present for debates between Marxists like himself, and Narodniks, ending up with a mixture of the two despite having previously adhered to Marx and writing Marxist critiques of them.
The needs clashed with the theory. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lenin-socialism.htm
Not to say lenin didn't idolize him, or that one cannot argue he treated him as word of god at points; but generally he saw Marxism as loose and intentionally aimed to be adjusted accordingly So a lot of people who had similar or even further obsessions with Marx disagreed with him on his more distinctly Russian form of socialism
I haven't read a lot of Lenin, however I do know that it's a common aspect ascribed by biographers (and Russell) that he treated Marx as scripture and was akin to a theocrat.