Was Marx Right

[Immanuel Can]

The number doesn't count.

Oh. So being the largest single cause of violent deaths in human history doesn't disqualify Marx for this years Nobel?

Killing is apparently is not in Cristian's way of thinking as far as it goes with Jesus teaching "love your enemy".

That is correct.

So therefore, we must conclude that anybody who killed somebody... Keep going. You'll get there.

[Nick_A]

According to marx there is no objective morality as expressions of objective conscience. There is no need for it. The dictates of the government takes over this responsibility.

“Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it.”
― Albert Einstein

There is no such thing as your conscience. Marx has proven it. The solution is to kill those like Einstein for disturbing the peace and questioning objective morality as a gift from the state.

Such nerve! Who could think there is a moral authority greater than the state? Absurd! What will they think of next I wonder. They should have been aborted long ago saving us the responsibility and expense of having to kill them.

[Sculptor]

The whole purpose of Christianity theoretically is to enable the old Man to become the New Man Through the resurrection.

EXACTLY,
Completely irrelevant.

It is irrelevant for Marx but essential for the process of leaving the cave and for Man to become human.

There is no such thing as "become human". Humans are what humans do.

[Nick_A]

EXACTLY,
Completely irrelevant.

It is irrelevant for Marx but essential for the process of leaving the cave and for Man to become human.

There is no such thing as "become human". Humans are what humans do.

The man animal does what it does. Conscious humanity can do what it does. Leaving the cave and experiencing the life of conscious humanity requires becoming conscious which is just the potential for animal man

[bahman]

The number doesn't count.

Oh. So being the largest single cause of violent deaths in human history doesn't disqualify Marx for this years Nobel?

Could we focuse on the subject of moral principle that it should not be prohibited instead who killed more?

Killing is apparently is not in Cristian's way of thinking as far as it goes with Jesus teaching "love your enemy".

That is correct.

So therefore, we must conclude that anybody who killed somebody... Keep going. You'll get there.

That is your teaching. But the Church act against the teaching of Jesus Christ.

[Sculptor]

It is irrelevant for Marx but essential for the process of leaving the cave and for Man to become human.

There is no such thing as "become human". Humans are what humans do.

The man animal does what it does. Conscious humanity can do what it does. Leaving the cave and experiencing the life of conscious humanity requires becoming conscious which is just the potential for animal man

Nope.
ANd we do not need any child buggering monsters in black coats to tell us how to be human.

[Immanuel Can]

The number doesn't count.

Oh. So being the largest single cause of violent deaths in human history doesn't disqualify Marx for this years Nobel?

Could we focuse on the subject of moral principle that it should not be prohibited instead who killed more?

Killing is an immoral act. As you rightly point out, it's not principled, and not a Christian act.

But it certainly has proved to be a Marxist one. I don't think we can morally remove that from consideration.

Killing is apparently is not in Cristian's way of thinking as far as it goes with Jesus teaching "love your enemy".

That is correct.

So therefore, we must conclude that anybody who killed somebody... Keep going. You'll get there.

That is your teaching. But the Church act against the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Actually, it's Christ's teaching. You quoted Christ Himself.

So anybody who violates it is not in any genuine "church," and is not a disciple of Jesus Christ. There's no basis on which to regard such a person as "Christian," even should they claim otherwise. A "Christian," by definition, is one who obeys the way and the teachings of Christ Himself.

That's the logical conclusion you were drifting toward, but somehow couldn't find.

[bahman]

Oh. So being the largest single cause of violent deaths in human history doesn't disqualify Marx for this years Nobel?

Could we focuse on the subject of moral principle that it should not be prohibited instead who killed more?

Killing is an immoral act. As you rightly point out, it's not principled, and not a Christian act.

But it certainly has proved to be a Marxist one. I don't think we can morally remove that from consideration.

That is correct.

So therefore, we must conclude that anybody who killed somebody... Keep going. You'll get there.

That is your teaching. But the Church act against the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Actually, it's Christ's teaching. You quoted Christ Himself.

So anybody who violates it is not in any genuine "church," and is not a disciple of Jesus Christ. There's no basis on which to regard such a person as "Christian," even should they claim otherwise. A "Christian," by definition, is one who obeys the way and the teachings of Christ Himself.

That's the logical conclusion you were drifting toward, but somehow couldn't find.

So the Church didn't support Cursed?

[Immanuel Can]

So the Church didn't support Cursed?

Which "church," and who are you talking about?

[bahman]

So the Church didn't support Cursed?

Which "church," and who are you talking about?

Sorry I am talking about Crusade.

[Nick_A]

Notice how difficult it is to discuss ideas from a human perspective and how easily discussion devolves into habitual opinions of the Great Beast. Philosophy should allow and encourage human discussion as opposed to the opinions of the Great Beast. If we can't it can only mean that the ideas proposed by Karl Marx will prove victorious since they are aimed at pleasing the Great Beast rather than freedom from the cave and what freedom offers..

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry I am talking about Crusade.

Do you mean the Islamic Crusades, which were the really big, imperialistic and deadly ones, or just the much, much smaller and briefer medieval counter-Crusades of the southern Europeans? Well, whichever you mean, obviously neither of them had anything at all to do with Christ, or with those who follow Him. You can't find anything He ever said that would sanction either.

[Scott Mayers]

Who is closer to the truth: Marx or Plato?

Plato is pretty short on economic theory.
And Marx did not hae much to say about personal Daemons.

Its a dumb question. How much Marx have you ever read?

It is a basic question: Does social existence determine our quality of consciousness or does our consciousness, our "being," determine our existence?

False alternatives. Plato's cave metaphor was an attempt to express that you can INFER something different than the appearance of something INDIRECTLY. I can't recall if this would be interpreted as deduction or induction. Given it could be both, the question of whether you can infer "social existence as determining quality", is odd given the word, 'quality' is itself a judgement based on people's whims in specific contexts.

The "beast" is an odd reference. I know that Plato's Republic was debating whether JUST(ICE) is for the mighty or not. Putting rhetorical meanings of 'beast' in this context is disputable, given they were debating the meaning of whether force or some other factor was or was not just by their debating ideals each thought was 'good', "beast" would only be referencing force.

You appear to be seeking some means to both argue against might as what defines social justice AND attempting to link it politically to the Left, where you opted to use Marx.

I personally think that our system DOES socially define moral value ONLY in 'political/social' ways. There is no such thing as values of 'good' without 'bad' in comparison and only force in some way is used to DICTATE which values get assigned to which behaviors. This is either negotiated by people socially, or is forced by someone's capacity to penalize you for NOT abiding. The 'negotiating' power of many people versus the potential of one may be what Marx may have been discussing given his preference for democratic interests over independent subsets of the whole dictating it to the rest (ie, "imperialism" meaning those who have some intrinsic belief in their 'superiority' as merely being born to fortune AND who commands armies that force the rest to abide.)

"The rule of law", a term phrase that can itself be questioned, is also begging given the 'laws' have to be made by someone in power whether democratic or autocratic and this statement doesn't add anything without the some assumption of magical 'forces' setting down such laws as a FIXED set of conduct, like one's particular Scriptures would.

Plato also failed in his attempt to answer the question but only resorted to "The Cave" to suggest how it is possible for something to be more inclusive of other possibilities. If I recall correctly, he was losing the battle regarding whether justice was just an artificial construct that is 'forced' by those with some literal means to enforce ones' opinion rather than by something 'abstract' and possibly ineffible to speak on directly. The analogy if used to justify your religious interpretation does no more than ASSERT your SPECIFIC "God" as possible to define something 'good' without using FORCE to impose such beliefs upon others THROUGH those particular people claiming to believe in God. So, if you are attempting to align your meaning to your specific god, you are still biased to accepting 'force' or you could argue that such a possible source could just as easily apply to the Devil instead.

So, to reraise Plato's initial question from the Republic, assert your own meaning of 'good' without begging ownership by biased conscious beings, whether human, other animal OR some diety. If it is identical with your diety, as the etymological meaning of 'god' came from, it doesn't add anything more unless it was 'forced'. To assert IT commands what is good yet gives us 'free choice' begs afterthefact why it should be such yet we do not. It certainly doesn't prove THAT such a thing as a deity exists let alone, given 'free choice' assumed, that it matters OTHER than by those humans who can enforce it as though they are appropriate 'proxies' to this magical being.

Given you are likely assuming something universally FIXED about 'good behavior' that you might think exists identically in all of us, why would we EVER choose any behavior distinctly at odds with any other human? I've only noticed the religious to dictate WHICH beliefs are 'right' by the same 'force' of imposition (against supposed 'free will') by setting up penalties most extreme to those who doubt their declarations of what is 'good' to them uniquely.

"Good" is selfishly defined by meaning, if not by that label relative to the environment they are in. If one thinks it 'good' to steal, they might do so even while accepting the MEANING of 'good' to be just the socially defined concept that "stealing is 'bad' to be forcefully penalized by the powers of the enforcer class".

[Skepdick]

Notice how difficult it is to discuss ideas from a human perspective and how easily discussion devolves into habitual opinions of the Great Beast. Philosophy should allow and encourage human discussion as opposed to the opinions of the Great Beast. If we can't it can only mean that the ideas proposed by Karl Marx will prove victorious since they are aimed at pleasing the Great Beast rather than freedom from the cave and what freedom offers..

Discussion for discussion's sake is intellectual masturbation.

Discussion requires framing. The interlocutors need to have a clear WHY?

And if your WHY is that you want to intellectually masturbate, then say so.

[Nick_A]

Scott

Given you are likely assuming something universally FIXED about 'good behavior' that you might think exists identically in all of us, why would we EVER choose any behavior distinctly at odds with any other human? I've only noticed the religious to dictate WHICH beliefs are 'right' by the same 'force' of imposition (against supposed 'free will') by setting up penalties most extreme to those who doubt their declarations of what is 'good' to them uniquely.

"Good" is selfishly defined by meaning, if not by that label relative to the environment they are in. If one thinks it 'good' to steal, they might do so even while accepting the MEANING of 'good' to be just the socially defined concept that "stealing is 'bad' to be forcefully penalized by the powers of the enforcer class".

Debates about what defines good behavior are typical for the Cave. But freedom from the prison of the Cave requires experiencing the vertical psychological path that leads to the forms of the good. Here is brief description.

According to Plato’s Theory of Forms, matter is considered particular in itself. For Plato, Forms are more real than any objects that imitate them. Though the Forms are timeless and unchanging, physical manifestations of Forms are in a constant state of change. Where Forms are unqualified perfection, physical objects are qualified and conditioned.

The Forms, according to Plato, are the essences of various objects. Forms are the qualities that an object must have to be considered that type of object. For example, there are countless chairs in the world but the Form of “chairness” is at the core of all chairs. Plato held that the world of Forms is transcendent to our own world, the world of substances, which is the essential basis of reality.

Though no one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are. Plato uses this as evidence that his Forms are real.

The "good" is an idea and like the perfect circle must exist in the world of forms as an idea or as a "necessity." Arguments in the cave are over good or bad behavior defined by Man but the need for freedom from the duality of cave life requires becoming able to "remember" the objective form of the good.

The form of the good has a hierarchy of forms within it.

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/plato_good.htm

Like the Sun in the Allegory of the Cave, the Good illuminates the other Forms. We can see that Justice, for example, is an aspect of Goodness. And again, we know that we have never seen, with our senses, any examples of perfect goodness, but we have seen plenty of particular examples which approximate goodness, and we recognise them as ‘good’ when we see them because of the way in which they correspond to our innate notion of the Form of the Good.

By Plato’s logic, real knowledge becomes, in the end, a knowledge of goodness; and this is why philosophers are in the best position to rule. The one who has philosophical knowledge of the Good is the one who is fit to rule. Plato’s belief in the fitness to rule of the philosopher is sometimes referred to as the ‘Philosopher King’ (even though Plato himself never used it).

Plato developed his Theory of Forms to the point where he divided existence into two realms. There is the world of sense experience (the ‘empirical’ world), where nothing ever stays the same but is always in the process of change. Experience of it gives rise to opinions. There is also a world which is outside space and time, which is not perceived through the senses, and in which everything is permanent and perfect or Ideal - the realm of the Forms. The empirical world shows only shadows and poor copies of these Forms, and so is less real than the world of the Forms themselves, because the Forms are eternal and immutable (unchanging), the proper objects of knowledge.

Knowledge of the Good is subjective for cave life and centers around social concepts of good behavior. It is determined by which way the wind is blowing. For those seeking to leave the prison of the cave, it requires opening to the experience of noesis to receive the unchanging form of the Good. This is not intellectually masturbating as skepdick suggests but efforts in conscious contemplation