Toxic Gender Philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

You are one of the most accomplished sophists I have encountered anywhere.

Try this. It will help.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/37/Reh ... m_Argument

See, if you actually read PN, instead of just colouring the pictures, you'd know this already.

[Alexiev]

Here's a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Marx:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/


From the article:

It is certainly hard to find many thinkers who can be said to have had comparable influence (with Marx) in the creation of the modern world. However, Marx was trained as a philosopher, and although often portrayed as moving away from philosophy in his mid-twenties—perhaps towards history and the social sciences—there are many points of contact with modern philosophical debates throughout his writings.

The themes picked out here include Marx’s philosophical anthropology, his theory of history, his economic analysis, his critical engagement with contemporary capitalist society (raising issues about morality, ideology, and politics), and his prediction of a communist future.

Whatever one thinks of Marx's influence on philosophy, social science, and politics, it is impossible to deny its magnitude. Not many scholars have had anywhere near his influence. It is reasonable to call one of the most influential thinkers of the last several centuries "great".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here, here is the rehabilitation you seek:

Karl Marx was a narcissistic, nihilistic parasite who made all of his stuff up, at least, what he didn't steal from Hegel. He hated humanity, he stole from and abused his friends, he had a wicked temper, a totally selfish disposition, and abused the only Prole he ever knew personally. He was actually the opposite of an "activist," because "activists" DO things. He did DO anything for the poor: he just employed them as pawns in his theorizing.

I count 13 total. Your mileage may vary!

[Immanuel Can]

Whatever one thinks of Marx's influence on philosophy, social science, and politics, it is impossible to deny its magnitude.

I don't deny his "magnitude."

Like Stalin, like Mao, like Pol Pot, Like Mugabe, like Tito, like Ceacescu, like Hoxha, like Castro, like Maduro, and like every other tinpot dictator he encouraged and whose ideology was the ultimate brainchild of Marx, Marx's own "greatness" can be measured by the piles of corpses he created.

Nobody was "greater." 140 million, conservatively. That's unmatchable.

[Immanuel Can]

Here, here is the rehabilitation you seek:

You really should read the article. It makes one so much more able to speak intelligently.

A funny thing about the ad hominem: I've noticed that you love to tell people how "smart" you are. I get that you're being deliberately hyperbolical, but when somebody does that, they've brought into relevance the question, "Just how 'smart' is this guy, really?"

I've met a lot of highly intelligent people. And do you know what I've found? They never need to tell you. You know. They know. It's never in doubt, for a moment. So the last thing they'd ever think of doing is to try to get you to believe it. They don't have to. They don't even care what you think. They're secure.

Do you know who does tell everybody how "smart" they are? People who are afraid others will not believe it. People who doubt it themselves, but are desperate to confirm it in the minds of others, in the hope that they, themselves, will finally be able to believe it. They become insecure. They show off. They try to ingratiate themselves to the company they hope to be in. They trumpet their wisdom. They always try to modify smarter people, to "bring them down," in the vain hope of making their own status seem to rival the genuinely intelligent.

The sage call these people "midwits." Midwits are smart enough to realize that being smart is a good thing, and to long to attain to it; but alas, they're nowhere near smart enough to be secure enough to let their own words, their ideas, their actions and their actual achievements speak for themselves. They're too nervous that people will fail to believe that they are smart enough to be in the game, that people will fail to notice the little achievements they actually have; so they try to remind everybody of it all... constantly... repeatedly... obsessively... extravagantly. And they're terrified that one day, somebody might point out to others that they're really only midwits, and not actually smart enough to be in the game they're in.

But what happens? Such people protest too much, too often, and too loudly; and like the queen in Hamlet's play, they give themselves away by the sheer number of their excessive and unwanted assertions of their own adequacy to the standard.

Now, I don't know you well enough to say whether that's where you're coming from or not. But I can certainly say this: you talk, or write, exactly in the manner that midwits invariably favour, presenting yourself as if you have the same sort of anxious concern for your own status. So my encouragement to you would be this: if your goal is to pose as a midwit, you're an admirable actor, and I commend the performance. If your goal is to be thought wise, or clever, or a philosopher, you might not be getting the effect you desire from the manner of your discourse. A more reflective disposition on your own self-presentation might be beneficial.

But, as they say, "a word to the wise is sufficient" -- though, of course, a word to a midwit never is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Guess I’m just not as wonderful as I’d thought.

It’s hard though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Isaiah Berlin. The Impact of Marx on the Nineteenth Century.

Wonderful talk.

[Alexiev]

Whatever one thinks of Marx's influence on philosophy, social science, and politics, it is impossible to deny its magnitude.

I don't deny his "magnitude."

Like Stalin, like Mao, like Pol Pot, Like Mugabe, like Tito, like Ceacescu, like Hoxha, like Castro, like Maduro, and like every other tinpot dictator he encouraged and whose ideology was the ultimate brainchild of Marx, Marx's own "greatness" can be measured by the piles of corpses he created.

Nobody was "greater." 140 million, conservatively. That's unmatchable.

Perhaps only Jesus or Mohammed rival Marx in the percentage of people slaughtered in their name. Can we infer from all this butchery that Jesus was not an important thinker?

[Iwannaplato]

Whatever one thinks of Marx's influence on philosophy, social science, and politics, it is impossible to deny its magnitude.

In a sense, there are two Marxs, one who analyzed the problems with captialism - and in many ways he did well here - and the other Marx who proposed ways to reach better forms of government/economy - oopsy doopsy.

What happens is that his thought gets tossed completely by many. And this leads to it seeming like capitalism (in its current form, even) is the least evil or even simply best. We tried that Marx stuff and look what happened. So, anything that questions things like fractional reserve banking or industry control of government oversight or Shareholder centered capitalism or how corporate charters are never revoked anymore or...etc. is responded to as if these are necessary parts of the economy because Marxism led to what it led to. Or we can dismiss what Marx noticed about capitalism because he was so naive about his ability to set up something better.

[Immanuel Can]

Whatever one thinks of Marx's influence on philosophy, social science, and politics, it is impossible to deny its magnitude.

I don't deny his "magnitude."

Like Stalin, like Mao, like Pol Pot, Like Mugabe, like Tito, like Ceacescu, like Hoxha, like Castro, like Maduro, and like every other tinpot dictator he encouraged and whose ideology was the ultimate brainchild of Marx, Marx's own "greatness" can be measured by the piles of corpses he created.

Nobody was "greater." 140 million, conservatively. That's unmatchable.

Perhaps only Jesus or Mohammed rival Marx in the percentage of people slaughtered in their name.

They don't.

It's true that of the "religious" figures, Mohammed was by far the bloodiest: half of the people killed in wars of religion were killed by him and his followers. His followers obeyed the creed he taught. However, Jesus never asked, nor gave reason for a single person to be slaughtered; rather, he even said, "Love your enemies" and laid down his life for others. If anyone did such things did not do it with any warrant from Him, even if some tried to abuse his Name. If any did, we can see, from what He said, that they were simply disobedient and wicked.

But Mohammed is eclipsed by Marx, by orders of magnitude. At his worst, we can say Mohammed was responsible for about 3.8 % of what Marx caused; and that's counting from secular sources, too. And while Mohammed had at least some prohibitions against killing his own people, Marxists have none from Marx, who fomented revolution against alleged "oppressors," not love or forgiveness.

[Immanuel Can]

What happens is that his thought gets tossed completely by many.

Justly so. There's not a single place in the world where attempting to follow Marx hasn't caused two disasters: one is economic collapse, and the other is piles of corpses. How many more must die before the world begins to suspect that Marxism isn't a good thing?

[Alexiev]

What happens is that his thought gets tossed completely by many.

Justly so. There's not a single place in the world where attempting to follow Marx hasn't caused two disasters: one is economic collapse, and the other is piles of corpses. How many more must die before the world begins to suspect that Marxism isn't a good thing?

Nonsense. As far ad I know, all of those Neo-Marxist anthropologists you despise have never slaughtered anyone.

My point was that blaming Marx for Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot is like blaming Jesus for Torquemada or the witch slaughters of the 16th century.

[Iwannaplato]

What happens is that his thought gets tossed completely by many.

Justly so. There's not a single place in the world where attempting to follow Marx hasn't caused two disasters: one is economic collapse, and the other is piles of corpses. How many more must die before the world begins to suspect that Marxism isn't a good thing?

Nonsense. As far ad I know, all of those Neo-Marxist anthropologists you despise have never slaughtered anyone.

My point was that blaming Marx for Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot is like blaming Jesus for Torquemada or the witch slaughters of the 16th century.

He also, as is his habit, simply repeated his position rather address what I wrote. Someone said something that I didn't like the sounds of, So, I'll repeat my position.

[Iwannaplato]

What happens is that his thought gets tossed completely by many.

Justly so. There's not a single place in the world where attempting to follow Marx hasn't caused two disasters: one is economic collapse, and the other is piles of corpses. How many more must die before the world begins to suspect that Marxism isn't a good thing?

Nonsense. As far ad I know, all of those Neo-Marxist anthropologists you despise have never slaughtered anyone.

My point was that blaming Marx for Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot is like blaming Jesus for Torquemada or the witch slaughters of the 16th century.

He also, as is his habit, simply repeated his position rather address what I wrote. Someone said something that I didn't like the sounds of, So, I'll repeat my position.

[Immanuel Can]

What happens is that his thought gets tossed completely by many.

Justly so. There's not a single place in the world where attempting to follow Marx hasn't caused two disasters: one is economic collapse, and the other is piles of corpses. How many more must die before the world begins to suspect that Marxism isn't a good thing?

As far ad I know, all of those Neo-Marxist anthropologists you despise have never slaughtered anyone.

Yet. Maybe. It depends on what you count. In any event, everybody whose followed Marx has ended up there. It's not by accident that today's Neo-Marxists are burning down neighbourhoods, bludgeoning shopkeepers, attacking the police, murdering and maiming children, and advocating Malthusianism in the name of the sacred climate. These ideologues find different reasons, but always end up doing the same awful kinds of things.

My point was that blaming Marx for Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot is like blaming Jesus for Torquemada or the witch slaughters of the 16th century.

Well, that wasn't a very good point. It misses the obvious: that Torquemada etc. clearly did the dead opposite of what Jesus Christ told them to do. Not so, the followers of Marx: they followed his revolutionary program as best they could, and it killed millions and wrecked every economy it's touched.

And here's an interesting thing: if all the people in Russia, all those in China, all those in Zimbabwe, all those in Cuba, Venezuela, the Congo, Cambodia...etc., etc., ended up the same two ways: killing people and crashing the economy...how is it that you imagine that today's Neo-Marxists are so much smarter than the old Marxists that they will succeed where those millions of other people failed? What's your reason for imagining that? What insight do the Neos have, that the "crude Marxists" lacked, and which will now turn an unyielding series of disasters into a first success?