Karl Marx (1818-1883)

[Philosophy Now]

Roger Caldwell rediscovers the bookish revolutionist.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Karl_Marx_1818-1883

[spike]

In a way it is curious that Philosophy Now has done back to back cover stories on two blockbuster thinkers whose theories are unrealistic for our world, Plato and Marx. In the main, and for the modern world, their ideas of ethics and governance are impractical. Nevertheless, many still peruse them as thought they offer alternatives to how societies could and should be governed.

Both thinkers miss the true nature of humans, their needs and aspirations. If Plato's or Marx's ideas were implemented today the modern world would not last long since their theories of ethics and governance fall short for maintaining and sustaining this world. To remain health and alive the world must fulfill at least two imperatives, that it remain an open one and constantly rejuvenate itself, ideas that neither Plato or Marx gave much thought to. In fact, their ideas have pursued the opposite, closed and languishing societies.

At best their ideas are philosophy fiction, to provoke thinking about utopia and 'what ifs'.

[Dunce]

Both thinkers miss the true nature of humans, their needs and aspirations.

Possibly because they didn't mix with a wide enough range of them?

Utopias are valid imaginative exercises. Such exercises should however, be followed by analysis of the obstacles to realizing such worlds in the real world. Unfortunately, Utopians tend to lack acumen in such matters.

[Conde Lucanor]

This a common misconception about Marx's ideas and the nature of his philosophical project, in the opposite side of Plato's idealism. It is well known that Marx was very critical of Utopian Socialism (Owen, Fourier, etc.), in fact, he and Engels coined the term. They distanced themselves from it and promoted what was called Scientific Socialism, which was meant to be based on the real material conditions of life and the real possibilities of human nature.

[HexHammer]

In a way it is curious that Philosophy Now has done back to back cover stories on two blockbuster thinkers whose theories are unrealistic for our world, Plato and Marx. In the main, and for the modern world, their ideas of ethics and governance are impractical. Nevertheless, many still peruse them as thought they offer alternatives to how societies could and should be governed.

Both thinkers miss the true nature of humans, their needs and aspirations. If Plato's or Marx's ideas were implemented today the modern world would not last long since their theories of ethics and governance fall short for maintaining and sustaining this world. To remain health and alive the world must fulfill at least two imperatives, that it remain an open one and constantly rejuvenate itself, ideas that neither Plato or Marx gave much thought to. In fact, their ideas have pursued the opposite, closed and languishing societies.

At best their ideas are philosophy fiction, to provoke thinking about utopia and 'what ifs'.

Excellent assertion, however you should look at the root of the problem, this sit doesn't promote actual modern philosophy, but mere cozy chat.

To do actual modern philosophy requires exceptional understanding of science, not just parroting stuff. So, mindst with high mental aptitude is exceedingly rare, I havn't found a single philosophy site, that promotes actual philosophy. The closest thing might be science sites, but they are even worse in most cases as they are sheeps and even greater parrots that can't think outside the box, only clinge to their narrow equations.

[jackles]

in my opinion a human system sould aways have something outside its self as a guide.humans that think that they are the clever and the good always want bigger pieces of the pie or inflict an ism of some sort.the internet could end up being that outside thing.money always shuts people up with attitude so it also works as from above .

[spike]

Hexhammer: this sit[e] doesn't promote actual modern philosophy, but mere cozy chat.

I think that is true. In a sense it is like speaking Latin, its interesting but who needs it. But, then, Latin and old-time philosophy can be a stepping stone to further knowledge.

jackles: in my opinion a human system should aways have something outside its self as a guide.

Yes, like a parallel system. Neither Marx or Plato thought this way.

Liberal democracy has developed parallel systems within itself so that if one system flounders another is there to pick up the pieces and carry on. And as parallel systems they learn and develop from each other, exchanging ideas and creating alternatives. The Internet is structured in this way. If one component of the system fails there is another to reroute activity and keep the process going. Neither Marx or Plato thought this way, not with their inflexible systems.

Both Marx and Plato are top-down philosophers. Governance built in accordance with their ideas have throughout history eventually stagnated and collapsed, like communism did. (The Catholic Church is suffering the same fait, an institution that was fashioned on Plato's principles of the body and its organs having only specific, narrow tasks.) Marx and Plato thinking has always cultivated groups. But for best result cultivate individuals, which their ideas never did.

[HexHammer]

then, Latin and old-time philosophy can be a stepping stone to further knowledge.

Hardly, philosophy was a predecessor to science, science has everything that philosophy has not, theories, thesis, solid evidense, calculus, methodology etc.

The only thing I've experienced that philosophy has, is free thinking that in 99.999...9999% leads to nonsense and babble, but none the less free thinking.

[spike]

then, Latin and old-time philosophy can be a stepping stone to further knowledge.

Hardly, philosophy was a predecessor to science, science has everything that philosophy has not, theories, thesis, solid evidense, calculus, methodology etc.

The only thing I've experienced that philosophy has, is free thinking that in 99.999...9999% leads to nonsense and babble, but none the less free thinking.

After reading this nonsense I am sorry I commented on what you wrote earlier.

[HexHammer]

then, Latin and old-time philosophy can be a stepping stone to further knowledge.

Hardly, philosophy was a predecessor to science, science has everything that philosophy has not, theories, thesis, solid evidense, calculus, methodology etc.

The only thing I've experienced that philosophy has, is free thinking that in 99.999...9999% leads to nonsense and babble, but none the less free thinking.

After reading this nonsense I am sorry I commented on what you wrote earlier.

Please elaborate what is nonsense about it.

[spike]

Hexhammer,

I am sticking to the issue of this post, not to your dribble about the unimportance of philosophy or the superiority of science.

[HexHammer]

Hexhammer,

I am sticking to the issue of this post, not to your dribble about the unimportance of philosophy or the superiority of science.

I see your point, please forgive my over zealous crusade.

Back to topic then.

Imo Marx failed utterly in psychological terms, as he didn't comprehend the minute things about motivation for buisness men, to take risk, responsibility, self sacrifice, etc all from the lowly peasent to the great buisness tycoon.

With equallity the undeserving, lazy, the retard, the idiots, etc would get too much for too little contribution, at the same time removing the motivational benefits from the hard working, the risk takers and the qualifyed leaders, etc.

Marx was a simpleton, but he made a beautiful alluring point of equallity that many idiots and other simpleminded people love, why all commie countries has utterly failed and changed to capitalism.

Here in Denmark we have the concept of "curling kids", they are very lazy, ungreatful, sickly narcissistic, agressive, etc, all due to this overly understanding way of approaching the concept of upbringing and social interaction.

[spike]

Here in Denmark we have the concept of "curling kids", they are very lazy, ungreatful, sickly narcissistic, agressive, etc, all due to this overly understanding way of approaching the concept of upbringing and social interaction.

This really has nothing to do with Marxism but with bad parenting and a failure of it. The "curling kids" were spoiled and not taught the work ethic.

[Ginkgo]

The only thing I've experienced that philosophy has, is free thinking that in 99.999...9999% leads to nonsense and babble, but none the less free thinking.

I don't know about the 99.99999 bit, but what you say can be demonstrated to be largely correct.

[jackles]

hex has managed some how to speak some sence.must be the .00000009 bit comming out.