[Victus Mortuum]

Originally Posted by "BrooksB"

If Marx was right, then there would be no brain other than "the idea" itself. Everyone would possess that idea and act accordingly. Life would be poo because everyone would be the same person bouncing around their little grid-square doing pretty much nothing.

Wrong. George Hegel was the idealist who posited the Absolute Idea as being the only true reality, and that all of history was just the progress of the Idea. For Hegel, the material world didn't exist, it was only a product of the Idea. Marx said that Hegel had it all backwards, or 'on its head'. Marx said that the material world was all that did exist and that people's ideas were but a product of their social circumstances. History was not heading toward any specific 'goal' of the idea, but was moving along according to natural, physical laws. Marx belived that the future society he pushed for would be the natural, scientific product of history. In this society, the interests of individuals, and the interests of society would be compatible and indistinguishable. People would be free from the restrictions of modern society, free to be individual and expressive within society, not the other way around.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

Wrong. George Hegel was the idealist who posited the Absolute Idea as being the only true reality, and that all of history was just the progress of the Idea. For Hegel, the material world didn't exist, it was only a product of the Idea. Marx said that Hegel had it all backwards, or 'on its head'. Marx said that the material world was all that did exist and that people's ideas were but a product of their social circumstances. History was not heading toward any specific 'goal' of the idea, but was moving along according to natural, physical laws. Marx belived that the future society he pushed for would be the natural, scientific product of history. In this society, the interests of individuals, and the interests of society would be compatible and indistinguishable. People would be free from the restrictions of modern society, free to be individual and expressive within society, not the other way around.

Did you actually read this thread or did you just search for any posts including the word "Marx" so that you could establish yourself as the resident Marx expert? Because your post doesn't really seem to correlate to what the topic this thread is. Furthermore, while Marx claimed that he was anti-utopian, his Manifesto clearly depicts him as such. Nearly every lineage of economic thought at that time understood it as being guided by natural laws. Marx just thought it would lead to this material progression along the lines of Hegel's idea. Ultimately, what this thread is about has little to do with individual philosophies, but extrapolations upon them. ______.

[Victus Mortuum]

Originally Posted by "BrooksB"

Did you actually read this thread or did you just search for any posts including the word "Marx" so that you could establish yourself as the resident Marx expert? Because your post doesn't really seem to correlate to what the topic this thread is.

I did read through this thread, and I wasn't interested in posting anything on the topic, thank you. I noticed that you made a comment on Marx that was incorrect, and so I corrected you. Maybe you should read what I quoted and then how I responded again. You have reacted aggresively to my statement that was not at all a personal attack, and was indeed correct.

Furthermore, while Marx claimed that he was anti-utopian, his Manifesto clearly depicts him as such.

I'm going to guess that the only work you have ever read by Karl Marx was the Communist Manifesto, right? Have you ever read 'The German Ideology' or all 3 volumes of 'Das Kapital'? Have you read the 'Grundisse' or the '1844 Manuscripts'? What about 'The Civil War In France' or Frederich Engels' 'Family, Private Property, and the State'? I'm not going to claim I'm a Karl Marx expert, but I certainly have read a lot of his works and understand him (apparently) more than you do. Please don't try to act like you know what you are talking about by responding like a jerk.

Nearly every lineage of economic thought at that time understood it as being guided by natural laws.

I wasn't talking about economics. I was talking about Hegel's philosophy of history, if you actually read my post. Marx took the other parts of Hegel's philosophy (dialectic and such) and put them under a materialist perspective rather than an idealist perspective.

Marx just thought it would lead to this material progression along the lines of Hegel's idea.

I don't even feel like I should respond to this. I already made it clear to you, Marx did not think that there was an Absolute Idea. Hegel would have been against Marx's future society. Hegel pushed for a consitutional Monarchy.

Ultimately, what this thread is about has little to do with individual philosophies, but extrapolations upon them. ______.

...

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

I did read through this thread, and I wasn't interested in posting anything on the topic, thank you. I noticed that you made a comment on Marx that was incorrect, and so I corrected you. Maybe you should read what I quoted and then how I responded again. You have reacted aggresively to my statement that was not at all a personal attack, and was indeed correct.

______ is aggressive these days? Typing is aggression? Seems like a lot of miscommunication here. I did not take it personal, I made it personal very briefly, and at the end. Let's try to get past that. I apologize.

I'm going to guess that the only work you have ever read by Karl Marx was the Communist Manifesto, right? Have you ever read 'The German Ideology' or all 3 volumes of 'Das Kapital'? Have you read the 'Grundisse' or the '1844 Manuscripts'? What about 'The Civil War In France' or Frederich Engels' 'Family, Private Property, and the State'? I'm not going to claim I'm a Karl Marx expert, but I certainly have read a lot of his works and understand him (apparently) more than you do.

Apparently you are doing everything but declaring yourself a Marx expert. Who comes with all this pretension and says, "I'm no expert"? To answer your question, the Manifesto is in fact the only thing I've read, and thrice read. I know plenty about his life and the context of his writings. I think you know too little about what I understand to judge whether yours is greater than mine.

I wasn't talking about economics. I was talking about Hegel's philosophy of history, if you actually read my post. Marx took the other parts of Hegel's philosophy (dialectic and such) and put them under a materialist perspective rather than an idealist perspective.

He did that because he disliked utopianism. Even if he didn't actually think his progression would end in an ideal, he certainly did not provide for the progression to go on ad infinitum. His manifesto certainly had an ideal in mind, even if he overtly criticized idealism. And to assert that this does not involve economics is just silly! The whole of human history is an economic one. Just because you didn't say "economics" doesn't mean I cannot interject the term in a discussion about Marx.

I don't even feel like I should respond to this. I already made it clear to you, Marx did not think that there was an Absolute Idea. Hegel would have been against Marx's future society. Hegel pushed for a consitutional Monarchy.

Perhaps Marx over his lifetime average did not display an affinity for ideals, although his Manifesto certainly does. In a desparate attempt to get away from idealism, he sought materialism, which inevitibly led him to an idealist conclusion all the while shouting "I hate utopian ideals!" But I digress, Marx's opinion on ideals (which is ambiguous) is not detrimental to my original post. The progression of memetic transmission as I was describing it would lead to that if society were going towards communism. It would be a step further than that until all was materially consumed and turned the human race into a higher order organism (collective consciousness). After that, what is there left to consolidate into a higher order? Would it continue towards universal synergy or would it ebb back and forth towards and away from chaos?

...

Nice comeback.

[Victus Mortuum]

Originally Posted by "BrooksB"

______ is aggressive these days? Typing is aggression? Seems like a lot of miscommunication here. I did not take it personal, I made it personal very briefly, and at the end. Let's try to get past that. I apologize.

OK. Sorry, I will take the blame for overreading your post. I apologize as well. I was already in a bad mood when I came to the computer. I will make sure to reread my posts several times and think them through a little better, sorry.

Apparently you are doing everything but declaring yourself a Marx expert. Who comes with all this pretension and says, "I'm no expert"?

Without trying to sound as pretensious as before, I think I should explain myself better.

I have read most of Marx's works, but that doesn't mean I understand everything about them. Marx's early philosophy is deeply taken from Hegelism, which is not easy to understand. I get a lot of his theories, but I certainly don't have a firm grasp on all of them. This is why I would not claim myself an expert on Marx, but I would say that I know a lot about him.

To answer your question, the Manifesto is in fact the only thing I've read, and thrice read. I know plenty about his life and the context of his writings. I think you know too little about what I understand to judge whether yours is greater than mine.

I apologize for that. Again, I mistook your previous post. But, I do understand plenty about his life, and the context of his writings as well. The problem is that Marx's writings, and his attitude about things, changed very much over the course of his life. The 'Old Marx' certainly retained much that the 'Young Marx' wrote, but there are certain key transitions and changes in his thought, and the Manifesto is certainly pretty early in his writing compared to a lot of them. Another thing to note is that the Manifesto was written by the 'Revolutionary Marx' not the 'Scientific Marx'.

He did that because he disliked utopianism. Even if he didn't actually think his progression would end in an ideal, he certainly did not provide for the progression to go on ad infinitum. His manifesto certainly had an ideal in mind, even if he overtly criticized idealism.

The reason he didn't think that the changes in modes of production would continue after 'communism' (I hate to use that term because the definition is no longer what it was) was because it resolved the contradictions that caused the need for a social revolution as the means of production became more productive. You might call it an 'ideal', but it was merely what he saw as the inevitable result of scientific history. And you are using 'ideal' in a different way than what is meant in idealism, particularly Hegelism. For Hegel, the 'Idea' was the only thing that really existed, and history was the course of the 'idea' coming to properly understand itself. His Phenomonology of the Mind is the most expressive of this, and humanity is the most current expression of this (self-conscoiusness). In Hegelism, perhaps your memes would be seen as the next step in the process of the 'idea' coming to know itself.

And to assert that this does not involve economics is just silly! The whole of human history is an economic one. Just because you didn't say "economics" doesn't mean I cannot interject the term in a discussion about Marx.

Agreed, again I was overly agressive, though I was talking about his philosophy, not his economy (though for Marx, the philosophy of history is really just understanding the natural phisical laws that lead to each change.).

Perhaps Marx over his lifetime average did not display an affinity for ideals, although his Manifesto certainly does. In a desparate attempt to get away from idealism, he sought materialism, which inevitibly led him to an idealist conclusion all the while shouting "I hate utopian ideals!" But I digress, Marx's opinion on ideals (which is ambiguous) is not detrimental to my original post.

I see that we have a significant difference in what we understand 'ideal' to mean. I was taking it in the Hegelian sense, you were just using in a normal sense. That was the problem, I believe.

The progression of memetic transmission as I was describing it would lead to that if society were going towards communism. It would be a step further than that until all was materially consumed and turned the human race into a higher order organism (collective consciousness). After that, what is there left to consolidate into a higher order? Would it continue towards universal synergy or would it ebb back and forth towards and away from chaos?

Well, I would disagree that the human race is on its way towards a higher order organism, and this is why I didn't post much about the thread. But, if I were to talk about it, because in a lot of ways your discussion is very idealist, I would say that the universe would continue on its progress of unifying the whole of itself into one single consciousness, which would give it a complete understanding of itself, which would finally fully express the idea, or the universe, in its state at the end of history.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by "BrooksB"

Did you actually read this thread or did you just search for any posts including the word "Marx" so that you could establish yourself as the resident Marx expert? Because your post doesn't really seem to correlate to what the topic this thread is. Furthermore, while Marx claimed that he was anti-utopian, his Manifesto clearly depicts him as such. Nearly every lineage of economic thought at that time understood it as being guided by natural laws. Marx just thought it would lead to this material progression along the lines of Hegel's idea. Ultimately, what this thread is about has little to do with individual philosophies, but extrapolations upon them. ______.

Calling someone a ______, especially a stranger, is aggressive.

[Chrysostom]

Yeah, for real.

Also, when I read this thread last year I was tracking perfectly with you (the word 'orthopraxy' gave it away) until you mentioned Marx. I had no idea what you were talking about either. So, sure, Victus is probably harping on this particular point because of his self-understanding as resident Marxist -- after all, he said this is why he came when he introduced himself -- but not without some justification.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by Victus Mortuum

I see that we have a significant difference in what we understand 'ideal' to mean. I was taking it in the Hegelian sense, you were just using in a normal sense. That was the problem, I believe.

I believe you are correct on that. I suppose you thought I was misattributing "the idea" to Marx instead of Hegel? In truth, I meant it for neither.

Well, I would disagree that the human race is on its way towards a higher order organism, and this is why I didn't post much about the thread. But, if I were to talk about it, because in a lot of ways your discussion is very idealist, I would say that the universe would continue on its progress of unifying the whole of itself into one single consciousness, which would give it a complete understanding of itself, which would finally fully express the idea, or the universe, in its state at the end of history.

Right-o.

Calling someone a ______, especially a stranger, is aggressive.

Thanks for your input on the use of the word "______". I disagree. I simply have a higher threshold for what is aggressive.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by "BrooksB"

Thanks for your input on the use of the word "______". I disagree. I simply have a higher threshold for what is aggressive.

That's a lie, you little ****.

[AlphaSigma]

...and this needs to cool off. Closed.