philosophy

I don't have a fancy big brain moral or philosophical framework for arguing this thought, but is there any philosophical thinkers who speak on this?

For context I'm in the tech-world and I hear a lot of my peers with kids making sure their kids are always locked-in with their "Gifted kids programs" or "Advance learning" or whatever to make sure they are ready to be the "leaders of the future". Which to me is not bad inherently, as I would expect any parent who gives a damn about their children to do everything in their power to give them everything they can for their future prosperity. I ain't mad at them for that.

However, I also hear these same parents blaming the "culture" on why "kids/students/young people/XYZ group" are bad or why "[insert current boogeyman here] is way ahead of 'us'". Somewhat tangentially I think about how a lot of suffering that black people in America have suffered has been blamed on their "culture", one that was born from marginalization and lack.

I don't think it's fair to say a "culture problem" exists in black America without really examining the structural problems that exists as well. Is that because some people "make it"? Both in the black example or the student example, do people blame "culture" when there are some instances of people that do well their their personal overcoming of bad conditions?

In both of these cases I think that it's really easy to blame "The Culture™©®" rather than look at why things are as they are. I do believe in personal autonomy and choice and stuff, but I feel like this transcends this. When an issues something that's faced by the majority of people in an instance, I feel like it's no longer an issue of personal choices. The general curve of outcomes for most people are getting worse, and I don't think that is a fair argument to say it’s a “personal choice” problem

Sorry for the rambling, I'm not very concise in my writing these days. So I guess my question is "are there leftie philosophical thinkers who have commented on "culture" as a buffer to avoid crtique of the powerful?"

The "dialectics of dialectics" refers to the application of dialectical principles to analyze and understand dialectics itself—a kind of self-reflection or self-analysis within the framework of dialectical materialism. This concept is both recursive and paradoxical, as it involves using dialectical thinking to examine its own nature, functioning, and implications.

To unpack this, let’s consider how dialectics operates on itself:

1. Contradiction in Dialectics:
   Dialectics, as a method of thought, identifies contradictions as the driving force of development. When applied to itself, this means that dialectics contains its own internal contradictions. For example:

   • On one hand, dialectics emphasizes change and motion (dynamic), yet it also seeks to provide a systematic understanding of reality (static).
   • Dialectics is both a tool for analysis (abstract) and a way to grasp the concreteness of phenomena (concrete).

2. Universality and Particularity:
   The universality of dialectics lies in its applicability to all spheres of existence—nature, society, and thought. Yet, when applied to itself, we see that dialectics has particular forms of expression depending on historical and cultural contexts. For instance:

   • Hegel’s idealist dialectics differ from Marx’s materialist dialectics.
   • In China, Mao adapted dialectics to fit the specific conditions of revolutionary practice.

3. Principal Contradiction:
   Within the process of understanding dialectics itself, there is a principal contradiction between its abstract universal principles and their concrete application in specific contexts. This tension forces dialecticians to constantly reconcile theory with practice.

4. Identity and Struggle:
   Dialectics contains within it both identity (the continuity and interdependence of opposites) and struggle (the opposition and conflict between opposites). When applied to itself, this means:

   • The unity of dialectical principles (identity).
   • The ongoing debates and transformations in how dialectics is understood and applied (struggle).

5. Antagonism:
   While most contradictions within dialectics are non-antagonistic, there can be moments where antagonism arises. For example, disputes over the "correct" interpretation of dialectical principles can lead to schisms or conflicts between different schools of thought.

6. The Law of Contradiction as a Fundamental Law:
   Finally, when applied to itself, dialectics reaffirms that its own law of contradiction is indeed the fundamental law of nature, society, and thought. This recursive application solidifies dialectics’ claim to be a universal method for understanding reality while also highlighting the need for constant self-critique and adaptation.

In summary, the "dialectics of dialectics" is a recursive and reflective process that enhances our theoretical understanding and practical application of dialectical principles. By applying its own principles to itself, dialectics demonstrates both its universality and its particularity, its strength as a method, and the necessity for ongoing theoretical and practical development.

I’m really trying to commit myself to getting a better understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism. I’m starting with the Vietnamese textbook on dialectical materialism that Luna Oi translated, before moving on to The Dialectics of Nature and Anti-Duhring.

My problem is I really struggle with philosophy. Marxian economics I can vibe with all day, but philosophy is something I’ve never been able to really get a hold of (but wanting to fix that).

So my first big struggle is understanding the difference between dialectical materialism and materialist dialectics. Is the former more of the worldview or viewpoint, and the later is more for explaining and analyzing specific processes? And if that understanding is correct, isn’t materialist dialectics the things we should be committing ourselves to as it’s what helps us better understand material reality (rather than dialectical materialism, which I guess would be more of a “belief statement?)? I don’t know I probably have a lot of this mixed up, just looking for any help on this I can get.

I don’t know how there aren’t a myriad of problems associated with attempting to emulate the brain, especially with the end goal of destroying livelihoods and replacing one indentured servant for another. In fact, that’s what promoted this post- an advertisement for a talk with my alma mater’s philosophy department asking what happens when see LLMs discover phenomenological awareness.

I admit that I don’t have a ton of formal experience with philosophy, but I took one course in college that will forever be etched into my brain. Essentially, my professor explained to us the concept of a neural network and how with more computing power, researchers hope to emulate the brain and establish a consciousness baseline with which to compare a human’s subjective experience.

This didn’t use to be the case, but in a particular sector, most people’s jobs are just showing up a work, getting on a computer, and having whatever (completely unregulated and resource devouring) LLM give them answer they can find themselves, quicker. And shit like neuralink exists and I think the next step will to be to offer that with a chatgpt integration or some dystopian shit.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think humans are as special as we think we are and our pure arrogance wouldn’t stop us from creating another self and causing that self to suffer. Hell, we collectively decided to slaughter en masse another collective group with feeling (animals) to appease our tastebuds, a lot of us are thoroughly entrenched into our digital boxes because opting out will result in a loss of items we take for granted, and any discussions on these topics are taboo.

Data-obsessed weirdos are a genuine threat to humanity, consciousness-emulation never should have been a conversation piece in the first place without first understanding its downstream implications. Feeling like a certified Luddite these days

I recently leaned about how the dogma of divine simplicity shaped the history of philosophy, especially metaphysics and the problem of universals in the Islamic world as well as in Christianity. Basically it's the idea, that God is identical to each of his (her/their/just) attributes. By extension, each of the attributes is identical to every other one. So this obviously touches on the problem of universals. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) added the conclusion, that for God, essence is existence. Ibn Sina is key for this in Islam, as well as Christianity (because people like Thomas Aquinas learned his teachings and shaped scholastics for centuries).

Divine simplicity is central in the different schools of Islam and a dogma in Catholicism. Protestants kind of stopped talking about it, but never officially gave it up and Calvinists revived it. Only cool new streams like process theology distance themselves from it.

About the stupid joke in the title: Divine simplicity means, God has literally no parts you can point to (no pun intended), to determine their gender (no material parts, no temporal parts, no metaphysical or ontological constituents). If God has a gender, it must therefore be identical to all their other attributes, as well as themselves.

Question: If you got any religious education, was divine simplicity ever mentioned? Cause I never heard of it until recently, even though it's so central, that other attributes are typically derived based on it (for example immutability, infinity, omniscience) in official doctrine. Or, in Ibn Sina's case, even existence as well as every other attribute.

Do religious people still care about this? What would be cool pronouns for justice, freedom, truth, omniscience, etc.?

Edit: Also, do you know people who reject this dogma or accept it, but make mistakes around it? Like saying:"God might get angry or have wrath, but God IS love", which mistakenly elevates one attribute above the others.

I have no stake in this, as an atheist, just interested and willing to learn. And like I said it's historically relevant for the history of philosophy, no matter what you believe.

A long read for an article or blog post, but well worth it. If you or anyone you know suffers from a chronic illness, ailment or pain, you might relate to some of what is written here. I certainly did, and can share the author's dislike of positivity and therapy culture.

"What incels can learn from Simone de Beauvior" is an all-timer topic for an essay but anyway this has some good sections

Finally, what does Beauvoir have to say to incels already in the grips of this delusion of sovereignty? Importantly, quite a lot. Although Rodger was fully consumed by self-alienation, it is not too late for many men to live better lives. According to Beauvoir, this requires a kind of “conversion.” They must renounce the vanity of viewing themselves as fallen gods, and assume the risk of existing as human beings. This involves moving away from an appropriative, conquering attitude toward a stance of openness and reciprocity. It requires cultivating a healthy sense of competition and fair play, of personal responsibility, humility, “friendship and generosity”. It also means foregoing the certainty of a world with fixed hierarchies—including those based on race and class—and viewing interpersonal relations as always to be made and remade. To relinquish sovereignty, a man needs to accept that, in addition to being a freedom, he is part of Nature and of other people's plans, that he is a body and a history that can be evaluated. Importantly, he needs to accept that there is no action without judgment, and no praise without risk.

I am!

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4842538

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/4840505

*Forgive any formatting as I'm on mobile.

As I read in themes, I'm currently focusing on philosophy to try and understand it, see where I fit in the world and also reconstruct my own atheist/nihilistic worldview.

I just got done with Existentialist Cafe and got a really nice overview of all the main players in the Existentialist camp but want to finally take the leap into nihilism and absurdism proper. I've read The Stranger and Myth of Sisyphus and like Camus a lot so far but also wanna tackle Satre, Beauvoir, and Merleau-Ponty eventually but wonder if I need to read Husserl and specifically Heidegger and Nietzche since they are controversial because of their politics. Would I be able to get away with just reading synopses of their work? I do currently have Being and Time in my list of books to get.

Also, aside from Nietzche, who else should I read regarding nihilism? I'm currently working through The Trouble with Being Born by Cioran and wanna find some more by him but also have The Antidote by Burkeman and Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Ligotti in my backlog. I did read The Book by Alan Watts the other day and though it felt like reading my stoned friend's wild ramblings on society and how we exist in it, some coherent stuff did come through. But I don't know if it was what I was after. I did appreciate it for introducing me to some concepts like ego and self but maybe I should have saved it for another day?

Sidenote but I'm planning on moving back and force between philosophy and socialist theory so socialist philosphers are also welcome. Generally I'm open to all suggestions.

Thanks in advance!

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm

I think this is the passage he's highlighting:

“It will always remain a matter for astonishment how the Kantian philosophy knew that relation of thought to sensuous existence, where it halted, for a merely relative relation of bare appearance, and fully acknowledged and asserted a higher unity of the two in the Idea in general, and, for example, in the idea of an intuitive understanding; but yet stopped dead at this relative relation and at the assertion that the Notion is and remains utterly separated from reality;—so that it affirmed as truth what it pronounced to be finite knowledge, and declared to be superfluous, improper, and figments of thought that which it recognised as truth, and of which it established the definite notion” (26)

In logic, the Idea “becomes the creator of Nature.” (26)

Are most people here epiphenomenalists? Physicalists?

A new humanity, a new seeing, a new thinking, a new loving: this is the promise of acid communism

Bro he was going to give you the cake, no need to be so stabby

Credit: https://www.existentialcomics.com/

Credit: https://www.existentialcomics.com/

Maybe the last 500 years of Atlanticist colonialism has something to do with it.
And also maybe the CIA: Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism

In this regard, the Frankfurt School under Horkheimer played a foundational role in the establishment of what is known as Western Marxism, and more specifically Cultural Marxism. Figures like Horkheimer and his lifelong collaborator Theodor Adorno not only rejected actually existing socialism, but they directly identified it with fascism by benightedly relying—very much like French theory—on the ideological category of totalitarianism. Embracing a highly intellectualized and melodramatic version of what would later become known as TINA (“There Is No Alternative”), they focused on the realm of bourgeois art and culture as perhaps the only potential site of salvation. This is because thinkers like Adorno and Horkheimer, with a few exceptions, were largely idealist in their theoretical practice: if meaningful social change was foreclosed in the practical world, deliverance was to be sought in the geistig—meaning intellectual and spiritual—realm of novel thought-forms and innovative bourgeois culture.

[…]

Finally, the evolution of the Frankfurt School into its second (Jürgen Habermas) and third generations (Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser, Seyla Benhabib, and so on) did not alter in the least its anticommunist orientation. On the contrary, Habermas explicitly claimed that state socialism was bankrupt and argued for creating space within the capitalist system and its purportedly democratic institutions for the ideal of an inclusive “procedure of discursive will-formation.” The neo-Habermasians of the third generation have continued this orientation.