[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1691865343590.png ( 1.16 MB , 933x691 , ClipboardImage.png )

 No.472003

You gotta have thick steel barrier to your brain if you ever wish to become a communist. You must be able to see right through bourgeois ideology and mystification. Ask yourself the very simple question: does their analysis start of from the world as something existing outside us, or does their analysis suppose some idea outside the material world influencing it?

To combat bourgeois ideology you need to be a proper materialist. Read the philosophical works of Feurebach, Dietzgen, Engels, Lenin. Become a dialectical materialist - never fall into metaphysics or eclecticism, товариши.
>>

 No.472005

I agree but feurbach is baby tier intro materialism at best. It’s too influenced by his humanism
>>

 No.472006

File: 1691871733296.gif ( 926.54 KB , 500x375 , giphy.gif )

>dialectics
>materialist
>>

 No.472007

File: 1691872165294-0.jpg ( 60.5 KB , 457x131 , philosophycel moment.jpg )

File: 1691872165294-1.pdf ( 287.88 KB , 400x300 , Studies in Pessimism.pdf )

As to the so-called "philosophers", the only one of them worth wasting time on is Schopenhauer. Particularly you should read his "On Suicide" and "Of W*men".
>>

 No.472008

>>472006
Kys Hegelian
>>

 No.472010

>>472008
Marx as a philosopher ultimately failed precisely because "dialectical materialism" is an oxymoron.

Hegel was more self-conscious in this regard.
>>

 No.472011

>>472007
>As to the so-called "philosophers", the only one of them worth wasting time on is Schopenhauer.
That is, if you're trying to find some immortal truths in their mental wanking.

They are worth reading if you're trying to distill ideologies of the various upper class groups in a particular historical period.
>>

 No.472012

>>472010
dialectical materialism comes from Joseph dietzgen, Marx's main contribution is historical materialism.
>>

 No.472014

>>472007
>"Of W*men".
Do you just write like this to piss me off or is there like an actual reason?
>>

 No.472015

>>472003
Engels roxx. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State is great, dude is seriously underrated in the shadow of his best buddy. I honestly don't think everybody has to read everything, I was even gonna be like "you don't have to read everything to be a consistent materialist!!! STOP READING BOOKS!!!" but reading at least some things so you have an understanding of what material analysis is like is good.
>>

 No.472016

>>472012
I'm pretty sure he tries to rescue dialectics in "The German Ideology".

Or maybe I'm confusing something, I've read it long ago.
>>

 No.472017

>>472014
>Do you just write like this to piss me off or is there like an actual reason?
Both.

To me it's a slur that I should self-censor.
>>

 No.472018

Tho I disagree with Schopenhauer's notion that w*men lack reasoning skills. This is obviously a 19th century incel cope (in the bad sense, as in synonymous with "delusion").

W*men are so dangerous PRECISELY because they posses both reasoning skills AND the means to manipulate men.
>>

 No.472019

Case in point, his notion that w*men lose their manipulative charms after the second pregnancy means jack shit in the current world when the average western w*man has 1.5 children throughout her life.
>>

 No.472020

>The weakness of their reasoning faculty also explains why it is that women show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men do, and so treat them with more kindness and interest;
or just look at this bluepilled deluded shit lol

completely fooled by w*men, dances to their tune
"most compassionate sex" my ass

>Hence, it will be found that the fundamental fault of the female character is that it has no sense of justice.

another philosophycel moment lol

No, you idealist deluded fuck, the fundamental fault is that they hold the monopoly over the means of reproduction.
>>

 No.472021

>>472010
>dialectical materialism" is an oxymoron.
how
>>

 No.472022

File: 1691878509773-0.jpg ( 140.99 KB , 503x677 , 1.jpg )

File: 1691878509773-1.jpg ( 87.14 KB , 511x443 , 2.jpg )

>>472020
Schopenhauer was an incel on the verge of the blackpill, looking straight into it. And the blackpill looked back.

But as a philosophycels he copes with idealism of the abstract moral qualities.
>>

 No.472023

>>472022
tldr: w*men are eugenic hoes
>>

 No.472025

>>472018
>Tho I disagree with Schopenhauer's notion that w*men lack reasoning skills.
Tho maybe he means "reason" in some other, philosophicel, sense, as in "The Reason" of Winstanley, ie God.
>>

 No.472027

File: 1691879817660.jpg ( 44.37 KB , 494x225 , 7.jpg )

Here's another delusion. The problem with w*men is PRECISELY that they are aesthetic to the opposite sex due to dimorphism in our species.
>>

 No.472028

File: 1691879984972-0.jpg ( 95.95 KB , 505x473 , kek.jpg )

File: 1691879984972-1.gif ( 2.07 MB , 640x326 , lmao.gif )

>>

 No.472029

>>472003
>some idea outside the material world influencing it
1. Nothing that is contingent is contingent upon itself, that is, it is contingent upon something other than itself.
2. The material world itself is contingent. It began at a finite point in time.
3. Therefore, the material world is contingent upon something other than itself.

Moreover, Marx himself claimed that there were scientific laws guaranteeing the revolution. The revolution has yet to appear, or if it did, was overthrown by those very workers that were supposed to be rebelling (i.e. the Soviet Union). Therefore, it is right to question Marx's assertion about these "scientific" laws.
>>

 No.472030

File: 1691880981771-0.jpg ( 78.33 KB , 736x1156 , 03.jpg )

File: 1691880981771-1.jpeg ( 822.01 KB , 2048x1446 , david-kun.jpeg )

>>472027
ie, the fag doesn't even understand that aesthetics are objective, but relative

Female Beauty is a thing. That's why we cope with anime girls.
>>

 No.472032

File: 1691882958222-0.jpg ( 64.43 KB , 503x319 , der w*man.jpg )

File: 1691882958222-1.jpg ( 13.26 KB , 492x63 , the lady.jpg )

Man, I love this silly reactionary idiot lol.
>>

 No.472033

File: 1691883134385-0.png ( 68.48 KB , 300x148 , 300px-Buster.png )

File: 1691883134385-1.jpg ( 36.62 KB , 500x195 , attaching.jpg )

If only he knew..

In the current day w*men "attaches" herself to the fucking dog.
>>

 No.472034

File: 1691883230481.png ( 160.33 KB , 588x851 , turtles all the way down.png )

>>472029
>1. Nothing that is contingent is contingent upon itself, that is, it is contingent upon something other than itself.
>2. The material world itself is contingent. It began at a finite point in time.
>3. Therefore, the material world is contingent upon something other than itself.

Nice try, but this is just a variation of an old trick. You are basically just trying to trap somebody in a mental cascade, a infinite regression loop they can't get out off. Like the old "it's turtles all the way down".

If you care about the origin of reality, the atomist model is pretty decent. It stars with the void which is the absence of everything, not just matter but also space-time and what ever reality might exist beyond/below that. Like you said nothing is contingent upon itself.

The void is also perfect order with zero entropy. But entropy must increase and that means the perfectly ordered void decays into a more disordered reality that has messy stuff in it. In case you are tempted to question where entropy comes from. Consider that Entropy could just be described as the absence of everlasting things. The only way you'd get that was if change was impossible, but change clearly is.

There you have it, a fully material world without any need to invent idealist stuff to bootstrap it.
>>

 No.472035

File: 1691883766968.png ( Spoiler Image, 442.56 KB , 1280x1817 , master.png )

>>472033
ie, THIS is what it came down to
>>

 No.472038

>>472021
>how
the "laws" it uses are not deduced from empirical facts, ie those laws are pulled out of the philosophic arse, ie have nothing to do with materialism proper

the "laws" are vague, and contradictory (literally the first "law"), ie have no predictive power

they are applied ex-post to the events, ie useless
>>

 No.472039

ie, to claim that feudalism was superseded by capitalism because of "the negation of the negation" is the same as to claim that the water in my pot boiled because of the "quantity into quality" lol - it tells you absolutely nothing
>>

 No.472040

File: 1691887751837.jpg ( 20.91 KB , 280x355 , The_Falling_Man.jpg )

>472034
Nothing which is contingent is contingent upon itself, not nothing is contingent upon itself. That is the opposite meaning.

Secondly, in what you just said, the nothingness involves the absence of space-time, but still also is subject to time, seeing as entropy is increasing. Something induced this nothingness into its opposite of not-nothingness, therefore your nothingness is also contingent.

Furthermore, as something-ness leads to more something-ness, nothing-ness leads to more nothing-ness.

The reason why this is an old trick is because there is still, as of yet, no effective response, beyond adding one more of your "turtles."
>>

 No.472042

>>472040
scholasticism and phraseology
read engels
>>

 No.472056

File: 1691937951194.jpg ( 332.39 KB , 1280x1807 , dog life.jpg )

>>472033
>>472035
ie, Schopenhauer's error is that he confuses "male" with a "man"
>>

 No.472059

>>472040
>but still also is subject to time, seeing as entropy is increasing.
Nope entropy is what "moves" time forward. So entropy kinda is prior to time.
>>

 No.472061

>>472059
uyghas wish a bachelor's degree in polisci think they're physics researchers

This place really is a dump
>>

 No.472070

>>472003
>gotta have thick steel barrier to your brain if you ever wish to become a communist
Woah, so the patsuccs were right! The more of a cumservative braindead defendista retard you are the more you are dangerous to the ever-present state of things!

>>472007
>Reading Schewpeengayer because of dunking on them women.
Kanye-tier.

>>472014
Constantly coming up with euphemisms or even outright censoring the pronunciation of a particular phenomena in question is a clear sign of a phobia. Basic psychonomics.

>>472033
>Dogs are more fuckable than him

>>472061
Welcome to the left.
>>

 No.472071

>>472070
>Woah, so the patsuccs were right! The more of a cumservative braindead defendista retard you are the more you are dangerous to the ever-present state of things!

That's obviously not what OP's saying though.
>>

 No.472074

>>472061
You don't have to be a physics researcher. Entropy being what's causing the arrow of time can be found in any summary of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics is more or less the only thing in physics that's not time symmetric. Everything else works the same both ways forward or backward in time. The alternative explanations are wacky. Like our universe needing a twin universe where time flows into the opposite direction.

But you don't really need physics to explain why materialism is correct. Thoughts only originate in brains and perhaps future intelligent computers. All thinkers are made out of matter, if thoughts and ideas could exist without matter, there would be evidence of immaterial thinkers, but there isn't any.

I sometimes think that there is a solipsistic impulse behind philosophical idealism. If matter is primary and ideas secondary, your personal thoughts and ideas can't be the center of the universe anymore.
>>

 No.472968

>>472038
>nature has no empirically observable contradictions
>nature has no empirically observable resolved contradictions
????
>>

 No.478510

>>472033
tbh I think its more mutual.
Men attach themselves to young nubile women.

Chivalry is the institutional channeling of male hubris in the nameof "defending the honor of maidens".
>>

 No.478511

>>472018
Men are sentimental beings that use logic.

Women are logical beings that use emotions.

Women only need to be be young and pretty and play hard to get in order to get mens attention.
>>

 No.478512

>>472027
Both are right.
Women are beautiful but mainly due to biological impulses.

Men can be beautiful too, but society doesnt allow male beauty to be normalised.

Unique IPs: 14

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome