4 ms·

I love Wilde but that sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum.

by blast 6y ago

dalbasal 6y ago
Wilde (who lived 500m from where I stand) was a nuanced user of absurdity. I think what made him stand out in his day actually was that fact. He casually reflects on absurdities, contradiction, and their prerequisites rather than burying them. What Wilde is doing in this essay is giving credence to counterarguments, either between socialism and individualism or between socialism and his own, famously hedonistic character. The tendency in his period was to argue for hermetically sealed worldviews. Marx's famously, and later Ayn Rand's are like type examples. These worldviews internally saw themselves as a complete and absolute understanding of history, sociology, economics... the Truth about people and society. They conceded nothing and admitted no external influences. Wilde's essay is still read because it's one of the few which actually captures the real political/philosophical debate of his era. The ideals behind the ideology, the dangers of these going wrong. He was a mighty intellectual, and if you want to understand why 19th socialism was what it was I think he's indispensable.
- rogue7 6y ago
  > They conceded nothing and admitted no external influences In the case of Marx this is inaccurate. Indeed, in Das Kapital he develops the Labor theory of value [0] from earlier works of David Ricardo and ... Adam Smith. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    Absolutely. I think you have me backwards. Marx's economics are a pretty straightforward response to Ricardo. He himself mostly alluded to Ricardo as "Bourgeois intellectuals," avoiding even naming him.
    - rogue7 6y ago
      I now understand what you meant. However with a quick search, you can find 14 references to Ricardo (granted, in the footnotes) just in Capital, part one, chapter one [0]. I think it's telling how most of the Smith and Ricardo followers celebrate how prescient they were, excluding the labor theory of value when they embrace marginalism [1] instead. I guess it must be more convenient for them. [0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics#Marginal_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics#Margina...

I love Wilde but that sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum.

by blast 6y ago

I love Wilde but that sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum.

dalbasal 6y ago

Wilde (who lived 500m from where I stand) was a nuanced user of absurdity. I think what made him stand out in his day actually was that fact. He casually reflects on absurdities, contradiction, and their prerequisites rather than burying them. What Wilde is doing in this essay is giving credence to counterarguments, either between socialism and individualism or between socialism and his own, famously hedonistic character. The tendency in his period was to argue for hermetically sealed worldviews. Marx's famously, and later Ayn Rand's are like type examples. These worldviews internally saw themselves as a complete and absolute understanding of history, sociology, economics... the Truth about people and society. They conceded nothing and admitted no external influences. Wilde's essay is still read because it's one of the few which actually captures the real political/philosophical debate of his era. The ideals behind the ideology, the dangers of these going wrong. He was a mighty intellectual, and if you want to understand why 19th socialism was what it was I think he's indispensable.

rogue7 6y ago
> They conceded nothing and admitted no external influences In the case of Marx this is inaccurate. Indeed, in Das Kapital he develops the Labor theory of value [0] from earlier works of David Ricardo and ... Adam Smith. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Absolutely. I think you have me backwards. Marx's economics are a pretty straightforward response to Ricardo. He himself mostly alluded to Ricardo as "Bourgeois intellectuals," avoiding even naming him.
  - rogue7 6y ago
    I now understand what you meant. However with a quick search, you can find 14 references to Ricardo (granted, in the footnotes) just in Capital, part one, chapter one [0]. I think it's telling how most of the Smith and Ricardo followers celebrate how prescient they were, excluding the labor theory of value when they embrace marginalism [1] instead. I guess it must be more convenient for them. [0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics#Marginal_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics#Margina...