4 ms·

> In my thinking, the definition of research is to find truth > the primary sources; that's where the truth is I mentioned this elsewhere on the thread, but I

by awongh 2y ago

> In my thinking, the definition of research is to find truth > the primary sources; that's where the truth is I mentioned this elsewhere on the thread, but I also feel like the most influential primary sources are less important than secondary sources- if you read Marx, the social and political circumstances of his ideas are in the context of an industrial economy and just don't apply in the same way anymore. You can draw your own conclusions directly from what's written, but what's the point of that? I feel like it's more useful to engage with those ideas keeping in mind all of the thought and history that's happened since- in that case you would wait a pretty long time to work backwards until you read the original.

mmooss 2y ago
If you are researching economics, then Marx is a secondary (or higher order) source. The econmomic data used by Marx is primary. If you are researching Marx the person or Marx's ideas, then [edit: Marx's writings would be primary sources, and then] what would you think of someone who only read others talking about Marx, but didn't read Marx's actual writings? It wouldn't make much sense for anything called 'research'.
- awongh 2y ago
  > The econmomic data used by Marx is primary Literally picking through tables of all economic data for the last century... shocked pikachu meme not sure what that would gain you....
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Well, that's how actual research is done - that's what people do. It defines research, it's how they write all those (research-based) books and journal articles. That's scholarship - science, social science, humanities, etc. That's why Darwin travelled all the way to the Galapagos Islands - he identified a place to do primary resesarch on the questions he was investigating. Journalists also - they look at the actual evidence and turn it into something coherent and cohesive for others to understand; the location in the byline/dateline shows where they went - that is, that if they wrote about Odessa, the dateline should show if they actually went to Odessa and saw it for themself. Back to research: If you mean it's impractical for many people, that's often true. Some topics require less expertise, expense, and time: for example, tracking local bird populations. But those real natural scientists, the amateur researchers who get published, that's what they are doing. Pretty amazing! If you don't want to do it, that's fine; few do. If you want to read secondary sources on a topic - wonderful (but read good ones based on primary sources; only accept what is tied back to actual, hard-won facts - necessary are the footnotes, which connect the secondary claim to the primary fact). If you want to read tertiary sources, find quality ones. If you want to read social media, have fun but it's just entertainment - to the extent it's accurate, you can't know unless you already have expertise.
ants_everywhere 2y ago
With Marx the literature is basically religious in nature so reading his successors without reading Marx would be like reading religious commentaries on the bible without reading the original bible stories. There could be reasons to do that (e.g. modern text is easier to read), but you'd be missing a lot. There are other writers who were writing before or at the same time as Marx on similar topics who were clearer in their thinking and their work is often surprisingly relevant even today.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Anti-liberalism and Marxism may be popular and therefore people join in dismissing Marx, but afaik Marx was and to some extent is (the ideas are from a long time ago) taken seriously as a serious theorist.
  - ants_everywhere 2y ago
    > Anti-liberalism and Marxism may be popular I'm not sure whether to parse this as (anti-liberalism) and (Marxism) or as (anti-liberalism) and (anti-Marxism). But in case you meant the latter, Marxism is explicitly anti-liberal in the sense that he rejected the philosophical position that was called liberalism. And this vehement rejection has persisted through his followers. It's also anti-liberal in most broader senses. > afaik Marx was and to some extent is (the ideas are from a long time ago) taken seriously as a serious theorist. He's not taken seriously in philosophy or economics. There are some serious scholars who give him credit for contributions to early social science, although I think those scholars generally give him credit for ideas that were published and debated well before him and which he didn't really improve or advance. Primarily he's taken seriously as an influential person in history, like Jesus, Buddha, Stalin, or Hitler. He was essentially a peripheral polemicist at the time of his death. The Soviets basically deified him because they needed something like a state religion, and they're responsible for whatever reputation he has today. But remember the Soviets were very big on propaganda, not so big on accuracy, and a lot of what people think they know about Marx is seen through the filter of authoritarian propaganda. Similarly a lot of what we know about Jesus passed through the filter of the Roman Empire and their desire to use him as the basis of an imperial religion. We're in a better shape with Marx, though, because we have many his writings (minus a significant amount of his correspondence which he and others destroyed). There are, of course, economists and philosophers who consider themselves Marxists and who take him seriously. Often they're appointed to departments outside the main econ or philosophy department. For example, it wouldn't be unusual for a Marxist philosophy to be appointed to a German department or a history department.

by awongh 2y ago

mmooss 2y ago

If you are researching economics, then Marx is a secondary (or higher order) source. The econmomic data used by Marx is primary. If you are researching Marx the person or Marx's ideas, then [edit: Marx's writings would be primary sources, and then] what would you think of someone who only read others talking about Marx, but didn't read Marx's actual writings? It wouldn't make much sense for anything called 'research'.

awongh 2y ago
> The econmomic data used by Marx is primary Literally picking through tables of all economic data for the last century... shocked pikachu meme not sure what that would gain you....
- mmooss 2y ago
  Well, that's how actual research is done - that's what people do. It defines research, it's how they write all those (research-based) books and journal articles. That's scholarship - science, social science, humanities, etc. That's why Darwin travelled all the way to the Galapagos Islands - he identified a place to do primary resesarch on the questions he was investigating. Journalists also - they look at the actual evidence and turn it into something coherent and cohesive for others to understand; the location in the byline/dateline shows where they went - that is, that if they wrote about Odessa, the dateline should show if they actually went to Odessa and saw it for themself. Back to research: If you mean it's impractical for many people, that's often true. Some topics require less expertise, expense, and time: for example, tracking local bird populations. But those real natural scientists, the amateur researchers who get published, that's what they are doing. Pretty amazing! If you don't want to do it, that's fine; few do. If you want to read secondary sources on a topic - wonderful (but read good ones based on primary sources; only accept what is tied back to actual, hard-won facts - necessary are the footnotes, which connect the secondary claim to the primary fact). If you want to read tertiary sources, find quality ones. If you want to read social media, have fun but it's just entertainment - to the extent it's accurate, you can't know unless you already have expertise.

ants_everywhere 2y ago

With Marx the literature is basically religious in nature so reading his successors without reading Marx would be like reading religious commentaries on the bible without reading the original bible stories. There could be reasons to do that (e.g. modern text is easier to read), but you'd be missing a lot. There are other writers who were writing before or at the same time as Marx on similar topics who were clearer in their thinking and their work is often surprisingly relevant even today.

mmooss 2y ago
Anti-liberalism and Marxism may be popular and therefore people join in dismissing Marx, but afaik Marx was and to some extent is (the ideas are from a long time ago) taken seriously as a serious theorist.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  > Anti-liberalism and Marxism may be popular I'm not sure whether to parse this as (anti-liberalism) and (Marxism) or as (anti-liberalism) and (anti-Marxism). But in case you meant the latter, Marxism is explicitly anti-liberal in the sense that he rejected the philosophical position that was called liberalism. And this vehement rejection has persisted through his followers. It's also anti-liberal in most broader senses. > afaik Marx was and to some extent is (the ideas are from a long time ago) taken seriously as a serious theorist. He's not taken seriously in philosophy or economics. There are some serious scholars who give him credit for contributions to early social science, although I think those scholars generally give him credit for ideas that were published and debated well before him and which he didn't really improve or advance. Primarily he's taken seriously as an influential person in history, like Jesus, Buddha, Stalin, or Hitler. He was essentially a peripheral polemicist at the time of his death. The Soviets basically deified him because they needed something like a state religion, and they're responsible for whatever reputation he has today. But remember the Soviets were very big on propaganda, not so big on accuracy, and a lot of what people think they know about Marx is seen through the filter of authoritarian propaganda. Similarly a lot of what we know about Jesus passed through the filter of the Roman Empire and their desire to use him as the basis of an imperial religion. We're in a better shape with Marx, though, because we have many his writings (minus a significant amount of his correspondence which he and others destroyed). There are, of course, economists and philosophers who consider themselves Marxists and who take him seriously. Often they're appointed to departments outside the main econ or philosophy department. For example, it wouldn't be unusual for a Marxist philosophy to be appointed to a German department or a history department.