3 ms·

I can't easily recognize (post-)modern social construction in his worldview, especially construction of reality at large (morality it is easier to see the argum

I can't easily recognize (post-)modern social construction in his worldview, especially construction of reality at large (morality it is easier to see the argument) but I admit it has been years since my reading. I agree with you that there is a strand in Western thought which is infatuated with science/engineering to a historically novel degree but I am not so sure that enlightenment ideals fit so neatly in the same box, or that statements like "Western thought is firmly X" can be meaningfully interpreted. In any case thanks for your response and for the link, I look forward to reading and learning from it.

ants_everywhere 1y ago
> I can't easily recognize (post-)modern social construction in his worldview, especially construction of reality at large The most relevant piece is probably Theses on Feuerbach. Feuerbach advocated a materialist (e.g. essentially naturalistic) point of view to which Marx objected. His basic argument is that it doesn't make sense to talk about an objective materialist universe. That point of view leads to middle class society. His own point of view isn't really coherent, but it's essentially that humans create the objective world and truth through interacting with it. To me it feels like what he's trying to do is try to take German idealism and apply it to groups of people rather than single people. Conceptually you get a sort of Cartesian solipsism at the social scale. But you can read it and you may get a different take away from it.
- swed420 1y ago
  > he most relevant piece is probably Theses on Feuerbach. Feuerbach advocated a materialist (e.g. essentially naturalistic) point of view to which Marx objected. One must have a very warped understanding of Marx to claim he didn't advocate for materialism. Are you unfamiliar with his dialectical/historical materialism?
  - ants_everywhere 1y ago
    Of course I'm familiar with it. But beyond an unfortunate name clash the ideas aren't very related. Materialism is the view that everything is fundamentally matter. Historical materialism is almost the opposite. It's the idea that there's some supernatural force guiding human history. To quote Bertrand Russell: > His belief that there is a cosmic force called Dialectical Materialism which governs human history independently of human volitions, is mere mythology.
    - swed420 1y ago
      You argue like a true capitalist whose underlying assumption is that free will isn't mostly illusory. Modern science disagrees: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83817782-determined https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83817782-determined Warning: ego might get bruised
      - GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        That's not science, just Sapolsky having no idea what he's talking about.
        swed420 1y ago
        It's well sourced. The people who seem to hate/misrepresent him tend to be capitalists, philosophers, religious types, and generally egotistical "individualist" types.
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        What is his source for the definition of free will? Fairy tales?
        swed420 1y ago
        See? You had no choice but to run sealioning.exe
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        Because he's not doing science.
    - walleeee 1y ago
      I am glad for our (rather dismissive) interlocutor's comment, because I can now ask you: do you see this in any tension with Marx as an early constructivist? Social construction as I think of it is hardly compatible with a teleological cosmology. What am I missing? Another quibble: I don't think Marx thought of it as supernatural in our sense of the latter; rather his sense of the natural (like that of many of his contemporaries) had an element of what we might call the supernatural, located in a certain directedness or inevitability. I guess where you see Marx as an early advocate of modern relativisms, I read him as deeply bound up in positivisms pervasive at the time. Maybe these are not contradictory positions. Curious to hear your thoughts.
  - walleeee 1y ago
    > One must have a very warped understanding of Marx Materialism is an extraordinarily overloaded word/concept. OP's proposing an idiosyncratic take on Marx's reading of one of his main influences seems rather more in the dialectical spirit than a no true Scotsman (no true Marxist? ;) flung without substantiation. No offense. Given Marx was famously "not a Marxist", and given the laboriousness/verbosity of his writing, and his tendency to change his mind over time, you could argue he had merely the first in a long lineage of warped understandings of himself.
    - swed420 1y ago
      > Given Marx was famously "not a Marxist" Misrepresenting words out of context to make a point isn't a great approach. http://isocracy.org/content/karl-marx-i-am-not-marxist http://isocracy.org/content/karl-marx-i-am-not-marxist https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpretations/karl-marx-if-anything-is-certain-it-is-that-i-myself-am-not-a-marxist https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpret...
      - walleeee 1y ago
        Friend, if you're trying to convert people to your point of view, neither is yours. Cheers from someone with at least a few somewhat similar political sympathies.

ants_everywhere 1y ago

> I can't easily recognize (post-)modern social construction in his worldview, especially construction of reality at large The most relevant piece is probably Theses on Feuerbach. Feuerbach advocated a materialist (e.g. essentially naturalistic) point of view to which Marx objected. His basic argument is that it doesn't make sense to talk about an objective materialist universe. That point of view leads to middle class society. His own point of view isn't really coherent, but it's essentially that humans create the objective world and truth through interacting with it. To me it feels like what he's trying to do is try to take German idealism and apply it to groups of people rather than single people. Conceptually you get a sort of Cartesian solipsism at the social scale. But you can read it and you may get a different take away from it.

swed420 1y ago
> he most relevant piece is probably Theses on Feuerbach. Feuerbach advocated a materialist (e.g. essentially naturalistic) point of view to which Marx objected. One must have a very warped understanding of Marx to claim he didn't advocate for materialism. Are you unfamiliar with his dialectical/historical materialism?
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  Of course I'm familiar with it. But beyond an unfortunate name clash the ideas aren't very related. Materialism is the view that everything is fundamentally matter. Historical materialism is almost the opposite. It's the idea that there's some supernatural force guiding human history. To quote Bertrand Russell: > His belief that there is a cosmic force called Dialectical Materialism which governs human history independently of human volitions, is mere mythology.
  - swed420 1y ago
    You argue like a true capitalist whose underlying assumption is that free will isn't mostly illusory. Modern science disagrees: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83817782-determined https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/83817782-determined Warning: ego might get bruised
    - GoblinSlayer 1y ago
      That's not science, just Sapolsky having no idea what he's talking about.
      - swed420 1y ago
        It's well sourced. The people who seem to hate/misrepresent him tend to be capitalists, philosophers, religious types, and generally egotistical "individualist" types.
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        What is his source for the definition of free will? Fairy tales?
        swed420 1y ago
        See? You had no choice but to run sealioning.exe
        GoblinSlayer 1y ago
        Because he's not doing science.
  - walleeee 1y ago
    I am glad for our (rather dismissive) interlocutor's comment, because I can now ask you: do you see this in any tension with Marx as an early constructivist? Social construction as I think of it is hardly compatible with a teleological cosmology. What am I missing? Another quibble: I don't think Marx thought of it as supernatural in our sense of the latter; rather his sense of the natural (like that of many of his contemporaries) had an element of what we might call the supernatural, located in a certain directedness or inevitability. I guess where you see Marx as an early advocate of modern relativisms, I read him as deeply bound up in positivisms pervasive at the time. Maybe these are not contradictory positions. Curious to hear your thoughts.
- walleeee 1y ago
  > One must have a very warped understanding of Marx Materialism is an extraordinarily overloaded word/concept. OP's proposing an idiosyncratic take on Marx's reading of one of his main influences seems rather more in the dialectical spirit than a no true Scotsman (no true Marxist? ;) flung without substantiation. No offense. Given Marx was famously "not a Marxist", and given the laboriousness/verbosity of his writing, and his tendency to change his mind over time, you could argue he had merely the first in a long lineage of warped understandings of himself.
  - swed420 1y ago
    > Given Marx was famously "not a Marxist" Misrepresenting words out of context to make a point isn't a great approach. http://isocracy.org/content/karl-marx-i-am-not-marxist http://isocracy.org/content/karl-marx-i-am-not-marxist https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpretations/karl-marx-if-anything-is-certain-it-is-that-i-myself-am-not-a-marxist https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpret...
    - walleeee 1y ago
      Friend, if you're trying to convert people to your point of view, neither is yours. Cheers from someone with at least a few somewhat similar political sympathies.