Skip to comments.Political Non-Science [ and why you're called Nazis]
Posted on 10/02/2012 4:24:34 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
...It's a tragedy of history that Karl Marx chose to dress his theories in the clothing of scientific analysis. Ever since his time, Marxists have built systems on his theories in the settled faith that their daring new policies must bear fruit,because they're based on "irrefutable science."
And yet, time and again, those policies have failed.
Science isn't supposed to work that way. So the Marxists are forced to ask, "What can explain such an anomaly? How can science be wrong?"
The answer is always the same"Wreckers have been at work. Saboteurs, ungrateful for the blessings of socialism, are conspiring to destroy the fruits of the people's labor."
Obviously these wreckers are enemies of humanity,and must be hunted down and eradicated.....
The purges are generally successful for a while, at least in terms of manipulation of power. The public unites in hatred for the condemned class,thankful to the Party for protecting them....
......Because real science mirrors the real world, and socialism is founded on a lie.
That lie is that man can live by bread alone.
Here's a paradox the most unscientific claim anyone can make is that science has explained everything. That claim is especially dangerous when applied to humanity. Marx was only one in a string of theorists who've imagined they've reduced human nature to a simple formula,a formula which can be manipulated through the application of enlightened laws drafted by philosopher kings.
.....It's not science that's failed. It's the hubristic claims of people who think they are scientists,but are only self-anointed prophets. Who think they've answered all the questions, because they've ruled the most important questions out of order.
You can generally tell when a true believer is posing as a scientist. He throws a fit and calls you a Nazi when you question his findings.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Marxism is a far from “science” as you can get. Marx based it completely as a offshot of the Hegalian dialect which rejected the antithetical system of logic which forms the foundation for the scientific method.
This explains the DNC.
Pray for America
Science, historically the fruit of a theistic world view that saw the universe as a rational artifact, works.
That's exactly right. In fact, it's impossible to do science in a chaotic and unpredictable (read "ungoverned") universe.
The logical laws of identity and contradiction establish that reality is based on thesis and anthithesis. It is these laws of logic which form the foundation of the scientificd method. (logical inferences discerned from observed data). Hegal rejected this in favor of his thesis-antithesis-synthis model. Under this model everthing is purely relitavistic and absolutes don’t exist. It is this Hegelian dialectic which Marx appropriated and modified to create his Marxist dialectic and historical materialism.
Socialism fails because it ignores human nature. Capitalism flourishes because it is based on human nature. Humans yearn to do better for themselves. We value ourselves as an individual - “me” is very important. The profit motive is ingrained into our psyche.
Even in the closed, regimented, Communist state of North Korea, the Black (Free) Market exists.
Given human nature, Socialism/Communism is as unworkable as swimming in sand.
“Given human nature, Socialism/Communism is as unworkable as swimming in sand.”
Marx rejected God resulting in a fundamental flaw in understanding human nature.
Thank you for adding that to the thread.
Marx himself denegrated everyone who opposed his political theories as being “anti-science” and any of their arguments as “non-scientific”.
It’s really telling that today’s liberals invariably fall back on the same tactic when confronted with opposing viewpoints and arguments.
I personally have had this exchange with a liberal on an ideological issue -
I: “why do you believe that?”
I: “how do you measure the efficacy of your position on this issue using the scientific method?”
They: “...” (or some insult)
I don’t think most commies care about Marx’s scientific rigor. Maybe at some point, but even when you get to the most famous Marxist besides Marx, Lenin, he’s updating he master ad libitum.
It’s always been about the logic of egalitarianism, the sliver of truth about haves versus gave nots and exploiters running government, the general consciouness of the problem if the proletarian—which everyone from arch-conservatives to radical libertarians recognuzed— and the emotion invoked by poverty in the midst of plenty. Not its scientific pretensions.
Ever heard of “the identity of opposites”? If no consider yourself lucky.
I assume it isn’t related to the law of non-contradiction, which can be argued to be the basis of the ability to know anything at all.
It’s really funny that the same lib that I related in the above conversation also, in another conversation, rejected the law of non-contradiction.
Hegel draws the opposite conclusion from his own philosophy. Not only is there an absolute, there is an active Absolute Spirit, which is God or a general Mind—I don’t know—bringing Truths into World making for a grand drama that is History. Plus all sorts of other capitalized abstractions that I refuse to remember.
Not that that’s what all of his descendants took away from it, necessarily.
Of course nobody believes we live in an unpredictable universe. Theistic world views have nothing to do with it.
“I assume it isn’t related to the law of non-contradiction”
The identity of opposites is an exact refutation of it, as is the thesis-antithesis-thesis system. Then again, he also beloved in a Spirit which was absolute truth and was making the world better every day in every way, so whaddya know.
Not nothing. You can have laws, or regularities, without God. But certainly that’s one of the attributes of God: that he is the prime mover and sets all the rules. It has been the most popular way to explain non-chaos in human history other than perhaps animism.
The intrigue lies in the apparent parallels of reality: the oscillations of subatomic particles around a nucleus. Day and night. Summer and winter. And at the broader historical level, favor and disfavor. Left and Right.
Which was always a major contradiction in my eyes. Why doesn't the Absolute Spirit just become another thesis which along with its antithesis is just synthesized away - in keeping with the rest of his dialectic. Under Hegel's view the only truths are the historical workings of the Absolute Spirit which once they've occured become just another thesis in the process. Thus, the only true things are things which haven't happened yet. In many ways he echos the pre-socratics, particularly Heraclitus. ("being is becominng") But on steroids.
I agree with you that everyone believes we live in a predicable universe. The question, though, is on what basis...
“Day and night. Summer and winter...favor and disfavor. Left and Right.”
Which is very romantic, but more appropriate for a novelist than a philosopher. Especially one whom people take seriously as a logician (of sorts), as opposed to a Nietzsche, who’s known to shout whatever’s on his mind.
Yes, Heraclitus, absolutely (though not Absolutely). See also Plato, who was profoundly influenced by Heraclitus even as he ran screaming in the opposite direction from flux toward Form. See also as well Kant, who seems to be an idealist but sticks the Truth out there beyond our knowledge and acts as if we can’t trust anything we think we know because...um...we are the ones thinking it and we aren’t God.
If you assume there is no God then I find Nietzsche's logic impeccable. That's what makes him so scary. I've always found it ironic while Nietzsche wrote the greatest atheist apologetic work ever, "Thus Spake Zarathustra", he is shunned and never cited by contemporary atheists because he didn't hesitated to draw the inescapable nihilistic conclusions of his atheism - revel in them - then map out a plan on how to proceed in light of this. Even the most hardened atheist generally recoils when he truly looks into the abyss.
You may find logic in his version of if there’s no God everything is permitted. But that is only a small part of the whole. Most of hus books are disjointed series of aphorisms, Zarathustra included. It us shrewd and intermittently convincing. It is not convincing.
Anyway, the point is Hegel wax a logician,or at least laid out his own system of logic in detail. Nietzsche was something else altogether. Even in his books which contain extended arguments, for instance The Geneology of Morals, he doesn’t lay out any system. He just declares things.
us = is
I meant it is not consistant, not convincing the second time.
Socialism assumes that a command economy will work, that people will follow orders, and will accurately report conditions so that planning can occur. It also assumes that the planners will be smart enough to be able to plan for a complex economy. None of the above assumptions work in real life.
A fundamental assumption of science is that the universe is not only understandable, but understandable by people with human-range IQ. This may, or may not, turn out to be so.
Which I find meaningless in and of itself. The sophistication and scope of the construct doesn't necessarily enhance its persuasiveness. I would take the scattered insights of Nietzsche (but not his presuppositions), Pascal and Kierkegaard over the systematic breadth of Kant, Hegel and Descartes any day. But that's just me. Reasonable minds can differ which is what makes it all so much fun.
My point wasn’t about persuasiveness. It was about the appriopriatness of an interest in smashing together opposites for philosophers, especially those with a pretended of having built their own logical systems. Perhaps I went too far with the novelist comment. In fact most philosophy is done in a declamatory manner; it was only for a sliver during the enlightenment into the romantic era and here and there afterwards that philosophers felt the need to explain their worldview step by step from subatomic particles to God.
It remains true that it was not appropriate for Hegel.
“I would take the scattered insights of Nietzsche...Pascal and Kierkegaard over the systematic breadth of Kant, Hegel and Descartes”
I would too, as obviously they are gunner to read. That’s because they were consciously literary, whereas High German Romantic Idealists might as well have been writing math textbooks. Which is why I said it’s more appropriate for novelists. But of course Nietzsche, etc. are true philosophers, though Zarathustra employs fiction and Kierkegaard told stories. I meant more to emphasize that illogical is inappropriate for Hegel, who is considered a logician.
Much more, anyway, for Nietzsche, who is almost the opposite.
LOL. It's the lasting legacy of Aquinas. You see it in Johnathan Edwards (and most of the Puritans) also. They refused to say in 10 pages what they could spend 200 pages on, refuting every conceivable objection and picking every nit.
Yes, and it’s called systematic theology.