Thoughts on his philosophy?
Pretty good on the lower levels because his dayjob is "le science man" (think Dicky Dawkins exploring rather than dimissing other fields). But on the higher levels he's committed to western academia dogma, utilitarianism, humanitarianism, etc.
I think his age shows too. For example many of his readings on philosophy or music are clearly straight from outdated textbooks/translations.
The fact that so many books still name the Scaruffi as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" philosopher ever only tells you how far philosophy still is from becoming a serious art. Scientists have long recognized that the greatest scientists of all times are Issac Newton and Albert Einstein, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Historians rank the highly controversial Herodotus over historians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Philosophers are still blinded by commercial success. Scaruffi sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Scientists grow up studying to a lot of science of the past, historians grow up studying to a lot of history of the past. Philosophers are often totally ignorant of the philosophy of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that Scaruffi did anything worthy of being saved.
>>317135
He is a cultural historian, not a philosopher.
He is pretty cool desu
>>317073
blonde conan o' brian?
has anybody read his books about mind philosophy? His views looks cool desu, even if I'm completely ignorant on this subject.
>The mental cannot arise ex nihilo from the non-mental
>Cognition is pervasive in nature
>The mental is a property of matter, of all matter
>Everything has a "mental" aspect, although it is likely that only in the configuration and structure of the human brain that "mental" aspect yields the human form of mental life (consciousness, emotions, the self, etc)
>Just like electricity and liquidity are macroscopic properties that are caused by microscopic properties of the constituents, so consciousness is a macroscopic property of our brain that is caused by a microscopic "mental" property of its constituents
>The human mind is the product of the co-evolution of memes, language, tools, emotions and brains.
>>317373
I'm not sure if you're quoting him directly with that greentext... but to me that looks like he took the "best bits" of panspsycism, dualism, and others (a little reductive materialism) - even if they contradict each other.
also what does it mean for conciousness to be "macroscopic"? what a dink.
>>317413
Yeah I am.
>http://www.scaruffi.com/phi/scaruffi.html
Sorry, IDK if he's saying bullshit or if he's just stealing ideas. As I said, I never cared for mind studies before.
>>317073
At his peak during the Late Night period desu
>>317413
>also what does it mean for conciousness to be "macroscopic"?
In the same way that "electricity" or "liquidity" can be described as a complex interaction of smaller forces/units/materials.
>>317679
To be even clearly. The macro is considered the forest and the micro is the trees, in everyday memeage.
>>317413
I haven't read your peer-reviewed publications but this post is pretty retarded. It's like you're picking the worst criticisms you can make and mixing them all together, even if they're contradictory.
>>317692
Misquote? He wasn't making any criticisms, just observing and guessing.
>>317722
>what a dink
>>317746
Spinoza
>>317746
Spinoza
Hegel
Schopenhauer
>>317746
Marx
Spinoza
Wittgenstein
>>317373
Sounds a lot like Draganescu's ideas in The Ontologic Universality of Information.
>>317746
>>317748
>>317750
>>317757
The fact that so many books still name the Plato as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" philosopher ever only tells you how far philosophy still is from becoming a serious art. Scientists have long recognized that the greatest scientists of all times are Issac Newton and Albert Einstein, who were not the most resentful or charlatanistic or idealist of their times, let alone of all times. Historians rank the highly controversial Thucydides over historians who were highly popular with Greeks at Olympia. Philosophers are still blinded by religious success. Plato sedates more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore he must have been the greatest. Scientists grow up studying to a lot of science of this world, historians grow up studying to a lot of history of this world. Philosophers are often totally ignorant of the philosophy of this world, they barely know the will to power. No wonder they will think that Plato did anything worthy of eternal recurrence.
>>317803
This is obviously the only correct answer. Plato is considered the greatest by far, perhaps for the wrong reasons. Aristotle comes in second. Much less often would Hegel, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Marx and the like even get considered.
>>318026
Marx was an economist and a revolutionary. Putting him in the same category as Hegel or Aristotle or even Hobbes is really stretching things, IMO.
>>318066
Like Freud his philosophy has contributed to massively cultural-inbedded memes and ideology. But I agree with the rest.
>>318026
This is a pretty bad post. Marx is very overrated. If he weren't, the Soviet Union wouldn't have had to introduce the New Economic Policy. Even more to the point, the USSR would have been based out of Berlin instead of Moscow if Marx's theories about the nature of economic development were true. Besides, I don't understand why I should endorse an ethical system that only demonzies property owners and employers and nobody else, especially when the labor theory of value isn't generally accepted to have universal explanatory power across all known economic systems and phenomena.
>>318099
the thing is, this is the linear way to look at Marx both you and>>318110
need to realise what historical materialism and its subsequent importance is. While what you stated is true about the economic development in Germany and England, it exposes fallacies to his scientific approach and attempt to predict historic outcomes, not his philosophical grounds of theory.
>>318096
>That's not Marx's fault, it's the fault of the teenage mutant marxist-leninists
I wasn't using "massively cultural-inbedded memes and ideology" as a pejorative tho, if anything the opposite.
>>318099
I think Marx is more popular today in philosophy and sociology than in economics. So everything you say doesn't apply to that.
>>318110
>Memes and ideology aren't philosophy
Yes they are. Whether they're bad philosophy or not is up to you. Let's not get into a What is Art? semantic muddle and just be lenient instead. Even science and psychology are memes and ideology, read Dawkins or Wittgenstein or some structuralists. Again, not using the pejorative definitions.
>>318150
Historical materialism has no significance whatsoever outside of the ideologies of failed states. Even as an ontological or scientific position, it remains firmly within the realm of metaphysics and is entirely inapplicable to reality.
>not his philosophical grounds of theory.
His only philosophy is historical materialism.
>>318156
>Yes they are. Whether they're bad philosophy or not is up to you.
No, you're wrong. Philosophy is a specific discourse. Not every idea is philosophical. The idea that the opposite is true is the cause of all kinds of problems in modern academia.
>>318156
>I think Marx is more popular today in philosophy and sociology than in economics. So everything you say doesn't apply to that.
Even the part where I criticize his simplistic ethics?
>>318183
>Historical materialism has no significance whatsoever outside of the ideologies of failed states.
in this board, I 'd count that as shitposting. You could not have been more wrong. You 're probably confusing historical materialism for dialectical materialism.
>>318213
I'm sorry to remind you about this, but this isn't a Marxist hugbox. If you want to discuss your prophet with other believers, /lit/ and Reddit exist. If you want to actually provide a defense of historical materialism, I'll listen to you. I haven't been convinced by any arguments in its favor that I've heard, though.
>>318193
Missed that. His earlier work was more descriptive than prescriptive, ethically. I hear him referred to as an ethics philosophy even less than as an economics one.
>>318183
>Philosophy is a specific discourse. Not every idea is philosophical
>>Art is a specific canon. Not all entertainment is art
I sort of agree with what you're saying for using a practical definition. It's whatever is considered at philosophy departments or by philosophers. But in the end there is no decent dividing line for that, I think even the action of philosophising is more essential to the definition than any description of the content could be. That's why a spectrum of good to bad ideas is so simple, you don't have to magically exclude anything stuffy old professors fail to discuss.
>>318229
I'd almost assume this post is a satire if I hadn't read your previous posts. You don't seem to have got what he was getting at, a quick google would have helped. Prepare for the storm!
>>318229
Historical materialism was the basis for future progressives to base their theories on and to this day counts as the starting point of humanity gaining consciousness of the motivating forces behind history.
>this isn't a Marxist hugbox
you are mad and you should let go.
>>318260
>I hear him referred to as an ethics philosophy even less than as an economics one.
Why do so many people condemn property owners for owning property? Oh, right, they're using a rhetorical framework Marx effectively began, with some help from Engels and utopian socialists.
>That's why a spectrum of good to bad ideas is so simple, you don't have to magically exclude anything stuffy old professors fail to discuss.
Or we can just discuss ideas and not feel the idiotic need to make them all seem philosophical.
>>318269
Ideology: The Post. Why is that legacy good, and how does the existence of progressive ideology prove historical materialism correct?
>inb4 'it isn't ideology if it's anti-capitalist'
That's bullshit and you know it.
>>318293
>Or we can just discuss ideas and not feel the idiotic need to make them all seem philosophical.
That's my point though, there should be no "seeming philosophical". Ideas that are particularly philosophical are merely the deepest or best or most fundamental or most well-read etc.
>>318293
>Why do so many people condemn property owners for owning property? Oh, right, they're using a rhetorical framework Marx effectively began, with some help from Engels and utopian socialists.
>a rhetorical framework Marx effectively began
I don't think this is true btw. Again, I think today Marx is most appreciated by philosophers and sociologists. Not by societies discontents.
>>318308
>Ideas that are particularly philosophical are merely the deepest or best or most fundamental or most well-read etc.
Literally my point. Your point seemed to be 'all ideas and memes are philosophical in nature.'
>>318322
>Again, I think today Marx is most appreciated by philosophers and sociologists. Not by societies discontents.
Then I ask you again: why do so many people repeat his rhetoric and attribute it to him, or to his immediate followers like Lenin or Trotsky?
>>318099
>If he weren't, the Soviet Union wouldn't have had to introduce the New Economic Policy
They literally did this in self-awareness that an impoverished, backward, strife-torn economy wasnt at all suited to the implementation of communism. They were aware, frightfully so, that they were contradicting Marx's assumption that communism could only succeed with revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries.
>Even more to the point, the USSR would have been based out of Berlin instead of Moscow if Marx's theories about the nature of economic development were true
Funnily enough, Germany had Europe's biggest communist movement outside Russia. But, as Marx was well aware of, social democracy has the power to both suppress communism and politically appease the working-class with concessions and promises.
>>318293
>how does the existence of progressive ideology prove historical materialism correct?
short answer: you claimed it was irrelevant outside failed states, implying for some reason that an ideology gains credibility from the size of its influence sphere counted in states.
long answer: Ideology is idealism. Ideology belongs to reactionaries. Theory is what the enemies of this world have and strive for. Progressives and reactionaries are historical divisions, not ideologies. Whoever ends up in ideology is bound to be a reactionary, consciously or not, because ideology is the tool of the reactionary. Theory can't be separated from action. Right now we are at the point of realising the need to detach the thought of the proletariat from the thought of the system, and it's clear that intellectuals can't see that critique to this world can only be carried out by weapons (just as Marx concluded, which doesn't make him a prophet) and even grimlooking that the workers will form self-sufficient forms of struggle to fight and/or replace the dominance of commodities.
Meanwhile, in the middle east, progressive Kurds are entangled in a battle against an enemy created by the centers of capitalism, creating free communities. The (worst) prediction here is that americans will back reactionary Kurds to annihilate and enslave the progressive Kurds once and if the battle with ISIS is over. The Muslim Brotherhood, a network of social support for the egyptian community with no political ties to the centres of capitalism has been bashed and persecuted by the lackeys of the West. Because both of those examples stand between the West and its expansion to influence those regions for resources and for presenting capitalism as beneficiary instead of the killing machine that it really is, as well as keeping strategic posts.
Now that the soviet regimes have fallen, the competition shows its true face: it's not ideologies conflicting, it's raw capitalist competition.
>>318389
>But, as Marx was well aware of, social democracy has the power to both suppress communism and politically appease the working-class with concessions and promises.
and even worse, become its owner and its representation.
>>318477
>implying for some reason that an ideology gains credibility from the size of its influence sphere counted in states.
I mean, that's true. The only reason anyone accepted it as true was because it was enforced by the state. I wasn't claiming it's correct, or that state-sponsored theories are correct.
>Ideology is idealism. Ideology belongs to reactionaries. Theory is what the enemies of this world have and strive for. Progressives and reactionaries are historical divisions, not ideologies. Whoever ends up in ideology is bound to be a reactionary, consciously or not, because ideology is the tool of the reactionary.
You're in the middle of ideology, though. All of this is just dogmatic Marxism. None of it is a strong argument in favor of Marxist theories of history or ideology being correct.
>>318508
>The only reason anyone accepted it as true was because it was enforced by the state. I wasn't claiming it's correct, or that state-sponsored theories are correct.
like capitalism in the western world?
>>318508
>All of this is just dogmatic Marxism
can you differentiate between the essence of thinking and repeating notions? because if you can't we can't continue discussing. It will be back and forth. So let's make this distinction clear first.
>>318528
>like capitalism in the western world?
Are you implying the bourgeois class had no say in the matter?
>can you differentiate between the essence of thinking and repeating notions?
You're literally repeating dogmatic points about the nature of ideology that I've read a thousand times before, in Marx and from Marxists. I'm asking you for an argument in favor of historical materialism, not a diatribe against reactionaries.
>>318563
>'m asking you for an argument
I already gve you but you refuse to compute.
>>318596
Again, you gave me claims about the nature of ideology, theory, and reactionary thought. You didn't support historical materialism, you presupposed that it's true and proceeded to provide a two-dimensional analysis of the Kurdish conundrum. I didn't see an argument articulated in anything resembling a valid form, I saw the claim that armed struggle is the only way to move history forward presented as fact rather than theory.
>>318610
how can I provide an argument that stands well in such a limited space??? History is the history of class societies, you cannot have history without written texts and you cannot have a state without written texts. Written speech is needed to solidify a class system into a state. Can we even agree on that?
>>318651
>how can I provide an argument that stands well in such a limited space???
Plenty of people do just that every day. There was a great thread about Shōwa Japan a few days ago. The OP made an initial argument that went on for 20 posts and everyone had a good time.
>you cannot have history without written texts
Do you mean the discipline of history? Or do you mean the thing itself? Do you think that there weren't classes prior to the invention of writing? Why do you believe that?
>and you cannot have a state without written texts.
A state is a unified power system, correct? Why would a state require texts to exist? Do you think that power systems consisting of illiterate individuals aren't states? Why not?
>Written speech is needed to solidify a class system into a state.
I think you should define 'state' now. I'm not willing to accept any of these propositions without you providing an argument in their favor; as they stand, they're just assertions.
>>318678
>Do you think that there weren't classes prior to the invention of writing? Why do you believe that?
read my post again
>A state is a unified power system, correct? Why would a state require texts to exist? Do you think that power systems consisting of illiterate individuals aren't states? Why not?
there is a period of time before states, when class societies existed. when these societies grew, orders needed to be transferred and the need for written speech emerged, this was a phase through which societies with an abundance of resources went through.
>>318736
Why do you equate the emergence of writing with the emergence of the state, though? I don't see why there's necessarily a connection.
>>318747
are you trolling?
Shut the fuck up about Marx
>>318764
Would you mind supporting one of your claims for once? I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with you, but you seem to be convinced that asking for proper arguments and definitions amounts to trolling. Why can't illiterate states exist? By your definition of what constitutes a state, they can't, but I don't see prima facie why that should necessarily be the case.
>>318827
You're not even going g to try to explain yourself? Again, I defined a state as a unified power system. I don't see why such a system necessarily needs to develop from 'written speech,' as you curiously call writing. Back up the claim that a society needs to have a written language in order to be a state, please. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I just want you to make an argument, rather than asserting the same claims about the nature of societal development that I see Marxists making all the time.
>>318851
>'written speech,' as you curiously call writing
ok, you know what? discussion is over
I am the one who provides the arguments with you not counterarguing anything. I gave you an explanation and you can't even refute.
>>318868
Why do you call it written speech and not writing?
>not counterarguing
I want you to provide good arguments, and you're failing to do so. Sorry you can't back up historical materialism without getting flustered.
>I gave you an explanation and you can't even refute.
You gave an inadequate explanation and I'm trying to get you to elaborate on it. Again, sorry you can't defend historical materialism without getting flustered.
>>318877
>inadequate explanation
how so?
>>318881
You failed to convince me, and when presses or more arguments to support the claims you're making, you got mad and asked if I was trolling. You proceeded to link back to the inadequate posts I asked you to back up, rather than back them up.
Thoughts on his philosophy?
>>318892
>You failed to convince me
why?
>>318903
Well, for one, I repeat: your claims are regurgitation of Marxist dogma about the nature of ideology and reactionaries in relation to Marxist theories of class struggle. I don't usually just agree with people who spout this stuff and don't back up their metanarratives with proper arguments about particular events. The only such argument you've given was about the Kurds, and it wasn't a good analysis.
>>318477
>Meanwhile, in the middle east, progressive Kurds are entangled in a battle against an enemy created by the centers of capitalism, creating free communities.
This is a painfully simplistic framework for analyzing the state of the Middle-East. Yes, Western powers cause problems there, but if you want to say 'the Arabs are good guys, they're just misunderstood victims of Western imperialism,' you'll have to explain why you think Saddam ruling over the Kurds and gassing then is preferable to the West knocking him out and creating a framework for Kurdish statehood to be attained. See Kurdish advances in Syria for an example of such a framework yielding greater Kurdish autonomy.
This isn't an argument for more Western interventions in the Middle-East, its a dissection of your analysis of the situation over there.
>>318939
>back up their metanarratives with proper arguments about particular events
I did
>if you want to say 'the Arabs are good guys, they're just misunderstood victims of Western imperialism,'
that's not what I was trying to say. Did you notice I made a distinction between the Kurds? Who is 2-dimensional now? or did you read it that way because you are aligned with the ideology of the state, identifying all kurds with the ones who are going to benefit from capitalism's machinations? because the progressives sure as hell aren't aligning with the workings of NATO.
my point was that class struggle takes various forms against the world of commodities around the world. The origins of written speech in the state is pretty much irrefutable
your point was "marxists always get mad when you ask them to explain their ideology"
>>319038
>Did you notice I made a distinction between the Kurds?
Yeah, you acknowledged that some are progressive. I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, though; that argument makes even less sense. It's literally just a regurgitation of rhetoric. I thought you were trying to make a point about the usefulness of Marxist analysis but it turns out you're just trying to make the YPG look good.
>>318902
We have already agreed he is a genius.
