How do you read thinkers that you fundamentally disagree with, with an open mind, as if you hadn't read that which put you in your current intellectual position?
For example, I'm trying to read Marx right now, but I read other economic thinkers like Mises before, and can't get over how wrong he is. Can I discard their critiques from my mind somehow, so as to give Marx a better chance?
Marx is wrong so you're right
Try to see things in context and from their point of view. Or just don't bother with them unless you have to.
>I read other economic thinkers like Mises
Consider reading actual economists, then return to Marx.
Consider that Marx, while a product of his time, has changed the way people understand economics, history, even art, more than almost anyone else in the past 200 years.
There is value in Marx, whether you agree with him or not
Also, you're not an economist, so don't assume that you 'get' Marx and that he can be ignored because you read some weak libertarian shit like Mises
>>7451274
>Mises
and i'm not even a marxist brah
>>7451274
Just focus on the structure of the argument presented. Marx puts forward a set number of premises which he assumes are true for the purposes of his wider theory- note where you find his premises false and for what reason, then continue with Marx's argument until its conclusion. Sometimes the value of a thinker is in their system of approaching a problem rather than their actual solution.
If you're approaching Marx from a purely economic angle, his stuff is relevant even if wrong due to its influence on the Neoclassical school and the reassessment of the value of labor.
>Conservative commentator Whittaker Chambers published a similarly negative review of that book in the National Review, stating that Mises's thesis that anti-capitalist sentiment was rooted in "envy" epitomized "know-nothing conservatism" at its "know-nothingest."[24]
lmao
You have a lot to learn if you think Mises trumps Marx
>>7451274
>mises
I hope you're baiting. Marx is outdated, but at least he was a legitimate economist. Mises is a charlatan and a faggot, his only business is telling fat midwestern fedora pseuds what they want to hear. If you're not baiting honestly you should just give up, because there's no coming back if you're that far gone. Enjoy Reason magazine, vote for Ron Paul, don't bother with anything outside your comfort zone it will only angry you up and aggravate your doubtlessly stratospheric blood pressure.
>>7452122
>is
*was
>>7451634
urm how did he?
>>7451274
By accepting that your own beliefs are mostly the result of associating certain notions with emotions, either from your upbringing or whatever process that links the two. People do not think rationally about ideology, because it isn't in our nature nor beneficial, and even if they do try, it is extremely difficult due to its complexity and ambiguity. We are not governed by a pursuit for truth, at all, no more are we motivated by empathy in the abstract sense, but by particular emotional connections to people we have some relation to. Politics falls apart from realizing even a couple of these notions, and you will find you can't choose a side, though you will continue to hate irrationally, maybe your side, maybe the other side, but that in-group mentality is almost impossible to overcome. Even people who think they are smart and unbiased still have to contend with biases they don't realize they have, and furthermore with the almost impossible business of predicting the future which politics basically requires. Let alone philosophical discussions of which ethics to choose, which is also necessary to any politic.
All right, so I'm back, I posted the thread pretty late for my timezone, apologies for not responding before now.
>>7451661
>>7452374
get it. I'm trying to actually overcome my own biases, both the ones I know of and do not know of, and am looking for strategies towards accomplishing this, even if it only be partially.
I never said that I agreed with Mises particularly much, but after having read his Human Action, I can't get over disagreeing with most of the premises that Marx sets up, and his sort of hand-wavey approach by comparison.
And my issue is exactly this - I'm trying to create a temporary illusion of accepting Marx's premises, but I have not been able to get over that voice in my head yelling 'but that's WRONG' every couple of lines (and to be fair, it did yell quite a few times while reading Mises, too, but for quite different reasons).
>>7453522
A book is a collection of sentences. Some of those sentences might right true for you others not. Some sentences and paragraphs in mises work might ring true to you and the same with marx.
Unless you want to agree with 100% of an author(and why should you?) then i don't see a problem here. The fact that you read mises first should put you in a better position to read marx because you have already given the topic some thinking. If those thoughts lead you to disagree with a substantial part of marx that leads credence to marx being up to no good.
There are people here wanting to push marx like christposters wanting to push jesus on us but an honest intellectual shouldnt believe in it.
>>7453522
why would you want to 'overcome your biases'. Be proud of your biases, you've worked hard for them. Instead of trying to minimize them, fucking /use/ them, see if they're valid. Don't intellectually cop-out.
>>7452122
everything you said could be applied to Marx
You're at a crossroads my man, you've made your choice on perspective, at this point you can only read him to know your enemy
