tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post6454865167251728118..comments2024-03-29T03:57:26.974-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: Mike Pence is the Devil, Mother's Day EditionGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-50600523759818441382017-05-15T23:27:34.388-04:002017-05-15T23:27:34.388-04:00Yeah, I wasn't really thinking of Marx himself...Yeah, I wasn't really thinking of Marx himself as a Darwinian, but Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution of species. Lamarck's version was around for a generation before Darwin and embraced a sense of progress. Come to think of it, Lamarck's theory of evolution might have influenced Marx and is closer to what Progressives seem to believe.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism<br /><br />I don't think I'd ever made the connection between the normal approach to contradiction in logic and Hegelian / Marxist dialectic. It seems obvious now that you've pointed it out. That's interesting.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-44780325777519699242017-05-15T22:46:56.445-04:002017-05-15T22:46:56.445-04:00So, Marxism is very popular. What they don't ...So, Marxism is very popular. What they don't like about Hegel is just where Marx differs from him -- especially materialism, which is seen as the smart person's approach to reality. (This fashion for materialism is one reason why so many philosophers are atheists; I don't think it will continue more than another generation or so, however, as materialism is really indefensible. That's a separate discussion).<br /><br />And you're right that Marx took this idea of conflicts leading to contradictions that are then <i>transcended</i> into something better from Hegel. Usually in philosophy, getting to a contradiction is bad. If your idea produces a contradiction, that's a proof that there was something wrong with the idea to start with. (This is an insight from Aristotle, which is applied in our systems of formal logic: if an assumption derives a contradiction, e.g., both P and ~P can be derived, the assumption is taken to have been logically proven false. This entitles you then to claim the contradictory assumption as true, which is an interesting and highly debatable consequence of the binary status of truth in formal logic).<br /><br />Marx can be excused for 'not getting Darwin right' both because of the timeline and because he's not required to have believed Darwin's argument in his own lifetime even if he had carefully studied it; it's time and evidence that has made Darwin's approach plausible, and that came later. But it is an oddity in the contemporary philosopher both that they kind-of (or outright) believe Marx's 'progress' model for society and history; but also they definitely believe in evolution, which is supposed to be without a directional arrow that can be called progress in any sense. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-59262320991019149112017-05-15T21:29:42.830-04:002017-05-15T21:29:42.830-04:00I wouldn't go so far as to say that they don&#...<i>I wouldn't go so far as to say that they don't understand it. There may not be many atheists in foxholes (although I'm not sure there are none), but there are plenty in philosophy departments.</i><br /><br />True. I painted with an overly wide brush. But many rank-and-file Progressives seem not to understand the lack of telos in Darwinian evolution. <br /><br />Hegel may not be popular, but Marxism seems to be essentially a materialistic Hegelianism, and misconceptions of evolution that may be red in tooth and nail but come with the slow advancement of the species seem to fit the Progressive worldview, more or less.<br /><br />It's possible that the bloodiness of evolution may even support their belief that violence in the name of Progress may be justified.<br /><br />That may even underlie their inability to name a final goal where Progress is complete. They don't really know where evolution is heading, but it must be advancing the species. They seem to have a strong faith in that.<br /><br />What do you think? Am I way off-base?Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-5201752114129499172017-05-15T14:46:45.806-04:002017-05-15T14:46:45.806-04:00Consider Tolkien, in which to close a study of The...Consider Tolkien, in which to close a study of The Enemy for two long proves destructive to Saruman the Wise. Indeed, it is his very study of the enemy that is his downfall. Gandalf is careful even about the use of The Enemy's proper name. <br /><br />It's difficult to avoid falling under the sway of the thing if you think and talk about nothing else. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-41812491411008387772017-05-15T14:10:35.823-04:002017-05-15T14:10:35.823-04:00Bringing up Lucifer is weird to you, Grim. It'...Bringing up Lucifer is weird to you, Grim. It's the cake along with the utensils in this world.<br /><br />Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-51501081243682071592017-05-15T12:41:03.925-04:002017-05-15T12:41:03.925-04:00You don't always have to read between the line...You don't always have to read between the lines, either- sometimes they come right out and say it. Families represent a power center they cannot control, and anything outside of leftist control is hated by them. ravennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-23015094626453742912017-05-15T08:35:27.021-04:002017-05-15T08:35:27.021-04:00Never forget that in the background, the Left aims...Never forget that in the background, the Left aims to demolish the family and substitute the State--or some level of government. Read between the lines in attacks on Pence, and even on Trump.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-57470219079303659012017-05-15T00:23:37.953-04:002017-05-15T00:23:37.953-04:00I wouldn't go so far as to say that they don&#...I wouldn't go so far as to say that they don't understand it. There may not be many atheists in foxholes (although I'm not sure there are none), but there are plenty in philosophy departments. Hegel's not that popular anymore, but purposeless evolution very much is. <br /><br />And yet... you're not wrong. You can see it in the language of daily usage, if not in the formal ideas as expressed in carefully considered papers. If they write such a paper, of course evolution is just random mutation and, though natural selection helps find the best 'fit' for a given environment, there's nothing about the process that connotes any sort of "improvement" because there's no standard by which one could judge things to have improved. Any organism is as good as any other, and if it doesn't survive because it doesn't fit its environment very well, that's more of an accident than a criticism of that organism's particular evolutionary path. <br /><br />But then ask them over a beer about society, and they'll use words like "evolution" (and its opposites, "backwards" or "reactionary") in a way that clearly implies a directional arrow. That part is more Hegelian than they might like to admit, even to themselves. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-57229955715768183282017-05-15T00:17:11.140-04:002017-05-15T00:17:11.140-04:00Actually, Progressives have never really understoo...Actually, Progressives have never really understood the purposelessness of Darwinian evolution. Back in the late 19th century they adopted it as leading to ever better organisms, because they didn't understand it, and that has stuck as part of their culture to the present day.<br /><br />The Progressive view of evolution seems somehow similar to Hegelian dialectic.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-63608306175877615932017-05-14T17:22:22.513-04:002017-05-14T17:22:22.513-04:00
Thinking persons strive to find rational reasona...<br /> Thinking persons strive to find rational reasonable explanations for the strange behavior of the left. This burns up valuable brain cells.<br /><br /> There is no explanation, save for unrelenting hatred of the other. <br />There is no life of the other so pure, that the left cannot find a crime in it, nor any evil they will not forgive and forget in their own. <br /><br /> ravennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-61302916950771760792017-05-14T14:52:53.324-04:002017-05-14T14:52:53.324-04:00He's uncool. Isn't that the same thing as...He's uncool. Isn't that the same thing as being a moral monster?Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.com