No.408860
>>408386
>Denial is not an argument.There is. Furthermore even the bourgeoisie dominant PMC in the west is already at odds with much of the industrial bourgeois. But as usual marxists insist on denial and mental gymnastics in a vain attempt to cram reality into their low resolution binary class model.
Class is something which is determined by a relation to production and mechanisms of the system. It is not whenever any kind of division forms among any group of people you retard.
>Not what I'm saying at all. The government is subject to incentives by non-government elites who wield inordinate influence ie the ruling elite extends beyond government. The masses/proles have virtually none. Ultimately a minority/elite will always rule (directly or indirectly) the masses.Thus it has been and always will be.
As stated before, "Elites" are not a class, and the claim of "has been" in no way assumes that it always will be. For example, how does an "elite" incentives the government when the conditions to create those "elites" does not exist, when there exists no medium to create such incentive, and when the govenment itself is structured in such a way that there exists no way to actually influence policy makers due to the system itself superceding the need for them?
>You should consider reading Gaetano Mosca ,Vilfredo Pareto,Bertrand de Jouvenel and other Elite theorists for a better understanding of this subject
No, becuase what you are discussing has no actual concrete materialist basis to it, at least not any sufficient one. To bring up Pareto tells me that most of your "theory" is probably just whatever you felt like reading up one because you desired to firstly refute Marxism rather then investigate it. Pareto's observation was only that 20% controlled most of the land, he made no larger analysis on how they came to control that land, and what system inevitably resulted in such conditions. He simply took it at face value and assumed it to be a "natural" state of things, as opposed to a result of deeper mechanisms which warranted investigation, which makes him no different then most bourgeoisie economists. Even then, he is largely still incorrect in regards to the economy, as if Victor Yakovenko's work is to be trusted, the majority of the economy does not operate off of the "Pareto principle", but is rather a "Boltzmann" economy. Only an extremely small portion of the bourgeoisie within the bourgeoisie conform to the Pareto principle.
>You yourself claim it is based on nothing.Re-acquaint yourself with formal logic 101
Formal logic has no care of substance you idiot. And a formal logical argument only cares about being valid, not necessarily being sound. Something being valid does not necessarily make its conclusions correct.
>I'm arguing against your position.That does not require assertion of a different affirmative.
Being agnostic is taking an option conceding to a reality where things actually are removed from having basis, even an assumed one.
>I argue that it does.
It does not, and never has.
>Lol.No.The burden of proof is on you who is making the claim.My only requirement is to demonstrate it as without substance,not to provide an alternative claim.
The "claim" isn't even one, it's just a statement of the neutral position, which is that in lieu of us having nothing to go on, we assume nothing in regards to universal meaning or morality.
>Yet another assertion without evidence.Blatant presupposition.
It is an assumption, but it's one that is the neutral option, as "something" involves a possible myriad of unquantifiable "somethings" which itself comes with its own myriad of assumptions. "Nothing" just goes off of our inability to confirm the existence of "something", which we assume in contrast to reality (as we do even in our daily lives, as otherwise there would always be vastly stacked upon "somethings") as nothing.
>You are making claims about existence itself including your own and making grand universal claims that it is arbitrary and meaningless. Your evidence for this claim? Nothing. Game over.When confronted by this you double down with more baseless assertions.Absurd. Furthermore if existence is universally arbitrary,based on nothing ergo ultimately meaningless then that must also apply to your claim itself.Once again,game over. Your position is an absurdist logical dead end . Therefore one must reject the claim and adopt an honest position of agnosticism or come up with a more coherent claim with evidence that extends beyond nothing.
This is completely absurd, and honestly surprising that you thought it to be a good argument to make. At no point was stating that things were without universal meaning did that somehow in turn invalidate my claim on that meaninglessness. Stating something is without inherent universal meaning ascribed to it does not mean that we are then unable to conceptualize in terms of the concept of "meaning", only then to find it to have non-existence in reality. We can try to give it basis in reality, but that wouldn't change its existence being both unproven and untangible, and this literally "nothing" in so far as we know. If something different can be shown to be the case, only then will I retract there being nothing, and gladly so.
>Utterly irrelevant to this discussion and certainly my part in it.Sophomoric fedora cringe. Disappointing. YOU are the one making universal claims on the nature of existence based on nothing/without evidence.
It's not irrelevant at all, and it's not fedora tipping. And remember, I'm arguing in terms of conceptualism, so I concede to universals being within that of the confines of the mind, but state that they do not exist outside of it. They can be affirmed, but never shown to be anything other.
>So logic and mathematics only exist in your mind? And yet the same rules of logic and mathematics apply to all minds universally. There is no personal unique maths/logic set for each mind. How do you explain that?
That doesn't refute what was stated at all, and we can see historically that they don't always apply to all minds universally. Something being within the confines of the mind, even all minds, does not make it something which truly exists outside of it. Mathematics, while useful to us in being able to understand that world to the best of our facilities, does not exist outside of our minds. Even if they were not unique, they would still be held in such limitations.
>Groan.No it doesn't.
Didn't think you were just going to shrug and attempt to go agnostic, despite also having immense moral indignation against Marxists for being amoral atheists.
>Well done.
Agnostism comes with its own assumptions.
>Logically incoherent nonsense.Nothing is an abstraction.The default position is agnosticism.
Agnosticism is itself an abstraction because it takes itself as a an indeterminate state of the abstractions of "something" and "nothing", placing "something" on equal footing to "nothing" when confronted with cases of indeterminatecy.
>Kek.No,you're really not.
Then reread what I've been stating.
>This debate suggests otherwise.Then again you seem to be missing the wood for the trees frequently so maybe not.
How does this debate show the utility of philosophical idealism? The only "utility" I can imagine are those historical debates between philosophical idealists which exposed issues with previous views and their own, which then overtime permitted the emergence of more sufficient materialist analyses by paving the way to them.
>Elaborate.
How are you eclecticly mashing together views which run contradictory to idealism, in the sense of adopting any modicum of materialism.
>Consciousness IS a thing whether you conceptualize it as such or not.A baby lost/abandoned in the forest and reared by wolves with no contact/social interaction with other people (which has happened) still has a consciousness and conception of himself no matter how primitive. Hypothetically,if the baby was fed and reared by silent machines in an isolated space station it would still have consciousness ie consciousness is a constant and definite reality and not dependent on social interaction to exist.
I never started consciousness wasn't a thing, I stated that the only way you were permitted to conceptualize it was outside of isolation, because no such isolation exists. Prove "consciousness" then by your own framework. How exactly is the very conception or definite reality of consciousness realize itself in isolation from things which permit the realization of it? Understand I am not merely discussing other people here, I am discussing your ability to conceptualize "I" as a thing without any of the reference which permits you to understand your juxtaposition to reality to get "I" is a thing. How do you understand "I" without the definite reality you exist in that lets you understand you as separate. You already assume reality to be in some capacity real when you assume "you" to be a thing.
>Wut?No I'm stating the fact that solipsism can neither be proven or disproven via empiricism.
Where exactly did I argue in terms of pure empericism again? And Hume makes a rather good argument in terms of defining "self", though arguably dualist.
>Another assumption.Protip: piling up one assumption on top of another does not make your "argument" anymore credibl
I'm not "piling" assumptions, which is entirely ironic for you to say given the very assumptions you have to make. Even now, we likely both assume such things as causation to be a thing, despite it itself being built on assumption.
>that objective morality and meaning cannot be a thing if you accept empiricism {as the only legitimate means of ascertaining truth claims}
>ftfy.
Do you understand what objective means or not?
>Exactly.Sole reliance on empiricism IS absurd. Well done.
Where did I solely rely on empiricism you fag? I see it as critically important and a necessity when trying to assert the objective, with things like values being entirely unable to be so, but I don't see it as something which can sufficiently ascertain all things in isolation. That's where a dialectical approach on the relation between the sensory and the "rational" comes in.