[ardgedee]

Quote:

Similarly, quantum mechanics has been bastardized by just about every other discipline (save for the culinary arts, perhaps?).

 
nope

 

[MuppetFace]

Quote:

 

Butt-hurt Marx advocate is detected. LOL. 

 

Socialism is not ideology? LOL.

 

Leninism is not the same as Stalinism? Maybe but not that much different. LOL.

 

What are you smoking over there?

 

I was brought up on socialist propaganda from the early age ( when you where not even born). You have NO IDEA what subject you are trying to take. You remind me a sofa dreamer who decided to conquer the highest peaks of Himalayas. 

 

 

 
HAH. I just noticed this post.
 
I'm not a Marx advocate by any means. In fact I have many reasons to despise Marx. However I do dislike it when people gloss and cherrypick things to fit into some oversimplified mould. You do that a lot, I notice.
 
"Socialism is not ideology"
 
...Huh? Did I say this at any point? I actually said the exact opposite more or less. What are you smoking, mutabor?
 
"Leninism is not the same as Stalinism? Maybe but not that much different. LOL."
 
You may have been brought up on socialist propaganda, but that doesn't mean you've actually read anything written by Lenin. I'm inclined to think you haven't if you say that Stalinism "isn't that much different."
 
Butt-hurt Schopenhauer advocate detected. I know how much you admire him, and he certainly despised Hegel. He actually made a very good case for Hegel's being a lunatic. But then, Nietzsche made a very good case for Schopenhauer failing at life and being jealous of everyone else because of it.
 
LOL.

 

[MuppetFace]

Quote:

 
nope

 
This made my day, thanks.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/
 
Whether or not there's any merit to employing the term, there it is. C'est la vie.

 
Sense.  It makes none.
 
Quote:

As for "Einsteinism," there are actually plenty of instances of people trying to use Einstein's work as support for a philosophical idea that "everything is relative" and the like. Similarly, quantum mechanics has been bastardized by just about every other discipline (save for the culinary arts, perhaps?). Same with Newton, but those folks were called mechanists and are consigned to the past.

 
Well I'd say it's a patently absurd thing to assert.
 
I don't care about blaming anyone.  It's not about Darwin.  It's about the fact that this sort of language portrays scientific discoveries as some sort of cult of personality.  Science is a systematic and empirical attempt to describe reality.  It's not some kind of call to action or pronouncement about how the world should be.  Science is about verifiable facts that exists independently of who discovered, popularized, or made use of them as well as theories which explain those facts so it doesn't make sense to attach names and -isms to them.
 
Science may have a philosophy but scientific theories are not philosophies themselves.
 
Quote:

As for "Einsteinism," there are actually plenty of instances of people trying to use Einstein's work as support for a philosophical idea that "everything is relative" and the like. Similarly, quantum mechanics has been bastardized by just about every other discipline (save for the culinary arts, perhaps?).

 
And those people are some combination bat-crap crazy, ignorant, or intentionally deceptive.
 
Quote:

Same with Newton, but those folks were called mechanists and are consigned to the past.

 
OTOH I don't really have an problem with this term since it doesn't associate the philosophy as strongly with the fact/theory or the person who discovered it.

 

[MuppetFace]

Quote:

 
Well I'd say it's a patently absurd thing to assert.
 
I don't care about blaming anyone.  It's not about Darwin.  It's about the fact that this sort of language portrays scientific discoveries as some sort of cult of personality.  Science is a systematic and empirical attempt to describe reality.  It's not some kind of call to action or pronouncement about how the world should be.  Science is about verifiable facts that exists independently of who discovered, popularized, or made use of them as well as theories which explain those facts so it doesn't make sense to attach names and -isms to them.
 
Science may have a philosophy but scientific theories are not philosophies themselves.
 

 
 
Scientific theories are not philosophies, but they are interpreted by people who have philosophies. There is a natural tendency for laypeople to want to know how this or that discovery "fits" with their existing worldview, which can lead to erroneous interpretations; also people often "use" (ie. misappropriate) discoveries to justify their preexisting viewpoint. That is where "Darwinism" comes it. It's actually a very relevant term regardless of whether it is faithful to what Darwin may or may not have said, insofar as it describes the very real instances of people trying to use Darwin for their own agenda, ie. either as some universal proof against religion or as a means of discriminating, or even as justification for a certain attitude of will to power. The point of "taking it too far" has nothing to do with the validity of Darwin's original ideas, but rather is describing what people have done with their interpretation of those theories. Darwin IS a cult of personality for some people, and in that case, no, we're not talking about the scientific process but rather ideology.
 
Also, as an aside, I don't think scientific inquiry can be completely divorced from the perspective of the researcher and his / her assumptions and values. It's what guides one's research interests and the direction of inquiry in the first place, it's seen in advocation for "elegant" or "simple" explanations, and in the most basic sense is the very foundation for acceptance of a systematic and empirical attempt to describe reality.

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

 
Yes, my point is that what happened in Russia was not true fidelity to Marxism. At the outset? Arguably, yes. 

 
Nope. It was the truest implementation of Marx's action program ( the Manifesto of the Communist Party) which was possible to accomplish in the real world which is the world of compromises. That is why you will apply your argument "not true fidelity" to every practical implementation of every theoretical complex task. I don't see how could you bring to reality such an insane ideas of Marx. Only madman could take that burden and Lenin did sound like a madman according to Russian liberal who saw his speech before the Revolution.
 
Because you don't want Marx to be responsible for what happened in Russia you will continue your argument "not true fidelity" to death. 
 
 
 

Marx advocated violent takeover, violence in revolution. However in the overall context of his writings it was a means to an end, not an end in itself. It was necessary of a transitional period that would ultimately result in what he felt to be a better society.

 
First of all,  Marx's end result were dreams of a lunatic. Second, violence as means is the end in itself. If you start with violence then you will have to continue with violence and end miserably. 
 
Because moral issues are not serious matter of your considerations, you prefer to play mind games pretending that your arguments are against "oversimplifications" and "cherry-picking". When you put emphasis on points that you like and close your eyes on points which you don't like it's cherry-picking and I noticed you were doing it very often. Also every person has agenda and tends to agree with some points and disagree with other points according to his views hence every person can be accused in cherry-peaking and oversimplifying.
 
You decided to close your eyes on violence of Revolution ( and consequent Civil War and famine etc.) and put emphasis on "better" future. Isn't it cherry-picking? Do you justify millions of killed by the end result?
 
When Marx picks Darwin's book and calls it to be the proof of his class struggle theory isn't it oversimplifying? 
 
You also like to blame more Stalin than Lenin. I know that in the West there is a cliche that Stalin was bad and he screwed communism. And Lenin was brave revolutionary. Stalin wasn't any worse than Lenin. They deserved each other. In fact Stalin only continued what Lenin had started. According to Marx's Manifesto he continued to destroy middle class and political elite as they had to disappear for the sway of the proletariat.
 

In Russia however things eventually regressed into a system of pure domination and subservience, one in which the absolute reference point was loyalty to state party. It became the foundational absolute akin to the worst sort of authoritarian religion. So while you can argue that Marx served as an impetus and was part of thecause that lead to this, I don't think you can take the trajectory as a whole and say "Marx was the cause of the Russian peoples' suffering."

 
Again the state in which Russia was reduced was the logical consequence of Marx's Manifesto. You call it an authoritarian religion I call it Marx's Manifesto in action. An yes Marx's Manifesto describes an authoritarian religion. Exactly.

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

Butt-hurt Schopenhauer advocate detected. I know how much you admire him, and he certainly despised Hegel. He actually made a very good case for Hegel's being a lunatic. But then, Nietzsche made a very good case for Schopenhauer failing at life and being jealous of everyone else because of it.
 

 
And what? Does it prove that Hegel wasn't lunatic? 
 
By the way:
 
 
 

In 1865 Nietzsche thoroughly studied the works of Arthur Schopenhauer. He owed the awakening of his philosophical interest to reading his Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (The World as Will and Representation) and later admitted that Schopenhauer was one of the few thinkers that he respected, dedicating to him his essay ...

 
 
 

Muppet Face:
 
 I'm actually Eastern Orthodox

 
Eh, was it your conscious choice to become Eastern Orthodox or was it your heritage that you are an Eastern Orthodox? In other words are you a "proper" christian or a formal christian?

 

[mutabor]

Leo Tolstoy's "To Revolutionists":
 
 
 

You, Revolutionists of all shades and denominations, consider the present Government harmful and in various ways : by organising assemblies (allowed or prohibited by Government), by formulating projects, printing articles, making speeches, by unions, strikes and demonstrations, and, finally (as a natural and inevitable basis and consequence of all these activities) by murders, executions and armed insurrections — you strive to replace the existing authority by another, a new one.

Though you are all at variance among yourselves as to what this new authority should be, yet to bring about the arrangements proposed by each of your groups, you stop short at no crimes: murders, explosions, executions, or civil war.

You say you do it for the people's sake, and that your chief aim is the welfare of the people. But the hundred-millions for whom you do it, do not ask it of you, and do not want all these things which you, by such evil means, try to obtain. The mass of the people do not need you at all, but always has regarded and still regards you, and cannot but regard you, as useless grubs who, in one way or another, consume the fruits of its labour and are a burden upon it. Only realise to yourselves clearly the life of this hundred-million Russian agricultural peasantry, who strictly speaking alone constitute the body of the Russian nation ; and understand that you all — professors and factory hands, doctor* engineers, journalists, students, land-owners, women-students veterinary surgeons, merchants, lawyers and railway-men : the very people so concerned about its welfare — are all harmful parasites on that body, sucking its sap, rotting upon it, and communicating to it your own corruption.

But no, you cannot understand this. You are firmly convinced that this coarse folk has no roots of its own, and that it will be a great blessing for it, if you enlighten it with the latest article you have read, and by so doing make it as pitiful, helpless, and perverted as yourselves.

Only cease to deceive yourselves : consider well the place you hold among the Russian people and what you are doing, and it will be clear to you that your struggle with the Government is the struggle of two parasites on a healthy body, and that both contending parties are equally harmful to the people. Speak, therefore, of your own interests ; but do not speak for the people. Do not lie about them, but leave them in peace. Fight the Government, if you cannot refrain ; but know that you are fighting for yourselves not for the people, and that in this violent struggle there is not only nothing noble or good, but that your struggle is a very stupid and harmful and, above all, a very immoral affair.

Your activity aims, you say, at making the general condition of the people better. But that the people's condition should be better, it is necessary for people themselves to be better. This is as much a truism, as that to heat a vessel of water, all the drops in it must be heated. That people may become better, it is necessary that they should turn their attention ever more and more to their inner life. But external public activity, and especially public strife, always diverts men's minds from the inner life ; and, therefore, by perverting people, always and inevitably lowers the level of general morality, as has everywhere been the case, and as we now see most strikingly exemplified in Russia. This lowering of the level of general morality causes the most immoral part of society to come more and more to the top ; and an immoral public opinion is formed which not only permits, but even approves crimes, robberies, debauchery, and murder itself. Thus a vicious circle is set up : the evil elements of society, evoked by the social struggle, throw themselves hotly into public activity corresponding to the low level of their morality, and this activity again attracts to itself yet worse elements of society.

 

[warrenpchi]

Butt-hurt bystander waiting for this to be over.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Scientific theories are not philosophies, but they are interpreted by people who have philosophies. There is a natural tendency for laypeople to want to know how this or that discovery "fits" with their existing worldview, which can lead to erroneous interpretations; also people often "use" (ie. misappropriate) discoveries to justify their preexisting viewpoint. That is where "Darwinism" comes it. It's actually a very relevant term regardless of whether it is faithful to what Darwin may or may not have said, insofar as it describes the very real instances of people trying to use Darwin for their own agenda, ie. either as some universal proof against religion or as a means of discriminating, or even as justification for a certain attitude of will to power. The point of "taking it too far" has nothing to do with the validity of Darwin's original ideas, but rather is describing what people have done with their interpretation of those theories. Darwin IS a cult of personality for some people, and in that case, no, we're not talking about the scientific process but rather ideology.

 
So pretty much the only two groups you use that term are academic philosophers and creationists?
 
Quote:

Also, as an aside, I don't think scientific inquiry can be completely divorced from the perspective of the researcher and his / her assumptions and values.

 
That's definitely true for an individual.  Replication and peer review do a decent job of compensating for it within the scientific community.  You only get N-rays occasionally.
 
It's not perfect, but AFIK it's the best we've got

 

[drez]

Butt-hurt bystander waiting for this to be over.

I'm quite enjoying the read - this is all new material to me. Maybe we are seeing philosophy-politics getting too close to politics-philosophy?

 

[DigitalFreak]

Quote:

 
Eh, was it your conscious choice to become Eastern Orthodox or was it your heritage that you are an Eastern Orthodox? In other words are you a "proper" christian or a formal christian?

 

 
I had a nice long paragraph all typed up concerning that last sentence but I decided not to post it. Mutabor, I give up and stand down. All I have to say is God speed.

 

[DigitalFreak]

Quote:

I'm quite enjoying the read - this is all new material to me. Maybe we are seeing philosophy-politics getting too close to politics-philosophy?

It's more philosophy and history then anything else. I could add a lot more to it but Romy is able to take care of herself rather well. She knows what shes talking about.

---

In other news, looks like Mr Nick Leckerton has been as busy as a Xmas elf today. As of shortly after 12 this afternoon my new UHA-6S MKII was shipped out to Canuckville via USPS. Marilyn, Itoru and Sally are all excited to meet their new sister. I shall name my new amp......wait for it.......(drum roll)........EVA.....(cymbal crash)
 

God, shes such a cutie

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

Butt-hurt bystander waiting for this to be over.

 
I'm also tired of it. But if MF continue to answering I will have to reply back. Maybe we should close this theme because every side expressed their view, we all understood who stands for what, who has which agenda. 

 

[warrenpchi]

Quote:

I'm also tired of it. But if MF continue to answering I will have to reply back. Maybe we should close this theme because every side expressed their view, we all understood who stands for what, who has which agenda. 

 
Oh, I am not trying to silence anyone's opinions at all.  What needs to be said must be said of course.  Just adding my own sentiment to the cacophony.