Communist thred
| N
| thred
| And so, have you read Science of Logic by Hegel?
| >>1032402
>culminating in his own philosophy, was the argument that reality is shaped by thought and is, in a strong sense, identical to thought.
What kind of Alan Wakesque bs philosophy is this
| >>1032508
Nah, philosophy isn't pseudoscience. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflects on its own assumptions and methods and back in 1812 the scientific method was still juvenile enough that you could still find traits from when it separated itself from alchemy.
| in the year 2300, when they're finally figuring out a way to fix kessler syndrome, some dipshit on the wired is going to complain about old earth sending ikea furniture into orbit on top of all the other useless garbage
| I
| communism is the unemployed mans mysticism.
| mccarthy protect me from communism, amen
| >>1032437
I am not familiar with Alan Wake's bs philosophy, but should say that studying Hegel's Science of Logic, it is worth throwing out idealism at the beginning and at the end, leaving the material part, ignoring
idealism of the Sciences of Hegel's Logic, it is impossible to fully understand the capital of Marx, and after Engels, etc without understanding this book. Dialectics is perhaps the main tool of a communist, unfortunately,..
| >>1032437 >>1032572
I have very little training, and I do not have free time (i.e. time for free development) right now, unfortunately.
| >>1032572
Aren't most fields pretty quick to get into? why should it take so long? That does not make sense. I think communists DID figure everything out because they were materialists before people even knew about atoms but then obscured everything to keep all the money for themselves.
| >>1032593
>Aren't most fields pretty quick to get into? why should it takes so long? That does not make sense.
You are wrong, when I tried to take up this book, I realized that it not only needed to be read, but also studied, and the latter turned out to be quite laborious and time-consuming.
>but then obscured everything to keep all the money for themselves.
Good SARCASM, comrade (: But, honestly, the joke is not funny.
| >>1032655
Em, what?
Firstly, this is not so much an important question that Marx would have asked.
Secondly, is it really that interesting, what and who was/was doing in this way?
You're not interested in what you should be, g/u/rl.
| >>1032598
Well I was thinking of physics. You can go from not knowing it to understanding all of Newton and the beginning electromagnetism in one semester. Basic business courses again in half a year show how businesses work I have heard but cannot confirm. Earning a private pilot’s license can be easily done in half a year. The text to be consumed for all of these things is low and digestible. Perhaps 300 pages? 70 pages? Not sure.
| But it seems very weird when I hear massive time investment is required to grasp the basics of a thing. I can only hold a few things in my head at once, and study will not increase that. If the basic large scale mental categories cannot be fit into a few things like ‘matter and energy’ or ‘airspeed, angle of attack, and wing shape’ then that may be an indicator of a bad field.
| Religion which is pretty much proven false is a field which has huge walls of text which makes me suspicious here- but most of them could sum things up in a few sentences so perhaps I am wrong.
| >>1032806
So one field is "most fields" to you??? Why would anyone listen to a single word you have to say if your statements are this fucking retarded and padded with lies?
| Physics IS most fields at the root of things. Why would anyone listen to YOU if you’re going to use such rude language (though actually I do appreciate you saying that about my statements and not me)
| Every field should be able to imitate physics because every field is applied physics. If a method of describing all phenomena works, then a method of describing some should also work in the same way
| Wow, talk about moving the goalpost. This is even more retarded than your initial post and the non existent assumption you based it on.
| You aren’t addressing specific points! You said ‘this is bad’ and ‘you are committing x logical fallacy’ but you haven’t shown the path from evidence to truth, and why it contradicts my statement!
HOW have I moved the goal posts? What should I admit that you proved me wrong about, and why?
| I can’t think of one field where the basics can’t be grasped relatively quickly, except advanced math/physics, but then it’s not called’ you must read 1000 pages of fluid dynamics’ -it’s called ‘you need to understand these sub-parts to understand the whole in full,’ but even then, a summary can be given of the whole, and, and each large sub-part is a separate field. People don’t study ‘fluid dynamics’ for 4 years. They study distinct mathematical tools and methods.
| In the same way, you should be able to summarize your field and its sub-parts, rather than say it requires great background reading of its own books. If so many dependencies are required, surely other fields can fill them more efficiently, or your field should be split into sub-fields.
This thread is closed.
| I feel the lack of letters