Interesting.

  • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah so I’d recommend Kuhn and Feyerabend. Feyerabend’s a big proponent of methodological pluralism, which incidentally, is the only framework under which you’re going to get a non-neglible portion of the population to read and accept the intellectual offshoot of Hegelianism that is Marxism.

      • Nagarjuna [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re not arguing about anything real. You’re using “hegelianism” in a different way from a_blanqui_slate and then getting mad at a_b_s for it

      • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Without wanting to get caught up in the nitty-gritty of what makes something an ‘offshoot’, Marx absolutely follows in the intellectual tradition of Hegel, unlike pretty much all other intellectual paradigms in the Western world.

        • Pluto [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He does not. Marxism takes from multiple sources and Marxism rejects in particular a lot of things in Hegelianism outright. Marx would’ve never wanted his philosophy to be referred to as “Hegelian.”

          This idea that Marxism is “Hegelian” comes from Georg Lukács.

          • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Marx would’ve never wanted his philosophy to be referred to as “Hegelian.”

            Too darned bad, his adoption and modification of the dialectic (something that the Western analytic tradition entirely eschews) places firmly in the Hegelian lineage, as evidenced by him even being a member of the Young Hegelians for a time. Just because he disagrees radically with Hegel on several aspects, he still follows firmly in that dialectical methodological tradition. Is it ‘Hegelian’? I don’t know or care. Does it follow a causal historical linkage from his study of Hegel? Yes, so it’s absolutely fair to say he’s an offshoot of Hegel.

            Western analytic philosophy and it’s offshoots follow a dramatically different methodological tradition. Which is why Chomsky, who is brilliant in his own right, just blanks out at any discussion of Marxism.

            • Pluto [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It doesn’t matter. Hegelianism got its dialectic from Greek philosophy, but that doesn’t make it an “offshoot” of Greek philosophy and Chomsky is not brilliant at all.

              “Is it ‘Hegelian’? I don’t know or care.”

              There you go then.

              • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Greek philosophy, but that doesn’t make it an “offshoot” of Greek philosophy

                Please google the definition of offshoot.

                Chomsky is not brilliant at all.

                I mean he revolutionized modern linguistics, even if turns out his models were wrong, so I’m going to defer to the linguists on this matter. Is he wrong about a ton of political stuff? Sure, but that’s asking a different question.