Interesting.

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

      Explaining myself? You’re talking right past me. I say Marx is an offshoot of Hegelianism and you say “Marx isn’t Hegelianism”, addressing an entirely different question. I say many branches of current science still make explicit use of Newton’s laws and formalism, and your response is not “oh in what ways?” its “no they don’t” without further explanation like you’re doing a bad homage to the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.

      Looking at this from my side, it absolutely looks like you’re trying to pick an argument that no one was trying to have for some reason, and will now contradict me on pretty much anything no matter how ridiculous that makes you sound. If that’s not what you’re trying to do, I’m all ears for a different explanation.

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

        “I say Marx is an offshoot of Hegelianism”

        It isn’t.

        “addressing an entirely different question.”

        Obviously, I wasn’t.

        “it absolutely looks like you’re trying to pick an argument that no one was trying to have for some reason,”

        All I did was reply.

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

          It isn’t

          You are doing a bad homage to the argument sketch.

          Fluid Dynamics is an offshoot of Classical Mechanics. Fluid Dynamics is not classical mechanics.

          When I say Marxism is an offshoot of Hegel, and you respond “Marxism is not Hegelianism”, you, are in my mind, addressing a different question, you’re addressing a question of subsets (Marxism is a type of Hegelianism, which is not what I am saying), while I’m talking about a question of relations (Marxism is related to Hegelianism in a particular way). You could of course inquire into what I mean by “related in a particular way”, but you insisting that Marxism is not a type of Hegelianism has nothing to do with that in my view, so you are not addressing my original claim as I intended it.

          I could be wrong, and that Marxism is not related to Hegelianism in the particular way I had in mind, but you haven’t said anything about that except not-uh.

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

            You keep arguing with me even though I told you to stop pestering me.

            I already said that calling Marxism a Hegelian off-shoot or whatever is reductive.

            Good day.

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

              Yes, but you did not, as you say “explain yourself” for this. In what way is it reductive? Is that bad thing in this case?

              I’m happy to disengage if you’d like to invoke the disengagement rule, but you don’t get to recapitulate your position as correct and then invoke the rule in the same post.

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

                If you’re asking why reductiveness is ever a bad thing, then you’re being disingenuous, I feel.

                You’ve been harassing me over and over again even when I told you to stop.

                Good day.