>Political Correctness is rooted in Nominalism through Structuralism. Unlike in Augustine's signa and res (thing), in Saussure's signifier and signified, there's no actual reality behind the signified, and words only have meaning in relation to other words. By controlling language, they're trying to control realityIs this true?
The right and its government-approved media love political correctness.
>>24791098the system of thought behind political correctness isn't nearly this elaborate. it's basically this: >please don't hurt my feelings. if you hurt my feelings, i'm going to piss and shit and (might) take legal action.
>>24791098Yes, in a sense. The semiotics of the Doctrina Signorum, from Augustine through CSP, through modern usages in the sciences, all vary from the semiotics inspired by Sausserean models dominant in Continental and particularly post-modern thought, which tends towards extreme nominalism.
>>24791098>>24791116I should note though that the idea isn't original here. So much of modernity, despite claiming to be "pure dispassioned reason liberated from superstition and history," is, in fact, a sort of Christian heresy (e.g. natura pura and the entire idea of a mechanistic universe obeying natural "laws," which of course comes with a divine, voluntarist lawgiver in mind originally). The idea of the centrality of the Word (Logos) to what things are is very old indeed, and has a special place in the West because in Genesis 1 God speaks the world into existence through the Divine Word, and of course, following the Greek usage of Logos and that of Philo and other Jewish Platonists, we get the opening of John's Gospel: >In the begining was the Word [Logos, or even Tao is Chinese translations] and the Word was with God and the Word was God.But this was a realist theology of the Word and essences, based in analogy (and free from ontotheology, creation occupying what Milbank calls a "suspended Middle" between nothingness and God's fullness).Modern nominalism is not so much something radically new as a self-conscious (originally) inversion of this that chops God out (God having already been removed from a self-standing natural world of natura pura; whereas the ancients have no natural versus supernatural distinction) and then elevated in God's place. Later POMO though dissolves the human subject, and so makes language, or a sort of panpsychic will soup, the true, causeless ground of being. Modern phenomenologoy prioritizes immediacy in this way, and denigrated intellectual knowledge as "riefication." This is just another inversion of the earlier phenomenological projects of Hegel, the scholastics from which phenomenology borrows its terminology, Plotinus, etc. It is actually a pretty sad one, since it implies that the sage and scientist live in delusion, while the path to a direct grasp on being is something like severe brain damage, the infant and the stroke victim being free of "riefications" which are, in hyper nominalism, always just pragmatic hallucinations of a sort.Likewise, all the issues of "mind-independent" truth and objectivity stem from this reversal. Truth is no longer being qua intelligible and knowable, and knowledge the mind's grasp of being, because infinite being can no longer ground intelligibility. Thus, the proposition, a linguistic entity, not the intellect, becomes the primary bearer of truth.
>>24791107>the right>government approved
>>24791127Phenomenology and revealed faith can work in tandem, you know, its not at all a dichotomy.
>>24791112David Hume had a point
man, you can trace the roots of wokeness to like early american puritanism and Christianity in general. I mean white privilege is just catholic idea of original sin but for leftoids
>>24791098>semiotics
>>24791137Of course it can, Catholic philosophy loves its phenomenology, and it grew out scholasticism with Brentano. Husserl was a Christian, and Edith Stein, one of his star pupils, is a Catholic saint. Pope/Saint John Paul II was an admirer as well.But since the topic was nominalism I was thinking primarily of the hyper nominalism post-modern phenomenology that links up with Sausserean semiotics and makes God just another riefication and metaphysics a sort of language game (itself a metaphysical thesis, ironically).My favorite phenomenological text is pic related, by a priest. But he connects his work to Aristotle and Aquinas and a realist metaphysics. Actually, I think Sokolowski's project could be greatly helped by the Doctrina Signorum as an explanation for how language accomplishes what he ascribes to it.That said, I think 20th century thought focuses too much on language. By contrast, Saint John of Damascus could matter of factly open the Exposition by pointing out that the order of the knowable and the utterable are two different things.
>>24791132>right wing parties don't governmajor self own on your part>>24791137You might be interested in Jean-Luc Marion>>24791145It obeys the same laws as any group morality, scapegoating etc.>>24791098Saussure gets rid of referent, because he was a linguist. There is basically nothing about a thing that inspires the phonetic image, thus no need for objects. Also the world of objects is basically not what linguistics concern itself with. There is some discussion of onomatopoeic origin of language, but I don't see how it would make sign relation any less arbitrary.
>>24791164>but I don't see how it would make sign relation any less arbitraryIt's only arbitrary if you get stuck in a very narrow sort of analysis where you are trying to link sounds to things. Since that time, information theory has given us a vastly better way to look at this sort of thing. The structures across languages and their relationship to the world can share morphisms while still allowing for a vast space of possible sound/concept pairings. I honestly think the "arbitrariness" is just mistaking immense complexity for random noise.
>>24791098>Political Correctness is rooted inStopped reading right there.What is the difference between etiquette and political correctedness?
>>24791185pc, woke, social justice warriors, all that shit was just moral policing, it was the mirror equivlant of right wing evangelicals who want to tell you how to act and what you can do and how you must feel eternal guilt and be scared all the time.type of people like that are easy to parody and destroy with comedy
>>24791132imagine lacking this self awareness. put your government approved red baseball cap back on before you think too hard
>>24791098>By controlling language, they're trying to control reality.Yes, it is a fair assessment of PC. One can't also over look the accompanying idea that only power is real, which also follows from the rejection of realism toward universals and teleology. Only matter and will remain.
>>24791200destroy with comedy? You can't be serious, right? are you old enough to be on this website?
>>24791214its very easy to parody a moral police, i dont see why you are so confused.You had daily show and comedians trashing right wing moral police.In the 2010s you had "sjw gets owned" youtube compliationssimple as
>>24791214not anon but roaring laughter is sovereign to all moralist ressentiment. If someone tells you're supposed to feel this and that what better way to carry on than to enjoy yourself fully, not in spite of them, not in a faked sarcastic laugh, but in a hearty laugh completely disregarding their moral obligations?The culture today is broken because we have forgotten that kind of joy, and we only permit ourselves the transgressive spiteful joy. We can only laugh as long as we have the idea of a moralist scorning us. One does not need to be underage to recognize that cultural change is carried by the way it assigns affective responses to behaviors over time. >tl;dr its better to laugh than to be an irony poisoned faggot
>>24791164>>24791206You're not leftwing revolutionaries on the bleeding edge of political critique. You're just pseuds.
>>24791164There's right wing with a lowercase R meaning center right ideology and true upper case R true Right wing which has no meaningful influence outside of your personal headcanon. Nothing that's right wing in the truthful objective sense has actual power. You are a delusional lefttard.>>24791206>Bill Clinton style liberal democracy is right wing because it just is, okay!I accept your concession
>>24791200Oh I get it totally but that doesn't mean one doesn't lead to complete social entropy.
>>24791264and I never claimed to be. You failed to be on point with your marvel one liner.
>>24791185Etiquette is whatever women decide it is. If women say "boo! Older men with younger women! Boo!" Then its taken as gospel. Picrel related is exhibit A just applied to the longhouse.
>>24791218Yes, but with caveats. The west tends towards liberalism. You couldn't get away with that in North Korea.
>>24791276I am not the one who is delusional. I do not believe there are non-effective "upper case" ideas in people's heads you fail to act on. That's even less of an conviction than believing in the tooth fairy is. If you have beliefs they hold power at least to the degree they influence yourself. Also the word truthful isn't amplified by the word 'objective' in your sentence because it doesn't mean what you think it means.
>>24791284That was 2 lines, retard. Learn to count.
>>24791297Do you have anything you want to say about Saussure or semiology or did you just come to shit up the thread like a toddler needing change?
>>24791302Why would a toddler need change? Did you mean "a change", pseud?
>>24791296Well oh tell me what higher ideals are you claiming by asserting a truth proposition which isn't just informed by your subjective, ideology-colored assertion about the world? For as much as the left claims to have escaped the world of ideology you've done a fine job of simply replacing one worldview for another and claiming superiority due to your alleged insistence its based on scientific principles which elude the common folk.
>>24791288>>24791200>Still no answerI guess they are both the same thing.Rightwingers are trully the progressives from a century ago (or even centuries ago).
>>24791302Where did Saussure and Peirce disagree would you say?
>>24791319Yeah feudalism and aristocracy sure are progressive.I accept your concession.
>>24791313not what the thread is about dipshit.
>>24791323>Yeah feudalism and aristocracy sure are progressive.Both of the replies to my post were against moral policing.If anything, they will also be against aristocracy and feudalism, known for their extreme focus on moralfagging.>I accept your concession.Cognitive dissonance much?
>>24791319NTAs. Political correctness is thought policing in an arena that is supposed to be open to debate whereas etiquette consists of established social norms specific to a given situation. Political correctness is telling someone they're evil because they don't believe men magically become women when they cut their dicks off whereas etiquette is not inviting sex performers to hang out with children at public libraries. You confusion is based on assuming political correctness is merely the same thing as tact in order to sidestep the fact it entail loading one side of a debate.
>>24791336Cognitive dissonance is fine as long as it serves a goal. In fact I'd go as far as saying that not only are all people hypocrites they ought to use their hypocrisy to further their interests. The jews are already masters of this practice and if it ain't broke, as they say "don't fix it"
>>24791328Duly noted
>>24791218im saying you're an idiot who watches comedy to own the libs which is behaviour so trite its hard to imagine your original post was sincere
>>24791342>thought policing in an arena that is supposed to be open to debatePolitical correctedness is mostly criticized when it's present in media, from what I have seen.Companies trying to sell more of their product by limiting the usage of degrading epitets through the usage of euphemisms.>etiquette consists of established social norms specific to a given situationYeah, like using insults in an academic setting should not be permitted.>Political correctness is telling someone they're evil because they don't believe men magically become women when they cut their dicks off whereas etiquette is not inviting sex performers to hang out with children at public libraries.That is because modern day etiquette sees calling a man who transitioned "still a man" unfit of an upstanding citizen.They would call you evil even if you will bully retards because they can't do calculus. Namecalling retards for being retards is a part of the political correct that I think you will agree with, although I also think you personally wouldn't go as far as to ban the r word. Modern day PC is moving slowly toward banning it.>etiquette is not inviting sex performers to hang out with children at public libraries.We are talking about how to speech etiquette here.>You confusion is based on assuming political correctness is merely the same thing as tact in order to sidestep the fact it entail loading one side of a debate.Aren't you conflating the moral standards (on which political correctness is based upon) with political correctness itself?
>>24791344Hamevin yavin, anon.
>>24791112The ultimate root may be that, but all political movements try to justify themselves with theory.
>>24791372>epitetsepithets*>We are talking about how to speech etiquette here.We are talking about speech etiquette here.*>if you will bully retardsif you would bully retards*
>>24791376The majority of people have no entry to theory.If there is a framework, it's just self-preservation. Everyone does it, and some have perfected it. Nowadays, behind every single antisemitic or racial joke is the imagined threat of violence or downright genocide. There are some people who genuinely view political incorrectness as an existential threat, and at that point of disassociation and self-victimization, you don't need theory to justify your position, because you are - in your own mind - resisting death (whether individual, collective or cultural) itself.
>>24791422>>24791376If we look at political correctness as a movement, it's not one with any kind of internal structure or definitive mission. It's several politicians/talking heads (AKA grifters), and a lot of people with no particular critical skills who are willing to drink any amounts of feel-good kool-aid. There is no real theory behind it, and people don't align themselves with it based on theory. They just want to grasp onto any small sliver of power/superiority they can get, as they seek release from their own insecurities and minor griefs of everyday life.
>>24791319>If I beg the question like Hume and assume emotivism is true than emotivism is true Wow
Nominalist here. Why the fuck do realists make nominalism such a political issue? They are blaming "modernity" and "political correctness" and "the fall of the west" on us. Nominalism is literally just a metaphysical view that properties come from the individuals that possess them and that creating a second class of beings called "universals" doesn't actually help to explain anything.
>>24791476my truth bb :3
>>24791478huh?
you're slow
>>24791476>Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence.[…]>For this reason I turn to William of Occam as the best representative of a change which came over man’s conception of reality at this historic juncture. It was William of Occam who propounded the fateful doctrine of nominalism, which denies that universals have a real existence. His triumph tended to leave universal terms mere names serving our convenience. The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of, man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one’s view of the nature and destiny of humankind. The practical result of nominalist philosophy is to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses. With this change in the affirmation of what is real, the whole orientation of culture takes a turn, and we are on the road to modern empiricism.”
>>24791504Nominalism doesn't imply the rejection of truth or reality. It is literally just the idea that you don't have to invent an ontologically distinct kind of being to explain why individuals share commonalities with each other. This is just a childish understanding of nominalism. Who you should really be attacking is Kant and the Idealists. Kant was the one who decided that it's impossible to know reality and that instead we can only know how we perceive reality. This is what leads to Foucault's attitude that knowledge itself a creation of systems of power.
>>24791422yes, but with some caveats. some groups see themselves as more privileged or more victim depending on where they (themselves) see themselves on the social totem pole and then use that as a pretext justification to either allow or disallow certain sentiments, language or gestures in their given proximity. basically, in layman's terms, things like "blacks can't be racist" could also be seen as justifying "white genocide" but the current power structures, wherever the exist in society either upholds or denies those claims. Foucauldian "power/knowledge" discourse is less an abject philosophical position and more of a pragmatic tool that can be wielded by anyone who's in the driver's seat of history. and that position changes with whomever has more "will to power"
>>24791504this is a very loaded statement. I'm all for deconstructing nominalism but this could lead to very Guenonian/Orientializing perspectives.
>>24791476Because they only grasp philosophy up to Kant. The scholastics is the last measure they can almost correctly aply as a grid to view the world.God is dead. They still haven't heard. It's a political issue for them. They need the something 'real', be it God or any other kind of metaphysics. They still can't get through their heads that language is coherent regardless of reality and argumentation doesn't start from first principles, but from biases and is almost always ad hoc.It's the cry of the hopeless rhetorician, still believing his tricks work. "But I have objectivity on my side" he cries >>24791313 even though his argument isn't empirical. He doesn't realize that the world of objects is as unknowable to him as god's will was when pseuds like him would base their argument in another purely linguistic entity. Where is my proof? Out there in reality - is like saying the epistemologist have it. They don't.
>>24791357yes, but who has ultimate power in the universities?
>>24791310Do you have anything you want to say about Saussure or semiology or did you just come to shit up the thread like a toddler needing a change?
>>24791508Weaver is a bit polemical, it's just a famous quote. However, this might just be a disagreement on terminology. What you are describing here: >>24791476 sounds more like immanent realism. Aristotle is the primary target for this label. Forms are real, but exist only where instantiated (although form is ontologically prior to matter and to the mind's knowledge of form).Historically, what is called nominalism, was paired with volanturism, the ejection of final causality from science and philosophy, and the rejection of the via antiqua. The rejection of teleology led to all sorts of problems for ethics (see Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue for instance) and for science as well. It also led to freedom being radically redefined. It was no longer, "the self-determining capacity to actualize the Good" but became "the ability to choose anything," with the volanturist God of sheer willing becoming the image of freedom in man. These are all deeply related in ways I cannot get into in a 4chan post. Pic related is ok on this. D.C. Schindler's Freedom From Reality is better on the question of freedom.When people talk about nominalism, they generally are referring to the sort paired with theological voluntarism in the late Middle Ages, everything is what it is, not by intelligible nature, but by divine command, hence they can have no end by nature. The nature versus supernature divide and idea of natura pura comes out of this move too.If you want a good idea of what people mean by nominalism generally, consider Quine's rejection or ordinary objects, or the linguistic turn position that ants are ants because the language community says "this is what counts as an ant" based on what is "useful." Usefulness is often a metaphysical primitive here because one cannot "step outside language" to know the causes of language. This is the old theological voluntarism with God removed and man put in his place, but now democratized in line with liberalism. "Post-modern" constructivist theories would be another good example, but Hume works just as well. With Hume, we never get at natures, we just generate names for patterns of sense data. This makes the universal/essence just a sort of name in the mind. You could also consider physicalists and eliminativists, for whom the universal is always nothing more than a sort of probabilistically determined lable for sense data.This doesn't just emerge from naive takes on nominalism. C.S. Peirce wrote that nominalism, which he called individualism, was "a tool of the Devil if Devil there be." And guys like D.C. Schindler, John Milbank, and David Bentley Hart have a good grasp on Ockham, etc. And yes, they would agree that more moderate nominalism is less problematic. Their argument is more that the case for moderate nominalism actually leads to extreme nominalism. That is, the assumptions that lead to it lead towards Rorty and truth becoming merely "yay for asserting x!"
>>24791543>>24791508It leads first to emotivism for practical reason, but eventually spreads to theoretical reason. Natura pura is a target here too, but that's related to nominalism historically.>>24791527Yes, it's polemical. I only posted it because it's famous and a good image. Obviously you need more to back it up, and Weaver's book is actually not that good. The sources I am posting are better.There are some pretty good standalone books on why Peirce hated nominalism that are good too, and relate more to the OP.When people talk of "nominalism" they generally mean the affiliated theological changes as well, at least historically, and the argument is more that these led to the problems of modernity. Pic related for instance.It's just that it's hard to say all that, so "nominalism" becomes a label. Also, I don't think it is wholly unfair because most contemporary nominalism is quite extreme, whereas some forms of trope nominalism are arguably just immanent realism put forth by people scared to be called realists.
>>24791534israel somehow
>>24791550Or for a more theological take that pushes back more on postmodern extensions, there are these.Millbank's Social Theory and Theology gets more into the weeds on how the theological assumptions shaped modern science. Amos Funkenstein is good on this for the "hard sciences" too. Whereas Rieff's Triumph of the Therapeutic and Lasch's Culture of Narcissism look more at where this led in the 20th century.
>>24791543I think Peirce associated nominalism more with Berkeleyan and Kantian idealism. Berkeley said that for example a "general triangle" doesn't exist because you can only imagine specific triangles but not a triangle in general. So in this way nominalism becomes associated with idealism. Peirce also said that Occam and Duns Scotus differed by only a "hairs breadth" or something like that somewhere. I don't think nominalism should be associated with idealism. Also, Peirce himself invented pragmatism and so if anything Peirce and by extension Hegelianism is what leads to Richard Rorty. I don't think nominalism should be associated with idealism. Sure, you could call me an "immanent realist" but I don't really see the difference between an immanent philosophy and a nominalist one. The whole point of Deleuze's "plane of immanence" is that it rejects higher, a priori laws or constraints that control beings, which to me is the same as the rejection of the existence of universals as having an ontological status separate from individuals.
what literature do I need to even begin understanding what you niggas are talking about. Help please
>>24791598>Also, Peirce himself invented pragmatism and so if anything Peirce and by extension Hegelianism is what leads to Richard Rorty.Peirce changed the name of his philosophy to "pragmaticism" to distance himself from Rorty's forerunners. His semiotics, based on the Doctrina Signorum, is realist. Hegel is also a realist, but more importantly, both have a classical notion of freedom, whereas the key motivation for "pragmatism" is the idea that one must flee all determination to be free. Thus universals must be rejected because they are a constraint on "freedom." But as Hegel points out early in PR, this notion of freedom collapses in contradiction, since any choice at all introduces determinacy, and freedom is not randomness.>The whole point of Deleuze's "plane of immanence" is that it rejects higher, a priori laws or constraints that control beings, which to me is the same as the rejection of the existence of universals as having an ontological status separate from individuals.The problem with Deleuze and the metaphysics of difference in general is that they are really critiques of Enlightenment philosophy that feel the need to extend themselves to "all past philosophy" even though the authors aren't particularly familiar with older thought (and who could be familiar with everything afterall). The idea of universals as "laws" is exactly the thing traditionalist critics are attacking.Pragmatism that denies and teleology and so any rational ends, and ends that are "truly better" or any thing being *truly* more or less useful, is not actually pragmatism, but just dressed up voluntaristic nihilism.
>>24791112That is how it begins and then it becomes what we have now when it is exploited. I'm sorry but if words like kill, die, porn, rape, etc hurt you then maybe you are too soft. I understand restrictions on slurs in some places but the rest is pure newspeak.
>>24791714I agree with the notion that freedom as a rejection of determinacy is nonsensical. However I disagree with the conclusion that this determinacy must come from any kind of "summum bonum" or universal morality. I think that morality is changeable and always determined within a real context, it is dependent on the essence and interdependence of the beings involved, thus the freedom of the individual beings is their freedom to develop the essence that the contain within themselves. Also, Peirce despite being a realist who based his philosophy on the "summum bonum" also thought that reality was ultimately determined by the decision or ultimate consensus of the community of rational beings. This is the Hegelian notion that the Absolute is the "result," and this does lead to Foucauldian notions that knowledge or truth is determined by power, in my opinion. This arises ultimately from the failure to reject idealism at a fundamental level, mind is changeable and thus if everything is dependent on mind we must also conclude that truth and reality can be changed if the mind changes. Also, I see the idea that freedom is a rejection of determinacy as also produced by idealism. Hegel is the one who created the idea that the essence of universals is negativity (basically another word for abstraction) and thus that consciousness can even be described as a "pure negativity" by virtue of its ability to universalize. This leads to Sartre in "being and nothingness" saying that the subject is nothingness and thus any attempt to subscribe to a definite or determinate value system is "bad faith" because it ignores the inherent negativity and universality of the subject which transcends beyond any particular value system. >The idea of universals as "laws" is exactly the thing traditionalist critics are attacking.The Good, Beauty, and so on, while not laws in a modern scientific nomological sense, do constrain beings because they state that there is only one possible choice for what can be good or beautiful and in that sense act as laws for how a being that wants to pursue goodness can develop.
>>24791713start with Wikipedia
>>24791098no, political correctness is a useful tool that the economical elites use to change societies to better fit their agendas.>Big Corpo Owner: countries have different cultures, therefore different parts of my human capital have different cultures. These differences create friction between different parts of my human capital. I cannot import brown retards into first world countries if the locals are too unwelcoming. I cannot put human capital of different ethnicities in the same organization if there is friction, or even if I could it still would be better to eliminate it because it's inefficient. I cannot outsource to third world nations if different branches of my organization see third world retards as unable to be cooperated with. These "cultures" are interfering my Nature-given right to do as I please with my economic and human capital, therefore they need to give way. First, I will introduce a unnatural standard of behaviour and link this standard to the idea of professionalism, I will also coax it in the language of anti-racism since in the west anti-racism is in vogue. I will call this political correctness, because the upper part of my human capital loves being political and loves being correct, or they don't care.The problem is, as always, capitalism, more specifically the fact that capitalism selects for psychopathy and therefore the people with the most indirect power (money) have no qualms about manipulating entire nations to better fit their aims.
>>24791550right, but I think the problem therein lies that taking philosophical back "behind" Plato into the pre-Socratics and ancient Hindu doctrines tends to push the pendulum way farther into the opposite direction. Aristotle and "eudaimonia" and all that. particulars must exist in some form or things just become mysticism without empirical grounding. and you cannot form a culture based on "pure feel", it ends up looping back to Humean emotivism somehow, just without the self-awareness of the concept itself.
>>24791772>capitalism selects for psychopathytell me again how mentally well-adjusted Laurentiy Beria was. I'll wait.
>>24791779>Tell me again how [things you didn't say nor imply]If you wanna argue against a strawman you can talk to the mirror, you don't need to waste my time replying to my post.
>>24791786you're the one strawmanning the concept of capitalism to whatever you assert it means colored by your own ideological goggles whatever it may be. tit for tat.
>>24791772Political correctness has nothing to do with "capitalism." Political correctness is ideology. Capitalism is not ideological; it is vehicle steered by a ruling ideology. PC stems from the anti-western dogma that overtook the western world after WW2 and uses as justification the universalist ideals that have been stirring since the Enlightenment. "Economical elites" is similarly begging the question. There are powers that have money and use it to achieve ideological goals. If they want more money, they use their power for those who want it, and by selling it effect their power at the service of ideologues.
>>24791803>Political correctness has nothing to do with "capitalism." Political correctness is ideology. Capitalism is not ideologicalcapitalism determines ideology by creating the material conditions in which consciousness develops. Even if you don't agree with marx's thesis of historical materialism, to say that political correctness has NOTHING to do with capitalism is straight up retarded. read The German Ideology.
>>24791796>strawmanning the concept of capitalismCapitalism is a way of societal organization, not a concept. And I'm analyzing how it actually operates, not how it was conceptualised, therefore I can't be making a strawman it because I'm not arguing against a position, but looking at something real and seeing how it works. Are you sure you've actually read my post? Or did you just read the word "capitalism" used in a negative connotation and your NPC programming took over the rational part of your brain (assuming you have one)? Again and for the last time, if you wanna argue against something I didn't say you can talk to the mirror instead of me, and know that if your next post is similarly pointless I won't be replying to you anymore.
>>24791803That capitalism is not ideological is my entire point. Capitalism uses ideologies as weapons and vectors, it uses left wing ideologies when it's convenient in a way and it uses right wing ideologies when it's convenient in another. The only thing that matters, on the aggregate, is the accumulation and the compound growth of capital. Political correctness is like a modified virus strain, there needs to be some similarity between the pre existing population and the modified strain for the new strain to successfully infect the host population, hence political correctness is made to align at least on the surface with left wing ideals of anti-racism, not because capitalism cares about racism but because capitalism cares about efficiency and cultures are a point of friction in economic activity and therefore they should be, if not eliminated, at least homogenized to the point that this friction is minimal.
>>24791808Consciousness does not develop from "material conditions." Ideas become novel, attractive, effective, tired, and overwrought according to the spirit of the people exposed to them. Said spirit comes from history, the relation of man to self, man to man, and man to world that is lit in him by his people and instills urges in him far beyond the reach of any economic system. Marx has been refuted more times and ANYONE ELSE IN HISTORY and any invocation of him is, ironically, just another evidence that at the core of it, the ideas he shared are not what people care about, but rather that he was the expression of a resentment. There was no workers' revolution at the end of the 1800s. A system's analysis does not mean that system is dead or dying. The rise in capitalism in the middle east was accompanied by no diminishing of religion. Every attempt at communism fails because it prevents itself from obeisance to true history. >>24791827I mean to say that it is not for economic reasons that political correctness and mass migration happen. There is no economic justification for importing a billion Somalians into Minnesota nor a brazilian Nigerians into Germany. It happens anyway because powerful leftist ideologues want to punish the West and are happy blowing billions of dollars to make it happen, which they wouldn't do if they just wanted more money. Even the importation of H-1Bs is subordinate to this resentment. It is much more difficult for a European to migrate to the US than an Indian, though both would undercut local salaries.
>>24791808Yes, back when cavemen learned to cook food, capitalism was alive and well...You really need to take a break from the internet for a long while.
>>24791858>Consciousness does not develop from "material conditions."so someone who works all day in a factory doing the same thing over and over again, and someone who works in an office job manipulating numbers, will have absolutely no difference in beliefs or thoughts because of this? >Marx has been refutedI'm not a marxist or saying you should become one, but your view is incredibly one sided and it's clear you have little familiarity with ways in which material conditions can affect people's beliefs which is why I said to read the German Ideology. >>24791866huh?
>>24791098That depends, what do these words mean???>Nominalism>Structuralism
>>24791858>I mean to say that it is not for economic reasons that political correctness and mass migration happen.And it would tell you that is incorrect, that there a plethora of direct and indirect reasons - you don't see them only in the short term, you also need to think about the long term, on what society would look like after it's all said and done. You also need to think of this not in terms of individual wills but on the aggregate, similarly to how not one of your cells feels "hunger" and yet you do, similarly the goal of capitalism is not just about making more money, but optimizing the utility function of economic activity, the elimination of inefficiencies, and it works this way not because there is a single person or a small group who wants it to be like this but because this is what the game, as a whole, selects for, similarly to how international drug trade selects for ruthlessness. The direct reasons are obviously the undercutting of domestic labour market by lowering wages, this is the shallow reason, the deeper reasons is that by putting two different groups of people in the same place you can create competition between the two, suddenly it's inconvenient for them to organize themselves against you because they have to worry about each other (on multiple levels, economic, social, etc) because their interest don't align, and since you know that optimizing the utility function is the law society runs on, you have effectively neutralized that threat vector to yourself. This is, again, done impersonally, there isn't a single person who sat at a table and wrote the evil script, but the system *knows* in the same way that your brain *knows* despite being made of a bunch of a tiny logic gates.The long term reasons are the same I already mentioned, the elimination of cultures or at least the lowest possible differentiation between them, so that all non-economic ties of the individual have been eliminated and the world is effectively a monoculture made of atomized economic actors. Political correctness is the vector capitalism uses to achieve this in a highly professionalised white collar setting, a smartly designed weapon for a specific ecosystem. You say that these phenomena exist purely because of ideological motives but to that I can offer a counterfactual. If the motives were purely ideological then we'd the see corporation push the entirety of pre-PC left wing ideology. You'd see them push for unionisation, anti-consumerism, higher pay lower amount of hours, more holidays, public healthcare, etc etc etc, you know what I'm talking about. And yet these parts of the ideology are discarded, and this is the modified virus strain I was talking about, political correctness comes from left wing ideology in the same way that dogs come from wolves, and in the same way that mankind selected in wolves some desirable traits and discarded the rest, capitalism selected whatever traits it could use in left wing ideology and discarded the rest.
>>24791776The idea that recognizing universals is "mysticism" (the term seem pejorative here) and that this will result in their being no "empirical grounding" seems like a strawman to me. Who denies that particulars exist? Sure, some Hindu and Sufi thought can obscure the ontological distinction between creature and creator; this still seems less problematic than nihilism and the misology that comes with it.But later thinkers improve on this and the Problem of the One and the Many (whereas modern nominalism just slides towards the Many) As pic related puts it quite well:>these principles are that (1) the world of space and time does not itself exist in space and time: it exists in Intellect (the Empyrean, pure conscious being); (2) matter, in medieval hylomorphism, is not something “material”: it is a principle of unintelligibility, of alienation from conscious being; (3) all finite form, that is, all creation, is a self-qualification of Intellect or Being, and only exists insofar as it participates in it; (4) Creator and creation are not two, since the latter has no existence independent of the former; but of course creator and creation are not the same; and (5) God, as the ultimate subject of all experience, cannot be an object of experience: to know God is to know oneself as God, or (if the expression seems troubling) as one “with” God or “in” God.>Let me spell out these principles at greater length. In medieval hylomorphism (the matter-form analysis of reality), pure Intellect (consciousness or awareness) is pure actuality, or form, or Being, or God: it is the self-subsistent principle that spawns or “contains” all finite being and experience. Intellect Being is what is, unqualified, self-subsistent, attributeless, dimensionless. It has no extension in space or time; rather, it projects space-time “within” itself, as, analogously, a dreaming intelligence projects a dream-world, or a mind gives being to a thought. The analogy holds in at least three respects: (1) like dreams or thoughts, created things are radically contingent, and dependent at every instant of their existence on what gives them being; (2)as there is nothing thoughts are “made of,” so there is nothing the world is “made of”: being is not a “something” to make things out of; and (3) dreams and thoughts have no existence apart from the intelligence in which they arise, but one cannot point to that intelligence because it is not a thing. In the same way, one cannot point to the Empyrean, the tenth heaven that the Comedy presents as the infinite intelligence/reality “within” which all things exist; remove it and the universe would instantly vanish. Note that the analogy in no way implies that the world is “unreal” or a “dream” (except in contrast to its ontological ground); rather, it expresses the radical non-self-subsistence of finite reality.
>>24791776>>24791938Hegel gets at this quite well too. From pic related:>Hegel thinks he has demonstrated, in the chapter on “Quality,” that the ordinary conceptions of quality, reality, or finitude are not systematically defensible, by themselves, but can only be properly employed within a context of negativity or true infinity... He has now shown, through his analysis of “diversity” and opposition, that within such a context of negativity or true infinity, the reality that is described by apparently merely “contrary” concepts will turn out to be better described, at a fundamental level, by contradictory concepts. The fundamental reality will be contradictory, rather than merely contrary. It’s not that nothing will be neither black nor white, but rather that qualities such as black, white, and colorless are less real (less able to be what they are by virtue of [only] themselves) than self-transcending finitude (true infinity) is.
>>24791938>"mysticism" (the term seem pejorative here)Follow the Light. Stop playing games with the other fools.
>>24791938>Sure, some Hindu and Sufi thought can obscure the ontological distinction between creature and creator; this still seems less problematic than nihilism and the misology that comes with it.Sure, but who's measure? The eastern world simply takes "becoming" as a given, or rather makes no distinction between "being" and "becoming" as irrelevant. I'm not at all denying that nihilism is a huge problem but again this begs the question on why one viewpoint is preferable over the other when it doesn't have to be so dichotomatic. I'm sensing the Eastern drift is simply due to western bias, attraction to the exotic that so many of us here have been poisoned by, both academics and laypeople obsessed with our decline and fall or simply an obsession with the phenomenological viewpoint of the noble savage. Its disgusting.
>muh voluntarism>muh nominalism>muh docta signorum>muh "laws" of physics These threads are always political complaints disguised as metaphysics. Every time someone asks how exactly is Augustine's theory better than Wittgenstein, the conversation abruptly ends. Tell me, how would Aristotelian natures improve the Standard Model? What's the telos of a photon?
>>24792195What about Dante or Aquinas (both very Neoplatonic, or even moreso Saint Bonaventure or Eriugena) says "Eastern" to you. Three are from Italy and the other is Irish. Augustine is a North African.There is an "Eastern drift" in a lot of apologetic appeals because they want to show how modernity is an outlier, and the strong commonalities that exist between pre-modern Western thought, Hindu thought, Buddhism that invokes a "luminous" Buddha nature, etc.There is also the belief that the framing of revealed religion in terms of Greek thought is a bit of a historical accident. Providential perhaps, but not the only possible framing. So for instance, pic related wants to use Laotze to explicate the Christian Scriptures in the same way Plato was used (to great effect I might add). If Orthodoxy seems "Eastern" it is only because modernity has pulled the West so far into a sort of inversion of its roots. Dante's Commedia, the great Catholic epic, is by contrast quite in line with Orthodox thought.
>>24792254Tripartite semiotics is used in the sciences quite a bit whereas Wittgenstein's vague aphorisms have been used to justify all sorts of contradictory theories, including both extreme relativism and Catholic Thomism with some extra steps, showing it has no real substance.The entire "notion of family resemblances" for instance, is not something Wittgenstein himself meant to be a theoretical concept (although it has become one lol) and literally amounts to just being vague (these things share something but I won't say what).Pic related.
>is this true?>does it resolve open questions or contradictions within older explanations?>does it predict previously unregistered observations?>Is it at least a simplifying reformulation?We are participants in psychological war and in war you benefit from communication disruption among opponents. simple as.whether you "control reality" of individual combatant is something else entirely, because he fights with his entire being and the text/speech component is just an important element among countless other cognitive faculties.
>>24791372>Political correctedness is mostly criticized when it's present in mediaNo, also education and political platforms. >Companies trying to sell more of their product by limitingSee above regarding education/political platforms; I'll add that you're justifying corporatism. With media it represents ideological capture by an elite and an attempt to force values. Companies have lost money, no grassroots project from the left has reached mass cultural appeal, and attaching ideological messaging to marquee projects meant for mass markets gives an illusion of consent (you're putting the cart before the horse).>Yeah, like using insults in an academic setting should not be permittedAs per the other comment that's called tact. Most insults in academic settings come from the left deflecting criticism as bigotry and characterizing dissenters as extremists. >That is because modern day etiquette sees calling a man who transitioned "still a man" unfitThat's not ediquette. As I said you confuse the idea of tact as political correctness in order to pretend certain issues are debatable in an attempt to bully opposition (e.g. look at the earlier appeal to corporatism you thought justified your position). >We are talking about how to speech etiquette here.No, I'm pointing out the fact you're conflating tact with political correctness in order to assume there are established rules of ediquette that favor your political biases. >Aren't you conflating the moral standardsNo and it's telling you had to deflect via accusation instead of addressing the criticism of your position that was offered.
>>24791858>Consciousness does not develop from "material conditions."People can't have consciousness if they aren't physically alive, retard.
>>24792635Well that really depends on whether you agree with death of god theology or think the universe is sentient, which is another topic altogether. Graham Harmann's object-oriented ontology allegedly gives sentience to non-living objects, too.
>>24792365>There is an "Eastern drift" in a lot of apologetic appeals because they want to show how modernity is an outlier, and the strong commonalities that exist between pre-modern Western thought, Hindu thought, Buddhism that invokes a "luminous" Buddha nature, etc.Yeah, but why ought the west reflect that? Various rabbitholes like the idea of American exceptionalism leads to European exceptionalism until you think that literal pygmies in New Guinea are wiser than scientists. A lot of phenomenology falls into this trap without the extra steps. Thats why I call Aristotle "the great balancer" of sorts. A very neutral balance between abject nominalism and full borne realism, away from Plato's classical idealism. Aristotle fixed a lot of Plato and prevented the west from being borne of nothing but higher order concepts divorced from reality, and at a push, divorced from everyday concerns. That's why Neoplatonism goes full retard into mystic territory and is the philosophy of elites while Aristotle spoke to everyone.
>>24792389I haven't seen anyone else on /lit/ who read Incomplete Nature.I started studying process philosophy / relational ontology in 2017 and my investigations led me to that book, among others. "I am a Strange Loop" by Hofstadter jives supremely with Incomplete Nature. That book was also hugely inspirational, and got me thinking in terms of metafiction and "narrative animism." I wrote the post in the image in 2019, which describes my developing thoughts at the time.You may be well read enough to appreciate this, and experiment with it:https://ia800708.us.archive.org/28/items/simsane-9.1-vyrith/SiMSANE_9.1_Vyrith.pdf
>>24792389Are you the same poster as >>24791598 ?Peirce and Deleuze...
>>24792669If people really believe that, then they should just commit suicide to prove us wrong and come back to prove it
As with most center-right popeshit, it's a vulgar simplification of reality. I appreciate Catholicism in many ways but contemporary Catholics are so excited to be one of the first stops on the road away from "postmodern neo-Marxism" that young men inevitably encounter that they rest on their laurels and get surprisingly sloppy. Some zoomer shows up at Waypoint Catholicism and says "hey I'm not so sure about neoliberalism" and Catholics go "exactly! it's all because of Ockham, now LARP with me on Twitter and watch these 3 Youtube channels." It repels more people than it attracts, and it repels the really valuable people who are looking for intellectual seriousness. It falls far short of the days of Maritain, Gilson, and the French nonconformistes / Catholic personalists. >Don't like postmodernism? Come sit with me for a moment. Did you know that despite being Catholic, I know who Saussure is? Here's your copy of Augustine. Welcome to the fold. By the way, Thomas Aquinas predicted all this.Just sloppy and retarded. I find the average Orthodox LARPer is less offensive simply because he talks less about theology, and if he does it's about Hesychasm. Thomists are like the Straussians of Catholicism, and that's saying a lot because there are Catholic Straussians who are obnoxious little retards in their own right. As soon as a Catholic starts trying to diagnose modernity or postmodernity I know I'm in for a Peterson-tier watered-down summary followed by an attempt to sell me a Thomist snake-oil omni-cure.
>>24792708>they should just commit suicide to prove us wrong and come backAugustine says you can't come back.
>>24792389>Tripartite semiotics is used in the sciences quite a bitModern semiotics takes after Sassure, who wasn't at all a realist like Augustine. You're giving points to the opposite team.>have been used to justify all sorts of contradictory theoriesDo you not realize this applies more to the Bible than to anything else? Somehow from it people can draw justifications for universalism and double predestination, the amish and the prosperity gospel, pacifism and the crusades. But you would never say it's vague and lacking substance, you'd say it requires the One True Tradition™ to correctly interpret it, a trump card that sadly no other discipline shares (and which sabotages the pre-modern quasi-guenonism you try to use apologetically).>is not something Wittgenstein himself meant to be a theoretical conceptHow could you possibly derive such an idea with how straightforward PI §67 or 68 are?>(these things share something but I won't say what).Did you even read the book, or did you fail at skimming a summary? The point is precisely that there's a group of shared characteristics by which one naturally draws relationships, but none of these are the single defining feature and any boundary drawn is artificial. That's literally what he's saying, and you can see it in debates like those over what a fish is.>Pic related.It's a naturalist account of the mind. Do you just dislike it because it doesn't treat it as supernatural? Naturalism is the default scientific position, you can't reject it and then say your ideology is entirely consistent with science.
>>24792712Yes, Augustine's conjecture alone isn't proof. That's true.
>>24792718So you can't necessarily prove someone wrong by killing yourself.
>>24792783The one making the claim has to prove it, Rhodus.
>>24792793NTA. The experiment you put forward indicates you don't have any scientific background.
>>24792710>everyone i disagree with is a tradlarper>no i didn't read the thread, why do you ask?
>>24792801If someone doesn't need a scientific background to prove you wrong, that probably means you're not an intelligent person to begin with it.
>>24792840You didn't prove that anon wrong and Scientism is cringe (especially when it comes from retards who had no background in science).
>By controlling language, they're trying to control reality
>>24792715>Modern semiotics takes after SassureAll the semiotics used in biosemiotics and physics , etc. is from Pierce (which is from the scholastics)...
>>24792715>It's a naturalist account of the mind. Do you just dislike it because it doesn't treat it as supernatural? Naturalism is the default scientific position, you can't reject it and then say your ideology is entirely consistent with science.Based on tripartite semiotics. You have no clue what you're talking about here and it shows.
>>24791873>so someone who works all day in a factoryYou've never worked in a factory.
>>24792715Pseud alert.
Marxism is the only ideology with the power to change the world. You guys are all just unemployed lumpens arguing over what delusion you should adopt to ignore obvious social contradictions and problems that arise from the capitalism. It comes from the fact capitalism increases alienation from community, and encourages degenerates like yourself to promote your very individualistic life style of hedonism.
