Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Hegel’s ideobabble is the basis of Marxism and Fascism" video.

@ffff7164 " Then you should call a doctor. " Which doctor? The real one. Or the one which does not exist, because there is no "overreaching" reality?
10
@adrianseanheidmann4559 " There is no overarching REALITY, that should be pretty obvious. " It's extremely not obvious to me.
8
@CantusTropus " people think philosophy is nonsense. It isn't " Which part is not nonsense?
5
" Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed. " They were not flawed. When Schliemann have found Troy, it was in ruins. Was it "the same" Troy as that of Iliad? No, it was different, yet still the same. TiK claims that it's a false contradiction, because it's the same city. Well, it was just a mound of dirt by then, so not even a city. How can something be considered to be "the same city", when it's not even a city anymore? The contradiction is real, if a statement can only be either true or false, with no in-betweens. That's not true, though. We've known that truth can be a function with possible values from 0 to 1 only for a relatively short time. TiK still doesn't seem to understand it.
4
@SoMuchFacepalm " The old stuff is still there. [...] No contradiction " What if I borrowed a car from you, then returned it crashed? Would you still maintain with similar zeal, that it's the same car, bro! I know I would... ;-) More seriously, apparently there are objects which are exactly identical. Like, each electron is exactly the same as another electron. There is no such thing as a "broken" electron. If I borrowed one electron from you, there is no way I could cheat you, by returning a similar but different electron. Then there is no contradiction (and Heraclitus was incorrect, since some things do not change). Otherwise contradiction exists, but it's caused by our imprecise language and logic that we use. We say "the same", when we mean "so similar, that it makes no difference". Honestly, I think I solved it.
3
@nickkorkodylas5005 Still very dangerous, though. That's why I started looking into that stuff.
2
@nickkorkodylas5005 " being from Eastern Europe " Hello, brother. It seems like nobody knows what we know. " tovarish Trofim " At the cost of a lot of blood, we managed to reject his ideas.
2
@lloydgush " *Same can vary in degree." Of course. So the whole paradox, or lack of thereof, comes from using different definitions of sameness. If you try to be strict, or just think in long timeframes, nothing ever stays the same, at least in macroscales. Then we have a paradox, where the only persistent feature is the change itself. TiK is like: "Don't be silly. The definition of a river assumes flowing water, so it's the same river all right." Well, rivers change over time. Because they are flowing.
1
@lloydgush That's what Heraclitus said, that change is the only permanent feature of the Universe. He considered it a paradox, and on some level, he was correct. TiK said that it was silly, because "you can get into the same river twice". But you can't, since rivers change over time, so Heraclitus was more correct than TiK. What I said, my original thought, was that paradoxes like that stem from our misunderstanding of logic. We still tend to think in terms of boolean logic (true or false, no in-betweens), while a diffused set logic (truth, in-betweens, falsehood) fits much better to how we use language.
1
@lloydgush Heraclitus could see change everywhere and it never stopped. What other word fits this phenomenon better than a constant?
1
@nickkorkodylas5005 " practical conventions " It's philosophy. It's not supposed to be practical.
1
@ДушманКакдела " the driving force of most human endeavor " Humanity exists for at least 240 000 years. When represented on a face of a clock, philosophy was invented 3 minutes to midnight. How come we managed for all the rest of the time?
1
@ДушманКакдела You guys tend to claim everything and take responsibility for nothing. Very convenient and very dangerous. BTW - I definitely do not see philosophy as any sort of progression, definitely not a linear progression. In my opinion, you did not progress much at all since Socrates.
1
@ДушманКакдела " what are you even trying to convey " My disappointment, bordering on disdain, with philosophy. " Would you mind explaining? " Socrates established the goal of philosophy, as the pursue of truth. He established the method, as the inquisitive dialog. That all worked well enough, until the sophists figured out that they can win a debate without necessarily being correct, and the cynics figured out that they can claim pursuing virtue while actively breaking all social norms. And there we are today. The same stuff. The concept of objective truth is being questioned, the concept of objective morals is being rejected, no progress whatsoever.
1
@ДушманКакдела " established dialectic, thats it " Why, though? To make people think and discover what's true, not? Because truth has inherent value, abstract from any material gain (this cave thingy). " Philosophical thought is essential to a rational, conscious mind " Explain postmodernism. " you believe in a linear path of progression " Are you even listening to me? I already explained that I don't believe that philosophy progressed at all. If you are going to blatantly ignore what I say, there is no point in continuing this exchange. " you yourself, philosphize " I never claimed, and never thought, that absolutely all of it was bad. Just pretty much all of it.
1
@ДушманКакдела " Socrates did not intend to "make" people discover what is true " Why would he talk to a random shoemaker on the streets? " Fundamental truth [...] is the fundamental basis of all of our physical sciences " That's false. Sciences came out of crafts, not from philosophy. Craftsmen discover local (as opposed to fundamental) truths and make use of them to build pyramids, that sort of stuff. Sciences use the same way of thinking. "It's only true if it works, and if it works very well, it's likely (albeit not certainly) true". " What do you mean by "Post-modernism" " Utter filth.
1
@ДушманКакдела " Socrates did not intend to "make" people discover what is true " Why would he talk to a random shoemaker on the streets? " Fundamental truth that is [...] basis of all of our physical sciences " I don't think so. Sciences have more in common with crafts, where truths are local, not fundamental. Objective, but not absolute. Like, geometry can be used to measure physical objects, but the theorems rely on axioms, which are pretty much assumptions. " You believe that philosophy was invented " Yes, invented or created. It's not like they discovered anything, after all. " You seem to have an extremely reductionist view " That could be true. Is that a bad thing?
1
@makkyjay5905 " All cultures, ethics and political theories are fictions " The biologists manage to systematically study altruism as it exists in nature, not as a fiction. Monarchy is a "political theory", which is still present. Various forms of democratic governance existed in reality likely as long as humans themselves. So it's not "all fiction, bro". With that said, libertarianism is an actual utopia. Just like socialism, anarchism and other unrealistic ideas. Those are fictions, but it doesn't make every other political position equally fictitious.
1