It kind of sucks because you could have an interesting clash of ideas with someone who disagrees with the material basis of ideas. It'd sound like a debate about whether math is invented or discovered. If ideas are before material conditions and ideals will outlive any condition, then it would imply the existence of an objectively superior leader who is wisest regardless of the circumstances they find themselves in. We'd owe Aaron Sorkin an apology. You'd have to reread Berserk and say that Griffith did nothing wrong. You'd have a Calvanist world where some people are chosen by fate to lead. Truly, the divine right of kings would be back on the menu. The most correct monarch would be protected by God in battle and their people would be the chosen people. Then when barbarians overrun them and they think back to their former glory, they realize that a new leader has been reborn from the ashes who needs to lead them to repel the invaders and interlopers. They'd be justified in concentrating the unworthy and disposing of them. And they would have gotten away with it if communists hadn't saved the world from fascism.
The person obviously has a problem with not understanding that the same term can have different meanings and as such concepts. This is one obvious flaw. A good question could be to ask why do they have this misconception? I blame the book worship of dictionaries and the status that is given to them in schools over the course of 10-20 years. They are introduced as arbiter of what is to be said and what is wrong. Which is obviously actively marginalizing non standard opinion (and arguable is actually creating the standard in the first place even against the will of the majority of kids/students).
Even from that little could they create a wrong understanding within the US imperial core in regards to Marxism and Idealism. However the audacity (is it lack of knowledge?) to claim that experts are not aware what marxism, idealism, materialism is? Audacity!
However their :ideology: of a trashcan shows. They are :lib-brained:. Lib is when people do good stuff and good stuff is stuff I agree with. Lib according to them isn't what Libs do and not a category of analytical importance but of shifting moral weights.
The contradiction between what they think liberal thought is and the action of liberals in the US is not explainable. Neoliberalism doesn't explain it enough. This is a prime example of one kind of false conscious.
Maybe they just want to avoid the topic. You could call them phleb and wub, Marxists are phleb and believe that the bringer of progress in history comes from material conditions if they don't want to get hung up on the language.
It kind of sucks because you could have an interesting clash of ideas with someone who disagrees with the material basis of ideas. It'd sound like a debate about whether math is invented or discovered. If ideas are before material conditions and ideals will outlive any condition, then it would imply the existence of an objectively superior leader who is wisest regardless of the circumstances they find themselves in. We'd owe Aaron Sorkin an apology. You'd have to reread Berserk and say that Griffith did nothing wrong. You'd have a Calvanist world where some people are chosen by fate to lead. Truly, the divine right of kings would be back on the menu. The most correct monarch would be protected by God in battle and their people would be the chosen people. Then when barbarians overrun them and they think back to their former glory, they realize that a new leader has been reborn from the ashes who needs to lead them to repel the invaders and interlopers. They'd be justified in concentrating the unworthy and disposing of them. And they would have gotten away with it if communists hadn't saved the world from fascism.
Just focusing on:
The person obviously has a problem with not understanding that the same term can have different meanings and as such concepts. This is one obvious flaw. A good question could be to ask why do they have this misconception? I blame the book worship of dictionaries and the status that is given to them in schools over the course of 10-20 years. They are introduced as arbiter of what is to be said and what is wrong. Which is obviously actively marginalizing non standard opinion (and arguable is actually creating the standard in the first place even against the will of the majority of kids/students).
Even from that little could they create a wrong understanding within the US imperial core in regards to Marxism and Idealism. However the audacity (is it lack of knowledge?) to claim that experts are not aware what marxism, idealism, materialism is? Audacity!
However their :ideology:
of a trashcan shows. They are :lib-brained:. Lib is when people do good stuff and good stuff is stuff I agree with. Lib according to them isn't what Libs do and not a category of analytical importance but of shifting moral weights.
The contradiction between what they think liberal thought is and the action of liberals in the US is not explainable. Neoliberalism doesn't explain it enough. This is a prime example of one kind of false conscious.
Maybe they just want to avoid the topic. You could call them phleb and wub, Marxists are phleb and believe that the bringer of progress in history comes from material conditions if they don't want to get hung up on the language.
CW rick and morty and youtube How a plumbus is made
Sorry, I was hoping for random words with no meaning.