The only valid criticism of Marx as a philosopher must be that he was too involved in human affairs (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago

He is too practical, too much wrapped up in the problems of his time.

Since Copernicus, it has been evident that Man has not the cosmic importance which he formerly arrogated to himself.

So you're not supposed to philosophize on matters pertaining to humans and their practical problems nor of "cosmic importance." What exactly are you supposed to philosophize about?

[-] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago

Number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin

[-] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

The only non-joke answer I could think of is aesthetics. So, philosophers should be nothing more than glorified art critics.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 6 months ago

Modern western philosophy is glorified art critics but with tenure

[-] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago

Apparently, this is Bertrand Russell, so it makes a lot more sense. I guess philosophers are supposed to only concern themselves with formal logic and writing three volume works to prove 1+1=2. That and critiquing movies you haven't seen like Zizek.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Modern aesthetics are concerned with human experience and material realities,especially when it comes to taste and smell aesthetics.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

You philosophize about how many Germans does it take to change a lightbulb

this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024

55 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13198 readers

375 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]