German thinkers are extremely dangerous - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#15154101
Potemkin wrote:Most of those 'American' thinkers were actually German thinkers.

Discuss. :)

America relies a great deal on a brain drain from other nations to achieve much of ktw technological and thus economic and political strength.
Even today it is educated migrants which constitute a lot of their best and brightest and makes me wonder about the make up of some of the worlds best universities and how likely one is from a long time American family.

Perhaps the American side of things is also a tendency for the brash and crude use of military force where as the British, although quite brutal seem to be sneakier in their use of intelligence agencies and the sort.
So the danger is the potential any such thinker has in such a country as the US?
#15154106
Thinkers don't make bombs. They just acquire the knowledge to make one through education and experimentation. Governments finance this knowledge to an arms company from their data. So Oppenheimer isn't really the destroyer of world's and I suspect he would rather his knowledge been put into power plants or submarines than in weapons in any case. So to answer the question, Germans, Americans or whatever thinkers are not dangerous. Progress is dangerous. Or more specifically progress in the form of knowledge is dangerous. And what is really dangerous. Governments who acquire that knowledge. Discuss.
#15154109
Potemkin wrote:Most of those 'American' thinkers were actually German thinkers.

Discuss. :)


I'm not surprised you would that.

They may have had the scientific genius to master the science, but it took the perfidy of Anglo-Americans to turn it into a weapon by pretending that the Nazis were developing the bomb, which the British intelligence service knew wasn't true.

@B0ycey, scientists have a responsibility for the science they develop. While German scientists fully supported the war effort during WWI, for example by developing poison gas and the Haber-Bosch process, many German scientists went into external or internal exile during WWII because they did not want to serve another war.

Unfortunately, this reversal of thinking has not taken place in the Anglosphere. Too many scientists are still fully behind the war effort.
#15154114
I think I found the inspiration for this thread:

Germany Must Perish!

Germany Must Perish! is a 104-page book written by Theodore N. Kaufman, which he self-published in 1941 in the United States. The book advocated genocide through the sterilization of all Germans and the territorial dismemberment of Germany, believing that this would achieve world peace. Kaufman founded the Argyle Press in Newark, New Jersey, United States, in order to publish this book. He was the sole proprietor of the Argyle Press and it is not known to have published any other works.

The Nazi Party used the book, written by a Jewish author, to support their argument that Jews were plotting against their country....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish%21

Always important to be looking for scapegoats. :roll:
#15154123
@late

late wrote:Things were less formal back then.

"It has become fashionable to think that Karl Marx was not mainly an economist but instead integrated various disciplines—economics, sociology, political science, history, and so on—into his philosophy. But Mark Blaug, a noted historian of economic thought, points out that Marx wrote “no more than a dozen pages on the concept of social class, the theory of the state, and the materialist conception of history” while he wrote “literally 10,000 pages on economics pure and simple.”

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Marx.html



The source you have provided comes from an authoritative source, so you have made your case. I have changed my position from Karl Marx not being an economist to being an economist but a bad economist. So we can rate the claim that Karl Marx was an economist is true given the evidence you have presented from an authoritative source to support that claim.
#15154129
Politics_Observer wrote:I have changed my position from Karl Marx not being an economist to being an economist but a bad economist.


How opinions differ. I only consider Marx and economist. And economist who happened to be Socialist (and not Communist). But not only was he an economist, but the best economist there ever was who saw things over a century ago that current economists cannot see today.
#15154131
@B0ycey

Yup, you are correct, my opinion that Marx was a bad economist is just an opinion. However, the statement that Karl Marx was an economist can be rated as true and thus a fact and not an opinion given the evidence available from authoritative sources.
#15154134
Politics_Observer wrote:@B0ycey

Yup, you are correct, my opinion that Marx was a bad economist is just an opinion. However, the statement that Karl Marx was an economist can be rated as true and thus a fact and not an opinion given the evidence available from authoritative sources.


I assume you are aware of Das Kapital? That is an economic pure and simple. And the Communist manifesto was a commissioned pamphlet that he happens to write. But the focus is on the pamphlet as Das Kapital focuses on the bad things of Capitalism and that is against the Western narrative.
#15154141
@B0ycey

My opinion is that Karl Marx was a great philosopher and did a good job of critiquing the dark side of capitalism, but he wasn't a very good economist. So, that's my personal assessment and opinion of Karl Marx and his work. Even though I have never read Das Kapital, I have never read Mein Kampf either. But I know that Hitler's ideas were terrible ideas and I also know that some of Karl Marx's economic ideas were terrible too given the results when put into practice in the real world. I don't have to have read either book to know if their political philosophy or economic philosophy were terrible given the evidence available in the real world when their ideas were put into practice. I think experience is a form of knowledge as well as it correlates to how those ideas turned out when put into practice in the real world.
#15154144
Politics_Observer wrote:@B0ycey

My opinion is that Karl Marx was a great philosopher and did a good job of critiquing the dark side of capitalism, but he wasn't a very good economist. So, that's my personal assessment and opinion of Karl Marx and his work.


I'm not here to correct you or even change your mind. But philosophy is free thinking which in terms of Marx was all about the explaination of something to do with Capitalism. And economics is the study of Capitalism. Or it is in terms of today's society. But Marx went beyond Capitalism when he looked at economics. Which means he went beyond what most economists do. Most economists look at the yeild of Macro or Micro economics. Very few look at its foundations, pitfalls or its future. So at the very least he was an excellent economists even if you don't like what he concluded. If I can change you mind on that I think that would be all I can do. But these are opinions and that is all they are I guess.
Last edited by B0ycey on 01 Feb 2021 16:23, edited 1 time in total.
#15154145
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/articles/school-learn.pdf
I cannot but recall here the wise words spoken not long ago by one old mathematician. Deliberating on the causes of the inadequate culture of mathematical (and not only mathematical) thinking among secondary school graduates over recent years, he gave the following extraordinarily accurate characterization of these causes: curricula contain “too much that is finally established,” too many “absolute truths.” This is precisely why students, grown accustomed to “swallowing the roast grouse of absolute science,” are then unable to find their way to objective truth, to the “thing” itself.
This too sounds, as it were, “paradoxical.” However, the mathematician’s words are as simple as they are true:

I recall my own schooldays. We were taught literature by a very erudite fol- lower of Belinsky. And we grew accustomed to looking at Pushkin through his eyes—that is, through Belinsky’s eyes. Regarding all the teacher told us about Pushkin as beyond doubt, we too saw in Pushkin only what he told us—and nothing more. . . . So it remained until by chance I happened to come across an article by Pisarev. It threw me into confusion. What is this? Everything was turned upside down and still convincing. What was I to do? And only then did I turn my attention to Pushkin himself. Only then did I myself discover his true beauty and profundity. And only then did I understand—for real and not in scholastic fashion—both Belinsky and Pisarev.

And this, of course, applies not only to Pushkin. How many people have left school for adult life having memorized “indubitable” propositions about Pushkin from textbooks and contenting themselves with that! Naturally, a person who has swallowed his fill of “the roast grouse of absolute science” no longer wants to look at live grouse flying in the sky. After all, it is no secret that very many people had any desire to read Pushkin knocked out of them precisely during literature lessons at secondary school—and not only Pushkin.
#15154169
Politics_Observer wrote:@late




The source you have provided comes from an authoritative source, so you have made your case. I have changed my position from Karl Marx not being an economist to being an economist but a bad economist. So we can rate the claim that Karl Marx was an economist is true given the evidence you have presented from an authoritative source to support that claim.

Lol. :lol:
#15154184
Rugoz wrote:Well, it's good to know everybody has an opinion about Marx without having read any of his work. :up:

Exactly! :up: :D
#15154186
@Potemkin

Potemkin wrote:Lol. :lol:


What is so funny about that? If somebody argues their claim and is able to present evidence from an authoritative source that counter-acts my claim don't I have a duty and obligation to change my position to fit the reality of the situation in light of new evidence that was unknown to me prior? Aren't we all obligated to do the same? Or should we stick to argue claims and positions that have been disproven in light of new evidence that counter-act and disproves our claims and position? Wouldn't that be foolish to do so?

@Potemkin @Rugoz

Rugoz wrote:Well, it's good to know everybody has an opinion about Marx without having read any of his work. :up:


Have both of you read Mien Kampf? If not, do you both have an opinion on Hitler's ideas? What would those opinions be?
#15154192
Politics_Observer wrote:What is so funny about that? If somebody argues their claim and is able to present evidence from an authoritative source that counter-acts my claim don't I have a duty and obligation to change my position to fit the reality of the situation in light of new evidence that was unknown to me prior? Aren't we all obligated to do the same? Or should we stick to argue claims and positions that have been disproven in light of new evidence that counter-act and disproves our claims and position? Wouldn't that be foolish to do so?

It's a logical fallacy, @Politics_Observer.

Argument from authority

For lo!, the great authority Wikipedia wrote:Arguments from authority that are based on the idea that a person should conform to the opinion of a perceived authority or authoritative group are rooted in psychological cognitive biases[39] such as the Asch effect.[40][41] In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect.[42]

Further, humans have been shown to feel strong emotional pressure to conform to authorities and majority positions. A repeat of the experiments by another group of researchers found that "Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure", with 59% conforming at least once and agreeing with the clearly incorrect answer, whereas the incorrect answer was much more rarely given when no such pressures were present.[43]

Another study shining light on the psychological basis of the fallacy as it relates to perceived authorities are the Milgram experiments, which demonstrated that people are more likely to go along with something when it is presented by an authority.[44] In a variation of a study where the researchers did not wear lab coats, thus reducing the perceived authority of the tasker, the obedience level dropped to 20% from the original rate, which had been higher than 50%. Obedience is encouraged by reminding the individual of what a perceived authority states and by showing them that their opinion goes against this authority.[44]

Scholars have noted that certain environments can produce an ideal situation for these processes to take hold, giving rise to groupthink.[45] In groupthink, individuals in a group feel inclined to minimize conflict and encourage conformity. Through an appeal to authority, a group member might present that opinion as a consensus and encourage the other group members to engage in groupthink by not disagreeing with this perceived consensus or authority.[46][47] One paper about the philosophy of mathematics notes that, within academia,

If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit.[48]

Corporate environments are similarly vulnerable to appeals to perceived authorities and experts leading to groupthink,[49] as are governments and militaries.[50]

:)
#15154204
Politics_Observer wrote:@B0ycey

My opinion is that Karl Marx was a great philosopher and did a good job of critiquing the dark side of capitalism, but he wasn't a very good economist. So, that's my personal assessment and opinion of Karl Marx and his work. Even though I have never read Das Kapital, I have never read Mein Kampf either. But I know that Hitler's ideas were terrible ideas and I also know that some of Karl Marx's economic ideas were terrible too given the results when put into practice in the real world. I don't have to have read either book to know if their political philosophy or economic philosophy were terrible given the evidence available in the real world when their ideas were put into practice. I think experience is a form of knowledge as well as it correlates to how those ideas turned out when put into practice in the real world.


I used the phrase "great economist" for want of a better term to designate Marx as thinker who had written about economic matters and not a philosopher of ethics, metaphysics, or whatever. He was "great" in the sense that he had a great influence. That you, @Rugoz or @Potemkin should use this expression for pedantic nitpicking is not my fault. Whether you or I approve of his idea is also besides the point.

Anyways, to claim that Karl Marx was "terrible" or a "dangerous thinker" because Communism ended in the Gulag and the degradation of hundreds of millions of Europeans and Asians is a fallacy. You can't blame Marx for the Gulag just as you can't blame Jesus for the crusades.
#15154208
Wellsy wrote:I cannot but recall here the wise words spoken not long ago by one old mathematician. Deliberating on the causes of the inadequate culture of mathematical (and not only mathematical) thinking among secondary school graduates over recent years, he gave the following extraordinarily accurate characterization of these causes: curricula contain “too much that is finally established,” too many “absolute truths.” This is precisely why students, grown accustomed to “swallowing the roast grouse of absolute science,” are then unable to find their way to objective truth, to the “thing” itself.
This too sounds, as it were, “paradoxical.” However, the mathematician’s words are as simple as they are true:

I recall my own schooldays. We were taught literature by a very erudite fol- lower of Belinsky. And we grew accustomed to looking at Pushkin through his eyes—that is, through Belinsky’s eyes. Regarding all the teacher told us about Pushkin as beyond doubt, we too saw in Pushkin only what he told us—and nothing more. . . . So it remained until by chance I happened to come across an article by Pisarev. It threw me into confusion. What is this? Everything was turned upside down and still convincing. What was I to do? And only then did I turn my attention to Pushkin himself. Only then did I myself discover his true beauty and profundity. And only then did I understand—for real and not in scholastic fashion—both Belinsky and Pisarev.

And this, of course, applies not only to Pushkin. How many people have left school for adult life having memorized “indubitable” propositions about Pushkin from textbooks and contenting themselves with that! Naturally, a person who has swallowed his fill of “the roast grouse of absolute science” no longer wants to look at live grouse flying in the sky. After all, it is no secret that very many people had any desire to read Pushkin knocked out of them precisely during literature lessons at secondary school—and not only Pushkin.


That takes us back to our discussion about "rational thinking" versus "intuitive thinking".

Rational thinking here is learning academic views about Pushkin. But to really appreciate Pushkin, we have to empty the mind of our conditioning and have a new look at him without the text book learning.

I can't exactly remember our previous discussion, but I had the impression that you limited human knowledge to rational knowledge and discounted the possibility of intuitive knowledge. Obviously, intuitive knowledge doesn't mean that we can look deep into the secrete of the universe to know the lottery numbers before the draw. Intuitive knowledge is without the profit motive. To function for our own profit we need rational thinking, the ability to add fact to fact and draw conclusions.

But that's just the outer shell of our existence. Our rational thought is informed by the universal unconscious at every instant. To catch an unexpected glimpse of the beauty of Pushkin is a glimpse of the universal mind. Just a short and fleeting glimpse that's gone before our consciousness can catch hold of it.

Humans need both rational and intuitive thinking in the right proportion. Erudition is needed to navigate our way around the categories of human knowledge and letting go of erudition to return to the source. It's perhaps that what Nicolas de Cusa called "erudite ignorance."
#15154212
QatzelOk wrote:I think I found the inspiration for this thread:

Germany Must Perish!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Must_Perish%21


This March 1941 book--written by a New Jersey Jewish-German émigré--caused a storm in Germany and America with its open advocacy of the physical extermination of all Germans and Germany itself. This was to be achieved through a process of mass sterilization, and the physical dismemberment of that country.

Arguing that Nazism was in fact just another expression of militant Germanism, the author said that the Germans would never change and the only way to end the ongoing struggle was to end Germany and the German people.

Because of Kaufman's claimed links to the policy advisors of the American president, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels used the book to help encourage Germans to fight to the last.

Ironically, significant sections of Kaufman's book, despite being dismissed as the work of a loner, came true. At least 12 million Germans were expelled from their land following the end of the war, and their deportation became the single largest transfer of any population in modern European history, and one-third of German territory was ethnically cleansed of Germans and permanently seized.

Although the sterilization plan was never implemented, the collapse in the German birth rate, predicted by the author, has occurred, and even this part of the plan seems set to become reality.

As the author wrote: "Of course, after complete sterilization, there will cease to be a birth rate in Germany. At the normal death rate of 2 per cent per annum, German life will diminish at the rate of 1,500,000 yearly. Accordingly in the span of two generations that which cost millions of lives and centuries of useless effort, namely, the elimination of Germanism and its carriers, will have been an accomplished fact."

A SENSATIONAL IDEA! --Time Magazine

A PLAN FOR PERMANENT PEACE AMONG CIVILIZED NATIONS! --New York Times

This is an exact reproduction of the 1941 original, digitally reprocessed to the highest standards.


https://www.ebay.com/p/12038429527?noro ... 42eca8d7f9
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

Blah blah. If Russia uses nukes, the rest of the […]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]