"The essence of logical positivism is to deny the cognitive value of a priori knowledge by pointing out that all a priori propositions are merely analytic. They do not provide new information,

but are merely verbal or tautological, asserting what has already been implied in the definitions and premises. Only experience can lead to synthetic propositions. There is an obvious objection against this doctrine, viz., that this proposition that there are no synthetic a priori propositions is in itself a—as the present writer

thinks, false—synthetic a priori proposition, for it can manifestly not be established by experience."

Economics

>>2404526

https://mises.org/library/ultimate-foundation-economic-science

The birth of virtue signalling:

"Karl Marx never made much money himself. He received some

money as a regular contributor to The New York Tribune. But he was

almost completely supported by his friend Engels. Marx was not

a proletarian; he was the son of a well-to-do lawyer. His wife, Mrs. Karl

Marx [Jenny von Westphalen, 1814–1881], was the daughter of a

high Prussian Junker. And Marx’s brother-in-law was the head of the

Prussian police.

Thus, these two men, Marx and Engels, who claimed that the

proletarian mind was different from the mind of the bourgeoisie, were in

an awkward position. So they included a passage in the Communist

Manifesto to explain: “When the time comes, some members of the

bourgeoisie join the rising classes.” However, if it is possible for some men

to free themselves from the law of class interests, then the law is no longer

a general law.

Marx’s idea was that the material productive forces lead men from

one stage to another, until they reach socialism, which is the end and the

height of it all. Marx said socialism cannot be planned in advance; history

will take care of it. In Marx’s view, those who say how socialism will work

are just “utopians.”

Socialism was already defeated intellectually at the time Marx wrote.

Marx answered his critics by saying that those who were in opposition

were only “bourgeois.” He said there was no need to defeat his opponents’

arguments, but only to unmask their bourgeois background. And as their

doctrine was only bourgeois ideology, it was not necessary to deal with

it. This would mean that no bourgeois could write anything in favor

of socialism. Thus, all such writers were anxious to prove they were

proletarians. It might be appropriate to mention at this time also that the

ancestor of French socialism, Saint-Simon,4 was a descendant of a famous

family of dukes and counts."

The birth of left versus right mental prison:

"When Marx published his writings, German thought was dominated

by George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel [1770–1831], professor at the

University of Berlin. Hegel had developed the doctrine of the

philosophical evolution of history. In some respect his ideas were different

from, even the very opposite to, those of Marx. Hegel was the man who

4 [Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon [1760–1825]—Ed.]

9

M I N D, M AT E R I A L I S M , A N D T H E F AT E O F MAN

destroyed German thinking and German philosophy for more than a

century, at least. He found a warning in Immanuel Kant [1724–1804] who

said the philosophy of history can only be written by a man who has the

courage to pretend that he sees the world with the eyes of God. Hegel

believed he had the “eyes of God,” that he knew the end of history, that he

knew the plans of God. He said Geist (mind) develops itself and manifests

itself in the course of historical evolution.Therefore, the course of history

is inevitably progress from less satisfactory to more satisfactory conditions.

In 1825, Hegel said that we have reached a wonderful state of affairs.

He considered the Prussian kingdom of Friedrich Wilhelm III

[1770–1840] and the Prussian Union Church as the perfection of secular

and spiritual government. Marx said, as Hegel had, that there was history

in the past, but there will be no history anymore when we have reached a

state that is satisfactory.Thus, Marx adopted the Hegelian system, although

he used material productive forces instead of Geist. Material productive

forces go through various stages.The present stage is very bad, but there is

one thing in its favor––it is the necessary preliminary stage for the

appearance of the perfect state of socialism. And socialism is just around

the corner.

Hegel was called the philosopher of Prussian absolutism. He died in

1. His school thought in terms of left and right wings. (The left didn’t

like the Prussian government and the Prussian Union Church.) This

distinction between the left and the right has existed since then. In the

French Parliament, those who didn’t like the king’s government were

seated on the left side of the assembly hall. Today no one wants to sit on

the right.

Originally, i.e., before Karl Marx, the term “right” meant the

supporters of representative government and civil liberties, as opposed to

the “left” who favored royal absolutism and the absence of civil rights.The

appearance of socialist ideas changed the meaning of these terms. Some of

the “left” have been outspoken in expressing their views. For instance, Plato

[427–347 BC] was frank in stating that a philosopher shall rule. And

Auguste Comte [1798–1857] said that freedom was necessary in the past

because it made it possible for him to publish his books, but now that these

books have been published there is no longer any need for freedom. And

in the same way Etienne Cabet [1788–1856] spoke of three classes of

books––the bad books, which should be burned; the intermediate books,

which should be amended; and the remaining “good” books. Therefore,

there was great confusion as to the civil liberties to be assigned to the citizens of the socialist state. This was because Marxian ideas did not

develop in countries which had civil liberties, but in countries in which

the people did not have civil liberties."

The birth of left versus right mental prison:

"When Marx published his writings, German thought was dominated

by George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel [1770–1831], professor at the

University of Berlin. Hegel had developed the doctrine of the

philosophical evolution of history. In some respect his ideas were different

from, even the very opposite to, those of Marx. Hegel was the man who destroyed German thinking and German philosophy for more than a century, at least. He found a warning in Immanuel Kant [1724–1804] who

said the philosophy of history can only be written by a man who has the

courage to pretend that he sees the world with the eyes of God. Hegel

believed he had the “eyes of God,” that he knew the end of history, that he

knew the plans of God. He said Geist (mind) develops itself and manifests

itself in the course of historical evolution.Therefore, the course of history

is inevitably progress from less satisfactory to more satisfactory conditions.

In 1825, Hegel said that we have reached a wonderful state of affairs.

He considered the Prussian kingdom of Friedrich Wilhelm III

[1770–1840] and the Prussian Union Church as the perfection of secular

and spiritual government. Marx said, as Hegel had, that there was history

in the past, but there will be no history anymore when we have reached a

state that is satisfactory.Thus, Marx adopted the Hegelian system, although

he used material productive forces instead of Geist. Material productive

forces go through various stages.The present stage is very bad, but there is

one thing in its favor––it is the necessary preliminary stage for the

appearance of the perfect state of socialism. And socialism is just around

the corner.

Hegel was called the philosopher of Prussian absolutism. He died in

1. His school thought in terms of left and right wings. (The left didn’t

like the Prussian government and the Prussian Union Church.) This

distinction between the left and the right has existed since then. In the

French Parliament, those who didn’t like the king’s government were

seated on the left side of the assembly hall. Today no one wants to sit on

the right.

Originally, i.e., before Karl Marx, the term “right” meant the

supporters of representative government and civil liberties, as opposed to

the “left” who favored royal absolutism and the absence of civil rights.The

appearance of socialist ideas changed the meaning of these terms. Some of

the “left” have been outspoken in expressing their views. For instance, Plato

[427–347 BC] was frank in stating that a philosopher shall rule. And

Auguste Comte [1798–1857] said that freedom was necessary in the past

because it made it possible for him to publish his books, but now that these

books have been published there is no longer any need for freedom. And

in the same way Etienne Cabet [1788–1856] spoke of three classes of

books––the bad books, which should be burned; the intermediate books,

which should be amended; and the remaining “good” books. Therefore,

there was great confusion as to the civil liberties to be assigned to the citizens of the socialist state. This was because Marxian ideas did not

develop in countries which had civil liberties, but in countries in which

the people did not have civil liberties."

"Nikolai Bukharin [1888–1938], a Communist author who lived in a

Communist country, wrote a pamphlet in 19175, in which he said, we

asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past

because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer.

Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil

liberties. [Bukharin was tried and condemned to death in the Moscow

Purge Trial of March 1938.] If Mr. Bukharin had been an American

Communist, he would probably still be alive and free to write more

pamphlets about why freedom is not necessary."

"These peculiarities of Marxian philosophy can only be explained by

the fact that Marx, although living in Great Britain, was not dealing with

conditions in Great Britain, where he felt civil liberties were no longer

needed, but with the conditions in Germany, France, Italy, and so on,

where civil liberties were still needed. Thus we see that the distinction

between right and left, which had meaning in the days of the French

Revolution, no longer has any meaning."

>>2405199

"This is not about religion, but good versus evil" - Q

You stupid fucking joofag