I think we're about five months behind the US on the release date, but Coud Atlas is pretty fucking good you guys. Well worth seeing.
I heard only very average responses, but maybe this is worth a look.
Good even without having read the book?
I found Cloud Atlas extremely predictable, and well, cramming 6 time periods into one movie doesn't really give you an opportunity to approach an old idea in a new and interesting way.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I thought the book suffered from having some time periods be wildly more interesting than others. I also find this is almost always a problem with "multiple disconnected but parallel thread" storylines in general.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The irony of what is happening in the NCAA thread is delicious.
well, I was mostly trying to be funny. If you don't like the c-word, I understand.
That isn't the banned word here, though. That one starts with n.
I am still pissed that it isn't the standard word in English.
how do you mean?
I am under the impression that all permutations of the n-word are banned, from slang spellings to standard. Is that not correct?
or is that not what you're talking about?
Tamin
I am talking about cunt here, which is a better word than vagina for a whole host of reasons. Etymologically it's better and less dumb, also vagina is infuriating because it refers to a specific channel rather than the reproductive stuff as a whole, and so on.
...yeah. I'm really pissed that it's a dirty word because I dislike the word vagina even if the plural vaginae is amusing.
Marx's prescriptions for social organization (and, hey, his labor theory of value) are separable from his theory of history. You don't have to think communism is the way forward or that capital is theft in order to benefit from examining social forces and explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of society with respect to the means of production.
That's not entirely true. The predictions that a theory makes are part of the theory (the most important part!). He wasn't saying, 'here are the forces that shape history, and now here's what we should do', but 'here are the forces that shape history, and the result of that will be'.
Though small h, m historical materialism is pretty appealing, as far as theories of history go.
Marx was confused about a lot of things, including his predictions, which is why modern standard bearers have to amend the theory. And, contra Popper, being amended by modern standard-bearers in response to refuted predictions does not ipso facto render a theory bankrupt.
I make no claims about bankruptcy, and I'm no student of marxist theories, past or present. Just disputing the notion that the predictions that a theory makes are separable from the theory. Sure you can amend a theory to make new predictions using the same framework, but it's now a slightly (or very) different theory, and you can only fail to produce successful predictions so many times before you start to wonder what good the framework is doing you.
well, I was mostly trying to be funny. If you don't like the c-word, I understand.
That isn't the banned word here, though. That one starts with n.
I am still pissed that it isn't the standard word in English.
how do you mean?
I am under the impression that all permutations of the n-word are banned, from slang spellings to standard. Is that not correct?
or is that not what you're talking about?
Tamin
I am talking about cunt here, which is a better word than vagina for a whole host of reasons. Etymologically it's better and less dumb, also vagina is infuriating because it refers to a specific channel rather than the reproductive stuff as a whole, and so on.
...yeah. I'm really pissed that it's a dirty word because I dislike the word vagina even if the plural vaginae is amusing.
Marx's prescriptions for social organization (and, hey, his labor theory of value) are separable from his theory of history. You don't have to think communism is the way forward or that capital is theft in order to benefit from examining social forces and explaining social change, past and present, in terms of the organization of society with respect to the means of production.
That's not entirely true. The predictions that a theory makes are part of the theory (the most important part!). He wasn't saying, 'here are the forces that shape history, and now here's what we should do', but 'here are the forces that shape history, and the result of that will be'.
Though small h, m historical materialism is pretty appealing, as far as theories of history go.
Marx was confused about a lot of things, including his predictions, which is why modern standard bearers have to amend the theory. And, contra Popper, being amended by modern standard-bearers in response to refuted predictions does not ipso facto render a theory bankrupt.
I make no claims about bankruptcy, and I'm no student of marxist theories, past or present. Just disputing the notion that the predictions that a theory makes are separable from the theory. Sure you can amend a theory to make new predictions using the same framework, but it's now a slightly (or very) different theory, and you can only fail to produce successful predictions so many times before you start to wonder what good the framework is doing you.
I'm pretty fine with all of this.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Hmm, I should see if, as a staff member, I have access to JSTOR and EBSCO articles. If so I should refine my essays from last year.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
maybe today- to shake things up a little bit from all the times i try to get someone to suck my dick- i will try and suck a dick. gotta keep life fresh and exciting.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I would give this student full fucking credit for this answer.
+7
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
maybe today- to shake things up a little bit from all the times i try to get someone to suck my dick- i will try and suck a dick. gotta keep life fresh and exciting.
Be careful, you wouldn't want to go from bi-curious to bi-furious.
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
well, yes. but if you are willing to tear into the classical economic framework that underpins marx, there is very little reason not to simply follow the people who already did exactly that and arrived, after half a century, at the neoclassical framework. the alternative research pathway that was marx should have died there and then
now neoclassical econ suffers from a vast array of falsifiability problems (to say the least), but it at least already sharply penalizes a certain kind of just-so story, where everything you like is Oppressed and everything you dislike is the Oppressor. and it obliges some rigour about concepts, so "exploitation" becomes "difference between marginal productivity and wages" and "globalization" becomes "equalization in factor prices" - rather than, say, a black box into which one shoves all of one's pet hatreds.
I think we're about five months behind the US on the release date, but Coud Atlas is pretty fucking good you guys. Well worth seeing.
I heard only very average responses, but maybe this is worth a look.
Good even without having read the book?
Not sure. I was able to fill in some blanks having read the book, but the wife liked it as well. She heard a gaggle of ladies in the loo who sounded as though they were on less solid ground.
"Hmmm, that was a lot to take in, and not really what i was expecting. Did you like it?"
"I think so."
I think it's taken some stick because it is, at heart, a fairly sincere appeal for people to be nicer to each other (as the book is), but it doesn't have the room to go into it in as much depth, so it ends up leaning a little more heavily on getting the message across via emotion. It's still hugely ambitious, and feels, to these tired old eyes, like an attempt at something different and new.
Its flawed, and Tom Hanks has trouble with some accents, but its worth it just to hear him call someone a cunt.
maybe today- to shake things up a little bit from all the times i try to get someone to suck my dick- i will try and suck a dick. gotta keep life fresh and exciting.
This same thought has gone through my head in the past few months.
I am suitably impressed by a question sheet quizzing for answers on the colombian civil war, and leaving an inch and a half of space within which to answer
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I am suitably impressed by a question sheet quizzing for answers on the colombian civil war, and leaving an inch and a half of space within which to answer
Don't you know? Soundbites are the soul of wit.
0
Options
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
As I understand it, Popper's criticism of marxism isn't that it produced false predictions, but that core assertions that it makes are unfalsifiable.
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I do really like the sentiment there, if Colombia can't figure it out neither can you.
However, it is hard to tell whether that is a glib response based in deep searching of souls and into the darker recesses of neoliberalism or if the student just couldn't be fucked to think for a bit.
I thought the book suffered from having some time periods be wildly more interesting than others. I also find this is almost always a problem with "multiple disconnected but parallel thread" storylines in general.
I dunno if this is a problem, or just a natural result of the style. Same deal with Hyperion. Each story is written in a different idiom, and some are going to love the noir detective story and some are going to feel more connected to the crisis of faith the priest undergoes. And when each thread is only 80 pages long it isn't a problem that cripples the book unless you really can't bear to read the Ursula Le Guin far future story, or find your teeth grind uncontrollably at the Kingsley Amis old bugger in an old people's home.
I think we're about five months behind the US on the release date, but Coud Atlas is pretty fucking good you guys. Well worth seeing.
I heard only very average responses, but maybe this is worth a look.
Good even without having read the book?
I found Cloud Atlas extremely predictable, and well, cramming 6 time periods into one movie doesn't really give you an opportunity to approach an old idea in a new and interesting way.
I think cramming six time periods into one film is approaching an old idea in a new and interesting way. Since the whole thing is an argument for the interconnectedness of us all, showing how that works across time as well as across culture is an entirely pleasing way of looking at things.
well, I was mostly trying to be funny. If you don't like the c-word, I understand.
That isn't the banned word here, though. That one starts with n.
I am still pissed that it isn't the standard word in English.
how do you mean?
I am under the impression that all permutations of the n-word are banned, from slang spellings to standard. Is that not correct?
or is that not what you're talking about?
Tamin
I am talking about cunt here, which is a better word than vagina for a whole host of reasons. Etymologically it's better and less dumb, also vagina is infuriating because it refers to a specific channel rather than the reproductive stuff as a whole, and so on.
...yeah. I'm really pissed that it's a dirty word because I dislike the word vagina even if the plural vaginae is amusing.
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
well, yes. but if you are willing to tear into the classical economic framework that underpins marx, there is very little reason not to simply follow the people who already did exactly that and arrived, after half a century, at the neoclassical framework. the alternative research pathway that was marx should have died there and then
now neoclassical econ suffers from a vast array of falsifiability problems (to say the least), but it at least already sharply penalizes a certain kind of just-so story, where everything you like is Oppressed and everything you dislike is the Oppressor. and it obliges some rigour about concepts, so "exploitation" becomes "difference between marginal productivity and wages" and "globalization" becomes "equalization in factor prices" - rather than, say, a black box into which one shoves all of one's pet hatreds.
I'm sure there are many annoying Marxists, but I don't know that they have to be. Hearing this person explain to me e.g. changes in the Roman system of agricultural production and the way those both imposed on political ideology and forced social changes, it didn't seem important to the explanatory value of what was being said that any particular person was or was not being oppressed. I mean, you might add to the story that the slaves organized in the plantation system were oppressed, but that would be window dressing.
But, as I said, I am not myself "wrist-deep" in any of these debates and so not situated as to produce expert commentary.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
As I understand it, Popper's criticism of marxism isn't that it produced false predictions, but that core assertions that it makes are unfalsifiable.
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
well, yes. but if you are willing to tear into the classical economic framework that underpins marx, there is very little reason not to simply follow the people who already did exactly that and arrived, after half a century, at the neoclassical framework. the alternative research pathway that was marx should have died there and then
now neoclassical econ suffers from a vast array of falsifiability problems (to say the least), but it at least already sharply penalizes a certain kind of just-so story, where everything you like is Oppressed and everything you dislike is the Oppressor. and it obliges some rigour about concepts, so "exploitation" becomes "difference between marginal productivity and wages" and "globalization" becomes "equalization in factor prices" - rather than, say, a black box into which one shoves all of one's pet hatreds.
I'm sure there are many annoying Marxists, but I don't know that they have to be. Hearing this person explain to me e.g. changes in the Roman system of agricultural production and the way those both imposed on political ideology and forced social changes, it didn't seem important to the explanatory value of what was being said that any particular person was or was not being oppressed. I mean, you might add to the story that the slaves organized in the plantation system were oppressed, but that would be window dressing.
But, as I said, I am not myself "wrist-deep" in any of these debates and so not situated as to produce expert commentary.
now I am curious as to whether anyone has gone and tried to apply NIE to those contexts. the two literatures seem to emerge from schools of thought that don't talk to each other
but yes, in my own fields of interest, I am more likely to encounter Marxists of the annoying "shoo, get out of my 20th century development econ" variety
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
well, yes. but if you are willing to tear into the classical economic framework that underpins marx, there is very little reason not to simply follow the people who already did exactly that and arrived, after half a century, at the neoclassical framework. the alternative research pathway that was marx should have died there and then
now neoclassical econ suffers from a vast array of falsifiability problems (to say the least), but it at least already sharply penalizes a certain kind of just-so story, where everything you like is Oppressed and everything you dislike is the Oppressor. and it obliges some rigour about concepts, so "exploitation" becomes "difference between marginal productivity and wages" and "globalization" becomes "equalization in factor prices" - rather than, say, a black box into which one shoves all of one's pet hatreds.
I'm sure there are many annoying Marxists, but I don't know that they have to be. Hearing this person explain to me e.g. changes in the Roman system of agricultural production and the way those both imposed on political ideology and forced social changes, it didn't seem important to the explanatory value of what was being said that any particular person was or was not being oppressed. I mean, you might add to the story that the slaves organized in the plantation system were oppressed, but that would be window dressing.
But, as I said, I am not myself "wrist-deep" in any of these debates and so not situated as to produce expert commentary.
now I am curious as to whether anyone has gone and tried to apply NIE to those contexts. the two literatures seem to emerge from schools of thought that don't talk to each other
but yes, in my own fields of interest, I am more likely to encounter Marxists of the annoying "shoo, get out of my 20th century development econ" variety
While I find Marxist thought to be eminently useful in both history and literature, I have found that they have a higher likelihood of being annoying as hell, and exactly as one might expect a caricature of such a person to be.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
The second episode of Black Mirror was deeply disturbing.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
well, yes. but if you are willing to tear into the classical economic framework that underpins marx, there is very little reason not to simply follow the people who already did exactly that and arrived, after half a century, at the neoclassical framework. the alternative research pathway that was marx should have died there and then
now neoclassical econ suffers from a vast array of falsifiability problems (to say the least), but it at least already sharply penalizes a certain kind of just-so story, where everything you like is Oppressed and everything you dislike is the Oppressor. and it obliges some rigour about concepts, so "exploitation" becomes "difference between marginal productivity and wages" and "globalization" becomes "equalization in factor prices" - rather than, say, a black box into which one shoves all of one's pet hatreds.
I'm sure there are many annoying Marxists, but I don't know that they have to be. Hearing this person explain to me e.g. changes in the Roman system of agricultural production and the way those both imposed on political ideology and forced social changes, it didn't seem important to the explanatory value of what was being said that any particular person was or was not being oppressed. I mean, you might add to the story that the slaves organized in the plantation system were oppressed, but that would be window dressing.
But, as I said, I am not myself "wrist-deep" in any of these debates and so not situated as to produce expert commentary.
now I am curious as to whether anyone has gone and tried to apply NIE to those contexts. the two literatures seem to emerge from schools of thought that don't talk to each other
but yes, in my own fields of interest, I am more likely to encounter Marxists of the annoying "shoo, get out of my 20th century development econ" variety
While I find Marxist thought to be eminently useful in both history and literature, I have found that they have a higher likelihood of being annoying as hell, and exactly as one might expect a caricature of such a person to be.
they are probably less annoying when the underlying topic is only very distantly related to modern political hot-buttons
at that point, I suppose it is more useful to talk about the relative merits of "start with a production function, and derive the implied social classes and dynamics" and "start with the social classes, and derive the dynamics"
I think we're about five months behind the US on the release date, but Coud Atlas is pretty fucking good you guys. Well worth seeing.
I heard only very average responses, but maybe this is worth a look.
Good even without having read the book?
I found Cloud Atlas extremely predictable, and well, cramming 6 time periods into one movie doesn't really give you an opportunity to approach an old idea in a new and interesting way.
I think cramming six time periods into one film is approaching an old idea in a new and interesting way. Since the whole thing is an argument for the interconnectedness of us all, showing how that works across time as well as across culture is an entirely pleasing way of looking at things.
Yeah except the narrative undermines itself by that exact thing:
Every time period repeats the same issues over and over and over. Far from being interconnected, every single victory was undone except on the tiniest of scales.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
So mrs Deebaser turns to me in bed and says "your parents are coming over. We should wake up, take showers, and pick up fruit/bagels.
So I get up.
Take a shower.
Get dressed.
Go back the bedroom.
SHE'S STILL IN BED
So I ask, "babe... You coming?"
To which replies with a closed eye smile "Gooby pls"
So mrs Deebaser turns to me in bed and says "your parents are coming over. We should wake up, take showers, and pick up fruit/bagels.
So I get up.
Take a shower.
Get dressed.
Go back the bedroom.
SHE'S STILL IN BED
So I ask, "babe... You coming?"
To which replies with a closed eye smile "Gooby pls"
ah, the ol' sly saturday slapjob
i've been victim to it many a time
0
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
So mrs Deebaser turns to me in bed and says "your parents are coming over. We should wake up, take showers, and pick up fruit/bagels.
So I get up.
Take a shower.
Get dressed.
Go back the bedroom.
SHE'S STILL IN BED
So I ask, "babe... You coming?"
To which replies with a closed eye smile "Gooby pls"
I've got plenty of criticisms of Cloud Atlas, but I think it's a movie worth seeing.
problems include but are not limited to:
Tom Hanks attempting both a Scots and an Irish accent while under prosthetics.
The lawyer on the boat being insensible for most of the film means his later about face on slavery lacks weight, because we don't know him very well.
No one in the SF future smiles or laughs.
Having the same actors in each story works on some levels but it is also a conceit that draws attention to itself.
So mrs Deebaser turns to me in bed and says "your parents are coming over. We should wake up, take showers, and pick up fruit/bagels.
So I get up.
Take a shower.
Get dressed.
Go back the bedroom.
SHE'S STILL IN BED
So I ask, "babe... You coming?"
To which replies with a closed eye smile "Gooby pls"
Posts
I found Cloud Atlas extremely predictable, and well, cramming 6 time periods into one movie doesn't really give you an opportunity to approach an old idea in a new and interesting way.
@Shivahn
Oh, gotcha.
I make no claims about bankruptcy, and I'm no student of marxist theories, past or present. Just disputing the notion that the predictions that a theory makes are separable from the theory. Sure you can amend a theory to make new predictions using the same framework, but it's now a slightly (or very) different theory, and you can only fail to produce successful predictions so many times before you start to wonder what good the framework is doing you.
vagina is clinical and gross sounding and cunt is too rude
i like my local slang word for it, "fud" just rolls off the tongue :P
I'm really recycling popper's objection to marx here, albeit in the specific sense of the neoclassical alternative
I'm pretty fine with all of this.
As a general matter of philosophy of science, Popper's objections to Marx are somewhat naive. If we rejected (rather than amended) any social science theory which made a false prediction, we would not have any social science. It's unclear whether we would even have any physical science under that standard. And, in any case, to the extent that they stick to the actual Marx (as he is quoted being deliberately obtuse), the actual Marx is dispensable to the theory in the same way that the actual Plato need not hang over Platonist mathematics.
I would give this student full fucking credit for this answer.
Be careful, you wouldn't want to go from bi-curious to bi-furious.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
well, yes. but if you are willing to tear into the classical economic framework that underpins marx, there is very little reason not to simply follow the people who already did exactly that and arrived, after half a century, at the neoclassical framework. the alternative research pathway that was marx should have died there and then
now neoclassical econ suffers from a vast array of falsifiability problems (to say the least), but it at least already sharply penalizes a certain kind of just-so story, where everything you like is Oppressed and everything you dislike is the Oppressor. and it obliges some rigour about concepts, so "exploitation" becomes "difference between marginal productivity and wages" and "globalization" becomes "equalization in factor prices" - rather than, say, a black box into which one shoves all of one's pet hatreds.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
Anyone know?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Not sure. I was able to fill in some blanks having read the book, but the wife liked it as well. She heard a gaggle of ladies in the loo who sounded as though they were on less solid ground.
"Hmmm, that was a lot to take in, and not really what i was expecting. Did you like it?"
"I think so."
I think it's taken some stick because it is, at heart, a fairly sincere appeal for people to be nicer to each other (as the book is), but it doesn't have the room to go into it in as much depth, so it ends up leaning a little more heavily on getting the message across via emotion. It's still hugely ambitious, and feels, to these tired old eyes, like an attempt at something different and new.
Its flawed, and Tom Hanks has trouble with some accents, but its worth it just to hear him call someone a cunt.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Dreamfall!
This same thought has gone through my head in the past few months.
I mean...
Hey [chat]. Good morning! What's going on?
Don't you know? Soundbites are the soul of wit.
As I understand it, Popper's criticism of marxism isn't that it produced false predictions, but that core assertions that it makes are unfalsifiable.
However, it is hard to tell whether that is a glib response based in deep searching of souls and into the darker recesses of neoliberalism or if the student just couldn't be fucked to think for a bit.
I dunno if this is a problem, or just a natural result of the style. Same deal with Hyperion. Each story is written in a different idiom, and some are going to love the noir detective story and some are going to feel more connected to the crisis of faith the priest undergoes. And when each thread is only 80 pages long it isn't a problem that cripples the book unless you really can't bear to read the Ursula Le Guin far future story, or find your teeth grind uncontrollably at the Kingsley Amis old bugger in an old people's home.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I think cramming six time periods into one film is approaching an old idea in a new and interesting way. Since the whole thing is an argument for the interconnectedness of us all, showing how that works across time as well as across culture is an entirely pleasing way of looking at things.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I like 'nunny', said in Sarah Millican's voice.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'm sure there are many annoying Marxists, but I don't know that they have to be. Hearing this person explain to me e.g. changes in the Roman system of agricultural production and the way those both imposed on political ideology and forced social changes, it didn't seem important to the explanatory value of what was being said that any particular person was or was not being oppressed. I mean, you might add to the story that the slaves organized in the plantation system were oppressed, but that would be window dressing.
But, as I said, I am not myself "wrist-deep" in any of these debates and so not situated as to produce expert commentary.
He makes both accusations, iirc.
now I am curious as to whether anyone has gone and tried to apply NIE to those contexts. the two literatures seem to emerge from schools of thought that don't talk to each other
but yes, in my own fields of interest, I am more likely to encounter Marxists of the annoying "shoo, get out of my 20th century development econ" variety
While I find Marxist thought to be eminently useful in both history and literature, I have found that they have a higher likelihood of being annoying as hell, and exactly as one might expect a caricature of such a person to be.
they are probably less annoying when the underlying topic is only very distantly related to modern political hot-buttons
at that point, I suppose it is more useful to talk about the relative merits of "start with a production function, and derive the implied social classes and dynamics" and "start with the social classes, and derive the dynamics"
Yeah except the narrative undermines itself by that exact thing:
So I get up.
Take a shower.
Get dressed.
Go back the bedroom.
SHE'S STILL IN BED
So I ask, "babe... You coming?"
To which replies with a closed eye smile "Gooby pls"
ah, the ol' sly saturday slapjob
i've been victim to it many a time
Marry that woman.
Wait ...
Tom Hanks attempting both a Scots and an Irish accent while under prosthetics.
The lawyer on the boat being insensible for most of the film means his later about face on slavery lacks weight, because we don't know him very well.
No one in the SF future smiles or laughs.
Having the same actors in each story works on some levels but it is also a conceit that draws attention to itself.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Hw i knw is nt Dolan?