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

submitted 8 months ago by aldalire@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 33 points 8 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?

[-] buckykat@hexbear.net 26 points 8 months ago

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

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 20 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 17 points 8 months ago

Modern western philosophy is glorified art critics but with tenure

[-] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 17 points 8 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.