Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2449Another bottle of wine for our guest

Expand Messages
  • holderlin66
    Feb 25, 2004
      Bradford comments;

      Let me see if this wine taste bitter, errr better!!

      "The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not
      refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bour­geois"
      economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating
      the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally
      demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the un­soundness of
      their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical
      methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It
      has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the
      absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology.
      Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold
      on the modern mind."

      What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx

      "The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own
      brand.

      http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457

      "Until the middle of the nineteenth century no one ventured to
      dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable
      and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based
      on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to
      each other only because we can appeal to something com­mon to all of
      us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think
      deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who
      unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of
      deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to
      follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same
      ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men.
      There are people who cannot count further than three; but their
      counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or
      Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowl­edge
      of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not
      grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is
      true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But who­ever
      examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.

      Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter
      into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and
      books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual
      coöperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our
      minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of
      different logical structures or a logical structure different from
      our own.

      Yet, in the course of the nineteenth century this undeniable fact
      has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them
      the "proletarian philosopher" Dietzgen, taught that thought is
      determined by the thinker's class position. What thinking produces
      is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of
      Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social
      class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore
      useless to discuss anything with people of another social class.
      Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they
      must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social
      background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the
      merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the "bourgeois"
      origin of the physicists."

      Bradford concludes;

      I did not know that Marxist thinking was so like, so like, what is
      the example I am looking for?
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic