commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
A major issue is that the amount of propositions and definitions is immensely huge. If you want the type of philosophy you’re asking for, it’s just analytical philosophy. But that loses a ton of its value. Marx was writing at a time when most people who would read his works had some familiarity with the argument style of the German idealists and were familiar with Kant and Hegel. The definitions, propositions, and argument structures that are missing are culturally defined and flexible, purposefully.
And I believe this is a strength. Playing with language as it exists is useful to convey an idea. Using “is” to mean equal in content or form next to each other is a great use of language for philosophy though it’s inherently “contradictory.” But isnt that precisely the point of his dialectic?
Making something too abstract (and here I mean, further from the way that one’s rationality works on a daily basis) takes one further from what can be understood and be useful. Analytic philosophy (the pure analytic stuff, don’t catch me with that claim that Marx was half-half) is mostly shit for this reason. Maybe it’s possible to be as analytically rigorous and still make useful philosophy, but I’m yet unconvinced.
None of this is saying it’s easy to understand or something, but the difficulty and working through the flexibility to find a complete concept is part of the philosophy itself
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, unfortunately. I’ve read the Bible before but do not know enough about internal referencing to make any defense of my theory honestly. What does Luke defending him have to do with whether he was sent by Rome specifically or not?
I have no reason to doubt or argue any theory here, it just seems like you know something I don’t and I want to learn it.
I think this theory is better if he wasn’t specifically sent, but just a guy saying tons of shit to be famous/wealthy/etc. and Rome allowed his words to spread because they were less confrontational. These things were the “systemic” defense of an existing base-superstructure system.
Do not mistake me as defending him, please, but this is not how I experienced random libs on the street talking about him. I think that there is legitimately a huge portion of the population of the US who had no idea he was a creep and had only heard of him as the funny uncle that walked around with Obama. The apologies and denial was only towards the very left elements of the US in an attempt to get them to , but that is not what the average person experienced/noticed. I heard that shit so many times from colleagues with never even a concept that he was terrible personally or politically.
It was possibly willful ignorance (likely, I think), but most people thought the “creepy” stuff was just him getting caught on camera at weird moments, blown up by MAGA’s, etc.
I heard people wanting him to run in 2016 even. They’re not good people, but they said it lol
Ok yeah just a total incapability to understand the position we have relative to this considering where you placed this comment. Maybe you’re one of those “the debate is a sham and there’s a deep state” kinda people, idk. Or maybe you’re a lib thinking that Bidens performance doesn’t matter because he’s still effective regardless? Those are all just muddled ideologies. Join us, learn to have a concrete analysis