u/theApeironEgregore

Fml. Life sucks. Hell is here etc etc

Such a cool name.

Lots of things make me sad and bored. None of them are quite big. Friends talk the same thing over and over. Sadness about failed potentiality, or accepting that you're mediocre at best. Being able to see how the rest of your life will go. Intense loneliness at times. And on and on. I sometimes hope something actually happens to my life, if not positively, at least negatively, so I could have a reason to feel so sad. But it's just malaise, lethargy and boredom.

I like reading literature, philosophy, poetry, history etc. I like discussing them as well or some personal life things. I don't really like having small talks or how's the day and the weather type of thing. If youre like that as well then text me.m

Why do tech companies like YouTube employ tens of thousands of people when the core product is already built? If the codebase already exists and the platform runs smoothly, what are all those employees actually doing? Is maintaining and updating the software really enough to justify such a large workforce?

(No offense to techies I'm just stupid)

​

There are only two requirements I require of you: don't be stupid and don't be boring. The former can be managed if the latter is strong enough tho

Me too

YES

I used to watch a film everyday! I used to read everyday! Scroll all night and sleep all day! But society won't accept my aristocratic leisure

There is nothing new under the sun etc etc. but no seriously, it's quite frightening, unless you're like a genius or complete moron (or both), your thoughts probably were thought by someone smarter than you, who was able to convey it in much more precision

​

I generally like reading, mostly philosophy. I write poetry sometimes. Besides that I have little interest in almost everything, and am curious to listen about other interests as well. I'm a pretty good listener so if you want to talk about something, i am all ears :).

We can talk about any and all things, besides I'm a good listener

My main interest is Hegel, but I have been reading a lot of Marx lately, mainly Capital. I have a few questions and judgements regarding whether my interpretation of Marx's method is correct or not. Within the preface to Capital, Marx comments as follows after quoting a review of Capital:

«Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development and to track down their inner connection. Only after this work has been done can the real movement be appropriately presented. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject matter is now reflected back in the ideas, then it may appear as if we have before us an a priori construction.»

«My dialectical method is, in its foundations, not only different from the Hegelian, but exactly opposite to it. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he even transforms into an independent subject under the name of 'the Idea', is the creator of the real world, and the real world is only the external appearance of the Idea. With me, the reverse is true: the ideal is nothing but the material world reflected in the mind of man, and translated into forms of thought.»

Here, he seems to suggest that, unlike Hegel, who starts from pure thought, he first "inquires" (i.e., collects) empirical data, searches for the *movement*, and then presents it as a structural whole, moving from the abstract to the concrete. Any inference that this is derived from pure thought alone (a priori) is mistaken because of the method of presentation. So Marx first looks through the empirical world, then abstracts the concept of the commodity, which shows itself to be dual in nature (use value and exchange value), and then progressively moves towards more concrete determinations. Is this correct? Is this Marx's methodology?

Unlike Hegel's categories, which are pure thoughts (i.e., not taken from the empirical world), which have negation built into them immanently and which also move towards the concrete immanently, Marx's categories are empirical in nature. They cannot move forward progressively in an immanent way, nor do they have negation built into them. Thus, the concept of the commodity, by its very nature, does not bifurcate into use value and exchange value. Instead, these are stipulations made by Marx himself after surveying the empirical world and presented as a structure of abstract towards concrete determinations. He essentially finds the movement out in the empirical world. Is this correct?