Talk:Philosophy in Film and Literature
Please stop removing things. If you do, note why and wait for discussion here. Thanks. Kkimball
I'm adding this to the Talk page for now. Timmy
1. All proletarians by nature simply want to be wealthy, as Celine said.
2. It leads to an ethnic-based tyranny, inimical to the nature of orthodox Marxism, unless it is implemented in a country in which there are no Jews, or few racial problems.
3. People do not care about class.
4. People care as much about non-economic values and traditions as they do economic factors, even if their basis is essentially economic anyway.
5. It is a form of controlled capitalism.
6. It is a secular form of religion, where it purports to be the enemy of religion.
7. It leads to mediocracy, bureaucracy, economic stagnation
8. It attempts to reprogram the human being by social means.
9. It denies the nature of man (as a tribal beast that creates hierarchies in order to understand things.)
And best of all:
10. Karl Marx, a Jew, was a vigorous anti-Semite who showed the true nature of the Jew and Judaism (there's an essay in the poser's book of choice, The Marx-Engels Reader, on the Jewish Question); ALL airy-fairy pin-badge Marxists, including your 'professed Marxist,' are philosemitic by nature.
Okay. I'm leaving this up because it's so wrong it's almost funny. First of all, Marxism is just an anti-capitalism philosophy. If it's anti-capitialism, then how is it a form of 'controlled capitalism'? Is there any form of capitalism that is not controlled, for that matter? Second, Marxism proposes no government sytem. It in itself cannot lead to any of these drastic (and incorrect) results, because it does nothing but say, "Hey, capitalism is wrong. And here's why." - First of all, you can't start an argument against capitalism without offering an alternative, unless you are saying that 'everything we have is bad so we're going to stick with it.' Secondly, Marxism does very well suggest a economic system, however, even that plan has components of capitalism in it, which you have been criticizing. -(saying 'no it doesn't' again is going to get us nowhere, huh?) okay, like what? - o...iono, the concept of money? paying people for the amount of work they put in? maybe? huh? -*shies away from the hostile SELer*
How can a Jew be anti-semetic? Marx would have had to discriminate against himself. What do you mean by 'true nature of the Jew and Judaism'? Are you anti-semetic? Communism does not equal anti-semitism, by the way. That is entirely different. - The point was that Marx was anti-semetic, just as Hitler was anti-semetic. Signs of this could be seen in his philosophy. I wouldn't be arguing that against him if I were anti-semetic dear. And I do believe that you PILF-ers had argued your support of 'socialism' and not 'communism.' Are you saying that they are one and the same? -we argued our support of 'marxism'. the only reason i've used 'communism' in my responses is becuase marxism isn't a political system, it's a philosophy, and you seem to be referring to one. oh, and i read the article you're referring to, and would just like to say that i see your point there, though he wasn't just against judaism, he was against all religion. i find it very ironic that he didn't think that there could be no discrimination with religion differences, and yet thought that everyone could give up their religion at the drop of a hat. - make up your mind on your argument, do you or do you not agree that marx was against religion? if so, then you would also be suggesting that marxism has some religious standpoint, hence [see below] is a religion -I'm not trying to have an argument, I'm trying to have a DISCUSSION. I don't think that just having a religious standpoint is enough to make it a religion. I disagree that atheism should be considered a religion. - when you are attempting to make your point, its considered an argument, and when you cannot make your point, the 'discussion' is useless because we get nowhere -no, a debate is useless. we're going to stay on the same sides for the rest of eternity and never learn anything from each other.- that made no sense whatsoever
I would disagree that people do not care about class. If 'all proletarians by nature simply want to be wealthy', then I would say they care about class. Communism does not impose different classes, in fact, it tries to abolish all of them. - BY NATURE, everyone wants to be wealthy. The meaning behind class, however, would be that each individual is treated according to the amount of effort they have given. By not having classes, you are demeaning people's hard work by equalizing with those who don't.
Marxism is not a religion, despite how much we PILFers believed in it. It is a philosophy. It does not rule out religion, and is absolutely not the 'enemy of religion'. - No matter how you say it, if you follow it in the way you do, its a religion. -*sighs* okay. despite the fact that religions tend to have a god/gods, and some sort of worship. - TEND, the fact is, a religion is any philosophy or belief about the basis of nature, atheism is technically a religion. -Then capitalism would be a religion too. ALL philosophy would be religion by your definition. - capitalism is a system, not a philosophy, it uses philosophies yes, but it in and of itself is an economic system, unlike Marxism, which would be the support and belief in the theories of Marx, but what I dislike the most about Marxism is the fact that so-called Marxists suggest an alternative system that does in fact use components of capitalism (refer to above)
Our 'professed Marxist'? What are you talking about? - YOU -i don't belong to anyone, thanks. that grammer is odd, no offense. - i never said you BELONGED to anyone, i said you are a marxist...goodness, i didn't think it would be that difficult.. -No, no, I get what you meant, I'm just mocking your bad grammer. Sorry. - uh-huh, and one wonders why we never had a discussion with ya'll
Oof, the nature of man. Don't get any of us started on that discussion; we'll be here a while, and it's past midnight now. - I was never arguing the nature of man, though that is a component. I would prefer to speak with the Human Machine on that. -haha, have fun with stuart.- o how mature -ain't it. - no more like, you ain't -whichever!
'It attempts to reprogram the human being by social means.' I don't entirely understand what you mean by this comment. Doesn't everything subtly alter a person by social means? Come on now, you're in high school. You ought to know this firsthand. - Tsk tsk, of course everything reprograms the human by social means. However, competition allows for more than just ONE correct path to follow. -how could it reprogram a human in a way that only one path could follow? is that even possible without hypnotism, or torture? - somehow, you people make less and less sense with each argument...'doesn't everything subtly alter a person' 'how could it reprogram a human' i mean really, whats with that? you can't make a point if you keep contradicting yourself -not interested in debating. I meant that I don't think it's possible to 'reprogram' a person so there can only be one result. Humans would have to be entirely computational. - *see above on argument* and again, this is getting far too much into Human Machine -this was basically what our class was all about, actually.
I do think our classes should have gotten together to discuss this, because we could have learned a lot from each other.- o, and of course your class was quite willing to discuss with us, but were preoccupied with stealing couches and disrupting our business!!! -we really were. after the lemonade incident we were told we better not bring it up again, and all our ideas of getting together to talk about it kinda went out the window. stealing couches? so we got there first. they weren't yours. - i never said they were ours now did i? i said you stole couches...simple as that, point being...we ALWAYS went there to read in the morning...and one day your class runs out ahead of us and takes them KNOWING that we were usually there
lemonade incident huh? i wonder who started that, well, i did elaborate on the previous article (which you removed!!!), so go to history or something a look back at that
i put it back because even you capitalists deserve to have your say.
you little hypocrite, don't you start that 'you capitalists' stuff with me, YOU ARE A CAPITALIST yourself
no, actually, i'm not thanks.
no dear, i really don't think the concept is that difficult, you earn money, you pay money to people you want to buy from
ACDC: I am the person who was responsible for the lemonade incident, something I'm not proud of, seeing as it's caused so much strife between TIPsters, who are normally loving creatures. <RUN ON SENTENCE OF DEATH< Yes, the USA is a capitalist state: it is possible to hold a belief that is different that the one you are placed in. Obviously the two classes have different beliefs, although instead of ruthless and mindless insult, there SHOULD be some sort of discussion. Both structures of economy have strong and weak points, and neither are necessarily wrong. The couches should be completely cut out from this conversation, as they matter not. I understand that maybe the "lemonade incident" did go a little too far, but holding a grudge is NOT a good thing to do. TIP is a place of extremes anyway. and, um, for future reference, yelling "COMMUNIST!" at a PILFer does nothing to insult them or show them that capitalism is the better moral system, but clearly points out that the person yelling does not know how to distinguish between socialism and communism, and therefore is basing their opinion on the one that has been present in the USA for centuries: that communism, or anything remotely like it, is bad. - and yelling "CAPITALIST!" is much better??? or posting inflammatory signs on doors??? Our class was never the one to make the first 'attack,' yours was.
PILF II 2005 also started the TIP Syph. During the Lemonade Incident, while instructor Dr. Steven Benko and TA Meredith Farmer confronted the Strategic Entrepreneurial Leadership instructor, the PILFers watched from across the Quad. Someone clever took out a pen and marked people with a capital "S" on the back of the hand, standing for "Socialist." Those marked had to pass it on to three unmarked people. Somehow the Socialist S evolved into the TIP Syph. - how does that have anything to do with this 'discussion'?!?!?!
Nooooo... sorry, that wasn't how it happened. Kyle and I (Natalia) got it from Mindy and a couple of others already had it.
- Expression of disgust* Really? I thought we were all original and came up with it ourselves. Growl. So who started the TIP Syph? someone should make a page.
So is anyone here from PILF 2004? --- PILF does not appear to be offered at TIP '06, nor its merger class, the Human Machine. SEL, however, is.
Edit by SELer: ^HAH!^
ACDC: Does anyone know if Steve (PILF teacher) is teaching the Ethics class? He talked about it during PILF '05, but I haven't been able to find the listing for instructor of the Ethics class yet. If they dropped Steve... there'll be hell to pay.
Unserious Kyle: hell will pay? but can it afford it? is hell an it, or is it a human? if not, is it a robot? i mean, um. yes, hell to pay. *pretends not to be a nerd who now thinks about things differently due to tip*
