Nah, Mao very clearly doesn't know anything about science or mathematics but that doesn't stop him from pretending he does, for reasons that are not clear to me.
Well, he doesn't now, but he also didn't then. Not in 'science' as it follows in the western historical tradition. Offshoots of Cartesianism or Newtonianism you might say.
Looks, I've integrated far, far too many dynamical systems on Cartesian meshes to take you seriously there. Classical mechanics (by you'll never guess who) undergirds a huge number of modern sciences.
Explaining myself? You're talking right past me. I say Marx is an offshoot of Hegelianism and you say "Marx isn't Hegelianism", addressing an entirely different question. I say many branches of current science still make explicit use of Newton's laws and formalism, and your response is not "oh in what ways?" its "no they don't" without further explanation like you're doing a bad homage to the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.
Looking at this from my side, it absolutely looks like you're trying to pick an argument that no one was trying to have for some reason, and will now contradict me on pretty much anything no matter how ridiculous that makes you sound. If that's not what you're trying to do, I'm all ears for a different explanation.
Fluid Dynamics is an offshoot of Classical Mechanics. Fluid Dynamics is not classical mechanics.
When I say Marxism is an offshoot of Hegel, and you respond "Marxism is not Hegelianism", you, are in my mind, addressing a different question, you're addressing a question of subsets (Marxism is a type of Hegelianism, which is not what I am saying), while I'm talking about a question of relations (Marxism is related to Hegelianism in a particular way). You could of course inquire into what I mean by "related in a particular way", but you insisting that Marxism is not a type of Hegelianism has nothing to do with that in my view, so you are not addressing my original claim as I intended it.
I could be wrong, and that Marxism is not related to Hegelianism in the particular way I had in mind, but you haven't said anything about that except not-uh.
Yes, but you did not, as you say "explain yourself" for this. In what way is it reductive? Is that bad thing in this case?
I'm happy to disengage if you'd like to invoke the disengagement rule, but you don't get to recapitulate your position as correct and then invoke the rule in the same post.
Chomsky popularized certain things in linguistics; his work was preceded by the likes of Lev Vygotsky.
If this is an ironic callback to Marxists generally hating everything, being needlessly contentious and obnoxious, it's a good bit.
Marxists aren't generally like this. Stop generalizing.
Look the notion precedes me. . Monty Python was satirizing this in the 80's.
Those are Maoist groups.
Yeah some of them are by the look of it.
Yeah, some of them.
Humorously enough, also offshoots of Hegel, by way of Marx.
You can tell this because "On Contradiction" reads like gibberish.
"also offshoots of Hegel, by way of Marx."
I already went over this now drop it.
You were also wrong about it lol, you're not the classroom teacher. You're just another kid in the lunch hall
Stop throwing insults.
On Contradiction is great now stop pestering me.
Nah, Mao very clearly doesn't know anything about science or mathematics but that doesn't stop him from pretending he does, for reasons that are not clear to me.
He does.
Well, he doesn't now, but he also didn't then. Not in 'science' as it follows in the western historical tradition. Offshoots of Cartesianism or Newtonianism you might say.
They are not.
Looks, I've integrated far, far too many dynamical systems on Cartesian meshes to take you seriously there. Classical mechanics (by you'll never guess who) undergirds a huge number of modern sciences.
It doesn't
'fraid so
'fraid not
Well, we've certainly gone a long ways toward correcting my misconception that Marxists are a contentious and needlessly contrarian lot.
You're not explaining yourself and are generalizing an entire political minority.
Explaining myself? You're talking right past me. I say Marx is an offshoot of Hegelianism and you say "Marx isn't Hegelianism", addressing an entirely different question. I say many branches of current science still make explicit use of Newton's laws and formalism, and your response is not "oh in what ways?" its "no they don't" without further explanation like you're doing a bad homage to the Monty Python argument clinic sketch.
Looking at this from my side, it absolutely looks like you're trying to pick an argument that no one was trying to have for some reason, and will now contradict me on pretty much anything no matter how ridiculous that makes you sound. If that's not what you're trying to do, I'm all ears for a different explanation.
"I say Marx is an offshoot of Hegelianism"
It isn't.
"addressing an entirely different question."
Obviously, I wasn't.
"it absolutely looks like you're trying to pick an argument that no one was trying to have for some reason,"
All I did was reply.
You are doing a bad homage to the argument sketch.
Fluid Dynamics is an offshoot of Classical Mechanics. Fluid Dynamics is not classical mechanics.
When I say Marxism is an offshoot of Hegel, and you respond "Marxism is not Hegelianism", you, are in my mind, addressing a different question, you're addressing a question of subsets (Marxism is a type of Hegelianism, which is not what I am saying), while I'm talking about a question of relations (Marxism is related to Hegelianism in a particular way). You could of course inquire into what I mean by "related in a particular way", but you insisting that Marxism is not a type of Hegelianism has nothing to do with that in my view, so you are not addressing my original claim as I intended it.
I could be wrong, and that Marxism is not related to Hegelianism in the particular way I had in mind, but you haven't said anything about that except not-uh.
You keep arguing with me even though I told you to stop pestering me.
I already said that calling Marxism a Hegelian off-shoot or whatever is reductive.
Good day.
Yes, but you did not, as you say "explain yourself" for this. In what way is it reductive? Is that bad thing in this case?
I'm happy to disengage if you'd like to invoke the disengagement rule, but you don't get to recapitulate your position as correct and then invoke the rule in the same post.
If you're asking why reductiveness is ever a bad thing, then you're being disingenuous, I feel.
You've been harassing me over and over again even when I told you to stop.
Good day.