User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 23

  1. #11
    You have a choice! 21%'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    I have nothing to contribute on Marx's quote except that I like the "the world should be changed" meaning better, so I'm happy

    And German is awesome.

    And for some weird reason I actually like it when something is quoted 'wrong' or in a different context, because then 'discovering' the original meaning for a quote is exciting (imagine all the people out there discovering something like this and going "Wow, that's so cooool!"), and because it then allows for academic essays on changing consciousness (look at how amazing people in different times like to approach these quotes in different ways!), and also for ingenious subtle jokes on the reader where the author can intentioanally 'mis-quote' something to give it double meaning and only readers in the know will go "Oh, no, you didn't!" and start laughing.

    Sorry for this totally unhelpful Fe-ridden response
    4w5 sp/sx EII

  2. #12
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern
    Setzen, Sechs !

    ___

    Its not only language that gets perverted, its also meaning. Let alone how many slogans the nazis stole and adopted to their ideology. I wonder how much of the real meaning is still conveyed.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    "Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it"

    This is repeatedly quoted as a sort of activist "I'm going to change the world", "the world should change" way, that not what was being said, it literally means philosophy and is about philosophy, its about philosophical revisionism, the philosophers, ie Hegel in Marx's case, have interpreted the world, the point is to change it, ie philosophy!!!
    If he meant what you say, then he expressed himself pretty badly, because no-one would interpret it that way.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    If he meant what you say, then he expressed himself pretty badly, because no-one would interpret it that way.
    History is a testament to how well Marx was interpreted.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    This thread should be preserved to be referred back to whenever Lark pretends to know something he clearly does not know.

    Maybe it should be a mandatory part of everybody's signature.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    @Lark, I am also a native speaker of German like Nicodemus and nanook and have to agree with both of them. Nicodemus is right.
    How did you reach that conclusion? Nanook supports what Lark said - using philosophy for change. But does not for Nicodemus' translation - change being separate from philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by nanook
    what marx suggested is to create a philosophy that is capable of changing the world, by being suited to 'infect' the masses and also by being a practical enough guide for real action.
    I like how, even in meta-arguing the OP, the thread became more about what it was intended to elucidate
    That's not the right meaning of that!!

  7. #17
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,643

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    How did you reach that conclusion? Nanook supports what Lark said - using philosophy for change. But does not for Nicodemus' translation - change being separate from philosophy.
    I fail to see the contradiction and was not even aware that nanook (supposedly) contradicted Nicodemus. Maybe I did not read nanook's post thoroughly enough. The Marx quote is quite simple and direct. "Philosophers have merely interpreted the world in different way, what matters is to change it". Now, being a philosopher I doubt he meant to take up arms himself, it seems more likely that he wanted to change (not just interpret) it THROUGH his philosophy. Everybody happy?
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  8. #18
    a scream in a vortex nanook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    i was trying to highlight how both lark and Nicodemus are at least partially right.

    i was trying to synthesize their opposite standpoints into a common meaning.

    yes (Lark), nietzsche meant to change the methodology or intentionality of philosophy (adding idealistic judgement to description of functionality), and yes (nico), he meant to change the world through such a new philosophy - and both is implied in nietzsches sentence, albeit not literally.


    now someone might come around, playing literal minded, by pretending that he is sure, that nanook mean't to accuse nietzsche of the exact meaning of nanook's words, even though the formulation "infection the masses" isn't adequately portraying nitzsches language sensibilities and that therefore nanook is misinterpreting nietzsche. surely nietzsche wouldn't have used the analogy of "infecting", thereby risking to portray his work as a mental disease. he would probably also avoid the word "masses" which implies an authoritative tension between creative thinker and passive thought-adopter, when he wanted to refer to culturally creatives, such as him self, who would inspire each other through philosophical discourse into taking world transforming action. i am not a language genius, until i second guess myself, so in spontaneous speech "infecting" and "inspiring" seem practically synonymous to me (they are not).

    i hardly know anything about nietzsches writings and i don't give a fuck, said in this context(!), because all that i need to know here, is how people of his mental altitude are thinking. they desire the integrative synthesis of elementary polarities, such as those of judgement (ethics) and perception (functionality) and thinking (strategy), which creates a world changing idealism. whereas the kind of philosophy, that most of nietzsche's time-peers were into, didn't have the depth that comes with such a span of integration.

  9. #19
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Yeah, whatever. We assign meaning to stuff. If we get something poignant out of some quote that the author didn't quite intend and it inspires us positively, great. It's kind of how ideas get bounced back and forth in this world. A simple lamp becomes a metaphor for such-and-such a great idea, some speech speech becomes a springboard for a tangential idea that happens to have a great impact.

    The mistake would be in believing that that meaning is necessarily the author's intention, then to argue from appeal to authority or somesuch nonsense.

    Art, man. Art.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    How did you reach that conclusion? Nanook supports what Lark said - using philosophy for change. But does not for Nicodemus' translation - change being separate from philosophy.
    The question is whether Marx's sentence (not his general philosophical goal) is about changing the world (Nicodemus) or changing philosophy it (Lark). The answer to this question, as confirmed by nanook and Red Herring, is: the world. It cannot be about philosophy because the word 'Philosophie' does not even occur in the sentence, and, since it originates from a text consisting of numbered theses, it cannot be inferred from the context either. Yes, philosophers have a part in changing the world, and philosophy itself will change with them, but none of that is the issue here.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-16-2013, 01:10 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 11:13 AM
  3. The other meaning of INTJ
    By olly_olly in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-31-2010, 12:39 AM
  4. The Prime Means of Social Control
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 01:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO