What You Know vs. What You Do
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
What You Know vs. What You Do
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Here, Marx seems to be making a point about how simply understanding the world is not everything to human existence.
From a third-person perspective, a wise philosopher who knows and understands everything about the world but does not use his knowledge to do anything with it, can be considered as the same worth to the world, as an ordinary man.
From the perspective of the world they are of equal worth, because they both do not strive to change or affect the world in any significant way. This is because our knowledges are only present from "our perspectives".
What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with the quote? Do you think we should look at ourselves from the "perspective of the world" as much as we do from our own perspectives? Perhaps you have your own preferences between the two?
Furthermore, how do you, or how would you, use your own interpretations and philosophies regarding the world to act as a force of significant change? Is spreading ideas through words all we can do in order to accomplish this?
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
My thoughts are that Marx is not talking about perspectives, he is talking about power. Power is often more illusion than anything else, so no, I don't agree with him.GrayArea wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 11:56 am Consider this quote from Karl Marx. (Who he is matters very little in this context.)
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Here, Marx seems to be making a point about how simply understanding the world is not everything to human existence.
From a third-person perspective, a wise philosopher who knows and understands everything about the world but does not use his knowledge to do anything with it, can be considered as the same worth to the world, as an ordinary man.
From the perspective of the world they are of equal worth, because they both do not strive to change or affect the world in any significant way. This is because our knowledges are only present from "our perspectives".
What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with the quote? Do you think we should look at ourselves from the "perspective of the world" as much as we do from our own perspectives? Perhaps you have your own preferences between the two?
Furthermore, how do you, or how would you, use your own interpretations and philosophies regarding the world to act as a force of significant change? Is spreading ideas through words all we can do in order to accomplish this?
My thought is that we are seldom smart enough to cause "significant change", without making a really big mess. The mess is often not noticed for many years, even generations, but it is often there.
Gee
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
Marx is talking about the philosophy of praxis, inherited from Hegel, and which means something different than what you suggest here. It's about the dialectic, about movement, about becoming something else, about development and realizing potentials. Marx acknowledges that human subjectivity, in the form of culture that the individual subject assimilates, is shaped historically by practical activity, by human labor applied to the objects that make everyday life and the forms of social organization that practical life demands from the material conditions of existence. In turn, dialectically, practical life and its needs are transformed by the socially-constructed modes of subjectivity, by the world views.GrayArea wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 11:56 am Consider this quote from Karl Marx. (Who he is matters very little in this context.)
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Here, Marx seems to be making a point about how simply understanding the world is not everything to human existence.
From a third-person perspective, a wise philosopher who knows and understands everything about the world but does not use his knowledge to do anything with it, can be considered as the same worth to the world, as an ordinary man.
From the perspective of the world they are of equal worth, because they both do not strive to change or affect the world in any significant way. This is because our knowledges are only present from "our perspectives".
What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with the quote? Do you think we should look at ourselves from the "perspective of the world" as much as we do from our own perspectives? Perhaps you have your own preferences between the two?
Furthermore, how do you, or how would you, use your own interpretations and philosophies regarding the world to act as a force of significant change? Is spreading ideas through words all we can do in order to accomplish this?
There used to be a conception of philosophy as mere contemplation, as theoretical activity concerned with superior intellectual affairs in the domain of pure ideas, cut off from the practical concerns of everyday life and the historical material conditions of social existence. It was the predominant view of cultural elites against which Marx reacts.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- GrayArea
- Posts: 374
- Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
How about you as an individual? Do you think that it's a pivotal part of human existence to leave their mark on the world through creating change, or do you think it's unnecessary or pointless?Gee wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 12:31 pmMy thoughts are that Marx is not talking about perspectives, he is talking about power. Power is often more illusion than anything else, so no, I don't agree with him.GrayArea wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 11:56 am Consider this quote from Karl Marx. (Who he is matters very little in this context.)
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Here, Marx seems to be making a point about how simply understanding the world is not everything to human existence.
From a third-person perspective, a wise philosopher who knows and understands everything about the world but does not use his knowledge to do anything with it, can be considered as the same worth to the world, as an ordinary man.
From the perspective of the world they are of equal worth, because they both do not strive to change or affect the world in any significant way. This is because our knowledges are only present from "our perspectives".
What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with the quote? Do you think we should look at ourselves from the "perspective of the world" as much as we do from our own perspectives? Perhaps you have your own preferences between the two?
Furthermore, how do you, or how would you, use your own interpretations and philosophies regarding the world to act as a force of significant change? Is spreading ideas through words all we can do in order to accomplish this?
My thought is that we are seldom smart enough to cause "significant change", without making a really big mess. The mess is often not noticed for many years, even generations, but it is often there.
Gee
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
Yes, is is indeed not enough to call out your adversaries. It is also not enough to merely oppose them, such as marching, protesting, or even fighting them. You must also show that you can make heaps of money by doing that. Otherwise, if on the other hand it is not possible to extract lot of cash from sinking the adversary into the ground, then there is almost surely something wrong with your philosophy. Getting even with your adversary is an activity that must always fund itself, and then some.
Marxism may denounce the bourgeoisie as their class enemies, but have they ever made money from doing that? No? In that case, their philosophy is obviously dead end. Attacking and destroying the bourgeoisie must also be an activity that satisfies primary needs. Therefore, for reasons of biological legitimacy, with every dead bourgeois, the balance on your bank account should further increase. However, it clearly doesn't. Hence, the Marxist philosophy does not make sense.
Compare this to, for example, Alexander the Great's philosophy that the Persians deserved a vicious lesson in humility. In fact, it wasn't difficult to get this plan going. Alexander merely promised his Macedonian armies lots of gold and lots of pretty virgins, if they managed to crush the imperial armies of Darius. Was Alexander going to make money from his philosophy? Yes, of course! He definitely managed to rake in heaps of cash, simply by confiscating it from the defeated Persians. That is why I would certainly have joined in and followed the leadership and philosophy of Alexander. The whole idea was clearly going to work like a charm.
In other words, if you want me to change the world, you will have to pay me to do it. Otherwise, I won't lift a finger.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
If knowledge or wisdom is not transmitted, not communicated, it cannot become part of our ever-evolving human culture. And so it is worthless, as you observe.
I have always found that perspectives — pretty much all perspectives — are worthwhile and useful. If we look at things from as many 'angles' as possible, I think we gain a more balanced view.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
Is this sarcasm or not? I'm sorry, but I can't tell.heracleitos wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 11:11 pm Yes, is is indeed not enough to call out your adversaries. It is also not enough to merely oppose them, such as marching, protesting, or even fighting them. You must also show that you can make heaps of money by doing that. Otherwise, if on the other hand it is not possible to extract lot of cash from sinking the adversary into the ground, then there is almost surely something wrong with your philosophy.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
W.B. Yeats, "Among School Children"O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: What You Know vs. What You Do
Well, it seems to be working for Vladimir Putin.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2022, 10:29 amIs this sarcasm or not? I'm sorry, but I can't tell.heracleitos wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2022, 11:11 pm Yes, is is indeed not enough to call out your adversaries. It is also not enough to merely oppose them, such as marching, protesting, or even fighting them. You must also show that you can make heaps of money by doing that. Otherwise, if on the other hand it is not possible to extract lot of cash from sinking the adversary into the ground, then there is almost surely something wrong with your philosophy.
Putin's philosophy makes sense since Russia is now making truckloads of money from the destruction of the economy of the EU. As I said, in order to validate Putin's philosophy, it is not enough for him to successfully achieve his goal as to obliterate the economy of the EU. If his philosophy is truly correct, he must also make truckloads of money in the process of doing so. He clearly is.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023