MaxChaplin t1_j3qepit wrote on January 10, 2023 at 10:29 AM

If we're only looking at it as analytic philosophy vs. Marxism, I don't see the dominance of the former as a bad thing, since its scope is wider than that of Marxism. Marxist philosophy lives in a very human world of power relations and identity politics. it’s motivated not by increasing wisdom but by a grand ethical goal, and is profoundly indifferent to anything not related to said goal (such as questions of qualia or interpretations of QM). Analytic philosophy abstracts the humanity away, so it’s more low-level and general. Moreover, analytical philosophy allows for self-criticism, while Marxism doesn’t. If Marxist philosophy is valid, it’s possible to derive it from analytical philosophy; the same can’t be said in the other direction.

McCarthysm was horrible, but in itself it’s not a good enough reason to reinstate the dominance of Marxism, kinda like how the persecution of religion in the Soviet bloc is not a good enough reason to reinstate religiousness in Eastern Europe.

Particular_Brush2854 t1_j3ra5rh wrote on January 10, 2023 at 3:17 PM

It’s really analytic vs continental

Thequorian t1_j3tdnw5 wrote on January 10, 2023 at 10:58 PM

Marxism mainly focuses on history and material reality, whilst analytical Philosophy lives in an abstract, ideal world and analyses mainly the language and logical concepts. Marxism itself ignores the moral concepts entierly, while they themselves are motivated by ethics they got from somewhere else. You seem to regard marxism as a subset of analytical Philosophy, Something you can get to when analising enough,whilst it has completely different founding principals. I dont see why marxism wouldnt allow for self-criticism.