Apster attempts to lend order, sense to the metaphysical understanding....

Below-copied dialectic by ap first published at comments, https://mises.org/blog/communist-spe...#disqus_thread

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

garegin Dean Jackson • 3 hours ago

Materialism has been shown to be patently false by both Rothbard and Mises. If idealogy comes from tools where do the tools come from?

Apster then responded:

Metaphysical Confusion Is Rife
(Apollonian, 14 May 17)

Wtf are u talking about?--do u mean "dialectic of materialism"?--determinism against "free will"? Note this is the classic dichotomy of basic metaphysical premises, objectivity (immanence) of Aristotle, vs. the "transcendentalism" (subjectivism) of Plato--these are necessarily ASSUMPTIONS which cannot be proven or dis-proven, for there are necessarily no prior premises--these are the very first, most basic.

So neither Mises nor Rothbard could possibly have "shown" determinism (absolute cause-effect, no perfectly "free" will) to being true or false--u simply pick-out what u want for ur purposes. U need determinism (absolute cause-effect) for science, but then for "good-evil" by which u program and condition the masses of people, u need subjectivism.

Problem w. subjectivism is the extreme form of it is satanism, idea that mind/consciousness creates reality, making the subject God, which was integral part to Immanuel Kant's pretended "insight" for his Neo-Platonism by which he strove to impose the "morality" of self-sacrifice, another implication of satanism, as we see, for inducing the masses to commit suicide--all for the greater good, of course.


-------------in response to above by ap, I soon got below-copied-------------

freeharmonics apollonian • 16 minutes ago

Marxism is the philosophy of leftism from metaphysics all the way through to political economy. Leftism is collectivist materialism as opposed to rightism, which is individualist idealism.

The belief that material forces are the cause of ideas leads to determinism. If all is material, then all is determined by physical laws. So the economic base determines the ideological superstructure. The metaphysical basis of this is atheism-pantheism. The belief that the economic base brings about ideas is simply applying consistently materialist metaphysics, which says that consciousness comes from the material. Materialism holds that ideas are subordinate to the material.

On the other hand, rightism holds that the material is subordinate to ideas. So rather than the economic base bringing about beliefs and ideas on morality, religion, social and economic relations, etc, beliefs and ideas bring about the material conditions. These ideas are not determined but are the product of free will of the spirit. The metaphysical basis of this is God. The consciousness of God brings about the material world.

If you look at Rand's philosophy, her metaphysics was leftist atheistic materialism. This view believes that everything which exists in the natural world is the result of mindless, purposeless, amoral material forces. Since everything in the universe is finite, they must resort to epistemological and metaphysical collectivism to explain the eternal existence. However, once passed metaphysics, Rand then, without explanation, jumps from the collectivist mindless materialist world to a reality of free will where ideas determine material conditions and objective morality exists. This all the while now claiming that there are no collective entities. So Rand's atheistic metaphysics is the leftist round hole that she tried to put much of the rest of her square rightist philosophy into. You cannot base a rightist philosophy on a leftist metaphysics.


---------------ap responded to above w. below-copied---------------

apollonian > freeharmonics • an hour ago

Well, "freeharmonics," I find this all very interesting that u write here, some of it even starting to somewhat making some sense, but it really is just a jumbled bunch of babbling, and note, u give no references for any of ur assertions. But as a former student of Rand's works, I can assure u u know very little about Rand who is strict follower of Aristotle, another u know very little about. U also know very little of Hans Herman Hoppe who the Austrians here have high regard for, so now how can I conclude this?--I'm not sure that I can, except to say reason depends upon logic and non-contradiction, in accord w. Hoppe, and u don't seem to grasp even this basic thing, non-contradiction depending upon the objective, hence determined reality, determinism defined as absolute cause-effect, if u only ck any dictionary. But like I say, I do find ur stuff interesting.