Prophet, philosophy?

Post Reply New Topic

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
His philosophy of spirit conceptually integrates psychology, the state, history, art, religion, and philosophy. His account of the master–slave dialectic.

Immanuel Kant
In this brief popularization of his ideas, Marx emphasized that social development sprang from the inherent contradictions within material life and the social superstructure. This notion is often understood as a simple historical narrative: primitive communism had developed into slave states. Slave states had developed into feudal societies. Those societies in turn became capitalist states, and those states would be overthrown by the self-conscious portion of their working-class, or proletariat, creating the conditions for socialism and, ultimately, a higher form of communism than that with which the whole process began. Marx illustrated his ideas most prominently by the development of capitalism from feudalism, and by the prediction of the development of communism from capitalism.

(Carl) Marx actively fought for its implementation, arguing that the working class should carry out organised revolutionary action to topple capitalism and bring about socio-economic emancipation.


It seems to me that Philosphers are either trapped by their Mono-Neurotypical-Social mindsets.
Or they are Aspergers - able to bring up new ideas (prophets), predict unthought of out comes. Perhaps bring up conclusions unable to be considered by the norm.

Marx, was stuck in the, here is the way it will end up - lets hasten the process.
He was wrong - socialism went extreme (Communism-autocratic rulers), and Socialism was a benign transition from Fudalism (Nordic countries).

Your thoughts?
Can they really take them selves outside of their mindset?
Albert Einstein while not a philosopher (likely had Aspergers), he thought outside of the box, he came up with some fantastical ideas, and they blew everything out of the water. Not only because they were pretty much correct, but were so foreign, yet fit the puzzle perfectly (that puzzle piece could never go there - it's too weird).

Get many people and they have little creative spirit - they'll drawn something simple, conventional.
Then you get this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1pDxv0v7No
And this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXENKmAUL0E
And this guy (sand beasts):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYGJ9jrbpvg

A couple things on this:

Guys like Marx and Hegel were around at a time where there was less complete information and you had less ability to really prove or disprove an idea by archaeology, history, experiments in the social sciences, etc.. Marx in particular was one of those people trying to come up with a sort of 'theory of everything' in the 19th century. We can look around at most people trying to do such things back then and realize that their attempts and conclusions would be quite naive.

The other problem - highly intelligent people have a way of latching on to pet notions and when they do so it seems like no amount of reading, no amount of contradicting patterns that they come across in their research, or anything else really seems to help them reexamine their closely held beliefs. Examples tend to be contentious/debatable as many of the followers of such thinkers have bit the same core-reality deposits and can't let go of them. A current public example might be the observation people like Sam Harris or, when he was alive, Christopher Hitchens might make in dealing with Noam Chomsky's ongoing work - stating that he made brilliant contributions to linguistics and programming, that some of his insights into certain corners of politics back in the 1970's and 1980's were unique and that he shed a light on a lot of things most people simply didn't see, but then as we got into the late 90's and 2000's we were dealing with social dynamics and world problems that fell outside of his theories - rather than adapting to the new information he just tried to force his theories over them harder. It's gotten bad enough that Sam Harris in particular has coined him the Father of the Regressive Left - part of which could be an oversteering of observation in his own direction but I think equally there's some truth to a model failing and becoming regressive when its left its relevant scope.

That last part might suggest perhaps that most of these people who have piercing insights into one aspect or another of the human condition or the sciences may very we well be highly specialized in their approach to thought to be able to connect it all together and come up with a good theory of everything. Another good example perhaps might be Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently making the comment of how he's blown away by how politics works, that he's mystified by the realization that rather than something being seen as true by repeat testing it seems to become true just by sheer repeated public assertion. Mark Twain and Fedor Dostoevsky wouldn't have been surprised by anything today but, OTOH, you wouldn't have them working at NASA or CERN either if they were alive today - physics probably wasn't in the scope of their skillsets.