Friedrich Engels and Marx solved the is-ought problem

[Anonymous No.20125087]

> From this point of view, the final causes (Teleology, i.e. Shoulds, oughts) of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.

Teleology has been missing from science ever since Karl Popper contrived "The Open Society and its Enemies". The emotional 'Why' questions as to biology are never answer, only 'how' questions. Likewise, in morality/ethics, "why" is never answered. Hume says one cannot derive a ought from an is. But under historical materialism, the link between is-and-ought, clearly a teleological link, becomes obvious. It "is" the case that capitalists have power. And it is the case they perpetuate "oughts" through media and cultural hegemony. Alternatively, "oughts" are contrived through the American Revolution and French Revolution which say humans have immutable human rights and from these "oughts", the "is" of property right are established.

And existentially, why are you here? You were conceived as a product of your parents selfish desires for economics, politics, family, religion etc.You are also here to furnish labour for the economy your parents partake in.

At this point, if selectively doubt "Why is Marx's 'is', also an 'ought'?", you've nothing more than a nihilist. The 'is' is an appearance of the 'ought' and the 'ought' is an appearance of the 'is' and the most systematic framework that explains and describes the method of is to ought is Marxist teleology. Shoulds/oughts/norms are ontic (spooks, but nonetheless ontic for they have essence) and "is/are" are norms under a system.

The metaphysical system we are in is Society/Economy. Who is going to radically doubt the food they stuff in their mouth?

[Anonymous No.20125119]

Society and economy deez nuts nigga

[Anonymous No.20125141]

>>20125087
I don’t think you understand the is ought problem.
Take any descriptive statement: “Capitalists have all the power, and this harms workers,” for example.
You cannot infer FROM THAT STATEMENT ALONE that capitalists ought not to have the power. Only if you posit a moral standard such as “we should avoid harming people” can you infer that capitalists ought not to have the power.

[Anonymous No.20125143]

>>20125087
>Is-Ought problem
Isn't a "problem" to begin with. It is non-existent within the theory of natural law, why the fuck you are talking about Marx and Engels.

[Anonymous No.20125148]

the only ought from an is is the ought to push your slave revolt forward, as it is from your nature, you scum; justify yourself with the most parasitical mechanics, it will change nothing of your nature

[Anonymous No.20125161]

>>20125141
>Only if you posit a moral standard such as “we should avoid harming people” can you infer that capitalists ought not to have the power.
Only from a position of moral realism. From moral nihilism, of course it's the case that the capitalist fabricate the 'ought'. The is and ought of Marxism is an axiomatic class egoism.

[Anonymous No.20125193]

>>20125161
Bro, the is ought problem is obviously not a problem for moral nihilists. It’s only a problem for moral realists like John Stuart Mill who sought to ground his utilitarianism in how the world is. Hume pointed out that’s an invalid move.

[Anonymous No.20125245]

>>20125087
The ought still doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.20125446]

>>20125245

Concoctions by those in power follow the social/political/economic "is".
>(e.g. Nuremberg trials based on natural law spooks)
"Oughts" are appearances concocted by those in power.
>(e.g Your parents carved their morality into you, having in turn being under the powers of others who carved their morality into them and so on)
"Oughts" are appearances following the social/political/economic "is".

[Anonymous No.20125498]

>>20125245
/thread

[Anonymous No.20125507]

>>20125087
>From this point of view, the final causes (Teleology, i.e. Shoulds, oughts) of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, ... in changes in the modes of production and exchange.
Why? And why seek them in the first place?

[Anonymous No.20125545]

>>20125507
Does your "why" not imply seeking? Marxism is thus then a method to explain the concrete relationship between is and ought. Other methods like Kant and Bentham have generally idealist methodology. Marxist teleology is practically the only materialist (and therefore implicitly concrete) methodology for why morality appears to exist.

[Anonymous No.20125610]

>>20125545
>>Does your "why" not imply seeking?
I don't see how. Everyone asks why of everything, and much of it just gets rejected. When to piss or what to have for lunch are all whys of sort. The fact something is considered when encountered isn't any kind of proof of its validity or worth.

[Anonymous No.20125665]

marx bros how do I understand marx without reading him

[Anonymous No.20126075]

>>20125665
You can't understand marx.

[Anonymous No.20126101]

>>20125161
That's not what the is ought problem is about you massive retard.
>>20125665
Marx was a retard. There's no point.

[Anonymous No.20126123]

>>20125087
I wish I could understand what your saying but I can’t. Killing myself now.

[Anonymous No.20127254]

>>20125087
why don't marxist post their retarded shit like this on /pol/?

[Anonymous No.20127268]

>>20125087
>>Teleology has been missing from science ever since Karl Popper contrived "The Open Society and its Enemies".
huh, theology has been missing altogether since the merchant class rose and removed any-business field outside the lawmaking

[Anonymous No.20127273]

>>20127268
>any-business
any non-business

[Anonymous No.20127291]

>>20125087
>>Teleology has been missing from science ever since Karl Popper contrived "The Open Society and its Enemies".
huh, theology has been missing altogether since the merchant class rose and removed any non-business field outside the lawmaking

[Anonymous No.20127499]

>>20125087
Marx and Engels approach this issue most clearly through "determination-in-the-last-instance". This posits the primary nature of reality. However their doctrine, that this reduction will coincide with an economic/class reality is completely baseless.
https://speculativeheresy.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/chapter-3-of-laruelles-introduction-to-non-marxism-determination-in-the-last-instance-dli/

If you have a predetermined metaphysical structure, you can always derive an ought from an is.

[Anonymous No.20127521]

>>20125087
>They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics
https://evonomics.com/what-do-economists-mean-when-they-talk-about-capital-accumulation/

"The common solution in such cases is reduction – i.e., going one step lower to devise a fundamental quantity common to all entities in question. Perhaps the first to employ this method was the Greek philosopher Thales, when he claimed that everything in the world was made of water. The same principle is used by physicists when they argue that every quantity in the universe can be expressed in terms of mass, distance, time, electrical charge or heat (so velocity = distance ÷ time; acceleration = rate of change of velocity; force = mass x acceleration, etc.).

Economists mimic this reductionism with their own fundamental quantities. For the neoclassicists, this quantity is the “util”, a measure denoting the hedonic pleasure generated by commodities. <...>
Classical Marxists do the very same thing with labour time. Every commodity, they say, can be measured by the socially necessary abstract labour time (SNALT) it takes to produce; and by adding up these times, we can calculate the aggregate real quantity of the capital in question. If a Toyota factory takes 100 million socially necessary abstract labour hours to produce and a BP oil rig takes 200 million hours, their total quantity is 300 million hours.

So far so good – but then here there arises a small but nasty problem: unlike the physicists, economists have never managed to actually measure their fundamental quantities. As far as we know, no liberal has ever observed a util, and no Marxist has ever identified a unit of SNALT. As they stand, these so-called “real quantities” are, in fact, entirely fictitious.

But the economists haven’t given up. Instead of measuring utils and SNALT directly, they go in reverse. God is revealed to us through his miracles, and the same, argue the economists, holds true for the fundamental quantities of economics: they reveal themselves to us through their prices. For a neoclassicist, a 1:2 price ratio between a Toyota factory and a BP oil rig means that the first entity has half the util quantity of the second, while for a classical Marxist this same price ratio is evidence that the SNALT quantity of the first entity is half that of the second."

[Anonymous No.20127537]

>>20125087
>And existentially, why are you here? You were conceived as a product of your parents selfish desires
Wings are not FOR flying. It just happened that feathered dinosaur mutants HAPPENED TO survive better - given certain environmental conditions.

[Anonymous No.20127553]

>>20127521
>For a neoclassicist, a 1:2 price ratio between a Toyota factory and a BP oil rig means that the first entity has half the util quantity of the second, while for a classical Marxist this same price ratio is evidence that the SNALT quantity of the first entity is half that of the second.
This article is correct that economists believe that consumer preferences are revealed through demand curves, but one price being double of the other does not have anything to do with an item having double the utility of the other.

[Anonymous No.20127563]

>>20127553
"[6] Hard-core neoclassicists might object to this description, saying that utils are unique to the individual and therefore impossible to add across individuals to start with. However, since following this objection to the letter would make comparison and aggregation – and therefore practical economics – impossible, most neoclassical economists tend to ignore it. To bypass their own liberal-individualistic logic, they assume that all individuals are the same, that they are therefore perfectly comparable, and that their utilities can be aggregated after all. . . ."

[Anonymous No.20127580]

>>20127553
>but one price being double of the other does not have anything to do with an item having double the utility of the other.

In the perfect competitive environment, it does. But as the article shows, you'll get completely different results depending on which year you'll designate to be the most faithful to the Invisible Hand's will.

[Anonymous No.20127595]

>>20125087
>The metaphysical system we are in is Society/Economy. Who is going to radically doubt the food they stuff in their mouth?
>metaphysical
>the food in your mouth
lmao you just conflated the physical with the metaphysical in 1 breath and still can't see your own idiocy

[Anonymous No.20128257]

>>20127553
Oil is known by marxians to be a monopoly. OPEP cartel.
The labor theory of value has a field of application defined by Marx himself. The field of application of the law of value is limited to new output by producers of traded, reproducible labour-products.

[Anonymous No.20128276]

>>20127521
>no Marxist has ever identified a unit of SNALT. As they stand, these so-called “real quantities” are, in fact, entirely fictitious.
The empirical strength of the labour theory of value
https://www.academia.edu/2733004/The_empirical_strength_of_the_labour_theory_of_value

[Anonymous No.20128306]

>>20127521
This is one of the main reasons I dropped out of economics. Whether it was a good idea on my part is something else, but it's all just based on utilitarian assumptions and filled with miracle-seeking as you say.

[Anonymous No.20128774]

>>20128276
>The empirical strength of
of something that can't be empirically calculated, even in priniciple.

[Anonymous No.20129043]

>>20128774
The Capitalist calculate that the wage labor gives him surplus value (profit). He doesn't give a shit as to exactly how much, and if it is exactly proportional to the quantity of training it costed to trains a particular skilled labor.

[Anonymous No.20129233]

>>20129043
>if it is exactly proportional to the quantity of training it costed
Which you cannot objectively *calculate*, I repeat. Calculate the quantity of mana, go on.

>He doesn't give a shit as to exactly how much
Indeed.
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/

"If this ritual seems arbitrary, that’s because it is. There’s nothing objective about the capitalization formula. It doesn’t point to any fundamental truth about the world, either natural or social. The capitalization formula is simply a ritual — an article of faith.
This arbitrariness doesn’t lessen the importance of capitalization. Far from it. Rituals are always arbitrary. But their effects are always real. Just ask Bob, who’s about to be ritually sacrificed to appease the god of rain. The ritual is arbitrary — founded on a worldview that is false. Killing Bob won’t bring rain. But the rulers believe it will. And so Bob dies. The ritual is arbitrary. The effects are real.
<...>
Now here’s the uncomfortable truth. Capital is the same as mana — it’s a euphemism for power. Let’s run through the similarities. Hawaiian elites had power because they had mana. Capitalists have power because they have capital. Hawaiian elites proclaimed their power boldly. So do capitalists, who broadcast their power daily via stock tickers. Lastly, mana had mystical significance. So does capital. By controlling mana, Hawaiian elites became ‘vessels of spiritual energy’. By controlling capital, modern elites (we are told) become ‘vessels of productivity’.
The similarities between mana and capital are unsettling. But there is an important difference between the two ideologies. Hawaiian elites didn’t quantify their power. But modern elites do. Capitalists use the ritual of capitalization to give their power a number. This ritual, Nitzan and Bichler observe, does something unique. It makes capitalism the first social order that is quantitative."