/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20464401]

is he a pseud?

[Anonymous No.20464422]

>>20464401
No, he actually reads unlike /lit/.

[Anonymous No.20464473]

>>20464401
No more than /lit/.

[Anonymous No.20464569]

>>20464401
A guy who overcame the shame of his fathers arrest to lead his civilization to power is a pseud? This fucking board...

[Anonymous No.20464609]

Yeah, pretty much. Then again, this isn't much worse than what you find on this board.

[Anonymous No.20465134]

>>20464609

Now I'm no philsophy professor but that commie seems to be espousing a philosophy. Isn't that more or less the same thing as having a metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.20465145]

>people can talk as much nonsense as they want
>talks nonsense himself
so this is the power of the chinese century

[Anonymous No.20465152]

>>20464569
Even one one of 4chan's most intelligent boards, the average person here is still a blithering idiot.

[Anonymous No.20465159]

>>20465134
No. What makes you think that?

[Anonymous No.20465160]

>>20464422
spends so much time reading his eyes have gone all squinty. Maybe he needs glasses.

[Anonymous No.20465341]

>>20465134
No, he's still very much rooted in the physical. He's not constructing abstract models or rules which are divorced from the physical, such as pondering the dialectic of 'truth', or trying to classify various states of being (and not actually classifying objects observed) which would be more metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.20465354]

>>20465159

Because the little bit of philosophy I've read suggests that metaphysics is a fundamental category of philosophy, grounding whatever your worldview or understanding of reality may be. I take this to be like "having a philosohpy" in the businesslike, everyday sense. Having a Principle of some sort (through which to interpret reality), even if it's only (Marxist, scientific, religious) dogma.

I have all three volumes of Governance of China at hand and I'll flip through them to find that odd quote, unless this guy >>20464609 feels like helping.

In the quote, Xi('s speechwriters) seem to be citing odd autistic Chinese fables to underline the stupidity of the spiritual (as opposed to physical reality). The latter sentences come across in translation as self-contradictory noise (Xi's writers are espousing a dogma while rejecting dogmatism, and seem to be relying on experience in the world, as Mao explicitly did in the little red book). Clearly there are subtleties in translation, but we know the score: political speechifying, politician has to sound good.

[Anonymous No.20465362]

>>20464422
>>20464401
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgLdoT2APNY

[Anonymous No.20465365]

>>20465341

to clarify, I understand that Xi is understood here in the "atheist/materialist/bugman" sense. What I am suggesting is that this worldview is metaphysical in a certain way. I am making a distinction between the physicalism of modernity in general and the "metaphysics" which is used in the confused, translated document, based on my experience with the latter word.

[Anonymous No.20465391]

>>20465354
>that metaphysics is a fundamental category of philosophy
>grounding whatever your worldview or understanding of reality may be
And here we go off the rails. Metaphysics is only a useful avenue of interest if we have the epistemology to analyze it or if it has repercussions on the practical ethics of what we are doing (depending on the kinds of ethical questions you are considering). Epistemology and ethics are equally fundamental to philosophy as a subject. Xi seems to be arguing that metaphysics is not so important because out ability to understand is fundamentally limited (epistemology) and so we need to be pragmatic in how to achieve a moral end (ethics). Regardless of what you think of his ideas this basic premise seems pretty sound and if you want to argue against it you actually have to start with epistemological and ethical questions before the metaphysical ones can even begin. Having ideas about anything is not the same thing as having a metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.20465490]

>>20464609
>>20465341
Materialist dialectics is heavily metaphysical, it does have abstract rules that come entirely from merely armchair pondering, Engels gives some, Stalin gives some, Mao gives some, etc. Xi doesn't have to ponder it when he still sees himself as in continuity with these guys.

[Anonymous No.20465600]

[Anonymous No.20465638]

>>20465362
Not watching a youtube video.

[Anonymous No.20465799]

>>20465354
https://www.ccdpch.com/dialectical-materialism-is-the-worldview-and-methodology-of-chinese-communists/

[Anonymous No.20465809]

Pooh Bear lookin ass nigga

Bing Bing Bing is indeed a massive retard, to answer OP's question.
To think that the future of China and by extension the world (in his mind) is helped by having a social credit system is just mind alteringly stoopid.

[Anonymous No.20465828]

>>20465391
> Xi seems to be arguing that metaphysics is not so important because out ability to understand is fundamentally limited (epistemology) and so we need to be pragmatic in how to achieve a moral end (ethics).

Which if I remember right from Mao's on practice, is just him echoing Mao who was echoing Kant. The whole passage is inefficient drivel anyways, why are we analyzing self-affirming philosophy? "We have to use dialectics because dialectics sees reality, unlike non-dialectical thinking, which doesn't."

[Anonymous No.20465841]

>>20465490

It has a metaphysics in that it substitutes material pragmatism for an actual metaphysics, like all science and math post-kant. Essentially the answer to "where does everything all come from" is "don't worry about that stuff, we have to just focus on what's in front of our faces."

[Anonymous No.20466181]

/sp/ is a normiechad board wtf

[Anonymous No.20466301]

>>20465490
>Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

[Anonymous No.20467076]

>>20464569
Are you really surprised?

[Anonymous No.20467082]

chinks are literal automatons

[Anonymous No.20467112]

>>20465362
watched 70% of this, what a waste of time
main point of vid:
>we think xi dumb

[Anonymous No.20467119]

He is a Marxist and thus a materialist. As a result he might have something worth reading about history or economic developments or politics, but anything he writes beyond those fields can be ignored.

[Anonymous No.20467146]

Xi is a dimwit and half-literate. He often mispronounce words when giving speeches for they are written for him. Based on this, people estimate ge can command a vocabulary of a 5th grader and no more.

[Anonymous No.20467268]

>>20464569
He's an exceptionist, of course he's a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.20468320]

>>20464609
Metaphysics is meaningless drivel. No surprise a pseud such as yourself laps it up as does most of this sub 100 IQ board. My respect for Jiping is greater than before. Much respect to him .

>>20465365
> being opposed to the mastubatory and pseudointellectual endevour that is metaphysics makes you a bugman
Metaphysicians are the biggest bugmen ever.

[Anonymous No.20468333]

>>20465841
If we want to answer questions like where did everything come from then we ought to use the best tool at our disposal that has thus far expanded our knowledge and understanding of the world. That is science. Instead of metaphysics which in its 2500 years has not come to any solid conclusions nor advanced the lot of mankind.

[Anonymous No.20468387]

>>20467146
>>20467119
>>20467268
>>20465362
Found the glowniggers

[Anonymous No.20468429]

the west hasnt had a leader this well read in hundreds of years

[Anonymous No.20468928]

>>20467146

Unironically true. Xi is what you call street-wise, like one of those niggers who drives a big car but never finished secondary school

[Anonymous No.20468941]

>>20465365
No, he's not a metaphysician examining first principles (synonymous with ontology) but a dialectician, marxists are inverted hegelians (dialectical materialists).

[Anonymous No.20468960]

>>20467146
does the CIA pay good? He's has a chemical engineering background and studied philosophy at university.

[Anonymous No.20468981]

>>20464401
Worse
He’s a hylic