Quote:
Originally Posted by onelifecrisis
I'll accept that some people think his ideas were stupid. 
I'm just pointing out that none of the people in this thread who fall into that category have justified their position with anything more than hot air. 
No, I don't want to debate any of his ideas. I don't even know what his ideas were. Didn't he invent communism or something?  |
Generalizations of a man's view is not hot air. In any case, that's the whole debate, isn't it? Whether or not the man was brilliant...
And the reason for the lack of specifics is that it has been assumed that the participants of that debate on his brilliance are at least somewhat familiar with the man and his story.
In any case, the reason I don't see him as brilliant, beyond what I've already stated, is that his positions and ideas are typically based upon false axioms - in other words, the fact that his ideologies have since been utter failures, is further betrayed by that, if you looked at them at the time, those failures were completely predictable because they were based upon false premises.
Essentially, he pretty much attempted to describe human nature blatantly inaccurately or incompletely (ie "labor power"/transformative nature/commodity fetishism) in order to support his views.
So, he was a liar - and a cheater. And his ideas were based upon that. Hence why it is difficult to separate the man's character and his philosophies.