Redpill me on this book

There's a girl I like who was reading pic related. So I wanna know if I should forget her or what

Depends, ask her why shes reading it

>its for a history class class
>i hate commies but i wanna read it for more understanding
>some other innocent excuse

However if she says
>im a commie
>i like the ideas in here!
>its for my womans studies class
>im reading it for "fun"

Drop it like a rock

>reading capital for a womens studies class

i think you need to stop eating memes and get out of highschool leaf

You should read it to score points with her.

there is more violence in this book than in mein kampf

The bible of the communist religion. Needs to be interpreted because it is so poorly written.

if you value your country or your people, don't.

tl;dr lol

it's not about communism, it's just his overview of capitalism. she might be a bright girl if she's reading that. i wouldn't be terribly concerned.

>There's a girl I like who was reading pic related. So I wanna know if I should forget her or what
Girls read stuff for virtue signalling. She's a leftie, but tends to be the intellectual type. You can persuade her with arguments plus you dick, so she likely isn't a lost cause.

Go for it. Rescue her and breed her. Also stay in Mexico with your family.

Impregnate her and then flee to the U.S like the test of your people

+1

It's a good book. If you read it, you can BTFO lefties with your superior knowledge of leftism, and thus why their multicult views are a betrayal of the working class.

Buy mein kampf, approach her with the book clearly in sight tell her you're a socialist too.

It's a huge fucking book (several books, many more were planned, but Marx died), you're not going to a good summary here.

Marx examines the nature of capitalism, starting with commodities, and shows (using the the economics of Ricardo, Smith, etc.) the inherent contradictions of the capitalist socioeconomic system.

it is of historical interest only

Everything you need to know about why it doesn't work is here.

Dialectical materialism is unfalisifiable meaningless psuedoscience. It fails for the same reason that astrology does!

Popper fails by his own argument, by the way. The brunt of what he says is also unfalsifiable.

Popper is a bedtime story for science fans.

Nope. His is derived from first principles on demarcation.

The only debate frankly for any realist is between falsification and inductivism.

I don't think you have read this book or Conjectures and Refutations for that matter...

Quick question: How do you know things? Think long and hard on that then give Popper a read.

He nailed tried to nail the Marxist coffin shut. It was reopened by anti-realists and relativists, within arts and humanities departments other than philosophy!

I don't need to read his book to know the arguments against his views put forth by other philosophers and academics.

Yes I think you do, otherwise you are falling for an appeal to authority. Philosophy of science is still largely Positivic/Popperian (who agree on more than they disagree with).

Who do you think got it better? Kuhn despite his untenable philosophy of language? Feyerabend despite violating the law of non-contradiction?

Nope. Popper got demarcation, from a normative perspective, right!

I read popper years ago. Excessively reductionist and for an attempt to explain the human endeavor of science it was remarkably empty of an account of human action.

99% of the time this kind of critique is pomo nonsense, I know, but in this particular case it's of essential importance. I no longer remember the specifics of where I disagreed with him. I still own the book so maybe some day I'll get back to it.

But from my memory the problem was that "science" was a spontaneously appearing phenomenon under Popper's [lack of] account. If the logical foundation of your theory cannot actually account for the genesis of the thing in question then it doesn't do what Popper purports it to do, namely, be the logic of scientific discovery. Instead it is a psychologically-satisfying but otherwise post hoc rationalization of behavior that does lead to falsifiable theories in the end.

I don't know what you think anti-realism and relativism have to do with the subject. It sounds like you have some philosophical bugaboos.

And you *haven't* read it? Who the fuck hasn't read this?

Most of the nu-left.

His is more an argument for how science should work instead of an explication of the historic record. It also is working on the theories of Hume, Kant, and the logical positivists.

Kuhn's attack on Popper fails because he conflates the normative and descriptive, Lakatos fails because he takes Kuhn seriously, Feyerabend fails because he is nonsensical.

The most fatal thing to Popper is the possibility that the positivists were right that inductive logic can provide cogent arguments or perhaps Quine's attack on the A/S distinction. But I don't think two dogmas is all that fatal to there being such a thing as synthetic propositions.

I really don't understand why people aren't more sympathetic to Popper... Naive falsification is only naive at a logical perspective (things either have truth content or don't) he was an advocate for extreme sophistication within experimentation (as a way around quine's remarks on theory laddeness of observation)

sorry pablo, probably time to like a new girl.

Relativism and anti-realism are ways around Marxism being shown to be unfalsifiable by Popper...

The death of scientific realism is a large push by the academic left. Just google science wars...

They are full on in the academy again and sadly the left has all but won in the arts and humanities.

transpose have:have-nots to oppressors:oppressed and you have the arboreal false dilemma from which the 'progressive' left will hang itself.

You can't intelligently criticize ideas without first reading or understanding it, so yes read it. Same reason I took gender and women's studies classes in college, it allowed me to further understand and more intelligently attack it.

I didn't know mexicans could read.

I should probably add that her major is economics

>I took gender and women's studies classes in college
I thought those things were just a Sup Forums meme

Marx is a really good writer.

His polemic style make you feel like you're listening to a heated argument among Young Hegelians in a Berlin beer hall.

It is better than prose Russian authors.

>I should probably add that her major is economics
That could explain it, but you'd surprised that some economics degrees will earnestly push marxism. So you should find out her opinions yourself.

You've clearly never taken a womens study class. Try learning a little bit about critical theory

Seize her means of production.

I am not aware of any essential link between science and metaphysics. What retarded leftshits do in university is of no importance to me so long as we can keep up a steady stream of redpills. But I will note, for the record, that the fact that communists used guns in their revolution doesn't mean guns ruin things, and so it is with relativism(s) and so on, which are fascinating perspectives in their own right.

>His is more an argument for how science should work instead of an explication of the historic record.
I agree but it nevertheless falls short in my opinion since inductive pseudo-reasoning is simply how the human mind works. Deductive proof is only available at the end of the analysis. It cannot generate novel content, and this is a strength not a bug, but nevertheless it cannot constitute an account of science except in a post hoc rationalization sense. In a sense, deductive reasoning as a foundation is cockblocked by Lob's Theorem, though this interpretation itself is not deductive, and this is really part of the problem I had, Popper's nearly total rejection of semantic problems raised by science.

guys is it bad being called Karl?

everyone will literally think of marx when they hear your name

No essiantial link bewteen science and metaphysics???

Science is epistemology and ontology (which is metaphysics!). It is how we know things and what those things are.

This is pretty basic man...