Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Huh. I remember reading Hegel in my Existentialism class. I've never read Canetti or Weber though. I'll have to check them out too.

I bet they would have far more positive results if they just got laid.

 Frazzled wrote:
If only they had Tex Mex.

There's a place near me that makes Korean BBQ burritos, with egg and avocado. It's like the Dean Cain of cuisine.

Delicious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Those chicks just need a good Kronking.

In college, I knew some girls for whom this would be the ultimate third date primer. Still know some of them through Facebook. May have to share this.

Also, one of our neighbors belongs to a hearse club. He would be all over this.

 daedalus wrote:
Huh. I remember reading Hegel in my Existentialism class. I've never read Canetti or Weber though. I'll have to check them out too.

Goddamit I had an awesome and well written post and then I hit the wrong button. I hate the interbutts.

Weber, Durkheim, and Marx are the "father's" of sociology. Hegel came before any of them and gave us the "dialectical" method of analysis. This roughly states that any situation can be examined as a "collision" between two forces. These forces are the "thesis" and the "antithesis" which create a "synthesis" from their collision. This synthesis can then go on to become either the thesis or antithesis of another collision between forces.

Marx applied the dialectical analysis to society, with the forces of collision being the proletariat and the bourgeois. "Communist man" was to be the synthesis of their collision, and after the infrastructure built by capitalism is seized by communists (because even Marx recognized that ONLY capitalism was dynamic enough to truly create things) everything would be utopia blah blah or some crap.

I'm in the social sciences (applied rather than theoretical), and I'll damn sure tell you that most of sociology is total and complete horsegak. Its theory to justify coming up with more theory so that they can keep their research grants.



Canetti was a 20th century writer. His book "Crowds & Power" is written from the perspective of two beings outside the human race. Its as if they are looking down on humanity writ large, over a long time period, and trying to explain the behavior of the human organism without any frame of reference. It is angry, bizarre, and brilliant. It is also largely agreed upon to be a framework that can be used to explain the collapse of the Soviet power structure. The problem is that the book is lyrical rather than analytical. It is artistic rather than scientific. Considering the dialectical analysis while reading it is fascinating.

You seem to show a complete misunderstanding of just not marx, but also sociology. Mind if I ask you what field you are in where you can prove an entire discipline is bunk?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
You seem to show a complete misunderstanding of just not marx, but also sociology. Mind if I ask you what field you are in where you can prove an entire discipline is bunk?

I have a degree in Sociology, a degree in Behavioral Science, and I'm studying Community & Regional Dev right now.


As for "misunderstanding" I assure that's not the case. Perhaps you'd like to sum up Hegel and Marx in 3-4 sentences since you're so much more enlightened.

 kronk wrote:
Those chicks just need a good KronKing.

Is that where you and I tag team them

If you have a degree in sociology, than why do you think its horsegak?
And Marx isnt considered a "Father of sociology" his ideas are used in many of its teachings, but he didnt start the disciplie.
and he doesnt believe communisn take the infrastructure of capitalist societies. he believes that societies change from one to the other over time. Capitalist, Socialist than communist.

If you think sociology is horsegak, why did you study it?
... then go on to study another related field?

Admittedly imo it is horsegak but only because it relies on anecdotes and opinion rather than evidence, that behavioural science tries to rectify somewhat. From what limited knowledge I have on it.

It is also false to claim you are "in" a field if you are not researching or working in it, studying isn't the same thing.


BACK ON TOPIC:
The whole "you can't think about death" thing seems ridiculous to me, especially since one would have thought an awareness and consideration towards ones own mortality is perfectly healthy, it's a perverse social obsession IMO.

This exercise seems a good idea from my point of view as it shows them they are not alone, they are not socially stigmatised, they are 'normal', other people have experienced the same thing and overcame it.

Having something as taboo and socially unacceptable/"not-something-we-talk-about" is generally the reason for many mental health problems. It's the reason there is such a problem with autism in the US, that and bucket loads of blind ignorance.

I would like to see the numbers of people "cured" ... preferably not from the daily fail though.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you have a degree in sociology, than why do you think its horsegak?
And Marx isnt considered a "Father of sociology" his ideas are used in many of its teachings, but he didnt start the disciplie.
and he doesnt believe communisn take the infrastructure of capitalist societies. he believes that societies change from one to the other over time. Capitalist, Socialist than communist.

I got a degree in it because it was easy and met my requirements for further academic progress. I think its horsegak because I have a degree in it? I think thats enough expertise to establish my own opinion.

Sociology is theory. I'm not a theorist. I believe in applying the social sciences to the world around us, not sitting in the Ivory Tower writing papers. You could argue that theory informs practice I guess. <shrug>

Marx, Weber, and Durkheim are (collectively) the basis of thinking for modern sociology. And you need to reread Das Kapital if you think Marx didn't see capitalism as the engine which begets the means of production necessary to provide for the collective needs of communist man. Marx believed in a firm & linear progress of society. Lenin concretized this even further and expanded on the issue of vangaurdism and revolution. And yes, Marx was heavily influenced by (some might even say derivative of) Hegel. Dialectical analysis is pretty fundamental to the Marxist worldview.

Well, theory is the groundwork for repeatable application is it not?

 Easy E wrote:
Well, theory is the groundwork for repeatable application is it not?

That is what theorists argue. IE my comment regarding the academic stance that theory can inform practice.


I'm not sure I buy into that completely, but I do think that an education in social sciences is pertinent to anyone who wants to have a better understanding of society and the individuals that make it up.

Then again my personal reading list is Canetti, Machiavelli, Mills, Picketty as opposed to my required readings of Durkheim, Weber, Marx, Chomsky. <shrug>

Other social science people, particularly those with far-left ideological leanings, view me as something of a heretic in the lecture halls. \m/