Indeed. But, Aristotle was a very energetic but a very bad philosopher. You would do far better to study Bertrand Russell (a socialist, BTW, and not by accident, though he had very little respect for Marx). Start with his History of Western Philosophy.
Generally, “Political Correctness” is nothing more than a phrase used by rude people to complain that they are prevented by social conventions from making inaccurate generalizations about groups of other people. You have not been constrained from being rude to entire groups of people, here, (direct rudeness to individuals is prohibited), so I am not sure what you are going to claim is “>>>political correctness<<<.”
Mostly, I see you making wild, inaccurate claims and then failing to support those claims with facts or logic.
people are not influenced by their college professors in their values and attitudes??
in the 60-70’s people werent ‘radicalized’ on college campuses?
what did ‘radicalized’ mean?
Marcuse and his books have had no influence of modern popular culture?
seriously?
the whole idea of having a plan is in executing the plan, right??
the frankfurt school had a plan.
mission accomplished is what it looks like to me.
if others cant open their eyes and see it for themselves staring them in the face every day, then i cant help them see it.
Its really like a domesticated animal that in the presence of his own predator, is oblivious to it, and lacks the instinct to recognize it and to preserve oneself.
[shrug] So, Bertrand Russell, writing in 1953, overestimated the potential of “diet and injections” to mold psychological character. (Clearly speaking of that as a development he fears, not one he hopes for.) Science Marches On. Philosophy is not science.
You seem to be assuming that most or all college professors in the 1960s were radicals. Most would have been apolitical – politics is irrelevant to most subjects taught, after all, especially the hard sciences – and majority of the the rest were by no means Marxists of any kind. Marxist profs stand out visibly because, with academic tenure, academia was the one place one could openly and vocally be a Marxist and still have a career.
Your own predators mostly come from Wall Street, not academia. Big-businesscritters would not contradict that, they seem to pride themselves on being top-of-the-food-chain predators. As for academia, I’ve sometimes heard of academics being accused of being parasitic – it would be too utterly preposterous to call them predatory.
If you’re not aware of who funded him, it’s because you haven’t done the most basic research about him. Marx spent most of his career living off Friedrich Engels’ family wealth.
Yes, in the sense that they pick up a thing or two. Most people are not any more influenced by their college professors than they are by their favorite sitcoms.
“Karlo Marx and Fredrich Engels
Came to the checkout at the 7-11
Marx was skint - but he had sense
Engels lent him the necessary pence
What have we got? Yeh-o, magnificence!!”
He suggests above that Kant was an irrationalist–Kant, the guy who tried to save science from skepticism by establishing its rational basis in transcendental logic. The principal claim of the first Critique is that empirical phenomena are possible objects of knowledge, because they find their objective unities in the unity of transcendental consciousness. Instead of locating rationality in objects, Kant sought to locate it in the mind that knows objects: knowledge does not arise when the mind conforms to objects (he thought Hume showed that this leads to skepticism), but when sensory data are organized into discrete temporal objects that in effect conform to the mind. This is his famous “Copernican Revolution.” It’s one thing to argue that Kant failed. I think he failed. It’s quite another to accuse him of irrationalism, and no decent phil major would ever make such a silly claim.
He knows just as little or less about Hegel and Marx. The guy is simply name/concept-dropping, poorly. Emphasis on dropping.