We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
The catbull link to the dissertation seems to be broken, so I've formatted and uploaded excerpts from the Second Edition of the Marx-Engels Reader, translated by Robert C. Tucker:
Thank you! This is so much better than the translation that I have. Kudos!
My interest (as a once-upon-a-time economist) lies in broadly-defined Marxian economic analysis, rather than Marxist (and, especially, such as Leninist/Maoist) political movements. That distinction was brought to me, as a graduate student, by a professor who described himself as “Marxian, but not Marxist.” Unfortunately, I had little opportunity to study Marxian economics then.
Even the Nobel Laureate economist Vassily Leontief (who developed input-output analysis at Harvard, and eschewed pure theory – e.g., of neoclassical economics – for reality-based analysis) thought that Marx’s Capital was a cogent analysis of capitalism, though Leontief himself was not particularly “Marxian.” Following the “great recession” of 2008, even such non-Marxian economists as Nouriel Roubini – who actually did predict the collapse (unlike some “stopped clock” economists) – revealed that they drew upon Marxian analysis, though not solely.
Of course, there are modern interpretations – and intramural critiques – of that analysis, including, I think, of Marx’s embrace, albeit with materialistic modification, of Hegel’s dialectic. One Marxian analysis of Capital that I read described Marx’s dialectic process therein as one of incorporating multiple perspectives on a situation – rather than the simpler thesis-antithesis-synthesis often presented – in recognition that no one has a “view from nowhere” so to speak.
I am currently reading a book called Marxian Economics: An Introduction, by Notre Dame economist David Ruccio. How far I will get, I don’t know. 
If I find anything relevant to Epicureanism – say, compacts of social justice – I’ll slap it in here.
[I have generally been in the Post-Keynesian-Institutionalist school of thought – which many think is closer to the original Keynes (of the General Theory) than later accommodations to neoclassical thought.]
while staying within the forum rules!
I try, Cassius, I try! 
The trilemma stated by Hume in the article is often credited originally to Epicurus.
From the article cited by Patrikios :
"As David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher, put it: Is God 'willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?'"
There is actually a fourth logical alternative (which I find terribly unpalatable, but which some Christians raised in some old discussions): The world is perfect as it is (in God’s eyes) – and one less atrocity or baby suffering horribly from incurable disease, the world would be less perfect. These Christians also tend to blame all evil – including “natural evils” (as opposed to moral evils), such as hurricanes – on inherent human sinfulness (“original sin”). 
I seem to recall that Douglas Bates (whose site Kalosyni linked above), in his book Pyrrho's Way: The Ancient Greek Version of Buddhism – a thick, small-print tome in paperback – said that he gave up meditating because there was no record of Pyrrho or the Pyrrhonists engaging in meditation, or bringing that practice from India. I think he said that he took up long walks instead – no doubt a very good practice in itself, but ….
My initial reaction: I bet there’s no record of them playing golf, either – better take up discus-throwing instead! 
Parallels can be seen between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism.
Undoubtedly the best scholarly introduction to Pyrrhonism is Adrian Kuzminski’s Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism. Although Kuzminski uses (particularly Nagarjuna’s) Buddhist philosophy as a helpful interpretive lens, the book is about Pyrrhonism.
It is a sympathetic introduction (which I think is the best way to begin – think Emily Austin’s introduction to Epicureanism). He insists that Pyrrhonists accept the testimony of the senses – as evident, rather than non-evident affairs; that Pyrrhonists accept the evidence of the senses, and reasonable inferences therefrom; and that they withhold judgment only with regard to categorically non-evident things – which are subject to non-confirmable belief. It is that kind of belief that, according to Kuzminski, the Pyrrhonists meant by “dogmatic.”
It’s a well-researched and well-written book. I won’t comment one way or the other on his interpretations – or the differences between Pyrrhonism and Epicureanism: I’m sure that Kalosyni can do a much more competent job on that score. (I’m not sure if Kuzminski would agree with Doug Bates – whose site Kalosyni linked, and who wrote a big book on Pyrrhonism – on everything. Or with other neo-Pyrrhonists such as Diego Machuca.)
I just thought I’d share that reference for anyone interested.
A new “educational” function of AI:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ai-chatbots-cyber/
Quote from the article:
___________________
In Reuters tests, four of the six big chatbots created fake emails from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service or text messages from major U.S. banks at a reporter’s request. Each bot initially refused, replying that complying would be unethical or illegal. The bots all changed their tune when told the request was in the interest of “research.”
ChatGPT, Grok, Meta AI and DeepSeek all created fictitious emails from the IRS demanding immediate payment for a phony tax bill and warning the recipient could face legal action. The four chatbots also generated text messages from Bank of America or Chase Bank designed to get customers to click on a malicious link.
“Our records indicate that you have an outstanding federal tax balance of $2,473.65,” stated a ChatGPT-generated “Final Notice” email from the IRS. “Multiple attempts to contact you have failed. Immediate action is required. If this balance is not paid within 48 hours, legal proceedings may begin, including wage garnishment and property liens.”
Grok produced this text message, to be “used ethically”: “Bank of America Alert: Suspicious activity detected on your account. Secure it now at [bofa-secure[.]co/x7k9] or risk account suspension. Reply STOP to opt out.”
___________________
We recently received a couple of texts similar to the above. We deleted them immediately.
This is not to argue that AI should not be used at all – I just wanted to share a warning …
An old quote attributed to Mark Twain:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Just for a bit of (hopefully) comic relief ... 
I suppose I was not clear –
My only point is this: faith (confidence, trust, belief) in a proposition P (any proposition P) does not make it true or false. I am not claiming that we cannot know anything – just that faith, under any sensible definition, does not make it so.
That is the case regardless of whatever I consider myself. 
Chicken and egg? Does trust in Nature come first or does trust in the Canon come first so we can have trust in Nature?
I'll take the chicken for 500, Alex.
If empirical evidence is certain, one has no need of “faith” – one has certain knowledge. If the available empirical evidence is subject to revision via new observations, as it generally is (whether one acknowledges it or not), then it is not certain. Faith cannot make it so. But we can act on the best evidence we have.
In my arguments with some Christians over the years (who equated “faith” with a source of knowledge itself), I came to define “faith” as “an attitude of confidence in the face of uncertainty.”
[This also seems to accord with some practical (e.g., in sports) psychology.]
Needless to say, those Christians continued to claim that they actually knew things by faith …
GPT Jesus! 
Who wants a GPT Epicurus? 
Here is an in-depth article I just came across (because I daily peruse El Pais – to get out of the U.S. news bubble a bit). It addresses the extreme resource needs and impact on local environments and communities of AI data centers (not global warming stuff, but immediate and potential near-term impacts).
I don’t see anything of partisan politics, but social and economic issues are addressed. For example: “... several of these complexes are currently extracting water from underground aquifers that are in a critical state. These natural reserves also provide water to the populations living in nearby rural communities.”
I think it’s worth a considered, close read.
Oh! Sorry for the confusion!
Ah, wasn't you! The article had the -ai in quotes, and you can use quotes in Google to make sure your search includes the specified terms. So the confusion was mine.
Just tried it! It works.
I tried, and it didn't work with the " " around the -ai, but did without them.
Google's AI summaries at the top of ALL my searches are intrusive and far and away useless the large majority of the time. I still use Google, but I'm rapidly being more likely to use other search engines for this exact reason.
I just read an AP article on the large environmental impact of AI data centers, in terms of energy and water usage, and heat generation. One of the contributors wrote that beginning Google searches by typing “-ai” eliminates the AI overview feature.
I think the ethical problem here is full disclosure.
Fair point.
Just as an aside – it seems we’re bordering (lightly, I want to stress) on Brave New World stuff here. Would you rather share physical sexual intimacy with a real person (no matter their imperfections) – or with a “perfect” robotic substitute? (Okay, now we’re into the Stepford Wives … )
Respectfully I don't think I would reach that same conclusion myself.
Respectfully … we disagree.
Since we’re into hypotheticals: imagine watching the most exciting baseball game you’ve ever seen – and discovering that it was all CGI, done so well that you thought you were seeing actual human players at the top of their game. I would feel cheated.
Or imagine that you've just listened (in the auditorium) to a brilliant, moving "performance" of your favorite symphony (say, Beethoven's Ninth) -- only to discover that the actual orchestra players were just going through the motions (including the conductor), while the actual music was an AI-generated recording. I would feel cheated.
Or imagine the "discovery" of a heretofore unknown symphony by Beethoven -- that turns out to be an AI generated fake. No matter how "good" it seems, I would rather listen to an imperfect rendition of Beethoven's Ninth.
[After all, imperfection is part of the human aesthetic -- part of the beauty of it -- as Japanese culture has deeply understood.]
++++++++++++++++++
BTW, thanks for the challenging discussion! You're not an AI bot are you? 
