Phil Rubenstein on the Science of LaRouche's Economics

[TYwokki]

And LaRouche is a right Know it All.

[TYwokki]

Using philosophy to prove anything just makes you look pretentious - and shows you've missed the whole point of philosophy altogether. It's only there to make you think, not to tell you how to think.

As a wise man was once quoted time and time again,

"He who knows most, knows He knows nothing".



[TYwokki]

Metaphysics and the philosophy of the universal soul are an intangible scientific theory, one that is only reasoned but never proved. Philosophy lacks the physical element of the pure science, chemistry, biology and physics. You don't have to be a genius to see that much of philosophy shifts into the relationship with man and God and the 'world' created by that relationship.

[southsidejuke]

Mooning Mars?

[Irtidad]

... what is this guy talking about?

[chator56]

I've been watching this video for 1 hour and 20 minutes and Rubenstein hasn't mentioned the name of a single economist. Although he has been doing alot of name dropping like LaRouche does, and alot of jumping from this topic to that topic, without any apparent overall coherence, or system of organization to his thoughts.

[jacobins3000]

Ive had a lot of experiance with these Larouchites, Ive even been to a few of their meetings.

None of them knows very much about anything. If you try to nail them down on the specifics of Aristotelian philosophy, for instance, they immediately change the subject to behaviorist psychology, then when you try to talk to them about behaviorist psychology they change the subject to Euclidian mathematics, its compleatly pointless.

Some of them are fairly smart, but they are all pretentous asses.

[Zamolxx]

Well that's because some of them don't bother to carefully look over LaRouche's work . Now that you mentioned aristotelian logic, it's limitation is inherent, because it states that A si A and cannot be B and viceversa. The universe has a triple topology, the actualization state, the potentialization state, were A is not A or B and B is not B or A and the third in which A is B and B is A. Check out Stefan Lupasco on this respective matter.

[chator56]

Was this lecture supposed to be about economics? Epistemological basis of economic science? Meaning you never have to talk about economics per se. Or LaRouche speakers can get away with speaking on end about any subject they like.