Aristotle expressed the belief in Universals, or as Marx would call a Class, namely an abstract grouping of entities into a common group. I will try to avoid the Russel paradoxes, but what we are saying is that for Aristotle there is an abstract universal say a blue flower. For Marx we have a Class as the proletariat.
Now Ockham disavowed this totally and his reasoning is quite sturdy. He insists that there are no Universals, or shall we say Groups, but only individuals. Thus this blue flower is close to but not equal to that blue flower. Blue flowers are all different in some manner, they are individuals.
Thus the same for Marx and his construct of class. If one has obtained a BA in some subject that does not mean one is in this class with some Universal characteristic, indeed, one is still and remains an individual. The same for a PhD, and even more so for PhDs from top universities in say the most competitive courses. They are individuals and thinks as individuals.
Along come some BA writing for the NY Times. This is just another BA from BU, let us say not a prestigious institution. And just a BA at that. He starts with the statement:
There Are Two Americas Now: One With a B.A. and One Without
Namely he uses Class and education level as a class determinant. That is grossly baseless. Admittedly in today's institutions there is significant indoctrination. I think now of the MIT Equity Commissars, Deans if you will, overlooking each department. This is to make certain that despite what should be an open and individualistic search for knowledge, that now this search is controlled in the confines of a proto-Marxist class structure.
The destruction of the individual is essential for the proto-Marxist, the establishment of the Class is sine qua non. This author seems to be just of that ilk.
Posts
