Science for Communists?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

£27 for the ebook!!   Would you recommend any of this free reading? http://www.russellkeat.net/value_free_social_science.php

Keat wrote:

In my discussion of objectivity and value-freedom in Social Theory as Science (co-authored with John Urry; Routledge 1975/1982) a broadly Weberian position was defended…

[my bold]Well, Vin, since you apparently don't think science is ideological, you won't be able to read Keat and Urry's book from an alternative Communist perspective, will you? Y'know, critically.Take my advice, Vin, and ignore me and the book.£27? What price ignorance?

Well its the usual load of bollocks from the village idiot who thinks his the Einstein of social science. How many villages have you served now?The fact is, no one in the universe can understand you because you talk confusing nonsense along with aspersions and  insults. Whenever you are cornered you spout the same crap ' you are a positivist, a Stalinist a Leninist' blabla ad nauseum. edit: *New insult 'idealist'*  This is because you have nothing of any importance to contribute. Your modus operandi is obfuscation and insults.As for myself, I can either pay my electric bill or pay £27 for a book recommended by someone who talks a load of confusing nonsense.Duh!

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Stick with 'materialism' and 'physicalism' and 'supervenience', DJP. And pretend to yourself that they are asocial and ahistorical concepts. Then you'll 'know' the 'Truth', and be at one with your god, 'matter'.You're an idealist, DJP.

This is absurd, LBird. DJP has made it clear on numerous occasions that he doesn't adhere to the kind of "materialism" you are attacking and goes along with the general approach outlined by Marx in his Theses on Feuerbach and as developed later by Dietzgen and Pannekoek. In fact his position is nearer to yours than you think, but you don't seem to want people to agree just partly with you. It's just that he (like me) isn't convinced by this "critical realism" stuff.Anyway, you have yet to explain what it is you and "critical realism" mean by "reality". When you do get round to it we can then see if it is true (!) that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones …

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Stick with 'materialism' and 'physicalism' and 'supervenience', DJP. And pretend to yourself that they are asocial and ahistorical concepts. Then you'll 'know' the 'Truth', and be at one with your god, 'matter'.You're an idealist, DJP.

This is absurd, LBird. DJP has made it clear on numerous occasions that he doesn't adhere to the kind of "materialism" you are attacking and goes along with the general approach outlined by Marx in his Theses on Feuerbach and as developed later by Dietzgen and Pannekoek. In fact his position is nearer to yours than you think, but you don't seem to want people to agree just partly with you.

But DJP doesn't agree with Marx's realism.DJP says he agrees that both 'ideas' and 'material' have the same ontological status. So do you.But, this means that the 'material' can 'supervene' (to use DJP's favourite ideological term) on the 'ideal', just as the 'ideal' can 'supervene' on the 'material'.But DJP does not accept this logical conclusion. He wishes to argue for 'physicalism', which argues that only the 'material' can form the basis, and that the 'ideal' must always 'supervene' upon the 'material'.One can either argue that 'ideas' and 'material' are different (and thus one can be the basis of the other), or that they are the same, and thus either can form the basis of the other.This, latter, is Marx's position. He makes this plain in the Theses on Feurbach, where he praises the 'active side' of idealism.If human ideas cannot create a new reality, then change caused by humans is impossible.

Marx, Capital, p. 284, wrote:

At the end of every labour process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally.

[my bold]Read the rest of the surrounding paragraph. 'Purpose', 'conscious', 'mind', 'purposeful will', 'purposeful activity'.This is a million miles from 'matter' telling us 'what it is' and 'what to think'.And all the shite about the 'material' determining what humans think.If Communism isn't based upon critical thought of the existing, it will never emerge from the mud and rocks of 'physicalism'.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP says he agrees that both 'ideas' and 'material' have the same ontological status. So do you.But, this means that the 'material' can 'supervene' (to use DJP's favourite ideological term) on the 'ideal', just as the 'ideal' can 'supervene' on the 'material'.But DJP does not accept this logical conclusion. He wishes to argue for 'physicalism', which argues that only the 'material' can form the basis, and that the 'ideal' must always 'supervene' upon the 'material'.One can either argue that 'ideas' and 'material' are different (and thus one can be the basis of the other), or that they are the same, and thus either can form the basis of the other.This, latter, is Marx's position. He makes this plain in the Theses on Feurbach, where he praises the 'active side' of idealism.If human ideas cannot create a new reality, then change caused by humans is impossible.

Since you haven't understood I'll give it another go.It's one thing to say that thought arises out of matter, quite another to say that matter arises out of thought.Materialism is a type of monism. That is, in the least possible words, "all is one".On the level of ontology, that is what exists, materialism / physicalism claims that all that exists depends on / arises out of / supervenes on the material / physical. Many different things exist but these are all the result of or composed of the material / physical. Thought and ideas exist but they are just another part of the multifaceted world of the material / physical.That could be called 'stuff monism'. Which is, perhaps, different from 'thing monism'The 'thing' monism way of putting it a'la Deitzgen is something like "all that exists is the universe and we divide this thing into many things when we try to understand it".If we say 'ideas' and 'material' are different kinds of 'stuff' then we have dualism which is not a 'monism' so neither materialism or idealism.If we say 'ideas' and 'material' and the same kind of stuff then we have to say what that 'stuff' is. I don't deny that human thought and action causes human society. But I do deny that 'free will' at least in the libertarian sense of the term exists. I don't think that magic exists or that the human mind is somehow above the rest of the universe and the laws of nature. But also on the grander scale it is the universe that caused humans to exist..But like has been pointed out, you have yet to explain what you think 'the real' is…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

One can either argue that 'ideas' and 'material' are different (and thus one can be the basis of the other), or that they are the same, and thus either can form the basis of the other.

You can't do either of these.If they are different they are different, we have a dualism. With dualism one can't be the basis of the otherIf they are the same we have one kind of thing, monism. Everything is an different aspect of this one kind of thing. I, like most people these days, accept materialism / physicalism as the most likely explanation of what this one kind of thing is. That is not to say that I do not accept that materialism / physicalism has problems, far from it…Saying they are different "kinds of stuff" entails dualism.Saying they are different "aspects of the same thing" entails monism.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I, like most people these days, accept materialism / physicalism as the most likely explanation of what this one kind of thing is.

That's because it's a 'ruling class' idea, DJP. 'Most people accept' it, is a pretty good basis to call something a 'ruling class idea'.

DJP wrote:

That is not to say that I do not accept that materialism / physicalism has problems, far from it…

The day something 'material or physical' builds us a hospital, DJP, in the absense of 'ideas', I'll concede the debate to you.I'd rather go with Marx:

Marx, Capital, p. 284, wrote:

…what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of [anything non-human]… is that the architect builds the [hospital]… in his mind before he constructs it in [brick]…

The construction of 'knowledge' follows the same course.And just like the architect's drawing can fall down when built if wrongly conceived, due to the test of 'practice', so can the scientist's theory when practiced.But we have to be the judge of 'good hospitals' and 'true knowledge'.I suspect that, if this society continues, our hospitals and our knowledge will continue to degrade and disappoint, and end in ruins.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

On the level of ontology, that is what exists, materialism / physicalism claims that all that exists depends on / arises out of / supervenes on the material / physical. Many different things exist but these are all the result of or composed of the material / physical. Thought and ideas exist but they are just another part of the multifaceted world of the material / physical.

You're interested in 'being', whereas I and Marx are interested in 'knowledge'.That's why 'theory and practice' are so important.This does not happen prior to consciousness.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

 'Most people accept' it, is a pretty good basis to call something a 'ruling class idea'.

Surely a better way of putting it is "ideas that serve ruling class interests"?Though when I said most people I meant "most people who have studying this in depth".Most people in the world are still religious in one way or another and think about things in some kind of dualistic way…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

…think about things…

This requires 'ideas' and 'things', or 'things' and 'ideas'.The belief that 'ideas' can be circumvented, and 'things' implant themselves in the passive minds of humans, by humans employing a supposedly 'neutral method' (which removes 'ideas' from the process) and allows 'things' to speak for themselves, is dead. Or, rather, it should be, according to science.But… we live in a class society, where it is essential for the ruling class to maintain the illusion that their thinkers and academics have a 'non-ideological' way of explaining the world, natural and social.They maintain that 'individuals' (especially 'elite individuals') can understand the world, often through their 'individual' senses.We, on the contrary, maintain that understanding the world can only come about through 'social ideas', though a social 'theory and practice', which is not the product of 'individual senses', but 'social ideology'.'Knowledge' is not a 'mirror' of the 'material'. 'Knowledge' consists of a product of 'theory and practice', and so 'knowledge' must be a mixture of 'ideas' and 'material'.The hunt for eternal knowledge, Truth, something the same for all observers for ever, would successfully end in us being 'at one' with the 'material'.This can't be done. 'Physicalism', with its emphasis on 'material', seeks to continue this wild goose chase.The seeking of 'Knowledge' is the aim, not the identifying of 'Being'.

[DJP]

Yes we all know niave realism is false.Most of us also know that physicalism / materialism does not necessarily entail niave realism or "eternal truths".But if we reject materialism / physicalism what takes it place? What is the reality that this "realism" refers to?Until you answer this you are just building a castle in the sky…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

This can't be done. 'Physicalism', with its emphasis on 'material', seeks to continue this wild goose chase.

I see what you've done now. You think still think that "Physicalism" is the same as "crude materialism".The thing is that a lot modern work in philosophy of mind / language and neuroscience / psychology comes from a physicalist background and quite independently of Marx or Deitzgen or Pannekoek is also supporting the idea of the social nature of consciosness and language and knowledge etc..

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But if we reject materialism / physicalism what takes it place? What is the reality that this "realism" refers to?

Causal mechanisms within structures, which require 'ideas' to identify them.That's why Marx's 'value', which causes humans to act in certain ways, and emerges from the structure of capitalist society, and requires 'theory' to understand (and is not 'visible' to 'individuals'), seems to fit the bill of 'Critical Realism'.That's why the bourgeoisie can't 'see' 'value', whereas we Communists can.As Einstein said, "it's the theory that determines what can be observed".

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The thing is that a lot modern work in philosophy of mind / language and neuroscience / psychology comes from a physicalist background and quite independently of Marx or Deitzgen or Pannekoek is also supporting the idea of the social nature of consciosness and language and knowledge etc..

If "consciousness and language and knowledge" are not 'physical', why talk of 'physicalism'?What about the 'physical' that 'supervenes' upon 'ideas'?Humans 'create' their world of knowledge, understanding and explanation, of production, distribution and consumption, much of which is not 'physical' in any meaningful sense, and much of which is the product of 'ideas', rather than the 'physical', so why the emphasis upon the 'physical'?Is it to retain Engels' 'materialism'?It's a dead end for Communists, DJP.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

That's why the bourgeoisie can't 'see' 'value', whereas we Communists can.

 How come I can see it?    

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

That's why the bourgeoisie can't 'see' 'value', whereas we Communists can.

 How come I can see it?  

Perhaps you're an omniscient god, Vin.

[Author]

Posts