The gravity of the situation

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, I forgot capital:

The Devil Himself wrote:

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

Wow, Karl was a 'Engelsist materialist' like Freddy!  There's a surprise. Here's me thinking he was a Idealist-materialist. So I guess that leaves LBird on his own. The first ever idealist-matarialistThat beats the athiest-catholic I once knew.

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

At Last the Truth wrote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling football team of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of social football at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant football team relationships, the dominant footballing relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."

There we have it, we simply need to overthrow the ruling football team.  When Boro[*] top the league, the workign class will be liberated. [*]Soon to be the only North East team in the Premiership, just saying like.[/quoteBoro topping the Premiership liberating the working class? I thought a socialist majority in Parliament was a long shot, but if we've got to wait for Boro to top the Premier, we may as well give up now

[Young Master Smeet]

Incidentally:https://theconversation.com/lisa-pathfinder-will-pave-the-way-for-us-to-see-black-holes-for-the-first-time-51374This is a mission in space, it is humanity using the whole planet as its object, a thing that cn only help us to think globally.  The project is necessarilly international:

Quote:

eLISA will comprise three satellites in a triangular arrangement with arms of some millions of kilometres. Precision arm length measurements will be made between “test masses” in each spacecraft – freely-floating mirrors that reflect the measuring laser beams that will travel along the long arms.

Such toys:https://www.elisascience.org/articles/new-astronomy/gravitational-wave-astronomy(take a look at some of the physics they're wanting to get out of this, impressive list of things, let's not forget how much came out of utting the Hubble telescope into space, once it started working).

[Young Master Smeet]

Of note:http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Test_cubes_floating_freely_inside_LISA_Pathfinder

Quote:

ESA’s LISA Pathfinder has released both of its gold–platinum cubes, and will shortly begin its demanding science mission, placing these test masses in the most precise freefall ever obtained to demonstrate technologies for observing gravitational waves from space.

they've found somethign useful to do with gold, how's that for the ultimate refutation of value…

[alanjjohnstone]

I learned a new word today Agnotologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology The study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt…More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I learned a new word today Agnotologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology The study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt…More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

[my bold]So, alan, you still can't decide between 'the rocks talk to us' and 'humans create their world'?And the SPGB is to help educate and propagandise amongst workers coming towards socialist ideas?I've always said to the Leninists/Trots that their role to learn from workers, and I think that conclusion about the SPGB adds yet another dimension to the argument that the SPGB stands in the Engelsist-Leninist tradition.Religious Materialism and its passive faith in its god 'Matter' is a blind alley, alan.But since you haven't taken off your own blindfold, you can't 'see' that, yet.Agnotology? The study of the refusal to be decisive and active.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 'humans create their world'?

 Pure idealism, LBird Marx and SPGB,  'humans create their world from the material  conditions they find at hand'

[ALB]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 'humans create their world'?

 Pure idealism, LBirdMarx and SPGB,  'humans create their world from the material  conditions they find at hand'

Exactly, he claims to be an oxymoronic idealist-materialist but actually he's a modern-day Kant.

[LBird]

As I've pointed out many times, Vin and ALB, because they are employing an unacknowledged Engelsist ideology, which tells them that there are only two forms of philosophy, materialism and idealism, and they claim to 'listen to the rocks', as do all materialists, then they must conclude that I'm an idealist, because I claim, like Marx, that humans create their world.They can't answer the question 'who does create our world?', which is a vital question for workers to answer for themselves.If we humans supposedly don't create our world, we can't change it, and worst of all we must place the power to create and change into the hands of a divine power – which the Leninists claim is 'The Party'.Vin and ALB can't answer this objection to Engels' materialism.So, we have the nonsense about 'idealism' and Kant.You wouldn't think that Marx was an inheritor of the German Idealist tradition, of Kant, Fichte and Hegel.

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

If we humans supposedly don't create our world, we can't change it

That's not true.  Someone else creates my clothes, but I change themevery day (Badum-tish), more seriously, I do alter my clothes, when I need to.

Quote:

'who does create our world?'

Define 'create' and define 'world'. I'd say we produce our human environment, and transform the world around us, but we don't do so ex nihil.I'm sure you know this quote, on whay Marx thought of Hegel:

This Man is Always Wrong wrote:

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital,” it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre Epigonoi [Epigones – Büchner, Dühring and others] who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a “dead dog.” I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

Of course, we must bear in mind that when Marx says Germany, he means Spain, after all, Marx never used words to mean what they mean.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…after all, Marx never used words to mean what they mean.

You think that you're being funny, but you're closer to the real issue than you'll ever realise.Even Engels misinterpreted Marx's notoriously opaque works, and the longer his misinterpretation is taken as 'gospel', the less influence Marx's actual meanings will have to workers.But, since you're not a Marxist, YMS, you're not as interested in this issue as some of us workers are, who are keen to create our world, create our socialism.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Even Engels misinterpreted Marx's notoriously opaque works, and the longer his misinterpretation is taken as 'gospel', the less influence Marx's actual meanings will have to workers.But, since you're not a Marxist, YMS, you're not as interested in this issue as some of us workers are, who are keen to create our world, create our socialism.

Well, if the workers found Engels'interpretation to be useful, and they created the Marxism we know today, maybe they did so for a reason?How do we socially produce our world?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

They can't answer the question 'who does create our world?', which is a vital question for workers to answer for themselves.

  

Vin wrote:

Marx and SPGB,  'humans create their world from the material  conditions they find at hand'

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

They can't answer the question 'who does create our world?', which is a vital question for workers to answer for themselves.

Vin wrote:

Marx and SPGB,  'humans create their world from the material  conditions they find at hand'

Once again, Vin, who creates 'the material conditions' that they, according to you, passively 'find at hand'?If you accept that, by 'material', Marx means 'socially produced', then we can change those 'material conditions', because we don't simply 'find them at hand', but we have created them socio-historically.If, on the other hand, by 'material', you accept Engels meaning of 'matter', then you'll think that we don't create 'matter', and so we can't change it.Many thinkers have pointed out that 'materialism' is itself a form of 'idealism', because it must give the creative role to a divine being (or pretend to, but actually give it to an elite, behind the backs of the majority of humans), and not to humans.By 'idealism', Marx means 'divine production', not 'using ideas' or 'active consciousness'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Once again, Vin, who creates 'the material conditions' that they, according to you, passively   'find at hand'?

Well whoever created them, created them out of the conditions the found at hand. Hisorically or otherwise.  I have highlight the distortion you added 'passively' your word not mine, but typical of you.

[Author]

Posts