The gravity of the situation
- This topic has 205 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I do create matter, but afterwards I usually wipe my arse and flush it away, I suggest you might do the same with the shit you produce.
Oh dear.No matter how often I treat you as an adult, you revert to child-like ignorance.You could always try political and philosophical debate, but it's clearly beyond you.Try reading a book, Tim.Perhaps 'Janet and John' is about your level.
L Bird – That is what 'talk of consciousness' implies – that you will reveal your social consciousness, which you employ when you create your object.Going back to my original question, which you so noticeably avoided, "since materialsits see any talk of consciousness as idealism", I'll ask you to explain again, considering I have just spent the last half our "talking of consciousness" how can it be that I see talking of consciousness as idealism, I don't. Please therefore back up your sweeping statementL Bird – "You think Marx's 'theory and practice' amounts to 'theory' – you said so, earlier." please tell me when, which by the way you can't, because I didn't, yet another example of speciousness
Yet again i must pick you upNo matter how often I treat you as an adult, you revert to child-like ignoranceThat wasn't child like ignorance, it was child like behaviour, C minus, must try harder
ALB wrote:I don't think he put the word "reality" in inverted commas to emphasise it but, rather, to say that it wasn't really "reality". Pannekoek was not arguing that there was nothing out there independently of consciousness. For him, there was and this was "the continuing, ever-changing world of phenomena" as a whole. That was all that "existed", the only reality if you like. A "phenomenon" was a part of this. What was a mental abstraction was not the phenomenon but the namings and descriptions of it by humans. This is well explained in easy-to-follow terms in that chapter 3 of his book (here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch03.htm ).So the "gravitational waves" that have now been detected rather than just predicted will be a mental construct, but not the phenomena this term and the theory behind it are attempting to describe/explain. They will long have existed as part of reality, for more than a billion years according to the estimates.Hi ALB,Probably my fault with my clumsy wording. I agree with what you say. That's what I meant by his emphasising the word "reality", while not emphasising the word phenomena. We create our "reality", or description, from phenomena that actually takes place. Whether we experience it or not makes no difference to the phenomena, as far as I can tell.It might sound obvious to us today, but I guess back when he was writing about this stuff, most non-physicists probably thought gravity was a "real thing".
Marx wrote:Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.From the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htmTo say that "Nature is man's inorganic body" is an odd way of putting it as that would mean that what is normally regard as "organic nature" (life forms) is being classified as "inorganic". Which might explain why some people misinterpret this and have him say that man actively creates "organic nature" from "inorganic nature". But as far as I know Marx never used the term "organic nature" or, if he did, it would have been in the sense of what Darwin studied.Once again, Pannekoek is clearer than Marx on this, if only because he was writing for publication and had the benefit of the advances in understanding since 1844. See, for instance, his Marxism and Darwinism.
Can Lbird explain why the proletariate did not create socialism 1000 years ago? Could it have anything to with that dreaded 'material'While he is on perhaps he could tell me what prevents me from turning shit into gold by a vote of the majority. Could that be the dreaded 'material' stuffLet's face it, his 'idealism materialism' is an extreme form of idealism
LBird wrote:Since materialists see any talk of 'consciousness' as 'idealism',Stop lying. Oh but wait, then you would have nothing to say
LBird #18 wrote:Either a 'phenomenon' 'always existed' (ie, 'exists' outside of any consciousness)…or a 'phenomenon' is 'only a mental abstraction' (ie. requires a consciousness to 'exist').You really don't seem to understand what these epistemological debates are about, ALB.The former belief is Engels (objective 'existence' outside of any relation to consciousness) and follows the bourgeois ideological separation of 'being from consciousness'.The latter belief is Marx (and, at least partially, Pannekoek) and requires the relationship between 'being and consciousness' to produce the 'phenomenon'.LBird #24 wrote:No-one is arguing that is 'nothing out there independently of consciousness'.There is, according to Marx, 'inorganic nature', from which we actively create 'organic nature'.Since materialists see any talk of 'consciousness' as 'idealism', they are forced to pretend that Marx denied the active role of critical and creative human consciousness, and they follow Engels in claiming that 'matter' is the 'active side'.LBird #25 wrote:Humans do not 'perceive reality' – that is 'passive observation' or 'contemplation', which Marx opposes.Humans create their reality by actively creating it by theory and practice upon 'inorganic nature', which produces our objective 'organic nature'.That is, humans create 'matter'.LBird,An answer to this simple, you might say child like question, may help me and others get to grips with what you are saying.If we use the sun bombarding this planet with its radiation, as an example of phenomena. Do you accept that it existed or took place before human conciousness came into existence?The idea that conciousness is needed to create phenomena, suggests that events such as the fusion reactions within the sun that send heat and light towards our planet don't happen unless some form of conciousness exists to create it or interact with it.
The big question is does the phenomemon of L Bird exist outside of our awareness of him?Or even more important, did L Bird exist before we became consious of him?This leads to the question should the proletariate take a vote on the existance of L Bird?If they vote no, what future for L Bird?
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,An answer to this simple, you might say child like question, may help me and others get to grips with what you are saying.If we use the sun bombarding this planet with its radiation, as an example of phenomena. Do you accept that it existed or took place before human conciousness came into existence?SP, if 'phenomena' require an active relationship between 'consciousness and being', then 'phenomena' can't exist outside of either 'consciousness' or 'being'.If you wish to separate 'being and consciousness' (a socio-historical act which I've already located in time and ruling class context), then be aware that you doing this is not your individual choice, but an ideological acceptance of a ruling class idea.Marx argues that humans labour upon something that is outside of consciousness (which he calls 'inorganic nature' or a 'material substratum'), but that 'theory and practice' (by a society, not an 'individual') is required to create our phenomena (or 'organic nature', the nature we know, or 'nature-for-us').'Radiation' exists for us as part of 'nature-for-us', and we can locate the emergence of this 'nature-for-us' in a socio-historical context.In the past, a different society could have regarded burns received from what we know call 'radiation' as 'god's breath'. But clearly, it would not be what we call 'radiation' with all the accompanying baggage of how to avoid or treat it. 'God's breath' would have been produced by a different social theory and practice, and would have been very different in its social consequences.Of course, it's possible to agree with the bourgeoisie, who say that now humans have a method which allows them to finally know 'The Truth' of all phenomena, and so once we 'discover' 'radiation' it is known forever.But the last hundred years, since Einstein's theory of relativity, have taught us that what we once thought was 'eternal truth', like Newton's theories or Euclid's geometry, are nothing of the sort. They are both socio-historical, and we can now locate their start and end as 'truth', and show which social groups produced them.The bottom line, as an answer for your reasonable question, is that 'radiation' (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness, and that we now know when it emerged, and we also know, because of developments in science, that at some point a new theory will emerge and be tried in social practice, and that 'radiation' will disappear like just like other 'scientific truths', like the 'ether' or 'phlogiston' or 'Piltdown Man', to be replaced a different concept.I know that anyone brought up in bourgeois society, under the pressure of ruling class ideas about the wonderful geniuses we have guiding us to their promised land, finds this socio-historical account of 'science' difficult to accept. We're all told from birth that 'science is objective' and that we should trust 'scientists'. But the bourgeoisie are lying to us.'Radiation' is a concept produced by humans, not a reflection of a 'phenomenon'.Whilst 'radiation' is useful to society, we'll stick with it, and use the concept to guide our actions.But to talk of an asocial, ahistoric 'radiation' which is 'True' and always will be, outside of 'consciousness', is essentially meaningless, and contrary to Marx's notions of social theory and practice, in which humans are the 'active side'.To ignore Marx is to return to notions of passive humanity, which observes and describes 'reality' as it is.That is the ideology of 'materialism'.
Isn't this discussion now verging upon esoterical stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forestI've already said i have not a scooby on stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,An answer to this simple, you might say child like question, may help me and others get to grips with what you are saying.If we use the sun bombarding this planet with its radiation, as an example of phenomena. Do you accept that it existed or took place before human conciousness came into existence?SP, if 'phenomena' require an active relationship between 'consciousness and being', then 'phenomena' can't exist outside of either 'consciousness' or 'being'.If you wish to separate 'being and consciousness' (a socio-historical act which I've already located in time and ruling class context), then be aware that you doing this is not your individual choice, but an ideological acceptance of a ruling class idea.Marx argues that humans labour upon something that is outside of consciousness (which he calls 'inorganic nature' or a 'material substratum'), but that 'theory and practice' (by a society, not an 'individual') is required to create our phenomena (or 'organic nature', the nature we know, or 'nature-for-us').'Radiation' exists for us as part of 'nature-for-us', and we can locate the emergence of this 'nature-for-us' in a socio-historical context.In the past, a different society could have regarded burns received from what we know call 'radiation' as 'god's breath'. But clearly, it would not be what we call 'radiation' with all the accompanying baggage of how to avoid or treat it. 'God's breath' would have been produced by a different social theory and practice, and would have been very different in its social consequences.Of course, it's possible to agree with the bourgeoisie, who say that now humans have a method which allows them to finally know 'The Truth' of all phenomena, and so once we 'discover' 'radiation' it is known forever.But the last hundred years, since Einstein's theory of relativity, have taught us that what we once thought was 'eternal truth', like Newton's theories or Euclid's geometry, are nothing of the sort. They are both socio-historical, and we can now locate their start and end as 'truth', and show which social groups produced them.The bottom line, as an answer for your reasonable question, is that 'radiation' (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness, and that we now know when it emerged, and we also know, because of developments in science, that at some point a new theory will emerge and be tried in social practice, and that 'radiation' will disappear like just like other 'scientific truths', like the 'ether' or 'phlogiston' or 'Piltdown Man', to be replaced a different concept.I know that anyone brought up in bourgeois society, under the pressure of ruling class ideas about the wonderful geniuses we have guiding us to their promised land, finds this socio-historical account of 'science' difficult to accept. We're all told from birth that 'science is objective' and that we should trust 'scientists'. But the bourgeoisie are lying to us.'Radiation' is a concept produced by humans, not a reflection of a 'phenomenon'.Whilst 'radiation' is useful to society, we'll stick with it, and use the concept to guide our actions.But to talk of an asocial, ahistoric 'radiation' which is 'True' and always will be, outside of 'consciousness', is essentially meaningless, and contrary to Marx's notions of social theory and practice, in which humans are the 'active side'.To ignore Marx is to return to notions of passive humanity, which observes and describes 'reality' as it is.That is the ideology of 'materialism'.
I doubt if any member of this forum, or scientist, would question your statement "radiation (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness". After all how can human knowledge exist without humans. And I have no doubt that science will continue to update and change much scientific knowledge in the future.But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.
SocialistPunk wrote:But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.LBird will continue to avoid answering simple questions. He prefers to pretend that the issue is a complex one and to string long words together which when all joined up amounts to a load of bollocks
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt if any member of this forum, or scientist, would question your statement "radiation (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness". After all how can human knowledge exist without humans. And I have no doubt that science will continue to update and change much scientific knowledge in the future.But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.SP, I've answered your question – you just don't like the answer.You're just following bourgeois ideology, which argues that 'knowledge of the sun' is separate from 'the sun'. The 'gist of your enquiry' is a bourgeois gist, although no doubt you regard it as simply an innocent, individual, personal question. There are none so blind as those who will not see.So when I describe the socio-historical emerge of 'knowledge of the sun', you say that's all very well, but what about 'the sun' which exists outside of 'knowledge'.For humans, we create 'knowledge of the sun', and that's it.To talk of 'the sun' outside of our 'knowledge of the sun' is meaningless. Have you never heard of Einstein's theory of relativity, and the need to acknowledge the position of the observer?When you say "the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being", how do you know this?Your only answer is that you have a special method which allows you access to 'the sun' without using your consciousness.That's fine as an answer, but it's a bourgeois answer. And I've already pointed out just when and why 'your' viewpoint emerged in society.These are philosophical issues, which have political implications, and for someone who's not really interested in politics, philosophy or science, it's perfectly acceptable to just use their 'common sense' to understand 'the sun'.For those of us, who are socialists, and are concerned to build the class consciousness of the proletariat, then these political issues have to be addressed.For those, who aren't really interested in democracy in science, or the production of 'truth', or workers' power, or class struggle in the ideology of science, or giving socio-historical accounts of human activities, then these can be ignored, and life can go on as normal under the bourgeoisie.After all, who in their right mind would argue about the sun?Any individual, using their own sight, can see the sun. And science is simply 'individual experience' writ large, isn't it?Day-to-day experience of the world tells us all we need to know, doesn't it?Right, that's 'the sun' dealt with – no need for LBird's complete bollocks!Next, value!What's the method? Ignore philosophy, including Marx's Capital (that's full of inexplicable bollocks, too, workers don't need to read that). Just use one's individual experience – well, whoever felt 'value'? No-one! Let's stick to tangible things, like the price label on a commodity. No need for all this 'science' guff, just read the price tag, if one wants to know its value! Easy-peasy!And so, the SPGB and its supporters fall back into normal life, which abhors talk of 'revolutionary science' and the philosophical need for democracy to determine what 'the sun' is.The long snooze resumes. And Marx remains either unread or glanced at uncomprehendingly. The SPGB has fought the good fight, once again, and seen off those radicals and trouble-makers, who actually read what physicists say about the problems within physics, and can actually give socio-historical accounts of 'knowledge production'.
Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.LBird will continue to avoid answering simple questions. He prefers to pretend that the issue is a complex one and to string long words together which when all joined up amounts to a load of bollocks
You're right, Vin, there are always 'simple' answers to 'simple' questions, and don't you let that clever bastard Marx befuddle you with talk of 'value'.Socialism is just a 'practical' task, a 'simple' process, for essentially 'simple' people.It makes one wonder why anybody actually bothers to read books, and has discussions about politics and philosophy, when everything is so 'simple'.SPGB? The Simple Party Grounded in the Bourgeoisie.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.