The gravity of the situation
- This topic has 205 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion? I'm not the only person here, others watching might be interested to hear, ignore me, reply as if I were dead and my ideology with me. Give your opinion to the world.
Quote:What does 'exist' mean?Actually, YMS, that's a good question. I think it means "is real". I know this doesn't solve the problem for dualists who think that there is an "inorganic" and an "organic" nature as to which of them is really real or whether they both exist or, for that matter, whether one existed prior to the other.
Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion? I'm not the only person here, others watching might be interested to hear, ignore me, reply as if I were dead and my ideology with me. Give your opinion to the world.[my bold]RIP YMS.
ALB wrote:Quote:What does 'exist' mean?Actually, YMS, that's a good question. I think it means "is real". I know this doesn't solve the problem for dualists who think that there is an "inorganic" and an "organic" nature as to which of them is really real or whether they both exist or, for that matter, whether one existed prior to the other.
[my bold]And, for you, ALB, is the 'real' socially produced, as Marx argued?Or is it just 'out there', outside of any relationship to a 'consciousness', as Engels argued?
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Quote:What does 'exist' mean?Actually, YMS, that's a good question. I think it means "is real". I know this doesn't solve the problem for dualists who think that there is an "inorganic" and an "organic" nature as to which of them is really real or whether they both exist or, for that matter, whether one existed prior to the other.
[my bold]And, for you, ALB, is the 'real' socially produced, as Marx argued?Or is it just 'out there', outside of any relationship to a 'consciousness', as Engels argued?
Careful YMS and ALB, L Bird is trying to create a diversion, rather than answering the question. Keep at him Paxman style!!
Quote:is the 'real' socially produced?Don't worry, Tim, I'm sure anyone can spot the glaring contradiction between the claim that it is and agreement with this one:
Quote:His term for 'reality' was 'inorganic nature'.Unless, that is, the claim is that 'inorganic nature' is socially produced, i.e. that consciousness created the world external to consciousness. But that would be another contradiction, wouldn't it?But we won't know till YMS's questions are answered.
Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion? I'm not the only person here, others watching might be interested to hear, ignore me, reply as if I were dead and my ideology with me. Give your opinion to the world.There are others watching who would be happy to hear LBird provide actual answers for a change.
Marx Good — Engels BadThe Left chose the perfect scapegoat in Frederick Engels to assuage its misplaced hope in the failed USSR. Seventy years before the USSR was born (i.e. longer than it actually lasted), Engels predicted the Left’s duplicitous rationalisation of the regime.Here is his determination of Lenin’s political consciousness [“The Peasant War in Germany” (1850)]:“The worst thing that can befall the leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to assume power at a time when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class he represents and for the measures this domination implies.”“What he can do depends not on his will but on the degree of antagonism between the various classes, and on the level of development of the material means of existence, of the conditions of production and commerce upon which the degree of intensity of the class contradictions always reposes.”“What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not on him, but also not on the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions.”“He is bound to the doctrines and demands hitherto propounded which, again, do not follow from the class relations of the moment, or from the more or less accidental level of production and commerce, but [merely] from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement.”“Thus, he necessarily finds himself in an unsolvable dilemma.”“What he can do contradicts all his previous actions and principles and the immediate interests of his party, and what he ought to do cannot be done.”“In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whose domination the movement is then ripe.”“In the interests of the movement he is compelled to advance the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with talk and promises, and with the asseveration that the interests of that alien class are their own interests.”“He who is put into this awkward position is irrevocably lost.”Upon this prescient pre-materialist conception of history analysis (above), Engels demonstrates that the Left really had no choice but to consciously repudiate Marx’s materialist conception of history once it engaged in justifying the USSR as marxian socialist.The Left’s ancient duplicity persists in veiled form today, though now transformed academically into a sophisticated relativist idealism that necessarily permits Leninist voluntarism.Such casuistry has no choice but to spurn “crude materialism”. And what better materialist progenitor to suffer for the Left’s shattered ideals than Frederick Engels.Naturally, in the spirit of unscrupulous duplicity, the Left deliberately chooses to forget that Karl Marx—in almost identical words to those of Frederick Engels—deterministically warned:“One cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.”“No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.”“Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present, or at least in the course of formation.”
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion? I'm not the only person here, others watching might be interested to hear, ignore me, reply as if I were dead and my ideology with me. Give your opinion to the world.There are others watching who would be happy to hear LBird provide actual answers for a change.
Been asking for ages
Anywa, diversion over:
Quote:Great scientific discoveries often raise more questions than they answer. Just days after the announcement that gravitational waves from two merging black holes have been detected, astrophysicists are already pondering what this means for our understanding of stars. New studies are already being released and we can expect a flood of creative ideas in the near future.Like the discovery of the telescope, the laser interferometer is bringing about the creation of new ideas.
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion? I'm not the only person here, others watching might be interested to hear, ignore me, reply as if I were dead and my ideology with me. Give your opinion to the world.There are others watching who would be happy to hear LBird provide actual answers for a change.
But I have provided the answer, SP.You just don't want to read it.If one is an Engelsist, matter is not created by socio-historical theory and practice, but just 'is'.Since there are no Marxists here, who want to discuss the social ideologies behind 'science', I'm wasting my time saying all that yet again.There's no mystery to all this, SP. You admit that you won't hear of active, crictical, creative workers producing their world.You won't have humans being the 'active side' in the production of a 'creative socialism'. You said this, not me.Marx's answers are about socio-historical production, and I've explained in great detail the socio-historical emergence of a class dedicated to pretending to remove creative consciousness from the world, and insist that it just 'is'.And you lot, as good Engelsists, simply want to know 'matter' as it is and pretend that you're not actually using your social minds.No matter how many times I repeat that 'inorganic nature' is an 'ingredient into activity', your ideology tells you to ask 'But, what is it, when it's not an 'ingredient into activity?'.You want to 'know' without a 'knower'.Einstein argued that 'the theory determines what we observe', which is an echo of Marx's 'theory and practice'.I can only answer the question from a Marxist perspective, but you lot want an answer from an Engelsist perspective.So, that's what I'm giving youse:'Matter' exists outside of any socio-historical theory and practice.And good luck with building your travesty of socialism with that complete crap.
LBird wrote:And good luck with building your travesty of socialism with that complete crap.We are still waiting for you to define YOUR 'socialism'How do you envisage socialism?
Young Master Smeet wrote:What does:Quote:'ingredient into activityMean?
It means Marx was right and Engels was wrong.But that meaning has no meaning for you, YMS, because you're not a Marxist (you don't read 'dead' people's ideas), and refuse to accept Marx's 'theory and practice'.'Knowing' requires an 'active knower'.Gnomic, eh, for those uncomprehending of Marx's philosophy – you lot just want 'practical answers', and none of this 'thinking' shit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.