July 2, 2014 at 3:17 pm #102313steve colborn wrote:I totally agree with Vince's appraisal. Food is a "biological" imperative and has nothing whatsoever to do with "philosophy".
What can I say?July 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm #102314
In fact, I'm compelled to say more.Can you two really not see the developmental difference between 'raw mammoth', 'pie dinner' and 'Cordon Bleu' dining? The thousands of years of human culture and thinking, which is just a bit more than 'stuffing bellies' with 'calories'? In fact, food as art.Given your 'biological imperative' analysis, it wouldn't surprise me if you think that dining in Socialism would only require buckets, troughs and gruel, so that the 'biological imperative' is met, and 'wants and needs' are thus 'satisfied'.Personally, I have (had?) higher hopes of Socialism.Vin Maratty wrote:Why don't you just admit to making a silly statement? It doesn't hurt, I'v done it myself.
Yeah, I confess: I thought humans were more than biological drives. Silly me.Another triumph for the SPGB. All I need now is twc to back this all up with 'objective science', which will 'prove' that all humans require is gruel and a full stomach.July 2, 2014 at 4:56 pm #102315AnonymousInactive
Nothing you say in your last post can be attributed to me.July 2, 2014 at 5:47 pm #102316
The development of cooking! I'm not in the slightest, interested in this area of study. In fact, "Cordon Bleu is to my mind, merely food for snobs. Moreover, when you state, "In fact, food as art.", I am afraid you have lost the plot.Where I come from and the class I belong to, simply putting food on the table is hard enough, Cordon Bleu or otherwise. In Socialism, we will probably have leisure to explore the rich history of food and it's corollary, how to cook it. Until then, I guess I'll leave both, to those with both the time and money to indulge.Maybe you would be better off, taking this type of discussion to a web site of the Bullingdon Club! They have both the free time and the Gelt to indulge in pointless discussion. As someone trying to get Socialism, I have neither. Steve Colborn.July 2, 2014 at 6:35 pm #102317steve colborn wrote:…pointless discussion.
It makes me wonder… what is the point of the SPGB having a discussion site, if any attempt to discuss anything more complex than pies and rocks, is seen as evidence of the Bullingdon Club-like tendencies?Some of us are actually interested in philosophy, politics, science, etc. Y'know, talking about how we can build for Socialism, and develop workers' understanding of the world they live in, both physical and social.If you and Vin are not happy with 'time-wasters', why bother to engage? Why not leave it to those members of the SPGB who are interested in expanding their knowledge? In fact, are there any?July 2, 2014 at 7:03 pm #102318
Actually LBird, I am interested in Politics, science and many other subjects. I have a degree in the first. Food and cooking for me, at the moment anyway, stops at getting it and putting it on the plate. If society changes and I am afforded the time to indulge, it may well be different! Until then, my focus is on the emancipation of myself and my class. If thats OK? Steve Colborn.July 2, 2014 at 7:49 pm #102319steve colborn wrote:Until then, my focus is on the emancipation of myself and my class. If thats OK?
You certainly need to emancipate yourself from 'rocks and pies'!This fixation, that you share with others on this site, is rooted in Engels' so-called "Materialism", and the notion that things and our ideas about things are in opposition. And so, the 'materialists' focus on 'things', like 'food' and 'biological imperatives'.But our ideas about 'food' and the 'biological' are as important as those things themselves. This claim is always painted, by the 'hard' materialists, as 'idealism', because, it appears, it involves 'ideas'.This is pure nonsense. We can't separate out 'things' and our 'ideas about things', because they are intimately linked.I won't bother saying anymore, because I've said it all before, and I'm sure this post will have the same little effect upon the 'materialists'.I'd strangle Engels if I could get my hands on him!July 2, 2014 at 10:18 pm #102320
What is it with you and "pies"? I know for a fact, you are not "Desperate Dan", so lets leave this metaphysical and philosophical, headbusting garbage, where it belongs. Not in my pantheon of things to concern myself about. I'll concentrate on, "food on the table" and heating and lighting on, thanks very much. End of, really, end of!!! Steve Colborn.July 2, 2014 at 10:41 pm #102321rodshawParticipant
I don't see how any materialist can disagree that ideas, just like emotions, are part of the material world. That surely is for religionists. Ideas arise from the interaction of our brain cells in unison with the rest of our body and with the outside world. Leastways there is no evidence to the contrary. How on earth else do we get them? I'm not sure Marx or Engels said anything different. But no doubt somebody can throw lots of quotes at me.Whether we're satisfied with pies or crave a bit of posh cordon bleu, we still need a brain, and something physical going on in it, in the form of an idea or two, to perceive our hunger. Or the beauty of a sausage.So calm it down, boys.July 2, 2014 at 11:01 pm #102322
I'm quite calm Rod. I simply will not interact with any more of this, as I see it, non relevant navel gazing. Got more important things to do, like feed my family, ensuring they are as well provided for, given thelimitations of Capitalism, as I am able to do. Food on the table, roof over head, heating, lighting E.T.C. E.T.C.I'll let the Bon Viveur's attend to the rest, if you don't mind! Steve Colborn.July 3, 2014 at 8:21 am #102323AnonymousInactive
LBird I think you create differences and confilct where there are none. For example:" We can't separate out 'things' and our 'ideas about things', because they are intimately linked." Your statement is the the basis of materialism. It is what Marx empasised after the 'marxists' had distorted his materialism. But as Engels said at Marx's graveside: "Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc. " Explanation for ideas are to be found in our material conditions and as you say we cannot seperate 'things' from 'ideas about things' but we can study the material conditions of their 'interaction'July 3, 2014 at 8:34 am #102324AnonymousInactiverodshaw wrote:I don't see how any materialist can disagree that ideas, just like emotions, are part of the material world.
I agree. The only disagreement is in LBird's aunt salliesJuly 3, 2014 at 9:57 am #102325Vin Maratty wrote:Explanation for ideas are to be found in our material conditions and as you say we cannot seperate 'things' from 'ideas about things'…
But, in the first half of your sentence you're separating 'ideas' and 'material conditions', Vin. For you, the origin of 'ideas' is a preexisting 'material'. That is, you separate temporally 'ideas about things' from 'things'. In the latter half, you agree that this can't be done. Can't you see, comrade, that this is confused?In fact, 'explanation' (ie. human understanding of nature) is to be found in the interaction of 'ideas' and 'material conditions'.'Material conditions' do not speak to us, or provide our ideas. Humans create ideas. Some work, some don't. Practice helps us to determine this. But the origin of ideas is humans, not the 'material'.Vin Maratty wrote:…but we can study the material conditions of their 'interaction'.
This means that 'material interaction' tells us 'what it is'. No, the actually interaction is between human ideas and material reality, mediated through practice.The ideological belief that 'material conditions' do not require human ideas to understand them, that is, human creativity, and that passive observation of 'the real world' works to produce knowledge, is 19th century positivism.The source of this confusion for Communists is Engels, and not Marx.Vin Maratty wrote:LBird I think you create differences and confilct where there are none.
Unfortunately, there are differences between us, Vin. And as a comrades, I think that it's worth pointing these out, and trying to discuss them and, hopefully, clear things up.July 3, 2014 at 10:30 am #102326AnonymousInactiveLBird wrote:In fact, 'explanation' (ie. human understanding of nature) is to be found in the interaction of 'ideas' and 'material conditions'.
You are seperating 'things' from the 'idea of things'.July 3, 2014 at 10:46 am #102327Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:In fact, 'explanation' (ie. human understanding of nature) is to be found in the interaction of 'ideas' and 'material conditions'.
You are seperating 'things' from the 'idea of things'.
No, I'm stressing interaction, Vin.That is, the 'material' cannot be understood without human 'ideas'.Thus, 'ideas' are as central as 'material'.Thus, stressing the central importance of 'human ideas' is not 'idealism'.'Idealism' is the belief that 'ideas' come from outside of humans, ie, from 'god' or 'nature' or 'the material'.Thus, as Marx argued, 'materialism' is a form of 'idealism'.Marx argued for the unity of theory and practice, for ideas and material, for 'Historical Materialism' or 'the materialist conception of history'.This is a million miles from Engels' 19th century positivism, that 'nature' tells us 'what it is', that the 'material' is the source of 'ideas'.Humans create ideas. Ideas are needed to understand the material.'Explanation' involves active human understanding, not passive observation of 'the material', which exposes itself to us.It doesn't. Human ideas is not 'idealism'. 'Materialism' is a form of 'idealism'.The Theses on Feuerbach make this plain. Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'. He took from both.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.