ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Does Nagal deny the existence of an 'objective reality or simply our knowledge of it?
She's basically describing the various theories of knowledge still extant (including some ancient ones) but, yes, she does say that all serious theories accept objective external reality. But some raise doubts as to whether we can acquire "knowledge", defined as "a justified true belief", about it. You'd be surprised at the absurdity of some of the arguments they use, eg how do we know that we are not a brain in a vat fed impressions by a computer?
Vin wrote:For example is it a 'fact' that the clock has stopped but the onlooker does not know of this objective fact?Yes, the dominant theory (and the view of most people questioned) is that the person does not "know" that the time is 1.15 because, although this might be a "true belief", it is not "justified". Or something like that.
Quote:But the philosopher does?Someone who knows that the clock has stopped and who has obtained the time from a clock that hasn't can (in the view of most philosophers but not of those who think we might be a brain in a vat) justifiably claim to know that the time is 1.15.This seems to be the level of what they are discussing in universities these days.
Just finished reading this. Main problem is that it is based on what a single individual can reasonably conclude what they 'know'. This is the traditional approach of Western individualist philosophy but it must be wrong because a single individual can only think through language; but language is a social product and so implies the existence of others. Descartes should not have concluded from "I think" that therefore just "I am", but rather have said "I think, therefore others (society) must exist too". Which would take the theory of knowledge off in a quite different direction.I see that modern philosophers of knowledge have abandoned analysng ordinary language and are now amusing themselves by trying to show that what someone thinks they know they might not actually know. One example is the traveller who looks at a railway clock showing 1.15. It actually is 1.15 but what the traveller doesn't know is that the clock is stopped, at 1.15. Question: can they really be said to know that it is 1.15? This apparently is how modern philosophers amuse themselves for their money (and career).The only thing that emerges from the book that might have some relevance to what we've been endlessly discussing here is a doctrine called "contextualism" which says that there can be different criteria for knowledge depending on the context, e.g everyday life or scientific research.
Revealing developments going on at the moment on the world energy market. The price of oil has fallen and some oil-producing countries want the OPEC cartel to restrict production so as to put up prices. This is being opposed by Saudi Arabia which wants to keep the price low so as to discourage fracking. Here are some of the headlines (click on the bold to read the story):UK FRACKING FACES BUST AMID OPEC OIL PRICE WAR FALLING OIL PRICE SLOWS US FRACKINGLOW OIL PRICES ARE PUTTING THE FREEZE ON FRACKING PROJECTS AROUND THE WORLDWhat this shows is the impossibility of a rational energy policy under capitalism as energy use under it reflects the relative prices of the various sources (coal, oil, gas, shale oil, etc) and changes as they vary.There's also a lesson for those who want to campaign against the use of fracking under capitalism. They should be careful what they wish for. They may get fracking slowed but not replaced by renewable sources as these are too costly at the moment but by … oil and coal.
Darren redstar wrote:On urban 75 I posted a link to my blog about Russell Brand, which someone commented was "clearly written by a squeebygeebee". Made me feel quite proud.I think it must be this bit. It's a bit of a giveaway:
Quote:For over a hundred years the cause of socialism has been dominated by the machinations of two statist creeds, social democracy and Leninism. These have fed off the discontent and aspirations of the working class to become alternative managers of Capitalism. Their heydays are long past; the labourites have long abandoned any pretence to 'reforming Capitalism' in favour of simply managing it, after the end of 'Communism' the Leninists have been reduced to mini sects which replicate within their own structures the regimes of the old Stalinist States in a homage to Marx's dictum, "first as tragedy, now as farce". Their aspirations have shrunk with their horizons, whilst they grandly imagine storming the winter palace and fantasise about bloody revolutions, in reality they have little or no belief in the working class ever rallying to their 'proletarian leadership', and even less in the ability of the working class to emancipate itself. They hide themselves in front campaigns for partial reforms, and embrace and promote a succession of 'Saviours from high' who they are sure will deliver us, until the inevitable betrayal, when they move on to the next. For these 'socialists' what Brand is for is unimportant,it is enough that He is. All previous revolutions have been the overthrow of one minority ruling class and the victory of a new one. Such revolutions have needed abstract slogans and ideals ( Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité, Peace, land, bread, ) in order to enlist the support of the masses. They have needed heroes and demagogues to inspire the majority to give their lives for the victory of new masters. The state socialists may talk about socialism, but in reality they wish to replace our present system of class exploitation with another, only with a new bureaucratic exploitative class. This is why they too need heroes, martyrs, demagogues and saviours, because they need to beguile the masses to support their revolution, to support another new ruling class. The socialist revolution can only take place when the majority of the working class not only understand that it is possible, but also desirable. It needs no abstract ideals to mask it's true purpose, no demagogues to beguile the masses. It needs no heroes.I remember now he stood as an independent candidate in Southwark at the last general election and got 120 votes:http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/00,news,19301,440,00.htmI think he's an LU infiltrator rather than an activist.
I think they take the historial revisionist Paul Le Blanc's view that Lenin was just another common or garden pre-WW1 leftwing Social Democrat and not the theorist and practioner of the vanguard party. I don't think this holds up though some of Lenin's pre-war general writings are not all bad.Incidentally, wasn't the WW originallly called The Leninist?But, to stay on thread, one section of the old IRA/Sinn Fein did embrace Leninism: the "Official IRA", also known as "the stickies":http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/20677Present-day Sinn Fein are of course the product of the breakaway and ultimately more successful (and more Catholic Nationalist) "Provisional IRA".
Nick Clegg comes to Brand's defence:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nick-clegg-defends-russell-brand-over-the-sun-hypocrite-claims-9903236.htmlActually, he makes a couple of good points.
In an article in today's Times by Ben MacIntyre entitled, echoing the that of one of our current talks, "Embrace the robots exterminating our jobs", writes (not echoing the content of our talk):
Quote:As machines increase productivity and profit, achieving higher output with fewer people, we may all have to work less and think more. With greater material comfort and more spare time, humanity can focus on creativity, imagination and thought. The Age of Enlightenment helped to forge the Industrial Revolution; the new industrial revolution could produce a new age of enlightenment.We've heard all this before. See this extract from an article in the Socialist Standard of fifty years ago:
Quote:A writer in Sunday Citizen (6 Dec. 1964), Mr. Stanley Baron, after he had talked "to the top brains in Britain; made the forecast that before the end of the century," in every industrial country, certainly in the West, most of the essential work will be performed by about 20 per cent of the people – chiefly the most intelligent. The rest of us will work only as much as we wish – or as much as society requires." This would, he wrote, call for new attitudes to work and leisure, new cities, new forms of educationThe whole article "Automation in Perspective" is well worth reading. Just change the title to "Robotisation in Perspective":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1965/no-725-january-1965/automation-perspective
So we are all children of Israel and so the whole world is the common heritage of us all. That's a result
Another front page attack on Brand by the Sun:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6153586/Exclusive-Sun-poll-finds-nation-think-Russell-Brand-IS-a-hypocrite.htmlReminds me of the poem:
Quote:You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there’s no occasion to.All grist to the mill.
It's obviously a spoof on the equally nutty claims of the extreme Jewish nationalists. Unfortunately these nutters do have some support and are represented in the Israeli parliament and even government. Of course God didn't give Palestine to the Jews. Maybe their imaginary tribal god did, but didn't people like Winstanley say he really gave the whole of the Earth to the whole of Humanity?
And the risks of vegetable-eating:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/salad-and-sandwich-recall_n_4252859.htmlhttp://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2013/5797/sainsbury-ecoliEven "organic" ones are not safe:http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/10/us-ecoli-idUSTRE7591HW20110610
It's an article in this month's Socialist Standard here on this site:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2014/no-1324-december-2014/open-letter-russell-brand
