ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t know whether or not you are a naive realist (which Wikipedia says is “the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are”). I just thought you might be in view of your seeming rejection of any active role for the mind in understanding the world of reality.
Of course atoms exist but not as separate entities on their own but as part of the whole world of reality which humans have labelled “atoms”.
We are not talking about particular sciences but the theories of what science is, the philosophy of science if you like. Personally, I wouldn’t go along with saying that there is a “Marxist astronomy” any more than there is Marxist physics or Marxist chemistry as opposed to “bourgeois astronomy”. But I don’t think the author meant it in that sense.
I wouldn’t have thought Pannekoek or Marx would have accepted it either.
The author does clear up one thing for you:
“Pannekoek understood material reality to be a ‘continuous and unbounded stream in perpetual motion’”.
Are you saying it isn’t? If Marx is too much for you try Heraclitus:
“He viewed the world as constantly in flux, always “becoming” but never “being”. He expressed this in sayings like panta rhei (“Everything flows”) and “No man ever steps in the same river twice.” This changing aspect of his philosophy is contrasted with that of the ancient philosopher Parmenides, who believed in “being” and in the static nature of reality.”
To return to your original question; What kind of materialist are you: a Heraclitan or a Parmenidesan?
Are you denying material, physical reality, and saying it’s all in our minds?
No, of course not. Where did you get that idea from? Just because I mentioned that the mind has a role in understanding the real world? But even the view you seem to espouse — naive realism — accepts that the mind has a role even if only as a camera or mirror.
Here’s the case for dialectical materialism as distinct from 18th century French and 19th century German mechanical materialism:
Interesting but I notice that the title of the article — “How did we figure out atoms exist?” — is different from the wording in the link. I think it’s better. It assigns a more active role to the mind that “discover” which suggests that atoms were there waiting to be discovered rather than a phenomenon observed that needed to be interpreted.
“Labour partially rows back on workers’ rights pledges
Party amends plan to bolster protections for gig economy as it boasts of ‘pro-business’ credentials”Par for the course.
More on Ukrainian draft dodgers here:
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-men-crossing-romania-border-illegally/32552480.html
There are of course Russian draft dodgers too (about whom we hear more).
Good luck to both of them.
TM, you want to discuss “types of materialism” and we are getting nearer to identifying the two main types.
One says that the universe is made up of discrete, separate things that exist on their own and is “built up” of them. (You call these “atoms” but it is not clear why you don’t call them “sub-atomic particles”.)
The other says that the universe is the only thing that exists and as a whole and is broken down by the human mind into parts that are named (for instance, “atoms”) but don’t exist independently in that they are inseparable and interconnected parts of a single whole.
The first is generally called “mechanical materialism”; the second “dialectical materialism”.
Incidentally, I wasn’t calling your view “meta-physics”. It applies to both views in that they are theories of what “reality” is rather than a study of particular parts of it. But as I said I don’t like the word because of its association with pre-scientific philosophers who speculated about the world.
I think you are missing the point, as DJP has been trying to explain. Atoms are not “the building blocks of matter”. They are concepts and terms used by scientists to describe a part of the universe that they are studying and explaining. To add to the confusion so is “matter” in some contexts.
Arguments about the best way to describe what is observed are not the same as arguments about the nature of “reality” and “existence” (or “matter” in a different sense). Most scientists are not interested in such “philosophical” arguments and in practice don’t need to be, even if this could help them understand what they are doing (ie, describing reality not discovering it).
On the other hand, we here love such philosophical arguments. Anybody can take part in them without needing to be a physicist or practical scientist or even understand the arguments amongst them. How can any of us presume to judge whether or not “dark matter” or “quarks” or whatever are an adequate or useful description/explanation of what scientists have observed?
I don’t like the word but what we are talking about is “meta-physics” rather than physics.
It’s a question of definition, even a tautology. What is meant by “exists”?Whatever exists is “matter”.
I’d say that only one thing “exists” and that the whole universe as a whole. Don’t fancy being called a “vacuist”, though. That seems a bit medieval like the whole debate.
There is also this for the town and transport planners of the future to consider:
https://amp.dw.com/en/european-towns-remove-traffic-signs-to-make-streets-safer/a-2143663
In the London borough where I live the local council have introduced this. Before they did they carried out a consultation, which showed more were against than for (“opinion was split among the nearly 10,000 respondents on whether to implement our 20mph proposal in its original form (47.9 per cent in favour and 49.7 per cent against)”. They still went ahead. I can’t see that happening in socialism.
DJP, here’s another contribution to the debate by one of the Party’s legal eagles. Ronnie Warrington (then still a member) mentioning the concept of a classless non-legal social order:
https://legalform.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/warrington-standing-pashukanis-on-his-head.pdf
The whole question of law was discussed in the Party in the early 1990s and here is the resolution on the subject carried by Conference in 1991
“That this Conference recognises that rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society. Whereas a ruling class depends on the maintenance of laws to ensure control of class society, a classless society obtains social cohesion through its socialisation process without resorting to a coercive machinery. However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word “law” means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.” (Carried 87-30) (1991).
This motion had been proposed in otder to clarify the position following the rejection of the following motion proposed by Pieter Lawrence’s branch in 1990 and rejected by 113 votes against and 28 votes for.
“That concerning democratic organisation in socialism it is anticipated that most behaviour will be self-regulated on the basis of individual responsibility. This Conference also affirms that any problem caused by individuals or groups acting against majority decisions or engaging in other anti-social conduct will be dealt with through appropriate institutions, which may be adapted from existing legal bodies such as courts, and which would act from a basis of democratically-decided rules, regulations or laws. In view of the possible misleading impression that socialism will allow individuals or groups to act in an anti-social manner, on no account should any of our arguments imply that no formal system of accountability will exist, or that force, in the form of public powers of coercion will never be used; nor should it be suggested that ‘moral persuasion’ would be sufficient in all cases, or that arbitrary, unauthorised responses would be tolerated” (Lost 28-113) (1990).
Pieter Lawrence vowed to fight, fight and fight again against the 1991 resolution and for a number of years the branch he was in tried to get the Party to commit to the position oulined in the first part of their 1990 motion (the second part was accepted as read). To no avail. The 1991 resolution remains the Party’s position on the matter.
You could argue that it was a question of semantics. That members were agreed that there would be rules and regulations (and bodies to decide if they had been infringed) in a socialist society but were arguing over what to call them.
ps. I am afraid BD you are going to be a bit disappointed with his pamphlet on Law as it’s not up to his usual standard. Take this for instance:
“The assertion that in socialism there will be no law and therefore no courts and no civic powers of restraint can only be taken to mean that the rapist will not be called to account for his actions before the community but will remain free to carry on.”
Of course it means no such thing. The 1991 resolution clearly states that “rules and regulations, and democratic procedures for making and changing them and for deciding if they have been infringed, will exist in socialist society.” It just says that they shouldn’t be called “laws” and “law courts”.
Incidentally, “Gary Jay” who wrote the article Pieter criticised was, under his real name if Gary Slapper, a legal academic who wrote many textbooks and articles on law. See his obituary here:
