DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
stuartw2112 wrote:"For starters the question remains when faced with competing 'stories' how do we go about choosing one of them."If Kuhn is right, you don't. You just wait till the last old fucker desperately clinging on to the old ideas is dead, and the new generation can take up the better ones.
Hmmm, not sure about that one.What is it that makes some theories better than other ones?
stuartw2112 wrote:Sorry, but I think LB is doing such a lousy job at keeping up his end of the argument that I'm going to take it over. The reason, Stuart, that you think you can get everything you need from the FT, and can make some kind of critical sense of it, is because you have had such a thorough grounding in Marxism and socialism, thanks to the SPGB and your own efforts. Even if you are not always conscious of it, this provides a narrative framework, an ideology, a theory, through which you can observe the otherwise disconnected facts presented in the Economist, and make sense of them. This is what Marxism, and all science, provides – a story that makes sense of the facts. As time goes on, you're not even aware that it is a story – it's just "how things are", and it takes an effort of will and thinking and imagination to even begin to see things differently.To which I would say, yes LB, precisely, but sometimes we do need to see things differently if we are to learn anything new.Well I don't think anyone will disagree with much of that that. In fact you'll even be taught this in the borgoiuse university…The trouble is there's more to it.For starters the question remains when faced with competing 'stories' how do we go about choosing one of them.
LBird wrote:Empiricism and common sense are useless for building understanding;More gush and drivel. Empiricism and 'common sense' are not the same thing for starters.
LBird wrote:IMO, Marx’s views of capitalism provide us with the best way of understanding the capitalist system. In a nutshell, that means I start from the notion that any owner of socially productive property is a thief, a liar, and doesn’t have a clue about what they are really doing, and know nothing about the history of capitalism. That includes the queen, all religious leaders, The War Criminal Tony Blair, and The British, amongst others.How does any of that come from Marx's theory of value? Or perhaps you're talking about Groucho Marx?
LBird wrote:Empiricism and common sense will just gather ‘data’ which supports the unspoken and unacknowledged ‘theory/ideology’ that has been given to the thinker by society. That is, those methods will just produce results that support capitalism.You seem to be willfully ignorant of the many results from empirical sceince that support the case of socialism.
stuartw2112 wrote:Not a subscriber so can't read it sadly, but thanks!Google "Quantum Bayesianism"."Quantum weirdness" may be the result of how our minds work and not something to do with the external world…
LBird wrote:'Materialism' can't explain 'ideas'.If it can, why isn't it called 'materialism-idealism'? Why the stress upon the 'material', to the denial of 'ideas'?It just plainly seems you haven't understood what is meant by "materialism""Materialism" isn't an explanation but a metaphysical assumption.To me it seems that there are plenty of materialist / physicalist theories that explain "ideas" better than any of the others going. I have to admit that at the minute Dennett is a favourite."Materialism" doesn't deny ideas, it just presumes that these are just one of the many facets of the material / physical world (whatever the material / physical world may be). You may as well say "Why not call it materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc?"I mentioned "dualism" earlier they are two kinds of dualism:Substance dualism – there are two kinds of "stuff" in the universe, mental "stuff" and physical "stuff"Property dualism – there are two kinds of *properties* of stuff, mental properties and physical properties. Property dualism is just another kind of materialism or physicalism.But if we want to do "Philosophy of Mind for Beginners" perhaps we should start a new thread.
stuartw2112 wrote:Also, that what we observe depends on whether or not it's being observed.You'll like this:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229680.400-qbism-is-quantum-uncertainty-all-in-the-mind.html
Vin Maratty wrote:Idealism – Ignoring material conditionsMaterialism – Taking material conditions into considerationThis is not right at all."Idealism" – EVERYTHING is mental stuff (whatever mental stuff may be). See Bishop Berkeley"Materialism / Physicalism" – EVERYTHING is material or physical stuff (whatver material or physical stuff may be). Marx, Deitzgen, Einstein, Dennett, Harris etcMetaphysical "Monism" – The universe is one. All things are made of one "kind of stuff" (both idealism and materialism are kinds of monism). All modern science is monistic.Metaphysical "Dualism" – The mental and the physical are the two seperate aspects or dimensions of reality. Descrates is the famous proponentMetaphysical "Pluralism" – There are many seperate aspects or dimensions of reality. Leibniz held this view.There are many different kinds of materialism and idealism. You can only reasonably argue that Marx (and Dietzgen) was not a "crude" materialist like perhaps Lenin, not that he wasn't a materialist. To do that you may as well rename yourself Rosa Lichenstien.
Yes. We are now running on over twice as much RAM.It's still not where it needs to be but should hopefullu be speaking to a pro over the next few weeks to get it properly sorted out..
LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Lbird. Why don't you try backing your theory up with some facts?Vin. Why don't you try telling us your theory that determines your 'facts'?
Deja Vu?
LBird wrote:The religious certainty of the 'materialists' leaves no room for doubt or discussion. For them, the Truth is Concrete. No if or buts, or any nonsense about active, creative human minds, or conscious theory.BULLSHIT
jondwhite wrote:If its 'designed for tablets and kindle' then the document should be reflowable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflowable_document) not a PDF.It's a pdf because thats the most universally compatible format. A zip with all different formats could have been an option but I thought that would just confuse people.
Yes Brian we cannot read minds. I can only presume that if someone clicks on a link that says 'click here to download an information pack' they will want an information pack.
