DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:I'll say it once again, comrades, if we don't collectively and democratically control the production of scientific knowledge, then that process of production will remain in the hands of a minority, who will thus have power over society.
But in a society of common ownership and democratic control WHO are 'the scientists' and HOW do they exert minority control?
twc wrote:Can you show us how anyone can explain anything non-deterministically. You won't find the answer in the Amazon bestseller philosophy list. Just carry out a simple exercise yourself to see if you can explain anything — explain anything at all — non-deterministically.LOL. The whole of quantum physics runs on probalistic models (i.e is not deterministic) I would have thought that explains quite a lot..
The point is..
Hardy wrote:[…] that whilst it is the economic conditions which ultimately condition historical development, it should not be overlooked that all the derivative factors, political, juridical, philosophical, religious and artistic, not only interact with each other but also “react upon the economic basis”.Hardy wrote:The summary of the Materialist Conception of History in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, is a compressed statement which should be read together with further explanations in Marx and Engels’ writings. I would like to deal with what is meant by “the relations of production”. The reference from the Preface to the Critique is as follows: “In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces”. Engels was asked a question in 1894 about the “relations of production”, and he answered it on 25th January, 1894 by listing what constituted “the relations of production”. First, the entire technique of production and transport. Second, the geographical basis in which they operate. Third, the survivals of earlier stages of economic development. Fourth, the external environment which surrounds this form of society.In other words, Engels was saying that economic relations must not be interpreted narrowly, that they go into a whole field, that they take in not merely the technique of production, but a number of other things as well. In the same letter, Engels emphasised the point that whilst it is the economic conditions which ultimately condition historical development, it should not be overlooked that all the derivative factors, political, juridical, philosophical, religious and artistic, not only interact with each other but also “react upon the economic basis”. Engels is saying that it should be recognised that there is an economic basis and that it produces a superstructure corresponding to it, but these various aspects of the superstructure interact with each other, and all of them react on the economic basis itself, so things are not simply in a watertight compartment like economic basis and the rest, nor should it be thought that the rest is simply the result of the economic basis.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/materialist-conception-historyIt seems that this thread has lost it's usefulness. If anyone wants to see the SPGB take on 'historical materialism' see our pamphlethttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialismPerhaps start from 'some misconceptions'And this study guide:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/materialist-conception-historyIt would seem that 'base-superstructure determinism' is far to crude a model to be of any real use. For the reasons outlined by Engels (and others since) in the letter mentioned here and previously in this thread…
Graeber's 'Debt' book is thoroughly demolished in the latest issue of Aufheben. I guess it will be online next year..
The German Ideology wrote:The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.ALB wrote:LOL. Thought it was going to be that one before I clicked the link.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If I'm reading that right, we can't isolate the brain states from the whole chain of environment and action that they are connected to their objects, intimately. That for me is a thoroughgoing account of how the meat-bots relate to the universe and pretend that they think to each other.That still leaves the question, "What is it like to be a bat?"http://www.wnswz.strony.ug.edu.pl/nagel_bat.pdf
ALB wrote:Sign of the times or sign that it was no good?The latter I think. If you see the kind of traffic that libcom.org gets there's clearly still much interest in anarchist type ideas..
Looks interesting. But note he's arguing for a "non-physicalist materialism" The trouble seems to be that 'physicalism', 'materialism' and 'realism' are used in different ways by different writers. For interests sake would you have an objection to the term 'monism'?It might help if you look up the concept of multiple realizability if you don't know it already.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiple-realizability/
robbo203 wrote:Depends what you mean by "deal with" – which I take you to mean "account for".If you take physicalism to mean "that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical" then I don't see relationships as a particular problem…
I agree there are problems with physicalism (as there are with all things once you get down to the core of it) but I am not at all sure that emergence really explains anything either, it just merely kicks the can down the road.Perhaps I should just up the vagarity levels and use "monism" instead.
LBird wrote:Emergence.OK, but physicalism incorperates that and is not neccesarily reductive.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#9
jondwhite wrote:Perhaps a journalist would like to report on our debate since there is national television interest in the debate between the Deputy PM Nick Clegg and UKIP's leader Nigel Farage on 7pm on 2 April?Perhaps they would. Perhaps the media department or campaigns should send out press releases..
