DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Blah, blah blah…Karl Marx wrote:He [Her Duhring] knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist. Hegel's dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after it has been stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm
So there you go…
Yes it's intentional. May revert the forum posts to previous size but articles and other pages will be staying at this size.
Vin Maratty wrote:I think the branch will definitely be interested Will it require a meeting and resolution?Doesn't require it but if I can get a definite yes I'll be more willing to put the time in…
Vin Maratty wrote:Having the same problems with the new group we were having with the old group. Yahoo groups are rubbish. We really need to sort out an area on this forum front for meetings.If I can get a definite yes from a branch that intends to use I will see to it. Hint
Article by Andrew Kliman on Piketty. Have yet to properly give it a read though…http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/were_top_corporate_executives_really_hogging_workers_wages_20140917
LBird wrote:But I'm not a 'materialist', but an adherent of Marx's 'theory and practice' (ie. 'idealism-materialism'), which Marx made clear in the Theses on Feuerbach was a separate position from both 'materialism' and 'idealism'. It was a new unity, encompassing bothIn 1845 Marx did make the distinction between his philosophy and "all hitherto existing materialism", but that does not mean that he still did not see himself as a type of materialist, for in 1868 he states quite clearly (when speaking about Herr Duhring – the subject of Engels Anti-Duhring) "He knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist."As far as I know you are the only adherent of "idealism-materialism" in the whole world…
LBird wrote:In the 'real' world, of course, IVF is an idea which creates life.Yes, like god created light when he said "let there be light"…
LBird wrote:Try reading the extract from Koestler's book, where he addresses the space between electrons and protons. 'Matter' is overwhelmingly 'nothing'.I did read it and enjoyed reading it. But it doesn't say anything that I wasn't aware of before or is particularly new.You see you can agree with all that and still call yourself a "materialist" for the reasons I said in the post above.
LBird wrote:It takes 'ideas' to build humans, who otherwise wouldn't exist.With a person coming into existence through IVF more has gone on than an "idea"..Nobody (even you?) claims that new cells can be created by people simply thinking about it and nothing else. That's what "cells supervening on ideas" would mean…Do you believe in telekinesis?
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:LBird wrote:So why can't matter 'supervene' on ideas?Why can't cells supervene on culture?The answer to these questions is the same…
Yes, and the answer is 'they both can'!IVF is 'cells' supervening on 'culture'.It takes 'ideas' to build humans, who otherwise wouldn't exist.
[facepalm]This just shows that you havn't understood what the concept "superveine" means….I can't be bothered to waste my time anymore. If anyone else is interested I might put the time in..
LBird wrote:Why call something just 'materialism'Mainly for historical reasons to do with the development of philosophy… Certainly not because we are claiming we know or could know what "matter" actually is.Another alternative we could use that has not been mentioned before is "naturalism" but again there are shades of meaning…
LBird wrote:So why can't matter 'supervene' on ideas?Why can't cells supervene on culture?The answer to these questions is the same…
LBird wrote:We've been through this dozens of times, DJP.Yes we have, and perhaps you should consider why no-one is agreeing with you on some of this stuff…
