DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:DJP says he agrees that both 'ideas' and 'material' have the same ontological status. So do you.But, this means that the 'material' can 'supervene' (to use DJP's favourite ideological term) on the 'ideal', just as the 'ideal' can 'supervene' on the 'material'.But DJP does not accept this logical conclusion. He wishes to argue for 'physicalism', which argues that only the 'material' can form the basis, and that the 'ideal' must always 'supervene' upon the 'material'.One can either argue that 'ideas' and 'material' are different (and thus one can be the basis of the other), or that they are the same, and thus either can form the basis of the other.This, latter, is Marx's position. He makes this plain in the Theses on Feurbach, where he praises the 'active side' of idealism.If human ideas cannot create a new reality, then change caused by humans is impossible.
Since you haven't understood I'll give it another go.It's one thing to say that thought arises out of matter, quite another to say that matter arises out of thought.Materialism is a type of monism. That is, in the least possible words, "all is one".On the level of ontology, that is what exists, materialism / physicalism claims that all that exists depends on / arises out of / supervenes on the material / physical. Many different things exist but these are all the result of or composed of the material / physical. Thought and ideas exist but they are just another part of the multifaceted world of the material / physical.That could be called 'stuff monism'. Which is, perhaps, different from 'thing monism'The 'thing' monism way of putting it a'la Deitzgen is something like "all that exists is the universe and we divide this thing into many things when we try to understand it".If we say 'ideas' and 'material' are different kinds of 'stuff' then we have dualism which is not a 'monism' so neither materialism or idealism.If we say 'ideas' and 'material' and the same kind of stuff then we have to say what that 'stuff' is. I don't deny that human thought and action causes human society. But I do deny that 'free will' at least in the libertarian sense of the term exists. I don't think that magic exists or that the human mind is somehow above the rest of the universe and the laws of nature. But also on the grander scale it is the universe that caused humans to exist..But like has been pointed out, you have yet to explain what you think 'the real' is…
What I still don't get is how an adherence to to realism can be compatible with the strong kind of cognitive relativism that LBird has been putting forward in the various threads. If any of these texts show how these two positions can be bridged it would be good to know."Philosophers who profess realism state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Is not labour time vouchers.More like a print your own monopoly money scheme.Anyone can do this now. The problem is getting it accepted..
ALB wrote:Knowledge (C) is produced by a subject (
with a hypothesis (D) observing what happens (A). Or maybe D should be C1 and C C2I guess you can add that what is observed is not reality itself but its reproduction as created by the brain (I think this is part of what LBird calls "ideology")
I think it may be easier if you just point us to a text that is the equivalent to "Critical Realism for beginners" that you generally agree with. You're not doing a good job of getting your point across, whatever it might be..
LBird wrote:Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between having an unproven 'theory', prior to practice, and 'knowledge' produced by 'theory and practice'?I was asking for you to elaborate. Short aphorisms are probably the fastest way to get to misunderstanding..But a theory does not have to be unproven to be a theory. Proven theories are what knowledge is formed from.Knowledge and theories are both tested by practice. Nothing stands still it's not a one way street.And surely sometimes people start doing stuff (practice) before they have theory about it.What are you trying to say that you think is profound or important?
LBird wrote:I thought this thread was about 'science and Communism'.How the hell does 'dogs knowing things' play any part in this discussion?I still can't fathom why there is so much resistance.Seriously, what's the point of posting stuff like this?What are you hoping to achieve?Driving me away?I would have hazarded a guess that it was an attempt to get you to clarify what you mean by ideas, theory and knowledge and teh relationship to materialism and / or critical realism..
LBird wrote:I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.Perhaps explain how you think "theory" is different from "knowledge".If by "knowledge" you mean "true theories" what is it that makes a theory true? Looks to me like you're going to have to bite the bullet at some point with that one…Or just skip that for now and say what your take is regarding monism, dualism or pluralism…
You do realise we have now jumped from "what does materialism mean" to "what does knowledge mean"?What did you think of the other comments, specifically the compatibility of Realism and Materialism?
LBird wrote:Unless this is accepted (that 'knowledge'='reality' practiced on by 'ideas'), then we will continue to 'talk past' one another.Well knowledge is ideas, but not any old ideas, only "true" ones. And what determines the truth of an idea is human practice, as Mr Pancake said.So does that agree with this?
LBird wrote:'knowledge' emerges from human practice (which means human ideas) upon 'reality'Seems so.
As far as I'm concerned the sign at head office is just the sign at head office, there is no need to have a mass vote over what it should be.If we are deciding on a "corperate image" (which we where not) that is another kettle of fish and should be put to a vote that involves the whole party.The new sign is still an improvment on the previous one.
ALB wrote:I'm not sure that there are any "physicalists" (who say that only what is physical is "real") here but if there were I wouldn't see this as a problem. It certainly wouldn't mean that they weren't socialist/communists."Materialism" and "Physicalism" are pretty much synonyms. "Physicalism" is more modern since it doesn't make much sense to refer to things like dark matter, forces and energy and spacetime as "material".Neither is committed to the view that the only real things are those that can be touched, weighed viewed under a microscope etc.
LBird wrote:Hope this helps, comrades.It helps because it shows where we are getting in a muddle.
LBird wrote:If we call material A, ideal B and knowledge C, thenA+B=C; orB+A=C, which is the same thing.Like has been said C=B or if we presume materialism C=B=A, in other words at the end of the day it's all "material"
LBird wrote:Materialists insist A=C, or C=A.Idealists insist B=C, or C=BRealists insist that C=A+B, or C=B+A.For those interested, A=object, B=subject, C=knowledge,and the plus sign is 'practice'.Few problems here. A=C seems more like a description of naive realism than materialism.It is not a case of Materialism or Realism. Realism (in the sense that we are using it here) means something like "the parts that make up a theory refer to real things that exist in the universe" as opposed to anti-realism which means something like "the parts that make up a theory are just convenient fictions that help us predict happenings".So you see far from being incompatible there is quite a strong link between Materialism and Realism.You can be a Materialist and still say "C=A+B"
