LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
twc wrote:…to build a practical science … upon a concrete object, for what it really is…
[my bold]Comrades who are also following the other thread started by DJP on the subject of 'Truth', will recognise which of the two theories that I outlined is the one embraced by twc.That is, twc is starting from a theory.He's pretending that he's not starting from a 'theory of truth', but is simply reflecting the 'concrete object' as 'it really is'.This is 19th century positivism, pre-Einsteinian physics.twc is over a hundred years out of date.It's got nothing to say to 21st century socialists, and indeed insists that we can't change 'what really is', that is, 'what reality is' prior to our changing of it.The active element in this ideology is 'matter', the 'concrete', rather than humans. But it's a lie: humans do change their world, and so the materialists must posit an elite who, if the proletariat doesn't supply its democratic consciousness, themselves supply an elite, special, consciousness.This is Leninism. The 'active side' is the cadre, not the class.
You really should read Kline's article, twc.Your biggest problem is your Engelsism, which reduces our choice to either materialism or idealism. This is Engels' dichotomy.This is displayed by your insistence:
twc wrote:Materialists, unlike idealists, merely commit to considering these processes to be natural processes…'Naturalism', according to Marx, is the unity of idealism and materialism in a philosophy of practice, ie. theory and practice.So, like Marx, I'm neither an idealist nor a materialist, but an idealist-materialist.You don't recognise this category, and I've explained why you don't.Your personalising of the issue, by abusing me, just displays your inability to put together a coherent, socio-historical explanation of these issues.If any comrades wish to adopt your position, they'll both remain stuck within 19th century thought and be unable to account for our human ability to change our world.Finally, your dismissal of workers' democracy (their ability to control physics and maths by a vote) should give any other comrades, unsure of where your Engelsist thinking leads, the impetus to look at the politics of Engels' inheritor, Lenin.Materialism is a philosophy for an elite.
Perhaps to oversimplify, but two views of 'truth' can be seen as:1. 'Truth' (note capital letter for emphasis, also 'The Truth') is a reflection of 'reality', 'out there', 'external world', as it is;2. 'truth' (note lower case for de-emphasis, also 'truths') is a relationship between 'the observer' and 'out there', etc. as it is produced.In the former, there is no need to examine 'the observer', because a method is said to exist which can be used to 'tell it as it is'.In the latter, there is a need to examine 'the observer', because the method is a relational method, which by its relational nature produces an 'is' that can change, due to variations in the relationship.It's possible to have a civilised discussion about this, but I don't hold out much hope, because of the ideological and political beliefs involved.Shit! I just realised, the former insists that 'there are no ideological beliefs in its method!', and it sees anyone who says otherwise as 'a relativist loony, out to destroy civilisation as we know it!'.Oh, well… welcome to 2016. Same old.
Right, no more responses from me, unless it's questions/discussion about Kline, which is supposed to be the purpose of the thread.Have a happy new year, comrades.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:You're a physicalist and a materialist, DJP, so you believe that 'matter' determines our ideas. This robs a democratic society, like socialism, of its own power to determine knowledge, and places that power into the hands of an elite, who pretend to know 'what matter says'.Philosophically, you are a Leninist, notwithstanding your professed 'political' views. In any political battle with the democratic proletariat, you'll be compelled to support the elitist materialists (ie. Leninists), because they too pretend defer to 'matter'.Ad hominem.Is all matter rocks?
LBird wrote:Or do you agree with democratic control of physics and maths, and thus prove that I'm mistaken about your Engelsism?You've had your chance, DJP.You're Leninist, out of Engels.This is not personal attack, but political analysis. You don't like talking about politics, because it will reveal your anti-democratic views.Since you think 'matter/physical' is not political (and thus can't be voted upon), you revert to your bourgeois obsession with 'things' (read: 'property'). You will not have democracy in socio-economic production, because that includes ideas as much as factory widgets.
moderator1 wrote:Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).But I'm forced to keep saying the same thing, because the SPGB members keep asking the same questions and ignoring my answers.DJP is back to his obsession with 'matter', and complaining that I'm 'being personal' when he's asked about his politics!Is this a site for critical political discussion, or just a forum for the ignorant and misinformed to continue to delude themselves?Oh, yeah… and to continue to waste my time.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:No, humans are the creative matter, Vin.Vin wrote:So matter creates. Matter is creative.LBird wrote:No, Vin, rocks do not create.So all matter is rocks?
I wondered when you would be compelled to make your non-contribution.You're a physicalist and a materialist, DJP, so you believe that 'matter' determines our ideas. This robs a democratic society, like socialism, of its own power to determine knowledge, and places that power into the hands of an elite, who pretend to know 'what matter says'.Philosophically, you are a Leninist, notwithstanding your professed 'political' views. In any political battle with the democratic proletariat, you'll be compelled to support the elitist materialists (ie. Leninists), because they too pretend defer to 'matter'.Or do you agree with democratic control of physics and maths, and thus prove that I'm mistaken about your Engelsism?
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:No, humans are the creative matter, Vin.So matter creates. Matter is creative.
No, Vin, rocks do not create.That ideological belief, that you hold, comes from Engels. It is 'materialism', and focuses upon 'matter' (Kline mentions this attention to the noun 'matter', by 'materialists', but not by Marx, in his article – please have a read).Only human consciousness (material consciousness, ideal-material, subject-object, consciousness-being, mind-matter) produces our world, by theory and practice.If you stick with 'matter', 'materialism', Engels, you are losing half of the relationship. And, as Marx reminded us, that loss is 'the active side'.Without it, 'materialists' are forced to hide their 'active side' and pretend 'matter' itself is 'active'. Since it isn't, they have to substitute an 'active' element for humanity (ie., workers), and this 'active (non-democratic) side' is an elite (either social (in a 'conscious' party) or religious (in a god)).'Materialism' is the philosophy of an elite, and hence that of Leninists.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:But humans are not just 'matter': they are 'consciousness',It's Engels who went looking for 'creative matter', which is just another term for a divine creator which is not humanity.Humans are creative matter
No, humans are the creative matter, Vin.We create our object through social theory and practice. The role of social consciousness is inescapable. Ideas, in a nutshell.
YMS wrote:…but her position is in fact an entirely idealist one, in as much as she separates the object from the thought.We're getting down to the epistemological basics, here.Materialism = objectivism (it separates 'material object' from 'conscious subject');Idealism = subjectivism (it separates 'conscious subject' from 'material object');Marx's Idealism-Materialism (unites the 'conscious subject' with 'material object' through social activity ie. 'theory and practice')= subjectivism-objectivism.Engels was a Materialist, because he sought a 'matter' which was outside of consciousness. As do modern physicists, who seek to 'know objectively' the smallest particle. They separate 'being' from 'consciousness'.The simple test of whether any scientist is a bourgeois 'materialist' or a Marxist 'idealist-materialist' is to ask them 'What social consciousness (ie. ideology) do you employ in your relationship with your 'object'?An 'idealist-materialist' will be forthcoming with their subjective position: they will say, for example, 'I'm a Marxist physicist'.A 'materialist' will hide their subjective position, and pretend to be an 'objective individual' simply dealing with 'objective reality', a process that will produce 'objective knowledge' (ie. eternal Truth).
YMS wrote:The whole point of MKarx is that as we act in the world, we change the world, but it also changes and acts upon us. We are inextricably parts of a process.Yes, you're spot on.Since 'we are inextricably', which "inextricably we's" social ideas do you employ during your social process to understand reality, YMS?I'm a Democratic Communist. I'm inextricably a part of a social process of understanding our physical and social world. Unity of subject and object, idealism-materialism, Marx's social theory and practice.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Lots of things are 'matter', Vin, just as Marx listed in the quote that I gave from Capital, earlier, but they do not do 'theory and practice', that is, idealism-materialism.Matter does theory and practiceHumans (matter) do theory and practice
But humans are not just 'matter': they are 'consciousness', too. Rocks, which are also 'matter', do not do theory and practice.Marx got his 'active side' from the supposed 'divine conscious creativity' of the idealists, but realised that it's humans that are creative, and that they, not 'god', create their world by social production, by theory and practice.As Marx says, this 'social creativity' (which changes our world and us, and so is historical) is what separates us from the bees, or Dave's 'leafcutter ants', which merely repeat their actions.It's Engels who went looking for 'creative matter', which is just another term for a divine creator which is not humanity.Engels' materialism is of no use for workers looking for a critical and creative response to the 'what exists' of capitalism. If 'matter' determines, 'what exists' determines, capitalism determines… and never us class conscious workers.With materialism, we can't change our world, which was Marx's abiding concern.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Only humans have purpose, not matter.Humans are matter
At least you've got half of the way towards Marx's thinking, Vin.
Just pointing out one of many of your contradictions.
If it's a contradiction, Vin, it's Marx's contradiction, not mine.Lots of things are 'matter', Vin, just as Marx listed in the quote that I gave from Capital, earlier, but they do not do 'theory and practice', that is, idealism-materialism.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Only humans have purpose, not matter.Humans are matter
At least you've got half of the way towards Marx's thinking, Vin.
Dave B wrote:To be candid L Bird I am really not interested in your ‘bamboozling product of human knowledge’ and I am not going to buy or vote for it.And intend to exit.Fine by me, Dave.You haven't mentioned, though, how workers can democratically control their means of production, if they don't have new and critical ideas, to change the existing 'material' world.They can only do this through theory and practice.I've given the quote from Marx in Capital, earlier on the thread. Only humans have purpose, not matter.Whilst workers follow the Engelsian myth of 'Marx's Materialism', they remain disarmed, and at the beck and call of those who do provide their own purpose, from above the workers. A Leninist purpose.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A|Znd thinking is a material process of chemicals and electrons in a brain. And, of course, since thinking occurs in language which comes from without the individual [ie. it's social], it is cultural material processes that do the thinking. The whole world is an ongoing process and movement of which we are only part, but the world exists before we do. Maybe cultural materialism is the term you're looking for…[my bolds/insert]Given what you've said here, YMS, I'm not sure why 'idealism-materialism' is so repugnant to you.The only reason to retain 'materialism', and yet to reject 'idealism', is unthinking deference to Engels' mischaracterisation of Marx's views.It's a recipe for continued misunderstanding on the part of socialists, continued mystification amongst workers seeking new ideas opposed to capitalism, as to how an 'idea' is made of 'matter' (it isn't, and they won't be taken in for another century), and continued domination of workers by an elite with a supposed 'special consciousness' to which the workers cannot aspire, which prevents the democratic control of the means of production.Although, you and some other posters have made clear enough on many threads, that you will not countenance workers' democracy (in either production, knowledge, science, physics, maths…).Just what 'socialism' consists of, for you elitists, I'm not sure.
