[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Well there's my point proved in one post 

I must admit that I'm still missing your point, DJP.Or are you saying that academic 'psychology' can't be challenged on ideological grounds?Or that bringing 'ideology' into discussions is impermissable, because there is a 'Truth' out there, and 'ideologists' like me are just spoiling perfectly decent objective discussions between non-ideological individuals?If I were to be a bit more critical in tone, I would argue that it's your own refusal to engage in ideological debate that is preventing discussion, not some universal, natural problem with humans and their inability to discuss honestly or seek the (or 'a') truth of their society.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

In short:We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win"Our Brains Don't Understand ProbabilityWe Think Everyone's Out to Get UsWe're Hard Wired To Have a Double StandardFacts Don't Change Our MindSo what do you think?

I think that this list is based on an ideology.

DJP wrote:

Should be give up or just carry on knowing that our brains make us deluded egotists that like to form narratives with ourselves as the hero?

The problem, DJP, is that you're following this line of thinking as if it's 'the objective, god's honest truth', rather than a non-Communist view of humans.For a start, it's a transhistorical statement, not one that locates 'us' in history and society, never mind that we live in class society, where a small minority, aided and abetted by their academic dupes, tell 'us' these things, all the time.Biological individuals who just want to 'win', isolated, paranoid, duplicitous and impervious to 'material conditions'…Who'd have an interest in 'us' all, not only believing that, but posting it on a Communist site?On a wider note, DJP, you seem to often give links to non-Communist sites and their thinking, without any apparent critical awareness that 'psychology' as a discipline is riven with ideological bias.Unless I'm missing some subtle point that you're making?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

L Bird,How would this quote support your thesis? Correct me if Im wrong but Engel's repudiation of a contrast between mind and matter sounds a bit like your idealism-materialism, no?

This problem is, robbo, that Engels, because he was confused, can be quoted to both support and deny my 'thesis'. So, the issue can't be resolved by appeal to the authority of Engels.What's worse, although to a lesser extent, Marx's use of the term 'material' was also ill-advised, and at times he also uses words like 'reflection', which go hand-in-hand with the positivist view of the world and knowledge. So, I think, on balance, Marx can be used to support my thesis, but there is clearly passages of his that appear to support the 'materialists'. Thus, Marx's authority, too, is not completely conclusive.It's my opinion that only when workers come to understand the differences between 'idealism', 'materialism' and 'idealism-materialism' can they themselves provide the authority of their own thinking. It seems clear to me that once workers wrestle with epistemology, they will only have the choice of the latter, because that's the only 'thesis' that fits with Marx's works, and his beliefs about workers' self-emancipation.This is not a religion that quotes texts that cannot be questioned.It's about the self-development of the proletariat. We must be the final authority for any debate, not an elite, not scientists, not a central committee, not priests, not texts, not 'the material', but humans, consciously thinking about issues that affect us, and then voting upon them.FWIW, your quote from Engels, mentioning "its laws", progress, advances, etc. can be taken both ways, unfortunately. I recommend getting to understand the issues for yourself, rather than relying upon Engels.I think my analogy of "a clean sheet of paper upon which anything can be drawn" (idealism), "a page of numbered dot-to-dots which merely remain to be simply joined" (materialism), and "a page of un-numbered dots, which provide some guidance but must be actively numbered to build a meaningful picture (idealism-materialism, or theory and practice), is one way of trying to get to grips with the issues of the relationship between subject and object, the interaction between which produces knowledge.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

So that's what you've been trying to say all along !

No, I have been saying all along. It's the 'materialists' who have a problem accepting that both the ideal and material have equal weight in epistemology. For some reason, they keep stressing 'materialism', a 'materialism' that tries to ignore 'idealism' as an evil competitor, which silly idea they got from Engels, who didn't seem to realise that both object and subject are required for an interaction to take place.Because of this ignorance of Marx's 'idealism-materialism', when the 'materialists' are asked which ideology they use to undertake this interaction between them (as a social subject) and the real world (an external object), they pretend that they haven't got an ideology, because they think they have a non-interactive, contemplative relationship to the the real world, and so that they know 'The Truth'. I know it's hard to believe, but if you ask the 'materialists' what ideology they employ to understand a rock, they revert to claiming to use individual biological sensations, and that they passively listen to the 'active' rock, which tells them that it 'really is' hard! Crazy, isn't it?

ALBs quote wrote:

Sohn-Rethel seems to think that he can avoid this dilemma through recourse to “materialism.” This is not to say that Sohn-Rethel subscribes to a vulgar dialectical materialist orthodoxy. He asserts that the reality Marx opposes to forms of consciousness is not “matter” but social existence…

Yeah, there's that damned word 'materialism', yet again!Seems he, too, felt he had to use a term that Marx should have made clearer: that is, by 'material', Marx meant 'social production', as I keep reiterating. Which, it seems, Sohn-Rethel was aware of (his use of 'social existence', not 'matter'), but didn't have the insight to make clear to workers, as we are doing here, that Marx was not a bloody 'materialist', in the sense of 'material'.

ALB wrote:

His Intellectual and Manual Labor: A Critique of Epistemology looks like another book to add to your reading list

Yeah, I've already ordered it, earlier today. None of the other German works, quoted in the LibCom article, seem to be available in English.

[LBird]

Ortlieb wrote:

All measuring is a reciprocal relation, measured by the mathematical-scientific method, between the inquiring subject and the nature that is the object of his inquiry; thus, one can never refer to “nature in itself” but only to this specific form of interaction.30 The subject-object relation produced by the experiment and expressed in the form of a law cannot be simply reduced to one of its two poles: not even that of the subject, as a strict culturalism might seem to suggest. The laws of nature are neither the products of a discourse that can be fabricated at will, disregarding the objective side, nor are they mere properties of nature that have nothing to do with the subjective bearers of knowledge.

[my bold]This is all, to me, totally consistent with Marx's 'idealism-materialism', and nothing to do with 'materialism', which by its very name disregards 'one of the two poles', of human ideas and external reality.'Theory and practice' is as much 'ideal' as it is 'material', which Marx makes clear in his Theses on Feuerbach, and elsewhere.And this fits with Pannekoek's view that the laws of nature are knowledge produced by humans, not 'discoveries' of 'objective nature'.

[LBird]

I came across this very interesting text about science, objectivity, mathematics, Kant, Hume, Copernicus, Galileo, Popper, etc., on the LibCom site. I thought it worth sharing with other comrades, who are interested in these questions, which will affect how we view 'science' in a future Communist society. The author seems to link the commodity with the way we view nature. Anyway, it provides food for thought.http://libcom.org/library/unconscious-objectivity-aspects-critique-mathematical-natural-sciences-excerpts-claus-pe

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Sounds like a rejection of science, and a return to empiricism!

Sounds like a storm in a teacup to me!

What, Capitalism?My chosen scientific ideology tells me otherwise!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

World revolution? Isn't that what your 'focus' is upon?

Sometimes.About five minutes ago my focus was on "how to make a cup of tea". Das Kapital was of no use to me then…

Sounds like a rejection of science, and a return to empiricism!Problem is, if we as workers use empiricism to inform our view of the world, we'll end up making cups of tea for the rich, forever.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Do you assume that both bourgeois thinkers and socialist thinkers are of equal worth to workers?

Depends on what they are thinking about..

Hmmm…. very coy!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

what 'bunch of theories' do you use to understand the world?

All of them, but probably not all of them at the same time depending on what it is I'm focusing on…

World revolution? Isn't that what your 'focus' is upon?Don't you think that even physics will be part of that revolution?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

There must be a 'unifying' theory behind the 'bunch'.

Why presume that? There's no good reason to really think there is, look into all the recent work on cognitive biases…

So, you don't think Socialism/Communism is a 'unifying theory'?Do you assume that both bourgeois thinkers and socialist thinkers are of equal worth to workers?I must be clear, that I think S/C is a 'unifying theory', and I think the working class must produce thinkers that can undermine bourgeois theorists.I'm not sure why you don't 'presume that', too, if you think socialism is possible.Do you think that the bourgeoisie are going to provide the intellectual leadership for us? Isn't that the way the Leninists think?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.

Of course it does. But I'd call that a theory or a bunch of theories, not an ideology.

Right. 'Of course it does'. So, to use your terminology, what 'bunch of theories' do you use to understand the world?There must be a 'unifying' theory behind the 'bunch', otherwise the 'bunch' would be eclectic and self-contradictory, and give you differing answers when combined with your practice on the world.Why not just call this central 'theory' 'Socialism' (or 'Communism'), and explain how it helps you to understand the physical/material world?Unless it isn't, and doesn't.

[LBird]

Quick point, DJP. Be sure to clarify for yourself the philosophical ideology of John Michael Roberts, the author of the text that you've mentioned.I've just had a look at the site, and can't get access to the article. So much for 'free access' between Communists, eh?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I do not have an ideology. …How long do you want me to go on?…

So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.This is my whole point: I'm a Communist, and I use that ideology to try to understand the world. What's more, because I'm a Communist, and I know that society is divided, and thus knowledge produced by that society is divided, I also know that if someone claims either to be non-ideological or non-Communist, that they're bullshitting me, either deliberately (in the case of academics of the bourgeoisie) or through ignorance (other comrades who haven't yet become aware that 'ideas' are required to make sense of the world). And 'ideas' are always political. Even about 'nature'.To be frank, my belief that 'ignorance' is involved (rather than a thought-out bourgeois defence) has been confirmed by my experiences here.

DJP wrote:

FWIW There's an interesting looking article on Marxism and CR is Capital and Class number 68 which I'm about to go through..

I'd be extremely obliged to you, DJP, if you could supply me with a copy of this text. I haven't read it, and don't have access to Capital and Class.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

They think: 'Surely the material tells us 'what it is'?' and 'Matter precedes ideas' and so they don't have to actively think, critically and creatively about 'what the material is', and that this thinking can change, and so the 'material' changes for us. The 'materialists' believe that they have access to the 'material', which remains fixed, as does 'knowledge' of it.

I don't think anyone has been defending this position, apart from the strawmen created by your own imagination..

I see you missed out the line preceding, DJP!

LBird wrote:

You've only got to ask a 'materialist' what 'theory' they use, and they are baffled.

Why not tell us either your ideology, or the ideology of the stanford site you quote so often?If you're not 'defending the position that one doesn't need an ideology to understand the material', why not tell us the one you employ to understand the 'material'?'Materialists' always insist that they don't need to expose their ideology, because one doesn't need an ideology to understand the material.'Materialists' seem to think that the 'concrete' talks to them, as opposed to Marx's 'theory and practice'. Engels' mistaken view of Marx has encouraged his followers to think that 'ideas' are not required to make sense of the material. They castigate this as 'idealism'.The reason you won't answer me, DJP, is not because of my supposed 'strawmanning', but because you really believe that you don't require an ideology to understand the material.Otherwise, you'd tell me your ideology.

[Author]

Posts