[LBird]

If you write:{quote=pgb]Hello![/quote}but replace the first and last curly brackets { } with square brackets [ ]it will give:

pgb wrote:

Hello!

Hope this helps

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

Insofar as Marx had any view at all about the nature of truth, I think he had a very common-sense view about it which was close to what philosophers call a correspondence theory of truth – a candidate for truth is true only if it corresponds to the facts or "states of affairs", which can be known through use of empirical evidence.

[my bold]This is the key part of your post, pgb.The 'correspondence theory' tries to match knowledge against reality. It is the normal scientific theory. However, as you say:

pgb wrote:

Empirical observation is of course theory laden – the standard point made against positivism – and of course there is therefore a process of selection to decide what should count as a fact, and the investigator's theoretical presuppositions, his ideas and values, his "ideology" as you call it will all be relevant.

Since we can't actually find a way of finding out what 'reality' is, it's pretty hard to match it against knowledge, to determine its truth.I think we Communists should look to consensus gentium.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_theory_of_truthThis translates as 'agreement of the people', and, as I'm sure you know, is the title of the revolutionary document put forward by the Levellers and Agitators during the English Revolution in 1647 during the Putney Debates, in opposition to Cromwell's elitist views.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_of_the_PeopleIf we have a democratic society, and production and science are part of that, I don't know how we can have any other 'theory of truth'.If we look to 'nature' to provide that 'truth', we already know we don't have a method to tell us what nature says. Humans are going to have to make the decision about what constitutes 'truth', and so I think a democratic method is required.PS. if you login and quote my post, it will show you how I've done the paragraphs.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Socialism means the free association of producers, that's its first premise.

That's always the definition offered on LibCom, YMS.As I've said, it's an anarchistic definition, premised upon 'individual sovereignty', and not democracy.But let's not derail this thread any further. Start a new one, if you want to pursue the meaning of 'Communism'. I'll participate, of course.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

This is arrant nonsense. I'm a plumber…

Thanks for your kneejerk, ignorant interjection into a subject that you are apparently not following the twists and turns of, gnome.

gnome wrote:

I'm more than happy to leave those things to people who do.

Right, your choice. Leave this thread to us, then. Bye-bye.

gnome wrote:

Effective democratic participation requires and presupposes knowledge of a given subject and/or informed opinion.

Yes, that's precisely what we're arguing for, gnome. Widespread, popular, mass engagement in the running of a new society. This will require complete openness of the education system for everyone, from kindergarten to post-PhD research, from cradle to grave.You might have heard of this 'new society': it will be 'Communism'?No? Fair enough, back to your pipes, spanners and flux, then.You should try reading about 'Communism'; you might be surprised at what even a plumber can achieve, once they start to participate.Plumbers might even take an interest in science, and wish to have their democratic opinions heard.Still 'arrant nonsense'? Pity, we need you.

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Please forgive me everyone. I don't mean to offend. I'm angry and mega frustrated.

No need for forgiveness, Oz. I'm sure we all, in our frustration, resort to slagging off our class, from time to time.You're just brave enough to vent your frustration, here, unlike the rest of us cowards!But, once the emotion has passed, and you resume your rational thinking about 'why' most workers often seem 'beyond the pale', then it can only give hope that things might change. Not 'will' or 'must', but 'might'. It's a job for both us and them. We can't bring socialism alone.Right! Resume your ranting against 'the scum', Oz!But… identify 'the scum' correctly…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, have they?

What else is 'physicalism', other than a claim outside of human control? The 'physical' determines, not humans.

ALB wrote:

The objections raised here to your method (but not to Marx's) have been to certain of the conclusions you've drawn from it, in particular:that it was valid at one time to say that the Sun went round the Earth.that the validity of scientific theories should be decided by a democratic vote of everyone.that it is not possible to have any class-free knowledge today in class-divided society.on the meaning and use of the term "ideology".

And I stand by them.'Validity' is a human decision.Thus 'validity' should be under our democratic control.'Class society' means 'class knowledge'. It's only when we get rid of class society when our democratic method can claim to be the human method. I think that 'proletarian science' will lay the basis for 'human science'.If 'ideology' means 'distorted knowledge' (as opposed to The Truth), then ideology is inescapable. This knowledge would form the basis of our science, in which criticism of existing 'ideological knowledge' is its basis, rather than respect for existing 'true knowledge'.There is no objective viewpoint in either physics or sociology. Humans have to choose which imperfect 'truth' to work with, for the time being.Once again, if you find 'ideology' a term too pejorative, choose another.I prefer plain speaking to workers.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I can discuss with the baker, or take up baking myself, but for the most part, I'm free to leave it to the baker. It's not rocket science.

It's not Communism, either.If by that we mean 'democratic production', rather than 'individual ownership'.I've long suspected that you have an ideological objection to 'democracy', YMS, and now it seems clear that you not only object to democratic methods in science, but to democratic methods in production, too.Your view of 'Communism' seems, to me, to be closer to that I heard frequently expressed on LibCom, by anarchists.They always talk in terms 'free' (always referring to 'individuals'), rather than 'democracy' (which implies the 'freedom of society' to decide).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, and a quick Charlie quote.  AFK rest of today, so enjoy:

Charley wrote:

On the one hand, therefore, it is only when the objective world becomes everywhere for man in society the world of man’s essential powers – human reality, and for that reason the reality of his own essential powers – that all objects become for him the objectification of himself, become objects which confirm and realise his individuality, become his objects: that is, man himself becomes the object. The manner in which they become his depends on the nature of the objects and on the nature of the essential power corresponding to it; for it is precisely the determinate nature of this relationship which shapes the particular, real mode of affirmation. To the eye an object comes to be other than it is to the ear, and the object of the eye is another object than the object of the ear. The specific character of each essential power is precisely its specific essence, and therefore also the specific mode of its objectification, of its objectively actual, living being. Thus man is affirmed in the objective world not only in the act of thinking, ||VIII| but with all his senses.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Spot on!Let's see pgb get a quote which denies the social, and focuses upon the 'object' as 'object'.Humans are at the heart of the issue.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I simply can't see any point in voting on their results.

So, if the baker insists that "it's tasty bread, and good for you", that's it, is it?The eaters of the bread are not allowed a collective opinion about the baker's recommendations?It doesn't sound very democratic to me, YMS!

YMS wrote:

No one will worry about a secret cabal of bakers (though they will have to be transparent about their methods, for our safety).

Here, of course, you're having it both ways.Either there are not democratic controls of any sort, or, there are democratic controls, based upon what we collectively decide are 'necessary controls'.That is, we decide what is necessary, not the baker.We might agree that the pies of S. Todd are especially tasty, and require no oversight whatsoever. We can still make mistakes.But to argue, as you do, that S.Todd must be allowed to dictate his ingredients to us, and his results are not a matter of collective concern, seems to me very elitist.Nice pies, though. Let individual taste, unencumbered by the collective opinions and oversight of ingredients, prevail![is this Communism or Cannibalism?]

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

Ok I shouldn't have used the word "Faith". Still I have no hope or confidence in the "Working Class"…their brains are dormant. They are fuckin idiots.

Even if we accept your characterisation of workers as 'fuckin idiots' (and a glance around ourselves almost every day shows why you hold that opinion), we have to ask 'why are they like that?'.Is it 'human nature' (ie. that as babies, these people had no other potential or option than what they are 'now'), or are they 'made' into what we 'see'?Surely we follow Marx, and try to use theories to uncover a reality that is often unobservable?If we do this, and use a theory of class, we start to see a small group of humans deliberately shaping the majority into forms which suit the minority.That is, this society makes 'fuckin idiots' of the majority, and we have both an explanation 'why' and a 'how to change it'.Societies are produced, not fixed.Your pessimism is understandable, Oz, even justifiable, but it's not the only way of looking at the present situation.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course all knowledge, not just science but what we need to know for everyday living, involves selection (or, as you put it, there can be no "complete" appropriation of "reality"), but does selection have to involve mystification and distortion?.

[my bold]I'm glad that you've stated clearly, the text that I've bolded. This gives us some basis on which to proceed. But, be aware, I'll refer to that statement in the future! I completely agree with it, but I'm not sure the other posters will.On the issue of "selection='mystification and distortion' ". I'll allow you to choose two terms to replace 'm&d', which you think will be less pejorative. Because clearly, as you say above, 'selection' implies 'no complete appropriation of reality'. If it's not 'complete', I'd say 'distorted' is an acceptable term, but you might prefer 'partial', or whatever.For me, I'd rather call 'a spade a spade', and openly proclaim to all workers that my method (and Marx's) DOES NOT LEAD TO THE TRUTH. I'd say the scientific method, as well as providing 'knowledge' also necessarily 'distorts and mystifies', and we should all be aware of this fact of human existence.For us, within Communism, this would provide a basis for a critical approach to all authoritative knowledge, and so ensure our society is a critically-thinking society, which already knows it doesn't know 'The Truth'. This in itself completely undermines the notion of the Leninist Party as having a 'special consciousness' which workers as a class don't share. We must insist upon democratic decision-making in all areas of social life, economic production, political power and scientific knowledge.

ALB wrote:

Is it not possible for the selection to be based on "rational" grounds…?

Who determines the 'rational', ALB? Does it come from outside humans, or is it in our gift to decide, as a society, 'what is rational' (in the sense of "what does 'rational' mean?").

ALB wrote:

While you look forward to pgb's answer to your charge of him making Marx an "objectivist", I'm still looking forward to your explanation of your claim that Marx was a "realist" (I'm not sure I have understood the difference between an "objectivist" and a "realist") and in what sense.

Let's hope pgb can give some details.An 'objectivist' thinks 'knowledge' is the same as the 'object'.A 'realist' thinks 'knowledge' comes from an 'object'.This is simple, but I think it captures the essence. Of course, it is more complex, but this will suffice for your immediate question.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

And what about science in socialism/communism ,would it also be mystified and distorted?

It wouldn't be if we could get rid of the problem of selection, ALB.But since you already know of the selection problem (you've read Carr), I'm not sure why you appear to be unclear about its consequences.Theories provide selection parameters, which determine what is to be chosen and what is to be avoided. There is no 'complete' appropriation of 'reality': our 'knowledge' is necessarily 'mystified and distorted' in some way. That's part of the human condition, which science has been aware of since Einstein. Hence, all the debates within the philosophy of science. We're trying to deal with the fall-out from science itself.For those who've read Lakatos, these parameters are contained within what he decribes as the 'hard core' of a 'research programme'.

ALB wrote:

Why would a "science free of mystification and distortion" have to be one committed to arguing "Knowledge as Eternal Truth"? Another one of your typical exaggerations and non sequiturs. It just doesn't follow. Couldn't it be committed just to "Knowledge as Relative Truth"?

But if some 'knowledge' is 'relative', it's 'mystified and distorted' in some way, as compared with another 'relative' version of 'knowledge'.So, once more, your unwelcome accusations of me using "typical exaggerations and non sequiturs" is, in fact, just a display of your inability to think critically about what you're discussing. I don't know why you can't argue without resorting to personal abuse; but it shows the weakness of your position, and failure to engage with the issues at hand.

ALB wrote:

Or even dispense with idea of Truth altogether?.

So, now it's you who's suggesting something like Post Modernist 'individual relativism'? This is a view I've constantly argued against, because I follow Marx in his belief that 'knowledge is social' and is thus is 'true' for that society.To dispense with 'truth' is to dispense with 'science'.

ALB wrote:

Anyway, over to you, pgb.

Yes, I would still be very interested to read some text which backs up pgb's assertions about Marx, which show that he was an 'objectivist', which would take 'society' out of the process of knowledge creation.

[LBird]

pgb wrote:

Marx could never have used the term “scientific ideology” or the “ideology of science” since he saw science as an activity or social practice free of mystification and distortion.

I'd like to see your evidence for this assertion, pgb, since it goes against everything I've read by Marx on the issue.Marx even claimed 'senses' are social (and thus historical), so it's hard to see how different societies' senses could experience the world in different ways and yet could be 'free of mystification and distortion'.One society's 'true account' would be another's 'mystification and distortion', and vice versa.Unless one society had unmediated access to 'nature'. The bourgeoisie claimed that they had this during the 19th century, but we now know that was untrue.On the contrary, Marx claimed that humans would 'humanise nature', and since humans are ideological, it seems hard to picture Marx arguing for 'Knowledge as Eternal Truth', which would be the result of a 'science free of mystification and distortion'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

FWIW my ideology is wiffypiddledoodahism.

At last. At least we know now that you're not using Marxism as your ideology, then, or you would have said so.

DJP wrote:

No, it's just a model / concept put forward by some people to help explain and understand observed phenomena and to try to deal with theoretical problems.

So, you admit it does not come from nature, but humans. We are getting far this evening.Perhaps, with you now being so helpful, you'll tell us the ideology of these mysterious 'some people', who've been hiding in the background, totally unmentioned by you, for the last twelve months.

DJP wrote:

Sorry nothing about the "Absolute Truth" in there. You'll need to speak to God for that.

But if god isn't responsible for the 'ideal supervening upon the physical' who is?You can't answer 'nature', because that's your god (you're a physicalist/materialist, remember?), but you've just denied the messiah.And, indeed, you've just told us it's not 'nature', but 'some people' who are responsible for the 'ideal supervening upon the physical'. Who are these 'thinkers', who clearly use 'ideas'?Are you an 'idealist', DJP? Ohhhhh…. curiouser and curiouser…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't think any comrades here are — except for comrade Strawman of your creation.

I think DJP regards his model of 'one-way supervenience' of the ideal upon the material as transhistorical and universal.I think DJP regards this model as an 'objective truth' based upon 'reality'.I'm not making a 'strawman'. When I ask him where he gets that ideology from, he won't answer. He regards it, not as an ideological model, but simple 'reality'.Why you feel the need to accuse me of 'strawmanning', I'm not sure. Probably your failure to identify your own ideology, and your continued hope that science will prove to be non-ideological, if you drag this out long enough.

[Author]

Posts