[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…yes, the truth is ideological too…

I'll take that as a small crumb of comfort for twelve months' hard work…

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…the notion that we will always be biased…

Isn't that precisely what 'selection' is?A theory provides parameters of 'selection' and 'avoidance', as Carr's 'fish/fishing/fishers' analogy maintains.To seek is to hide. Finding one 'fact' involves ignoring another 'fact'.To observe is to distort.The days of 'naive realism', and Lenin's 'reflection theory', that knowledge is a 'copy' of reality, are long gone.Or, they should be.How any comrades think that this sort of 'objective truth' stuff can serve as a basis for Communist thinking, baffles me.'Critical thinking' should be our motto. We must abuse the 'facts' we are presented with!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

… ideology is by almost its definition unconscious …

Who's 'definition'?

YMS wrote:

…knowing ideology as ideology destroys its status as ideology…

That's a handy ideological claim.If one know one's ideology, one is 'ideology-free'?I don't think so!Sounds like conservatism, which is always desperate to deal with 'the real world'.No, ideology is inescapable for humans. We will forever have a 'biased' picture of the world, social and natural.Any other claim to 'Truth' is a lie, made by those who would provide the rest of us with their 'Objective Truth'.The 'truth' for every society is a 'socially-produced truth', and as we intend to build a democratic society, we have to have 'truth' under our democratic control.This ideological, Communist, belief, is entirely compatible with the SPGB's declared aim of democratic production, distribution and consumption.Any other claim for 'minority truth' is, or should be, anathaema.Elitism in science will lead to elitism in politics. The 'cadre/scientists' will tell us their Leninist Truth, and appeals for democracy will be treated as 'absurd!'. "Would you really let the workers which you see around you each day, vote on science?"My answer is 'Yes'. If our class takes control of society and its production, it takes control of science. End of.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Many of the thinkers I refer to for some points, I disagree with on others, because I'm a democratic Communist, and they aren't.

Same here.So no more nonsense of the kind:Some instrumentalists favour "market socialism"Therefore anyone who says something favourable about something they say favours "market socialism".I even agree with some of things you say, but that doesn't mean I agree with the rest.

You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, again, ALB.Don't take things so personal! I was merely trying to give you a hook into these issues, by comparing 'Marxist instrumentalism' (which doesn't exist, as far as I know, but you posited it for discussion) with 'Market socialism', which I'm sure you regard as a bastardisation of Marx's ideas. And so it is with 'Marxist instrumentalism'.So, it's not 'nonsense', but an explanation to help you orientate yourself.Let's keep this civilised, eh? Or you know what sort of response you'll get to accusations of me talking 'nonsense'…So, last time, 'instrumentalism' would be a good fit as a scientific ideology for 'market socialism'. I  say this to illustrate the dangers. After all, I learnt from you and alanjjohnstone about 'free access' Communism.Surely you're not beyond learning from a comrade, too, are you?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I tend to post links on the basis that they are interesting, and perheps worthy fo further discussion, always with the proviso that I believe all Yorkshiremen are liars and everything that follows from that statement.

But you have to be aware of your own position/stance/ideology/weltanshuaang, because it is only from a point of view that one can make a judgement. Otherwise, you still have a 'position' (there is no objective position in the universe), but you are simply unaware of it, and so remain ignorant of its 'causal power' over you!It's better to be aware of one's own ideology, and best of all to expose one's ideology to others; this latter I consider fundamental to the 'scientific method'.I suppose that I'd better stress by "one's own" I mean one's choice of social ideology, rather than "we're all individuals, entitled to our own self-generated ideology", which I know will be the next accusation aimed at me, that I'm arguing for PoMo relativism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I think we need to go back to basics and learn what "non sequitur" means. Here's an example:Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistTherefore LBird agrees with everything Bashkar says.or (different wrong conclusion)Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistBashkar talks gibberishTherefore LBird talks gibberish.

Yes, spot on!It makes sense to discuss with me, not Bhaskar!Many of the thinkers I refer to for some points, I disagree with on others, because I'm a democratic Communist, and they aren't.But DJP and YMS seem to think that the links they give are telling The Truth, and so don't say what they agree with and what they don't, about their recommended reading.It's a bit like someone quoting the OED, and then being astounded when a Communist argues with a definition, as if the former regard the OED is an unimpeachable, objective, authority on words.I criticise my sources, from a Communist perpective.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 I don't know if it's significant but it seems to be hard-line Leninists who say that Marxism and Pragmatism are not compatible and wishy-washy social democrats who say they are.

'Wishy-washy social democrats'? Is that a good description for the SPGB?

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, what was Novack's (the Trotskyist) main argument?

That Dewey's instrumentalism is a social product of 19th century American society.That part of his book seemed pretty well-argued and accurate, to me. Obviously, I have my differences with him, about his own ideology.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, we don't agree and are not going to. But the thing is we don't need to. We are both socialist/communists and it doesn't really matter which particular non-theistic theory of science we adopt. So this exchange is just an interesting side-show allowing those of us interested in philopsophy to clarify our respective ideas.

I've just thought of an explanation as to why this exchange is not just an interesting side-show.The attempt to graft 'Marx onto instrumentalism' is a scientific ideology suited to 'market socialism'. Both pretend to be about 'the social', but really retain 'individualism'. That's why money is required in the latter, because there is still private (ie. non-democratic) property.If you ask comrades to read Dewey as a basis for science, it's similar to asking comrades to read Samuelson as a basis for economics.Instrumentalism is the basis of marginal utility. Individual sovereignty in assessing 'usefulness/worth', whether in science or economics.Hope this analogy helps!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Actually, I've no objection to DJP's schema as one possibily, even probably, useful way of understanding the passing world of phenomena. What we are arguing about is not the content of the theory (and of theories in general) but their status: are they uncovering "the Truth" and representing the world as it "really is" or are they simply useful ways of describing and understanding the world? You're the one that has described the schema, mentioned by DJP, as purporting to represent "the Truth", not him.

So, you're arguing that DJP shares your 'method', and can similarly 'not object' to a schema that maintains that 'the physical can supervene on the ideal'?I thought that DJP was arguing the opposite, that 'the ideal supervenes on the physical'.Plus, you've returned to a dichotomous model of 'either Truth or Description'. That is, 'objective' or 'subjective'. We've done all this last year, with my discussion based on Schaff. We contine to go in circles.As to 'what I'm arguing', perhaps it might be worth actually reading what I write, as opposed to guessing 'what I'm trying to argue'.I'm not an instrumentalist (and neither was Marx), I'm a realist (and so too, I'd argue, was Marx). Why you keep going over old ground baffles me.Next, you'll return to the accusation that I'm an idealist, who ignores the real world, no matter how many times I stress 'theory and practice'.

ALB wrote:

Actually, Dewey seems to have been an interesting person.

Yes, he was. I bought that book we talked about last year, during our previous discussions: George Novack's Pragmatism versus Marxism: An appraisal of John Dewey's philosophy.Given the amount of books I've bought and read on this subject in the last twelve months, at least I'm learning something from this process. I'm actually more convinced than when I started here, about my ideological positions on 'science'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

But then if everything is ideology, then it becomes a banal observation, and it becomes the eternal truth. Why should one ideology matetr any more than any other?

Yeah, I see your point, YMS.Why bother if the ruling ideology is Fascism or Stalinism, or democratic socialism, because 'why should one ideology matter any more than another?'.

YMS wrote:

I'd suggest, in socialism, we wouldn't call these things ideology, just points of view.

So, a Mengele will be able to vivisect pregnant women?I suspect, like ALB, you simply want 'science' to be non-ideological.We're back to:YMS is scientificMengele is ideological…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

In common parlance, ideology is one of those irregular verbs: I am scientific, you are mistaken, he/she/it is an ideologue. of course, ideology 101 tells us that precisely is ideology in action.

You make the same point I've been making, YMS, and the same one Marx and Einstein were making.The correct conjugation is, of course:I am ideologicalYou are ideologicalHe/she/it is ideologicalWe are ideologicalYou(se) are ideologicalThey are ideological

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

What about the 'physical' that 'supervenes' upon 'ideas'?

There is no physical that supervenes on ideas, that is not what supervenience means.Third time lucky…. The upper levels supervene on the lower..

LBird wrote:

Humans 'create' their world of knowledge, understanding and explanation, of production, distribution and consumption, much of which is not 'physical' in any meaningful sense, and much of which is the product of 'ideas', rather than the 'physical', so why the emphasis upon the 'physical'?

There is no particular "emphasis on the physical". It depends on what level of explanation is relevant to what you want to explain..

Having now reached the point where ALB seems to agree with me, Marx and Dietzgen that ideas and physical have the same ontological status, we can see that DJP's schema, which insists that ideas 'supervene' on the physical, is an ideological choice.DJP's schema can be reduced to one where the arrow between two boxes points 'one-way' (boxes named 'ideas' and 'physical'), with the arrow pointing to the 'physical' box.The schema employed, on the contrary, by us three, and perhaps now ALB, has 'two-way' arrows between those boxes.DJP's constant posting of 'third' time, 'fourth' time, 'fifth' time of posting, shows that whereas we're reading his posts and criticising his model from another perspective, he isn't actually reading the posts written by both me and ALB.DJP think his 'model' is The Truth, and the only Truth, and won't tell us which ideology stresses this model. He thinks that anyone who disagrees with, and thus ignores, his model, is 'not reading' his posts.If any other readers agree with DJP's model, that's fine, but admit to yourselves that you are making an ideological choice of models, and it's a choice at odds with mine and Marx's.Nature is not telling anyone DJP's model. It's a human construct, and to choose to follow it is a human choice.Plus, it's a conservative choice, of a model that stresses fixity, hierarchy and is ahistorical and asocial,The model described by Dietzgen, of the equivalence of 'ideas' and 'physical', is by contrast dynamic, democratic, social and historical.Change and critical thinking is at its heart, driven by humans.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

But 'instrumentalism' is individualist and inductive (ie. individual practice leading to theory). Marx is 'social' and stresses 'theory and practice' (ie. social theory leading to practice). So, Marx is not an instrumentalist.

But why is instrumentalism necessarily "individualist"? (Apart, that is, from you calling any view that differs from yours "individualist"). Why does the usefulness of a theory have to be judged by its usefulness to an individual rather than to society (all individuals) or even to a class? Maybe Marx could be described as a "social" instrumentalist?

I thought that you knew the ideological background to instrumentalism, ALB.It's the liberal Dewey and US individualism. It's the polar opposite of Marx's method, of 'theory and practice'. Your suggested method of 'social instrumentalism' is meaningless, because 'instrumentalism' is based on 'individual practice which pretends society does not exist'.You still seem to think that some form of 'scientific method' is non-ideological, and are desperately searching for it.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course some physical phenomena can be usefully described as being the product of the non-physical. What do things that human civilisation and culture are if not the outcome of purposeful, i.e idea-driven, human activity?

[my bold]But this is not what DJP argues.That's why I'm asking if you differ in your ideological views.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I don't think current usage agrees with the above.

Why won't you reveal the ideological basis to 'current usage'?'Current usage' seems like a synonym for the dominant 'ruling class ideas'

[Author]

Posts