[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

That's why the bourgeoisie can't 'see' 'value', whereas we Communists can.

 How come I can see it?  

Perhaps you're an omniscient god, Vin.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The thing is that a lot modern work in philosophy of mind / language and neuroscience / psychology comes from a physicalist background and quite independently of Marx or Deitzgen or Pannekoek is also supporting the idea of the social nature of consciosness and language and knowledge etc..

If "consciousness and language and knowledge" are not 'physical', why talk of 'physicalism'?What about the 'physical' that 'supervenes' upon 'ideas'?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'?Is it to retain Engels' 'materialism'?It's a dead end for Communists, DJP.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But if we reject materialism / physicalism what takes it place? What is the reality that this "realism" refers to?

Causal mechanisms within structures, which require 'ideas' to identify them.That's why Marx's 'value', which causes humans to act in certain ways, and emerges from the structure of capitalist society, and requires 'theory' to understand (and is not 'visible' to 'individuals'), seems to fit the bill of 'Critical Realism'.That's why the bourgeoisie can't 'see' 'value', whereas we Communists can.As Einstein said, "it's the theory that determines what can be observed".

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

…think about things…

This requires 'ideas' and 'things', or 'things' and 'ideas'.The belief that 'ideas' can be circumvented, and 'things' implant themselves in the passive minds of humans, by humans employing a supposedly 'neutral method' (which removes 'ideas' from the process) and allows 'things' to speak for themselves, is dead. Or, rather, it should be, according to science.But… we live in a class society, where it is essential for the ruling class to maintain the illusion that their thinkers and academics have a 'non-ideological' way of explaining the world, natural and social.They maintain that 'individuals' (especially 'elite individuals') can understand the world, often through their 'individual' senses.We, on the contrary, maintain that understanding the world can only come about through 'social ideas', though a social 'theory and practice', which is not the product of 'individual senses', but 'social ideology'.'Knowledge' is not a 'mirror' of the 'material'. 'Knowledge' consists of a product of 'theory and practice', and so 'knowledge' must be a mixture of 'ideas' and 'material'.The hunt for eternal knowledge, Truth, something the same for all observers for ever, would successfully end in us being 'at one' with the 'material'.This can't be done. 'Physicalism', with its emphasis on 'material', seeks to continue this wild goose chase.The seeking of 'Knowledge' is the aim, not the identifying of 'Being'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

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.

You're interested in 'being', whereas I and Marx are interested in 'knowledge'.That's why 'theory and practice' are so important.This does not happen prior to consciousness.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I, like most people these days, accept materialism / physicalism as the most likely explanation of what this one kind of thing is.

That's because it's a 'ruling class' idea, DJP. 'Most people accept' it, is a pretty good basis to call something a 'ruling class idea'.

DJP wrote:

That is not to say that I do not accept that materialism / physicalism has problems, far from it…

The day something 'material or physical' builds us a hospital, DJP, in the absense of 'ideas', I'll concede the debate to you.I'd rather go with Marx:

Marx, Capital, p. 284, wrote:

…what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of [anything non-human]… is that the architect builds the [hospital]… in his mind before he constructs it in [brick]…

The construction of 'knowledge' follows the same course.And just like the architect's drawing can fall down when built if wrongly conceived, due to the test of 'practice', so can the scientist's theory when practiced.But we have to be the judge of 'good hospitals' and 'true knowledge'.I suspect that, if this society continues, our hospitals and our knowledge will continue to degrade and disappoint, and end in ruins.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Stick with 'materialism' and 'physicalism' and 'supervenience', DJP. And pretend to yourself that they are asocial and ahistorical concepts. Then you'll 'know' the 'Truth', and be at one with your god, 'matter'.You're an idealist, DJP.

This is absurd, LBird. DJP has made it clear on numerous occasions that he doesn't adhere to the kind of "materialism" you are attacking and goes along with the general approach outlined by Marx in his Theses on Feuerbach and as developed later by Dietzgen and Pannekoek. In fact his position is nearer to yours than you think, but you don't seem to want people to agree just partly with you.

But DJP doesn't agree with Marx's realism.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.

Marx, Capital, p. 284, wrote:

At the end of every labour process, a result emerges which had already been conceived by the worker at the beginning, hence already existed ideally.

[my bold]Read the rest of the surrounding paragraph. 'Purpose', 'conscious', 'mind', 'purposeful will', 'purposeful activity'.This is a million miles from 'matter' telling us 'what it is' and 'what to think'.And all the shite about the 'material' determining what humans think.If Communism isn't based upon critical thought of the existing, it will never emerge from the mud and rocks of 'physicalism'.

[LBird]

So, why don't you two cloth-eared idealists go and do something else, and leave this thread to those who are curious?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

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.

Because I've been 'putting forward' Marx's 'strong kind of cognitive relativism', and you employ a different ideology, you can't 'get' it.'Knowledge' depends on 'society'. The ideology that 'reality' tells us what it is, and speaks identically to all observers, across time and place (and thus is an ahistorical and asocial ideology), is a bourgeois ideology.I've said this before, many times, but you wouldn't listen then, and you won't listen now.Stick with 'materialism' and 'physicalism' and 'supervenience', DJP. And pretend to yourself that they are asocial and ahistorical concepts. Then you'll 'know' the 'Truth', and be at one with your god, 'matter'.You're an idealist, DJP.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

£27 for the ebook!!   Would you recommend any of this free reading? http://www.russellkeat.net/value_free_social_science.php

Keat wrote:

In my discussion of objectivity and value-freedom in Social Theory as Science (co-authored with John Urry; Routledge 1975/1982) a broadly Weberian position was defended…

[my bold]Well, Vin, since you apparently don't think science is ideological, you won't be able to read Keat and Urry's book from an alternative Communist perspective, will you? Y'know, critically.Take my advice, Vin, and ignore me and the book.£27? What price ignorance?

[LBird]

ALB, I've just got hold of a book which seems to cover many of the issues that I've tried to discuss, unsuccessfully.It is Social Theory as Science, by Keat and Urry.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Theory-Science-Routledge-Revivals/dp/0415608783It's a reprint of a book originally published in the '70s, but it's still very useful.Part One, 'Conceptions of science' (chapters 1-3), is very good, I think.Chapter 5, 'Marx and realism' seems to me to be a bit weak, in that it doesn't stress (to me, anyway) the fundamental link between 'realist ontology' and 'Historical Materialism'. That is, HM as an example of 'realism'. This, I think, requires further discussion between Communists.I'm still reading it, but nevertheless, I'd recommend what I've read, so far.Hope this helps, where I clearly haven't.

[LBird]

moderator, please ban me.Please physically prevent me from logging in.I'm going to say something that I regret.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Perhaps explain how you think "theory" is different from "knowledge".

I'm now finding it difficult to believe that I'm talking to adults.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'?Why?Why?Why?What am I bothering for? I'm wasting your time and mine.Perhaps I should just go for the permanent ban, and put us all out of our misery.Because that's what this process is, comrades: not pleasure, not enlightenment, just misery.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I supose it's arguable that one can know without ideas: dogs know things, and yet have no ideas: but I think that's arguable, since we're still talking about, essentially, mental states, and the property of being a mental state.  Both ideas and knowledge are parts of the mental domain. I can't see "knowledge" being f any other stuff than matter or ideas…

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?

[LBird]

I never thought it would be so difficult to get some agreement on 'theory and practice' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'theory' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'practice' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'matter' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'ideal' produces 'knowledge'.Just good, old fashioned, 'theory and practice produces knowledge'.I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.

[Author]

Posts