[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Am I an "instrumentalist"? Sounds as if I might be. My position is set out in this article.Was Marx an "instrumentalist"? I don't know but you are the one who is always quoting  the part of his Theses on Feuerbach where he emphasises that the "truth" of thinking has to be shown by practice:

Quote:

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.

So, if he wasn't a "pragmatist" or an "instrumentalist" he was at least a "practicist". I can't see what he has in common with Bashkar's "critical realism".I notice that you are less keen on quoting other parts where he describes himself as a "materialist":

Quote:

IX. The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is the contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.X. The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society or social humanity.XI. Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Marx describes himself as a "new materialiost" to distionguish his view from that of the sort of materialists you are criticising. But he still called himself a "materialist". Another reason why Sayers's definition is not helpful.

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.The other parts that you seem to think that I'm "less keen on quoting" will do just nicely, because they actually reject 'instrumentalism'. Thanks, ALB, for making my point.On the 'Marx calling himself a materialist' point, I've covered this now what seems like dozens of times, so I won't repeat myself, yet again.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Sayers wrote:

According to materialism, everything that exists or happens is ultimately material or physical.

That's just the opinion/definition of one writer (who is opposed to "materialism?). I don't think this does help as it is not drawing any distinction between the "material" and the "physical" whereas Dietzgen, for instance, who described himself as a materialist, held that ideas were also part of "matter". As he put it:

Quote:

The distinguishing mark between the mechanical materialists of the 18th century and the Social-Democratic materialists trained in German idealism consists in that that the latter have extended the former’s narrow conception of matter as consisting exclusively of the Tangible to all phenomena that occur in the world.

Quote:

In the endless Universe matter in the sense of old and antiquated materialists, that is, of tangible matter, does not possess the slightest preferential right to be more substantial, i.e. more immediate, more distinct and more certain than any other phenomena of nature.

He also described himself as a "monist" as he held that only the universe existed and that the physical and non-physical parts into which humans divided it had the same status as part of the universe. This might be a better term to start from, to prevent you criticising a straw man of your creation.

[my bold]So, then, according to this statement, the 'non-physical' can 'supervene' on the 'physical' (DJP's position) but also (because they have 'the same status') it must mean that the 'physical' can 'supervene' on the 'non-physical'.Thus, if you agree with Dietzgen's statement, as you say you do, you must disagree with DJP's position.Am I correct is regarding you and DJP as holding different ideological views on this issue? Up until now, because you keep referencing DJP's posts and stances, it has seemed that you follow DJP uncritically.

[LBird]

I'm unsure of the meaning of your post, ALB.Are you saying your position is 'instrumentalism'?My position isn't, and I don't think Marx's was. I think he was closer to what we'd now call 'Critical Realism'.Could you clarify this, please?

[LBird]

Regarding the 'physicalism' and 'materialism' that DJP refers to, here is a link to an article which might inform our discussion about the meaning of 'physicalism'.http://www.academia.edu/3035461/MAKING_ROOM_FOR_THE_MENTAL

Sayers wrote:

According to materialism, everything that exists or happens is ultimately material or physical. Insome form or other, this philosophy is a fundamental component of modern thought. For, withthe development of modern science, it has become increasingly clear that natural phenomena canbe described and understood in materialistic terms, without recourse to the notions of a divinecreator or an immaterial human mind.However, the general philosophical outlook of materialism can take different forms. In particular,materialism is often put forward as a mechanistic and reductionist philosophy. In the eighteenth century, materialism of this sort was called `mechanical' materialism; nowadays it goes under the title of `physicalism'. Quite standardly, it is treated as if it were the only form of materialism.

[my bold]

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I do note, though, that in saying that "reality" existed prior to humans, you are conceding DJP's point that the physical part of reality existed before the ideas part.

I'm not 'conceding DJP's point'.'Reality' existed prior to humans, but the 'idea' of it being 'physical' is a human idea.This is part of the problem. DJP's ideology insists that the 'physical' is 'being', whereas it's part of 'human knowledge', as are 'ideas'. After all, is the 'space' between 'electrons and protons' physical in any meaningful sense?To insist that the 'physical' is the 'real', the 'basis' of reality, like DJP's post's diagram showed, is an ideological position, not something that 'reality' told us (or DJP, or told the thinkers he gets his ideas from).

ALB wrote:

And your oft-repeated contention that it was once "reality" that the Sun went round the Earth.

This is not what I keep saying. I keep saying it was 'the truth' that the sun went round the earth, not 'reality'. No-one 'knows' reality in itself. If they claim to 'know reality in itself', why don't these people tell us the 'method' that they use, to get to this truth? They don't, because they can't. Science teaches us this.'Truth' is socially-produced, but your ideology tells you that 'truth' is the same as 'reality'. That's why you interchange the words 'truth' and 'reality' and put words in my mouth, and can't understand my claim, because to your ideology it is meaningless to separate 'truth' from 'reality'.

ALB wrote:

As to Marx, he was clearly a "materialist" in the broad sense of holding that "reality" is external to humans and existed prior to them and also held that the human mind plays an active role in trying to understand "external reality" and does not simply reflect it as a "mechanical materialist" like Lenin did.

Yeah, 'external', 'prior', 'active role', 'understanding' and 'not a reflection'.So, how do you keep saying 'truth' is the same as 'reality'?Marx's method allows us to understand the history of 'truth', and its social origins.But if 'truth' is 'reality', it can only happen once. Thus, one falls into 'discovery science', of uncovering The Truth, the reality of reality, of being, final, absolute, mirror-like knowledge of reality.As I keep asking, if DJP has a method that tells us his schema of placing the 'physical' at the bottom is true, why not tell us it?Or did 'reality' tell him? Or is it 'just obvious', to any 'individual'?Critical Realists have no problem whatsoever in saying that 'structures, components, emergent properties and causal mechanisms' are human ideas, which attempt to make sense of our experience of 'reality'.We don't claim that 'reality' told us this, as DJP must claim for his schema.Because, once he admits it's a human schema, not a reflection of reality, he's plunged into the world of 'human ideology', which is precisely where we are, since Einstein. This is the 'scientific truth' that Rovelli identifies.And behind all this discussion, is the need for the maintenance of 'authority' in human affairs, a non-democratic authority because it is based upon 'physical truth', and thus can't be argued with.Surely the political consequences of this way of thinking is obvious to all Communists?

[LBird]

ALB and DJP, I'm trying to explain our differences.I think you want to know what 'reality' really 'is'.Whereas I (and Marx) want to know what 'humans think reality is'.Or, you're interested in 'reality' outside of any human input; whereas I (and Marx) are interested in 'reality' in its interaction with humans.

Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 2, wrote:

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmTrying to get to the truth of 'reality' (what 'is') outside of human theory and practice upon that reality, is, to Marx, 'a purely scholastic question'.Perhaps another way of putting it, is that you're interested in 'ontology' ('being') rather than 'epistemology' ('knowledge').19th century Positivism thought it was revealing 'being' with its 'neutral' method.We now know that science is concerned with human understanding, rather than the 'Truth' of 'stuff'.'Knowledge' is always human, rather than 'objective' (that is, the truth about stuff itself).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't know if this is your position but you seem to be saying that all "reality" is psycho-physical or something along those lines.

I still can't believe, after 12 months and numerous statements to the opposite, that you think I'm arguing that 'all reality is psycho-physical'. I've constantly said 'reality' is external to humans, and existed prior to humans.The only way I can make sense of your continuing belief in that as 'what I'm saying' is your own ideological blinkers.

ALB wrote:

I don't know because you haven't yet defined what you mean by "reality". But from what you have said so far I'm not sure that the "realism" of "critical realism" is the correct word since, as DJP has been pointing out, traditionally in philosophy "realist" theories argue that knowledge is a "true" picture/description of "reality", a position you've been vehementally opposing all along.

I have said what CR means by reality: components, structures, emergent properties, causal mechanisms. I spent a whole long post explaining this, and no-one engaged with my post (as opposed to laughing at Bhaskar).You really must stop taking DJP's opinions as gospel, and start trying to ask yourself: "what ideology is DJP espousing, as compared to the ideology that LBird is espousing?". This will allow you, perhaps, to identify your ideology. If you agree with DJP, that's fine, but then you don't agree with me (or, I'd argue, Marx).

ALB wrote:

But we'll see when you get round to saying what "critical realism" means by "reality". All we've had so far is a mention of some mysterious "non-phyiscal causal powers".

Yes, to a certain ideological perspective in science, Marx's concept of 'value' is merely "some mysterious non-physical causal power", which can't be 'touched', and requires one to embrace a 'theory' to understand it.Once more, I think that you and DJP want to be 'at one with reality'; in other words, you're searching for The Truth of 'what's real'. On the contrary, Marx was engaged in a search to 'understand' reality.But 'understanding' is human (and thus social and historical) and so is not a 'copy' of 'reality'.I think you want to have a final Truth about what is 'real'. That's positivism, not Marxism.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

There is no physical that supervenes on ideas, that is not what supervenience means.

Yes, if the ideological definition of 'supervenience' is 'ideas on physical', then of course there isn't.But this is what I've been trying to explain about 'ideology' and 'meaning'.The point is, there is another ideology that does not accept the ideological belief that supervenience means ideas on physical.If that's your ideology, why not accept it and say so?And say that you reject 'Critical Realism'?It's pointless pretending that your ideology is 'objective', and claiming Marx's isn't.Humans are ideological. We have to deal with this knowledge produced by science.

[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'.

[Author]

Posts