LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:It is not a case of "simply accepting" but more, not trying to put ones own "interpretation" of what someone else has already stated.
I'm afraid this is impossible, steve, and the first to do it was Engels. He 'put his own interpretation of what Marx had already stated'.To me, it's quite clear from the Theses on Feuerbach (1840s) that Engels was 'interpreting' wrongly in Ludwig Feuerbach (1880s). But Engels' interpretation (the one you're following) was already 'Marxism' (with all the authority that imprimatur entailed) before Marx's philosophic manuscripts were able to be read by us workers from the 1930s.
sc wrote:I see little point in continuing a discussion, when one of the participants refuses to accept what was written by the person oft quoted in the thread, Marx.[my bold]Funnily enough, I agree![but we have different interpretations of who that is, too ]
steve colborn wrote:What part of Marx stating he was a materialist, did you either not accept and or, not agree with? Horses mouth eh?Steve.We've spent months trying to discuss what Marx means by 'materialism' (and I've suggested 'realism'), but we've now regressed (appropriately enough on a religion thread) to simply accepting the master's word, as written in The Text.As I've said before, this is yet more evidence for the theory that 'Scientific Socialism' is a religion.If you're happy to follow The Word, Steve, I'm not. I do critical thought, not mindless following of texts.Is the horse's mouth Vin's Neddy?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Marx wasn't a materialistKarl Marx wrote:I am a materialistObviously it was Marx that was wrong.
You were right when you said that the last few months have been a waste of time for you.All that discussion about meaning…
Yeah, for the religious, 'scriptural authority' from the past is always preferably to 'discussion' now.
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt if the SPGB is likely to change its mind regarding those with personal spiritual belief Robbo, consider the fact that the party line on the ethical aspect of socialism is rejected in favour of a purely scientific nature.This 'party line' is yet another aspect of idealism, akin to religion.If 'ethics' don't come from humans, and are thus amenable to a democratic vote, from where do they orginate? Nature? 'Neutral' scientific method?'Scientific Socialists' and religious believers are cut from the same cloth.The 'god' being 'purely scientific nature'. Both are nonsense. Marx argues for 'humanised nature', and our ethics will spring from our new society, by our decisions and our choices, not from the 'rocks' of a 'material world' outside of humans, whether they have brains or not.'Idealism' is the belief that will, purpose and creativity come from outside of humanity. 'Idealism' is not the use of ideas, as the 'materialists' insist.It is idealism to be a materialist. Marx wasn't a materialist, or an idealist. He believed that humans are the source of ideas to change the world. We need to clarify our ideas, especially in contrast to the religious. 'Historical Materialism' is synonymous with 'Idealism-Materialism'. Our ideas must work in this world. Waiting for matter to determine our future is passive, not creative.Ignoring this, with regard to the religious, in favour of 'building the movement', will lead to tears. Ours, as well as those of the religious.
robbo203 wrote:On the question of "evidence-based thinking", I am sympathetic to the point L Bird is making – that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’, that there is an element of selection of the evidence to fit the theory which in turn is inevitably conditioned by our values. There is no such thing as a "value-free science" … But setting that caveat aside for the moment (since it is not really what this thread is about)…I don't think that your acceptance of the notion of 'thinking-based evidence' can be set aside so easily, robbo.The metaphysics that we adopt prior to enquiry, that then determine what counts as 'acceptable evidence' is at the heart of this debate. The simple fact is, religious people hold different views about the creative source on this planet.They say 'god', we say 'humanity'. This latter fits with Marx, who argues that humans, by their creative, purposive activity, humanise nature. In other words, god, a puppet of humans who is created by alienated humans, can play no creative part in this process.By its very nature, a belief in god detracts from the power of the proletariat as the creative force in building our 'humanised nature'. The religious think that there is a social power outside of the proletariat. This belief can only weaken our belief in ourselves, and fits with ruling class ideas about there being a power outside of the exploited class.If a religious person argues that their 'god' plays no part in this world, then that is akin to a form of madness – very similar to believing pixies live in one's garage, but can't be seen and do nothing whatsoever to interact with humans. Would we accept into our movement 'pixie belief'?Really, the idea of 'god' needs to be challenged and fought against, rather than allowing this social illness to remain and being allowed to develop.This is a battle of 'ideas', and needs to be fought at that level. Mere asserion of 'materialism' is a dead, 19th century idea, which will lose us the battle with the 'god botherers'.
robbo203 wrote:On the question of the Party sympathiser in Dave's branch who happens to be a practising catholic and believes "the Party is doing Gods work", well, at the end of the day, does it really matter if she believes this? Seriously. So long as she agrees with the basic principles of the Party, that really is all that should mattter.I wouldn't be happy with a 'pixie afficionado' helping me to build a 'non-pixie' world. It should be made plain that the party is neither working for pixies or god, and anyone believing this is likely to be disappointed with the fruit of their party labours. A fervently anti-pixie society.
robbo203 wrote:The business of the Party should not be about promoting an atheistic worldview but about establishing socialism and the sooner the better.To me, building socialism is synonymous with an 'atheistic worldview'. Socialism is humanity in the driving seat, not the pixies (or any other imaginary beings).I'm not a party member, so perhaps my views rightly should carry no weight in this internal debate, but neither could I imagine being involved with the religious in the future, so it would put me off getting involved with a party that allowed a pixie-lover to have the same power and input as me, about decisions affecting the proletariat.
Ah well, to think, I actually thought I was getting somewhere, for a moment…Well, good luck to you and Vin in defending the party with the trusty shield of 'materialism', against the religious…It's like 19th century cavalry against 20th century tanks – and the Pope now even has the armoured divisions, in spite of Stalin's jest.When will we learn?Don't forget to feed Neddy, Vin.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:The materialists insist 'ideas' come from 'material', whereas we communists insist ideas come from humans.Ideas come from humans (and other animals) yes I agree. But humans and their ideas are just another part / aspect of the material / physical world *because that is all that exists*.
If 'ideas' are 'just another part of the material', why don't rocks have ideas? Why don't ideas come from humans, animals and rocks, if the term 'material' is sufficient to cover all aspects?What's more, this alleged 'material substratum' is not the focus of Marx's ideas: human interaction with the 'material' is his focus.This two-sidedness, of 'material and ideas', of 'object and subject', of 'theory and practice' of 'humans and nature', of 'being and consciousness' is captured by 'two-fold' terms, like 'idealism-materialism'…
DJP wrote:Remember I agreed with you about the faults of a crude "base-superstructure" model of "historical materialism"…… or, indeed, 'historical materialism'.In a nutshell, DJP, 'materialism' is crude. So crude, that it provides us with no defence against the 'religious', who can also read of the travails of 'science' since Einstein. And Engels himself distanced himself from it, with notions of the 'final analysis', etc., which undermines every other analysis of the 'material', and never comes anyway. Waiting for the 'final' is like waiting for…We must shift the focus, like Marx did, to the mass of humans on this planet, and their activities and thoughts, and away from false gods like 'Him', 'The Party', 'The Truth'…… or 'The Material' of Engels.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:No argument or debate – just the dismissing of critical views. Bit like 'religion', eh?Well if you think that having pretty much the same conversation for about a year now amounts to no argument or debate, feel free..I'm pretty sure everyone's bored of it now.
Just like the religious get bored of atheists demanding proof of god, eh?We're 'having pretty much the same conversation' because the 'Religious Socialists' (AKA 'materialists' or 'scientific socialists') won't tell us godless communists where they get their ideas from.The materialists insist 'ideas' come from 'material', whereas we communists insist ideas come from humans. That's why ideas, productive property, morals and science must all be under the democratic control of humanity, and not under the political control of a subset (the notorious 'educators', as Marx puts it), of 'materialists', priests or scientists.Our class' control of human understanding must be democratic.That's the 'idea' that forms the basis of our opposition to religion. We can outvote any 'god' who is produced and placed before us, by 'believers'. Or, the slogan 'One god, one vote; 7 billion of us are voting, too'And that includes outvoting 'The Cadre Party', of the Leninists and 'materialists', who always aim for the control by a few, whether political, scientific or religious.
Vin Maratty wrote:DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
Lol, I have to say, DJP, that's it in a nutshell!
Yet another demonstration of ignorance from a unthinking devotee of Engels' 'materialism'.DJP and Vin might as well be sniggering dismissively, 'LBird says the world existed before 4004BC!'Neither has actually read any views about the 'idealism' of 'materialism', and so dismiss the very thought out-of-hand.Their high-priest forbids their considering this. No argument or debate – just the dismissing of critical views. Bit like 'religion', eh?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
Rather than mocking that which you do not understand, DJP, you should be asking 'why' you think that 'materialism' and 'idealism' form exclusive opposites, and then trying to find out 'who' provided you with this 'why'.I've already told you 'who' and 'why', but you keep 'ignoring evidence', because it doesn't fit your 'theory'.You'd be better exposing your ideology than merely castigating the 'religious' for theirs. Or, indeed, mocking me and Marx for our 'idealism-marerialism'.Unless the SPGB takes on this task, of uncovering the 'ideas' behind various stances, the discussion about 'religion' will remain unclear.Religion must be undermined at the level of 'ideas', not by pretending that 'materialists' have a special insight into the nature of reality. They don't, and to argue otherwise is 'idealism'. By that, I mean false, and a mystification (just like 'religion') of the human understanding of our reality.'Scientific Socialism' is a cult. A religious cult.
pfbcarlisle wrote:No need whatsoever to abandon 'evidence-based thinking'!But the latest philosophers of science say that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’.Thus, humans have ‘thinking-based evidence’, and not the contrary, which many members seem to erroneously believe. Carr's analogy of the 'fisherman fishing for fish' is relevent, here. ‘Evidence-based thinking’ is induction, and is a remnant of 19th century positivist science, as embraced by Engels.
jondwhite wrote:I don't think the exclusion of the religious (or deists) excludes enough idealists.Ahhh, the Engelsian bogeyman of ‘idealism’, yet again. Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’. This religious belief in ‘materialism’ comes from Engels, not Marx.Marx was an ‘idealist-materialist’. Ideas are at the heart of human understanding. If we disagree with one form of 'ideas', all well and good, spell out why our ideas disagree with those ideas, but don't pretend 'they' are idealists, whilst we are 'materialists', and that should form the basis for rejection of 'religious' views.
jondwhite wrote:A good PR approach is a materialist idea, based on material reality of the effect of good PR. Idealists would be indifferent or not be interested in a good PR approach.‘Materialism’ has been, and still is, disastrous for the proletariat. The religious belief that the ‘material’ tells us what ‘it is’ is a lie. If I ask jdw what ‘material reality is’, and ask for the scientific method they employ to discover it, they can’t answer. If jdw thinks that ‘material reality’ tells us what it is, they’re following Lenin. The ‘Party’ lies that it knows better than the class what ‘material conditions’ are. That question can only be decided by the proletariat, by humanity taking a vote. The ‘truth’ about ‘material reality’ is a product of a society, not a reflection of ‘material reality’ which can be ‘discovered’ by an elite. Knowing the ‘material’ requires ‘ideas’, that is, 'Theory and Practice’.Whilst the SPGB fails to clarify its views about ‘science’ (and thus ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’), any discussion about ‘religious beliefs’ will be confused.Not least, because ‘materialism’ is itself a ‘religious belief’, and that cult is named ‘Scientific Socialism’. One might as well follow 'The Moonies'. Or twc's mystifying rants.
Engels, in Socialism Utopian and Scientific, wrote:But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/int-mat.htmAs usual with Engels, he's confused, and thus confuses others who look to him for guidance. He's worth reading, but critically.If 'proof' is 'positive', how can it only be 'so far'?Is 'so far' 0.0001% 'far' towards the truth? Or is 'so far' 99.9999% 'far' towards truth?The use of the conditional 'so far' completely undermines the accepted meaning of 'proof positive'.In fact, 'practice' doesn't furnish 'proof positive' of any external 'object': successful 'practice' merely 'proves' that the 'theory' works for human purposes. Thus, 'truth' is social, cultural and has a history.This is a million miles from 'proof' of the true correspondence of 'our perceptions' and 'nature', as naive realists would have it.
DJP wrote:What is it that makes something seem true?This would be a very interesting discussion, DJP, as I've recently been doing some reading around this topic.But I think it would be better being addressed on a fresh thread.
