[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Sorry twc, but I still have no idea what you're talking about. Marx's quote on science is all very well as far as it goes, but it's old hat: science has shown there is no "essence" of things, that it's "appearance" all the way down and out the other side again. …I'll challenge you again: could you tell me, in a sentence or two, using your own words, and preferably words of plain English, what our argument is about?

Since I doubt that you'll have any success in appealing to twc to write 'plain English', perhaps I'll try to spark off a discussion that the rest of us can understand, and thus participate in.I think that Marx's view of 'essence and appearance' has actually been substantiated by science, since his days.The model of science used to be to passively observe the 'appearance' of nature to humans, and then draw conclusions and form theories (the inductive method, or 'practice and theory').But since Einstein we've become clearer that a human theory is required prior to actively interrogating the appearance of nature, and that the conclusions that we draw are based upon our creative activity upon nature. That is, theory is required to get to the 'essence' of nature. This is Marx's method of 'theory and practice'.What do you think?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Well, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about twc, but it sounds damn saucy you naughty thing! Could you perhaps tell me in a single sentence, in words of plain English, what our disagreement is?

I'm actually beginning to wonder if twc isn't just a random-word-generator!I've tried numerous times to engage in a conversation, so I can try to unravel what twc means, but to no avail. twc just continues to spew out unfathomable lengthy diatribes at an uncomprehending audience.Must be some personal failing on my part; perhaps 'Lack of Moral Fibre'.Or, as twc would phrase it, 'Absence of Concrete Abstraction'.

[LBird]

twc, you've no idea about my critical views of Schaff or Bhaskar, or anyone else, or anything else, because you never discuss anything.If you really are gone, thank god!Perhaps a final comment: look up the meaning of 'discussion' in a dictionary. I think you'll be very surprised.

[LBird]

It was your chance to outline where you get your ideas from, whether from Marx or from some other source.Then we could have compared these choices, and seen if we can uncover some underlying assumptions about why we made those particular choices.I try to be open about my influences (indeed, I think being transparent about ideology is a key to scientific method, because it allows the 'scientist' to be interrogated about their assumptions, prior to examining their 'scientific results'), and I'm always suspicious about those who claim to be 'scientists' but hide their influences/philosophy/ideology. I suspect most of the problem is that these so-called 'scientists' don't even recognise that they have underlying/unspoken inputs into their 'science'.As I've said before, since Einstein it has been clear, to all who wish to consider the problem, that the 'position' of the 'observer' is a key element in producing 'knowledge'.This is as true for physics as for sociology.As to what you think science is, twc, I don't really have a clue. You seem to think that 'holding forth about The Truth' is a method likely to influence comrades. I disagree, and I think that discussion and persuasion (y'know, politics) is a better method.The real tragedy is that you seem to have read into some of these issues, which many other comrades haven't, and so feel out of their depth and unable to contribute, but you don't seem to read anything critically. You take things 'at face value', ironically enough, for someone who seems to have 'seen through' the lies of the capitalists about their 'economy' and 'market'.I find this perplexing, because I would have thought that once comrades have seen through the lies of the bourgeoisie about 'The Market', they would then find it relatively easy to begin to see through their lies about 'objective science' and 'objective knowledge'.What's worse, is that some of their own philosophers have taken this step already, which is why the debates about 'science' are so venomous within academia. 'Scientific Truth' is one of the mainstays of bourgeois rule, one of their 'ruling ideas', and some academics can see the dangers for that rule if too many people start to question the priestly caste of 'The Scientists'.But, given all this, you want to remain in the 19th century, twc.

[LBird]

Oh dear. As I suspected.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Please proceed. Explain (1) what you mean by science, and (2) what you take to be the incontestable metaphysical assumptions of physics that (3) include morality.

Hold your horses, twc! Keen as ever to jump to the end of a discussion process, eh? In fact, your ‘method’ is usually a peremptory demand that we skip the ‘discussion’ entirely, and move instantly onto passively reading your closing, lengthy diatribe!No, this time, it’s either a discussion or nothing. That means we can ask each other questions and for clarification. A discussion is not merely the presenting of already finished statements, which are then read at one another.Let’s keep this to your ‘demand’ number 1, suitably amended to read ‘what we mean by science’. I think that your ‘demands’ 2 and 3 will be answered by our discussion of what we mean by ‘science’. If not, we can then discuss them.I’d like to open with three statements by Marx, which I think set suitable grounds for a discussion between socialist comrades about ‘science’.

Marx, in Capital Vol. III, wrote:

… all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm

Marx, in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, wrote:

… the senses of the social man differ from those of the non-social man. Only through the objectively unfolded richness of man’s essential being is the richness of subjective human sensibility (a musical ear, an eye for beauty of form – in short, senses capable of human gratification, senses affirming themselves as essential powers of man) either cultivated or brought into being. For not only the five senses but also the so-called mental senses, the practical senses (will, love, etc.), in a word, human sense, the human nature of the senses, comes to be by virtue of its object, by virtue of humanised nature. The forming of the five senses is a labour of the entire history of the world down to the present. The sense caught up in crude practical need has only a restricted sense.

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

Marx, in Capital Vol. I, wrote:

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htmI’ll try to base my arguments about science upon those of Marx, expressed in these quotes. We can add others, if required. I think that the ideas produced by philosophers of science during the 20th century fit well with Marx’s views, which were expressed a century earlier than the views of those thinkers.(I should make it clear, as a warning to other comrades, that an entirely different basis for ‘science’ can be created out of other Marxian quotes, passages which are much more in line with Engels’ ‘materialist’ views, but that problem inheres in the contradictory nature of Marx’s works. We have to decide for ourselves which ‘Marx’ we agree with.)If you don’t agree with these texts being the basis of our discussion about science, twc, can you outline with quotes what you think should form the basis of our discussion?If you take this option, perhaps a comparison between two sets of quotes can help to illustrate our differences. If you don’t have any problem with my choices, we can proceed to illustrate and broaden Marx’s views, and see if we draw different conclusions about the meaning of his words.

[LBird]

I'm always a sucker for a discussion. I know that I've tried before with you, twc (oh so many times!), but I'll take your present offer to discuss at face value.

twc wrote:

Marx is owed some time for a reasoned examination and defence against your charge that he based his science on untestable and unrejectable ‘metaphysical assumptions'.

[my bold]The key point here for discussion, is 'science'. To examine 'Marx's science' it is logically necessary to examine what we mean by 'science'. After that, we can compare/contrast 'his' version of it with other versions of it.So, shall we discuss whether (any version of) science is 'based on untestable and unrejectable 'metaphysical assumptions', or isn't?We would need to give an example of a science which does not contain these 'metaphysical assumptions', and, from long experience of this type of discussion, I think we should get to the 'heart of the beast' and discuss 'physics'. If we discuss any other scientific discipline, and discover 'metaphysical assumptions', the unwary and unread will always fall back on the excuse that "Oh, that's not real science, only physics is real, hard, science!", so we'll have to address that eventually.IMO, it's only when physics is addressed, and shown to have 'metaphysical assumptions', that we can move on, and deal with 'science' as it really is, rather than 'science' as scientists claim it is. It's been shown that scientists are the last ones to know what they are actually doing.[edit] For other comrades: the relevence of this discussion to the thread, is that it will be argued that 'morality' sits within 'metaphysical assumptions'.

[LBird]

It's a real shame that you don't do discussion, twc.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I assume this is view of the Socialist Party…. “Mans outlook is not just a reflection of economic conditions. Social development is the result of mans action on circumstances. Economic conditions develop certain ideas in the mind of men which move them to alter their conditions – and so the process goes on. As we have already mentioned man makes his own history but only out of the conditions that are to his hand. It is reciprocal – man and conditions acting upon each other.” …. 

[my altered bold]Vin, can I comment on this party view?It is contradictory while the bolded part stands.It needs to read "Humanity develops certain ideas in its mind regarding economics conditions…"The active factor, as rightly stressed in most of the quote, is "Men" (ie. humanity).The active factor is not 'economic conditions'. Thus, it can't be 'reciprocal'. 'Conditions' do not act upon humans; humans act within the constraints of their 'conditions'.Humans are the creative, active element. That is why we can 'change the world', as opposed to passively being 'developed' by it.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Marxian materialism is a scientific abstraction from experience. Unlike a metaphysical assumption, it is scientifically testable, and so vulnerable to rejection.

You're just displaying your ignorance, now, twc.All science contains 'metaphysical assumptions' (or an 'ontology'), that are 'untestable' and thus are 'unrejectable'.This is as true of physics as of sociology. That's the problem with 'science', for humans.'Abstraction' does not come from experience (ie. induction, or 'practice and theory'), but is a human creative act of imaginative, abstractive, thinking and must be followed by the testing of that 'creation' upon 'reality' (ie. 'theory and practice') to produce 'knowledge'. That 'knowledge' is not a 'copy' of reality, but contains human factors.The vast majority of 20th century philosophy of science agrees with this process of human understanding of reality. Reality does not expose itself to passive humans (and Marx and the Ancient Greeks thought it didn't), but must be actively sought by humans employing theory.If your version of 'Marxism' purports to 'abstract from experience', it's nonsense.Only if Marx was right about 'theory and practice' (and not your 'practice and theory') do his ideas make sense in the light of the last 100 years of human thought.Oh, sorry… you're still in the 19th century, aren't you? 'Materialism'? Just Lenin's reflection theory of knowledge and naive realism, in truth.Now, carry on with your pathetic insults. And keep playing with the mud pies. And listen carefully to your 'experience' with the rocks, twc… you're right about that, at least. Given your level of development, they can teach you a thing or two.Why don't you let the rest of us get on with the 21st century? Muppet. In a Victorian top hat.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' can't explain 'ideas'.If it can, why isn't it called 'materialism-idealism'? Why the stress upon the 'material', to the denial of 'ideas'?

It just plainly seems you haven't understood what is meant by "materialism""Materialism" isn't an explanation but a metaphysical assumption.To me it seems that there are plenty of materialist / physicalist theories that explain "ideas" better than any of the others going. I have to admit that at the minute Dennett is a favourite."Materialism" doesn't deny ideas, it just presumes that these are just one of the many facets of the material / physical world (whatever the material / physical world may be). You may as well say "Why not call it materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc?"

Perhaps the problem, DJP, is that you haven't understood what I mean by "idealism-materialism".If ' "materialism" doesn't deny ideas' (and I think the problem is that 'materialists' do deny ideas!), why call it 'materialism'?If one should not call it a string of words ("materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc"), and just call it one of them, why plump for 'materialism', rather than 'idealism' or 'electromagnetism' or 'etc-etc-ism'?The reason 'materialism' is chosen to is give the 'material' a pre-eminence over the 'ideal'.For my part, I choose the term 'idealism-materialism' to emphasise Marx's 'theory and practice', which requires both human ideas and an external reality for humans to act upon. This term is chosen in the context of a discussion of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, because 'ideal' and 'material' are the terms used within that text.The 'materialists' choose their term to deny 'democratic control' of politics and science, because if they have a 'neutral theory' which tells them the 'truth' of nature and society, that 'neutral method' can be applied by a knowing minority (ie. 'scientists' or a 'cadre-party'), who are thus outside of the control of the rest of humanity.I think science, as a human activity, is infected with politics, ideology, morality, consciousness (and all the defects of humans, like lies and bullying), and so the role of 'ideas' is inescapable.The use of the term 'material' tries to hide the reality of human ideas in understanding 'external reality'.So, in this context, 'materialism-idealism' (or, 'idealism-materialism') it is!

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…non-materialist science…

One fine day, twc, you'll actually read and respond to what other comrades are actually writing, rather than making up a straw man of your own to knock it down.This phrase is just another example of your forcing anything that is not pure 'materialist' into a 'non-materialist' category. You are merely copying Engels. And only the most mistaken part, at that.The rest of your post is contemptible.

[LBird]

twc, I gave up trying to reason with you, after many attempts.

[LBird]

Yeah, it is funny.And truthful. Communism can only come about if the majority of humans on this planet want it. So, 50%, at least.The alternative is to accept that a minority, under 50%, can bring Communism. That minority is never specified, but what is, is that that minority have the correct idea, given them by 'material reality', the understanding of which does not require human ideas and input (ie. democratic control). Thus, the minority can be 10%, 5%, 1%… but since they know the Truth, they have the right to assume control.If the alternative is minority control, give me an SPGB Prime Minister refusing power, after receiving 49% of the vote.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

So how did Lenin and the Bolsheviks apply their materialism to the conditions in Russia? Give me your explanation! No answers – Paxman signing out

So, once again, you're not interested in the topic of this thread, about how 'morality' (a human idea) fits into Marxist (idealism-materialism, theory and practice) explanations of social and political issues, especially 'socialism'?Because you and twc are unable to discuss philosophy, you revert to well-worn 'issues' like 'Russia in 1917'.These issues, about morality, ideas, science, etc. are philosophical, not about Tsarist Russia. They apply to both our understanding of the past and of the future.Whilst comrades continue to focus on '1917', we will remain marginal to today's issues.Especially to the issue of 'morality' within the Communist movement today, and future 'morality' within a Communist society.The rocks will not tell us those answers.Those answers lie in us, not 'material conditions'. The belief that 'material conditions' will form human morality is a Leninist myth. Witness the 20th century.

[Author]

Posts