[LBird]

peelbrow wrote:

LBird wrote:

peelbrow wrote:

Religion is not worth the effort or worry. Science is the ONLY way – all the rest is simply superstition.

I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that science is a modern religion, and that the most superstitious version of it is 'materialism'?

That's  just bandying about with words. It certainly won't cure cancer or find other forms of life in the Universe as  the human  brain will through science, and that's my last word on this subject.

The usual refusal to discuss by the 'materialists'. No wonder the openly religious thinkers are streets ahead of us.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Simply telling them that their belief is based on their cultural, political system is generally not enough explanation of itself, so any evidence based info would be beneficial. Whether that exists is another matter and is the reason for my post.

The problem here, SP, is that what counts as 'evidence based info' is tied up in one's theory.We could have a discussion about 'ontology/metaphysics'… but the 'materialists' will just refer us to the rocks.The religious certainty of the 'materialists' leaves no room for doubt or discussion. For them, the Truth is Concrete. No if or buts, or any nonsense about active, creative human minds, or conscious theory.For them, 'evidence based info' comes from handling (or merely listening to) the rocks. That is the only practice they need, and that practice determines theory.

[LBird]

peelbrow wrote:

Religion is not worth the effort or worry. Science is the ONLY way – all the rest is simply superstition.

I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that science is a modern religion, and that the most superstitious version of it is 'materialism'?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If you read more general philosophy you see where you're getting into a jumbled mess.

Hmmm… 'general philosophy'? You mean, like Engels' 'Dialectical Materialism'?I think I'll stick with Marx, and his unobservable, intangible, 'not one iota of matter' categories, like 'value'!Unless you address 'structures', DJP, you'll remain stuck with 'substance', which, ironically, is pretty insubstantial fare for the scientific understanding of our natural and social world.It's the difference between a 'tin of beans' and a 'commodity'. A tin of beans is only a commodity within certain structures.But… as long as you can touch a 'tin of beans' with your 'substantialist' method, well, at least alanjjohnstone is happy with your method!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

I was trying to work out where you are coming from.

I'm coming from 'mechanism'.You're coming from 'substance'.All your attempts to categorise me and stuart are based upon your ideological belief in 'substance'.

This is as garbled and nonsensical as your "idealism-materialism". Haven't you wonder why no-one else uses this term?I'm going to leave it here. A meaningful conversation requires a shared framework. You're making such a mush of catergories that it's impossible to move forward…

Everyone uses the term 'theory and practice'. My use of 'idealism-materialism' is simply a way of allowing comrades to understand Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, to stress that Marx took both, rather than selected one. He wasn't a simple 'materialist'; if he was, he wouldn't require 'theory' in his method. Passive observation of matter would suffice.As to 'mush of categories', DJP, you're the one who apparently can't understand simple words like 'mechanism'.It's not that you can't understand (as an individual, you're not stupid), but that your chosen ideological framework forbids you to understand, and blinkers you to evidence, like Darwin's 'evolution'. You're like bankers, struggling with reading and understanding Capital. That book is a 'mush of categories' to them, too.The fundamental problem is your refusal to read some philosophy of science. If you did, you'd soon realise the impossibility of continuing to employ 19th century categories like 'material' or 'substance'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I was trying to work out where you are coming from.

I'm coming from 'mechanism'.You're coming from 'substance'.All your attempts to categorise me and stuart are based upon your ideological belief in 'substance'.

DJP wrote:

From what you've said you're either a "property-dualist" which is fine and not incompatible with monist materialism / physicalism.Or you're an out and out (substance)-dualist which is bonkers.

You won't discuss your axiom about 'substance'.On 'mechanisms', the one Bhaskar mentions is Darwin's theory of evolution. We need the theory to explain an unobservable mechanism (unobservable because it takes place over thousands of years), and the theory seems to explain the mechanism.The religious are aware of the unobservable status of this mechanism.

[LBird]

ajj wrote:

When it comes down to philosophy…i'll have to see its worth with my own eyes…empirical evidence…tangible facts and figures …I follow Marx's motto "Doubt Everything" and of course that also means what i see with my own eyes!!!

But science doesn't do this, alan."Individuals using their own eyes" is bourgeois mythology. It's individualist and empiricist. You'll never see or touch 'value'.This myth also prevents science from understanding intangibles and unobservables, which, as Einstein tells us, can only be understood by means of theory.As Albert said, it's the theory which tells us what we can observe.The key for realists is 'mechanisms', rather than 'substance'.Value has the power to compel obedience in humans. Marx detailed its mechanism in Capital.Humans create value, but value has become our master.

The monster of Mary Shelley, wrote:

You are my creator, but I am your master; — obey!"

We are Dr. Frankenstein, suffering under our own monster. That's why we humans can change our circumstances; as creators, we can also destroy our own creations.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'll just ask DJP, Vin, twc, etc., why don't you read some philosophy of science, and ask questions if something is confusing to you? Why don't you declare openly your theoretical perspective (of 'knowledge' or 'truth', for example)?

I'm with the vast majority of scientists and philosophers. Materialism or Physicalism, what ever you want to call it, is the only game in town. I could perhaps accept property-dualism but substance-dualism is a complete non-starter.Which of these would you go with:1. Although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance – the physical kind – there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains).or2. There exist two kinds of substance: physical and non-physical (the mind), and subsequently also two kinds of properties which adhere in those respective substances.or something else?

DJP, your questions come with assumptions.This question is like asking me is your 'elephant' Indian or African, and only allowing me to answer one of those answers, so I'm forced to choose between your assumptions.The problem is SUBSTANCE.To ask the question 'is there one kind or two kinds?', requires an assumption about 'substance'.That is precisely what is at issue.

stuartw2112 wrote:

If there's one big problem with materialism, it's this: material doesn't exist. Or if it does, we're not at all sure what it is. And it moves in very mysterious ways. As LBird says, just read some science if you doubt this.

For stuart's 'material', read your 'substance'.Stuart and I will answer your question about 'substance' when you tell us what your ideology says it is.

DJP wrote:

I think this is why "physicalism" is more fashionable these days.But anyhow is this a good enough reason to adopt idealism or dualism? Don't you think these have more problems associated with them?

So for you, 'substance' is 'physical'; for Stuart, me and Marx, it isn't. Or, rather, there's more to 'reality' than the 'physical'.And we're back to your Engelsian, unexamined, ideology about only being 'materialism' and idealism'. To you, if some isn't a 'materialist', they must be an 'idealist'. This is bollocks, and even Engels, on the very next page, lists another category (agnostics)! Engels is the source of your ideology, and Engels can be proved to be wrong, by quoting Engels.His book 'Ludwig Feuerbach' is full of contradictory statements, like 'there are only two philosophies' on one page, and then gives a third. Do you want the quotes?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

The whole basis of Critical Realism is the need for 'theories' to understand a 'reality' that is often unobservable, intangible and created by humans.

If something is unobservable and intangible why would you need a theory to explain it, in fact how would you know it was there?

I'll say this slowly. I know it's a bit complex, and you've never come across this strange notion before, and no-one's raised it yet on this thread.By employing the theory in practice.If the 'theory' of the 'unobservable' works in practice, it becomes 'knowledge'.This is how we 'know' about 'value'.

DJP wrote:

Can you tell me what the wieghtless and invisible elephant that is sitting on my desk needs to eat for its tea?

Well, let's employ your, errr, 'theory'. Watch the 'elephant' as it 'consumes' and note 'what' is consumed.I'll leave you with your 'theory and practice', DJP, and you can report back later on your findings.

DJP wrote:

I'm sorry LBird you're the one that's speaking bunk now…

As stuart has commented, it seems to be a 'trait' of the 'materialists' to insult rather than to argue.I could say in return, that DJP is an uneducated clown who has never read any philosophy of science, never mind read Marx and Engels critically, and posts videos, of which he himself doesn't understand the meaning.But I won't say that – it would be decending to the depths of the 'materialists'.I'll just ask DJP, Vin, twc, etc., why don't you read some philosophy of science, and ask questions if something is confusing to you? Why don't you declare openly your theoretical perspective (of 'knowledge' or 'truth', for example)?You're out of your depth, and twc seems to have sunk completely and has become a bottom-feeder.You're right, I'm being childish… but it seems to be all the rage, in the SPGB. If you can't beat 'em…

[LBird]

Quote:

verbPronunciation: /əbˈstrakt/[with object]Back to top 1(abstract something from)Consider something theoretically or separately from (something else):to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism2(usually abstract something from)Extract or remove (something):applications to abstract more water from streams

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abstract‘Materialists’ (like Engels, Lenin and twc) employ ‘abstract’ in the second sense.They ‘extract or remove’ (‘abstract’) some features of reality from reality to form ideas. This is induction.‘Idealist-Materialists’ (like Marx and me) employ ‘abstract’ in the first sense.They create ideas ‘theoretically or separately from’ (ie. ‘apart from’) reality.But then the ‘abstract’ idea must be tested in practice. 'Theory and practice', or 'abstraction and use'.This is not 'practice and theory', or 'use and abstraction'. That is induction.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Every criticism of the materialist conception of history and every criticism of base–superstructure determinism, without fail, is a personal variation on a common theme, born of the identical illusion.That common theme is: Marx’s scientific principles [the MCH and BSD] are refuted by what we see around us.The shared illusion is that this is somehow significant.Scientists understand precisely why scientific principles, being abstractions from “what we see around us”, can never correspond to “what we see around us”.Philosophers demonstrate, time and time again, that they are incapable of understanding why. Instead they imagine that they have detected an obvious flaw in the scientific principles.In other words, the philosopher hasn’t a clue what’s going on.

You really should get out more, twc, from your mental ghetto of 'materialism'.The whole basis of Critical Realism is the need for 'theories' to understand a 'reality' that is often unobservable, intangible and created by humans.The idea that 'philosophers' (including Marx) think that the only reality is what we can touch, is nonsense.In fact, the only people arguing that the only 'reality' is 'material' is, funnily enough, 'materialists'. They are the ones who can't see 'knowledge' as having a history, and insist that 'science' produces the 'Truth'.Ideas are real. They have causal powers, just like 'value' or 'god'.'Abstractions' are 'ideas'. Abstractions are created by humans. They are not 'abstractions from "what we see around us" ', as you erroneously put it. That is 'induction', the method of 'empiricism' . You're a 'materialist' and 'positivist', unlike Marx.You haven't got a clue, twc. Any comrades reading your tirades, and supposing that they have any merit, should think again, and read further.

twc wrote:

They are exactly parallel to Lenin, because a scientist treats his abstract principles as if they were a priori.

Lenin held to a 'reflection theory of knowledge' and a 'correspondence theory of truth'. You follow his method, in arguing that 'abstractions' come from 'reality'. That is entirely Lenin's point.On the contrary, Marx argued that 'abstractions' are human creations, and are tested in practice. This is the very opposite of 'reflection' and 'correspondence'. 'Truth' belongs to 'knowledge', not 'reality'. Reality doesn't tell us what it is. Humans don't passively wait for 'rocks' to 'abstract' themselves.'Knowledge' of a 'rock' is a human creation.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I'm posting this here because it is related to some of the points made in previous posts. It's the first chapter from Ellen Meiskins Wood's book "Democracy Against Capitalism" the first 5 chapters are concerned with how "historical materialism" can be coherently formulated (hint: neither as "base-superstructure", "technological determinism" or "economic determinism")http://libcom.org/library/separation-economic-political-capitalism-ellen-meiskins-wood

Thanks for the recommendation, DJP. I've ordered a copy of the book, having had a brief look at the link.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

You haven't begun to deal with the first of these and explain how exactly the base "determines" the superstructure when the elements that constitute the superstructure. – ideas beliefs values etc – have always been there right from the very start , coexistent with the base and indeed are, to an extent, presupposed by the very relations of production themselves that constitute that base, in Marxian parlance, along with the forces of production themselves.

robbo, I think that the 'base' consists of both 'forces' and 'relations' of production.What's more, both also contain human elements, and therefore, 'ideas'. This is before we even get to the 'superstructure'.The forces contain 'the means of production' (inherited from the past) and 'labour-power' (present capacity to work).The relations contain 'class structure' (ownership and control) and 'class struggle' (exploitation).Within the means are natural resources (raw materials, energy sources, human population) and historical resources (tools, technology, fire, buildings, earthworks).Within labour-power are Individual Labourer (with abilities, skills, techniques, methods) and Social organisation (knowledge, division of labour, motivation, science).Class structure and struggle perhaps speak for themselves.So, the 'base' also contains your 'superstructural' elements of 'ideas, beliefs, values, etc.'This inclusion of humans at every level of base and superstructure helps us to keep notions of 'technological determinism' and 'material conditions telling humans'  at bay.In fact, I think that a better metaphor than 'base and superstructure' is 'soil and plant'. This allows us to regard it as a living relationship, in which both contribute to the other. The soil feeds the plant (and is historically prior), but decomposing plants, in turn, feed the soil (which without nutrients would lose its ability to sustain life.The 'base/superstructure' model is based upon a 19th century mechanical building metaphor, but it's become an (unmeant) rigid system, which only encourages the nonsense of the 'materialists' and their one-way determination.To sum up, human ideas are as important (and are as widespread throughout) as 'conditions'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I wonder why it is that materialists need to engage in such ideological dispute anyway? What difference does it make to the mode of production if Robin is a bourgeois moralising idiot? And why do people who don't believe in morality criticise so strongly the moral failings of their opponents? Such puzzles!

The simple answer to this conundrum, stuart, is Leninism and the need for an authority outside of the control of the working class. Engels' misplaced 'scientism' is the perfect candidate, but Marx bears some responsibility for his casual 'positivist' usage in many texts (a usage which is at odds with his actual philosophical views), which seems to have confused the amateur Engels.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

So you do not believe that there is an objective reality to which we strive to understand?Thanks for that clarification.

[my bold]I just noticed this aside.All the way through this discussion I've said, time and again, that I agree that there is an 'objective reality'. You really shouldn't adopt twc's 'cloth-eared' method, Vin.The point is STRIVE.'Strive' is an active verb, which suggests a process, not a passive mirror image. 'We' is social and thus historical.What's at issue is the socially-active historical process in which humans engage in their attempts at 'striving to understand'.Why won't you discuss this socio-historical process of understanding, Vin?

[Author]

Posts