[LBird]

Vin, since Marx's 'idealism-materialism' does not 'ignore material conditions' and clearly 'takes material conditions into consideration', why do you insist you are a 'materialist'? And, if it doesn't 'ignore ideas' and does 'take ideas into account', why call it mere 'materialism'?Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who argued for 'theory and practice'.'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'?Where did you get your ideology of 'materialism' from, Vin? I've argued that you've picked it up from Engels, and shown that Engels differed from Marx, and that Engels himself, when pressed, wasn't a 'materialist'.How do 'material conditions' take precedence over 'ideas'? Do those 'material conditions' require explanation? Doesn't explanation require ideas and human creativity? Or do 'material conditions' themselves tell passive humans what those 'material conditions' are?

[LBird]

twc continues to insist that if one isn't a 'materialist', one must be an 'idealist' (or, as a synonym, an 'anti-materialist' or a 'non-materialist').I've lost count of the number of time that I've shown that this simplistic, two-fold model is a creation of Engels.There are more than two options. Even Engels' own muddled texts show this.One can be something other than a simple 'materialist' and still not be an 'idealist' (or an 'anti-materialist' or a 'non-materialist').Marx, for example, was an 'idealist-materialist'. He argued for 'theory and practice', so both 'ideas' and 'nature' are required. Neither has a more fundamental role than the other. Ideas are as important as 'material' conditions.And given the central role of creative human ideas (in conjunction with nature) in building our understanding of our world (social and natural), the role of human 'morality' cannot be excluded from either politics or science.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

But you still avoid answering any of my questions!!So in the spirit of Paxman I will ask you another:  Lenin and the bolshivics were guided by 'crude materialism'? Yes or no?

Vin, I'm trying to explain. Patiently. I'm not trying to 'avoid' your questions, but trying to tell you why you are asking them in the form you are doing.Since Engels, 'Marxism' has consisted of 'materialism'. This includes, but is not restricted to, Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Marx himself rejected this 'materialism'. Engels clearly didn't understand what it was.If you want to call that 'crude materialism', then your answer is 'yes', but simple 'materialism' is more accurate.Marx wasn't a 'materialist'. That means his ideas are still useful today, when discussing the philosophy of science.If Marx is declared a 'materialist', his ideas are useless.If you consider Marx a materialist, and don't want to discuss why he isn't, that's fine by me. Just ignore what I write, and leave the discussion to those who have an interest in understanding why Marx wasn't a materialist.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

As you say I need to read some philosophy of science but perhaps you can enlighten me

And I'm trying my best to help any comrade who's interested in these issues to circumvent years of reading, by trying to summarise and explain by analogy some difficult issues!But, it requires a willingness to discuss, rather than just keep reiterating old ideas from Engels.For example,

Vin Maratty wrote:

…in the materialist SPGB opposing the idealists…

Your dichotomous approach of 'materialists' versus 'idealists' is meaningless.This ideology that you hold causes you, when I state that I'm not a 'materialist', to think that therefore I must be an 'idealist'. You get this ideology from Engels, who is the source of this 'either/or' view of philosophy.I've tried time and again to explain this, and I've told you where Engels says this, and told you that on the very next page that Engels himself goes on to mention a third category (agnostics).So, if you wish to hold on to the 'materialist/idealist' scheme, you have to explain why you hold onto it, in the face of evidence that Engels (its alleged originator) actually didn't hold to it himself. In fact, it's Lenin who is the real source of this nonsense, and he used judicious quotes from Engels to 'prove' his (ie. Lenin's) 'materialism'.But if we read Engels, we find that Lenin was selectively quoting Fred to bolster his own philosophy, especially his political philosophy.These issues are not merely 'pie-in-the-sky' debates about 'angels on pinheads', but are fundamentally about whether Lenin was following Marx and Engels. If he was, we're f*cked.It's my opinion that Lenin wasn't, and this opinion is based upon Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, which (to me, at least) show that Marx wasn't a 'materialist', (which Lenin was), and that Marx saw the need for the 'active side' of idealist philosophers (Kant, Hegel) to be added to the 'passive side' of crude 'materialism'.Now, Vin, if you want more information/explanation/quotes/discussion, that's fine by me, and I'll try to help.But if you want to stick to 'materialism/idealism', that's fine by me, too. But I can't help, in that case.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

After all, one of your assertions is that theory determines the facts you use.

Vin, I've spent several months and several threads explaining in detail, giving quotes from dozens of sources, with links, and tried to use analogies to help comrades get to grips with these issues.The statement you call an 'assertion' is a completely uncontroversial, well-proved, totally accepted view of almost everybody who has read any philosophy of science.Even ALB gave Carr's 'fisher/fish' analogy on one thread. It's accepted by the SPGB. Einstein argued it in the early 20th century, and he's a physicist.The fact that you think it a mere 'assertion' is one for you to worry about, not me.

Vin Maratty wrote:

You take up a 'moral' position then attack materialists as potential dictators and murderers.

'Potential'? Where were you during the 20th century, Vin?

Vin Maratty wrote:

It allows you to condem me as immoral, uncaring etc. This is simply not true.

I have never condemned you as 'immoral' or 'uncaring'. I don't think you are at all. I accept you as a comrade, which is why I keep perservering.What I do 'condemn' you for is not reading philosophy of science, and taking Engels' 'materialism' at face value.

[LBird]

The simple truth is that, if humans are involved in an activity, whether political (socialism or fascism), or whether scientific (physics or sociology), then 'morality' plays a part.To argue otherwise is to return to 19th century philosophical beliefs, which are now outdated.The comrades who try to ignore this are basing their beliefs on Engels' misreading of Marx. And Marx is also partially to blame, for his often inpenetrable texts, which can legitimately (but wrongly) be interpreted the way Engels sometimes did.Neither Marx nor Engels are consistent, and both can be read to support 19th century positivist science. But the works of both also contain arguments antithetical to naive materialism and reflection theory of knowledge, which is the basis of Lenin's philosophical 'leadership' of the working class.Whilst any SPGB members are looking to crude 'materialism', they are philosophically at odds with the SPGB emphasis upon 'democracy'.Crude 'materialism' leads to minority 'truth', both in politics and science.This has no place in the 21st century, as the 20th century has already shown.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird. Why don't you try backing your theory up with some facts?

Vin. Why don't you try telling us your theory that determines your 'facts'?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

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.

BULLSHIT

Yeah, it's always about the 'material', even if it is just poo.

[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.

[Author]

Posts