[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I have had enough of the Three Amigos!

What? Marx, Einstein and Pannekoek?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I do not have a moral awareness of science.

So, that would be the 'Mengele' moral awareness you have, then?You really should read your own links, Vin. I thought we were going to get somewhere today, and make some progress with someone. Bothering with twc is flogging a dead horse, though.Remember, only 'conservatives' deny having 'theory'. That would account for Mengele's morality (he was dealing with the 'real world' of science and bourgeois academics).

Quote:

Mengele's interest in this field of study arose at a time when a number of prominent German academics and medical professionals were espousing the theory of "unworthy life," a theory which advanced the notion that some lives were simply not worthy of living.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/mengele/nazi_3.htmlBut you? Why would you deny that you have 'a moral awareness of science'?Must be Engels, positivism, Lenin's reflection theory of knowledge, and the correspondence theory of truth, all at work!Who taught you to believe all this, Vin?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Have followed this debate with interest. I think any neutral but informed observer would have to conclude that Robin and LBird are absolutely right, and those attacking them with such vitriol are doing so because they are attached to an outdated religious dogma known as "materialism", and see any deviation from this dogma, even if it is grounded in modern science, as being some kind of heresy, to be burnt to the ground with scorn and invective. 

Thanks for your support, stuart.I think that all that Robin and I are trying to do is stimulate an informed discussion. It's always open to the 'materialists' to engage in discussion, but, as you say, 'vitriol', 'religion' and, I would say, 'ignorance' seem to be their preferred weapons of choice!They're not even aware of the political implications of the authors' views expressed in links that they provide, to 'science' and 'mind'!Mind you, if one's belief is in the 'neutrality of science', then any link will do.I'm patiently awaiting a link to be provided to Mengele's alma mater.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird you don't have to answer my question but it would help to clarify things in my own mind. Don't want to sound like Paxman!

I'm just trying to encourage you in your good start this morning, by showing that 'relativism' is related to one's 'theory of truth'!So, since Marx didn't hold to a 'correspondence theory of truth', and thought that the production of 'knowledge' within a society was related to that society in some way (due to the different 'theory and practice' of different societies), Marx was a 'relativist', in this social sense (this is very different from post-modernism and its nonsense about every individual having a relative 'truth' of their own).So, in Marx's sense, I'm also a relativist. This stance is also backed up by Einstein in physics.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

By the way lbird you did not answer my qquestion in #87 

Well, now we can see that you do have a 'moral awareness' about science, but that it is not a Communist 'moral awareness'.'Moral awareness' is inescapable in science, whether its ours, or Mengele's, or Oppenheimer's view that 'Physicists have known sin'.We should discuss the various 'moralities' held with science. Of course, this is much easier for those who don't think science produces 'objective truth' or scientific knowledge is a 'mirror image' of 'material conditions'.So, that's the first step: does science employ a method that gives it access to the truth of reality, or is truth always a social product, of an interaction of humans within a society with the external world?That is, is 'truth' a one-off 'discovery', which once discovered is then 'The Truth' for evermore, or is 'truth' a socially-created concept which can change with society?Is 'truth' social and historical, or 'The Truth'?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Just for my own clarity Is this a position held by anyone in this discussion? "Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity" 

Vin, the theory of truth, that those who argue that 'material conditions' tell us the truth, is the 'Correspondence theory of truth', as given in your useful link.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

In the concrete world, an employer’s conception of exploitation is forced upon him by the relentless pressure of capitalist competition.

FFS, twc, 'exploitation' is a moral category!One's understanding of a 'relationship' depends upon one's 'point of view'. This 'point-of-viewness' (or 'relativity') is a central cornerstone of modern physics, never mind history and sociology. Have you never heard of Einstein?Bosses don't have a 'concept' of 'exploitation', because that isn't their 'view' of the relationship that they have with workers.We're Communists, so we can understand it as a 'relationship of exploitation', but they don't. They really believe that by employing us, that they're doing us a favour! They really think that if they were dispossesed of their property, that then the world and production would collapse, because the 'mob' are too thick, selfish and greedy to organise themselves and feed themselves, and civilisation will come to an end. To them, Communism is a deadly cancer for humanity.We can't get away from 'moral' categories in our understanding of the 'real world' and the lives we live.If 'the concrete' is so obvious, why don't workers simply see it? The 'concrete' is related to our understanding of it, it doesn't simply expose itself to humans, and we have to explain to other workers how it works, for Communists. If they don't become Communists, the 'concrete' of 'production relationships' will remain what the bosses say it is.Of course, your sort also has the 'explanation' of workers' 'False Consciousness', so that most workers are stupid for not seeing the obvious 'concrete'. They will be lead to the Promised Land by you and your Leninist brethren, with your 'concrete' Truth.Telling workers to kneel before The Objectives doesn't work.Christ, asking you to read doesn't work. Your 19th century conception of the concrete is backward-looking, and whilst the SPGB remains in thrall to this disproved nonsense, it'll remain an isolated and small sect.I'm amazed that someone in the SPGB hasn't stepped into this thread to dissociate the party from this damaging viewpoint.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

In the concrete world…

In 'a concrete mind', more like.Why not try reading what other comrades are writing?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Give up the childishness, and answer #77.

We can really see now, the fruits of your elitist 'scientific method'.No need for politics, morality or, god forbid, persuasion. Just passively listen to the 'material'.And cast-iron religious certainty, which holds forth the 'SPGB Objectives' to workers' faces, and commands "Kneel before the Revealed Truth!"."Scientific Socialism"? Just "Leninism" will do.This belief of yours really is 'childishness'. And what's worse, you're a child of the 19th century, twc.Unfortunately for you, the rest of humanity went through the 20th century. One or two things have happened since Marx and Engels died, in politics, philosophy and science.But history is of no 'interest' to 'materialism'. Even the prefix 'Historical' is meaningless to the faithful.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

So it’s “the makings of a good discussion”! What dilettante puerility! Seek bourgeois edification on philosophical puzzles elsewhere.It is with no pleasure that I enter the threads you derail.

And you pass yourself off as a 'comrade' within the SPGB?

twc wrote:

Marx’s conception of science is too precious to discuss carefully with a proven sneerer. His profound thought plumbs the depths of appearance for essence, and so offers a perfect target for sneerers. By comparison, the vulgarities of bourgeois thought are impervious to sneering, because they remain satisfied with surface appearance, the tacitly-agreed phenomena recognized by us all.

This is just religious nonsense.

twc wrote:

You earn your stripes, and answer #77.

The concept of 'discussion' really does go over your head, doesn't it?Mind you, the 'disciples' never need to discuss, do they? They just 'spread The Lord's Word', and dismiss any critical thought.And, of course, you get 'no pleasure' from your tireless, humourless task.God help us if your sort get anywhere near the levers of power. We won't be even be able to appeal to your 'moral' sensitivities, since you're quite open about your lack of moral awareness. Just 'Scientific Socialism' and inhuman 'interests', as given to us by the rocks, to which you have a 'special access' (though you never specify this).D'y'know, I think I prefer Thatcher?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Bourgeois philosophy is insidious because it perfectly reflects the dominant thought of our society, and so appears perfectly correct. Falling for its might is absolutely evident in the postings of DJP, Robbo and especially yourself.

It's a shame that none of us can get you to actually discuss these issues, twc.Especially as there's differences between DJP, Robbo and me (and others, like Vin), so we could have the makings of a good discussion.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

By the way, I thought your opinion was that these were bourgeois scientists

Yeah, they are, Vin. And they're just catching up with Marx.As for us Communists, we're throwing away our 150 years' head start, and reverting to 19th century 'scientific socialism'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird I was referring to the quote "theory determines what we observe". Things like the illusion I have posted show that it's not that simple.

Well, at least we're getting somewhere, comrades!I agree, DJP; truly, "it's not that simple".

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I agree, it is an absurd proposition.

It might be 'absurd' to you, Vin, but it's the basis of modern philosophy of science.Oh yeah, and of Marx's view of science, too. He was far in advance of the bourgeoisie, which is one of the reasons we still read him in a way we don't read many positivist scientists from the 19th century.Rather than just dismissing 20th century philosophy of science, from Popper, through Kuhn and Feyerabend, to Lakatos, you should read some. I'm sure you'll find it very illuminating, comrade!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Whilst it is ture that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us I'm not sure that Einstein actually said that, in any case it's an over- simplifiication and false.

Ironically, DJP, you're doing just what Engels does continuously through his texts. He writes contradictory statements.One can't say "facts don't impose themselves on us" and then say "it's an oversimplification and false" when someone else says "facts don't impose themselves on us". There are consequences from the belief that "facts don't impose themselves on us", and unless we discuss the meaning of the statement and its consequences for human knowledge, it remains a confusing belief.

DJP wrote:

The video is called "the invisible gorilla" BTW

Yeah, I was trying not to use the 'G' word, just in case any other comrades wished to watch it! It's very effective!

[Author]

Posts