[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?

[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.

[Author]

Posts