[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If we are to presume mind-brain identity then the concept 'ghost' or 'father christmas' are just the result of a certain configuration of grey matter inside the brain.

[my bold]To hold that opinion, DJP, is fair enough. But it's an individualist explanation, and so is likely to be anathema to Communists.The opposite viewpoint, that the mind is social, suggests that the mind lies in relationships between 'brains'.That is "the concept 'ghost' or 'father christmas' are just the result of a certain configuration of relationships outside the brain".This is a social and historical view of concepts, not a 'grey matter', mechanical materialist, view of concepts.One way of picturing this difference between us, is to ask which ears does the mind lie between, when given a photo of the two of us together.On the photo, you'd put an 'x' between your ears, and another between my ears. Our faces would each have an 'x' on them. Whereas, I'd place a single 'x' between our two nearest ears, in the middle of the photo.

DJP wrote:

You'll get better answers to these questions if you logged into a philosophy forum..

But I'm a Communist, and the answer to this question concerns Communists. After all, 'philosophers' have only interpreted the world…

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…attacks on Marx, Engels…

You really must try and read what other comrades write, twc!I defend Marx from Engels, on issues of science.I don't 'attack' Marx on this issue, and I don't 'attack' Engels on issues other than this.Must be difficult for the religious worldview of the adherents of 'Marx-Engels'. The inseparable nature of Father and Son; I suppose Lenin is your Holy Ghost, to complete the Trinity?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

All that 'materialism' means, in the philosophical sense, is that "all that exists is physical stuff", clearly Marx never rejected such a view once he accepted it. No quotes can be found to show the otherwise…

Sounds similar to the 'pragmatism' expressed by YMS on the other thread, DJP.Matter is tangible. And consciousness is god.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird, I said "I normally stop at Pragmatism", normally it is sufficient to live with that.Everythign is matter, there is no-thing outside or beyond matter.

But is 'sufficient' a scientific measure? Many societies had 'sufficient' knowledge to work pragmatically, but it involved gods. How do you scientifically justify 'normal'? Isn't 'normal' a social judgement?As to 'matter', if it's 'everything', is it also a 'ghost'? Isn't that just an idea, with no 'material' content? But if humans thoughts are real, they must be outside 'everything', because only 'matter' gives 'thingness'.Does this mean consciousness is separate from 'matter'. Is this a Cartesian duallist philosophical approach?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Freddy wrote:

From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail.

[my bold]YMS, can you see the contradiction in what Fred is saying, later in the passage.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Freddy wrote:

But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.

[my bold]Fred uses the terms 'must' and 'positive', but these are logically undermined by 'so far'.Either 'knowledge is positive' (and is the same as reality, a 'copy' or 'reflection') or 'knowledge is historical' (and is produced by humans, creatively, actively, and thus might be wrong).That is, 'so far' as it works, it is 'knowledge'. But… what 'works' for one society, doesn't 'work' for another. This is why Marx would be loathe to use 'must' and 'positive', because he argued for the social and historical nature of human knowledge. Indeed, he even thought our 'senses' to be social and historical, rather than biologically-fixed, and thus our senses wouldn't produce the same perception for any individual in time.Fred was a positivist, but Charlie wasn't. Or, more correctly, Fred seems to have been both, because of the confusion within his works: he was a poor philosopher, and didn't seem to realise the implications of many of the statements that he made. Charlie was a trained philosopher, but Fred was an amatuer, and it showed (and, indeed, still shows, in his works).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

As to the philosophy of science, I normally stop at pragmatics, because what works, seems to work. Science as it stands seems effective.

That seems pretty clear, YMS: your ideological approach to science is 'Pragmatism'.Should we discuss the difference between Pragmatism and Marxism?

YMS wrote:

So the matter that thinks…

Could you tell me what 'matter' is, YMS? Within your ideology, of course! I would think that for pragmatists, 'matter' is something 'tangible', but I might be wrong.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

It's just strange, isn't it, that comrades should use the term 'materialism', which Marx rejected…

Did he? References please.

What's the point, DJP? I've done this all before for you, and you ignore them.

[LBird]

twc, your usual garrulous and evasive response to my questions, about the philosophy of science and your ideological stance, has been noted.If you're not interested, why participate in a thread asking those questions?This has happened over several threads, now. I'm unfortunately losing patience, having tried a number of times to engage with you, and being disappointed. Any exchange has to take place on the basis of a conversation, not a lecture. 'Two-way' means questions and answers, not long-winded irrelevant soliloquies.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,if you applied more critical reason to my posts, you would find your answers contained within already.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't want to discuss 'materialism'!", then, shall I?Fair enough, comrade!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

And if this "Ha'peth of tobacco" is 'not sarcasm', as you insist, could you explain why you find adding 'idealism' to the front of 'materialism' so time-consuming and irritating, and yet have time for a complex scientific term like "Ha'peth of tobacco", which, I admit, I've never heard used for scientific explanation?

According to my stop watch it just took me 1.5 seconds to type idealism.  By using the commonly understood term "Fishcakes" without typing idealism, I could save myself upwards of a minute of my life before I die. Likewise, i shall henceforth compound truth/knowling/believing/understanding into the single word "Flap".  So, I flap the speed of light, and that'll do pig.

And this is 'science' is it, YMS?I think I prefer theology. At least critical thought is required, rather than merely 'throwing a tantrum' at being asked questions.I hope your 'flapping pigs' come home to roost.

[LBird]

Mike McDade wrote:

I acknowledge that a better understanding of materialism will help.

I think you might be lead astray, Mike, if you think Marx was concerned with 'materialism'.You need an understanding of 'idealism-materialism' (or 'theory and practice'), if you need a 'better understanding' of anything. Furthermore, this viewpoint might give you more insight into your views about the possibility of a creator.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,not sarcasm: an expression of irritation of having to treat every five second sentence on an internet discussion as having the precision of a carefully thought out essay.  I used word that, if I'd put more effort in, I wouldn't have, but they were good enough, and I appologise for "Bucket of Cod" "Ha'peth of tobacco" would have been more apposite. 

I understand, YMS! Accuracy causes 'irritation', too!Well, in the future, I presume you'll use the phrase 'idealism-materialism', rather than the misleading term 'materialism', eh? No need for 'carefully thought out essays' then?And if this "Ha'peth of tobacco" is 'not sarcasm', as you insist, could you explain why you find adding 'idealism' to the front of 'materialism' so time-consuming and irritating, and yet have time for a complex scientific term like "Ha'peth of tobacco", which, I admit, I've never heard used for scientific explanation?Wow, who'd have thought 'science' could be so complex?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird,It is a good thing that Historical Materialism is determinisic. It means human agents can study, analyse, understand and ultimately control the laws that govern social change. Determism is not fatalism, it does not remove the human mind from social change.  

I couldn't agree more, Vin!It's just strange, isn't it, that comrades should use the term 'materialism', which Marx rejected, when they mean 'Historical Materialism', as you correctly call our ideology.Furthermore, I wonder why some comrades seem to think 'Historical Materialism' doesn't apply to 'science'. They seem to think that 'science' is, well, 'materialist and unhistorical'! Just like the mechanical materialists, like Feuerbach, who Marx criticised. Science is the human method, which is social and thus historical, which produces social knowledge of humans and nature.We can't take the 'human' out of 'science'. Or take 'history' out of 'science'. The only thinkers who believe in the 'End of History' are bourgeois thinkers!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Anyway, i appologise for saying "laws of nature" I meant "buckets of cod".

Odd, isn't it, that when people are asked questions which they can't answer, instead of saying that they don't understand, they turn to sarcasm.You must employ a very good scientific method, YMS, if it doesn't even need explaining to humans. And 'models' tell you the Truth, do they, YMS? How quaintly 19th century!I suppose GOD gave you this Truth on tablets of stone? Strange that, isn't it, given the thread and your supposed rejection of 'religion'? You must be a priest of this scientific religion, who knows more than we mere laity."Buckets of god" would be more apt, as to what you 'meant'.

[LBird]

Young master Smeet wrote:

It's materialism simplified to one sentence for the benefit of simpification.

Why not 'simplify' it to "idealism-materialism"?

YMS wrote:

It would be as much to assert that the laws of nature are invariant with regards to location.

According to Pannekoek, the 'laws of nature' are a human construct, and so would 'vary' with the society that constructs them.The ideological belief that 'science produces the Truth', which is eternal, is Positivism.As to wikipedia, what is 'matter'? I thought that that particular social construct has been rejected, and replaced by the concept of the 'real'. And 'thought' is 'real'.

[Author]

Posts