[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Nature+society is the real conception of Marx and the proponents of socialism as the only alternative ( no alternatives ) to capitalism. It is much better than Engels' scientific socialism, but also indicating that the intention of Engels was to distinct themselves from the utopian socialists

[my bold]Yes, mcolome1, the 'real conception of Marx' was the unity of nature and society.But, it is not only 'much better than Engels' scientific socialism', but the very opposite of 'Engels' scientific socialism' (sic)!Engels' 'intention' might have been praiseworthy, but in practice he ditched Marx's critical social practice and returned to crude materialism, due both to the ideological pressure of 19th century positivism and his philosophical amateurism. So, we have had to put up with over 100 years of so-called 'Marxists' insisting that 'matter' talks to us! This applies not only to the DiaMat-ists of Lenin/Stalin, but also to those who insist (when asked about the process of cognition) that 'matter/reality/physics' etc. is prior to humans. This is incorrect. Of course, reality is prior historically (it exists prior to human questions about it), but in any attempt by humans to understand that reality, humanity is prior.The social subject asks questions of the really-existing object, this 'asking' is a practical, active process (not a passive contemplation), and the product is scientific knowledge.We have to expel the so-called 'materialist' strain of Engels/Lenin/Stalin from proletarian consciousness, and replace it with the 'historical materialism' of Marx/Pannekoek.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

We can not reduce everything to the point of view of the natural sciences, otherwise we are going to do the same thing of the vulgar materialists.

[my bold]No, we must expand the natural sciences to include society. Then we will have the unified scientific method that Marx sought.Knowledge, of both nature and society, is social.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Am I to take it that you also refer to medicine, physics etc.? If so, then they do a great job without 'objectivity'.

But readers of tea-leaves 'do a great job', in their opinion.Surely our conception of 'science' goes further than saying it is something that 'does a great job'?

Vin Maratty wrote:

'Science' cannot be pinned down and attempts to do so lead to inaction and a fear of progress. Science has many problems and it is at times a dim light but it is the only light we have.

But we could replace 'science' in your statement above with 'god', and it would give us a guide as to what 'science' is, from this perspective.

Quote:

'God' cannot be pinned down and attempts to do so lead to inaction and a fear of progress. God has many problems and it is at times a dim light but it is the only light we have.

Sounds like good ol' 19th century postivist faith, to me! Anyone who questions just what 'science' is, and asks for an explanation of how it gives us knowledge, is pointed to 'his/its' works, and condemned as an unbeliever, who is out to destroy 'science'.But…. I'm not going to drag this discussion out, once more. If anyone's interested, read the Pannekoek thread.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1213-september-2005/marx-and-philosophyMarx and philosophy. 

Although most of the article is fine, I think that this particular line is outdated.

Socialist Standard wrote:

Engels has had to take some stick for introducing the term “scientific socialism” but it is an accurate description of the outcome of Marx’s (and his own) encounter with the German philosophy of his day.

I think that it's possible to argue precisely that 'scientific socialism' was Engels' baby, not Marx's.If 'scientific socialism' was meant to mean 'objective knowledge', then we now know that this is impossible, and would indeed give Engel 'stick' for following too closely to 19th century positivism.If 'scientific socialism' is to mean anything, it must mean 'a proletarian unified science'. And with the coming of Communism, and the end of classes, it will just be 'a human unified science', which will encompass both nature and society with a single, unified scientific method.Humans are at the centre of any science. There is no 'objective' science, in the sense meant by positivist/empiricist science. The closest we can get to 'objectivity' is a 'social objectivity' which specifies its inescapable social content.And in a class society, the 'social content' of science is always a class content.

[LBird]

Morgenstern wrote:

I/we (arguably always we ) argue that the mind is it's own system which has only a contingent relationship to the world beyond the senses. Look at it this way. There is a time lag in acquiring sense data, making sense of it, and our being aware of it. By the time we 'see' a thing, consciously, it is long gone. We are just experiencing echoes.

But the 'mind' is much more than an individual brain. Although you've acknowledged 'we', it reads like you're talking about an 'individual consciousness'.And 'echoes' sounds awfully passive, rather than regarding humans as active producers of knowledge.

[LBird]

Morgenstern wrote:

In other words, that we have an eagle eye view of the cosmos. Our brains are like a camera obscura that reflects the cosmos through the pinhole of the senses to form an image of it in the brain.

This is the 'naive realist' view of the world, based upon positivist science.This isn't the view of Critical Realism.

[LBird]

Morgenstern wrote:

The normal, 'naive' view of reality is that it is out there and we apprehend it with our minds.

Well, the alternative to this 'normal, naive view' is that the mind creates reality. Surely you're not arguing this?Certainly, the basis of Critical Realism is that there is an objective world, 'out there', which exists prior to, and separately from, our perception of it.We discussed all this on the 'Pannekoek' thread, so I won't reprise that, but human understanding comes from our subjective social interaction with an external objective reality.

[LBird]

Morgenstern wrote:

We have nothing meaningful to say about the world beyond the senses.

But, at any given point, much of the world is 'beyond our senses'.As Marx argued, 'senses' are much more than the biological receptors of an individual, and 'human senses' are social and develop with society, and so are also historical.Surely the whole point of science is to go 'beyond our senses', in some way?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,actually, I'm not joking, I'm in with the Singularitarians on the immnent emergence of human constructed super human intelligence (when I say "I" I obviously mean the linguistically constructed retroactive justification for the actions of the meat-bot hitting the the keyboard right now).

Good one, comrade! You nearly had me there!We all know, of course, that 'super human intelligence' will only emerge with Communism.I have faith in us 'meat-bots'!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

we can't, as yet, quantify love. But if we could build a fully functional computer simulation of a working brain, then it would become literally possible.

I know that you're joking, YMS, but this is the philosophical problem that 'emergence' throws into sharp relief.Is 'love' an emergent and unmeasurable property, or something that can be counted by reference to the components of the brain?The bourgeois obssession with 'measurement' is a reflection of their money-oriented ideology. You know, 'they know the price of everything, but the worth of nothing'.This is the whole point of the quote that I gave earlier, about counting/counts. One is an 'objective measurement' (sic) but the other is a 'human estimation'.

YMS wrote:

We could then obey our new robot overlords…

We already are, comrade…Bourgeois ideologists brainwashing workers: 'You will say you're an individual'Workers lacking class consciousness: 'Yes, I am an individual'The first task of Communists is to shift the ideological focus of our lives onto the relationships between individuals. 'Individuality' is the smoke-screen of the bourgeoisie, to hide exploitation.Then, when asked by bosses, or their lickspittles in the media or education, 'Are you an individual', workers will answer, 'No! I'm a worker'.Then we'll know we're on our way, comrade!

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Neo-liberalism is a wrong term…

This was merely meant as a joke, comrade, to echo ALB's use of 'Zen Buddhism', and hopefully to stimulate some discussion about whether we Communists should focus upon 'individuals' (as the ruling class insist that we do) or alternatively focus upon the relationships between 'individuals'.This is all in the context of our discussion about Critical Realism and 'structure/emergence', which as a model stresses 'relationships', as opposed to the so-called 'dialectical laws' (boo! hiss!) of Engels and Lenin.As a model post of objectivity, I'll leave you to judge where my beliefs lie.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hmmmm….. how many comrades still think of themselves as 'an individual'?

I see that while I've been away leafletting for our local election campaign Morgenstern seems to have converted you to Zen Buddhism …

I see that while I've been away having a good night's sleep the bourgeoisie seems to have converted you to Neo Liberalism …

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

…There is nothing for us in dialectic, as Young Master has indicated it is a just a "dead end for humanity"

I feel compelled to clear Young Master Smeet of this scandalous allegation!In fact, it's me, LBird, who is the culprit.Hopefully, though, YMS will come to agree with me!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird wrote:

Given that Pannekoek here remarks on the change from 'quality to quantity', and not Engels' 'quantity to quality', I'm not sure that it's relevant to our discussion on dialectics.

Saving that it does seem an intriguing reversal, and, to my reading, suggesting that the transformation from observing qualities and then being able to quantify them is the correct way we should think of them: that should be the dialectical approach.

[my bold]Good luck with trying to 'quantify' a quality like 'love'!Was it Einstein who said,"Not everything that can be counted counts.Not everything that counts can be counted."The 'dialectical approach'? A dead end for humanity, in my opinion.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,I may have been over-reading Pannekoek, it's page 445 in the 1961print:

Panekoek wrote:

It can be remarked that the addition of decimals fundamentally changed the charcter of 'magntitude' [of a star — YMS] From a quality, a class, an ordinal number, it has turned into a quantity, a measure, an amount that can be divide by fractions, a basis of measure.  We cannot speak of a star of the 2,87th magnitude; but we can say it's magnitude is 2.78.

Maybe it was just because I knew he had also written on philosophy, but it does read like the application of dialectic (ish) by a practical scientist.  I have to say the idea that being able to measure numerically seems to be a commonplace of defining the advance of a  science.

Just had a look, YMS, thanks – by the way, pedantry compels me to detail that the passage starts "It must be remarked…" Given that Pannekoek here remarks on the change from 'quality to quantity', and not Engels' 'quantity to quality', I'm not sure that it's relevant to our discussion on dialectics. Do you have any other examples from Pannekoek (this book or elsewhere) which might lend themselves to 'structure/emergence', rather than dialectics?As I've argued, one of the strengths of Critical Realism lies in its stress on relationships which produce something new. That is, something which didn't exist in the components of the structure prior to the formation of the structure.Endless examples can be given from nature (or our understanding of nature!), human productive activity and from society. Not least, Marx's ideas about 'value'.'Value' is nothing to do with 'quantity/quality', or the other two 'dialectical laws', but can be seen as an emergent property from the particular structure of capitalist society.I personally think that 'structure/emergence' is easy to teach and for workers to employ, whereas dialectics always seems to remain in the gift of priests. No matter how many times I've asked dialecticians to explain, they fail. It's of no use in trying to understand the natural or social world.

[Author]

Posts