LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hrothgar wrote:…this is directed at me, … I have no problem with the remonstration and I accept the 'telling off'.
Tut, tut, Hrothy! Caught out by the mod, naughty boy!Try and keep your cool, though – we don't want any displays of 'Aryan Superiority' [sic] on here. We all know just where that leads!
Hrothgar wrote:Maybe you shold speak to Alan Johnstone about it – he knows a lot about mental disorders.Nah, 'e just sez I'm a fuckin' nutter!'Takes one to know one', I just shout back, when I grab 'im by the froat!
Hrothgar wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:That, and your other contributions, suggest to me you're not very bright. That's not meant as an insult, just an honest observation.
Yeah, I've noticed this too, aj! You aren't 'very bright', are you? You're just like me, in fact. Thank god for some 'honest observation', at last!Perhaps… just a suggestion… we could elect… no, no, no, not 'elect'.. no, we should declare by popular acclamation (nothing so brutish as democratic methods; mass emotion, irrational outbursts of fervour, are best) that Hrothgar is our new Fuhrer!Hail Hrothgar!Your untermensch await you, Duce! Subject us to your superior honesty, master! [crying tears of joy at the coming of our saviour]
Hrothgar wrote:You won't because you know you're in deep water here and no match for me intellectually.Well, at least you've got a sense of humour, Hrothy!I actually burst out laughing at reading this!Cheered up my day, no end!
ALB wrote:There's nothing to argue about in this case.That's good enough for me.I'll direct my curiosity elsewhere.
ALB wrote:I don't understand why you always seem to want to pick an argument when there's nothing to argue about.So, your assumption here is that 'there's nothing to argue about'.There is an alternative assumption, though.That you don't understand the issues involved.If you reply, once more that 'there's nothing to argue about', that's fine comrade, I'll leave the issue alone.Ball's in your court, ALB.
ALB wrote:I understood Morgernstern to be making the basic point that all our knowledge is derived from the ever-changing world of experience and that anyone who claimed otherwise was an idealist…[my bold]Yes, that's what I thought Morgenstern was claiming, and you'll already be aware that I don't agree with this so-called 'basic point'.On the contrary, as I've claimed on the Pannekoek thread, I think that Marx's (and Pannekoek, et al) 'basic point' was that 'all our knowledge is derived from the interaction of humans with the ever-changing world of experience'. Plus, I don't regard myself as an idealist, I regard myself as a critical realist, which, again, I think Marx was.As I've already shown, too, the label 'idealist', for anyone who stresses interaction of society with reality (as opposed to 'proper' materialists, who just deal with 'the real world of hard experience') emerged from Engels' mistakenly simplistic separation of philosophy into a two-fold schema of 'idealism versus materialism'. So, 'idealist' is, in effect, a Leninist slur upon those who disagree with Engels' (and thus Lenin's) mistaken philosophical views.As we've seen on the other thread with twc, the slandering of one's opponents with 'idealism' has a long pedigree within the 'Marxist' movement. It saves having to address serious philosophical issues.If you, Morgenstern and the others don't want a repeat of this discussion about 'knowledge', I'll refrain from posting on the issue further, and just merely register publicly my disagreement with the 'basic point' from which Morgenstern is starting.Just say the word. 'Drop it!' will be enough, comrades!
Morgenstern wrote:i think ithat the easiest thing is to first establish as a tautology that you don't know anything over and above received sense data.I don't think I agree with this assumption of yours, Morgenstern, if I understand what you're saying correctly.Do you wish to discuss it, or is it an axiom of yours, an a priori assumption which is beyond analysis? (we all have them, 'starting points', by the way, it's just that I think we should try to expose our axioms, rather than hide them, as does bourgeois science)
Morgenstern wrote:Marx adopted the skeptical approach. I have been thinking long and hard on how to explain this, because I want to write an article that might be of some use to the Party, in the near future.If I can be of any use in your attempt to write a ‘party article’, I’m keen to help. That doesn’t mean my particular contributions will be of any use, of course, but perhaps just exploring these issues between us all will help to clarify your thoughts, give you some useful insights and help you generate a better understanding, from which we’ll all benefit. Even if what I write only provides a negative for you, and you discard my thoughts, at least it will strengthen your chosen positives.
Morgenstern wrote:Look at it this way. When we talk about the world, what do we mean? We mean *our impressions of it*. That is all that we have. We are simply not talking about a world out there beyond the senses: we are talking about our shared experiences.Is it true that ‘all we have of the world is our impressions of it’? I’ve read a number of books by critical realists, who seem to be suggesting that we can go further in our knowledge of the world than just empirical experience. If I’ve misunderstood your point, and you don’t mean simple sensual experience, I apologise. Is it worth me developing this line of questioning, and me giving some quotes from the relevant authors, or have you already discounted this possibility, of the human mind going beyond simple experience? I’d hate to be condemned as an ‘idealist’, as I’m sure some are already desperate to label me. Perhaps you’ll give me some leeway to manoeuvre, because I don’t fully understand many of their arguments, and I’m keen to learn more myself.
Morgenstern wrote:This, of course, renders crude materialism obsolete.Hmmm… I think some would have you shot for daring to prefix the god ‘materialism’ with the denigratory ‘crude’. For myself, I think Marx’s materialism was of the ‘historical’ human sort, not the ‘dialectical’ wizardry of the Engelsian and Leninist ‘materialists’.One final thing:
Morgenstern wrote:We are simply not talking about a world out there beyond the senses: we are talking about our shared experiences.No, not ‘simply’, but we are ‘talking about a world out there beyond the senses’, aren’t we? A world that existed before our senses? That is, we are talking ‘complexly’ about a real world, with which we interact in manifold ways, not just through our senses, but through our minds, too, through society.Do we have any shared basis to at least continue a discussion?
ALB wrote:I think you are being too harsh on Engels. His writings on history such as The Peasant War in Germany and The Origin of the Family don't betray any influence of the dreaded "positivism". In fact, we quote from them all the time.And his The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man is not bad for its time.Well, I haven't been 'too harsh on Engels' where he's been writing about issues other than the 'philosophy of science'.That's the issue I'm 'harsh' on Engels, and it's difficult to be 'too' harsh on his nonsense on this issue.
ALB wrote:I'm not convinced either that Marx had a different understanding of the scientific developments of his day than Engels. They frequently discussed these in their correspondence and I don't think there is any evidence of Marx telling Engels that his approach was wrong (even if it was).But Marx had the sense to keep his mouth shut, if he had developed any leanings towards positivism (perhaps it is possible to argue he erroneously had?). He never told Engels his approach was right, either. Even chapter 2.10 of Anti-Duhring, written by Marx, is about socio-economics, rather than 'science', isn't it?
ALB wrote:As to what Ricky Tomlinson (of the Scargill Labour Party) should have said, it was "Dialectics of Nature? My Arse!" rather than all dialectics.There's possibly something to this, ALB. I tried to have a discussion on LibCom about 'dialectics', and tried to develop a method in conjunction with others, but met with little success. Certainly, any talk of 'dialectics in nature' is complete bollocks. But I've always been open to being persuaded about dialectics in epistemology, if I could get someone to talk in plain English about it. It always returns to mystical words and phrases, which mean either nothing or everything. Even Chomsky doesn't understand 'dialectics', so what chance do I stand!
SPGB wrote:However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.[my bold]Yeah, but all societies have rules, procedures, enforcers and punishments, whatever terms we give to them.We shouldn't pretend otherwise, and should discuss these and ensure that we all have a say in these inescapable social structures.
ALB wrote:I don't think Engels can be blamed for having a go, even if he failed. He did follow very closely the scientific developments of his days…Well, he could have ignored 'the scientific developments of his days', which were clouded in a positivist mystique that he, having no philosophical training (unlike Marx), was unable to disperse with a proletarian philosophical basis, 'the philosophical developments of his youth', which he either never understood or forgot as he got older and became mightily impressed by 'positivistic science' (as were almost all other thinkers) – [by his youth, here I'm referring to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach].Carr’s What is History? describes how this positivist influence even penetrated into historiography, with von Ranke's advice 'simply to show how it happened', just like ‘scientists’ were [allegedly] doing. Of course, von Ranke was a conservative bastard, as Schaff relates
Charles Beard, quoted by Schaff, p. 92, wrote:Ranke who, in disregarding stubbornly social and economic interests in history, avoided successfully any historical works infringing the conservative interests of Europe of his times, may correctly characterised as one of the most ‘partisan’ historians which the 19th century produced.This could apply to scientists, too, who are ‘partisan’, because ‘partisanship’ is unavoidable for humans.Anyway, Engels can be blamed, he was out of his depth, and his failure adversely affects the Communist movement still, today.As the proletarian Jim Royle would so aptly put it: ‘Dialectics? My arse!’
I could cry with gratitude, ALB, at both reading the mysterious E. W.'s opinion of Engels' travesty of Marx's views, and your posting of it! tears of joy, I assure you!
Brian wrote:…to try and impose a uniform process of socialisation…I think that this thread is dying a death, Brian, and that you should look to twc's views for a lead.On my part, I'm fed up with my views being misrepresented.I've argued for 'the democratic control of the process of socialisation': whether that would be 'uniform' or not, should be a democratic decision, in my view. Personally, I would vote for 'diversity', in opposition to the current ruling class practice of 'imposing' a 'uniformity' of 'individuality'.The fact that everyone in our society claims to be an 'individual', doesn't seem to strike anyone here as a 'uniform', historical, socially-produced ideology, but is assumed to be an ahistoric, biological fact.If one identifies as an 'individual', one is wearing the ideological uniform of the bourgeoisie.If I'm in favour of society trying to 'impose' anything, comrade, it's bloody 'critical thinking'!
