LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Once more, here’s an extract from Pannekoek’s introduction to Dietzgen’s The Positive Outcome of Philosophy (incidently, a book translated by Untermann, one of whose books, Science and Revolution, I’m about to read also):
Pannekoek, intro, p. 33 wrote:The mind is a faculty of generalization. It forms out of concrete realities, which are a continuous and unbounded stream in perpetual motion, abstract conceptions that are essentially rigid, bounded, stable, and unchangeable. This gives rise to the contradiction that our conceptions must always adapt to new realities without ever succeeding…Here we have our three entities of cognition:Object: concrete perpetual motion (not ‘fixed’ things to ‘discover’, once and for all);Subject: our minds, actively forming something which is not the object (otherwise, why ‘form’, we could just passively observe and record?);Knowledge: temporary conceptions formed, which eternally contradict the object.Given this, where does this leave the notion of ‘the path of the sun going round the earth’, in the way we conceive it, now, as a ‘fixed piece of knowledge of reality’ which having been ‘discovered’, can’t be changed?You, DJP, et al, might be correct, that our ‘truth’ about the relative paths of the sun and earth is now an eternal ‘Truth’, a fixed reflection of reality, but that is not what Pannekoek (or Dietzgen) say.I know that I’m now wasting my time, and that you, DJP, et al, have already made up your minds on this issue, but, still, it would be nice if any one of you could give some evidence from Marx, Pannekoek or Dietzgen, to back up your opinions. If you can’t, it leaves one wondering just where your ideas come from. Perhaps bourgeois positivist ‘common sense’ science, the stuff we all learn as kids? Perhaps you're all just 'brilliant individuals', who don't need to 'quote' authorities, as 'cognition' is an open book to you all?Hopefully, I’ll soon be adding Untermann to my list of suitable quoters.Funnily enough, these Marxists seem to be closer to late 20th century philosophical thought (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Bhaskar, Archer) than their own bourgeois contemporaries. That is, Communists were up to 150 years ahead of bourgeois thinkers in their ideas about science and nature.Oh, I’ve noticed that the sun has come up again, this morning.
Whilst we're quoting Kolakowski as an authority:
Kolakowski wrote:Briefly: the abolition of the market means a gulag society.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leszek_Ko%C5%82akowskiWould you trust this man's opinions on 'science', given his opinions on 'economics'?Whatever, there's no substitute for discussing our opinions about cognition, rather than widening the discussion so that it fades from view.
ALB wrote:As far as I can work out your views are nearer to those of Pannekoek's contemporary, Alexander Bogdanov, rather than those of Pannekoek himself…I know nothing about Bogdanov's ideas, so I can't comment about your opinion.But I do know that I'm the one quoting Marx, Pannekoek and Dietzgen, whereas you're quoting Kolakowski's opinions of Bogdanov. You're not participating in a discussion of 'cognition', but merely insisting that what I'm saying can't be correct, without any evidence from Marx, Pannekoek or Dietzgen, to back up your opinions.From what I can tell from the quote, Bogdanov seems to be an 'instrumentalist', but that's only an impression, not a thought-out opinion.I suppose I'll have to buy Kolakowski's first volume, but it's not a priority at the moment. Schaff and cognition are.I'll have a read of the article too, later. Thanks.
Hrothgar wrote:We are not 'black' underneath, but I imply from this you think that because, in all probability, modern humans are descendent from humans who were in what is now called 'Africa' that this means we are all 'black' or 'African' in origin. It doesn't. It's just that you don't really know what you're talking about.We are not 'white' underneath, either, by the same logic. We're all the same human species.As for me 'not really knowing what I'm talking about', then we could be twins! Snap, comrade!
ALB wrote:What you have confused…Well, that's a matter of opinion, ALB!I've tried to take this discussion forward, by being open about my sources, by quoting Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek, by reading what comrades have suggested, and by buying two further books which have been suggested (Pannekoek and Untermann), but we're not going any further forward.If I had to make a guess, I think most here are 'naive realists', but it's difficult to tell, since 'common sense' seems to play a great part in determining attitudes, rather than a discussion of both 19th/early 20th century Marxists and late 20th century philosophers like Schaff, Kuhn and Lakatos, who all have a part to play in deepening our understanding of 'science'.Unless anyone else (other than twc) wants to discuss theories of cognition further, I'll leave things there.
Hrothgar wrote:Notice the quick slippage into ad hominen for want of any meaningful response or rebuttal.Notice also the nasty reference to disabilities and the belief that this is humorous.What are you underneath?Black! Just like you.It's not a 'skin colour', after all, is it, my confused friend!
DJP wrote:I think you're confusing 'non-observable' with not directly observable.Dietzgen says it is "not seen, or felt, or heard". This means 'non-observable'; no caveat about 'direct' or 'indirect'.
DJP wrote:If something is non-observable it cannot, by definition, be perceived either.Dietzgen says it can be 'solely perceived by thought'. This is his 'definition'.You might not like or agree with Dietzgen, DJP, but that is what he says.You'll have to provide a quote from where-ever you get your 'definition'. I afraid 'common sense' is not sufficient.
DJP wrote:So now for Lbird 'true' not only means 'false' but now 'perceived' means 'non-observable'!?Yes, according to Dietzgen, not just me, 'perceived' only by thought means 'non-observable'. Read the quote.I suppose you could try to make a meaningful contribution, DJP, but it doesn't seem to be your style.Why not give a quote from Marx, Dietzgen or Pannekoek, which backs up your ideological view of science?Or if you don't agree with Dietzgen (as expressed in the quote I gave), why not say so? Why just sniping at me, as an individual? At least twc was prepared to contribute, if a bit mystifyingly.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:‘non-observable reality’.That's an oxymoron, surely? Certainly not a concept Dietzgen or Pannelokek would have subscribed to.
Joseph Dietzgen, The Nature of Human Brain Work, III, wrote:Science seeks to understand the nature of things, or their true essence, by means of their manifestations. Every thing has its own special nature, and this nature is not seen, or felt, or heard, but solely perceived by the faculty of thought. This faculty explores the nature of all things just as the eye explores all that is visible in things.[my bold]Seems 'this nature' (a part of 'reality') is 'non-observable', according to Dietzgen, too, ALB.
twc wrote:Can't you see that I'm pointing out that Schaff has got himself into a muddle. Is that really beyond your capacity?Oh, No!I thought that you'd given up on the insults, and were actually trying to explain your 'views'.But it seems I was right all along.You talk shite, and then when you're asked, in a very polite, comradely way, to explain, you can't. Ooo, sorry, I mean 'Your intellect is beyond my capacity'.You stick to your inexplicable twaddle, twc, and I'll go back to ignoring you. Then we're both happy.Anyone else up for discussing Schaff and his theories of cognition?[edit]P.S. I'm so disappointed at this turn of events, comrades.
LBird wrote:I'll leave Hrothgar to comrades, like you, who have more patience. Might be worth persevering with, y'never know!Hrothgar wrote:But you're welcome to it, if you want your children and grand-children to mix with Africans and Asians. Please proceed. Don't worry, you won't hear any objection from me [though I will be sat somewhere (somewhere very far away, I hope) shaking with laughter].ALB wrote:You're a nasty shit underneath, aren't you?LOL!!! Looks like I got you wrong, ALB!Look, it's clear that Hrothgar has 'issues', which is why I've left them to it.You, though, are going to have to display the characteristics of a 'special needs' teacher, if you're going to continue engaging with Hroth. I don't envy your job, ALB!Patience and understanding, comrade.
twc wrote:Schaff’s any perceiving mind implies the individual subject —any [= individual] is not the ensemble [= universal].Since Schaff explicitly uses Marx's quote, I'm not sure what you mean, twc.For you, what is the entity 'cognising subject'?If it's not 'social individuals', what is it?Could you try to make your reply as succinct as possible, because your longer posts raise more questions than they give answers? I'd like to get round to discussing all of what you are saying, but we'll have to do it in 'bite-size chunks', to ensure that we understand each other's positions. Thanks.
ALB wrote:Hrothgar wrote:There is only one truth. There may be different ways of interpreting or assessing the truth, but the fact remains there is one truth and one truth only. 'Validity' in any perspective depends on its proximity to the truth. The more objective we approach an incident or problem, the more truthful our analysis or conclusions are likely to be, and thus the more valid. Objectivity cannot be decoupled from social values, admittedly, but we can achieve a large degree of objectivity using the right methods.Please don't rise to this bait here, LBird! But refer him to the other threads we have on this , e.g.:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/pannekoeks-theory-scienceLet's see if we can get him off his nasty obsession.
No, I won't 'rise to the bait', ALB!Honestly, I've got better things to do, like keeping up with that thread, amongst other work.I'll leave Hrothgar to comrades, like you, who have more patience. Might be worth persevering with, y'never know!
DJP wrote:Sounds like something that would be compatible with an instrumentalist perspective.Yeah, all Communists should be wary of any ‘non-realist’ philosophies of science.
Wikipedia wrote:Instrumentalism avoids the debate between anti-realism and philosophical or scientific realism. It may be better characterized as non-realism. Instrumentalism shifts the basis of evaluation away from whether or not phenomena observed actually exist, and towards an analysis of whether the results and evaluation fit with observed phenomena.[my bold]‘Observed phenomena’ as the basis of our explanations leaves us unable to explain any ‘non-observable reality’. That is, the vast majority of the 'existing' natural world! We should leave this discussion, though, until we get up to dealing with the ‘object’. We have to firstly get some agreement on ‘knowledge’ and the ‘subject’.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"In practice it is of secondary importance whether theories and hypotheses are correct so long as they lead us to results that are in accordance with the facts." W. Rucker Opening Address at the Natural Science Congress in Glasgow, 1901.Quoted by Paul Lafargue http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/newreview/1913/v1n13-mar-29-1913.pdf I thought i would throw that in to stir the pot.It's from 1901, ajj! That's even before Einstein's Special Theory of 1905! There's been a lot of 'scientific' and 'philosophical' water under the bridge, since then. We now know that 'facts' are selected according to the 'theories and hypotheses'. There is no pre-existing set of 'facts' against which 'theories and hypotheses' are simply measured for 'accordance'. Remember Pannekoek? To paraphrase, 'Facts of science are socially constructed'.
