[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

Race is not merely a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute, so your point here is a non-point.

No, you haven’t understood: that’s precisely the point I’m making. ‘Race’ is not ‘a matter of skin colour or any other isolated attribute’, it’s an entirely ideological and historical social construct.

Hrothgar wrote:

Of course it's ideological. Socialism is also an ideology. Science, too, has ideological underpinnings, and to an extent, serves the political and social objects of the time.

You’re getting with the program, now, mate! It’s ‘ideological’, as you admit.

Hrothgar wrote:

However, the ideological nature of an idea or perspective is not, in itself, any commentary on its validity.

Ahh, you’ve reverted again, Hrothgar! ‘Validity’ is part of ideology, not an ‘objective’ or ahistoric concept. ‘Racial ideology’ determines ‘racial validity’. So, holding this ideology, as you accept that you do, is a ‘commentary on its validity’.

Hrothgar wrote:

This is all true. Racialism has been and is used to divide workers, but again, that is no commentary on its validity.

Now, you can see that only from a racialist perspective can it be seen as ‘no commentary on its validity’. From a Communist ideological perspective, what it’s used for is entirely relevant to deciding upon its ‘validity’. So, for workers, ‘racialism’ is ‘invalid’.

Hrothgar wrote:

I am neither. I am a self-employed professional.

Well, this illuminates your ideological preferences, Hrothgar!Since you’re not a proletarian, you’ll clearly see the world from the viewpoint of an ‘individual’ who can ‘freely choose’ their ideological beliefs. You just happen to choose racialism, don’t you?In fact, you can’t see the social structures, especially those involving exploitation, because the socio-economic position of a ‘self-employed professional’ blinds you to social realities.

Hrothgar wrote:

I think discrimination is used to serve the interests of the capitalist class and employers generally. That has little or nothing to do with my beliefs.

Of course it does, mate! The employers’ act of dividing workers is what maintains the possibility of your individual productive reality: without that, you’d be with us, all working together to achieve common goals. You wouldn’t be ‘self-employed’, you’d be ‘socially active’, like the rest of us.Being thoughtful, you can see the reality of ‘capitalist class discrimination’, but you haven’t linked that into how it affects all of us, including you. The difference to us is that, in some sense, you benefit indirectly from that discrimination which divides workers, so it makes ‘rational sense’ from your socio-economic position to support an ideology that divides workers. If we unite and triumph, your ‘self-employed professional’ role will be obsolete within social production.

Hrothgar wrote:

People live in separate racial groups as a matter of course.

This is obviously untrue, to anyone with eyes, in the modern world. ‘Racial groups’, as you define them, live intertwined everywhere on this planet.You’re allowing your ideological blinkers to ‘blind’ you now, Hrothgar, into making rash statements which can’t be supported!

Hrothgar wrote:

I would say that rationality is the state of mind of being open to reasoned argument.

Well, let’s see if you’re ‘rational’ then. Racialism is irrational, by any reasoned judgement, as we’ve shown on this thread. Do you have an ‘open mind’, or are you a pre-existing ‘racialist’?We’re ‘close minded Communists’, by the way, Hrothgar! We don’t pretend to be ‘free-thinking’ individuals. We situate our ideas in an historical, socio-economic and political context.

Hrothgar wrote:

A reasoned argument can be made as follows:-

I won’t continue with the rest of your quote from (a) to (i), Hrothgar, to spare you your blushes!It’s an entirely ahistorical and apolitical list, which ignores economic production and its material, cultural and ideological attributes.For example, after WW2, the ‘Black Caribbean’ workers who came to Britain shared a common language, religion, history, political tradition and, indeed, Queen! By any ‘cultural’ measure, they were identical to ‘white British’ workers. But ‘racialists’ seems to prefer to welcome ‘white’ eastern Europeans, like Ukrainians, for example, who just happened to be ‘white’, but were from an entirely different culture. Also, the SS membership of some was often overlooked, even though ‘we’ had just fought a war against ‘them’. So much for ‘tribes’, ‘genes’ and ‘kinship’, eh?.No, it’s all about the class ideology of ‘racialism’.We’re workers here, Hrothgar, and we don’t share your ideological beliefs.And as we look around our society, it seems not many others do, either, whether they’re class conscious Communists or common-or-garden ‘British’. In fact, ‘Britishness’ now means a ‘multi-racial’ identity, to all intents and purposes.Are you ‘anti-British’, Hrothgar?Perhaps I should say ‘anti-21st-century-British’, because the ‘racialist’ ideology you espouse belongs in the long dead past.Let’s hope ‘rational arguments’ have some affect on you, now.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

It's true that I am a racialist, and I won't deny it, …to me, a racialist is just someone who holds a rational position regarding inheritable differences among human beings.

But, Hrothgar, ‘inheritable differences’ include all sorts of attributes, including ‘ear size’ and ‘uneven teeth’. Why select ‘skin colour’ for special consideration?No, this issue is nothing to do with ‘genes’ or biological traits of any sort.It’s simply an ideological issue.To be a ‘racialist’ is to be burdened by an outdated ideology, which has no meaning other than as a political aim to separate workers from each other.The origins of this ‘racial ideology’ come from a class that has property and steals from those it employs to do the work, and wishes to ‘divide and rule’ those it exploits, so that they remain separated and thus weak.Are you an owner of a business, Hrothgar?If not, you don’t ‘hold a rational position’. You are an ‘irrational’ proletarian.If you do own a firm, and steal from your employees, then it’s also entirely ‘rational’ to point out to those workers that they have different sized ears, some have crooked teeth, and some are black and others white. Any 'division' will do.'Rationality' is related to class position.

[LBird]

twc, thanks for your efforts to further analyse Schaff’s ideas. I appreciate that you say that Schaff only implies that ‘the object is individual’, so I don’t expect any ‘key’ quote.Before I go any further, though, I have to ask you to clarify what you consider to be your position (and Marx’s) on ‘the object’. I don’t fully understand the point you’re making, and rather than assume, I’d rather get you to make it plain.What do you mean by ‘universal object’, when compared and contrasted with ‘individual object’?If the concept of the ‘universal object’ implies that the ‘object of cognition’ can only be ‘everything’, then I disagree. A pre-selection must take place from ‘everything’, and this ‘selection’ is based upon parameters supplied by pre-existing theory.

twc wrote:

Prior recognition of the object’s existence outside the individual subject excludes Schaff’s object being the universal object.

But ‘prior recognition of the object’s existence outside the individual subject’ is the basis of all forms of ‘realism’, isn’t it? Aren’t you a ‘realist’?

twc wrote:

This is because all individual subjects are objects for each other, and are prior recognized as being dependent components of the universal subject. This is also because the universal subject is a component of the universal object — exists within it — and so is not independent of the object of cognition.

Here, you appear to deny the separateness of the entities of ‘object’ and ‘subject’. Have I understood you correctly? Again, this would undermine any tripartite theory of cognition, not just Schaff’s version.

twc wrote:

In passing, Schaff’s perceiving mind is none other than the dreaded individual subject,…

I have to disagree with you about Schaff’s ‘subject’ being ‘individual’: he makes it very clear in numerous places that for him the ‘subject’ is ‘social’, even going so far as to quote Marx’s ‘the ensemble of social relations’ on page 55, and using the term ‘social individual’.Can you confirm that you consider yourself a ‘critical realist’? If you don’t, we’d have to have more discussion on that issue, because I’m assuming that anyone following Marx and Pannekoek is a ‘critical realist’. If I’m mistaken in my assumption, then that needs clearing up.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I'm trying to look this Schaff up online. Is the main book called "Language and Cognition"?

No, the book I'm referencing is:Adam Schaff (1976) History and Truth Pergamon Press, Oxford ISBN 0080205798http://www.amazon.com/dp/0080205798Hope you can get a copy.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Schaff implicitly makes the object of cognition individual [he does so unconsciously, falling for naive practice] — in line with naive realism.

twc, can you point me to the page where Schaff states the 'object of cognition' is 'individual', rather than 'universal'? I'm reading through it again, but it would be quicker if you could help me.

twc wrote:

Existence Independent of Mind?Schaff, by prior recognizing the existence of individual objects independent of mind — a result rather than a starting point of a theory of cognition — has assumed the objective independent-of-mind existence of the individual object as an article of faith for each and every cognized object out there. Did he consciously intend to do that?

Isn't this assumption (existence independent of mind) the basis of all forms of 'realism'?Without this 'assumption' (and I agree it is an assumption), aren't we forced back upon the contrary assumption that there is nothing outside of the mind of the social subject? That is, there is nothing pre-existing the questions of the social subject?Thanks for reading Schaff critically. I've got one or two differences with him, myself.

[LBird]

Well, it doesn't mention 'cognition', but so what?Just give another random quote, outside the context of a discussion about 'cognition'. Just like those who 'prove' Marx hated Jews. It's a tried and trusted method.Forget my wacky ideas, and stick to 'discovery science'. Oh, yeah, and forget Pannekoek, too.'The earth goes round the sun: fact of nature! Discovery done, and ticked off, once and for all, for humanity!'Except, Pannekoek said it wasn't.

Pannekoek wrote:

Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

[my bold]

[LBird]

'Straw man' and 'Enlightenment', eh?Saves having to talk about 'cognition', I suppose.Are Sokal and Bricmont Communists?I don't suppose it matters, what with 'science' being nothing to do with 'politics' or 'ideology'.Just like 'economics'.What does Samuelson say about 'the labour theory of value'? And there's no such thing as 'society', because Thatcher said so.Yeah, every 'individual' is entitled to their opinion, and 'common sense' is a good basis for discussions.Evasion, ignorance and obfuscation. We can all do it. I claim it's all part of the 'scientific method', because my mate Jenkinson says so.And as Jim Royle would say, 'Cognition? My arse!'

[LBird]

Well, as long as everybody's happy that 'science' is an open book, and has no role to play in a discussion of Communism, that's that.I can't keep going round in circles. I've tried to explain theories of cognition. Back to my books, I suppose, as an individual.Ironic, eh?

[LBird]

We have to decide whether to continue this debate about 'cognition', an issue which forms the basis of scientific knowledge.I'm quoting Marx, Pannekoek, Dietzgen and Schaff (all 'Marxists' of some stripe), whereas the comrades who seem to oppose the 'critical realist' position, from the standpoint of 'naive realism', quote empiricists, positivists, 'A J Ayer' (? a well known Communist???) and 'common sense'.A tip for those opposed to what Schaff argues: there is a strand of thought, originating with Engels and continuing through Lenin, which supports your view.Unless comrades produce some proper arguments from a Communist perspective, then I will move on to discussing the 'subject', and leave 'knowledge' to one side. Only those who think Pannekoek is correct about 'laws of nature' being a construct of humans, rather than a 'discovery by scientists' need continue to read, in that case.Or perhaps I'll just give up… if no-one wants this thread on Pannekoek to continue.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Non-sequitur. Your making a jump from 'knowledge' to truth.

And you're still locating 'truth' in the 'object'.One can only do this if one follows Lenin and holds to a 'reflection theory of knowledge', where the 'object' and 'knowledge' are identical.One can't do this if one follows Pannekoek, where the 'object' and 'knowledge' are not identical.One has to choose.I choose Pannekoek, and see 'knowledge' as a 'mental reproduction'. This means I locate 'truth' in 'knowledge'. This means 'truth' can be wrong.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

As far as I can see, when it comes to "faithful copy", the last man standing is Lenin but nobody here is defending him. Nobody can after Pannekoek's demolition job in Lenin As Philosopher.

I agree, ALB.But the logic of this position is that 'scientific knowledge' has a human component. Thus, humans not being infallible, that 'scientific knowledge' can be wrong. If this logic is accepted, then we can see that what's 'true' for one set of humans (due to social and historical conditions) can be 'untrue' for another set.So we have our 'sun/earth' debate, Piltdown man, the 'ether', and many other examples.We can now explain why we should not regard 'science' as producing 'objective truth', which helps undermine the notion of 'scientific authority', which is used by the bourgeoisie as a central pillar of their ideological control of society, a bit like 'the market', There Is No Alternative (TINA) to following their experts.Given all this, I think we should now move onto a consideration of the 'subject' and its nature and, especially, ask is the 'subject' any individual, a special individual or genius, or a social entitiy.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, I thought too that LBird was being a bit unfair to Feuerbach in suggesting that he was a "naive realist" and a "positivist".

Oh, no, not someone else who doesn't do 'didactic devices'!Look, everybody, forget Feuerbach and Marx (for now, not 'forever', I'm not Pol Pot suggesting 'Year Zero'), just for a while, and focus on the issue, which apparently I've obscured, and discuss the nature of the entity of cognitive knowledge.'Faithful copy', or 'mental reproduction'?Can anybody else help me explain? Please.If comrades don't agree with my view of 'mental reproduction', then we can discuss it. But… I'll quote Marx and Pannekoek…

[LBird]

twc, you really must read what other posters are writing:

LBird wrote:

He spells out some similarities and differences between these two models of cognition, on pp. 60-1 (I’ll call these ‘Feuerbach’ and ‘Marx’, if it helps to simplify; please note, this is a didactic device, for those desperate to insist ‘Marx never said that!).

I was trying to contrast two ways of looking at 'cognition'.Would you like to discuss point 4, which is really about what we consider our 'knowledge' to be?That is, either a 'faithful copy' or a 'mental reproduction'.I think that point 4 is the sticking point within our discussion, on this thread.

[LBird]

If no-one's got any more contributions on the issue of the entity of 'knowledge' (within our tripartite schema of cognition), and it seems to be accepted that 'knowledge' is always 'socially produced knowledge' (as for Pannekoek) and not a 'copy of the object' (as for positivists, and the 'common-sense' view of bourgeois 'discovery' science), shall we move on?Perhaps I could give a lead on the second entity, the 'cognising subject'? Anyone still interested?

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

Rise above it Ed, he's just another local boy made good by the sweat of his brow. We can all do it, you know.The trouble is that his kind are touted as aspirational figures for the workers to emulate, British and immigrant alike.

Yeah, some people survived Auschwitz, it's like one of them saying, 'I did it, so all 6 million could!'.No mention of structural factors, history, society, or contingency.The method of 'individualist anecdotal shite', it's scientifically called, Jamie.

[Author]

Posts