[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That the Sun went round the Earth was their "mental reproduction" of what they observed (and which we still do), but, surely, the theory of "knowledge as a process of mental reproduction of the object" allows for inaccurate or wrong "mental reproductions"? So, why can't we say that the pre-1700 mental reproduction of the same phenomena that we observe today was wrong?

Of course, we can.The "pre-1700 mental reproduction" is "wrong", from the stance of "2013 mental reproduction".But this presents a philosophical problem. If 'we' know our 'mental reproduction' is 'true' to us, and is different from 'their' 'mental reproduction' which was 'true' to them……what's to prevent a future 'mental reproduction' from doing the same thing?Unless one clings to the 'scientific discovery' model of 'truth' as a one-off 'act of discovery' (that Pannekoek denies), then we have to separate 'truth' (a social creation) from 'object' (the 'real' sun/earth relationship, 'out there').Thus, we can account for changes in 'truth', whilst holding on to a 'realist' scientific method, which relates to an 'object' which can be later interrogated again.Naive Realism (positivist science?) versus Critical Realism (Marx and Pannekoek?).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Or, more precisely, do they lead us to the view that before 1700 it was "true" that the Sun went round the Earth as this is what people then "knew" to be the case?

You're still confusing 'the object' with 'knowledge', ALB. They are different entities. Don't my latest efforts help at all? Difference number 4 refers, I think. If what I've written so far hasn't helped, please ask for a better explanation.

[LBird]

I’d like to make a post to hopefully help to clarify some of the differences between my position and that of some other posters. This is based upon Schaff, pp. 59-61. I’ve obviously truncated, summarised and re-worded what he says, to get to the point, for posters who haven’t got access to his book.The key difference seems to lie in our differing interpretations of what Schaff calls a ‘theory of reflection’. He points out that the ‘subjective-idealist’ model of cognition (the second one that he covers, on pp. 50-1) does not use a theory of reflection. We’re not interested in this model, either (it’s related to idealism and relativism). But the ‘contemplative-receptive’ m. of c. (his first, pp. 49-50), which we would identify with Feuerbach and positivism, and the ‘social-objective’ m. of c. (his third, pp. 51-3), which we would identify with Realism and Marxism, are both covered by Schaff’s theory of reflection.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!’).Similarities.1 object exists (outside of subject);2 object is origin of sensual experiences of subject;3 cognition is a relationship between subject and object;4 object is knowable.Differences.1 Feuerbach sees subject as mentally passive-receptive; Marx sees subject as mentally active;2 F. sees subject as individual; M. sees subject as social;3 F. sees subject as contemplative; M. sees subject as actively practical;4 F. sees knowledge as a faithful copy of object; M. sees knowledge as a process of mental reproduction of the object.This last point, difference 4, is where I think that our differences lie (thus, being a titchy thing, we have lots in common, comrades!).The form of ‘materialism’, that regards ‘object’ and ‘knowledge’ as identical, Schaff calls ‘naïve realism’. This position sees ‘knowability as a unique act’ producing a ‘perfect copy’ or ‘faithful image’ of the object.He contrasts this with ‘critical realism’, which regards ‘knowability as an infinite process’ which thus can’t produce a ‘perfect copy’, but it is an imperfect reproduction, a mental image, of the object. But as a mental image produced by the subject, it is able to be acted upon, by the subject: ‘it makes effective action possible’ (p. 61).To my mind, to leave Schaff behind, this ‘knowledge as a process’ is a dynamic form of social cognition, which fits, I think, with Pannekoek’s quote, provided earlier. Thus, ‘knowledge’ is not an ‘act of discovery’, as for bourgeois scientists, but on ongoing active human relationship with nature; ‘knowledge’ is a ‘social process’.I suspect that these differing views of the cognitive entity of ‘knowledge’ are at the heart or our differences. I’m a ‘critical realist’.DJP, is this issue related to your worries, expressed in post #30, about ‘cultural relativism’? The notion of the malleability of ‘knowledge’ can be seem as endorsing ‘cultural relativism’, I suppose, but I don’t think it does. After reading this post (and, even better if possible, having read Schaff’s argument in the original), what do you think?In effect, I’m asking, ‘do Marx, Pannekoek and Critical Realism lead us to cultural relativism?’.Hope this post helps, comrades.

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

So that is your way of having a 'political discussion'?? Head in the sand more-like!

Yes, I'm a 'head-in-the-sand-ist'.I still find it a position, though, which is an advance on the 'head-up-the-own-arse-ist'.

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

LBird wrote:

The method I suggest is:1. off your own back, start to question capitalism;2. come here and ask questions;3. read answers, and respond to them by developing your argument (either by agreeing with those answers, or rejecting them with reasons).Unfortunately, ignoring what's being said in reply to your questions, and merely re-iterating right wing myths, will lead to accusations that you are trolling.

 1. Done that already2. That is what I am doing, but getting few answers!3. Doing that if you hadn't noticed.

No, I hadn't noticed. I'll leave you now to your 'activities', which will be defined by other posters.

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

LBird wrote:

wiscalatus, I think that you're a troll.You've stopped discussing with us, and developing your argument from the new information that you've been given, and are now merely repeating right-wing myths.You're still mentioning 'money', when you've already been put straight on that. No money. No nations, host or otherwise.As for 'immigrants' not having a clue about socialism, those who live in glass houses…

 Not a troll at all, just wanting some answers, perhaps I need the 'right wing myths' debunking.Can you do that?

No, only you can 'do that'.The method I suggest is:1. off your own back, start to question capitalism;2. come here and ask questions;3. read answers, and respond to them by developing your argument (either by agreeing with those answers, or rejecting them with reasons).Unfortunately, ignoring what's being said in reply to your questions, and merely re-iterating right wing myths, will lead to accusations that you are trolling.As a concrete suggestion, I'd go back to page 1 and engage with what posters have already said to you. If you disagree, fine: make your point with reasoned argument, and posters will develop and deepen their explanations for you.

[LBird]

wiscalatus, I think that you're a troll.You've stopped discussing with us, and developing your argument from the new information that you've been given, and are now merely repeating right-wing myths.You're still mentioning 'money', when you've already been put straight on that. No money. No nations, host or otherwise.As for 'immigrants' not having a clue about socialism, those who live in glass houses…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It's 19 pages and over 6000 words long and done using old-fashioned technology (roneoed from a stencil, but at least the pages are A4 not foolscap), but it's not proving too difficult to scan. In the meantime here's some extracts to give an idea of the argument developed in it…

Thanks for the 'heads-up', ALB.I'll have a read and see if I can orientate myself to it.

[LBird]

Lyla Byrne wrote:

‘the only sensible use of the word 'truth' is to mean 'in accord with reality'

But this is an ideological statement.'Truth' can't simply mean 'reality', because 'truth' changes, even when the 'object' doesn't. Science teaches us that.Where did you get your ideas from, Lyla?

LB wrote:

For example – suggesting that I have to cite influences before anything I say is valid.

This is an ideological statement. There are no un-influenced humans. We are social animals. Unless you expose your 'influences', we can't go any further.Plus, 'validity' is a social concept, not an individual one.I'd guess you're some sort of 'individualist', Lyla. I'm not. I'm a Communist and a Marxist. I don't hide my influences.[later edit]The reason for asking about whether you consider yourself an 'individual' or not (I don't, I'm a worker), is that, as I've already mentioned in passing and will re-visit at greater length, the 'subject' in the tripartite theory of cognition must be seen as a 'social individual', rather than the isolated bourgeois individual.Thus, anyone who employs the notion of 'the individual' will find they disagree with the argument that I will make about 'scientific method'. In short, the 'social individual' is a creation of a society, with all the baggage that entails, so if any poster wants to argue against the notion of the 'subject as social', they need to have a think now about which ideology they are employing against my ideological position.[end edit]

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

What the heck is 'free access' communism?

The simplest explanation is 'no money'. Thus, 'no market'.

wiscalatus wrote:

The supposedly 'free market' is what needs to be smashed as this is what gives employers their unequal power.

This 'smashing' still leaves the possibility of a 'controlled market' which requires money.It's not the 'free market', but the smashing of any market, that is required.

wiscalatus wrote:

The machinery of the state, infrastructure etc must all be nationalised.

No, communism is internationalist. It means the smashing of all nation-states.Communism is democratic, so there can't be a 'state', which is a body controlled by minorities.No state, no nationalisation. World democracy, control of the planet's productive resources by everybody. No private productive property.

[LBird]

Schaff, History and Truth, pp. 44-5, wrote:

Engels once warned the representatives of the natural sciences that the attempts to deny the role of philosophy in the natural sciences or even the elimination of philosophy from this field of research, in accord with the postulates of positivism, lead to falling into the embrace of the worst possible philosophy; a mixture of bits and pieces of school knowledge together with views current and fashionable in a given period on this subject. In fact, one cannot eliminate philosophy from these reflections and thus when expelled through the door it returns through the window.

[my bold]I just want to know the philosophical basis of other posters’ ideas of ‘science’. It’s not enough to say, ‘well, I think…’. Names and quotes of your ideological mentors, please, comrades! I’ve given mine. The scientific method requires openness about one’s biases, in the opinion of communists, and I agree.

[LBird]

twc, since you seem to have re-thought your method of 'personal attacks' upon me, I'll now engage with you.

twc wrote:

I have not been attacking you, personally.

Well, I beg to differ, but I'll leave bygones to be bygones, and leave the historical record of two threads to answer.

twc wrote:

But, please check the personal epithets you once flung at members of this forum from a confident bastion of assumed superiority.

‘Superiority’?

LBird, post #31, wrote:

These attempts of mine don't mean that I'm right…

… and I’ve apologised for being ‘touchy’, and I’ve read, listened to, requested an email copy, and bought a book, on various recommendations of other posters. Surely the sign of ‘inferiority’, in that I didn’t know what those posters did. But I’m trying to get up to speed.What’s more, I, unlike others, have clearly given signposts to my ideological biases and thinkers I consider can teach me something.There’s nothing ‘superior’ in my approach, just a thirst for learning. I’m actually looking to be corrected, if someone can point me to, for example, some work that overrules Schaff’s model. I just haven’t found one yet, either here, in a book, or from pub discussions. But I’m open to it.

twc wrote:

Why we need science so that we may reliably comprehend our consciousness’s [this-sided] immediate appearance in terms of our consciousness’s [this-sided] mediated reality.You see our consciousness has this dual character. The interpenetration of this-sided immediate experience and this-sided mediated reality remains a mystifying dual for a tripartite model of consciousness.

This is more like it!You’ll have to explain a bit more about this concept of ‘dual consciousness’. If you haven’t read Schaff, I can explain that a little further, to try to see if the ‘immediate’ and the ‘mediated’ division can be sustained, within this model.Over to you: what is ‘dual (immediate and mediated) consciousness’?[ps. We’ll have to leave the rest of your points till later; I presume they relate to the matter in hand, somehow]

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird as far as I can work out the only thing we are disagreeing with is your adherence to a cultural relativist definition of 'truth'.

Well, I don't think that saying that 'society plays a part in generating scientific truth' is 'cultural relativism'.Perhaps if you outline, using Schaff's tripartite theory of cognition of 'subject, object and knowledge', what you consider the 'cultural relativist' position, and what you consider to be your differing position.I can try to express what I consider to be Marx's position, again, if you want.Of course, you can also disagree with my characterisation of Marx's position, but then I would expect you to outline what you consider to be Marx's (and Pannekoek's, if you think they agree, as I do) stance on this issue.Since the rest of your post continues with your assumption of my 'cultural relativism', we should sort out that issue before continuing with the rest. Your worries of 'anti-communism' are worries that I too share.

DJP wrote:

I'll try and give a better reply to some points raised later.

Thanks for your efforts, so far. But if you don't agree with Schaff, you should make this clear, and we can discuss Schaff's ideas, and I can try to give more quotes and better explanations, to try to help.

DJP wrote:

I too share an interest in philosophy of science and epistemology (theory of knowledge)…

These attempts of mine don't mean that I'm right, but it is also a subject that I find fascinating, and Schaff's model is the best I've come across yet, which I consider makes it easier to understand some difficult readings by authors who aren't always very clear themselves.And I mean you, Charlie…

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

Employers set low wages and poor conditions BECAUSE the mass immigration allows them to do so.

No, 'immigration' does not allow this.What 'allows' it is two things:1. the market;2. if we accept the 'market' as a given, then our failure to compel employers to pay immigrants the same wages and conditions.

wiscalatus wrote:

first off I'm sure I am a socialist, yet I believe that immigration, unchecked, must surely lower wages and decrease quality of working conditions?Is that right, because that seems to be at odds with current socialist thinking.

By 'socialist', do you mean someone who wants to remove the market and replace it with free access communism? That's the 'current socialist thinking', here.If not, you need to clarify your meaning of 'socialist', comrade.

[LBird]

Perhaps I can illuminate my difficulties with this topic.If we were discussing 'economics', would it be acceptable for posters to reply with 'common sense' arguments about 'value', not having read anything about Marx and his theoretical approach, or to deny the validity of a discipline called 'political economy' as being ideological, unlike that of 'free-thinking economists'?Or to provide links to 'neo-classical' threads as answers to questions about the 'labour theory of value', or to refuse to say where one's 'economic' ideas about the 'market' have come from.Would it be acceptable to just say 'we all need money, it's always existed, and always will', without an explanation of why they think this?As I've said, I find it strange that Communists, having already realised just how 'ideologically brainwashed' we are in this society about 'individual consumption', seem unable to apply the same lesson to 'science'.Of course, if anyone isn't a Communist or a Marxist, then it all becomes clear!

[Author]

Posts