[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

You have lost me again L Bird ! Are you saying that Karl would never have said that there are already pre-existent ‘matterial conditions’ that already exist independent of our will and under which we have to live.Or in other words?; an 'objective' world outside of human production.

Dave, here's a bit more from Jordan.

Jordan, p. 27, wrote:

Nature an und fur sich, the external world of Engels and Lenin that exists without and independently of us and yet is completely knowable, was for Marx a ‘nullity’, a ‘nothing…devoid of sense’ or mere ‘externality’.[42] Its existence is not problematic, but the question as to the mode of its existence has no meaning. To reject this assertion and to maintain that we are able to discover what the universe itself is like, is to assume that man can attain an omniscient being’s view of the world.In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology Marx rejected as entirely wrong the theory of knowledge of the British empiricists, the French materialists, and Feuerbach, who conceived men as products of circumstances and upbringing, the human mind as a passive recipient of sensation, and perception as a mere effect wrought in the senses by outside causes. The causal theory of perception fails to explain the simplest act of cognition and applied to the whole range of human experience does not account for social change and the evolution of man. Marx was convinced that the idealists, and this meant Hegel and the Hegelians, were right in emphasizing the contribution and the role of the subject in the process of knowledge, and he put this conviction on record in the first and third of his Theses on Feuerbach.

Dave B wrote:

Can you give us some examples of the two categories of ‘material’ and ‘matter’?

For Marx, 'material' means 'human' or 'social' (as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine')Thus, 'matter' is a 'social product'. Marx always links subject and object, and argues that object is produced by subject. This linking of subject/object was part and parcel of German Idealism, from Kant, through Fichte, up to Hegel, and Marx clearly took from this tradition. 

Dave B wrote:

Preferably ones that help us understand the way in which they are mutually exclusive according to your criteria.

I'm not sure where you've got this idea of 'mutual exclusivity' from, Dave – certainly not me, or Marx.

Dave B wrote:

Ie  is Neptune, cosmic background radiation and gravity non material matter then?This is very difficult for me; I feel as though I am trapped in a Henrik Ibsen play or Kafka novel.

You seem to be mixing up the levels of politics, philosophy and physics, Dave. This incomprehension is socially produced, because we are all told by the bourgeoisie that their science has a method of producing 'objective knowledge', a method only usable by an elite of experts, who 'disinterestedly discover' an 'Eternal Truth'. This ideology claims that physics is the basis of science, and that philosophy and politics follow on. As I showed in my earlier quote from Jordan, Marx reverses this bourgeois ideology and argues that social production is the basis of philosophy and science. That is, class based production, which is political, has its 'reflection' in philosophy and physics.So, to discuss physics (and Neptune, cbr, gravity and matter), we have to clarify our views about politics and philosophy. Once that is done, perhaps physics will make more sense. Of course, this is the complete opposite to what the bourgeoisie claim, and if one is minded to follow bourgeois politics and philosophy, one will reject Marx, and pretend to start from physics and 'Objective Truth'.

[LBird]

We've done this on several threads already, Dave.By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.Marx is not talking about 'matter' (or an 'objective' world outside of human production) – that was Engels' misunderstanding.As Jordan says, and I've given a quote, Marx starts from 'social production', not 'matter-in-motion'. So, any discussion of 'nature' starts from 'humanity', which is the creator of its own 'socio-natural' world.Religious Materialists do not agree with Marx, and seek their 'god' in 'matter' as a non-human creator of our world. And the faith of the Religious Materialists in 'matter' is pretty unshakeable, as you'd expect.Those who look to Marx for inspiration usually look to humanity to provide their 'faith'. Of course, if one is not a socialist nor a democrat, and has little faith in humanity, then one will be an elitist, who will deny democracy in science, and who will pretend to be merely 'discovering' a 'real world' which 'exists' outside of humanity's production of 'it'.Marx warns of this dangerous connection between 'materialists' and elitist politics, in his Theses on Feuerbach, which I've quoted many times. If we look at the Leninists, we can see that Marx was correct to see this link.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

If society created our world then I suppose then what needs to be asked is what created society.

Yes, and Marx's answer is 'society created society' (and continues to create society).We are self-creators.Only the religious look for a creator outside of humanity.Hence, the Religious Materialists have faith that 'Matter' created society, and thus disagree with Marx.If you read Jordan's text, it makes clear Marx's position on your question. eg:

Jordan wrote:

Nature is considered by Marx only in so far as man, the primary object of his interest, is part of nature and man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to and reflected by nature which, in turn, is transformed by man’s practical activity into an objective world.Marx’s approach to the problem of the relation between nature and man reversed the order of inquiry accepted in the materialist tradition. Instead of the inquiry of nature paving the way for the inquiry into the nature of man, it was the inquiry into the nature of man that was to guide the inquiry into the problems of nature. While the revolution in natural science of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries destroyed the idea of man and social order established in the Middle Ages, now it was the revolution in the ‘science of man’ that was to lead to a complete philosophical reassessment of our knowledge of nature.

[my bold]

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…ooh, and the point of oxymorons is they make sense, you're trying for a contradiction in terms

No, you're wrong, again, YMS.Oxymoron means a contradiction in terms.From the Greek oxos (sharp) and moron (blunt).So, oxymoron is an oxymoron.On your 'elite majority', it's just nonsense.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…an elite majority…

This is an oxymoron, YMS.I suspect your individualist ideology is at root.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.

You mean like Mrax did, calling it inorganic nature?

This is a fundamental philosophical point, YMS.Marx did not call 'inorganic nature' matter.He called 'inorganic nature' inorganic nature.It was Engels who called 'inorganic nature' matter.Once again, I've said this time and again, but Religious Materialists have a faith in 'matter' which compels them to ignore Marx's epistemological views, and just like Lenin, pick up on Engels' misunderstanding.The political reason for 'matter' is an elite purpose to keep 'social production' out of the hands of the majority, expressed by their democratic control.This suited Lenin, because he argued for an elite minority with a special consciousness who 'knew matter', and for a majority who couldn't 'know matter' (otherwise, he'd've allowed a vote on its 'existence'). 'Matter' implied elitism. Marx argued this in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he stressed that 'materialism' leads to a minority of 'educators', separate from society. The SPGB has gone down this road, too, with its separation of 'specialists' from 'generalists', with the power to decide held by the 'specialists'.You too, YMS, are confusing 'matter' and 'inorganic nature'. For Marx, 'matter' was a social product, a part of 'organic nature'. If you read Jordan, some of this might become clearer.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I think LBird has made himself clear. He believes that in the beginning there was a society  and  society  created the world. That right LBird? 

[my italic/bold]Let's see if I can have a reasonable conversation with Vin today, eh?Marx argues that 'society created our world'.I've already pointed out to YMS earlier on this thread that 'materialists' always substitute 'the' for 'our'. This makes complete sense to 'materialists', because they separate the subject and object, and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.Further, I've explained that 'matter' is a substitute for 'god', and is regarded as an 'ultimate' or a 'finality', which are religious concepts.So, Vin, if you are a Religious Materialist you'll want to 'know matter' outside of human production (ie. 'the world'), but if you're a Marxist you'll start from the creation of 'matter' (ie. god) by humans in our world.As I've said many times, I'm not a Religious Materialist who has faith in 'matter', but a Democratic Communist who looks to Marx's ideas about the 'social production' of 'our world'.If you read Jordan's text, some of this might become clearer. But if you start from a disagreement with Marx, then it won't become clearer. My advice is to clarify your own views of Marx.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman…

There's no risk there, whatsoever!I think Paxman can read, for example.

[LBird]

LOL!The 'Religious Materialists' always resort to insults!

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?

With all due respect, Tim, you'll have to read what I've already said to YMS, here on this thread, which was already a repetition of what I've said many times.The mod has already given a warning about saying the same thing, over and over, so I'm taking heed.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx regarded humans as divine creators.

JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?

You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.

To rephrase YMS's question, where (in your opinion) did Marx think humans come from if he thought that the world was their divine creation?

Jordan, section 4 Sacred and Profane History (in book, pp. 34-7).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx regarded humans as divine creators.

JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?

You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.

[LBird]

I thought that you were a 'Hebridean exophagist'?How can we trust the claims of someone who seems to merely say what they think others want to hear?Perhaps you should stick to reading bourgeois dictionaries – they'll provide the 'objective definitions' that you so desperately seek. Plus, dictionaries don't expect you to think critically.

[LBird]

YMS, I'm trying to tell you what Marx said, as him being a revolutionary thinker.If you're trying to understand him as him being a bourgeois thinker, then you won't succeed.Or, rather, you'll succeed, and 'understand' him as a bourgeois thinker who's clearly wrong.If you don't share his political and ideological beliefs, then your 'understanding' will be built upon other political and ideological beliefs.That's why I openly declare my ideology of Democratic Communism – I'm not hiding my starting point.But you are hiding yours.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Produce and create are not pure synonyms, especially given the divine connotations of create, since you don't want to add meaning by differentiating them, I need to ask questions for further clarification.

Read carefully, YMS, Very carefully, Very, very carefully.Produce and create are pure synonyms for Marx.Marx regarded humans as divine creators.So, I don't need to 'add meaning' – that's what you want to do. Your 'clarification' is an attempt to 'redefine' – why not admit it? You simply want to redefine Marx's revolutionary, democratic epistemology, into a conservative, elite epistemology, and then claim that 'Marx was wrong' and 'LBird is wrong'.

YMS wrote:

Asking questions, and re-phrasing your comments is an attempt to tease out the unclarity, especially when you seem to resort to ad hominem whenever you're challenged on any weak points in your argument.

You are not asking questions, or for re-phrasing, or teasing out unclarity, but trying to define Marx into line with your bourgeois ideology.It's not 'ad hominem' to say you 'seem to' have cloth ears, because I keep giving explanations, and you redefine or rephrase them into your terms. I think that I'm being more than reasonable, with someone who doesn't read what I write (or Marx or Jordan), but keeps bleating about 'personal attacks'.The only 'weak points' in Marx's argument are the ones you keep inserting. Why not go to church, and pray to your creator for divine guidance, and experience a personal relevation? It'll be quicker for you than social clarification.

[Author]

Posts