LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:A conversation that YMS is participating in, but doesn't bother to read.
I'm not participating in that conversation.
I don't think you're participating in any conversation.And to refuse to read what's being said by others about issues relevant to your 'conversation', is quite revealing of your 'individualist' method: the 'materialist monologue', perhaps?
You'll have to explain the relevance of your model to the revolutionary proletariat who wish to change their world and democratise all social production.This a site (supposedly) dedicated to politics, especially socialist/communist politics, and this is a discussion about Marx's epistemology, which I'd argue is a key issue for the class conscious proletariat.As for 'dough', read 'ingredient'.An 'ingredient' requires a baker with a pie recipe, whose aim is to produce a pie.Unless you accept that Marx links subject and object by activity, then you won't understand the analogy, and will simply, as a 'materialist', wish to 'know' what 'dough' is, 'in-itself', outside of any baker, recipe and pie.I'm not a 'dough-in-itself-ist', and neither was Marx.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I don't read Robbo's posts or your replies to them.Why doesn't that surprise me?A conversation that YMS is participating in, but doesn't bother to read.Y'couldn't make it up!The 'materialist' blinkers fully at work!You'd probably be more accurate to say:
Young Master Smeet shouldve wrote:I don't read Robbo's or LBird's posts or his or your replies to them.I'm a 'materialist'. My faith sustains me.Perhaps if I use an analogy, that any worker can understand (I just know that I’m going to regret doing this, because analogies are always open to being read in a way not intended – and the ‘materialists’ will always ‘read’ in a different way).A baker takes dough and produces a pie.This is essentially Marx’s model – ‘baker’ = ‘active human’, who has an idea of what they wish to produce; ‘dough’ = undifferentiated ‘inorganic nature’, which is an ingredient into the labour of the ‘active human’; ‘pie’ = ‘object’, which is part of our ‘organic nature’.The bourgeoisie argue that their ‘baker’ simply ‘discovers’ their ‘pies’ on the shelf of the shop, and that their baker does not produce pies, but simply sells an existing object.With Marx’s model, we can determine for ourselves what ‘dough’ we choose to take, based upon what our interests and purposes are in producing our ‘pie’. We don’t simply accept a ‘pie’ which is a ‘shit pie’, and is damaging to us (for ‘shit pie’, read ‘scientific eugenics’, for example).With the bourgeois materialist model, we can’t refuse ‘shit pie’ – after all, the nice ‘baker’ simply gives us what they must, that object which magically appears on their shelf, for disinterested distribution.Comrades, please take this for what it is – a simple attempt to point those interested in epistemology in the right direction.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I find it hard to see how the Marx's words ‘the priority of external nature unassailed’ can be squared at all with your reading. I'd be interested for you to explain. Also ‘sensuous external world' would suggest to me that the external world possesses quality.So, I'm being 'tag-teamed', now, am I?Can't you and robbo co-ordinate your posts, so I don't have to say the same thing twice?Anyway, here's the short answer.Marx argues that 'inorganic nature' is laboured upon to produce 'organic nature'. Is that clear, once again?'Physical' or 'matter' is part of 'organic nature' – that is, we produce 'matter'.Engels, and the 'materialists' don't agree with Marx's 'social productionism', but argue that 'matter' pre-exists its social production. This is an ideology, produced by the bourgeoisie, and is opposed to Marx's views.The 'external world' (by which you mean 'inorganic nature') does not possess 'quality' (no matter what you 'suggest' – your 'suggestion' is an ideology, which you refuse to confront or expose).'Qualities' are produced by social labour, and 'exist' within 'organic nature' (ie., 'nature-for-us').The ideology of 'materialism' doesn't agree with Marx, and neither do you, and that's fine by me. Just don't pretend that what your ideology argues is what Marx argues.PS. re-read Jordan's quote, above – we create our objects.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:robbo, I can't express myself more clearly. I'll put it in bold/italic for you, if it will help:We do actually "produce" our physical world. .Sigh. What I am trying to do, LBird, is to encourage you to modify your language in a way that makes clear in what sense we "produce" our physical world,. You are not seriously suggesting here that the we actually literally produce the physical world are you? At least, I hope not! As far as is known the physical universe preceded the appearance of human beings by, well, millions upon millions of years, right? To a peasant like me that sounds as if its highly unlikely that we "produced" this universe
Sigh. Even bold/italic doesn't help you to read 'words'.'What you are trying to do, robbo' is to read what I'm writing from the ideology of 'materialism'. I've patiently (with much 'sighing') tried to explain this to you, but you won't read these 'words', either. So much for 'materialism' eh? It prevents 'words' being read, apparently. Must be a 'real', even 'physical', barrier to understanding.
robbo wrote:What I suggest we "produce" is not the physical world as such but an IDEA of the physical world. Thats what I am trying to get you to see but you don't see it. You continue to use this obscure elitist academic language you have such such a fondness forAnd you keep using 'this obscure elitist academic and bourgeois language you have such a fondness for': 'materialism'. That's what I am trying to get you to see but you don't see it.And what 'you' (ahem) 'suggest' is a well-attested ideology, an ideology that pretends not to be a social ideology, but common-or-garden, simple, basic, individual common sense!You're the one separating 'idea' from 'physical' – which is an ancient philosophy, which separates the 'subject' from the 'object' (or, the 'idea' from the 'physical'; or, 'consciousness' from 'being'; or, 'ideal' from 'material', etc.).Once more, robbo – and please, please, please, read my words – Marx doesn't do this. Marx maintains the link between the 'subject' and the 'object', and claims that this link is human activity (or, 'social labour'; or, 'social production').Now, if you wish to separate 'idea' and 'physical', by all means do so. But don't pretend that this has anything whatsoever to do with Marx's epistemology. Just openly state your ideology of 'science', your philosophy of 'epistemology', your definition of the 'subject' (which will be 'an individual', rather than Marx's 'social subject').Once you openly state your ideology, it will not only be clearer to all reading here, but, I think, will make your 'own' ideas clearer to yourself. And, hopefully, Marx's ideas clearer to everyone.
Jordan, pp. 29-30, wrote:Marx rightly argued that naturalism thus understood ‘distinguishes itself both from idealism and materialism, constituting at the same time the unifying truth of both’. Although what men see, touch, or grasp are responses to external stimuli, the external objects are determined by the selective activity of the senses and the senses in turn are constantly modified by the biological, social, and cultural evolution of the human species. In a certain, sense, then, there are no natural data, no God-given external facts of nature, but only socially mediated objects.[45]The world as known to man is a man-made world; it is the totality of ‘things for us’ and not of ‘things-in-themselves’. The only knowable is the world that appears in man’s experience, that is causally transformed by human action, divided into species and particulars, class members and classes, articulated into objects and their relations, into things with a definite form, arrangement, and structure, and cut out from the chaotic mass of the pre-existing world as it persists by itself. This humanized world is knowable because it is a world determined by man, the outcome, as Marx said in the first Thesis on Feuerbach, of ‘human sensuous activity’. As a natural being man shapes the environment according to his needs, and the needs determine the articulation of the world into separate things and their connections. External objects are, as it were, the objectified centres of resistance in the environment encountered by the human drives striving for the satisfaction of needs. If the needs were different, the world would look differently too, as it does to other animal species.[my bold]This is a longer version of my statement: humans socially produce their own world, our nature is our product.It is 'nature-for-us', 'reality-for-us', 'truth-for-us', 'object-for-us', 'fact-for-us'…… and not 'nature-as-it-is', 'reality-as-it-is', 'truth-as-it-is', 'object-as-it-is', 'fact-as-it-is'.This is why Marx's epistemology is revolutionary: it allows us to change our world. It denies the bourgeois myth that the world we live in (their social product) can't be changed, but must be simply endured, 'as-it-is'. They claim that their product is not their product, but a universal 'reality', 'nature-as-it-is', which their bourgeois science claims to simply, disinterestedly, objectively, 'discover'. Which can't be changed, because their elite 'Knows Eternal Truth', of 'Matter' (or, 'The Physical').
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:If you read what I've written, robbo, then we do actually produce our 'physical world'.Jordan supports this view of Marx's epistemology.If you're not interested in this, why keep posting?Like I said, LBird, your way of expressing yourself is misleading. We don't actually "produce" the physical world because, taken literally, that would mean human beings predate the physical world in which they find themselves. Unless you've gone bonkers that is obviously not what you mean but you need to say what you mean more clearly without resorting to this poseur style of cod philosphy
robbo, I can't express myself more clearly. I'll put it in bold/italic for you, if it will help:We do actually "produce" our physical world. This is what Marx argued, this is what Jordan in his book says that Marx argued, and this is what I agree that Marx argued.I've told you what the problem is, that prevents you reading what Marx, Jordan and I write: it's your 'materialist' ideology. The sooner you examine that, the sooner you'll be able to understand Marx, yourself, and why you disagree with Marx.One symptom of this is your refusal to use the concept "our physical world", which your ideology tells you should be "the physical world".The use of 'the', the definite article, is part of an ideology that claims universal application: 'the physical'. Thus, 'the physical' is external to any human activity. 'The physical' just 'is', simply 'as it is'.The use of 'our', a pronoun, is part of an ideology that claims relative social application: 'our physical'. Thus, 'our physical' is relative to (and created by) some human activity. 'Our physical' is a 'product', of a complex 'production' process, which varies with time and place.You'll either have to start studying Marx's epistemology, or keep resorting, as all 'materialists' do, to insults like 'bonkers', 'poseur' and 'cod'.I'm not being insulting when I say that it's only your ignorance that's preventing you from understanding these issues.Read Jordan's text again, and compare how a 'materialist' would understand it with how a Marxist would understand it, now that you should be able to do this.Of course, this all depends upon you being interested in doing so – I can't make you read what Marx, Jordan and I 'literally' write.
If you read what I've written, robbo, then we do actually produce our 'physical world'.Jordan supports this view of Marx's epistemology.If you're not interested in this, why keep posting?
I should add, YMS, that the selections that you've quoted from Jordan, above, actually support my argument regarding Marx's views, of social theory and practice upon inorganic nature producing organic nature, and that organic nature is thus socio-historic, and so we can change it.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…that wavelength will continue to exist.As I've explained, YMS, your ideology of 'materialism' starts from the belief that 'wavelength' existed, exists and will exist, without it being socially produced by humans.The alternative viewpoint, of Marx (and I think explained quite well by Jordan), is that 'wavelength' is an object created by humans, by their social theory and practice. This is very similar to Pannekoek's view that we create the 'laws of nature'.Again, as I've said, you don't have to agree with Marx's view (although I do), but the point is to understand Marx's notion of humanity as its own creator and the creator of its own world (a socio-natural world).There's no point just repeating what you believe (ie. your ideology) about 'wavelength exists without humans', because I already understand what you're saying (as I have what all the other 'materialists' here are saying).The point is, the ideology of 'materialism' ('wavelength' exists without being brought into existence by human social theory and practice) is not the ideology of Marx's 'social productionism'.I'm not arguing with you, YMS, about your 'materialism' (you're welcome to hold whatever ideology you think best suits your political purposes), but about the differing views about Marx's ideology: clearly, Jordan doesn't show that Marx agrees with your beliefs; in fact, Jordan's explanation is counter to your 'materialist' ideological views.
If anyone only has a short time/interest/attention, then probably section 3 The Anthropological Conception of Nature is the part to read (in the book, pp. 27-34).
Young Master Smeet wrote:By any account, still, there is a physical world which we cannot re-order merely by voting.That's the whole point of the article and Marx's ideas, YMS.We produce what we call 'physical'.The 'physical world' is a social product.If you don't agree with Marx (or Jordan's text), that's fair enough. But the belief in a 'physical world' which is not a product of human activity, is an ideology opposed to Marx's ideology.That's what the article is discussing: the 'materialist' view (which you believe in) that 'there is a physical world we cannot re-order'.The opposing view of Marx (which I believe in, and I refer to as 'idealism-materialism') is that 'there is a mental and physical world we can re-order'.The first 'contemplates' the 'physical', wheras the second aims to 'change' the 'physical'.The point that I'm trying to get across to you (and the other 'materialists') is that there are two ideologies at play here. Youse don't have to agree with a different ideology, but do you understand it?I'll reiterate this: I'm not asking for you to agree with Marx, but to understand Marx.If you understand Marx's arguments, but disagree with them, then we've achieved our aim.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the above quote just got caught up when I was contrasting what Jordan wrote with Marx' actual views on TRemaux and the relationship of nationality to the soil…Marx was obviously talking nonsense about Tremaux, as Engels told him at the time.I'm afraid selective quoting from 40 years' writing is no replacement for judgement about a body of work.What about the rest of Jordan's article, which addresses Marx's core views, rather than his all-too-human slips?After all, we could simply put Marx and Engels in the box marked 'racist anti-semites', if we judged them on their mistakes.More importantly, what do you think about Jordan's general views about Marx? He clearly regards Marx as closer to the views that I've argued, of the active human creation of their reality, which is incompatible with 'materialism'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Anyway:Jordan wrote:In general, Marx could not have accepted an observable part of physical reality as the absolute primary factor of social action and relations, because in his view nature cannot function as a condition determining human consciousness unless it is first defined in sociocultural terms, that is, unless it is a socially and culturally mediated entity. Consequently, Marx could not and actually did not accept any explanation of social activity in any other but social terms. ‘Everything which sets men in motion’, wrote Engels, ‘must go through their minds.’[125] Marx emphasized this fact in The German Ideology to justify the view that not only circumstances make men, as the ‘old materialism’ maintained, but men also make circumstances, as the ‘new materialism’ asserted.I'm not sure what point you're making, YMS, by quoting chunks of Jordan's text.Do you have a comment to make on it? Do you disagree with Jordan?
