LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Young Master Smeet, post #11, wrote:oh, p.s. Marx is dead, he has no opinion of anything.
Engels says that it doesn't.
Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Engels says that it doesn't, and that 'matter' exists prior to activity.Since I know that you and the rest don't read a word of what I write, you're going to have to find out about Marx's 'theory and practice' without my help.Step 1: identify your ideology.Step 2: ignore Step 1.That's it, you're finished, YMS!Congrats!
The inescapable link between 'consciousness' and 'being' is 'activity'.'Matter' is a product of such 'activity'.Engels didn't understand this.Frederick Engels is absolutely wrong.And his wrongness has had absolutely devastating consequences for the movement for socialism.If 'material conditions' are pretended to be simply 'out there', then the minority actually creating them will remain in power.The alleged breaking of this inescapable creative link, leads inexorably to Leninism.
Young Master Smeet wrote:(p.s. you've added Aunt Sally/Straw man to the list….)I though that we might get through just one day with the SPGB without resorting to accusations/abuse, but it seems to be endemic within the party. For once, I'll let it be.I've patiently explained, YMS, and if you don't like my explanation, you'll have to explain that 'dislike' to yourself.You seem, at present, to be blaming me, rather than blaming your ideology, but, there we go.I'll leave it at that for today, because I know we won't make any further advance on our exchange so far.
YMS wrote:Nope, I'm afraid you still haven't explained how inorganic nature relates to human labour.I'm afraid that I have, YMS, and at great length.Both the production of 'qualities' and 'differentiation'.There are two answers: for one ideology, 'qualities' are within 'inorganic nature'; for the other ideology, 'qualities' are actively produced in 'organic nature'.For the first ideology, the claims of the second are meaningless; for the second ideology, the first can't explain active production by societies.You don't seem to like this answer, that involves 'consciousness' and ideologies, and want an answer that only involves 'inorganic nature' to the exclusion of 'consciousness' and ideologies.That desire of yours is a product of your current ideology.You want to 'passively know' the 'world' without involving a 'active knowing subject'.We hold differing political and philosophical views about 'nature', YMS.That is the 'explanation'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:What bit is so difficult to understand?How something with qualities can interact with something that has no qualities. Please explain that.
I though that I had, YMS.For my ideology (Marx's idealism-materialism), 'qualities' are produced by humans, and so are within 'organic nature'.For your ideology (Engels' materialism), 'qualities' are simply within 'inorganic nature'.To you, 'qualities' are 'something out there', within 'being' alone, and outside of 'consciousness'.To me, 'qualities' are 'relations produced', between 'consciousness' and 'being'.You are juxtaposing static possessed 'qualities', I am producing dynamic relational 'qualities'.As to which ideology is suited to change, you have to decide.I fear that you want an answer that is 'True', and so are searching for this, from your ideological perspective.The answer, however, is a socio-historical 'truth', from my ideological perspective.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:Which 'piece of logic' would that be, YMS?That if inorganic nature has no qualities, there is no relationship, and for all intents and purposes, does not exist. Why would Marx talk about inorganic nature if the qualities of Labour alone produced organic nature?
What bit is so difficult to understand?From your ideological point of view, 'qualities are as they are, and are found within inorganic nature'.In opposition to this, Marx argues that 'qualities are produced, and are found in organic nature'.
YMS wrote:Lets take Tony:Quote:For Historical Materialism it is a question of the relationship of our thoughts to the phenomena which we experience as the external world.For those who dabble in English, that sentence can only be read there being pheneomena of experience of the external world.
Yes, and 'experience' is not a passive experience, as for your ideology, but is an experience created by human activity, during its social theory and practice upon 'inorganic nature'.Marx goes as far as to say that even human senses are social, and so what an individual 'experiences' is a social experience (involving perception), and not merely a biological experience. So, if it were possible to transfer an individual to another society, that individual would 'experience' the world differently. That is, 'phenomena' are socially produced.
YMS wrote:I mean, there is a relationship between a lock and a key, between pencil and paper, but there is no relationship with a void, unless a party brings some qualities that affect, combine with or change the otehr, there is no relationship.Yes, and the relationships produced by active humans with a lock and key are either the states of 'a locked door' or 'an unlocked door'. That is, the relationship between 'a lock and a key' is not one of juxtaposition of static things, but an active one in which humans are the active side. The same goes for 'pencil and paper', when employed by active humans a 'drawing' is produced.
YMS wrote:I cheerfully accept that humans create their social world, and all things in it, including ideas (which are entirely material from beginning to end); I'm happy to accept thatour ideas come from our being in the universe, and it is our active processes of living in it that produces ideas, but we are limited in what we can do, and our ideas are limited by what we can do.Which philosophy puts its focus on 'limits', and which puts its focus upon 'changes'?That is, what we can attempt to do with social theory and practice.Humans were and are 'limited' by all sorts of 'biological facts', but we attempt to change those 'facts of nature'.We don't have wings, but we can fly.As I say, for a supposed socialist, I find your focus upon what humans can't do, more suitable to a conservative philosophy of 'what we have, we hold, and no further'.The emphasis on 'limits' is hardly conducive to a philosophy of revolution.Whatever happened to the attitude of 'All that is solid melts into air'?
Marx wrote:All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned…https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htmNot exactly your "but we are limited in what we can do, and our ideas are limited by what we can do", is it?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Relational between what? If there is no quality of nature, there is no relationship.Quote:No, I keep saying, we produce 'organic nature' from 'inorganic nature', by social theory and practice.If there is no quality to 'inorganic nature' then there is no need for Marx and Pancake to refer to it (a simple textual matter). There is only social theory and practice producing organic nature (or society, for Cakey boy).What I want is for you to respond to this simple peice of logic.
Which 'piece of logic' would that be, YMS?What's so difficult about understanding a productive relationship between an active, creative humanity and 'inorganic nature'.You simply want 'quality' to be within 'inorganic nature'.Marx argues that we produce our 'organic nature', which is clearly where 'qualities' lie. That is the 'qualities' are 'relational qualities'.
YMS wrote:Accordng to oyu, nature is a blank slate we can write anything on we want, is that not the case?No, I keep saying, we produce 'organic nature' from 'inorganic nature', by social theory and practice.This is nothing to do with a mythical 'blank slate nature', which is a concept that only makes sense to materialists, or humans 'doing anything they want'.It's a social production relationship.You want to discuss some mythical 'nature out there' which is fixed, and can be known passively, as it is.Our 'nature' is the dynamic product of human labour.That's why we can change it, which is the whole point of Marx's philosophical works.You want to passively observed something that is fixed, something that is not our product, and thus that we can't change.You want to interpret the world, as it is.
YMS wrote:…qualities of natural phenomena…But, as we have seen with Marx and Pannekoek, 'qualities of natural phenomena' are produced by active humanity. 'Natural qualities' are relational 'qualities', not 'something out there'.Because you are a materialist, you want to know of some mythical 'qualities of natural phenomena' in themselves, without any consciounsess being involved. This is the bourgeois myth of 'knowledge' being simply a reflection of 'nature', and requires a passive stance on the part of the observer.
YMS wrote:If there is no difference or quality, then nature does not exist.This is an ideological statement – you wish 'nature' to exist outside of active humanity, whereas Marx and Pannekoek are talking about humans producing their own 'nature'.And I've told you, 'differences and qualities' do exist, and are produced by active humanity.You won't accept this claim, because you're not a Marxist or Pannekoekian, but an Engelsist.You want to 'know' nature as it is without any 'knower' being actively involved. At best, you'll accept a passive observer, which is a bourgeois myth.Even Einstein said 'the theory determines what we observe', therefore bolstering Marx's claims of 'theory and practice'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:YMS wrote:…mere accdient suffices…Who or what determines what is 'accident'?
No one needs to…
[my bold]But that is not what Pannekoek says. He says that humans are actively involved in producing our world.Marx says the same thing, and always talks about 'social production' to meet our 'needs'.So, someone 'needs' to determine what is produced.You're a materialist, YMS, and wish to passively observe the world 'as it is', and to pretend to keep 'consciousness' out of the consideration. This is a bourgeois myth.'Consciousness' and 'being' are in an inescapable relationship.We are our own producers, determiners, differentiators… we are in an active relationship with 'inorganic nature', within which creative relationship we build our own 'organic nature'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,But as we had out before, you refused to accept that 'inorganic nature' is differentiated, and at least limits what we can do with it, and thus we have not got unbounded freedom to will some truth out of nature, we can only do with it what we can.Who or what 'differentiates' nature, YMS?Like Marx and Pannekoek, I regard 'differentiation' as a product of an active consciousness, specifically human social theory and practice.The alternative formulation, that 'nature differentiates itself' outside of any consciousness, is a return to the separation of 'being' from 'consciousness', the bourgeois materialism that Engels fell for.If humans are not the 'active side', then there must be a 'divine' force out there.There isn't, of course, and so if it is denied that humanity is the 'active side', a smaller part of society must substitute itself for the greater part.Marx warned about this in his Theses on Feuerbach, and the Leninists proved Marx right, because Lenin was forced to posit a 'special consciousness' outside of (wider) humanity. This elite expert minority then tells us that they, and they alone, can tell us the 'differentiation of nature'. But they are the active differentiators. And so the proletariat remains passive.The search for 'The Truth' of a 'nature outside of consciousness' is a bourgeois myth.Human consciousness is inescapably involved in the creation of our nature.Read your Pannekoek quote.
YMS wrote:Herein is Lbirds apparent claims clearly and much better expressed, but note the difference, there is no denial that the external world exists or that we can just make up our science by will alone…C'mon, YMS, even you must be getting tired of repeating this old canard.Marx does not 'deny the existence of the external world' – he calls it 'inorganic nature'.For Marx, the link between 'inorganic nature' and the world-we-create, nature-for-us, 'organic nature', is active humanity, employing social theory and practice, to create our world.Even Pannekoek, in the quote you supposedly have read, says that:
Pannekoek wrote:…[humanity] is a dynamic force which reacts upon his environment and changes it. Society is nature transformed through labour.You simply, like a good materialist, want to passively observe 'nature'. You want to know 'nature' as it is, without human intervention.Pannekoek uses the term 'stuff of nature' for what Marx calls 'inorganic nature' – this is an ingredient into our labour, which results in our creation of our world.The 'stuff of nature' cannot be passively observed, but only used.You're following a confused Engels, and I'm following Marx and Pannekoek.You think that there are only two options, 'materialism' and 'idealism', and so, with you being a 'materialist', and me not, you can only pidgeon-hole me as an 'idealist' – hence, your continual nonsense about me 'denying an external reality'.For god's sake, YMS, read your own quotes, and admit that you're reading them from the position of Engels' materialism.
Tim Killgallon wrote:…we cannot democraticaly control the outcome of physical experiments, 2+2 equals four, no matter how many times any gorup of individuals vote to say ot doesn't.[my bold]Tim, you're new to the site, so you won't know.I've shown many times that we can control the outcome of all experiments, and 2+2 can equal 11, and that both can be decided by a vote.Of greater philosophical significance is your use of the qualifier 'physical'.You won't recognise the importance of your use of that, but to any other readers who have followed this with interest, it should stand out like a sore thumb, as the mark of a 'materialist' (the modern term being a 'physicalist').
