LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Since you insist, it's this (but it's a theory of science not an "ideology"):http://mailstrom.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/joseph-dietzgen-workers-philosop…
But Dietzgen argued for 'induction', that is, 'practice and theory', ALB, so his ideology was not Marx's 'theory and practice'.As I've said before, if you follow Engels in reducing all philosophy to the 'black and white', 'either/or', 'good or evil' of 'materialism' versus 'idealism', you will try to categorise me, who is not a 'materialist', as an 'idealist'.This is why you're compelled to see me as a 'Kantian'. It's the only option that fits into your ideological schema.But Marx never reduced all philosophy to this simplistic dichotomy, and I've given quotes before to show that he thought he was unifying these two strands into a third, a philosophy of 'theory and practice'.What you really need to do, ALB, is categorise yourself, first, before using this insight into trying to categorise me.Furthermore, even Engels said that they were influenced by Kant, Fichte and Hegel – and how could it be otherwise, since they were under the influence of German Idealism, as much as of Feuerbachian Materialism?
As far as I can tell, ALB, you're missing out Marx's 'theory and practice'.This is nothing to do with experience of phenomena, but the creation of our object.I think that you're making this mistake because, not being prepared to expose your own ideology, you can't understand mine.I'm not a materialist; I'm not an idealist; I'm an idealist-materialist.This can be summed up as 'theory and practice', and anyone who claims to use Marx's 'theory and practice' should be able to tell us just what their 'theory' is.That is, their political ideology, which they use to build their 'science'.
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,For me it is your ideological thinking regarding this issue that is painfully close to the historical view that humans were at the pinnacle of creation. It allowed a minority to dominate with their humancentric logical views and religions.Placing humanities experience or consciousness squarely in the driving seat of "reality"or "truth" leads us to class divided society. It separates us from nature by declaring our reality is the only reality that is important.Science and socialism for me tells me that we are but a part of nature and as such have no special privileges to dominate and destroy as we see fit. Your creationist communism on the other hand says the collective "reality" is the ultimate "truth" and so the collective mind can never be wrong. So if the collective mind can never be wrong, the collective mind can do no wrong. Scary stuff indeed.Once again, SP, I acknowledge your ideological honesty, but what you're saying seems to be little to do with workers' power, democratic control of social production, active humanity, changing our world, or socialism.We have very different opinions of what constitutes 'socialism'.Perhaps a new thread to determine just what posters here mean by 'socialism', in the light of what's been said here?
SocialistPunk wrote:"Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved."Don't forget, SP, neither Einstein nor Bohr were Democratic Communists, so they're not the best people for socialists to ask for epistemological advice.In fact, neither understood the issue, as the exchange you quote displays.They could not understand the philosophical issues involved. If you won't take my word, read what they actually wrote.I've some sympathy for Einstein, who at least took politics seriously, and saw himself as some sort of 'socialist', but Bohr's attempts to make sense of epistemology are simply childish and ignorant.I'd go so far to say, that reading Bohr on epistemology is comparable to reading the scrawlings of a six-year-old using a red crayon on cardboard, it's that poor.Don't be taken in by the 'physicist of genius' tag – Bohr hasn't got a clue.That's why bourgeois science is in the mess it is – none of them seem to be able to put down the mud pies and rocks, and ask political and philosophical questions.Of course, they're completely brainwashed by bourgeois science ideology – they think that they don't need to keep 'consciousness and being' together, and really have faith that they are merely 'dealing with reality as it is'.Bourgeois Buffoons.
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt LBird and myself will ever see eye to eye on this issue as I will never accept his creationist socialism.That's fair enough conclusion, SP, but it leaves open the question of just who does create.Prior to Marx, opinion held that 'creation' was a 'divine' act, and it was precisely this belief that the Young Hegelians were arguing against.I'd argue that if you don't accept Marx's (not simply 'my') 'creationist socialism', then you'll revert to what went before, which will be either 'divine production' or 'passive materialism'.For me, these questions were settled in the 1840s, by Marx, amongst others.
ALB wrote:I don't think you realise the huge concession you have made to "materialism" with your concept of "inorganic nature" as an "externality for consciousness" that is not "isolated in the mind". The difference between your "inorganic nature" and "matter" is only a matter of terminology. You too are separating "being" ("inorganic nature") from "consciousness".No, 'matter' is a product of social theory and practice, ALB.'Inorganic nature' is an unknowable 'in itself' ingredient for active human social theory and practice.This is Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (a term which simply tries to capture the contemporary debate which Marx was engaged in).But, for Engelsist Materialists, of which I think you seem to (perhaps unknowingly) number, 'matter' is not a social product, but an 'externality to consciousness', that can be known.So, Marxists do not separate 'consciousness' from 'being', because for them 'matter' is a social product, better called 'mind-matter'. 'Inorganic nature' cannot be passively known, but can only provide an ingredient to human labour.Engelsists insist that 'matter' can be known 'as it is' (ie. outside of consciousness), and so do separate 'being' and 'consciousness'.
ALB wrote:If you want to call yourself an "inorganic naturist" that's ok as long as the definitions are clear, but personally I still prefer "materialist" despite its range of meanings.But I wouldn't call myself an 'inorganic naturalist', simply because that would separate 'consciousness' from 'being'.I would call myself (in Marx's contemporary terms) an 'idealist-materialist', or a 'social productionist', which insists that the only 'nature' we know is our product, 'organic nature'.I think that I've said many times why I think that you'd be making a mistake to continue to call yourself a 'materialist'. It leaves you open to the accusation that you accept Engels' views about 'matter', which he saw as 'existing out there' rather than as a 'social product'.In political terms, Engels actually undid Marx's work. He laid the basis for Leninist politics, with his talk of 'matter' outside of consciousness. Marx was well aware (given his background in German Idealism and philosophical training), that pretending to take 'matter' outside of consciousness was impossible, and simply let 'consciousness' in through the back door, in the shape of a 'special consciousness' as the 'active side'.This is a bourgeois ideological approach, and allows a part of society to rise above the majority, as Marx warned in his Theses on Feuerbach, which was a text at least as critical of materialism as of idealism.Finally, I've given already the emergence of this separation of being and consciousness, and it's in the reaction in 1660 to the hopes of the radicals of the English Revolution, who wanted the purpose of science to be 'to build a better world for all'.It was the bourgeoisie who introduced the reactionary science of supposedly merely 'telling the Truth of Reality'. That's impossible, but its fixity of 'nature' and the pretence that we play no part in its production, entirely suited a ruling class which was engaged in actively building its world, but wanted to hide that process, and to deny the possibility to contending classes.
ALB wrote:I think that in his confused way he may be trying to say the same as us, i.e. that there is something out there which exists independently of consciousness and that to survive in it humans, in societies, create 'mental constructs' of it which are not the same nor a mirror image of it.I must say that I welcome gratefully (not sarcasm) ALB's belated realisation that I'm actually making serious political and philosophical points in these debates.
ALB wrote:LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.No, I am not arguing that 'inorganic nature' is 'isolated in the mind'.This is the reading of 'materialists', who do not recognise the Marxian concept of the 'ideal-material' (or, to re-term it, the 'socially-produced').'Materialists' separate 'ideal' and 'material' (ie. separate 'consciousness' and 'being'), and so have a fixation upon separating the 'mind' from 'matter'.What humans 'socially-produce' (by 'theory and practice') is 'mind-matter', our 'nature-for-us', our 'organic nature'. So, it's not 'inorganic nature in the mind'. That is an impossibility. Our 'the sun' is the result of social theory and practice, and is not just in the mind. It is a social product, which thus exists, and we are its creator.ALB, unless you reveal your ideology of how you're 'understanding' what I'm saying, then we will continue to have problems, and you'll continue to 'interpet' what I'm supposedly saying, rather than understanding just what I am saying (from a different ideological perspective).Clearly, I'll say that what differs between us, is our differing ideological approachs, mine being Marx's, and yours being Engels'.I hope that we can now clarify our political differences, which have epistemological and thus scientific consequences.The key issue is whether 'the sun' is socially-produced (thus we can change 'the sun') or 'the sun' is simply 'out there' as it is, fixed forever (and thus we can't change it).To pretend to talk of 'the sun' outside of our knowledge of it, is bourgeois ideology, can be located in time and within a class' reactionary interests, and leads to an inability to change our world.
Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.LBird will continue to avoid answering simple questions. He prefers to pretend that the issue is a complex one and to string long words together which when all joined up amounts to a load of bollocks
You're right, Vin, there are always 'simple' answers to 'simple' questions, and don't you let that clever bastard Marx befuddle you with talk of 'value'.Socialism is just a 'practical' task, a 'simple' process, for essentially 'simple' people.It makes one wonder why anybody actually bothers to read books, and has discussions about politics and philosophy, when everything is so 'simple'.SPGB? The Simple Party Grounded in the Bourgeoisie.
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt if any member of this forum, or scientist, would question your statement "radiation (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness". After all how can human knowledge exist without humans. And I have no doubt that science will continue to update and change much scientific knowledge in the future.But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.SP, I've answered your question – you just don't like the answer.You're just following bourgeois ideology, which argues that 'knowledge of the sun' is separate from 'the sun'. The 'gist of your enquiry' is a bourgeois gist, although no doubt you regard it as simply an innocent, individual, personal question. There are none so blind as those who will not see.So when I describe the socio-historical emerge of 'knowledge of the sun', you say that's all very well, but what about 'the sun' which exists outside of 'knowledge'.For humans, we create 'knowledge of the sun', and that's it.To talk of 'the sun' outside of our 'knowledge of the sun' is meaningless. Have you never heard of Einstein's theory of relativity, and the need to acknowledge the position of the observer?When you say "the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being", how do you know this?Your only answer is that you have a special method which allows you access to 'the sun' without using your consciousness.That's fine as an answer, but it's a bourgeois answer. And I've already pointed out just when and why 'your' viewpoint emerged in society.These are philosophical issues, which have political implications, and for someone who's not really interested in politics, philosophy or science, it's perfectly acceptable to just use their 'common sense' to understand 'the sun'.For those of us, who are socialists, and are concerned to build the class consciousness of the proletariat, then these political issues have to be addressed.For those, who aren't really interested in democracy in science, or the production of 'truth', or workers' power, or class struggle in the ideology of science, or giving socio-historical accounts of human activities, then these can be ignored, and life can go on as normal under the bourgeoisie.After all, who in their right mind would argue about the sun?Any individual, using their own sight, can see the sun. And science is simply 'individual experience' writ large, isn't it?Day-to-day experience of the world tells us all we need to know, doesn't it?Right, that's 'the sun' dealt with – no need for LBird's complete bollocks!Next, value!What's the method? Ignore philosophy, including Marx's Capital (that's full of inexplicable bollocks, too, workers don't need to read that). Just use one's individual experience – well, whoever felt 'value'? No-one! Let's stick to tangible things, like the price label on a commodity. No need for all this 'science' guff, just read the price tag, if one wants to know its value! Easy-peasy!And so, the SPGB and its supporters fall back into normal life, which abhors talk of 'revolutionary science' and the philosophical need for democracy to determine what 'the sun' is.The long snooze resumes. And Marx remains either unread or glanced at uncomprehendingly. The SPGB has fought the good fight, once again, and seen off those radicals and trouble-makers, who actually read what physicists say about the problems within physics, and can actually give socio-historical accounts of 'knowledge production'.
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,An answer to this simple, you might say child like question, may help me and others get to grips with what you are saying.If we use the sun bombarding this planet with its radiation, as an example of phenomena. Do you accept that it existed or took place before human conciousness came into existence?SP, if 'phenomena' require an active relationship between 'consciousness and being', then 'phenomena' can't exist outside of either 'consciousness' or 'being'.If you wish to separate 'being and consciousness' (a socio-historical act which I've already located in time and ruling class context), then be aware that you doing this is not your individual choice, but an ideological acceptance of a ruling class idea.Marx argues that humans labour upon something that is outside of consciousness (which he calls 'inorganic nature' or a 'material substratum'), but that 'theory and practice' (by a society, not an 'individual') is required to create our phenomena (or 'organic nature', the nature we know, or 'nature-for-us').'Radiation' exists for us as part of 'nature-for-us', and we can locate the emergence of this 'nature-for-us' in a socio-historical context.In the past, a different society could have regarded burns received from what we know call 'radiation' as 'god's breath'. But clearly, it would not be what we call 'radiation' with all the accompanying baggage of how to avoid or treat it. 'God's breath' would have been produced by a different social theory and practice, and would have been very different in its social consequences.Of course, it's possible to agree with the bourgeoisie, who say that now humans have a method which allows them to finally know 'The Truth' of all phenomena, and so once we 'discover' 'radiation' it is known forever.But the last hundred years, since Einstein's theory of relativity, have taught us that what we once thought was 'eternal truth', like Newton's theories or Euclid's geometry, are nothing of the sort. They are both socio-historical, and we can now locate their start and end as 'truth', and show which social groups produced them.The bottom line, as an answer for your reasonable question, is that 'radiation' (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness, and that we now know when it emerged, and we also know, because of developments in science, that at some point a new theory will emerge and be tried in social practice, and that 'radiation' will disappear like just like other 'scientific truths', like the 'ether' or 'phlogiston' or 'Piltdown Man', to be replaced a different concept.I know that anyone brought up in bourgeois society, under the pressure of ruling class ideas about the wonderful geniuses we have guiding us to their promised land, finds this socio-historical account of 'science' difficult to accept. We're all told from birth that 'science is objective' and that we should trust 'scientists'. But the bourgeoisie are lying to us.'Radiation' is a concept produced by humans, not a reflection of a 'phenomenon'.Whilst 'radiation' is useful to society, we'll stick with it, and use the concept to guide our actions.But to talk of an asocial, ahistoric 'radiation' which is 'True' and always will be, outside of 'consciousness', is essentially meaningless, and contrary to Marx's notions of social theory and practice, in which humans are the 'active side'.To ignore Marx is to return to notions of passive humanity, which observes and describes 'reality' as it is.That is the ideology of 'materialism'.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I do create matter, but afterwards I usually wipe my arse and flush it away, I suggest you might do the same with the shit you produce.Oh dear.No matter how often I treat you as an adult, you revert to child-like ignorance.You could always try political and philosophical debate, but it's clearly beyond you.Try reading a book, Tim.Perhaps 'Janet and John' is about your level.
Tim Killgallon wrote:I would describe myself as a Materialist and I do not see "any talk of consciousness as idealism". That would be a ridiculous statement, not only that, I have never come across any other member of the SPGB in pushing 35 years of membership of the party state any thing of the kind. The statement is however typical of the specious arguments you put forward.So, Tim, what ideology do you employ in physics?That is what 'talk of consciousness' implies – that you will reveal your social consciousness, which you employ when you create your object.This is neither 'ridiculous' or 'specious'.I keep asking materialists to reveal their ideology, and they refuse.I then reveal their ideology, and point to the page of the pamphlet which contains its origins…… and that revelation and evidence is ignored, and I'm called an 'idealist', just as you did, earlier.You think Marx's 'theory and practice' amounts to 'theory' – you said so, earlier.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Can i mischievously suggest that we apply LBird's workers' democracy to gravity, have a democratic vote that concludes gravity does not exist and then suggest he jumps from a top of a high building to prove that science is purely ideological and gravity does not exist if we vote it doesn't… You know i'm only joking LBird…i'd miss you if you were gone…but i might be the only one it seems from the feelings of the forum.You're making a joke, alan, but it's clear from the usual contributions that no matter how many times I stress Marx's 'theory and practice', the materialists read 'theory'.They do so, because they have an ideology which tells them the knee-jerk reaction to any claims for 'consciousness', even Marx's 'theory and practice', the active relationship between consciousness and being, is to call that 'idealism'.So, they read 'theory and practice' as 'theory'.Every time.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:The bit that L Bird seems unable to comprehend is that the understanding (i.e.. the model, in this case the theoretical model of gravity) is produced by human consciousness and as such reflects all of the various influences, specific and general, human experience brings with it. HOWEVER that model or view or theory etc. created as it is by human consciousness is ultimately based on a reality processed by the individual, the group, the social class, etc. We can alter our perception of reality, we can alter our understanding of reality, what we cannot change by thought alone, is the reality itself. What L Bird appears to be suggesting is that matter only exists when observed by a human, whereas the truth is that human perception of reality only exists when humans perceive reality. In addition to this L Bird seems to suggest that the only factor in human perception is social Cass, whereas this is far from the case, for instance does reality change because an individual with schizophrenia observes it.[my bold]Tim, you're still arguing for the bourgeois ideology of 'passive reflection', based on a pre-existing 'reality', which can be detected by an 'individual', and that Marx claims 'thought alone changes'.On the contrary, 'consciousness', by the method of 'theory and practice', creates the 'reality we know'.No-one argues that 'thought alone changes reality' – Marx argues for 'theory and practice'.Humans do not 'perceive reality' – that is 'passive observation' or 'contemplation', which Marx opposes.Humans create their reality by actively creating it by theory and practice upon 'inorganic nature', which produces our objective 'organic nature'.That is, humans create 'matter'.'Matter' is a social product of the interaction between consciousness and being.The bourgeoisie deny this creative power to humans, and pretend that they alone have a method to observe and describe 'the obejctive world'.
ALB wrote:Pannekoek was not arguing that there was nothing out there independently of consciousness.No-one is arguing that is 'nothing out there independently of consciousness'.There is, according to Marx, 'inorganic nature', from which we actively create 'organic nature'.Since materialists see any talk of 'consciousness' as 'idealism', they are forced to pretend that Marx denied the active role of critical and creative human consciousness, and they follow Engels in claiming that 'matter' is the 'active side'.
