Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘Science is just another name for organised knowledge. It’s not an ideology.’
Agreed but many have elevated it to the status of a religion. If it is indeed another name for organised knowledge then how can it have superseded philosophy which shares the same ambition?
‘I would like to know which is the best book on dialectical materialism.
If you in your organization share this philosophy.’
Some comrades struggle on trying to read Marx without a knowledge of dialectics but others, like myself, believe it to be a key to political insight. Bertell Ollman’s ‘Dance of the Dialectic’ is a good introduction.
‘Having said this, philosophy has largely given way today to the theory of science and to neuroscience as the study of how the brain works.’
I suspect ALB was provoking the likes of myself with this assertion. Of course science can be seen as a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy) but it has come to see itself as somehow superior to its originator. ‘Science’ has become a magical/religious (ideological) concept to many divorced from its origins. As an exercise in empirical trial and error it is something that humans have always practiced. As a branch of philosophy it can never answer interesting questions concerning meaning and purpose etc. Roberto’s statement that the universe is ‘indifferent to our desires’ is illogical since we are part of the universe – we may be a unique example of the universe becoming conscious of itself.
Either you believe that the class struggle is the dynamic element driving social change or you don’t. If you do it would be absurd to not mention Marx as one who developed this theory – why would you want to? It would be as ridiculous as discussing physics without mentioning Einstein or Biology without reference to Darwin. If you do not regard the class struggle to be of primary importance in cultural development then you are not a socialist.
‘Marxist Materialist’ is the definition of a socialist. Without mass consciousness there can be no socialism. Your elitist contention that the majority are incapable of understanding the world as we do has no basis. You imply that you are exceptional in being class conscious – that’s the definition of Leftist elitism. They are always telling us how anachronistic our language is but their novelty sloganeering only leads to disaster and cynicism.
Just put in what you want to search for in the top right hand field of this page. Never heard of ‘combers’.
Yeah, that’s why children are in danger of getting snake bit, savaged by dogs or picking up parasites that make them blind – really healthy. All this is so much romantic twaddle.
You are a master of the non sequitur Mr. Oswald – just as nobody here has claimed superiority as a species I did not claim that we were successful as a species; merely that we have the chance to become so. Human societies are not just ‘ what humans do’ but rather what we do creates our humanity. Again sarcastic statements like ‘Glad you’re enjoying the class struggle. You must be very happy’ do not help your case.
‘Tool – making’ is what makes us human. It has enabled our consciousness to accelerate at unprecedented speed to a point where we can use technology instead of it, and the class struggle it gives rise to, using and defining us. As I said we represent nature becoming aware of its self, something unique as far as we know and nature recognises no superior or inferior species – just successful and unsuccessful ones. Please don’t insult us again with your usual accusations – it just gives the impression, Mr. Oswald, that as well as self loathing you also go in for self righteousness.
It would seem that John Oswald is happy with insults directed towards his own species but not with those directed at other species. Is that called ‘inverted speciesism’?
I’ll bet L Bird has donned his mask and gloves even in the absence of a mass vote on the existence or not of the virus.
Robbo, perhaps the reason is that the virus doesn’t respect wealth and the 1% are as likely to catch it as us proles.
‘I’ll just remain baffled.’
Yep, that about sums up your inability to understand politics L Bird. No doubt you will regard that as another insult but the evidence is clear. ALB and robbo have made a clear and coherent explanation but you cannot, or will not, concur. I can only speculate why you are like this time and again. Perhaps you’re just argumentative by nature? Again I can only admire comrades who take the time to try and communicate with you. Is it ever possible that you can be mistaken? Look to yourself and either help us in the struggle or stop wasting our time.
