Are all internet discussion doomed?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

You  continue to lie about my opinions. You obviously can't help yourself.   

You've got opinions?That's news to me. All I ever read is regurgitation of outdated 19th century ones.You clearly don't understand them, either, or you wouldn't consider what I say about them as 'lies'.Don't forget, Vin, I've actually read both those opinions, and dozens of criticisms of them.Unlike you.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

The bottom line, Vin, is that if you're going to promote a viewpoint, like 'materialism', you have to expect it to be criticised, by those who can see the political dangers of it, because they've read further into it. Sticking your head in the sand, and simply repeating 'materialism, materialism, materialism', like an incantation to ward off the devil, won't succeed. 

 You really are  twisted 

And you're straight as a conservative. Ramrod Vin, they should call you.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 At least it's not a 'material world', Maddy.

 I think we have all guessed that. The material world doesen't exist for you. 

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 At least it's not a 'material world', Maddy.

 I think we have all guessed that. The material world doesen't exist for you. 

The old 19th century engineering metaphor, eh?You'll be regurgitating 'base and superstructure', next!

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Not least, because I've got 666 arguments to defeat 'materialism'.

 Give me one. Not 666. Just one.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Not least, because I've got 666 arguments to defeat 'materialism'.

 Give me one. Not 666. Just one.

Materialism is the philosophical basis of Leninism.It pretends that a select elite have a neutral access to 'matter' or 'material conditions'. Materialists must claim that the knowledge they have is not accessible to the mass of workers, otherwise they'd allow a democratic vote on what constitutes the 'material conditions'.All the adherents of 'materialism' on this site have the same philosophical problem: they can't agree with me that 'workers should determine for themselves what 'material conditions' actually are, by a vote'. This implies workers would democratically control all science, its activities and products. Including 'Reason' and 'Maths'.Thus, 'materialism' is fundamentally undemocratic, and politically dangerous for the proletariat, who must organise democratically.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Not least, because I've got 666 arguments to defeat 'materialism'.

 Give me one. Not 666. Just one.

Materialism is the philosophical basis of Leninism.It pretends that a select elite have a neutral access to 'matter' or 'material conditions'. Materialists must claim that the knowledge they have is not accessible to the mass of workers, otherwise they'd allow a democratic vote on what constitutes the 'material conditions'.All the adherents of 'materialism' on this site have the same philosophical problem: they can't agree with me that 'workers should determine for themselves what 'material conditions' actually are, by a vote'. This implies workers would democratically control all science, its activities and products. Including 'Reason' and 'Maths'.Thus, 'materialism' is fundamentally undemocratic, and politically dangerous for the proletariat, who must organise democratically.

That is all nonsense. You clearly cannot define or understand basic materialism. Your first sentence is an attempt at an insult, it has no basis. You believe it to be an insult because you know the members of this forum are opposed to Leninism. Materialism is the philisophical basis of many isms.  You are trolling: you know we oppose leninism so you simply assert we are Leninist. Idealism is the philisophic basis of Thatcherism. She received the most votes from workers so that makes you a   Thatcherite.Show me whare the SPGB says that workers should not organise democratically? More trolling because you know we advocate leaderless democracy. Each of your assertions are aimed…..But then I am now drawn back in to you Bullshitting and bollocks arguing down your criticismss of your own aunt sallies. Criticise MY beliefs: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.   

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Criticise MY beliefs: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.

This is nothing to do with Marx.Your ideological beliefs have nothing to do with Communism and democracy.The focus on 'matter' is a conservative philosophy.What's more, you can't define 'matter'.The concept is a 19th century concept.I don't expect you to answer my points, just to continue to personally attack me, and then complain when I do it back.I've even told you where you get these ridiculous ideas from: Engels, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy.You haven't read this, though, because you just uncritically repeat what your ideologists have told you about comforting 'matter'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I don't expect you to answer my points, 

 You don't make any. Just unsubstantiated assertions. and of course the usually aunt sallies.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I don't expect you to answer my points, 

 You don't make any. Just unsubstantiated assertions. and of course the usually aunt sallies.

[my bold]I've provided links to most of the quotes that I've provided from Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Einstein, etc., so that interested comrades can check up on the context of those quotes.I've provided book titles and page numbers from dozens of later Communists like Pannekoek, Korsch, Lukacs, Gramsci.Same from commentators like Hook, Lichtheim, Schimdt, Kolakowski, Avineri, Ball, Farr, Carver.And those talking about science, like Schaff, Chalmers, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos.There are dozens of others that I've mentioned, but are not on that list.But you, Vin, just hang on to your religious 'matter', which has no substance. You think the alternative is 'idealism', which plays the role of 'evil' in your simplistic view of the world.And because you can't have a detailed discussion, because you don't know the academic basis of your arguments, you turn to personal abuse of me. And when I return the favour, you call me a troll.Anybody coming to these discussions, and having an ounce judgement, can see that I can substantiate my position, just by looking at the short list of references above. You just turn to abuse.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Your ideological beliefs have nothing to do with Communism and democracy.The focus on 'matter' is a conservative philosophy.What's more, you can't define 'matter'.The concept is a 19th century concept.I've even told you where you get these ridiculous ideas from: Engels, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German Philosophy.

I agree with you, Vin, I don't know why we bother to continue discussing with him. Probably because he's a socialist even if he's all over the place with philosophy and because we believe it's possible to convince people by rational argument.Actually, I doubt if he's actually read Engels's book. So, here's a few extracts.Here's where Engels explains what he means by "materialism":

Quote:

Thus the question of the relation of thinking to being, the relation of the spirit to nature — the paramount question of the whole of philosophy  (….)The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other — and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity — comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.These two expressions, idealism and materialism, originally signify nothing else but this; and here too they are not used in any other sense. What confusion arises when some other meaning is put to them will be seen below.

And here's him describing "the material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong" as "the only reality" (will that do as a definition of "matter"?):

Quote:

With irresistible force, Feuerbach is finally driven to the realization that  (…) the material, sensuously perceptible world to which we ourselves belong is the only reality; and that our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter. This is, of course, pure materialism.

But, like our friend, Feuerbach was unable to go the whole way because of the kind of materialism espoused by some physical scientists:

Quote:

But, having got so far, Feuerbach stops short. He cannot overcome the customary philosophical prejudice, prejudice not against the thing but against the name materialism. He says:“To me materialism is the foundation of the edifice of human essence and knowledge; but to me it is not what it is to the physiologist, to the natural scientists in the narrower sense, for example, to Moleschott, and necessarily is from their standpoint and profession, namely, the edifice itself. Backwards I fully agree with the materialists; but not forwards.”Here, Feuerbach lumps together the materialism that is a general world outlook resting upon a definite conception of the relation between matter and mind, and the special form in which this world outlook was expressed at a definite historical stage — namely, in the 18th century. More than that, he lumps it with the shallow, vulgarized form in which the materialism of the 18th century continues to exist today in the heads of naturalists and physicians, the form which was preached on their tours in the fifties by Buchner, Vogt, and Moleschott.

The extract I like is this where he deals with the argument, also advanced here, that we're all idealists:

Quote:

we simply cannot get away from the fact that everything that sets men acting must find its way through their brains — even eating and drinking, which begins as a consequence of the sensation of hunger or thirst transmitted through the brain, and ends as a result of the sensation of satisfaction likewise transmitted through the brain. The influences of the external world upon man express themselves in his brain, are reflected therein as feelings, impulses, volitions — in short, as “ideal tendencies”, and in this form become “ideal powers”. If, then, a man is to be deemed an idealist because he follows “ideal tendencies” and admits that “ideal powers” have an influence over him, then every person who is at all normally developed is a born idealist and how, in that case, can there still be any materialists?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I agree with you, Vin, I don't know why we bother to continue discussing with him. Probably because he's a socialist even if he's all over the place with philosophy and because we believe it's possible to convince people by rational argument. Actually, I doubt if he's actually read Engels's book.

Getting desperate now, aren't you, ALB? Just about calling me a liar.I suppose you'll, too, go crying to the 'authorities' if I return the insult?I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that you are a muppet.Just why do you bother to continue discussing with me? You've got cloth ears.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

And because you can't have a detailed discussion, because you don't know the academic basis of your arguments, you turn to personal abuse of me. 

 And your reply to Alb's 'detailed discussion'  and 'academic argument'? 'Muppet'  "cloth ears' I think that is referred to as 'hypocricy' Why don't you deal with the argument? 

[ALB]

I didn't realise he was so touchy.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I didn't realise he was so touchy.

Funny that, isn't it?Your (no doubt) 'objective opinion' is that 'I'm touchy'.Whereas you, DJP and the knuckledragger can say anything you like to me, but if I reply in the same terms, none of you are being 'touchy', but being unfairly libelled by a blackguard! And time to get the admin to 'ban the troll!'

[Author]

Posts