Do We Need the Dialectic?
- This topic has 439 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:I understood Morgernstern to be making the basic point that all our knowledge is derived from the ever-changing world of experience and that anyone who claimed otherwise was an idealist…
[my bold]Yes, that's what I thought Morgenstern was claiming, and you'll already be aware that I don't agree with this so-called 'basic point'.On the contrary, as I've claimed on the Pannekoek thread, I think that Marx's (and Pannekoek, et al) 'basic point' was that 'all our knowledge is derived from the interaction of humans with the ever-changing world of experience'. Plus, I don't regard myself as an idealist, I regard myself as a critical realist, which, again, I think Marx was.As I've already shown, too, the label 'idealist', for anyone who stresses interaction of society with reality (as opposed to 'proper' materialists, who just deal with 'the real world of hard experience') emerged from Engels' mistakenly simplistic separation of philosophy into a two-fold schema of 'idealism versus materialism'. So, 'idealist' is, in effect, a Leninist slur upon those who disagree with Engels' (and thus Lenin's) mistaken philosophical views.As we've seen on the other thread with twc, the slandering of one's opponents with 'idealism' has a long pedigree within the 'Marxist' movement. It saves having to address serious philosophical issues.If you, Morgenstern and the others don't want a repeat of this discussion about 'knowledge', I'll refrain from posting on the issue further, and just merely register publicly my disagreement with the 'basic point' from which Morgenstern is starting.Just say the word. 'Drop it!' will be enough, comrades!
LBird wrote:'all our knowledge is derived from the interaction of humans with the ever-changing world of experience'.That's just nit-picking since this statement doesn't exclude, in fact is premissed on, the statement that all our [i.e. us h umans] knowledge is derived from the ever-changing world of experience; that the human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.Adding "from the interaction of humans" merely qualifies it and doesn't make you or anyone else (e.g me) an idealist. In fact, it is so obvious that it doesn't need stating since by "knowledge" we mean "human knowledge", so obviously humans are involved. That's what we're talking about: human knowledge.I don't understand why you always seem to want to pick an argument when there's nothing to argue about.
ALB wrote:I don't understand why you always seem to want to pick an argument when there's nothing to argue about.So, your assumption here is that 'there's nothing to argue about'.There is an alternative assumption, though.That you don't understand the issues involved.If you reply, once more that 'there's nothing to argue about', that's fine comrade, I'll leave the issue alone.Ball's in your court, ALB.
There's nothing to argue about in this case. Everybody here accepts that the human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding world.Historically there is an argument about how: is it a simple reflection (as Lenin held) or does the human mind play an active role (as you and us hold) ?There are of course other more or less interesting things we argue about (see the thread on Pannekoek) but not about human knowledge being the result of the interaction of the human mind with the ever-changing external world of observable phenomena (or rather, as Morgenstern, reminds us, perhaps the word "external" is not entirely accurate as we and our minds are also parts of the world of observable phenomena, even mental constructs out of it too).
ALB wrote:There's nothing to argue about in this case.That's good enough for me.I'll direct my curiosity elsewhere.
Dear all, I was actually saying something stronger: that we *are* those experiences. Or rather, perhaps, something weaker; that there is no need to postulate a separate thinking entity over and above the thoughts themselves. No knitting needles, no Cosmic Knitter. Just wool. all the best, Simon W.
Interesting twist to the arguments we have been having on another thread (the one of Pannekoek) where one assumption has been that there are three factors: the object (the real world of experience), the subject (the experiencer) and knowledge (the subject's understanding of the object). Which are you saying "we" are?
I intend to give an account of dialectics here. What I just inadvertently posted was a working draft that I merely wanted to test out for presentation purposes to see if it would lay out sensibly.The final content will come when the draft is complete, and no sooner.So those who treat dialectics with utter, often violent, contempt are warned.
Hi Adam, (Hurriedly complies with the "ignore" instruction from the other post …) Firstly, I'm saying that I'm not saying. Thoughts are their own thing, they're not about something else. There's no we apart from our experience of we. Secondly, from this, I'd say that the question is wrong headed. It's asking to jump to one of three, or more, known points outside of ourselves, and define us in terms of that outside. I'm saying there is only the inside. Rather than ask that we be defined in terms of an external framework, the framework must be defined in terms of we – or rather, the framework *is* we. We're like an eddy in the ocean. We are not different from the rest of the ocean – all matter – by a separate nature but the fact that we eddy. So the categories from the question don't apply. As I said, we are our entire world and that world is simply what we talk about. In the broadest sense, including all the objects of our civilisation(s) with which we live and communicate. This is getting way too hippy. Was looking at skepticism on Wikipedia and Zen is looking pretty good
Comradely regards, Simon W.Dear JonWhite, read the first half or so of the Lichenstein. suffers from the same problem as Johnson centuries earlier who on hearing Berkeley's theories, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock. She thinks that her common sense is reality and that philosophy and, in general, thought is presumably vanishingly subordinate. But her common sense is just a construct. If you say that what you see is what there is then you have just insulated yourself from further thought. … Why was she considered of any value, anyway? I wasted 10 minutes of my life reading that. Simon W.
Morgenstern wrote:Dear JonWhite, read the first half or so of the Lichenstein. suffers from the same problem as Johnson centuries earlier who on hearing Berkeley's theories, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock.This is incorrect.Whatever one thinks of Rosa Lichtenstein, they aren't simply saying 'I refute' or merely 'kicking a rock'.They've spent 30 years studying and arguing with Dialectical Materialism, and from my few followings of some debates, have kicked the arse of every DiaMat-ist that they've crossed.This doesn't mean that RL is right about everything (not least their Leninism/Trotskyism), but they are worth reading and serious consideration.
Morgenstern:"suffers from the same problem as Johnson centuries earlier who on hearing Berkeley's theories, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock. She thinks that her common sense is reality and that philosophy and, in general, thought is presumably vanishingly subordinate. But her common sense is just a construct. If you say that what you see is what there is then you have just insulated yourself from further thought."1) Where have I expressed this opinion: "She thinks that her common sense is reality and that philosophy and, in general, thought is presumably vanishingly subordinate"?I have in fact shown that all philsophical theories are incoherent non-sense. No suggestion there that my "common sense is reality…, etc. etc."http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm2) "If you say that what you see is what there is then you have just insulated yourself from further thought."You mean, rather like you have just done ("insulated yourself from further thought"), but with the added complication that you haven't 'said what you see', for if you had, you would have seen how irrelvant your comments are and that they bear no relation to anything I have ever argued, or ever would.3) "Why was she considered of any value, anyway?"My arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Care to take me on?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.