Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…non-materialist science…

One fine day, twc, you'll actually read and respond to what other comrades are actually writing, rather than making up a straw man of your own to knock it down.This phrase is just another example of your forcing anything that is not pure 'materialist' into a 'non-materialist' category. You are merely copying Engels. And only the most mistaken part, at that.The rest of your post is contemptible.

[twc]

LBird wrote:

twc continues to insist that if one isn't a 'materialist', one must be an 'idealist' (or, as a synonym, an 'anti-materialist' or a 'non-materialist'). 

Just re-read what you wrote:  if one isn’t a materialist, one must be an ‘anti-materialist’ or a ‘non-materialist’.  You even object to that.  What logic do you follow?

LBird wrote:

Marx, for example, was an 'idealist-materialist'.

Question to LBird.  When Marx was a materialist did he also listen to rocks as you insist he must.  If not, why not?  Do you listen to rocks when you practice materialism?Question to LBird.  When Marx was an idealist did he believe in the creator, or in Hegel’s Idea?  When you are in an idealist frame of mind do you believe in Hegel’s Idea?  If not, why not?  Are you a believer, an atheist or, more probably for a half-and-halfer, an agnostic?  If not, why not?Question to LBird.  When Marx was in an inextricably tangled idealist–materialist mood, how did he decide which determined which, or didn’t he ever decide when in such moods?  How do you decide whether, or when, to be an idealist and whether, or when, to be a materialist?Question to LBird.  Do you have any reliable principle for deciding when to be a materialist and when to be an idealist, or do you go simply on hunch?  Please explain as clearly as possible, since we need your guidance on this absolutely crucial lynchpin of your fabulous idealism–materialism.Question to LBird.  Why do you think, if Engels was aware of dualism, he was stupid enough to reject it?  As here

In Feuerbach Engels wrote:

If, nevertheless, the neo-Kantians are attempting to resurrect the Kantian conception in Germany, and the agnostics that of Hume in England (where in fact it never became extinct), this is, in view of their theoretical and practical refutation accomplished long ago, scientifically a regression and practically merely a shamefaced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.

As to your meaningless non-thought:

LBird wrote:

 Marx … argued for 'theory and practice', so both 'ideas' and 'nature' are required. Neither has a more fundamental role than the other. Ideas are as important as 'material' conditions. 

So “ideas are as important as ‘material conditions’”.  What are they important for?  Are they equally important for explaining themselves?  If not, are they equally important for explaining each other?  If not, is one 60% important for explaining both, and the other 40% important?  If so, please tell us how you arrived at this golden ratio, so that we too can emulate your 60%-idealism–40%-materialism.And now to ‘morality’. 

LBird wrote:

And given the central role of creative human ideas (in conjunction with nature) in building our understanding of our world (social and natural), the role of human 'morality' cannot be excluded from either politics or science.

Who, in your condemnatory imagination, is excluding ‘morality’ from politics or science, but yourself?I’ve just gone to great length to explain, without your condemnatory urging, the process of formation of capitalist ‘morality’ scientifically.  That’s me totally including it, and not excluding it.  That’s me intimately embracing it.  That’s me recognizing the difficulty it poses for comprehending socially-dependent humans trapped in a ruthless capitalist world.  That’s me directly untangling the otherwise unfathomable interaction between being and consciousness that characterises how and why we behave as we do towards each other when one class is exploiting another.  That’s me not excluding it.Now, will you start including it in politics and science by ripping down my materialist explanation of the formation of capitalist morality.You show, all of us here, just how you would bring morality into your explanation of the Soviet Union.  I challenge you to respond to my previous post.  It would be immoral of you, the champion of morality, to shirk the moral challenge.

[stuartw2112]

I found DJP's summary useful. So what have we got? Everything that appears in the mind, including science and philosophy, and our sense impressions of the outside world, is presumably mind-stuff. Our attempts to penetrate what is "out there", to find out what physical stuff is, has had some interesting results. First, physical stuff is mostly empty space. Empty space is mostly made up of stuff we literally know nothing about. And stuff itself is just energy – not physical stuff? Also, that what we observe depends on whether or not it's being observed. In the living world, we know the complete genome and wiring of the C elegans worm, and yet still can't figure out how it decides whether to turn left or right.And you'd build a materialist theory of history on such slender foundations as these? Good luck!    

[alanjjohnstone]

Does anybody think it possible that this debate (and a couple of earlier incarnations of it) would ever have been possible without the internet.Could the exchanges and challenges to one anothers opinions/views have taken place in ink on pages in a magazine?…hmmm i doubt any editor would have devoted the space to it, and i doubt there would be any publisher who would turn it into a bookProof in my opinion, of how ideas are formed and developed by certain material conditions being achieved Comrades,  you are examples of the Materialist Conception of History in practice !!! 

[twc]

No, LBird, your absolute squib is contemptible.You got your just deserts.

[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Also, that what we observe depends on whether or not it's being observed. 

You'll like this:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229680.400-qbism-is-quantum-uncertainty-all-in-the-mind.html

[stuartw2112]

Not a subscriber so can't read it sadly, but thanks!

[Anonymous]

And of course not forgetting  Karl Marx: "In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earthto heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men asnarrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real,active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideologicalreflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily,sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness,thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men,developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their realexistence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individualsthemselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness."   German Ideology 

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' can't explain 'ideas'.If it can, why isn't it called 'materialism-idealism'? Why the stress upon the 'material', to the denial of 'ideas'?

It just plainly seems you haven't understood what is meant by "materialism""Materialism" isn't an explanation but a metaphysical assumption.To me it seems that there are plenty of materialist / physicalist theories that explain "ideas" better than any of the others going. I have to admit that at the minute Dennett is a favourite."Materialism" doesn't deny ideas, it just presumes that these are just one of the many facets of the material / physical world (whatever the material / physical world may be). You may as well say "Why not call it materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc?"I mentioned "dualism" earlier they are two kinds of dualism:Substance dualism – there are two kinds of "stuff" in the universe, mental "stuff" and physical "stuff"Property dualism – there are two kinds of *properties* of stuff, mental properties and physical properties. Property dualism is just another kind of materialism or physicalism.But if we want to do "Philosophy of Mind for Beginners" perhaps we should start a new thread.

[DJP]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Not a subscriber so can't read it sadly, but thanks!

Google "Quantum Bayesianism"."Quantum weirdness" may be the result of how our minds work and not something to do with the external world…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' can't explain 'ideas'.If it can, why isn't it called 'materialism-idealism'? Why the stress upon the 'material', to the denial of 'ideas'?

It just plainly seems you haven't understood what is meant by "materialism""Materialism" isn't an explanation but a metaphysical assumption.To me it seems that there are plenty of materialist / physicalist theories that explain "ideas" better than any of the others going. I have to admit that at the minute Dennett is a favourite."Materialism" doesn't deny ideas, it just presumes that these are just one of the many facets of the material / physical world (whatever the material / physical world may be). You may as well say "Why not call it materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc?"

Perhaps the problem, DJP, is that you haven't understood what I mean by "idealism-materialism".If ' "materialism" doesn't deny ideas' (and I think the problem is that 'materialists' do deny ideas!), why call it 'materialism'?If one should not call it a string of words ("materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc"), and just call it one of them, why plump for 'materialism', rather than 'idealism' or 'electromagnetism' or 'etc-etc-ism'?The reason 'materialism' is chosen to is give the 'material' a pre-eminence over the 'ideal'.For my part, I choose the term 'idealism-materialism' to emphasise Marx's 'theory and practice', which requires both human ideas and an external reality for humans to act upon. This term is chosen in the context of a discussion of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, because 'ideal' and 'material' are the terms used within that text.The 'materialists' choose their term to deny 'democratic control' of politics and science, because if they have a 'neutral theory' which tells them the 'truth' of nature and society, that 'neutral method' can be applied by a knowing minority (ie. 'scientists' or a 'cadre-party'), who are thus outside of the control of the rest of humanity.I think science, as a human activity, is infected with politics, ideology, morality, consciousness (and all the defects of humans, like lies and bullying), and so the role of 'ideas' is inescapable.The use of the term 'material' tries to hide the reality of human ideas in understanding 'external reality'.So, in this context, 'materialism-idealism' (or, 'idealism-materialism') it is!

[twc]

DJP wrote:

"Materialism" isn't an explanation but a metaphysical assumption.

For Marx, this is absolutely false.Marxian materialism is only “an explanation”.  It is the explanation of consciousness by social being.Marxian materialism is a scientific abstraction from experience.  Unlike a metaphysical assumption, it is scientifically testable, and so vulnerable to rejection.Science, for Marx, is the social critique of appearance.You destroy Marx’s materialism by grounding it on an idealist foundation.  Marx grounds his materialism, in the only materialist manner possible, upon the abstraction of human social practice.Human social practice in its concrete contingency is ultimately what scientist Marx’s abstract materialism explains.

[twc]

LBird wrote:

I think the problem is that 'materialists' do deny ideas!

We really are dealing with a sad case here.  How can any sentient human being hold the preposterous thought you just expressed.  Nobody can discuss anything intelligently with a person who “thinks” his opponent denies ideas.This is seriously delusional.  Sadly, people can no longer take you seriously.  This is truly devastatingly tragic.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Marxian materialism is a scientific abstraction from experience. Unlike a metaphysical assumption, it is scientifically testable, and so vulnerable to rejection.

You're just displaying your ignorance, now, twc.All science contains 'metaphysical assumptions' (or an 'ontology'), that are 'untestable' and thus are 'unrejectable'.This is as true of physics as of sociology. That's the problem with 'science', for humans.'Abstraction' does not come from experience (ie. induction, or 'practice and theory'), but is a human creative act of imaginative, abstractive, thinking and must be followed by the testing of that 'creation' upon 'reality' (ie. 'theory and practice') to produce 'knowledge'. That 'knowledge' is not a 'copy' of reality, but contains human factors.The vast majority of 20th century philosophy of science agrees with this process of human understanding of reality. Reality does not expose itself to passive humans (and Marx and the Ancient Greeks thought it didn't), but must be actively sought by humans employing theory.If your version of 'Marxism' purports to 'abstract from experience', it's nonsense.Only if Marx was right about 'theory and practice' (and not your 'practice and theory') do his ideas make sense in the light of the last 100 years of human thought.Oh, sorry… you're still in the 19th century, aren't you? 'Materialism'? Just Lenin's reflection theory of knowledge and naive realism, in truth.Now, carry on with your pathetic insults. And keep playing with the mud pies. And listen carefully to your 'experience' with the rocks, twc… you're right about that, at least. Given your level of development, they can teach you a thing or two.Why don't you let the rest of us get on with the 21st century? Muppet. In a Victorian top hat.

[Anonymous]

I assume this is view of the Socialist Party(my own emphasis)“The Materialist Conception does not deny the influence of ideas on history. In fact there would be no revolutionary changes if ideas did not play a part. What it does is to trace the source of the ideas, but to deny the power of ideas alone.”  “Mans outlook is not just a reflection of economic conditions. Social development is the result of mans action on circumstances. Economic conditions develop certain ideas in the mind of men which move them to alter their conditions – and so the process goes on. As we have already mentioned man makes his own history but only out of the conditions that are to his hand. It is reciprocal – man and conditions acting upon each other.” “The materialist conception of history does not judge. It has no moral viewpoint. Its simply points out that particular conditions determine the way social conditions arise, grow, and decay.” “The real world is not merely reflected in the brain. Man changes his world. The brain is not just a passive mirror, it is an active agent in the changes. A wall is reflected in mans brain as a barrier to his progress; he smashes the wall down to pass through it. The idealist says the outside world is not real as man sees it, but it is just a reflection in mans thought. Man sees a wall, destroys the alleged reflection – proving that the wall was real.”   http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialism

[Author]

Posts