LBird
- This topic has 15 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:I'm interested in what are the main theoretical contentions of LBird?
Well, I haven't got much to go on, there, have I?Perhaps one main one would be that "I'm not an individual, I'm a worker".Would you like to take that further, or is there something else that you have in mind?I'm assuming that this thread has been started in good faith, but I've been personally attacked so many times by posters who have allegedly been discussing 'in good faith', that I'm starting to wonder if there's a wider problem on this site. The latest yesterday was DJP doing the usual routine, supposedly asking genuine questions and then expressing outrage and making childish responses attacking me rather than my ideas (which is fine; we all learn from criticism), when he doesn't get the answers that fit with his unspoken ideology, so nothing would surprise me.Let's hope you're genuine, jondwhite.
We can have a fun discussion if you are amenable, but I'm not going to go ad hominem just because I disagree with you.
jondwhite wrote:We can have a fun discussion if you are amenable, but I'm not going to go ad hominem just because I disagree with you.'Fun'? That's becoming a novel concept around here, for me, at least.In fact, it's becoming so unfunny, and indeed uncomradely, that I'm beginning to wonder, if it's really worth my time.I'm not learning anything (which is why I'm trying to get a discussion going about 'science') and clearly no-one is learning from me.I've read a lot of books about the philosophy of science, and would like to integrate the most modern bourgeois insights into a proletarian worldview based upon Marx's ideas, not least around the notion of the 'unity of science', which Marx seemed to think possible.Perhaps I should just go back to 'my personal enlightenment' as an aim, and forget trying to share the fruits of my reading with other comrades. I could provide a 'shortcut' through some time-consuming books, but it all requires a willingness to discuss. I'm not sure anymore that this willingness exists, and not just on this site, but throughout the 'Communist/Marxist' movement (read 'Engelsist', in my opinion).Sorry, for the tone, jondwhite, but I'm not feeling very 'amenable to fun' at the moment.
You've got to admit, L. Bird, that you can be infuriating and also that you dish it out too as, for instance, accusing those who disagree with you of being religious. Perhaps you don't realise what an insult this is in the SPGB.PS I still refuse to accept that the Sun went round the Earth until it came to be generally accepted that it was the other way round. For me this conclusion of yours is a sufficient refutation of your theory on the grounds of reductio ad absurdum.
I am just curious to know why LBird does not join the Party.After all you are a communist and so are we despite what you may describe as certain theoretical weaknesses but none are so fundamental in principles not to block you joining us. Why don't you join?….as you know , you can't get socialism on your own, can you? And its going to be a bit of a problem trying to find an organisation that hold identical position to your analyses. Isn't the SPGB the next best thing for you? Or have you had other better offers?Imagine the riveting enthralled attention you will hold over other members at conference as you lecture on your arguments, mesmerising ALB, YMS and DJP Plus i am sure there are other more mundane ways you can contribute such as with book reviews and articles in the general agitation and education we try to offer our class. You got the time and energy to devote to this forum…i'm sure you can put it to more effective use in the class war and on its battlefield of ideas out there in the real world of convincing non- and semi-communists. This forum is only a side-show, after all, we got to reach out to many more people than simply talking to ourselves and the already converted. We are only a short click awayhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-application
LBird subscribes to some crude form of Cognitive Relativism.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy wrote:Cognitive relativism continues to be an important but controversial position that one encounters in contemporary debates about the nature of truth, knowledge, rationality, and science. These debates can sometimes be confusing because people neither agree about exactly what relativism affirms, nor about whose views should be described as a relativistic.Critics of relativism sometimes seem to assume that relativists are denying that they believe—or denying themselves the right to believe—obvious truths. But the more sophisticated relativists do not deny that statements like “the earth is round” are true. They just favour a certain philosophical account of what is involved and implied when we describe such statements as “true”. The situation here is reminiscent of the debate between idealists and some of their materialist critics. The critics charge idealists like Berkeley with holding that our sense perceptions are illusions, and they think they can refute this doctrine by doing things like kicking stones. But the idealists do not see themselves as holding or implying any such view. They just think that the materialist explanation of our sense-experiences is philosophically problematic; so they offer what they take to be a more coherent alternative.On the other hand, relativism is sometimes advanced quite crudely. Then, instead of being a philosophical view about the status of our beliefs and the limitations on how we might support these beliefs, it becomes an excuse for accepting uncritically one’s own culture’s assumptions and epistemic norms; or it serves to rationalize intellectual apathy or slackness masquerading as tolerance of diverse opinions. Just as idealists still have to negotiate what we normally call the material world, so relativists have to make decisions about whether particular claims are true or false. Their philosophical relativism may incline them towards being more open-minded and tolerant than dyed-in-the-wool absolutists and objectivists. But they cannot avoid adopting specific standpoints, choosing between theories, and endorsing particular beliefs and values. At bottom, the debate over relativism is about whether it is possible for relativists to make these commitments consistently and sincerely.http://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-relALB wrote:You've got to admit, L. Bird, that you can be infuriating and also that you dish it out too as, for instance, accusing those who disagree with you of being religious. Perhaps you don't realise what an insult this is in the SPGB.PS I still refuse to accept that the Sun went round the Earth until it came to be generally accepted that it was the other way round. For me this conclusion of yours is a sufficient refutation of your theory on the grounds of reductio ad absurdum.But, and I've pointed this out endlessly ALB, you're confusing 'object' (the paths of sun and earth) with 'knowledge' (of the paths of the sun and earth).You seem to think it's being argued that the 'object' changes, whereas it actually being argued that the 'knowledge' changes.The problem being, if you believe (and it is a belief, almost 'religious', I'd say) that 'knowledge' is the same as 'object' (and one has to believe this if one argues that our 'knowledge' is a final and complete account of the 'object), then Rovelli's quote, for example, seems to undermine that belief.Science doesn't produce a copy of 'object'; it produces social 'knowledge'. And humans can be wrong; we also know that from all the latest philosophers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos). Science is often 'wrong', so we know we don't have a foolproof method of producing 'copy knowledge' of the 'object'.This is a philosophical difficulty that must be addressed by philosophical discussion. Just insisting that "the earth goes round the sun, and that's that" can't be maintained anymore.'General acceptance' as the basis of knowledge within a class society will lead to the domination of ruling class knowledge. We have to criticise what's 'generally accepted', both in 'markets' and 'science'.But, I've said all this before, and I know already that the 'religious-like' certainty of Engelsists can't be shaken. They have a foolproof method. They observe nature, and it tells them The Truth.So, 'insult' or 'accurate characterisation'? That's another one for one's ideology to decide.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I am just curious to know why LBird does not join the Party.After all you are a communist and so are we despite what you may describe as certain theoretical weaknesses but none are so fundamental in principles not to block you joining us. Why don't you join?….as you know , you can't get socialism on your own, can you? And its going to be a bit of a problem trying to find an organisation that hold identical position to your analyses. Isn't the SPGB the next best thing for you? Or have you had other better offers?I've given this some passing thought, and you're right, the SPGB seems to tick some boxes with me (the need for a majority for socialism, the need for education and propaganda, democratic control of production, end of money and markets, for eg.), and I haven't had any better offers.But… I'm heavily marked by my experience in the SWP.Quite frankly, the arguments I had with the 'cadre', who I constantly laughed at and argued against (god knows why parties recruit workers who can run rings round managers at work, but expect them to be 'tame' with 'party managers'), and I can already see the same processes at work, on this site. I'm not even in the party – the internet now means one can miss out the joining process and gradual disillusionment, writing contributions to internal papers, being accused of 'ill-discipline', etc., and go straight out the other side, back to the class one comes from.Perhaps I'll just continue to argue with the telly – it's more rewarding than typing. Plus, the social activity gives the family a laugh, at least. This is just isolated, repetitive monotony.
Am I the only one here that thinks this thread is a little on the weird side? I've never come across a thread set up like this, specificaly aimed at a forum member.Is this the SPGB version of the Spanish Inquisition?Lets hope this thread doesn't disintegrate into a personal attack.
SocialistPunk wrote:Is this the SPGB version of the Spanish Inquisition?Burnin's too good for me!I'd say 'crucifixion', but the Stalinists apparently preferred the empty cartridge case, hammered into the back of the neck.Saves on good ammunition, eh?
SocialistPunk wrote:Am I the only one here that thinks this thread is a little on the weird side? I’ve never come across a thread set up like this, specificaly aimed at a forum member.I have to agree with you here, it is a little strange choice of topic.
SocialistPunk wrote:Is this the SPGB version of the Spanish Inquisition?No, more like an argument clinic
Alan,Something about your post #6 on this thread caught my attention earlier, but I let it go without further thought. Recently it came back to me.
alanjjohnstone wrote:You got the time and energy to devote to this forum…i'm sure you can put it to more effective use in the class war and on its battlefield of ideas out there in the real world of convincing non- and semi-communists. This forum is only a side-show, after all, we got to reach out to many more people than simply talking to ourselves and the already converted.Do you really see this forum as irrelevant, a "side-show" as you put it? I would say it is just as important and relevant as any other socialist propaganda method. Standing on a street corner giving away more literature than selling is no more real socialist activity than debating on an internet forum with potentially thousands of people dipping in and out. I stress the word potentially. But a good thread does generate thousands of views over time. People are watching. It's a numbers game, the more people watch or join the site and read good threads the bigger the pool of possible contributors becomes.Checking out this site and forum got me back into socialist politics after many years in the wilderness. I've now joined several discussion lists as a result..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.