Materialism, aspects and history.
- This topic has 116 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am opening this topic for discussion on materialism, whether mechanist or vitalist, and on the materialists, whether Marxist or prior to Marx. This would include the Enlightenment materialist writers, aspects of materialist philosophy, and even the ancients, if so wished.
Unless you've got a specific question I think there's far too much bredth here for a discussion topic..
DJP wrote:Unless you've got a specific question I think there's far too much bredth here for a discussion topic..Well, how about narrowing it down to the point made by Alison Assiter concerning "Reasons why Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979) – and to the wider argument that shackling historical materialism to a materialist metaphysic is not particularly healthy for the socialist movement itself?
robbo203 wrote:DJP wrote:Unless you've got a specific question I think there's far too much bredth here for a discussion topic..Well, how about narrowing it down to the point made by Alison Assiter concerning "Reasons why Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’ (Alison Assiter "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History", Radical Philosophy, 23 (Winter 1979) – and to the wider argument that shackling historical materialism to a materialist metaphysic is not particularly healthy for the socialist movement itself?
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong but that seemed to be the line of enquiry by LBird?
I've not yet read the article that Robbo mentions. However I read Marx for his analysis of capitalist social relations not for his metaphysics. Marx never wrote much on his metaphysics anyhow. The 'materialism' in the 'materialist conception of history' seems more to do with grounding historical processes in (material)social relations rather than a metaphysical enquiry into the nature of the universe and reality.I think there is some scope in discussing the metaphysics of materialism but this is best done by looking at texts other than Marx. Also 'materialism' can mean many different things depending on who the writer is…
Well, at least you seems to have plenty to discuss here already!
I think you could make the argument that the enlightenment Bentham and his utilitarianism and the related consequentialism was materialist. And even ‘philosophical materialism’? However it started from the position of the greatest good for all; and you can possibly logically ‘arrive’ at communism from that ‘moral’ or ‘philosophical’ position even if you didn’t anticipate it. And I think Karl and Fred did, before 1844 and Stirners Ego and his Own? A position Fred later described as their ‘erstwhile philosophical conscience’; in connection to their rethink of German Ideology which in itself was a response to Stirner. Afterwards their materialism became egocentric, as opposed to in theory the, collective greater good ‘moral’ or ‘philosophical’ materialism Bentham. And thus the greater good of communism just dropped out as a ‘natural consequence’ of egotistical materialism, as opposed to the ‘moral greater good’ being an end of itself, objective and philosophical ‘predicate’. Or in other words the working class and 99% are being unselfish in tolerating capitalism. Etc etc The following document is a really important historical one I think and without wishing to further prejudice the debate needs to be read in its entirety. And covers Bentham, the greater good materialism etc etc. Letters of Marx and Engels 1844Letter from Engels to Marxin Paris This egoism is taken to such a pitch, it is so absurd and at the same time so self-aware, that it cannot maintain itself even for an instant in its one-sidedness, but must immediately change into communism. In the first place it's a simple matter to prove to Stirner that his egoistic man is bound to become communist out of sheer egoism. That's the way to answer the fellow. In the second place he must be told that in its egoism the human heart is of itself, from the very outset, unselfish and self-sacrificing, so that he finally ends up with what he is combating. These few platitudes will suffice to refute the one-sidedness. https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm Utilitarianism was done recently on radio 4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05xhwqf
Dave B wrote:I think you could make the argument that the enlightenment Bentham and his utilitarianism and the related consequentialism was materialist.Bentham may or may not have been a materialist, but utilitarianism is a way of approaching ethics "the greatest good for the greatest number", not metaphysics. It's not really relevant to the discussion in hand.Also the word "materialism" can be used to describe the desire to accumulate material goods but that is a quite seperate usage again not related to what we are talking about…
Hang on a minute djp Metaphysics wasn’t part of the opening thread and the discussion in hand what we are talking about…was it?
Where is LBird
Dave B wrote:What is metaphysical materialism?Erm , Dry water! Hot ice? Oxymoron?
Quote:What is metaphysical materialism?In this case I was refering to the kind of materialism that is concerned with answering the metaphysical question 'what is the nature of the universe?' Metaphysics means 'before physics'. Before you can do physics you have to have some assumptions about what the physical is.So we have claims about what exists (these are called Ontology, a branch of metaphysics) and claims about what can be known (these belong to Epistemology). Most mistakes in discussions about this kind of thing come down to confusing the two.'Ontological Materialism' could more properly be called 'Realism' or 'External Realism' meaning 'there is a world that exists independently of our representations of it'.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.