‘Materialism’ is the perfect ideology for elitists
- This topic has 42 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quote:The denial of democracy within epistemology is itself a political act, which is intended to reserve the decision on whether a 'theory' has 'failed in practice' to an elite of 'scientists' who have a 'special consciousness' that the masses cannot develop, and that these 'scientists' have a politically-neutral method, and they are 'disinterested' passive observers (ie. that they don't create the 'Reality' that they are 'observing'), and so this elite are the ones to determine the 'practical failure of a theory'.
You have never substantiated this claim that the a special consciousness is required to access objective reality.Also:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/materialism-perfect-ideology-elitists?page=1#comment-39683You have agreed, expressley that materialism is not inherently elitist. We can all know reality.
LBird wrote:You don't seem to realise what you're saying, alan.You are not 'declaring my very own thoughts', but spouting an ideology.Your refusal to acknowledge this just shows that you are unaware of it.Only one person knows our real thoughts and that is the elitist-idealist LBird. Lol.
LBird wrote:Why not try reading and learning, mcolome1?It's not too edifying to see socialists praising ignorance.This is a personal attack, which is against the rules. It also breaks rule 2. If Lbird wishes to speak directly to anyone with insults or otherwise he should send a private email.It is also the activity of a troll in attempting to ellicit an emotional resonse from a user by suggesting the user doesn't read or learn.I for one am sick of the personal attacks from LBird. It is clear that it is all he has.
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ? This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ?Why not try reading and learning, mcolome1?It's not too edifying to see socialists praising ignorance.
2nd warning: 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Reminder: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
Yeah, yeah, I get a warning (again) from the impartial moderator, whilst the 'materialists' (of which the mod is one) call me what they like, even when I follow the rules and report it to the mod, and nothing is doneWhat I write is 'shit', according to the 'objective observer' mcolome 1, but when I suggest ignorance is a bad thing, I get a warning.Meanwhile, the dingbats come at me in squadrons, unmolested by moderation.
LBird wrote:Yeah, yeah, I get a warning (again) from the impartial moderator, whilst the 'materialists' (of which the mod is one) call me what they like, even when I follow the rules and report it to the mod, and nothing is doneWhat I write is 'shit', according to the 'objective observer' mcolome 1, but when I suggest ignorance is a bad thing, I get a warning.Meanwhile, the dingbats come at me in squadrons, unmolested by moderation.How many times have you called idiot, ignorant and stupid the members of this forum ? How many times have you said in this forum that the members of the SPGB do not know about anything ? I don't think you have enough fingers to count the ocassions. How many times have you been suspended from this forum ? You are like a man that gets marry five times and then is blaming his problems on the women. It has been proven several times that you can not converse in this forum without attacking others peoples, and indicating that you know more than anybody else, and then you writting against elitism. To call shit what you are constantly writing is an offense to the human feces
Can we move the discussion on, please. I personally don't want to see anyone barred from the forum, if possible.L Bird, can I just clarify a few of points you made earlier, just I am genuinely unsure which view you are taking:Are you saying that (in a Socialst Society) you believe there should be limits to who takes part in democratic decisions or are are you saying there should not be limits to who should take part in democratic decisions in a Socialist society?If you are saying there should be limits, who then would make the decisions that limit participation?In addition, just so I am clear, you are saying that your view s that in a socialist society all scientific theory should be decided upon the basis of democratic voting by the whole of the population?
LBird wrote:Meanwhile, the dingbats come at me in squadrons, unmolested by moderation.What's a dingbat? Not only have you run out of arguments, you have ran out of names for your name calling phases.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Meanwhile, the dingbats come at me in squadrons, unmolested by moderation.What's a dingbat? Not only have you run out of arguments, you have ran out of names for your name calling phases.
Confirmed. Another word to call us stupid
LBird wrote:Yeah, yeah, I get a warning (again) from the impartial moderator, whilst the 'materialists' (of which the mod is one) call me what they like, even when I follow the rules and report it to the mod, and nothing is doneWhat I write is 'shit', according to the 'objective observer' mcolome 1, but when I suggest ignorance is a bad thing, I get a warning.Meanwhile, the dingbats come at me in squadrons, unmolested by moderation.3rd and final warninng: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail. Note: This 3rd and final warning shall be effective for 30 days. If during that time the user makes a further breach of the rules I shall issue an indefinite suspension.
JUst to cover something I missed in my last post:
Lbird wrote:For my version of Democratic Communism, only the 'generalists' can decide whether the 'specialists' know what they are talking about – the 'specialists' are not the source of 'truth', they are only the source of 'options' for our votes. We might accept one option, or two or more, or reject all those currently supplied. That is, 'truth' is not necessarily singular, and certainly isn't 'Eternal Truth', a myth of bourgeois science. 'truth' is a social product, and we can change it, and within a democratic society, that changing of truth can only be a democratic decision. There isn't an elite who 'Know Reality'.1: We do not socially produce The Trth. We produce thought objects, one species of which is truth claims.2: We cannot directly vote on truth claims, we can only vote, if you will, on truth claims about truth claims. That is, we can collectively produce a truth claim about a truth claim. If I wrote 'I am masturbating while writinmg this' that would be a truth claim. Since there are no witnesses to prove that claim one way or another, and the event is unrepeatable, you would only be able to to vote upon an assesment of my truthworthiness and the likelihood of the claim (and how much it gells with other accepted truth claims). That is, you could validate, but not verify. You could then agree a general position on the truth claim (whether you believe or disbelieve, but I am the onjly one who will ever know what really happened here).3: This leads us to a further problem, the generalists when voting upon the truth claims of specialists would likewise have no basis to assess truth, what are their criteria? As the oft heard refrain goes in climate science, 99% of scientists believe in Anthopogenic Global Warming, but 99% of scientists could be wrong, and we simply could not vote based on the weight of evidence, we'd need criteria with which to validate truth claims. Uncontroversial claims, uncontested claims, could stand, but how do we decide between specialists, when we rely on specialists for our information?Essentially, what you are describing is what we have now, there's nothing in the above that is not compatible with bourgeois society: specialists adviose, and generalists decide.Truth is not eternal, because everything, including the life of humanity, is finite: but The moon is there, untiol the day it is not, and the moon will always have been there, until there are humans to forget it was.I'd suggest this, abandonm discussion of the truth, and speak of talking truly, and truly made statements.
Young Master Smeet wrote:2: We cannot directly vote on truth claims, we can only vote, if you will, on truth claims about truth claims. That is, we can collectively produce a truth claim about a truth claim. If I wrote 'I am masturbating while writinmg this' that would be a truth claim. Since there are no witnesses to prove that claim one way or another, and the event is unrepeatable, you would only be able to to vote upon an assesment of my truthworthiness and the likelihood of the claim (and how much it gells with other accepted truth claims). That is, you could validate, but not verify. You could then agree a general position on the truth claim (whether you believe or disbelieve, but I am the onjly one who will ever know what really happened here).I would say that the more typos you make the more likely it is that you're telling the truth!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.