Philosophy in Pubs 2017 conference, Liverpool, June 2-4

[jondwhite]

Quote:

The PIP’s 2017 National Conference takes place the first weekend in June (2nd/3rd/4th) at the Adelphi Hotel (Liverpool). The theme of conference will be around Ethics, Moral & Political Philosophy. The panel-debate format went well last year so we’re trying it again this year, plus key-note speaker and various other events (Stand up philosophy, workshops etc). The panel debate format requires at least 16 people to take part (4 on each panel) this gives members from different groups around the country a chance to take part in their national showpiece event, should they wish. So between now and next year we’ll be calling on members (from outside of Merseyside preferably) to make up the panel’s personnel (as discussant or facilitator). Please see draft brochure attached with interim programme, minor changes still possible.

I've invited Lbird!

http://philosophyinpubs.co.uk/

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I've invited Lbird!http://philosophyinpubs.co.uk/

I went to a PIP meeting once, about 10 years ago…… the chair was an ex-CP guy, who I'd had, err…, political differences with, during the anti-Poll Tax campaign, when he was the chair of that, too.It didn't go well.At least my son, who was with me, thought it was funny. We didn't go again.

[jondwhite]

For what it's worth, a few hundred usually attend conference and I've attended dozens of meetings never encountering a CPer except for one meeting which I don't think he usually attended anyway.What better place to publically advocate 'Marx's idealism-materialism' and put it to the test?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

What better place to publically advocate 'Marx's idealism-materialism' and put it to the test?

I think we both already know how the Religious Materialists will receive my apostasy.Let's face it, most RM-ers were converted to The Faith in their youth, often 50 years ago, so they're not going to start thinking critically about it, now.If they prefer 'ahistorical unchanging matter' which is outside humanity, to 'social production' which is fundamentally historical, and so can change, by the activity of humans, my quoting of Marx (and many others) won't undermine their Faith.The only 'test' of any ideology is humanity, and Religious Materialism has been found wanting. Perhaps The Faithful, growing ever smaller and older, will die out, and workers who live in the 21st century will have another critical look at Marx.Probably not, if this site is anything to go by.

[jondwhite]

The Sunday Morning panel debate is 'Ideology versus Philosophy'.

[JamesH81]

i can get to oxford pip….

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

I've invited Lbird!http://philosophyinpubs.co.uk/

I went to a PIP meeting once, about 10 years ago…… the chair was an ex-CP guy, who I'd had, err…, political differences with, during the anti-Poll Tax campaign, when he was the chair of that, too.It didn't go well.At least my son, who was with me, thought it was funny. We didn't go again.

I find it hard to believe, L Bird upsetting someone, is this the same polite, charming, modest and entertaining L Bird that we have witnessed on this forum, surely not.Your son must have had an interesting childhood though? I have a mental picture of him quietly eating a packet of Monster Munch whilst you and his physics teacher are kicking lumps out of each other in the playground, during his year 9 Parents' Evening.

[jondwhite]

June 2nd to 4th 2017

Quote:

4)  Ideology versus Philosophy.In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’. This reflects a position that ideology is a distorted or illusory form of thought which departs from the criterion of objectivity. If this is the case, how does philosophy differ from ideology, and how do we differentiate between concepts of ideology and philosophy? Is it a semantic difference, or is there something that fundamentally separates philosophy from ideology?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

June 2nd to 4th 2017

Quote:

4)  Ideology versus Philosophy.In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’. This reflects a position that ideology is a distorted or illusory form of thought which departs from the criterion of objectivity. If this is the case, how does philosophy differ from ideology, and how do we differentiate between concepts of ideology and philosophy? Is it a semantic difference, or is there something that fundamentally separates philosophy from ideology?

And who would want to 'fundamentally separate', and why.I can tell you the answers, now:An 'elite', and 'for power'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’.

Of course, the Democratic Communist answer to that academic statement is:'We have a social philosophy, we have political opinions, we have an ideology'.And we can change around 'philosophies', 'opinions' and 'ideologies', and assign to each whatever status we democratically decide.We can change 'philosophy' to 'opinion', and 'ideology' to 'philosophy'. And then change them again, to suit our purposes, needs and interests.All philosophy, opinion and ideology are socio-historic products. In a Democratic Communist society, we can change them.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’.

Of course, the Democratic Communist answer to that academic statement is:'We have a social philosophy, we have political opinions, we have an ideology'.And we can change around 'philosophies', 'opinions' and 'ideologies', and assign to each whatever status we democratically decide.We can change 'philosophy' to 'opinion', and 'ideology' to 'philosophy'. And then change them again, to suit our purposes, needs and interests.All philosophy, opinion and ideology are socio-historic products. In a Democratic Communist society, we can change them.

Even to the extent, I take it that they become the unity of opposites?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

Even to the extent, I take it that they become the unity of opposites?

I'm not an Engelsist 'Religious Materialist', like you, mod1, so I don't recognise the 'dialectical' nonsense about 'unity of opposites'.That sort of talk is only there to baffle workers, so that the elitists who use that guff can hide their anti-democratic 'philosophy' (an 'ideology' by any other name, to keep this reply relevant to the thread).Of course, Lenin was right at home with 'unity of opposites' – wasn't that the actual 'unity' between the supposed 'opposites' of party and class?Youse Religious Materialists might be still falling for this 19th century elitist bluffing, but most workers aren't any more. It's 2017, not 1917.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Even to the extent, I take it that they become the unity of opposites?

I'm not an Engelsist 'Religious Materialist', like you, mod1, so I don't recognise the 'dialectical' nonsense about 'unity of opposites'.That sort of talk is only there to baffle workers, so that the elitists who use that guff can hide their anti-democratic 'philosophy' (an 'ideology' by any other name, to keep this reply relevant to the thread).Of course, Lenin was right at home with 'unity of opposites' – wasn't that the actual 'unity' between the supposed 'opposites' of party and class?Youse Religious Materialists might be still falling for this 19th century elitist bluffing, but most workers aren't any more. It's 2017, not 1917.

I don't recall Engels using the phrase 'unity of opposites' and I don't subscribe to it in any shape or form.  For it logically means a Humpty-Dumpty situation where anything goes and all reasoning and critical thinking is abandoned and replaced with irrationality and dogmatism.  But surely your #10 does indeed subscribe to such a situation:jondwhite wrote:  Quote: In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’.   "Of course, the Democratic Communist answer to that academic statement is:'We have a social philosophy, we have political opinions, we have an ideology'.And we can change around 'philosophies', 'opinions' and 'ideologies', and assign to each whatever status we democratically decide.We can change 'philosophy' to 'opinion', and 'ideology' to 'philosophy'. And then change them again, to suit our purposes, needs and interests.All philosophy, opinion and ideology are socio-historic products. In a Democratic Communist society, we can change them."Agreed we can if we so wish change them by assigning them different labels.  For what's in a name so long has the contents remain true. However, when this change in labels also means an intentional change in meanings this also includes an acceptance of the ideological weighted unity of opposites.Which begs the qualification does LBird also subscribe to a change in meaning even if it means abandoning reasoning? Edit:DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, a misused concept which grew in popularity with those who defend the tortuous policies of capitalist Russia and other State capitalist countries, acquired the mystical characters of reconciling all points of view even the most contradictory.So far as concerns its use in socialist propaganda, dialectical materialism made its appearance when Marx borrowed from Hegel the dialectical or evolutionary method of examining Man, his history and his works. But Marx reversed Hegel's method of approach to the world. To Hegel, the world was a reflection of the thought processes in man's head. He was an Idealist. To Marx, thought process was a reflection of an actual world process. He was a materialist. Hegel built his philosophical system at a time when the old, static world of feudalism was being rent by the birth of capitalism, and accepted ways and ideas were being buried into a tormented melting pot. The newly-born world was problematical, and struggling into shape. Nothing was settled. All was changing.But whereas Hegelianism was impregnated with the idea of universal change (even though upside down) the confused, contradictory and changing policies of Soviet Russia bewilder its adherents and drive them back into a different and bastardised Hegelianism with leadership as the absolute concept. Is there a contradiction between principles and policy? No matter! An understanding of dialectics will show that everything is all right in this best of all possible Russian worlds. If the Russian workers are "free" to control their own destiny but must obey the dictates of the Stalin or Brezhnev oligarchies; if the capitalist class is the enemy and yet Russia concludes alliances with them; if imperialism is a capitalist method of fleecing and yet the "Workers' Republic" fights for markets and spheres of influence, don't worry! Dialectics explains and solves these contradictions. The more incomprehensible dialectics appears to the ordinary worker, the firmer the bonds of leadership are riveted upon him and the higher the self-appointed interpreters climb.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialism

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Quote:

In 1973 Geertz stated ‘I have a social philosophy, you have political opinions, he has an ideology’.

Of course, the Democratic Communist answer to that academic statement is:'We have a social philosophy, we have political opinions, we have an ideology'.And we can change around 'philosophies', 'opinions' and 'ideologies', and assign to each whatever status we democratically decide.We can change 'philosophy' to 'opinion', and 'ideology' to 'philosophy'. And then change them again, to suit our purposes, needs and interests.All philosophy, opinion and ideology are socio-historic products. In a Democratic Communist society, we can change them.

Even to the extent, I take it that they become the unity of opposites?

Engels Dialectic, or the dialectic of the Materialist-idealists ? 

[Author]

Posts