Question about historical materialism
- This topic has 181 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Wiki explains that New Mexico State" that declared that Pluto will always be considered a planet while in New Mexican skies" A bit like how every time the Queen crosses the border into Scotland, her religion changes.California and Illinois State also voted to retain Pluto as a planet. But not by referendum. Only by an elite who were not specialists or authorities in the field and who were not acting under instruction.
gnome wrote:Pluto failed to meet the third criterion. I don't have any particular opinion about that so I won't be casting my vote should the question arise and neither, I suspect, will 99.99% of Earth's population.Ah but you really must cast your vote on this pressing matter, Dave! Otherwise, how would LBird be able to proclaim that the socially-constructed, proletarian-sanctioned version of the Truth had been realised if 99.99% of the population took your desultory and indifferent attitude to this question? I mean – damn it! – if only 0.01% of the populace voted to to affirm that Pluto was a planet that would surely make it an elitist bourgeois decision – would it not? – and we couldnt have that in a democratc communist society, could we?
robbo203 wrote:You know also that the sun as a physical object was not created by us unless that is you have completely lost your marbles.He does and he has.
robbo203 wrote:I mean – damn it! – if only 0.01% of the populace voted to to affirm that Pluto was a planet that would surely make it an elitist bourgeois decision – would it not? – and we couldnt have that in a democratc communist society, could we?But the "proletariate" would have to "vote" it into "existence" first, otherwise we wouldn't "know" anything about it. Only the 'elites' interpretation…… oh fuck it…….who cares..
[quote-LBird]Let’s keep it simple.So-called ‘Natural laws’ are products of the society that creates them.So, being our products, we can ‘abolish'’ them, and replace them with ‘natural laws’ suited to our needs, interests and purposes, as we create them through our social theory and practice.Simple Marxism, twc. ‘Nature’, as we know it, is currently a class construct. ‘Nature’, as we don’t know it, is, as Marx said, ‘nothing for us’.[/quote]It is not that simple. Marx wrote the materialist text in Post #21, wherein Marx writes:“Natural laws cannot be abolished.”“What can change, under historically different circumstances, is only the form in which these laws assert themselves.”“the history of the theory of value shows that the concept of the value relation has always been the same — i.e. more or less clearly understood”“the process of human thought itself grows out of conditions — is itself a natural process — thinking that really comprehends must always be the same”Marx is explaining to Dr Ludwig Kugelmann his scientific method in Capital Vol. 1. His explanation refutes pontificator LBird.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Pluto was a planet, then it was not, then it was once more. A vote decided that. And that is my only comment on the Sun.That's what's at issue here, alan.Who has the power to decide?The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'. They claim that this is an 'objective fact'. They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it. They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors.You've shown, by your example, that they are wrong.In fact, humans have the power to change 'the planet Pluto', and Democratic Communists argue that this power should be under democratic controls. The materialists are happy for an unelected elite to have this power.This is the core of Marx's 'democratic social productionism'.You have to choose a side, alan. The undemocratic, elitist materialists, or the democratic social productionists. That's politics, I'm afraid. If you don't choose, you'll get caught out, when they move on from questions of 'planet status' to questions of 'our status'. They'll support an elite of 'Specialists' (ie. unelected academics), and deny power to the majority of 'Generalists' (ie. workers).This is the political warning that Marx gave, in his Theses on Feuerbach.
LBird wrote:The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'. They claim that this is an 'objective fact'. They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it. They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors..More stupidities from LBird. I find it difficult to resist the conclusion that he is deliberately lying through his teeth simply to score cheap points Once again LBird and please pay attention . No one is saying that " Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'" "Pluto" by which you mean "the idea of Pluto" ,we all agree, is a social construction or an interpretation conditioned by social factors. All this is perfectly well understood But what you need to understand is that in order to have an idea about Pluto there has to be a physical object revolving around the sun to which we have assigned the label "Pluto" in the first place. Its as simple as that. True, we cannot apprehend this thing-in-itself (in its noumenal sense) outside of our theory or interpretation of what "Pluto" means to us. We can only apprehend "Pluto" on the basis of a set of preconceptions which preconceptions are socially conditioned, But even so, Pluto has an objective existence. Its existence can be independently verified by multiple observers viewing it through a telescope. That being so I regret to have to inform that contrary to your delusional belief that we created this physical object in outer space called Pluto, we did nothing of the sort. What we created was the ideas that this object evokes in us. The fact that you put the expression 'the planet Pluto' in inverted commas shows that you understand this distinction but prefer to play silly word games and waste peoples' time, including your own, in the process
robbo203 wrote:gnome wrote:Pluto failed to meet the third criterion. I don't have any particular opinion about that so I won't be casting my vote should the question arise and neither, I suspect, will 99.99% of Earth's population.Ah but you really must cast your vote on this pressing matter, Dave! Otherwise, how would LBird be able to proclaim that the socially-constructed, proletarian-sanctioned version of the Truth had been realised if 99.99% of the population took your desultory and indifferent attitude to this question? I mean – damn it! – if only 0.01% of the populace voted to to affirm that Pluto was a planet that would surely make it an elitist bourgeois decision – would it not? – and we couldnt have that in a democratc communist society, could we?
Yes, of course we could, and the fact that 0.01% of the populace voted to affirm that Pluto was a planet, a black hole or even a super nova wouldn't be of any concern to the overwhelming majority; it would not affect their lives in the slightest anymore than the fact that the 'elitist' IAU have currently designated Pluto a dwarf planet.
LBird wrote:The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'.They claim that this is an 'objective fact'.They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it.They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors.What incoherent hysterical rant!Sorry, but nobody, outside of your weird imagination, would ever make the absurd claim that Pluto itself tells us that it is a ‘planet’.What Marx claims is that the act of observation is an objective act. The interpretation of the objective act is another matter, but that interpretation ultimately derives its objectivity, by descent, from the objectivity of the observation. There is no other ultimate means of thought acquiring objectivity. Thought must prove itself in practice!No, they claim that they observed its photographic image wandering relative to the stellar background over consecutive photographic plates, to which a planetary orbit could be fitted by spherical projection that conformed to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Hence a prosaic scientist would claim it was a planet. If this humdrum procedure breaks every high-falutin’ rule of philosophical discourse, then so much the worse for high-falutin’ scholastic philosophical discourse.No. But some folks may naturally get sentimentally het up over losing a favourite planet of their childhood, but such folks temper their disappointment by knowing that their favourite former-planet is totally indifferent to the IAU decision to demote its planetary status. And, what a fabulously fascinating body this demoted planet turns out to be. It has taken its ‘revenge’ to the enjoyment of all. Only an anti-scientific ignoramus thinks something political is at stake when a remote icy rock is re-classified on objective classificatory criteria.
robbo203 wrote:But even so, Pluto has an objective existence. Its existence can be independently verified by multiple observers viewing it through a telescope.Indeed, the rebuttel here is the same as the rebuttal of solipsism: if humans have created the world, for us, it makes no difference in it's scope, in how we interact with it, how we relate to other humans in relation to that world than if it has an objective appearance. unless Anyone here is arguing that be mere fiat, by thought alone, we could unmake the Kuiper Belt object, and erase all past observations of it, and all future independent observations of the night sky.Certainly, we could, in theory, reach the point where humanity could unmake pluto, possibly make it so it has never happened, but for most of us, that doesn't methodologically change the facts of the experience of accounting for what Hubble and New Horizons have shown us on the matter.
Young Master Smeet wrote:… that doesn't methodologically change the facts of the experience of accounting for what Hubble and New Horizons have shown us on the matter.Here we have it – the method of 'facts' and 'experience', and 'Hubble and New Horizons' actively 'showing' us, 'the passive ones'.Conservative, elitist, objective 'science'.Move along, you masses of workers – nothing to see, nothing to engage in, trust your betters!No mention of Marx, democratic methods, socialism, workers, or social creation of 'objects-for-us'. Certainly no mention of revolution!
Can you disprove the photos from New horizons? Can you provide me with an account of how they came into being? Can you demonstrate how the elite consciously concoct their science? After all, if they don't consciously concoct it, it's as real for them as it is for us, so we might as well take it as real.p.s.MarxDemocratic methodsSocialismWorkersRevolutionCreation of objects-for-us.
p.p.s.Hubble, new Horizons, kind of, we had to actively go out and get that data, it didn't find itself.
ALB wrote:Apartheid impeded the normal development of capitalism in South Africa by reserving certain jobs for certain population groups and by segregating population groups. This was against the logic of capitalism which is colour blind and is only interested in exploiting labour-power and is not interested in the characteristics of its bearers. Apartheid went against this logic. It tried to ignore this but couldn't stop the logic of capitalism getting its way in the end. It did, though, delay this for over 40 years.[/quote]There are other examples of states not functioning in an efficient way for capitalism to function fully. North Korea, where so much effort is tied tied up military and "security" matter, rather than in production for profit. This applies to many dictatorships. So what benefit does a dictatorship have in running capitalism?Yes, i know that some dictatorships are used for the purpose of "balance of power".
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Pluto was a planet, then it was not, then it was once more. A vote decided that. And that is my only comment on the Sun.That's what's at issue here, alan.Who has the power to decide?The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'. They claim that this is an 'objective fact'. They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it. They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors.You've shown, by your example, that they are wrong.In fact, humans have the power to change 'the planet Pluto', and Democratic Communists argue that this power should be under democratic controls. The materialists are happy for an unelected elite to have this power.This is the core of Marx's 'democratic social productionism'.You have to choose a side, alan. The undemocratic, elitist materialists, or the democratic social productionists. That's politics, I'm afraid. If you don't choose, you'll get caught out, when they move on from questions of 'planet status' to questions of 'our status'. They'll support an elite of 'Specialists' (ie. unelected academics), and deny power to the majority of 'Generalists' (ie. workers).This is the political warning that Marx gave, in his Theses on Feuerbach.
It's nice to see that Goofy has some Mickey Mouse ideas about Pluto, I won't mention Uranus people might be having their tea.No Doubt L Bird you are going to say that we are all materialist Leninists because we think that ideas are nothing more than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.