Reason and Science in Danger.
- This topic has 335 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
L. B. Neill wrote: “Look, I know matter is matter.”
I’m sure that you’re aware that this is precisely what ALB, Bijou Drains, and all ‘materialists’ claim: the primacy of ‘I’, in determining whether ‘matter’ exists of not. So, it is ‘matter-for-me’.
L. B. Neill wrote: “A rock does not tell me it is a rock- my socially informed construct tells me it is a rock.”
But this contradicts your earlier claim. The first claim is that a non-social, non-historical ‘I’ knows ‘matter’.
As it is, I agree with your latter claim. Neither ‘rocks’ nor ‘matter’ talk to us, as biological individuals.
I also agree with Marx, that we are social individuals (not merely biological individuals, sense-impression takers) who are conscious, and that consciousness is a socio-historical product.
If Marx is correct, we should be able to give a socio-historical account of the emergence of ‘matter’, who created it, and why they created it. And if it was created socio-historically, we should be able to give a socio-historical account of its disappearance, of its falling out of ‘existence-for’ a social subject.
We can, of course, give such an account.
Put simply ‘one’ only ‘knows matter’, because ‘one’ has been taught to ‘know matter’.
We can change this teaching, and introduce theories and concepts suitable for the building of a democratic socialist society, where humanity as a whole determines its own ‘reality’.
Or, as for the ‘materialists’, we can leave this power to create our reality in the hands of an elite. But this would divide society into two, as Marx famously warned.
Good to see you’re back Birdy Boy
now perhaps you can get on with answering this (to recap)
Bijou Drains wrote: “Actually, practically everything in science can be sensed in a direct way…”
L Bird wrote: “We’ll have to agree to disagree, on this one, BD.
If I were to produce a list of ‘stuff’ from ‘science’, which neither of us, or anyone else, has even touched, etc., I’d be here till xmas!”
Bijou Drains wrote: “L Bird Touch is not the only sense, observation is through the sense of smell. So if you can list even ten “discoveries of science” that have not been based on things that have been sensed, including by observation I would be amazed. So off you go then, set yourself away.”
So come on, where’s your list?
You’ll have to read about the physics (or any science) yourself, BD.
I’ve given up trying to reason with those who will not engage in faithful discussion. I’m tired of my arguments being altered, and then the lie being used as a basis for further ‘discussion’. It’s the same method as Lenin employed, and I’ve realised that I’m wasting my time with non-democratic materialists.
Hopefully, if you read what I write further in this discussion with L. B. Neill, then your questions will be answered, even if not to your ideological liking.
“Put simply ‘one’ only ‘knows matter’, because ‘one’ has been taught to ‘know matter’.”
And that is the same statement I had made supporting an idea.
I must have a ‘logical loop’ in my argument- to make a statement and then counter it.
“We can change this teaching, and introduce theories and concepts suitable for the building of a democratic socialist society, where humanity as a whole determines its own ‘reality’.”
And we can change it. We can engage in a rhetor and never find any closure-
But here is one take:
We are social beings. We socially construct our mental/material world. We put that construct into practice. Call it social constructivism/ social constructionism.
You see, the thing is, I am not materialist (dividing the world into ethical divisions of reality)- what you see is reality. Or worse: what you see is my reality, and no other may exist.
There are some articles by Geertz on the fact the working class can construct variations of reality- and independent of the ruling elite. See Ideology, an old text- but still full of promise.
So it is matter for me- as I have a collective who concurs. But now and then I might disagree. And go against it- but it is not anti-matter!
The best matter unites us. The worst divides us.
You see LBird, I agree with you- we are taught to know matter- I could go all social science from here- but will temper it.
My earlier claims are out of context in your last comment. Logical loops aside.
L Bird – You’ll have to read about the physics (or any science) yourself, BD.
I’ve given up trying to reason with those who will not engage in faithful discussion.
——
I have studied and read science to quite a reasonable level. However the question I posed you was regards to the sensory nature of human existance, one which you continuously and studiously ignore. I will ask again, can you give me any example of a scientific theory which is not based on sensory inputs?
Please also point out where my discussion has not been “faithful” whatever you mean by the use of that word.
“We are social beings. We socially construct our mental/material world. We put that construct into practice. “
That’s what more or less what we’ve been trying to argue here. But this implies that there is something apart from them that human beings in society use to “construct”. The difference between us and our feathered friend is that he denies this. He argues that “our mental/material world” is entirely constructed by the human social mind out of nothing (and, therefore, that when it was the social consensus that the Sun moved round the Earth that was the case).
I wonder if any of you have considered taking this subject to Discord for a fuller discussion? You could cover a lot more in a couple of hours on that forum and perhaps explain yourselves more clearly rather than having to refer back to each other’s comments after several hours absence.
Just a thought.
L. B. Neill wrote: “We are social beings. We socially construct our mental/material world. We put that construct into practice. Call it social constructivism/ social constructionism.”
Yes, I agree with this, and this could also be called, to make Marx’s contribution clear, social productionism.
Since we humans are the creators of any ‘reality’ that we know, this ‘reality’ is ‘reality-for-us‘. There isn’t a ‘reality’ that we don’t know, which can simply become apparent without our active, conscious, production. Whatever is meant by this unknown reality, it is, according to Marx, a ‘nothing for us’.
But…
L. B. Neill wrote: “…what you see is my reality… So it is matter for me…” [my bold]
Once again, L. B., you contradict yourself (perhaps another ‘logical loop’?) – to be consistent, you’d have to write “…what you see is our reality… So it is matter for us…“.
L. B. Neill wrote: “You see LBird, I agree with you- we are taught to know matter”
Yes, I think that we do, perhaps with some definitional aspects about ‘the active subject’ to be discussed, fundamentally agree.
This social agreement, I believe, can provide the basis of a ‘revolutionary science’ (Marx), a ‘science’ that is fundamentally democratic, and thus suitable for the proletariat in its building for a future democratic socialist society.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…the sensory nature of human existance, one which you continuously and studiously ignore…”
Right, BD, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt (reluctantly), and try once more.
I’ve never, ever ‘ignored’ ‘human existence’ – this is either a mistake by you (you haven’t actually read what I’ve written) or a lie by you (you have read, and have decided, like Lenin and all materialists, to slander their democratic opponents). To be comradely, I’ll assume that you’re simply mistaken.
‘Human existence’ is not ‘sensory’ – this suggest a passive humanity, which simply ‘takes in’ ‘what exists’ supposedly ‘outside of itself’.
Marx, just like all the other thinkers within his early life, education and development, regarded ‘humanity’ as active.
That’s why Marx’s central (fundamental?) concept is ‘Labour‘.
This ‘labour’ is not blokes with rolled-up shirt sleeves digging a ditch, but an eternal condition of humanity – if one ‘touches matter’, one is engaging in ‘labour’; if one writes the ‘Principia’, one engages in ‘labour’; if one posits ‘singularity’, one engages in ‘labour’.
‘Labour’ is conscious social activity which produces social products (whether widgets or concepts, ditches or algorithms, kids or gods) – it is nothing whatsoever to do with ‘matter’ or ‘material things’, meaning ‘stuff I can touch’ (and since last time you deliberately ignored my ‘etc.’), ‘see, sniff, hear or taste’.
Now, if you want to stick with 18th century ideology about the ‘sensory’, fair enough, but at least be open enough to declare your ideology. It’s nothing whatsoever to do with Marx, and if you reject Marx, again, fair enough, but, again, say so.
You’re a hopeless devotee of bourgeois science, BD, as are all ‘materialists’.
Marx wasn’t, though. He was a democrat.
ALB wrote: “The difference between us and our feathered friend is that he denies this. He argues that “our mental/material world” is entirely constructed by the human social mind out of nothing”
Once again, I have to intervene in the lies told by ‘materialists’.
Three here.
This is not what ‘divides us’. What ‘divides us’ is democracy. ALB, being a ‘materialist’, will not have a democratic method in science. ALB wants an elite to determine ‘science’, which he regards as a non-political, non-social, non-historical activity.
The second is his lie that Marxists argue “that our mental/material world” is entirely constructed by the human social mind”
Marxists argue “that our mental/material world” is entirely constructed by” human social activity, social theory and practice. Materialists always divide ‘theory’ from ‘activity’ in their false accusations. They wish the uninitiated to think Marxists are ‘idealists’, concerned only with ‘mind’. It is a lie. Workers beware the lies of the materialists.
Third lie: “out of nothing“.
Marxists argue that ‘activity’ creates ‘resistance’. These are two sides of the same coin. There can’t be ‘resistance’ without ‘activity’, and ‘activity’ meets its ‘resistance’.
Our world is our creation, created by our social theory and practice, as our social activity meets its resistance, and we produce from this social activity.
I’ve asked ALB to read Bogdanov, who comes closest to Marx in his understanding of ‘activity/resistance’ – but ALB prefers Bogdanov’s arch-enemy, Lenin, and his ‘materialism’.
Any comrades reading this discussion, and interested to understand – please ask questions about Marx, rather than simply accepting the lies of the ‘materialists’. The ‘materialists’ constantly rewrite what they want Marxists to have said, rather than address what Marxists actually write. Lenin is the archetype of this method.
Did you notice what he just said —that human activity meets “resistance” ? What from? Surely not from what some people might call “matter” ie the world independent of humans and their activity?
As to Bogdanov, there’s an interesting article here:
As to a criticism of Lenin’s version of materialism, this is not bad (it’s towards the end) even if I say so myself:
ALB wrote: “Did you notice what he just said —that human activity meets “resistance” ? What from? Surely not from what some people might call “matter” ie the world independent of humans and their activity?”
Let’s hope that now the constant lying is clear to all.
‘Matter’, as I’ve explained, is not ‘resistance’. The difference has just been explained – ‘matter’ is supposedly ‘independent of activity’, whereas ‘resistance’ is ‘dependent upon activity’.
These are clearly two entirely different concepts. If ALB wants to choose ‘matter’, he’s entirely free to do so, and be open about this choice. But what ALB actually does is set out to confuse others reading, so that they think ‘matter’ and ‘resistance’ are synonymous, and attribute this to Marxists. Beware the materialists.
ALB will never explain how there can be a ‘world independent of humans’.
Marx argued that any world we know is a social product of our activity. So, its ‘existence’ is a product of our activity. We externalise (Marx: ‘entausserung’) our nature.
By ‘independent’, materialists mean ‘outside of one’s brain‘. ALB’s ‘active subject’ is a ‘biological individual’.
By ‘dependent’, Marxists mean ‘produced by humans’ – of course, this ‘social product’ is outside of a biological brain! BUT… it’s not ‘independent’ of human conscious activity… otherwise, we wouldn’t ‘know it’.
‘Matter’ is a concept within bourgeois physics which parallels ‘Private Property’ within bourgeois economics. Both concepts are meant to remove the need to query just who creates these ‘things’.
‘Matter’ simply supposedly pre-exists its social creator… ‘Private Property’ simply supposedly pre-exists its social creator. Clever, elite, individuals simply ‘stumble’ upon ‘matter’ and ‘private property’, both supposedly just sitting there, passively awaiting the first bright bourgeois who ‘discovers’ them.
Robinsonades, Marx called these asocial, ahistorical ‘individuals’…
L Bird, Ill give just one example of your method of taking things out of context and then answering the question which suits you.
I asked you “However the question I posed you was regards to the sensory nature of human existence, one which you continuously and studiously ignore.” Your reply was that you have “never, ever ‘ignored’ ‘human existence’”. As is quite obvious, I was stating that you ignored the question, not human existence.
Just to be pedantic, if I was lying about you on the forum, it would be libel not slander, slander only applies to the spoken word. The other thing you would need to show was that any lie reduced your reputation to those who read it. I think it would be futile of me to try and do that, considering what a good job your already doing on without any outside assistance.
Going back to the issue in hand, “can you list even ten “discoveries of science” that have not been based on things that have been sensed, including by observation”
Not such a difficult task for an avian of your ability.
Moving on you state “if one ‘touches matter’, one is engaging in ‘labour’;”, so I take it from that statement that you acknowledge that there is a “something” to be touched?
By the meantime millions of peoples are dying from hunger, diseases, malnutrition, millions are unemployed and they will not find a job, or will never come back to the jobs that they had before, and millions of peoples are sick and do not have access to an adequate health system, billions are under the danger of being wiped out by atomic wars among the capitalists, and workers continue killing each other for a piece of land, and peoples are willing to kill others workers to defend a leader or the colour of their skins, millions are willing to elect reactionaries candidates knowing that they are criminals, thieves, racists, and warmongers because they do not care, they only care about the colour of their skin, and they love their own exploiters. I think Marx never visualized that the working class was going to conciliate themselves with the capitalist class and their ideology
This is the real world that we are living right now, neither Idealism/materialism ( or materialism/idealism ) nor esoteric thoughts are not going to safe us, and it is not going to resolve the problems that we are confronting at the present time, we do not need philosophy or philosophers to obtain our real freedom and real liberation, I do not live in a hideout, or living like a hermit, or seating in a rocking chair I see those problems every day and I have been dealing with them for many years
At the present time, socialism/communism is not in the minds of the vast majority of the workers and these discussions will not conduct us to its realization, in some way the leftists and the reformists socialist/communists are doing much better because they are focussing themselves in those issues and some peoples are listening to them, probably they are increasing in quantity but not quality but at least they are making some noises and somebody is listening to them, we are not doing any of those things
L Bird just come to this forum like a snipper, he shoots his old repetitive lyrics,( he is the real parrot ) disappears and comes back, but he does not care about the actual condition of the working class, we can have in our brain the whole collection of works of Marx ( The complete new MEGA collection ) and without applying them to the real world it becomes useless. For several years I went thru the same shit of idealism/materialism ( and critique toward Engels ) and vice versa and I threw it in the trash can because it is just pure idealism. I have been there already.
There are millions of people who have been brainwashed or indoctrinated by the own rulers in their desire for profits who do not care if others of their fellow class brother get sick, they prefer the stupidities of the politicians instead of the reasoning of the scientists, in several places they are attacking and killing doctors and nurses, but they do not raise up against the capitalist class who are the real killers. If they want to get sick that is fine, but the problem is that they are going to infect others human beings and then they would be crying in hospital-like babies and using the equipment and others resources needed by old peoples
If “we” constructed “our” world “for us”, “we” did a lousy job.
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” our entry into “our” world through the vagina?
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” a life sequence of biological immaturity, followed by a window of procreation, followed by progeny destined to replace “us”?
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” a lifetime of decades, but to construct for our species a lifetime of millennia, and to confer near biological “immortality” upon our replicating strands of DNA — our genes?
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” carcinomas, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s?
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, floods, wildfires?
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” an irrational square root for the number two but not for the number four, and a transcendental number for the circumference of a circle but not for the “circumference” of a triangle?
- What compelled “us” to construct “for us” a universal speed limit c for the propagation of light, and a universal constant h for the energy of light relative to its frequency — i.e. for an “atom” of light as Einstein shockingly put it in pre-quantum 1905?
- More to the point, what compelled “us” to construct “for us” Covid-19?
- Why did “we” so shortchange “ourselves” when “we” constructed “our” world and “our” life?
To adapt Rousseau: if man “socially constructed” his world for “him”, why then don’t we find him enchaining it, but instead everywhere we find it enchaining “him”?
Why?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.