Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.
Unfortunately it seems no one else shares this opion.
No, they don't do they.Ah well, there you go.
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:LBird wrote:I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.Unfortunately it seems no one else shares this opion.
No, they don't do they.Ah well, there you go.
Nonetheless, despite this impasse, in my estimation some valuable lessons have been learnt from this discussion so far. And lets not forget the challenges highlighted during this discussion still remain and they are not going to go away.This being the case, during this pause, it would be really helpful for us newbies if the main contributors post a list of what they think are the lessons they have drawn from this discussion so far.
As a reader who's never quite got the grasp of this discussion, I'd like to see a pamphlet on it which summarised the positions and definitions of the terms.
Well if you want to know abour Deitzgen read ALBs 1975 article:http://mailstrom.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/joseph-dietzgen-workers-philosopher.htmlI think Strawsons article on materialism and monism is good, concise and clear:http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Strawson.htmlFor an introductory book to philosophy of mind see "Philosophy of Mind" by Ian Ravenscroft or "Mind" by John Searle For Critcal Realism see this, the same website has other articles about ithttp://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/more-words-on-critical-realism-getting-clear-on-the-basics/
Brian wrote:This being the case, during this pause, it would be really helpful for us newbies if the main contributors post a list of what they think are the lessons they have drawn from this discussion so far.1. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.2. All the members on this site who've shown genuine interest in the subject, including asking for reading recommendations, are SPGB ex-members.3. I've got better things to do, than constantly repeat myself.4. Due to my continued reading (and I seem to be the only one doing any at all), my initial positions have been reinforced, and the contrary ones weakened further.5. The responses of SPGB members have displayed a shocking lack of open-mindedness and imagination, and have demonstrated an innate conservatism, also including 'fear of the mob' elitism.6. Any feelings of comradeship I might have felt towards the SPGB, when I started posting last year, have been largely dissipated.7. There aren't many radicals, never mind revolutionaries, in the SPGB.8. I've come to the conclusion that the SPGB's much-vaunted positive attitude to 'democratic socialism' is largely a sham. Whenever 'democracy' is mentioned, in any context (workers' power, parliament, science), members seem stunned at the very possibility that anyone is naive enough to take the argument seriously, that 'workers' will actually run anything (never mind everything).Is that enough to be going on with?
Absolute fantasy. Unsupported rantings and very typical of LBird.
Vin Maratty wrote:Absolute fantacy. Unsupported rantings and very typical of LBird.God knows how many of those points are down to you, Vin.
Point 1. I don't follow leadersPoint 2 Most SPGB member do not come on this sitePoint 3 Really? That's all you have been doingPoint4 See 3Point 5 See 2Point 6 Why? see 2Point 7 SPGB is not radical or reformistpoint 8 Anyone familiar with the SPGB and its history acknowledges its democratic nature, no leader in its long history. It doesn't talk democracy it does it. How about answering some of the questions I have put to you
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:This being the case, during this pause, it would be really helpful for us newbies if the main contributors post a list of what they think are the lessons they have drawn from this discussion so far.1. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.2. All the members on this site who've shown genuine interest in the subject, including asking for reading recommendations, are SPGB ex-members.3. I've got better things to do, than constantly repeat myself.4. Due to my continued reading (and I seem to be the only one doing any at all), my initial positions have been reinforced, and the contrary ones weakened further.5. The responses of SPGB members have displayed a shocking lack of open-mindedness and imagination, and have demonstrated an innate conservatism, also including 'fear of the mob' elitism.6. Any feelings of comradeship I might have felt towards the SPGB, when I started posting last year, have been largely dissipated.7. There aren't many radicals, never mind revolutionaries, in the SPGB.8. I've come to the conclusion that the SPGB's much-vaunted positive attitude to 'democratic socialism' is largely a sham. Whenever 'democracy' is mentioned, in any context (workers' power, parliament, science), members seem stunned at the very possibility that anyone is naive enough to take the argument seriously, that 'workers' will actually run anything (never mind everything).Is that enough to be going on with?
Thanks for these rather subjective viewpoints on the contributions. But is that all you have got to offer regarding a scientific assessment of the discussion? What were the hurdles regarding the adoption of 'Critical Realism' you had to jump? Can you identify them and explain the reasons for their occurrance?Is that enough to get on with?
Brian wrote:What were the hurdles regarding the adoption of 'Critical Realism' you had to jump? Can you identify them and explain the reasons for their occurrance?One hurdle is 'physicalism'. This is a bourgeois ideological construct, which is based on tangibility and individuals being able to touch. It's merely another name for 'empiricism'.This 'occurs' because of the necessity for the bourgeoisie to make everyone believe that 'they are individuals' and their 'individual experience' of the 'world they can see in front of their own eyes' is the basis of 'science'.Our job is to explain that much of the world is not only unobservable to our individual senses, but only 'observable' in any way at all to a 'society' employing its own 'theories'.Physicalism is bourgeois brainwashing at its best, and I advise any comrades who aspire to understand these issues to compare my post outlining Critical Realism with DJP's model of Physicalism, and try to identify the differences for themselves.Top Tip: if anyone thinks that they are an 'individual', stick to Physicalism, and ignore my post.
LBird wrote:One hurdle is 'physicalism'. This is a bourgeois ideological construct, which is based on tangibility and individuals being able to touch. It's merely another name for 'empiricism'.If it is true that SPGB members use a 'bourgeois ideological construct' then why do we 'see' class and exploitation? How do we understand Capital and the MCH using a bourgeios construct and empiricism? Is that even possible?
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:What were the hurdles regarding the adoption of 'Critical Realism' you had to jump? Can you identify them and explain the reasons for their occurrance?One hurdle is 'physicalism'. This is a bourgeois ideological construct, which is based on tangibility and individuals being able to touch. It's merely another name for 'empiricism'.This 'occurs' because of the necessity for the bourgeoisie to make everyone believe that 'they are individuals' and their 'individual experience' of the 'world they can see in front of their own eyes' is the basis of 'science'.Our job is to explain that much of the world is not only unobservable to our individual senses, but only 'observable' in any way at all to a 'society' employing its own 'theories'.Physicalism is bourgeois brainwashing at its best, and I advise any comrades who aspire to understand these issues to compare my post outlining Critical Realism with DJP's model of Physicalism, and try to identify the differences for themselves.Top Tip: if anyone thinks that they are an 'individual', stick to Physicalism, and ignore my post.
OK you've identified and explained the reasons for one hurdle – Physicalism – but what about the other hurdles? Especially those, I would say, involving a self-assessment on the necessary skills of communicating an idea which demands an approach that is both novel and suggestive. In the sense the theory is not adopting or adapting to a theory like CR [which is still taking infant steps regarding the nuances of emergence and causality] but stepping out as a brand new theory in its own right with a language which demonstrates this?Do I have to keep on prompting you to use critical thinking?
Brian wrote:Do I have to keep on prompting you to use critical thinking?Sorry, I keep falling into SPGB mode.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:One hurdle is 'physicalism'. This is a bourgeois ideological construct, which is based on tangibility and individuals being able to touch. It's merely another name for 'empiricism'.If it is true that SPGB members use a 'bourgeois ideological construct' then why do we 'see' class and exploitation? How do we understand Capital and the MCH using a bourgeios construct and empiricism? Is that even possible?
To take this a little further, why is it that members of the SPGB using a 'bourgeois ideological construct' can 'see' and 'understand' what many critical realists cannot; class, exploitation etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.