Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A Matter of Perception[Relocated by request of moderator1]
LBird wrote:a ‘fossil’ won’t exist for the Neolithic hunter employing a rock as flint to light a fireOf course, though, the fossil ‘exist’, [but it] can [only] be observed by the ‘educated’ observer. In our case as proletarians, [to be able to observe value] means being educated in class consciousness and Communism.if a human directs their attention to one level (e.g. a rock), they are by choice not directing their attention to other levels (eg. fossils).Flint with FossilUniversity of Cambridge, Museum of Archeology and Anthropology, Id #1916.82/Record 2. Paleolithic handaxe—100,000 to 10,000 BCE. [West Tofts, Norfolk, England]——————————————————Fossils fascinated some of our ancestors.This handaxe is fashioned symmetrically around a Cretaceous marine fossil [the mollusc Spondylus spinosus] that appears intended to attract visual attention. The artefact was written up scientifically almost 40 years ago by Kenneth Oakley, who had previously exposed the infamous big-brained ‘missing link’ Piltdown Man—a scientific hoax sustained for half-a-century by idealist preconceptions of cranial complexity precipitating our move from ape into humanity.A century earlier, Engels surmised, on the basis of the materialist conception of history, that it was descent from the forest to the savannah, that unleashed the niche pressure for selecting upright stance and bipedal locomotion. Anatomical adaptation to life on the open plains had the collateral effect of liberating the hands to fashion tools.By changing its means of production, a species is forced to adjust its social practice of operating them, and so change its mode of production based upon those changed means. Its social existence becomes historical. Under such evolutionary pressure, a species can survive only if its brain can adequately comprehend and adequately communicate its changing social practice, or else vanish from the face of the Earth.Social practice that changes itself seems to have driven hominid brain complexity.
twc wrote:Social practice that changes itself seems to have driven hominid brain complexity.Who's arguing against this theory? I'm certainly not.'Social practice' nicely sums up 'idealism-materialism' or 'theory and practice' or 'critical realism'.What is 'social', what does 'social' mean, if not something about humans, and their culture, ideas, creativity, morality, ethics?'Practice' is impossible for humans without society and its manifold factors.To understand 'practice', it is necessary to locate it within historical and social contexts.Individuals and biological senses do not do 'practice'.'Practice' is always 'social', not least because of 'language', and the 'meaning' given to 'practice' by language. And Marx points out that 'senses' themselves develop in society. What we see, hear, touch, smell and taste is shaped by our social upbringing.Scientists do not have a 'neutral method' which stretches across the ages, which is universal and outside of social factors. Scientists are products of their society, and their attempts to understand 'reality' are not 'objective' but human. Scientists are 'social practitioners'.Whilst we, as a society, venerate scientists as having a 'special method', not comprehensible by the rest of society, we'll remain in their power.This cannot be acceptable to Communists, who must build up the confidence of workers to accept that they can develop their ability to run their society. There cannot be any 'elite', specialists and experts, who claim, like a priesthood or party central committee, to have an understanding that is denied to the masses. The development of science since Engels has actually revealed this claim to 'neutral method' to be a lie.This is an issue of political power, and I'm on the side of democracy.
LBird wrote:Whilst we, as a society, venerate scientists as having a 'special method', not comprehensible by the rest of society, we'll remain in their power.No one does that, least of all the scientists, they make their method and data very widely open, it's just that it takes time and effort to follow in detail. I'll agree that some media outlets (ruling class ideologists) do venerate the words of scientists, because they want to encourage obediance rather than critical thinking. On this board you'll probably find more scientific reading than among the average lay-person.
Lbird wrote:We’re clearly seeing the separation here on this thread into the two opposed ideological strands, represented by Engels and Marx.I'm not sure we're seeing that at all, this seems to be another instance of you interpollating your schematic construction of the debate onto it, rather than looking at the actual text. I'm also wary of the Engels bad Marx good alibi, it often strikes me as a single transferable get out of gaol free card. Charlie was fallible too, he had to major cockamamy views on evolution. Anyway, from Charlie hissel':
Charlie wrote:Fourier starts directly from the doctrines of French materialism. The Babouvistes were raw, uncivilised materialists,but also the more advanced Communism is based on French materialism. The latter, in the French garb, returned to its native country. Godwin and Bentham established their systems on the ethical philosophy of Helvetius, and Owen took it from Bentham and based upon it English Communism. Etienne Corbet, banished to England, brought those ideas back to France and became here the most commonplace representative of Communism. But also the more advanced of French Communists, such as Dezamy, Gay, & c., developed, like Robert Owen, the materialist doctrine into real humanism and the logical basis of Communism.(My bold)(https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/english-materialism.htm)What Marx criticises is mechanical or one sided materialism, that doesn't account for aesthetics.
YMS wrote:What Marx criticises is mechanical or one sided materialism, that doesn't account for aesthetics.So why should we persist on calling it 'materialism', if it doesn't account for aesthetics? It doesn't get more social, human, ideal, than aesthetics.If Marx criticises 'one sided materialism' (and he does), why not accept that he was in favour of some sort of 'two sided materialism'?Leaving aside his polemics with the religious and prize fighters of the bourgeoisie (who he lumped together as 'idealists'), his 'practical' use of 'materialism' in his works was of the 'two sided' variety.What is the best candidate for this 'other side' to 'materialism'? In his Theses on Feuerbach, it is clear that the candidate is none other than a part of 'idealism', the 'active side' of humanity.He unites parts of both materialism and idealism into a unified method of 'theory and practice'. Thus, he can account for 'aesthetics' in the 'theory' part of his social practice.He, and others (as you quote), "developed, like Robert Owen, the materialist doctrine into real humanism and the logical basis of Communism".'Real humanism' is not pretending that 'rocks talk to us', as do the defenders of empiricism, physicalism, 19th century positivism, and Engels.'Real Humanism' is 'Critical Realism', 'the materialist conception of history, 'historical materialism', or, for polemical purposes when discussing the Theses on Feuerbach (because those are the terms used in that tract), 'idealism-materialism'.All of these terms are doubled-barreled, because they are not simply 'materialism'. There is something else, and that is humanity, and their societies, culture, ideals, creativity, history, politics and aesthetics.Whilst workers are introduced to 'materialism' as the basis for workers' thinking, building Communism will be impossible.It's not simple 'matter' we require, but human criticism and creativity, artfulness and ethics. Poets are as important as physicists for our democratic understanding of the world.For Marx, 'value' does not contain an atom of matter. 'Value' is a product of human relationships.Value is as much about aesthetics and ethics, as it is about 'economics'.The bourgeoisie, and their prize fighters like Piketty, are blind to 'value'. They know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. We shouldn't trust them – we must develop our own prize fighters, our class must develop into being Communists.That includes the physicists – they live in our social world.
Aesthetics is vary real and very physical, not ideal at all. It is about human sensual relationship to their world. It's not one-sided contrasted with two sided, but incomplete with complete (many sided, rich). Yes, Charlie stands for philsophical monism (as has been mentioned before here), and 'new materialism' not abstract contemplative materialism (per These on Feurbach). Human criticism is matter. thought is material, culture is material, it is all part of one world. You can't get less ideal than Aesthetics.(I'd add you don't get much more positivist than Thesis II:
Quote:The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.)
Young Master Smeet wrote:Aesthetics is vary real and very physical, not ideal at all. It is about human sensual relationship to their world. It's not one-sided contrasted with two sided, but incomplete with complete (many sided, rich). Yes, Charlie stands for philsophical monism (as has been mentioned before here), and 'new materialism' not abstract contemplative materialism (per These on Feurbach). Human criticism is matter. thought is material, culture is material, it is all part of one world. You can't get less ideal than Aesthetics.God help us.This is a stunningly stupid claim.If this is the line taken by the SPGB, I'm going to fall in with the tories or new labour. It's no wonder that 'socialists' of this tenor have no influence on the working class. You'd be a laughing stock taking this line with anyone who's read any philosophy of science.I really am gob-smacked.
YMS wrote:(I'd add you don't get much more positivist than Thesis II:Quote:The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.)
What part of 'theory and practice' are you unable to read, YMS? Why do you keep reading it as 'theory'?I really am dealing with a religious fanatic, who is impervious to reason. No explanation, quotes or discussion, for 12 months, have had any effect on your religious devotion to 'materialism' and uncritical certainty.No wonder you don't trust workers to make democratic decisions. You have the Revealed Truth.'Matter'.PS. did you read the Koestler extracts that I posted?
I don't keep reading it as theory and practice at all, I don't understand your point or how you could arrive at such a question.Which claim are you stating is stupid (you quote a block paragraph with at least three or four claims in it)?As for trusting workers, you'll recall I criticised your one sided view of democracy as being voting, I'm arguing for democracy against you.
YMS, I'll have to leave you with your own thoughts now (sorry, 'matter'), because I'm beginning to doubt my sanity, on reading your contributions.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:The word aesthetic is derived from the Greek αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos, meaning "esthetic, sensitive, sentient"), which in turn was derived from αἰσθάνομαι (aisthanomai, meaning "I perceive, feel, sense").[7] The term "aesthetics" was appropriated and coined with new meaning in the German form Æsthetik (modern spelling Ästhetik) by Alexander Baumgarten in 1735.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#EtymologyIt is the relation os the senses, and by extension, the human body, to the world (this is important, because it puts the human at the centre of aesthetics)(p.s. Sorry for a bit of unclarity in previous post, "I don't read theory and practice as theory" is what I should have written).
Young Master Smeet wrote:From Wikipedia:Quote:The word aesthetic is derived from the Greek αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos, meaning "esthetic, sensitive, sentient"), which in turn was derived from αἰσθάνομαι (aisthanomai, meaning "I perceive, feel, sense").[7] The term "aesthetics" was appropriated and coined with new meaning in the German form Æsthetik (modern spelling Ästhetik) by Alexander Baumgarten in 1735.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics#EtymologyIt is the relation os the senses, and by extension, the human body, to the world (this is important, because it puts the human at the centre of aesthetics)
[my bold]And αἰσθάνομαι also means 'perceive by the mind, understand, learn' and, with the genitive, 'to have perception of'.Apparently, a verb you are unfamiliar with, both in Greek and English.[And it's pronounced 'ice-than-oh-my', if anyone's interested]
That hardly warrants a correction, the significant point remains it is about senses, and sensation, and the way we feel/sense/perceive ourselves into the world: like that earthy sensation in your guts when you're enjoying a really good novel, or are struck by something sublimely beautiful (after all, the sublime destroys the mind). Through our electron microscopes, radio telescopes, ink jet printers, laboratories and particle accelerators, we are extending our senses into the world, and with them our physical appreciation of it.
YMS wrote:That hardly warrants a correction, the significant point remains it is about senses, and sensation…No, YMS it relates to perception, not merely sensation.That is, to mind, not merely physical feeling.And since 'mind' is social, it relates to 'social perception', which is historical, and so what 'senses' experience is different in different societies. That is, 'sensation' is not simply matter impinging upon a biological individual, but the 'material' in relationship to the 'ideal'.But I've said all this dozens of times before, and I know that you don't do 'discussion', in the sense of 'progression', but only the stillness of 'religious certainty'.You stick to 'senses', I'll stick to 'perception'.You stick to 'matter', I'll stick to 'criticism'.
Perception is physical and sensuous (unlike, say, apprehension). An individual is an indivisible scomponent part of something bigger, and so, yes, the process of perception is social, as we phsyically and humanly relate to one another (usually through the illusion that we have minds, which are just the retroactive justification for the actions of the meatbots, born out of our capacity for language).
'Meatbots', eh?Are you sure that sort of talk is attractive to workers, YMS? Y'know, calling them 'meatbots'? It's very similar to how bosses regard them.Mind you, none of this discussion, for you, is really about the problems of 'Science for Communists', is it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.