Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Marx, Theses, 1, wrote:The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.
[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmTo talk of 'material' or 'real' outside of humanity is an epistemological error.So, 'critical realism' or 'historical materialism' (or, even, 'idealism-materialism').Not, 'realism' or 'materialism'.For Marx, to talk of 'material' outside of humans and their practice, is a 'defect'. In fact, the 'chief defect'.Engels reverted to 'materialism'.Thus the problem of 'being' and 'consciousness' reappeared.
Critical is the adjective, realism the noun, you are still committed to all the tennets of realism. Especially as the existence of an exterior world is an essential premise of realism.
Chuckie wrote:is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.the above does not invalidate the notion that there is an exterior world, merely that the interior, the thoughts and ideas are part of the lived material world as well. Realism commits you to a real empirical world.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Critical is the adjective, realism the noun, you are still committed to all the tennets of realism. Especially as the existence of an exterior world is an essential premise of realism.Your move to grammar doesn't change the epistemology of it.Call it 'realistic criticalism', if you wish.And your continued use of 'realism', on its own, shows that you're ignoring what I write.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Chuckie wrote:is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively.the above does not invalidate the notion that there is an exterior world, merely that the interior, the thoughts and ideas are part of the lived material world as well. Realism commits you to a real empirical world.
No-one says there isn't an 'exterior world'. Critical Realism or Historical Materialism or Idealism-Materialism all state that. Why do you, after more than 1000 posts, return time and time again to the accusation, constantly disproved, that anyone is arguing that the 'exterior world' does not exist? That accusation is a straw man.And once again, in dismissal of all that I write, you return to 'realism'.That's the 'Engelsian Step'.Marx wasn't a 'materialist' in the Engelsian sense. For Marx, 'materialism' was inextricable linked to human production. Thus, 'critical', 'historic' and 'ideas'.Critical Realism, Historical Materialism or Idealism-Materialism.Not 'Realism' or 'Materialism'.
Grammar is important in philosophy, and critical realism is a species of realism much as historical materialism is a species of materialism: they share the essential features of their genus. Humans produce their enviornment, but not in conditions of their own choosing. the only way we can shape our discourse of the world is by the facts that we cannot ignore. We cannot vote the tides to turn.If there is an exterior world then ultimately, it determines what we can say about it, whether one person says a thing or a thousand. It is possible to be right against the party.
YMS wrote:…it determines what we can say about it…[my bold]This is the 19th century positivist ideology, followed by Engels.Naive Realism.Empiricism.Why won't you discuss epistemology, YMS?You're not following Marx (and his rejection of 'materialism'), but simply repeating that which science has proved is untrue.Rovelli.You won't tell us the 'method' that you employ that allows the external world to talk to us.You can't, without being anti-science.Science is a human activity, not the passive contemplation of 'it'.
Yes, science is human activity, but reality exists, and determines (even if only in the sense of putting a boundary to) what we can say about it. (A statement like that, I'd have thought, is epistemology, btw, that's what I thought I was discussing).So, in an epistemological vein, can we vote to stop the tides? It's a simple case, maybe you could use it to illustrate what you're trying to convey to us.
To take a comparative method:An Animist society might well just (reasonably, and scientifically) believe that the sea moves through the instigatioin of people (and lets rememebr, animals are people here) since people make things happen. they're just invisible people we call spirits. All they know is sometimes they get angry, and need to be placated.A theistic society, being more hierarchical, believes that a king has ruled, and the seas move according to his will. We can discover the mind of this king/god through what the sea does.An inductive society, perhaps more sea faring than the others, observes that the tides are usually high or low at a certain point in the calendar, or when a certain star is in the sky at sunset (stone age polynesian island tribes could do this).A scientific society would apply the inductive knowledge of tide times hitherto, and could add in knowledge of gravity and motion, and say that by predicting the motions of the moon we can calculate the axial tilt of the earth and it's effect on the fluid dynamics of the oceans (also with regard to proximity to the sun and the relative expansion of the water as it heats and cools). That is, applying theory proven in other areas to make predictions regarding the tides. Adding in the effect of wind (calculated from astronomy and meteorology) we could predict freak flooding. Maybe, even further, such a society might build on reclaimed land, and might need to predict the effects of reclamation on the volume and height of water in an estuary (as in London).
Are you within travelling distance of any party branch, Lbird.The reason i ask is that i think a face-to-face encounter with YMS would be both educational and entertaining and an extremely worthwhile venture.How we advertise and promote such an event i leave to others' imagination.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The reason i ask is that i think a face-to-face encounter with YMS would be both educational and entertaining and an extremely worthwhile venture.I think it would be a waste of time. Why?It'd be just the same as a Communist trying to explain value to an audience of neo-classical economists. In that discussion, any talk by us of 'socio-economic relationships' would be interpreted by them as 'money transactions between individuals'.For whatever reason, the neo-classicalist has to come to some critical understanding of the uselessness of their own views, prior to them then asking questions about Marx and Capital.It's the same for this issue of 'science'; if I explain the problems with Engels' materialism, contrast it with Marx's emphasis on material production (in which human ideas are as important as 'material'), and outline Critical Realism, but I'm met by people who already 'know' that I'm wrong, that the superhuman named 'Marx-Engels' cannot be faulted, and that the 'material' determines the 'ideal' (or, the 'physical' is the basis of 'ideas'), and that anyone who questions 'materialism' is ipso facto an 'idealist', then there is no point.I've always thought that Communists, who've already been through the process of coming to question something we're all told, that capitalism is natural, and then coming to reject this 'truth' which everyone 'knows', would find it easier to imagine the same process happening again to them elsewhere.If I was to put it simply, I would say that YMS, you and anyone else who's reading, will have to begin to question 'science' for themselves, before discussing it with me.Whilst one is happy with the market and science (and they are twin pillars of the ruling class), then one is happy with them, either singly or together.What's so frustrating for me, as a Communist, is that probably 90% of what I say would be totally uncontroversial to most bourgeois thinkers. The bit they'd disagree with is my ideological belief in the ability of workers to run society, and thus the political need for democratic methods being used throughout that society, including science. But they'd quite happily agree with the epistemological stuff that I've been arguing.However, so called Socialists/Communists here disagree with almost 100% of what I say. They argue for 19th century positivism, empiricism, physicalism, induction, individualism, and they do this under the influence of Engels, not Marx.So, you think it would it be "educational and entertaining and an extremely worthwhile venture". I think it would be a carcrash, as if I were to stand up in front of a roomful of rabid Thatcherite yuppies and proceeded to denigrate their wonderful market.Either I'd get a kicking by Maggie's Believers, or I'd strangle some dickhead economist who tried to tell me that the 'material market conditions' can't be questioned, and they determine that we must take a pay cuts and live in poverty, while they get a pay rise and buy more Porsches.One can't question the 'material market conditions', can one?
I have to say I have never actually read Engels on science, I'm basing my contribution to this debate almost entirely on The German Ideology and the description of materialism there, and Theses on Feuerbach (plus a bit of general philosophy I've picked up off the floor).I mean, also, I don't disagree with the philosophical principle of democratic organisation of science (indeed, that's what I've been arguing for), our disagreements are entirely practical (theory and practice anyone?) AFAICS.Personally, by the way, i have debated with free marketees, and found the process useful. The whole point of debate is to start from a point of disagreement. But then, you don't seem to believ in debate, do you?
YMS wrote:But then, you don't seem to believ in debate, do you?I was going to say something very unpleasant, but in fact I'm past caring.
But you don't. Whenever you're met with an objection, or a proposition, you just pick up the ball or resort to ad hominem. In fact, ad hominem is your default position, you ignore the words and play (what you imagine to be) the man.If everytime someone asks you what you mean by democracy and science you accuse them of being conservatives calling for practical examples, you don't help us understand what you're saying. AFAICS we simply don't understand what you're trying to say. tehre's clearly something useful there, but it's not coming across.AFAICS your 'Idealism-Materialism' neologism is just exactly what I understand by materialism, I just don't use the same, slightly otiose, name for it.
Quote:"thus the political need for democratic methods being used throughout that society, including science."That was the reason…a jury of your and YMS peers deciding democratically who is correct – the test of the vote. Plus now you mention it, the prospect of on platform fisticuffs is also appealing, too, now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.