The gravity of the situation
- This topic has 205 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think that in his confused way he may be trying to say the same as us, i.e. that there is something out there which exists independently of consciousness and that to survive in it humans, in societies, create 'mental constructs' of it which are not the same nor a mirror image of it. He calls what the human mind works on "inorganic nature" (and imagines that Marx did, but that's another matter. but it's not what it's called that matters):
Quote:No-one is arguing that is 'nothing out there independently of consciousness'. There is, according to Marx, 'inorganic nature', from which we actively create 'organic nature'.Quote:The 'something that is perhaps beyond description' is Marx's 'inorganic nature', the externality from consciousness that provides a resource for our labour, our theory and practice. Marx argues that we 'metabolise' inorganic nature into organic nature, so 'phenomena' are our creation, and our descriptions of phenomena are thus objective descriptions of our objects.LBird wrote:This is Marx's method of 'theory and practice', in which historically-specific social groups actively produce their social knowledge of an 'inorganic' nature: that is, they produce 'organic nature', 'nature-for-us'. Inorganic nature' is not the 'active side', and humans do not passively reflect 'inorganic nature', we create our object, our 'organic nature'. 'Gravitational waves' are a socio-historical construct, they are 'knowledge'. They now form part of current 'organic nature'.The confusion arises over the different usages of the term phenomena. Pannekoek used it in same sense as LB's "inorganic nature", i.e the world out there, the "externality from consciousness" that provides the material out of which the human mind produces "mental constructs". LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.This different linguistic usage leads him to think that we think "mental constructs" are the real world (i. e are crass materialists) and us to think that he is saying that all that exists are mental constructs (i.e is a crass idealist). Or, in relation to theme of this thread, he thinks we think that "gravitational waves" are real rather than mental constructs out of "the world of phenomena" while we think he thinks that the part of the "world of phenomena" out of which the concept of "gravitational waves" has been constructed is itself just a mental construct.
ALB wrote:I think that in his confused way he may be trying to say the same as us, i.e. that there is something out there which exists independently of consciousness and that to survive in it humans, in societies, create 'mental constructs' of it which are not the same nor a mirror image of it.I must say that I welcome gratefully (not sarcasm) ALB's belated realisation that I'm actually making serious political and philosophical points in these debates.
ALB wrote:LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.No, I am not arguing that 'inorganic nature' is 'isolated in the mind'.This is the reading of 'materialists', who do not recognise the Marxian concept of the 'ideal-material' (or, to re-term it, the 'socially-produced').'Materialists' separate 'ideal' and 'material' (ie. separate 'consciousness' and 'being'), and so have a fixation upon separating the 'mind' from 'matter'.What humans 'socially-produce' (by 'theory and practice') is 'mind-matter', our 'nature-for-us', our 'organic nature'. So, it's not 'inorganic nature in the mind'. That is an impossibility. Our 'the sun' is the result of social theory and practice, and is not just in the mind. It is a social product, which thus exists, and we are its creator.ALB, unless you reveal your ideology of how you're 'understanding' what I'm saying, then we will continue to have problems, and you'll continue to 'interpet' what I'm supposedly saying, rather than understanding just what I am saying (from a different ideological perspective).Clearly, I'll say that what differs between us, is our differing ideological approachs, mine being Marx's, and yours being Engels'.I hope that we can now clarify our political differences, which have epistemological and thus scientific consequences.The key issue is whether 'the sun' is socially-produced (thus we can change 'the sun') or 'the sun' is simply 'out there' as it is, fixed forever (and thus we can't change it).To pretend to talk of 'the sun' outside of our knowledge of it, is bourgeois ideology, can be located in time and within a class' reactionary interests, and leads to an inability to change our world.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.No, I am not arguing that 'inorganic nature' is 'isolated in the mind'.
ALB actually wrote:The confusion arises over the different usages of the term phenomena. Pannekoek used it in same sense as LB's "inorganic nature", i.e the world out there, the "externality from consciousness" that provides the material out of which the human mind produces "mental constructs". LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.I don't think you realise the huge concession you have made to "materialism" with your concept of "inorganic nature" as an "externality for consciousness" that is not "isolated in the mind". The difference between your "inorganic nature" and "matter" is only a matter of terminology. You too are separating "being" ("inorganic nature") from "consciousness".If you want to call yourself an "inorganic naturist" that's ok as long as the definitions are clear, but personally I still prefer "materialist" despite its range of meanings.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.No, I am not arguing that 'inorganic nature' is 'isolated in the mind'.
ALB actually wrote:The confusion arises over the different usages of the term phenomena. Pannekoek used it in same sense as LB's "inorganic nature", i.e the world out there, the "externality from consciousness" that provides the material out of which the human mind produces "mental constructs". LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.I don't think you realise the huge concession you have made to "materialism" with your concept of "inorganic nature" as an "externality for consciousness" that is not "isolated in the mind". The difference between your "inorganic nature" and "matter" is only a matter of terminology. You too are separating "being" ("inorganic nature") from "consciousness".If you want to call yourself an "inorganic naturist" that's ok as long as the definitions are clear, but personally I still prefer "materialist" despite its range of meanings.
What's the betting that the wordsmith will try to twist himself out of this conundrum by resorting to a connotation?
ALB wrote:I don't think you realise the huge concession you have made to "materialism" with your concept of "inorganic nature" as an "externality for consciousness" that is not "isolated in the mind". The difference between your "inorganic nature" and "matter" is only a matter of terminology. You too are separating "being" ("inorganic nature") from "consciousness".No, 'matter' is a product of social theory and practice, ALB.'Inorganic nature' is an unknowable 'in itself' ingredient for active human social theory and practice.This is Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (a term which simply tries to capture the contemporary debate which Marx was engaged in).But, for Engelsist Materialists, of which I think you seem to (perhaps unknowingly) number, 'matter' is not a social product, but an 'externality to consciousness', that can be known.So, Marxists do not separate 'consciousness' from 'being', because for them 'matter' is a social product, better called 'mind-matter'. 'Inorganic nature' cannot be passively known, but can only provide an ingredient to human labour.Engelsists insist that 'matter' can be known 'as it is' (ie. outside of consciousness), and so do separate 'being' and 'consciousness'.
ALB wrote:If you want to call yourself an "inorganic naturist" that's ok as long as the definitions are clear, but personally I still prefer "materialist" despite its range of meanings.But I wouldn't call myself an 'inorganic naturalist', simply because that would separate 'consciousness' from 'being'.I would call myself (in Marx's contemporary terms) an 'idealist-materialist', or a 'social productionist', which insists that the only 'nature' we know is our product, 'organic nature'.I think that I've said many times why I think that you'd be making a mistake to continue to call yourself a 'materialist'. It leaves you open to the accusation that you accept Engels' views about 'matter', which he saw as 'existing out there' rather than as a 'social product'.In political terms, Engels actually undid Marx's work. He laid the basis for Leninist politics, with his talk of 'matter' outside of consciousness. Marx was well aware (given his background in German Idealism and philosophical training), that pretending to take 'matter' outside of consciousness was impossible, and simply let 'consciousness' in through the back door, in the shape of a 'special consciousness' as the 'active side'.This is a bourgeois ideological approach, and allows a part of society to rise above the majority, as Marx warned in his Theses on Feuerbach, which was a text at least as critical of materialism as of idealism.Finally, I've given already the emergence of this separation of being and consciousness, and it's in the reaction in 1660 to the hopes of the radicals of the English Revolution, who wanted the purpose of science to be 'to build a better world for all'.It was the bourgeoisie who introduced the reactionary science of supposedly merely 'telling the Truth of Reality'. That's impossible, but its fixity of 'nature' and the pretence that we play no part in its production, entirely suited a ruling class which was engaged in actively building its world, but wanted to hide that process, and to deny the possibility to contending classes.
Alan is on the right track with his links to these philosophical questions."Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved."Much the same as LBirds sun that does not exist without human knowledge of the sun.This to my mind takes us back to an old philosophical/religious view that humans are the pinnacle of creation, placing humans at the center of nature. That we have a special place, a consciousness that stresses human experience as the most important thing in nature. It was an idea that allowed ruling elites of days gone by to create a dominating social hierarchy based on their reason and religions.For me at least science removed that specialness of humans and puts us into context within an ever changing world of which we are but a tiny insignificant part. Call it bourgeois if it gets you off.I doubt LBird and myself will ever see eye to eye on this issue as I will never accept his creationist communism
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt LBird and myself will ever see eye to eye on this issue as I will never accept his creationist socialism.That's fair enough conclusion, SP, but it leaves open the question of just who does create.Prior to Marx, opinion held that 'creation' was a 'divine' act, and it was precisely this belief that the Young Hegelians were arguing against.I'd argue that if you don't accept Marx's (not simply 'my') 'creationist socialism', then you'll revert to what went before, which will be either 'divine production' or 'passive materialism'.For me, these questions were settled in the 1840s, by Marx, amongst others.
SocialistPunk wrote:"Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved."They allude to the 18th century idealist philosophy of George Berkley who argued that things only exist when being observed. (sound familiar?)When it was demonstated that things did not disappear when we closed our eyes. He came up with this: "I'm always about in the quad. And that's why the tree. Continues to be, Since observed by yours faithfully, ", GodTypical idealist, eh? Of course Einstein wouldn't be so naive
LBird,For me it is your ideological thinking regarding this issue that is painfully close to the historical view that humans were at the pinnacle of creation. It allowed a minority to dominate with their humancentric logical views and religions.Placing humanities experience or consciousness squarely in the driving seat of "reality"or "truth" leads us to class divided society. It separates us from nature by declaring our reality is the only reality that is important.Science and socialism for me tells me that we are but a part of nature and as such have no special privileges to dominate and destroy as we see fit. Your creationist communism on the other hand says the collective "reality" is the ultimate "truth" and so the collective mind can never be wrong. So if the collective mind can never be wrong, the collective mind can do no wrong. Scary stuff indeed.
SocialistPunk wrote:"Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved."Don't forget, SP, neither Einstein nor Bohr were Democratic Communists, so they're not the best people for socialists to ask for epistemological advice.In fact, neither understood the issue, as the exchange you quote displays.They could not understand the philosophical issues involved. If you won't take my word, read what they actually wrote.I've some sympathy for Einstein, who at least took politics seriously, and saw himself as some sort of 'socialist', but Bohr's attempts to make sense of epistemology are simply childish and ignorant.I'd go so far to say, that reading Bohr on epistemology is comparable to reading the scrawlings of a six-year-old using a red crayon on cardboard, it's that poor.Don't be taken in by the 'physicist of genius' tag – Bohr hasn't got a clue.That's why bourgeois science is in the mess it is – none of them seem to be able to put down the mud pies and rocks, and ask political and philosophical questions.Of course, they're completely brainwashed by bourgeois science ideology – they think that they don't need to keep 'consciousness and being' together, and really have faith that they are merely 'dealing with reality as it is'.Bourgeois Buffoons.
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,For me it is your ideological thinking regarding this issue that is painfully close to the historical view that humans were at the pinnacle of creation. It allowed a minority to dominate with their humancentric logical views and religions.Placing humanities experience or consciousness squarely in the driving seat of "reality"or "truth" leads us to class divided society. It separates us from nature by declaring our reality is the only reality that is important.Science and socialism for me tells me that we are but a part of nature and as such have no special privileges to dominate and destroy as we see fit. Your creationist communism on the other hand says the collective "reality" is the ultimate "truth" and so the collective mind can never be wrong. So if the collective mind can never be wrong, the collective mind can do no wrong. Scary stuff indeed.Once again, SP, I acknowledge your ideological honesty, but what you're saying seems to be little to do with workers' power, democratic control of social production, active humanity, changing our world, or socialism.We have very different opinions of what constitutes 'socialism'.Perhaps a new thread to determine just what posters here mean by 'socialism', in the light of what's been said here?
LBird wrote:Perhaps a new thread to determine just what posters here mean by 'socialism', in the light of what's been said here?https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/what-socialism Let's here your definition
LBird wrote:'Inorganic nature' is an unknowable 'in itself' ingredient for active human social theory and practice.Aha, so it's back to Kantian dualism with the distinction between the phenomena we experience through the senses and an unknowable thing-in-itself behind these phenomena !From the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Quote:Noumenon, plural Noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon.And a comment from elsewhere as to where this leads (and has led many times on this forum):
Quote:According to Kant, the problem of philosophy before him had been that objects were confused with things in themselves. That is, the tree outside my window was thought as being the tree-as-it-is-in-itself. This lead to the problem that if this is so, then what I am really seeing is the mere idea of that tree, a representation of it, and the real tree is always left unperceived. That lead to skeptical problems like Hume's, where it was accepted that we can never know whether there really is a tree out there or not, if we are stuck with only the idea in our head. Berkeley also advocated such a view so that he claimed that it makes no sense to begin with, so matter must be dropped – the real tree is also an idea.If that's your view I agree it would be out of order to call you a "materialist" even by another name. I don't think "Marxist" would be appropriate either as it wasn't Marx view.
As far as I can tell, ALB, you're missing out Marx's 'theory and practice'.This is nothing to do with experience of phenomena, but the creation of our object.I think that you're making this mistake because, not being prepared to expose your own ideology, you can't understand mine.I'm not a materialist; I'm not an idealist; I'm an idealist-materialist.This can be summed up as 'theory and practice', and anyone who claims to use Marx's 'theory and practice' should be able to tell us just what their 'theory' is.That is, their political ideology, which they use to build their 'science'.
Since you insist, it's this (but it's a theory of science not an "ideology"):http://mailstrom.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/joseph-dietzgen-workers-philosopher.htmlHere's an extract that's relevant to your recourse to Kant's theory of an unknowable thing-in-itself as a way of trying to avoid coming across as a classical idealist:
Quote:Dietzgen was a thoroughgoing empiricist and materialist. For him all knowledge was derived from sense-perception and what human beings perceived had a real existence independent of their perception of it.The Nature of Human Brainwork (1869) presents an empiricist theory of knowledge derived from a rejection of Kantian dualism. Kant had claimed that Reason (=science, knowledge) could only deal with the world of experience, but the world of experience, according to him, was only a world of appearances or, to use a word derived from Greek meaning the same, a world of ‘phenomena’. Thus science could never come to understand the world as it really was, the world of what Kant called ‘things-in-themselves’ of which he supposed the world of phenomena to be but appearances. For Kant. there were two worlds: a world of phenomena, which was all the human mind could come to understand, and a world of things-in-themselves beyond human experience and understanding.For Dietzgen, to posit the existence of a second world beyond the world of experience was simply metaphysical nonsense. ‘Phenomena or appearances appear – voilà tout.’ The world of phenomena was the only world; phenomena were themselves real, the substance of the real world. Phenomena, however, says Dietzgen, do not exist as independent entities; they exist only as parts or the entire single world of phenomena. The world of reality is a single entity embracing all observable phenomena, past, present and future. Reality is thus infinite, having no beginning nor end. It is constantly changing. The universe and all things in it consist of transformations of matter, which take place simultaneously and consecutively in space and time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.