The Long Awaited Materialism thread
- This topic has 285 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:"Naturalism" is the view that most things can and are best described through the framework of the natural sciences. Therefore it is a physicalist position.I think you need to look at the broader literature rather than trying to do a micro-Marxologist job.
Where do you get your views from, DJP? Links to bourgeois philosophy sites are not too useful, as I've pointed out to you before.As to 'broader literature', I suggest the 'philosophy of science' for you!
Vin Maratty wrote:None of this supports your previous argument. In fact it is unrelated.That's not a very helpful comment, Vin. Mere opinion without supporting argument. It's not clear what you actually want: a reply or a confession.
VM wrote:Are you merely saying that human beings actively think and are creative.Beats saying that 'rocks talk to us', as the materialists insist!
LBird wrote:…. bourgeois philosophy.the ultimate insult!We tend to to use 'capitalist' these days but I notice the various left wing groups like to use the term 'bourgeois' as an insult. I supposed 'bourgeois' does sound more insulting. Perhaps a list of 'bourgeois' or unreliable websites might be helpful
LBird wrote:VM wrote:Are you merely saying that human beings actively think and are creative.Beats saying that 'rocks talk to us', as the materialists insist!
I think I speak on behalf of all materialists. The case for socialism depends on workers who actively think and are creative!
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,Maybe we come from different experiences of philosophy, but I'm actually a bit sniffy about real, given its etymology, i.e. that real = royal, i.e. that what is real is a product of authority (Money is "real" because the King says so). Maybe you could define what you mean by real (and by critical-realism)?Perhaps it's best for you to read:Roy Bhaskar (2008) A Realist Theory of Science Verso, LondonHe thinks that the 'real' consists of mechanisms, events and experiences. It's not an easy book, but it's a key text for realism.A bit easier is:Margaret Archer (2003) Realist social theory CUP, CambridgeA collection of differing writers on the subject can be found in:Jon Frauley and Frank Pearce (eds.) (2007) Critical Realism and the Social Sciences Univ Toronto Press,which includes an introduction to Bhaskar's ideas in chapter 2.Happy exploring!
DJP wrote:LOL I'd like to know how philosophy of science escapes the tag of 'bourgeois' to.Well, you know my views that 'science' comes in both 'bourgeois' and 'proletarian' flavours, and I've tried to stimulate a discussion on it before, but we never get very far, do we?I've asked questions, to try to bring into focus the differences, but it seems 'unspoken assumptions' are preferred to 'outlining beliefs'.Ah well, never mind!
Wikipedia wrote:Transcendental realism attempts to establish that in order for scientific investigation to take place, the object of that investigation must have real, manipulable, internal mechanisms that can be actualised to produce particular outcomes. This is what we do when we conduct experiments. This stands in contrast to empiricist scientists' claim that all scientists can do is observe the relationship between cause and effect and impose meaning. Whilst empiricism, and positivism more generally, locate causal relationships at the level of events, Critical Realism locates them at the level of the generative mechanism, arguing that causal relationships are irreducible to empirical constant conjunctions of David Hume's doctrine; in other words, a constant conjunctive relationship between events is neither sufficient nor even necessary to establish a causal relationship.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_the_social_sciences%29Not so far from what Engels said, unless I'm misreading one or the other heinously…
Greetings,As a newcomer to this site I start this with the intention of not blundering in with a Berlin Wall of text – which believe me – will take an uncharacteristic degree of self control which may not last //make that 'will not last'I will simply first say that I am encouraged and thank the hosts for a space which allows so many topics to be explored more fully: because of this there is the possibility of sequential progress even in disagreement.I have spent many hours reading yesterday and today.***40 years ago Marx's Material Conception of History the premises for this, the radical basis for cutting through the overgrowth of of all previous 'off the world' starting points of the philosphers,moralists, theologians and starting with 'man, real man on this earth breathing in and out' ..reasonably swiftly after all manner of 'hi falutin' (mis)education gave me a veritable swiss army knife of a tool which still never seems to fail me in cutting through the jungle of Bourgeois chaos.Now I mean Marx's Materialist Conception of History: not the various what I call 'Daily Mail' misrepresentations of it (and even in Left Communist mileux it seems that there are those who – even unwittingly – accept such)****Speaking of 'ghosts' et alia above:Only now, after having considered four moments, four aspects of the primary historical relationships, do we find that man also possesses “consciousness,” but, even so, not inherent, not “pure” consciousness. From the start the “spirit” is afflicted with the curse of being “burdened” with matter, which here makes its appearance in the form of agitated layers of air, sounds, in short, of language. Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical consciousness that exists also for other men,[A] and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men.Now leaving for later the distinction necessary between 'consciousness' as used here to 'ground' Hegel's 'pure' consciousness (german: 'reines' as in 'immaculate' as in 'immaculate conception') and many other uses, I always smile at Marx's almost compassionate snipe at Hegel that alas! 'Spirit' from the very beginning was 'burdened' with 'matter' ( all the inverted commas are Marx's AS)The radical re-write of all former 'assumed' starting points is specifically making the fundamental and radical shift in clarity that 'consciousness' is no more and no less than 'their' or 'our' consciousness : it isn't 'up there ' waitng to be attained by some philosphical astronaut. :@}Just a quick wildcard about 'matter' with no agenda here: the Tibetan Buddhist teaching (and for Buddha there was only one 'science') is of 'interdependant arising':The classically useed example being: You see a rainbow: it appears to be 'really' there: oh…..now it isn't….er…AS
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Freddy wrote:From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail.[my bold]YMS, can you see the contradiction in what Fred is saying, later in the passage.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Freddy wrote:But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.
[my bold]Fred uses the terms 'must' and 'positive', but these are logically undermined by 'so far'.Either 'knowledge is positive' (and is the same as reality, a 'copy' or 'reflection') or 'knowledge is historical' (and is produced by humans, creatively, actively, and thus might be wrong).That is, 'so far' as it works, it is 'knowledge'. But… what 'works' for one society, doesn't 'work' for another. This is why Marx would be loathe to use 'must' and 'positive', because he argued for the social and historical nature of human knowledge. Indeed, he even thought our 'senses' to be social and historical, rather than biologically-fixed, and thus our senses wouldn't produce the same perception for any individual in time.Fred was a positivist, but Charlie wasn't. Or, more correctly, Fred seems to have been both, because of the confusion within his works: he was a poor philosopher, and didn't seem to realise the implications of many of the statements that he made. Charlie was a trained philosopher, but Fred was an amatuer, and it showed (and, indeed, still shows, in his works).
Engels did create a great mess in philosophy and anthropology due to his amateurism, and Lenin and the Bolsheviks used some of his mistakes in order to propagate a bigger mess. ( Ironically, Lenin cited Engels more than Marx ) The problem is that, most peoples believe that there were not philosophical and economical differences between Marx and Engels, ( The Anti-Duhring, Dialectic of Nature, and his book on Morgan are examples of his mistakes ) and that Lenin philosophical point of view are a continuation of Marxism ( Expression that I personally do not like to use because Marx was not a Marxist ) and a continuation of the socialist theory. The whole left is still repeating all the errors of Frederick Engels, even more, he is more popular than Marx also, and they hate Anton Pannecock who showed all the mistakes and distortion made by Lenin.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Or do you think 'value' doesn't exist, because 'there is no-thing outside or beyond matter'? Marx clearly thinks 'value' is 'outside' of 'matter'.Does he? Without getting out and dusting down my copy of capital I think Marx refers to 'Value' as a relationship between people expressed as a relationship between things. The relationship is in all our heads and has a material existence within our grey matter.
That is what Marx called the fetishism of the commodity
mcolome1 wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Or do you think 'value' doesn't exist, because 'there is no-thing outside or beyond matter'? Marx clearly thinks 'value' is 'outside' of 'matter'.Does he? Without getting out and dusting down my copy of capital I think Marx refers to 'Value' as a relationship between people expressed as a relationship between things. The relationship is in all our heads and has a material existence within our grey matter.
That is what Marx called the fetishism of the commodity.
Yes, I gave an example of this 'fetishisation of relationships', earlier. That is, the making of a 'relationship' into a 'thing'.
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:If we are to presume mind-brain identity then the concept 'ghost' or 'father christmas' are just the result of a certain configuration of grey matter inside the brain.[my bold]To hold that opinion, DJP, is fair enough. But it's an individualist explanation, and so is likely to be anathema to Communists.The opposite viewpoint, that the mind is social, suggests that the mind lies in relationships between 'brains'.That is "the concept 'ghost' or 'father christmas' are just the result of a certain configuration of relationships outside the brain".This is a social and historical view of concepts, not a 'grey matter', mechanical materialist, view of concepts.One way of picturing this difference between us, is to ask which ears does the mind lie between, when given a photo of the two of us together.On the photo, you'd put an 'x' between your ears, and another between my ears. Our faces would each have an 'x' on them. Whereas, I'd place a single 'x' between our two nearest ears, in the middle of the photo.
If one places the 'x' between the ears of the individual, one is 'fetishising' the 'relationship' which exists between the nearest ears of the two individuals.'Relationships' are not 'objects' (or 'physical things'); they are relationships between 'objects'.As Marx says, there is not an ounce of matter in value (not even 'grey matter'), because value is a social relationship.
LBird wrote:If one places the 'x' between the ears of the individual, one is 'fetishising' the 'relationship' which exists between the nearest ears of the two individuals.Clattrap. I'm really starting to think you're aff yer head.If I was to aim the cross hairs of my revolver firmly between your ears and pull the trigger your mind would cease to be.Simularly if I was to slip some LSD into your drink the only effect would be in your mind, not in the mind of any others near you.Your mind is firmly placed inside your skull.I think we should change the discussion now to angels and pinheads.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:If one places the 'x' between the ears of the individual, one is 'fetishising' the 'relationship' which exists between the nearest ears of the two individuals.Clattrap. I'm really starting to think you're aff yer head.If I was to aim the cross hairs of my revolver firmly between your ears and pull the trigger your mind would cease to be.Simularly if I was to slip some LSD into your drink the only effect would be in your mind, not in the mind of any others near you.Your mind is firmly placed inside your skull.I think we should change the discussion now to angels and pinheads.
Spoken like a true individualist and reductionist, DJP!Simply, the 'mind' is not the 'brain'. These are differing philosophical positions, DJP, between what we're saying.That's why your understanding of value is 'materialist', whereas I'm with Marx, and see value as a social relationship.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.