The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:What part of Marx stating he was a materialist, did you either not accept and or, not agree with? Horses mouth eh?Steve.
We've spent months trying to discuss what Marx means by 'materialism' (and I've suggested 'realism'), but we've now regressed (appropriately enough on a religion thread) to simply accepting the master's word, as written in The Text.As I've said before, this is yet more evidence for the theory that 'Scientific Socialism' is a religion.If you're happy to follow The Word, Steve, I'm not. I do critical thought, not mindless following of texts.Is the horse's mouth Vin's Neddy?
From Neddy: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”
LBird wrote:Marx argues for ‘humanised nature’.Yes, but not in your abstract Idealist reading of the 1844 Manuscripts.Society ‘humanizes’ nature in two senses, with significant materialist modifications.Society modifies nature for itself. It ‘socializes’ nature.However, a class-divided society has no other means of ‘socializing nature’ than by ‘de-humanizing’ it.Its working-class, in the process of ‘humanizing nature’ for its ruling class, just as certainly, ‘de-humanizes nature’ for itself, and so for all of society.The reality of ‘humanized nature’ of capitalist society is its very opposite:Extinction of nature’s living organisms—expansion of capital at the expense of mass extinction of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, plants, etc.De-humanization of nature’s ‘human’ organisms—luxury and tranquility for some at the expense of poverty, starvation, war and misery for others.‘Anti-human’ disdain for nature’s habitats—irreversible destruction of rain-forests, coral-reefs, beaches, rivers, lakes, oceans, glaciers, soils, air, etc.Society comprehends the natural world scientifically.Society’s most subversive activity is its scientific practice.Modern society comprehends nature quite differently from the way its predecessors did, even when nature’s outward appearance seems much the same to it as it did to them.For example, we see nature’s Sun rise and set, much as our predecessor’s did, even though our generation largely recognizes that it is the Earth that rotates, and so comprehends the process quite differently.We see nature’s species as separate entities in themselves, much as our predecessor’s did, even though our generation largely recognizes their evolutionary heritage, and so comprehends the process quite differently.Modern society has managed to tame nature, by comprehending its processes, in ways beyond the wildest technological ideas of our predecessors. Even on trivial technological matters, the ‘ideas man’, Bill Gates, not all that long ago, confidently declared that “640kBytes should be enough RAM for anybody” and that “CD-ROMs were the future, and not the internet”.Nature can only be ‘humanized’ in Marx’s 1844 sense, when society is. When mankind institutes our Object.
LBird wrote:We've spent months trying to discuss what Marx means by 'materialism' (and I've suggested 'realism'), but we've now regressed (appropriately enough on a religion thread) to simply accepting the master's word, as written in The Text.As I've said before, this is yet more evidence for the theory that 'Scientific Socialism' is a religion.I see little point in continuing a discussion, when one of the participants refuses to accept what was written by the person oft quoted in the thread, Marx. It is not a case of "simply accepting" but more, not trying to put ones own "interpretation" of what someone else has already stated. As for claiming Scientific Socialism is a religion! I do not adhere to being a "Scientific Socialist", I am a Socialist, end of. Moreover, I don't "do" religion, in any shape or form, so your epithet is ill aimed.
steve colborn wrote:It is not a case of "simply accepting" but more, not trying to put ones own "interpretation" of what someone else has already stated.I'm afraid this is impossible, steve, and the first to do it was Engels. He 'put his own interpretation of what Marx had already stated'.To me, it's quite clear from the Theses on Feuerbach (1840s) that Engels was 'interpreting' wrongly in Ludwig Feuerbach (1880s). But Engels' interpretation (the one you're following) was already 'Marxism' (with all the authority that imprimatur entailed) before Marx's philosophic manuscripts were able to be read by us workers from the 1930s.
sc wrote:I see little point in continuing a discussion, when one of the participants refuses to accept what was written by the person oft quoted in the thread, Marx.[my bold]Funnily enough, I agree![but we have different interpretations of who that is, too ]
Vin Maratty wrote:“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”Yeah, I agree with you and Marx on this quote, Vin.Unfortunately, I also think that it applies just as well to so-called 'Scientific Socialism'.It's an 'opium', giving 'illusory happiness' to its adherents.'Real happiness' is the democratic control of production, science, truth and ethics. Not some blather about 'materialism' telling us what these should consist of.
i came across this and thought it would liven up this thread http://exfax.com/atheist/AtheismMarxismTalk.htmRosaL not the original but our anti dialectics Rosa would have been interested too
Chris Gaffney wrote:From the time of the Greeks through to modern philosophy, which is but a continuation of the Greeks, a major question has been how is reality known?The answer given divides into two principle viewpoints, the materialist and the idealist. These terms are not related at all to the popular meanings of the terms namely the person who values only material things we call materialist and the person who pursues loft ideas is an idealist. We speak only of philosophical methods here.The materialist method stands sat one end and the idealist view at the other. It makes a mockery of the person who says that they are Marxist or materialist and yet believe in God. That is, the two viewpoints are opposites.I've done the response to this nonsense to death, by now.It's Engels' erroneous dichotomous taxonomy from Ludwig Feuerbach, p. 17.It's nothing to do with Marx, who in the Theses on Feuerbach, moved towards Historical Materialism. This is NOT simple, mechanical 'materialism', but a blending of the 'active' from idealism with the 'practice' from materialism.Are you deliberately stirring things up again, ajj?
Moi? But i do miss Rosa Lichenstein's debating/discussing style …can't somebody invite her back to the list?
Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html
Vin Maratty wrote:Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study FindsSocialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science Finds
LBird wrote:Socialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science FindsOne's a person the other is an asumption about the nature of what exists. Ta da!But what is Science?
LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study FindsSocialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science Finds
What has that to do with this topic? You take every thread off topic. There is a whole thread dealing with your baseless accusations, why don't you comment on the relevant thread, where, unlike yourself, I have made my position clear ?But wait you can't as you are out of your depth so you resort to pathetic sniping.Grow some and deal with your owwn thread.
Vin Maratty wrote:Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html At least most of them turn into adults who can distinguish fact from fiction. With the exception of their religious beliefs, of course. Amazing how many people can suspend their disbelief on a Sunday.If you look at the Gallup data though, at least the percentage of non-believers in the US is gradually growing, though it's only at 15%.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study FindsSocialists Exposed to Engels Have Difficulty Distinguishing Marx From Materialism, Science Finds
What has that to do with this topic? You take every thread off topic. There is a whole thread dealing with your baseless accusations, why don't you comment on the relevant thread, where, unlike yourself, I have made my position clear ?But wait you can't as you are out of your depth so you resort to pathetic sniping.Grow some and deal with your owwn thread.
That's rich coming from you, Vin!Every time I try to get a discussion going about science and Communism, you (and not just you) do your best to 'take it off topic'.At this very moment, there is a thread, at the very start of which I pleaded with you (and the others) not to derail onto your 'materialist' hobby-horse. But you have. Even when, time after time, I take your questions (against my better judgement) at face value and spend time answering, you resort to spoiling tactics.I'll tell you why I've intervened on this thread: it sticks in my gullet about the constant harping against 'religion' when you display all the same symptoms.You're a religious fanatic, Vin.They always try to reject criticism of their god (Materialism), and resort to personal abuse (just look at your childish comments, here).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.