Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology
- This topic has 223 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Unless you accept that Marx links subject and object by activity, then you won't understand the analogy, and will simply, as a 'materialist', wish to 'know' what 'dough' is, 'in-itself', outside of any baker, recipe and pie.I'm not a 'dough-in-itself-ist', and neither was Marx.
Dough has properties, and qualities. But thse qualities are not dough in itself, but dough for us, we shape the dough by our approach to it, but can only do with it what we can do with dough.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Unless you accept that Marx links subject and object by activity, then you won't understand the analogy, and will simply, as a 'materialist', wish to 'know' what 'dough' is, 'in-itself', outside of any baker, recipe and pie.I'm not a 'dough-in-itself-ist', and neither was Marx.Dough has properties, and qualities. But thse qualities are not dough in itself, but dough for us, we shape the dough by our approach to it, but can only do with it what we can do with dough.
That's an arguable opinion, YMS, that Marx's 'inorganic nature' has an 'existence' outside of its 'ingredientness'.But it's not Marx's opinion, as I've shown, and as Jordan confirms. Also, Bogdanov is useful here, too, because he argues that 'resistance' implies 'activity', and 'activity' implies 'resistance'. The two are inescapably interlinked, as are subject and object.Furthermore, the argument that 'inorganic nature' 'exists outside' of our usage of it, is what the bourgeoisie argue.These are opposed ideologies, but only one of those ideologies would be in the interests, and for the purposes, of the democratic proletariat.Workers have to choose their ideology. Either they chose to determine, by social theory and practice, their own object, or they passively accept the object presented to them by the active bourgeoisie (who employ their own theory and practice to produce 'object-for-them'). Obviously, class interests are involved in this choice of epistemology.
LBird wrote:You'll have to explain the relevance of your model to the revolutionary proletariat who wish to change their world and democratise all social production.In your dough analogy, how would you respond to the worker who asks "How can I make a table into cheese?"
LBird wrote:That's an arguable opinion, YMS, that Marx's 'inorganic nature' has an 'existence' outside of its 'ingredientness'.Not quite what I argued, I argued that inorganic nature has ingredientness, and that ingredientness is qualitative.The unity of subject and object is what creates our world, but both must bring something to the table, else we are dealing with unrefined idealism, you haven't shown that Marx thought inorganic nature to be undiffeentiated, and it's arguable that's not what Jordan says, neither.As I've already demonstratde, it isn't necessarily true that the workers' side must be on undifferentiated created nature, if your major premise that the world is only created, is falsified.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:You'll have to explain the relevance of your model to the revolutionary proletariat who wish to change their world and democratise all social production.In your dough analogy, how would you respond to the worker who asks "How can I make a table into cheese?"
Why would a worker whose purpose is to understand Marx's epistemology ask a question irrelevant to the analogy?
You'll have to read Jordan's article if you want to understand any more, YMS.If you don't agree with Marx and Jordan, that's fine by me.Just use 'your' ideology when workers ask about epistemology. And if they prefer your ideology to mine, that's fine by me, too.
Seems supremely relevent to me, and one that's much more likely to engage the practical sidedness of your working type. It seems to cut to the chase, if we create the world, we can make a table into cheese, if inorganic nature really is undifferentiated. That is the consequence of your argument, and you need to be able to defend it, lest you'll never convinvce the workers to your cause.
No, please do explain how I can turn a table into cheese. Either:1) I'm radically misunderstanding your position.2) Inorganic nature is differentiated, real and our being in that world depends ono the relationship of our needs to that reality.
Young Master Smeet wrote:No, please do explain how I can turn a table into cheese. Either:1) I'm radically misunderstanding your position.2) Inorganic nature is differentiated, real and our being in that world depends ono the relationship of our needs to that reality.There is a third possibility, YMS, but since the thread has been mostly comradely, and in the interests of avoiding a ban, I'll leave it to others to work it out.
It's a pretty simple question: if the world is undifferentiated, when we acheive socialism, can we voe tables into cheese? What is stopping us? History?
LBird wrote:And you keep using 'this obscure elitist academic and bourgeois language you have such a fondness for': 'materialism'. That's what I am trying to get you to see but you don't see it.And what 'you' (ahem) 'suggest' is a well-attested ideology, an ideology that pretends not to be a social ideology, but common-or-garden, simple, basic, individual common sense!You're the one separating 'idea' from 'physical' – which is an ancient philosophy, which separates the 'subject' from the 'object' (or, the 'idea' from the 'physical'; or, 'consciousness' from 'being'; or, 'ideal' from 'material', etc.).I am not doing anything of the sort LBird. I don't have any problem with the argument that we cannot apprehend the physical world around us apart from the ideas or assumptions we hold about that world . Or as you once put it, "the rocks don't speak to us". I agree and, as you well know, I am not a positivist and do not believe that science is value-free or non-ideological. As I recall, I have been arguing this very point long before you even joined this forum But this is not the issue. The issue concerns your inept use of the word "produce" in relation to the phase you come up with – "We do actually "produce" our physical world". No we don't. What we produce is a MENTAL PICTURE or concept of our physical world but we don't actually literally produce this world around us that we experience through our senses, do we ? Did you "produce" the rock that you found and picked up on the beach the other day? Of course not It might seem trite even to have to point this out to you but there are larger philosophocal issues at at sake here. While you criticise dualistic theories that separate the "subject" from the "object" you yourself seem to be verging on an entirely subjectivist point of view which denies the interpenetration – or interaction – of subject and object by virture of denying the existence of the latter as possesssing properties independent of our will or thoughts. Of course I am aware that we cannot know what these properties are without thinking about them but the logic of what you are saying with your use of the word "produce" is that "the", or "our", physical world – it really makes no difference as far as the substantive argument is concerned – does not exist outside of our thought processes. That is obviously absurd since it suggests that if nothing can exist outside of our thinking about then then nothing could have existed existed prior to thinking human beings appearing on the scene All those billions of states and galaxies we see in the night sky never existed before homo sapiens first appeared on the earth and then "produced" them. Is this what you are saying LBird?
robbo, it seems pointless for me to say the same things, once again.You can read what I'm saying, and what I'm saying is backed up by Jordan.What seems to be the problem is that you don't accept what I'm saying. Which is fair enough.But these are Marx's arguments, and I do accept what Marx says.The difference between us is an ideological difference.You use the term 'exists' – I use the term 'exists-for-us'. You thus separate object from subject, whereas I don't (for Marx, an 'object' can't 'exist' before it's produced by a 'subject'). You might not like this, but it is what Marx argues, as Jordan clearly outlines, and with which I agree.As I've said, if you think this is 'obviously absurd', then tell us what your ideology says. Then we can compare your ideology with Marx's, and I'll point out the differences.
LBird wrote:(for Marx, an 'object' can't 'exist' before it's produced by a 'subject').I think LBird is getting Marx confused with 'Genesis'
LBird wrote:robbo, it seems pointless for me to say the same things, once again.You can read what I'm saying, and what I'm saying is backed up by Jordan.What seems to be the problem is that you don't accept what I'm saying. Which is fair enough.Or it could be that you are just hopeless at explaining what you are trying to say. Which leads me to think that you would be better advised to completely drop such arcane academic phrases as "We do actually "produce" our physical world" which seems to suggest that before there were rocks, trees, oceans and the Milky Way itself there were human beings who then proceeded to …er…"produce" these things And the biggest irony of all is that you were the one going on recently about wanting to make Marx more comprehensible to ordinary workers having yourself swallowed some kind of philosophy dictionary. LOL LBird
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.