Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology
- This topic has 223 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Your argument is flawed because the 'subject' is the 'active side'.If you wish to 'know' the 'properties' of 'inorganic nature', that is, 'nature-in-itself', then you are separating subject and object.
I'm not seeking to know Nature in itself, but what nature for us is.
Quote:Your claim differs from Marx's. Marx argues for the social production of 'organic nature' (or, 'nature-for-us'). You're arguing for 'nature-in-itself'.And I agree with that claim, I'm asking, if there is a relationship between subject and object: what is the relationship, if only one part has properties? Perhaps you can explain, for Marx.
Young Master Smeet wrote:*Ahem* "Emancipated labour", "Common ownership""Humans, without power": do you see power existing in socialism? "mental states accord with its lived experience" is that not another way of saying "theory and practice" oh, I think it is. I also didn't mention moon rockets, calamari nor bovril.As I said, no workers/proletariat, democracy or revolution."mental states accord with its lived experience" is that not another way of saying "theory and practice" oh, I think it is." – no, it's a way of referring to 'individuals', their brains and biological activity, and slyly avoids mentioning 'social theory and practice', or 'democratic production'. Perhaps you're only fooling yourself."do you see power existing in socialism?"This is the clincher – of course 'power' will exist in socialism. Only those who claim 'individual sovereignty', will disagree with the view that socialism will involved social disagreement, debates, votes, decisions, and minorities who lose the social argument.That's why you avoid terms like 'democracy' and 'social production'.Why not come clean about your ideology, YMS? Are you simply unaware of it, or consciously hiding it from everyone?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm not seeking to know Nature in itself, but what nature for us is.'Nature for us' is 'properties for us'.You're arguing for 'properties in themselves'.So, you are seeking to know 'nature in itself'.
Lbird, I think you need to brush up on yoru English. What is the subject of this sentence: "unalienated humanity that's mental states accord with its lived experience"The absence of power is not about individual sovereignty (you're the one interpolating that), but of conditions in which consent and co-operation are the basic need. Power creates sovereign individuals, the absence of power is the absence of the sovereign indivuidual.DemocracySocial productionRevolution.
LBird wrote:'Nature for us' is 'properties for us'.You're arguing for 'properties in themselves'.So, you are seeking to know 'nature in itself'.No, I'm arguing in properties for us, if we give things all their properties, if they do not exist without us, they do not exist, and there is just us. To be a thing for us is different from the thing in itself.Imagine a rorschach test: for me, it is a a terrifying dragon: for you, it is an accurate reading of Marx: for both of us, such a thing is terrifying. Now, for us, it brings patterns of light, we never see the blots in themselves, but we enter into a relationship. We cannot enter into a relationship with a blank sheet.
So, now you're playing with words.Unsuprisingly, it always ends like this.You list the words I mention, but outside of any context of your political ideology. So, 'isolated terms' which reflect your 'isolated individual' ideology.Logic is not a strongpoint of yours, either."We cannot enter into a relationship with a blank sheet."'Unknown sheet' does not mean 'blank sheet'. You always do this – you exchange what I write for what you wish that I had written.Marx argues that the 'sheet' is unknown. It can only become known with a knower.You argue that this amounts to a 'blank sheet'.You claim that the 'sheet' can be known without a knower – that's why you claim that the 'sheet' has 'properties' outside of the 'knower' – for you, the passive knower simply finds properties of the 'sheet-in-itself'.For Marx, the active knower creates the 'sheet-for-the-knower'. There isn't a 'sheet' (marked or blank) simply waiting to be passively 'discovered'. Any 'sheet-we-know' is a social product. And since we create the 'sheet-we-know', we can change it.Anyway, I'll leave you to ignore what Marx, Jordan and I write.
For other trying to follow this thread, I'll re-use an analogy that I used earlier.Marx argues that we live in a world of 'pies' (objects).We are the baker that bakes our pies.Pies are the product of our social theory and practice upon 'dough' (inorganic nature).Dough only has meaning as an ingredient into our baking.Those who wish to 'know dough' outside of any active relationship with the baker are faced with an impossible task. They wish to know 'dough-in-itself'.The bourgeois claim that dough creates pies (without them baking those pies), and that they simply 'discover' the 'pies' on the shelf, and just hand the pies to us, for our consumption. Thus, we can't change the pies that we consume.Finally, 'dough-in-itself' is another term for 'god'.Those who claim to seek 'dough', prior to our creating of our pies, are religious, have faith in dough, and seek god.
Yes, the sheet can only become known by a knower, so far so banal (but at least we'regetting somewhere). The thing in itself remains unknown, and we can only know the thing for us: but for a knowing relationship to occur, for here to be a relationship.I think also, the word "create" is the problem, unless you can point to Marx using the word create, we have the citation I posted from Jordan that the relationship is "production" (i.e. transformation), the knower produces the sheet-for-the knower.Lets try getting away from blank sheets, clearly that's confused you, Can we enter into a relationship with nothing?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lets try getting away from blank sheets, clearly that's confused you, Can we enter into a relationship with nothing?Still changing what Marx says, eh? Don't you get tired of making things up?Marx argues that we are in a relationship with 'inorganic nature'.Your question about 'a relationship with nothing' is an attempt to confuse what Marx argues. You've done this so many times that I can't put it down to simple ignorance – you are purposely sowing confusion.You wish to 'know' 'inorganic nature' 'as it is', as 'nature-in-itself'. Why not expose your ideology?
I didn't ask what Marx says (nor imply anything about what Marx says) I asked a simple question, for you and your understanding alone: is it possible to enter into a relationship with nothing?
For those who've had enough of YMS's word-games, which have nothing to whatsoever with Jordan's book or Marx's ideas, here's a further attempt at explanation.For Marx, to 'know' is to 'use'.So, to 'know nature' we have to 'use nature'.The question of 'what is nature when its not being used by us?' is meaningless to Marx.Marx calls the 'ingredient into our usage' 'inorganic nature', and the product of our usage 'organic nature'.This is the key part of Marx's epistemology: the active subject, which produces its own object.Activity and production are essential concepts within Marx's epistemology.When we want to 'know' anything, we have to ask 'who produced it?' and 'for whose purposes and interests was it produced?'.Because we produce anything that we can know, we can also change that product.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I didn't ask what Marx says (nor imply anything about what Marx says) I asked a simple question, for you and your understanding alone: is it possible to enter into a relationship with nothing?[my bold]LOL!Back to solipsism. The bedrock which you build upon.Now, openly, not just no democracy, no social production, no proletariat, no workers' power, no politics……just YMS's simple ideology: the individual, alone.Why don't you come out of the bourgeois closet, YMS? You'll feel much more relaxed with yourself!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.