Z A Jordan and Marx’s epistemology

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx regarded humans as divine creators.

JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?

You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.

To rephrase YMS's question, where (in your opinion) did Marx think humans come from if he thought that the world was their divine creation?

Jordan, section 4 Sacred and Profane History (in book, pp. 34-7).

[Young Master Smeet]

Tim,

Jordan wrote:

It is a fateful error to set society and culture over against nature

Sound like anyone we know?Likewise

Jordan wrote:

For man, who is part of nature, to doubt the existence of the external world or to consider it as in need of proof is to doubt his own existence

Kind of what I just asked, really…

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx regarded humans as divine creators.

JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?

You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.

To rephrase YMS's question, where (in your opinion) did Marx think humans come from if he thought that the world was their divine creation?

 with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?Jordan, section 4 Sacred and Profane History (in book, pp. 34-7).

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?

With all due respect, Tim, you'll have to read what I've already said to YMS, here on this thread, which was already a repetition of what I've said many times.The mod has already given a warning about saying the same thing, over and over, so I'm taking heed.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?

With all due respect, Tim, you'll have to read what I've already said to YMS, here on this thread, which was already a repetition of what I've said many times.The mod has already given a warning about saying the same thing, over and over, so I'm taking heed.

With all due respect, L Bird, I think you are unprepared to answer a straight question. I don't think for one moment that the Mods will sanction you for giving a straight answer, or that your reluctance to answer is in anyway linked to your concern that the Mods may intervene. I very much doubt that any other reader of this thread thinks your reluctance to answer is due to anything other than the fact that the answer you would be forced to give, is as ludicrous as you are.I think, my little Liver Bird, that you are just like the River Mersey you overlook. A big mouth and full of shit.

[LBird]

LOL!The 'Religious Materialists' always resort to insults!

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

LOL!The 'Religious Materialists' always resort to insults!

What, perhaps like calling someone a fool? (of course that's not an insult if it comes from the golden keyboard of L Bird.)I find it strange that you appear to have no fear of the mods when you are sending out insults, they only appear as your bogeyman when you are asked to answer a straight question. Could it be that you know you have painted yourself into a corner?So in the interests of clarity, and at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman, I'll ask again –  what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman…

There's no risk there, whatsoever!I think Paxman can read, for example.

[Anonymous]

I think LBird has made himself clear. He believes that in the beginning there was a society  and  society  created the world. That right LBird?  

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman…

There's no risk there, whatsoever!I think Paxman can read, for example.

Well perhaps he can, maybe I have difficulty interpreting your written material (which no doubt is clear and succinct to all who read it with the exception of me).But as you say, your role is one of explaining to the workers (of which I am one) the real meaning of Marx's writings.So whilst I accept that to the rest of the world you have given a clear answer previously, and at the risk of repetition, could this ignorant worker, humbly beseech you, L Bird, the great philosopher of the people to please clarify, just for me –  what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I think LBird has made himself clear. He believes that in the beginning there was a society  and  society  created the world. That right LBird? 

[my italic/bold]Let's see if I can have a reasonable conversation with Vin today, eh?Marx argues that 'society created our world'.I've already pointed out to YMS earlier on this thread that 'materialists' always substitute 'the' for 'our'. This makes complete sense to 'materialists', because they separate the subject and object, and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.Further, I've explained that 'matter' is a substitute for 'god', and is regarded as an 'ultimate' or a 'finality', which are religious concepts.So, Vin, if you are a Religious Materialist you'll want to 'know matter' outside of human production (ie. 'the world'), but if you're a Marxist you'll start from the creation of 'matter' (ie. god) by humans in our world.As I've said many times, I'm not a Religious Materialist who has faith in 'matter', but a Democratic Communist who looks to Marx's ideas about the 'social production' of 'our world'.If you read Jordan's text, some of this might become clearer. But if you start from a disagreement with Marx, then it won't become clearer. My advice is to clarify your own views of Marx.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?

With all due respect, Tim, you'll have to read what I've already said to YMS, here on this thread, which was already a repetition of what I've said many times.The mod has already given a warning about saying the same thing, over and over, so I'm taking heed.

With all due respect, L Bird, I think you are unprepared to answer a straight question. I don't think for one moment that the Mods will sanction you for giving a straight answer, or that your reluctance to answer is in anyway linked to your concern that the Mods may intervene. I very much doubt that any other reader of this thread thinks your reluctance to answer is due to anything other than the fact that the answer you would be forced to give, is as ludicrous as you are.I think, my little Liver Bird, that you are just like the River Mersey you overlook. A big mouth and full of shit.

1st Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.

You mean like Marx did, calling it inorganic nature?If humans are divine creators, doesn't that make humans absolute ultimate a finality?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.

You mean like Mrax did, calling it inorganic nature?

This is a fundamental philosophical point, YMS.Marx did not call 'inorganic nature' matter.He called 'inorganic nature' inorganic nature.It was Engels who called 'inorganic nature' matter.Once again, I've said this time and again, but Religious Materialists have a faith in 'matter' which compels them to ignore Marx's epistemological views, and just like Lenin, pick up on Engels' misunderstanding.The political reason for 'matter' is an elite purpose to keep 'social production' out of the hands of the majority, expressed by their democratic control.This suited Lenin, because he argued for an elite minority with a special consciousness who 'knew matter', and for a majority who couldn't 'know matter' (otherwise, he'd've allowed a vote on its 'existence'). 'Matter' implied elitism. Marx argued this in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he stressed that 'materialism' leads to a minority of 'educators', separate from society. The SPGB has gone down this road, too, with its separation of 'specialists' from 'generalists', with the power to decide held by the 'specialists'.You too, YMS, are confusing 'matter' and 'inorganic nature'. For Marx, 'matter' was a social product, a part of 'organic nature'. If you read Jordan, some of this might become clearer.

[Young Master Smeet]

OK, inorganic nature is not matter, but it is something outside our social production, isn't it? (Although, just to quote Marx: "which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity." does seem to suggest inorganic nature is material, i.e. composed of matter?  Got a counter quote? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htmI've already noted, you haven't proven that the existence of matter creates an elite or the need for an elite, while your voting on truth does create an elite majority who decide what the truth is, compared to the minority who are denied.

[Author]

Posts