Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just a thought, if L Bird is of the opinion that if we don't observe it is doesn't exist. Does he have Life Assurance, because if he has, why? He won't be around to observe it paying out.
Vin wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I think what he is trying to say is that he doesn't know.Know what?
I don't know
LBird wrote:You want to 'know' without a 'knower'.[/quote] I think what he is trying to say is that he doesn't know.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:Quote:What does 'exist' mean?Actually, YMS, that's a good question. I think it means "is real". I know this doesn't solve the problem for dualists who think that there is an "inorganic" and an "organic" nature as to which of them is really real or whether they both exist or, for that matter, whether one existed prior to the other.
[my bold]And, for you, ALB, is the 'real' socially produced, as Marx argued?Or is it just 'out there', outside of any relationship to a 'consciousness', as Engels argued?
Careful YMS and ALB, L Bird is trying to create a diversion, rather than answering the question. Keep at him Paxman style!!
Just a point Vin. You quote Engels to support your point of economic interest over morality, What was Engels, the bloated capitalist's, economic interest in developing Socialism, surely his economic interest would lie in the maintenance of capitalism?
I'm not saying that Socialism is a moral argument, I'm saying there is a moral dimension to it, even though I agree that morality is a socially created concept. As for dogs, I'm afraid we're back to the old Mackem-Geordie divide, cats are better!!!!
Young Master Smeet wrote:Oh, the hilarity, I point out the straw man fallacy, and Lbird responds with: an ad hominem (with a touch of appeal to the gallery). No account for the production of quality within his 'ideology' Whenever I asked Lbird to give an account of his ideas, he responded with what he supposes to be my ideas (or a version of what he supposes to be my ideas), a classic straw man fallacy. he would usually couch that with a reference to Marx (an appeal to authority fallacy). What we are left with no account within his schema for how inorganic and organic nature relate to one another. We know that qualite emerges within 'organic nature', but have no idea is human being/consciousness or labour possess qualities.I think it would be fair to say Lbird can't answer that point.Game, set and match to YMS
Do merkats and bees have moral codes? Or are they naturally social animals and form bonds out of necessity to survive?You make an interesting point. However the difference between bees and meerkats is important, it also relates to humans as well. As bees are insects they do not develop or display attachments (in the sense of Attachment Theory). Meerkats, because they are mammals, have evolved, as all mammals have to develop these attachments. Mammal brains appear to experience emotion, which to a certain extent appears to be absent or lacking in reptiles, birds, insects, etc. What are termed "Higher Order" mammals appear to have more complex development of emotions and feelings. Social comfort and well being appears to be more developed as a need in "higher order" mammals, as to an extent demonstrated in Harlow and Harlow's experiments in monkeys, where absence of social care and emotional stimulation, produced infant monkeys that were not only emotionally damaged but were physically smaller but had less well developed immune systems. When given the choice of food from a non comforting source or comfort from an attachment figure, the monkeys choose comfort from the attachment figure. What I am trying to say is that in humans, and other mammals, sociability, caring for each other, concern for each other, even what is known as love, is more than just the necessity to survive, it is hard wired into us.What I was trying to get across to our mutual feathered friend is that our intellectual, linguistic, emotional, moral, empathetic, physical and conceptual development as individuals is shaped not only by our economic environment but also by the development of emotional bonds from conception. Children who have been subject to emotional abuse and neglect have demonstrably smaller brains, with less synaptic development than those brought up with secure attachments. I would argue that a strong argument for socialism is the fact that it can assist in creating an environment where emotional security, love, warmth and affection are more readily available to infants and children than capitalism. Some might call that a moral argument, some might call it a argument from a position of class interest. All I know is that this system of society is not good for the mental health of infants and children of the vast majority of us.
gnome wrote:What, and join those seemingly determined to wreck the forum (and the party) – you cannot be serious. You'll rarely, if ever, see comrades from Kent & Sussex, East Anglia, Manchester, South West and other branches contributing to this self-defeating shit; most of them are far too busy engaged in socialist activity. Some would do well to take a leaf out of their book.I do think that your comment "those seemingly determined to wreck the forum (and the party)" need to be clarified. Whilst accepting that this does not specify who the "those" actually are, it could be interpreted as stating that there are members of the Party who are determined to wreck it, which is a clear allegation of "action detrimental".Whilst I also have come to the conclusion that our feathered friend is either here to troll certain members, or possibly has certain issues of his own, and as such will not in the future engage in his anti-socialist and frankly anti social games, I think that to imply that this is a branch related issue is not only divisive, it is also uncomradely. I would also go as far as stating that such comments are unworthy of you and could be also described as self defeating, in as much as they discourage members from contributing to the forum. Similarly I feel that the implication that the work of some members in spreading socialist consciousness is more valid that others is also divisive; we all do what we can, when we can, in whatever way we can. The North East area for instance has been one where very little activity has taken place in recent years, although going back in time we had two strong and active branches. Activity has begun to begin again in the North east, aided by the use of the forum. Comments like the ones you have made could be counterproductive in the development of that activity.For my own part, I will admit I have on occasions taken the L Bird bait, and I take your general point that the debate has at times degenerated, I have stated previously that I will in future desist, however on a more puerile note, I did think my chemistry lesson contribution was quite funny.Yours in comradely spirit for Socialism
Vin wrote:PS wonder if that qualifies me for an obituary in the StandardThat can be arranged comrade!!!!
Got to admit Vin, I wondered about the Bowie article, however I've got to say I passed my copy on to lots of friends and acquaintances who read that edition 'cos they were Bowie fans, and more importantly, they went on to read other parts of the Standard, so it might have been more influential than first thought?
L BirdI may be new to this site but I am anything but new to the kind of philosophical arguments you are putting forward.I fully understand the point that you are trying (very poorly, in my opinion) to make which is that thought is socially produced. Where you sink into idealism is in your interpretation that if thought can be changed and concept can be changed the material world will necessary change alongside our perception of it. You also make a crude reductionist argument that as we live in a bourgeois society this is not only the primary influence on the production of thoughts it is the only factor. As I have pointed out to you time and time again, perhaps you should read some work on attachment theory and personality development, it might fill in the all to obvious gaps in your knowledge base.
