DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:It is obvious that 'materialism' has a multitude of meanings on this thread.
That's unavoidable because it does…
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:But we know that Marx's "materialism" is not the same kind of "materialism" as those he critised in The Theses of Feurbach.No, it isn't.
I'm presuming you missed the "not" above?
LBird wrote:So, why did Engels, on the next page, mention a third group?The next page of what? I'm not getting this from Engels…
LBird wrote:While the only choices available to us are 'idealism' or 'materialism', we're lost.They're not. But as they're many kinds of 'idealism' and 'materialism' this is not a choice of two options.
LBird wrote:'Physical things' do not do 'theory and practice', only humans.So human beings are not physical things, intersting.
LBird wrote:'Dialectics' can only exist as an interplay between humans and their external environment. The notion of a 'Dialectics of Nature' is simply nonsense, because 'dialectic' means 'to talk through' or 'discuss', and 'material' without consciousness does not discuss.Reality does not tell us what it is. We inescapably require social theory and practice. In a nutshell, alongside material, also IDEAS.I agree..But ideas are just a part of nature, not something seperate or above it…
LBird wrote:If "'materialism' is just a broad label" for a viewpoint that includes 'ideas', why can't it as reasonably be called 'idealism', if it is acceptable to accentuate one aspect, to the exclusion of the other?It's not a question of accentuating one aspect, to the exclusion of the other.Why not call it "squibbldyfishplop"?Because the use of words and there meaning is a social process. If we want to be understood we have to try and match our meanings with those of other people. "Materialism" and "Idealism" represent two different strands of thinking in the history of philosophy, what we are talking has a history going back to the Greek atomists…Remember Marx said "I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist" not "I am a idealist-materialist and Hegel is an idealist". But we know that Marx's "materialism" is not the same kind of "materialism" as those he critised in The Theses of Feurbach.
LBird wrote:The whole tenor of your post, YMS, suggests that, like me, you are an idealist-materialist (or, historical materialist, or critical realist) and not a 'materialist'.But a "historical materialist" is a type of "materialist". "Materialism" is just a broad label for many different philsophys that share some common aspects..
LBird wrote:You're the adherent of 'physicalism', DJP.Possibly, but I'm only using 'physicalism' as a synonym for 'materialism' or even 'naturalism'
LBird wrote:You think ideas supervene on the material.Well not quite, that's a really clumsy way of putting it. A better way would be saying that consciousness is entirely dependent on brain processes. A change in brain process results in a change in consciousness.
LBird wrote:If that's not dualism, what is?It's a kind of property dualism, as distinct from substance dualism. Property dualism is compatible with monism, substance dualism is not.
LBird wrote:I think the material can 'supervene' (to use your ideological term) upon ideas. Marx agrees with me, as I've shown with quotes.Human ideas create material conditions, as much as material conditions create human ideas.I don't think Marx believed in telekinesis which is what your first sentence means.Of course human action, guided by human ideas, changes material conditions – this is not ruled out by supervience.
LBird wrote:Dietzgen also follows this view, that ideas and things are both 'real', and have the same status. Thus, to argue for physicalism is to argue against this viewpoint.Property dualism doesn't imply that ideas are not real either. In contemporary philosophy Dietzgen is close to what is called panprotopsychism – the idea that there is a proto element of consciousness is every atomic and sub-atomic part of the universe. The more I look into the more I am tempted by this view..I fully agree with YMS above BTW.
LBird wrote:'Materialism', if it is to mean anything, is the exclusion of 'ideas' in the fundamental make-up of the world.LOL. Perhaps if your name is Paul Churchland (or LBird) it does, but for everyone else it means nothing of the sort. We've been here before, many times, and it seems to me you're stuck in a dualistic way of thinking that's why you keep asking these same questions..
ALB wrote:He died shortly after attending an SPGB meeting at which a Party member tried to convince him that you can derive an "ought" from an "is".How do you do that then? The suspence is killing me.
Yes the point is (self) abolishment of the working class. So no socialism won't be a society of "workers control" because there won't be any "workers". But don't call me shirley.This is really old hat stuff:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1960s/1965/no-725-january-1965/workers-controlThe party of the one true communist should take note…
BTSomerset wrote:I han't even plucked up the courage to glance sideways at a girl in 1986.I still haven't
The "Political Marxism" of Brenner and Meiksins Wood. The restatement of class struggle and history as the central factor of Marxian theory, as apposed to "structuralist" interpretations."Value Form theory" as inspired by the translation of I.I Rubin.Depends what you mean by "socialist theory"…With reguards to Marx stuff there's a run through of the arguments in Ben Fine and Alfredo Saad-Filho's "Marx's Capital" though they neglect to mention Kliman and the TSSI.
steve colborn wrote:The use of archaic terminology, ie Great BritainWell I suggest you read this: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/revolution-or-reformThen come back and tell us what you think.
An interesting story. But what is it you want to know? Have you any specific questions or topics you'd like to discuss?
LBird wrote:If you're happy with that conclusion, I'm happy for you, too.Me, though? I'm afraid not.What would make me happy is for you to provide a reason why you think your argument does not fall foul of the reductio ad absurdum that has been provided. If you have a clear grasp of what it is you're trying to say this shouldn't be too difficult.
