DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fine
No I don't think that. What I do think is that to further engage with your eccentric muddle headed fantasism is a waste of my time.
LBird wrote:most 'people' share exactly the same ideasOh dear. If that where true I'm not sure why we would need this forum.I'm just getting the feeling you havn't considered what I said. You havn't replied to much of my points just repeated what you have said 1000 times before…Yes, no individual exists seperatly from their place in history and in society.And yes science and language are social activities. These are nothing but banalities.But at the same time it is not "individualist" to suggest that there is not going to be complete uniformity amongst members of a group.I fail to see what point you are trying to make other than we do not share the same ideas, which seems to contradict your starting point.Maybe take up my essay suggestion because I don't see this current discussion going anywhere.
LBird wrote:I can't get anyone to tell me what ideology they employ, in reading Piketty, or doing 'physics'.The default seems to be the pre-Einstein position that 'science has a method which produces the Truth', and is not ideological. But Rovelli claims that is not true, and all recent philosphers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos) seem to agree with Rovelli.By 'ideology' I'm assuming that you mean the 'web of beliefs' that a person uses to make sense of the world. I think that 'ideology' can refer to a section of this web but not the web as a whole. I think you're using the word 'ideology' too broadly and that's part of the problem.The trouble is no two people will share the exact same compound of beliefs, experiences or concepts. By just naming some 'ism' there's no guarantee that we can magically transfer our "webs of belief". For a start I might mean something different when using the word "ism" than when you use the word "ism".I generally go along with the Rovelli quote but would say that it was not that Newtonian physics is wrong, just that in order to represent reality it was shown necessary to employ another granular level of explanation. The laws of newton still explain the motion of large bodies in space.You seem to be using Einstein as a proponent of *cognitive* relativism, I think this is mistaken. The theory of relativity depends on the speed of light and the laws of physics *being the same* for both observers, if the speed of light or the laws of physics where relative to observers the theory would not work. Though if you want to again talk epistemology or philosophy of language (the meaning stuff) it will probably best to start another thread.
1. Asume good will.2. Apply the principle of charity.3. Avoid binary over-simplifications (all x's are y)4. Avoid appeals to authority.5. Use your own words as much as possible.6. Test your own arguments against the strongest opposing ones you can think of.7. If you feel wind up by a post turn the computer off.I know I've broken all of those 'rules' at some point
It was a genuine question, since I think that discussion forums are a very bad place for getting ideas across (as the above replies would indicate) essays work better as points can be developed with more accuracy and detail and for the author it provides a chance to distill ones thoughts and really find out where and weak areas or contradictions lie…19th century positivism and logical positivism are dead dogs, I agree. In the early 21st century much of the stuff you have been talking about forms part of undergraduate philosophy courses and is generally accepted as true.Yes Engels got some stuff wrong, but to think that the history of the workers movement would be dramatically different if "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" where worded differently is spurious at best.I think you do have some good points to raise, but for whatever reason, you are doing a very bad job of it. I hope that doesn't come across as patronising that is not my intention…Anyhow, I think Vin's questions about "proletarian philosophy of science" are leading in the right direction…
LBird wrote:Marx was a trained philosopher, but Engels was, at best, an amateur. And we now know his amateurish books are wrong (NB. his science, not his other works).So, are *you* a trained philospher? Have you written your views in essay legnth form anywhere?
stuartw2112 wrote:One concluding remark before I go off to spend my time more productively, I'll pick up Alan's jibe about my right-wing libertarian ideas, and this has relevance for LB too. If you haven't seriously entertained the idea that maybe Hayek and right-wing pro-market thinkers are right, or that they might not have a point somewhere – I mean seriously entertained the idea, even if only for a day or two – then, seriously, you don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. Not a clue! TTFNI'd agree with this. In fact once a certain idea becomes one that we personally cherish we should purposfully look for things that undermine it. To do otherwise is to fall prey of wishful thinking or religous thinking. Confirmation bias is a very real phenomena and one that constantly needs to be countered.
It was Radio 4 book of the week. Sadly doesn't seem to be online any more.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042j8y1
These are videos about selective attention bias and other visual cognitive biases. They're done by the guy that wrote the book "The Invisible Gorilla" which I highly recommend.Better lay out of the videos here:http://www.simonslab.com/videos.html
Vin Maratty wrote:You can't be sure of the impression it gives. My own opinion is that ideally EC meetings, Conference etc should be shown primetime TV; show the world what real democracy is!The general trend has been for visits to the website to go up and up each year, so perhaps I was wrong.Hopefully now everything runs quicker more people will keep coming back…
I don't think it's that funny. What kind of impression has been given to those people who have viewed it?Sometimes I wonder if we'd be better off without a forum, it's not like it draws many new posters in anyhow..
Since we have never really been influenced by the academic "Marxists" I'd say this pretty much matches up with what the SPGB has taught as Marx's theory all along, before the TSSI was even termed…There's a review of Kliman's book here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1248-august-2008/book-reviews
