DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Stuart and I will answer your question about 'substance' when you tell us what your ideology says it is.
As if I could utter a couple of words to you and then magically transfer all my knowledge and my "web of beliefs" over to you. It doesn't work like thatThe question I asked was a very basic one I hoped you could answer it without playing at silly buggers. I was trying to work out where you are coming from.I ripped that quote from wikipedia as it uses the standard (though perhaps dated) terminology.If I asked you what make your car is I want to know what make your car is, not get into a "conversation" about what a "car" is.From what you've said you're either a "property-dualist" which is fine and not incompatible with monist materialism / physicalism.Or you're an out and out (substance)-dualist which is bonkers.
stuartw2112 wrote:DJP, you're right, this is no reason to accept idealism or dualism either. Why accept or believe anything? Just keep an open mind and look and think. Or, as Alan puts it, doubt everything.Well we could accept radical sceptism but when it comes to acting in the world this becomes untenable. I take it like me you didn't leave the house via the top floor window this morning nor step out into the road into the path of an oncoming bus. I agree there is no such thing as absolute certain knowledge but I think we have good enough reasons to treat some things as if they where.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is there any chance of the main participants in this thread list what they all agree upon and don't dispute.Well I'm hoping no-one agrees with point 2 in my post above. But I'm prepared to be surprised.
stuartw2112 wrote:If there's one big problem with materialism, it's this: material doesn't exist. Or if it does, we're not at all sure what it is. And it moves in very mysterious ways. As LBird says, just read some science if you doubt this.I think this is why "physicalism" is more fashionable these days.But anyhow is this a good enough reason to adopt idealism or dualism? Don't you think these have more problems associated with them?
LBird wrote:I'll just ask DJP, Vin, twc, etc., why don't you read some philosophy of science, and ask questions if something is confusing to you? Why don't you declare openly your theoretical perspective (of 'knowledge' or 'truth', for example)?I'm with the vast majority of scientists and philosophers. Materialism or Physicalism, what ever you want to call it, is the only game in town. I could perhaps accept property-dualism but substance-dualism is a complete non-starter.Which of these would you go with:1. Although the world is constituted of just one kind of substance – the physical kind – there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties. In other words, it is the view that non-physical, mental properties (such as beliefs, desires and emotions) inhere in some physical substances (namely brains).or2. There exist two kinds of substance: physical and non-physical (the mind), and subsequently also two kinds of properties which adhere in those respective substances.or something else?With regard to the "truth" thing I like this from Simon Blackburn's book Truth "..once we have an issue to decide, it comes with its own norms. Once the issue is the issue, relativism becomes a distraction"And here I am waffling on about "Value" for what it's worth and you can get to see my ugly mug.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/marx-and-economics
LBird wrote:Well, let's employ your, errr, 'theory'. Watch the 'elephant' as it 'consumes' and note 'what' is consumed.I'll leave you with your 'theory and practice', DJP, and you can report back later on your findings.But it's unobservable, I can't watch it.
stuartw2112 wrote:LBird is obviously right, I'm surprised people are arguing against. I'm surprised to read your argument, DJP, because I know you've read Capital, and in the very first chapter of Capital, while laying the basis for his value theory, Marx admits that "value" is very much like your invisible elephant: unobservable and intangible.LOL. There's a difference between something not being directly observable and it being unobservable. Value is observable but only through Exchange value.
LBird wrote:The whole basis of Critical Realism is the need for 'theories' to understand a 'reality' that is often unobservable, intangible and created by humans.If something is unobservable and intangible why would you need a theory to explain it, in fact how would you know it was there?Can you tell me what the wieghtless and invisible elephant that is sitting on my desk needs to eat for its tea?I'm sorry LBird you're the one that's speaking bunk now…
I'm posting this here because it is related to some of the points made in previous posts. It's the first chapter from Ellen Meiskins Wood's book "Democracy Against Capitalism" the first 5 chapters are concerned with how "historical materialism" can be coherently formulated (hint: neither as "base-superstructure", "technological determinism" or "economic determinism")http://libcom.org/library/separation-economic-political-capitalism-ellen-meiskins-wood
LBird I was referring to the quote "theory determines what we observe". Things like the illusion I have posted show that it's not that simple.See also the link to the "colour phi phenomena" and read the stuff by Dennett on the "Cartesian Theatre". You should read some philosophy of mind.
LBird wrote:as Einstein said, 'theory determines what we observe', and that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us), but can't seem to see this point that the video is making.Whilst it is ture that 'facts' don't impose themselves on us I'm not sure that Einstein actually said that, in any case it's an over- simplification and false.See the muller-lyer illusion. Both lines are the same length yet, despite how strongly we know that, they still appear different lengths.The video is called "the invisible gorilla" BTWSee also "Colour-phi phenomenon"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_phi_phenomenon
That's a real shame. Luckely back versions of Marxists.org are available from the internet archive page http://web.archive.org
alanjjohnstone wrote:However, it is the same bank model, i believe, the Greens wish to follow.No it's crankier than that. The Greens want to stop commercial banks from issuing loans at all, since it is new loans that 'create money'http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ec#MonetaryAnother part of it seems to suggest that debts written on paper are OK, but those stored in a computer are not.
LBird wrote:Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', as am I. Theory and practice.No, he wasn't. I think there's only ever been one person who's claimed to be an 'idealist-materialist'. Still I guess that's one up on square circles.
