[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The fact that goods and objects appear as commodities and values is not due to any physical characteristic of the good or object itself.

So far, so good! We agree.

DJP wrote:

"Value" is not a physical property of objects but a social relationship…

And again!Value is a 'social relationship'.

DJP wrote:

…that exists "in all our heads and has a material existence within our grey matter."

Ahhh… now we can see the problem.As before, you've reduced a 'social relationship' to its components of the 'grey matter' of individual brains.This is the difference between our conceptions, DJP.I'm with Marx on this. Social relationships cannot be reduced to the individuals that comprise those social relationships.The influence of 'ruling class' ideas on the science of mind, I'm afraid. Bourgeois individualism, at root.Bourgeois science has a tendency to reduce 'structure' to 'components', because that is how it understands its society and itself. Hence, its tendency to look for problems of the mind (a social relationship) inside individuals' 'grey matter', like genes, synapses, etc.Luckily for the bourgeoisie, if 'value' is physically inside our heads, they can remove it by a lobotomy.You can go first at the counterrevolutionary clinic, DJP, when they get their hands on us Communists! I'll be standing right behind you!

[LBird]

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about anymore, twc.I'd like a discussion, as I've said before, but you seem to prefer ranting at ghosts of your own creation. If you think I'm a Stalinist, why engage with me?I'm the one who argues that even 'scientific truth' should be produced by voting, so I'm not sure how that makes me complicit with your 'Communists'.If anything (like Marx), I'm a (too-?) radical democrat. Now, I can be criticised for that, but that leaves my criticisers on the side of the elite experts, that small section separate from society, that Marx warns us against.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Or do you think 'value' doesn't exist, because 'there is no-thing outside or beyond matter'? Marx clearly thinks 'value' is 'outside' of 'matter'.

Does he?  Without getting out and dusting down my copy of capital I think Marx refers to 'Value' as a  relationship between people expressed as a relationship between things. The relationship is in all our heads and has a material existence within our grey matter.

But…

Marx, Capital, p. 138, wrote:

Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values.

 … Marx isn't talking about 'grey matter', but 'commodities'. You're talking about a different issue, aren't you?  Further, if this 'relationship is all in our heads', don't you think 'value' has an 'objective' existence of some kind, contrary to Marx?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Only if I was a reductionist, and reduced structures to their components. I'm not a reductionist, DJP.I think structures have emergent properties. I've been through this before, though, so I won't labour the point with you, now.

OK that's all well and good. But, as far as theories of mind go, emergence and supervenience inherits rather than supersede the problems of reductionism.

Could you explain further what you mean, DJP? What are the 'problems of reductionism' to which you refer?And can you tell me which ideological approach you're using to understand these issues? For example, are you a reductionist or a critical realist, or something else?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Everythign is matter, there is no-thing outside or beyond matter.

Perhaps I can illustrate the problem, YMS.

Marx, Capital, p. 138, wrote:

Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values.

[my bold]From this, I have to ask, do you think Marx is wrong? He clearly thinks 'value' has some sort of 'objectivity', but also that it isn't 'matter'.Or do you think 'value' doesn't exist, because 'there is no-thing outside or beyond matter'? Marx clearly thinks 'value' is 'outside' of 'matter'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I'd put it this way though "The meaning of words and concepts like 'ghost' or 'father christmas' are the result of certain relationships between brains"I don't see how meaning or concepts can exist outside brains.

Surely 'between' means a 'relationship'?How can a relationship exist inside the components?

DJP wrote:

Wouldn't that entail you having to explain how consciousness could exist free floating in space?

Only if I was a reductionist, and reduced structures to their components. I'm not a reductionist, DJP.I think structures have emergent properties. I've been through this before, though, so I won't labour the point with you, now.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If we are to presume mind-brain identity then the concept 'ghost' or 'father christmas' are just the result of a certain configuration of grey matter inside the brain.

[my bold]To hold that opinion, DJP, is fair enough. But it's an individualist explanation, and so is likely to be anathema to Communists.The opposite viewpoint, that the mind is social, suggests that the mind lies in relationships between 'brains'.That is "the concept 'ghost' or 'father christmas' are just the result of a certain configuration of relationships outside the brain".This is a social and historical view of concepts, not a 'grey matter', mechanical materialist, view of concepts.One way of picturing this difference between us, is to ask which ears does the mind lie between, when given a photo of the two of us together.On the photo, you'd put an 'x' between your ears, and another between my ears. Our faces would each have an 'x' on them. Whereas, I'd place a single 'x' between our two nearest ears, in the middle of the photo.

DJP wrote:

You'll get better answers to these questions if you logged into a philosophy forum..

But I'm a Communist, and the answer to this question concerns Communists. After all, 'philosophers' have only interpreted the world…

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…attacks on Marx, Engels…

You really must try and read what other comrades write, twc!I defend Marx from Engels, on issues of science.I don't 'attack' Marx on this issue, and I don't 'attack' Engels on issues other than this.Must be difficult for the religious worldview of the adherents of 'Marx-Engels'. The inseparable nature of Father and Son; I suppose Lenin is your Holy Ghost, to complete the Trinity?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

All that 'materialism' means, in the philosophical sense, is that "all that exists is physical stuff", clearly Marx never rejected such a view once he accepted it. No quotes can be found to show the otherwise…

Sounds similar to the 'pragmatism' expressed by YMS on the other thread, DJP.Matter is tangible. And consciousness is god.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird, I said "I normally stop at Pragmatism", normally it is sufficient to live with that.Everythign is matter, there is no-thing outside or beyond matter.

But is 'sufficient' a scientific measure? Many societies had 'sufficient' knowledge to work pragmatically, but it involved gods. How do you scientifically justify 'normal'? Isn't 'normal' a social judgement?As to 'matter', if it's 'everything', is it also a 'ghost'? Isn't that just an idea, with no 'material' content? But if humans thoughts are real, they must be outside 'everything', because only 'matter' gives 'thingness'.Does this mean consciousness is separate from 'matter'. Is this a Cartesian duallist philosophical approach?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Freddy wrote:

From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception. If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail.

[my bold]YMS, can you see the contradiction in what Fred is saying, later in the passage.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Freddy wrote:

But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves.

[my bold]Fred uses the terms 'must' and 'positive', but these are logically undermined by 'so far'.Either 'knowledge is positive' (and is the same as reality, a 'copy' or 'reflection') or 'knowledge is historical' (and is produced by humans, creatively, actively, and thus might be wrong).That is, 'so far' as it works, it is 'knowledge'. But… what 'works' for one society, doesn't 'work' for another. This is why Marx would be loathe to use 'must' and 'positive', because he argued for the social and historical nature of human knowledge. Indeed, he even thought our 'senses' to be social and historical, rather than biologically-fixed, and thus our senses wouldn't produce the same perception for any individual in time.Fred was a positivist, but Charlie wasn't. Or, more correctly, Fred seems to have been both, because of the confusion within his works: he was a poor philosopher, and didn't seem to realise the implications of many of the statements that he made. Charlie was a trained philosopher, but Fred was an amatuer, and it showed (and, indeed, still shows, in his works).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

As to the philosophy of science, I normally stop at pragmatics, because what works, seems to work. Science as it stands seems effective.

That seems pretty clear, YMS: your ideological approach to science is 'Pragmatism'.Should we discuss the difference between Pragmatism and Marxism?

YMS wrote:

So the matter that thinks…

Could you tell me what 'matter' is, YMS? Within your ideology, of course! I would think that for pragmatists, 'matter' is something 'tangible', but I might be wrong.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

It's just strange, isn't it, that comrades should use the term 'materialism', which Marx rejected…

Did he? References please.

What's the point, DJP? I've done this all before for you, and you ignore them.

[LBird]

twc, your usual garrulous and evasive response to my questions, about the philosophy of science and your ideological stance, has been noted.If you're not interested, why participate in a thread asking those questions?This has happened over several threads, now. I'm unfortunately losing patience, having tried a number of times to engage with you, and being disappointed. Any exchange has to take place on the basis of a conversation, not a lecture. 'Two-way' means questions and answers, not long-winded irrelevant soliloquies.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,if you applied more critical reason to my posts, you would find your answers contained within already.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't want to discuss 'materialism'!", then, shall I?Fair enough, comrade!

[Author]

Posts