[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Last chance saloon.

I'm afraid your saloon closed over 100 years ago, DJP.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Lbird your epistemic relativism is nothing new and is self contradicting at base, if you don't work this out you will continue to be away with the faries. I've spent to much time on this but I suggest you read this:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9"If the epistemic relativist argues that all justification or rationality is framework relative, he lays himself open to the reply that his very claim is at best justified relative to his framework, only rational by his own standards, only defensible by his own guidelines, just as much a social construction as he insists everything else is.""[…] either the claim that truth is relative is true absolutely (i.e., true in a non-relative sense) or else it is only true relative to some framework. If it is true absolutely, all across the board, then at least one truth is not merely true relative to a framework, so this version of the claim is inconsistent. Furthermore, if we make an exception for the relativist's thesis, it is difficult to find a principled way to rule out other exceptions; what justifies stopping here? "It's turtles all the way down.But it's never to late to turn back…

The only answer is voting. That's the only way forward. Why go back to discredited theories? It's like early 19th century workers wanting to return to the soil. There is no way back, comrades.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Lbird your epistemic relativism is nothing new and is self contradicting at base, if you don't work this out you will continue to be away with the faries.

Yeah, I'm beginning to think that joining the 'fairies' is the more socially-progressive option!I've tried to deal with your objections to relativism… just read what you've quoted, comrade.It says 'he' – not only individual, but male!The only answer is a 'social' answer. Here's the bad news, comrade: 'societies' differ, and so knowledge is relative to the society which produces it.This is a million miles away from post-modernist shite, which your references tackle, but from a bourgeois perspective.Oh, sorry, you think 'science' is 'objective', and not 'bourgeois'. Oh well, back to the 19th century…If anyone's telling 'fairy stories', it's the bourgeois accounts of 'science', comrade.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The extraction of surplus value happens too and is not a figment of the imagination, as I'm sure you agree.

But… ONLY because I'm a Communist!It is 'a figment of the imagination' for most on this planet. That's our problem.The current social truth is that 'angels' are real, and 'value' isn't.The belief that somehow 'value' will come to penetrate the 'imagination' of the masses, is mistaken, IMO.Unless we Communists find a way of explaining 'value' in easy-to-understand terms, rather than telling people to read the first three chapters of Capital (or fuckin' Hegel), we're lost.I've tried this before, on other sites, and it's always met with intense disapproval. We must make 'value' as easy to understand as 'angels'. That's not least of the reasons I've ended up on this site, in the belief that your stress on democracy fits easier with my attempts to do this.We're losing the propaganda war, comrades. There are less Communists now than in the past.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

It can only be understood as a chemist understands the laws of moleculer change, because frankly it would be silly if the chemist "claimed to regulate the composition and decomposition of matter by means of eternal justice".

Are you arguing that chemists stand outside of justice? This is a 19th century view of science that most humans no longer accept. Is Zyklon B just a weedkiller? What about Oppenheimer's statement that 'physics has known sin'?The separation of something called 'matter' (which can't be defined, and is why most philosophers now talk about 'real', which includes thoughts and ideas) from humanity, and which can be 'objectively' understood and manipulated, has been rejected.If Communists continue to adhere to discredited theories of science, they will continue to lose any thinking adherents, and religion (whose thinkers already know these issues, as ALB's quote on the other thread showed), will thus step into the breech.Science means justice, morality, ethics. The only question is 'Whose'?If we don't answer that question, the religions will. 'Heads in the sand' is not an attractive posture, comrades.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Ah well. Interesting while it lasted Every thread ends up with the same discussion

Unfortunately, Vin, to discuss 'value' is to discuss 'angels'.The bourgeois economists regard Marx's concept of value as akin to discussing angels. Even Marx said, as I quoted before, that there is no 'matter' in value; we can add, just like in angels, which also don't contain 'matter'.Doesn't this present a worthwhile discussion? As ALB suggested out, has the human race 'painted itself into a corner' so that we can't scientifically discriminate between value and angels?I think we can, as I've argued on other threads, but it's not through adhering to Engelsian positivism and the Leninist Party, but through adopting a democratic method.In effect, we proletarians can vote angels out of scientific consideration. But we need a society like Communism to allow this to happen, both in the 'voting' sense and in the 'development of humans away from gods' sense.Still, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, comrade. I'm sure others do, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That was the corner I thought you'd end painting yourself into !

It's not 'me' that's 'painted itself into this corner', but the human race!

ALB wrote:

Just thought. Maybe we should start a thread on "Did angels ever exist, and how many of them could have danced on a pinhead?"

Marked "For the Attention Of" which society? That must be included!

ALB wrote:

But we've been here before too. So back to surplus value.

Ahhh… questions of 'Value'.Marked "For the Attention Of" which class?FAO Proletariat.There is no special position of observation in the universe of physics which does not require an FAO. To question is to mark FAO.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But we been here before a number of times now.

Yeah, but I don't seem to be able to get to the bottom of our thoughts.Perhaps I'm moving away from Pannekoek, because I'm starting to see contradictions in what he says in this extract, as compared with what he says in Lenin as Philosopher.Further, I've since discovered Marx's views on the social nature of 'sense-impressions', which adds to my disagreement with Pannekoek's statement that "The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream". Following Marx, we should argue that only those 'sense-impressions' that are selected by humans (using a social theory) are allowed to 'penetrate'. Thus, it would be a selective, discontinuous, incomplete, 'stream'.In fact, it would be a world crafted by human understanding. Which leads me to:

Panneokoek wrote:

Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it [the real world], the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.

If belief is 'real' and influences events, to all intents and purposes, then, 'angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea' must belong to the 'real world'.What is the difference between the 'idea of an angel', if 'real', and 'an angel in the real world'?This can only be resolved if we argue that the 'real world' we experience is a human creation, and humans can get this 'created world' wrong, according to other humans, employing other social theories.That is, 'angels' exist for some societies, but not for others.At least it will make sense of the 'devils' of Stalinism!

[LBird]

Perhaps these two conflicting positions can be illustrated as:Small minority consciousness – revolutionary process which extends consciousness – revolutionary act by larger minority – majority consciousnessSmall minority consciousness – revolutionary process which extends consciousness – majority consciousness – revolutionary act by majorityI think we all accept that at some point class conscious communists are in a minority, and that eventually the whole class has to be conscious. But who carries out the 'revolutionary act': a party or the class?I think I favour the latter, class majority, not the former, party large minority.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas…

Yes, the source of ideas is humans.

ALB wrote:

… but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.

No, this contradicts the previous half of the statement.You're playing with words, ALB.What are 'ideas' if not 'the content of ideas'? How can an 'idea' not have 'content'?Ideas come from humans, not 'the surrounding real world'. These ideas are then tested in practice upon 'the surrounding real world'. If the human ideas seem to fit the 'real world', they are then adopted as 'true'. But 'human ideas' can be wrong, even after they seem to fit with practice and are deemed to be true. That's why 'truth' has a history. Without this stance, 'truth' must be eternal once 'discovered', which science now knows to be untrue. Truth is a social construct, not a reflection of 'reality' which humans passively induct.Humans are not puppets of some external force. That notion provides the basis for the Leninist Party.The concept that the 'real world determines human ideas' is Engelsian and 19th century positivist.The concept that 'human ideas are tested against the real world through practice' is Marxian and 21st century critical.Furthermore, one's understanding of 'value' will be determined by one's view of this relationship between human ideas and the 'real world'. 'Value' is a social construct which humans use to explain exploitation.

Marx, Capital I, p. 138, wrote:

Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values; in this it is the direct opposite of the coarsely sensuous objectivity of commodities as physical objects.

'Value' is the creation of human understanding, using the stance of the social-objectivity of the proletariat. It is proven by the sensuous activity of humans with the physical objects.'Value' does not exist from the stance of the bourgeoisie. There is no universal, objective, vantage point from which to understand the world, neither for physics nor for socio-economics.With the end of the proletariat, 'value' will disappear. It is a social and historical construct.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Funny you should say that but isn't that what the religious nuts told us would happen if the world was run by athiests?

Is this the source of our disagreement, Vin?Do you identify 'justice and morality' with 'religion'?If you do, I don't. Perhaps that is why we are talking at crossed purposes, comrade?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

'Justice' and 'morality' has been used to control people throughout history. You are suggesting a proletarian 'justice' and morality'.No thanks!

More 'transhistorical' thinking!The point, Vin, is whose 'justice and morality' has been used to control?Furthermore, if 'justice and morality' is not our 'proletarian justice and morality', where does it come from?Or, doesn't 'justice and morality' exist? Perhaps we should hand over society, after the 'Glorious Day', to the robots, and avoid those pesky humans altogether?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

'class' is of interest to the working class, as is 'surplus value'; they are related to the material basis of today's society but what of 'justice' and 'morality'??

So, 'justice' and 'morality' must be related to today's society. Hence, they are class products. Their 'justice and morality' is not our 'justice and morality'.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Ideas are not 'created by' 'material conditions';

then where do they come from?  Unless you are suggesting  

LBird wrote:

The planet Morality? God? Priests with special knowledge? The Leninist Party of Professional Revolutionaries Who Know All? 

 You cannot be saying that the brain and its ideas are not part of the material conditions of existence?  

As I've already said, Vin, it all depends upon how one defines 'material conditions'.If one means that 'human creativity and ideas' are a 'material condition', then I agree.But, having said that, we can never return to positivist nonsense about passive scientists observing nature. It's the end of Engels' erroneous amateurish philosophy. Humans create our knowledge, scientific and moral.However, if this 'agreement' is a Trojan Horse for superficially accepting 'mind' as equating to a 'material condition', and then saying that a 'rock' is also a 'material condition', and so that 'material conditions of all sorts' think and criticise and tell humans things (as 'discovery scientists' insist), then the key difference between the conscious and the non-conscious has again been obliterated.We, as Pannekoek insisted, create the Laws of Nature. Nature does not reveal itself to a passive humanity, as common sense science insists, even today.That is what is at stake in this 'agreement' about 'mind' being a 'material condition'. Rocks don't think; human minds do.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …

Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.

These two statements are not contradictory.

Depending upon the interpretation of 'come from' which is accepted, they can be.If 'come from' means 'created by', then they are contradictory.Ideas are not 'created by' 'material conditions'; 'material conditions' are interpreted (or given meaning) by humans, who create ideas and by practice see if these ideas 'fit' the 'material conditions'. Of course, the determination of 'fit' is also a human decision, and the same 'material conditions' can be interpreted differently by different groups of humans, especially classes.The notion that 'material conditions' create ideas and transfer them to humans is positivism. It requires a passive conception of humanity. It doesn't take much to see why this view of 'material conditions' giving orders to passive humans suits the Leninist ideology so well.Of course, 'material conditions' do nothing of the sort, and so a Party is required to actually think for humanity, whose alleged passivity must thus be enforced.Repeat after Commissar MatConvitch, comrade convict, 'Rocks know best…'

[Author]

Posts