LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Morgenstern wrote:Are there actually two of you having a parallel conversation on this board? If so, you're both whacko.
Am I one of the 'two' that you're referring to?And 'whacko' seems a bit unfair, especially as no-one said anything untoward about your… err… 'ideas' expressed earlier.Perhaps I should leave my co-'sock puppet' to revisit them?
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:L Bird:"Rosa, doesn't all this discussion just depend upon how we define 'philosophy'? If it's taken as a 'love of wisdom', I can't see a problem. If it's taken as 'speculative ideas in the service of the contemporary ruling class', then I'm with you!"The problem with that is that speculative metaphysicians also 'love wisdom'But, I can see no 'wisdom' coming from philsophers, can you? Sure, they might have come up with a few trite maxims that contained good advice, but we can get that from the religious, too — as well as from a good novel, and, indeed, from poetry!And what is wrong with Historical Materialism providing us with 'wisdom'?Yeah, I agree that 'wisdom' can come from novels or poetry, indeed, from any art form; and I also think that Historical Materialism can cover all these, too, so I'm with you there!And, on the whole, I think I line up with ALB's reply to you:
ALB wrote:This said, I agree with you that most philosophy is useles (I don't even like the word "philosophy" in relation to socialist ideas: "theory" is the more appropriate term). I'm just pointing out that you are historically wrong about what you claim Marx meant by "philosophy". In fact, accepting that Marx meant Hegelian philosophy and its radical offshoots strengthens your case that Marx wasn't a Hegelian (except in his early days, mainly before he became a socialist).If it's just the term 'philosophy', then just call what you're doing 'Historical Materialism'; if others call it 'philosophy', so what? As long as we try to work together to build Communist ideas useful for us workers.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:DJP:"LOL. You're doing philosophy again. I thought that stuff was useless and 100% nonsense."You can 'LOL' all you like, but until you can show, as opposed to assert that I am doing philosophy, that is all you comments will ever be — a joke.And I say that with all due respect.
Rosa, doesn't all this discussion just depend upon how we define 'philosophy'?If it's taken as a 'love of wisdom', I can't see a problem.If it's taken as 'speculative ideas in the service of the contemporary ruling class', then I'm with you!
As a follow-up to some quotes I provided from Marx on the ‘Pannekoek’ thread, here's another quote from him, which I think backs up the assertion that ‘science’ is not a ‘neutral method’ but a social activity, and thus science currently plays a part in our lives similar to religion or law. That is, it is an authority above us, and uncontrolled by us. Humans are at the centre of all these social activities, and science must be brought within our democratic control. We must resist the notion that scientists are an acceptable elite, a priesthood who have an esoteric knowledge (like a ‘dialectical method’ which can’t be explained, or understood except by those who have an insight denied to the rest of us), and we must ensure that ‘science’ will be treated similar to how we will treat ‘private property’: it must be communised.
Marx, EPM of 1844 (Collected Works 3, p. 297), wrote:Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law. The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, [law, morality, science, art,] etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence.[my bold and repeat]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
ALB wrote:Surely he just meant that scientists get on with their research without worrying about the theory of what they are doing just as birds get on with their lives without worrying about what ornithologists say about them? Which is probably the case irrespective or not it should be.So, scientists accept that they should be caged, and trained, and fed on our whim? Just like a pet bird, and not 'worry'?Or, do scientists see themselves as 'free birds', soaring high above the mass, not needing to reflect upon either their 'flight' or the 'pedestrians' below?Perhaps they're happy just shitting upon us? Mengele, genetics and eugenics?No, scientists, like any authority, need to be under our democratic control."Roadrunner, roadrunner…" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmHgnPPkkQ%5BAcknowledgements to Jonathon Richman and The Modern Lovers]Another version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgRYncR1Nog
ALB wrote:I agree that Marx rejected speculative, metaphysical philosophy such as still survives especially on the continent. Although I don't think he says so explicitly, I think he took the view that it had been replaced by science. Certainly the 19th century German Social Democratic movement did. But in this case, a theory of science is needed of which "epistemology" (as the "theory of knowledge" will be a part, science being a form of knowledge). Or are you agreeing with Richard Feynman's well-known quip thatQuote:Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.Yeah, Feynman might as well have said:
Our intellectual betters wrote:Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as education is to workers.I wonder why Feynman doesn't want workers examining the activities of scientists?
Morgenstern wrote:Dear JonWhite, read the first half or so of the Lichenstein. suffers from the same problem as Johnson centuries earlier who on hearing Berkeley's theories, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock.This is incorrect.Whatever one thinks of Rosa Lichtenstein, they aren't simply saying 'I refute' or merely 'kicking a rock'.They've spent 30 years studying and arguing with Dialectical Materialism, and from my few followings of some debates, have kicked the arse of every DiaMat-ist that they've crossed.This doesn't mean that RL is right about everything (not least their Leninism/Trotskyism), but they are worth reading and serious consideration.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I believe LBird was violence was directed at myself and was accepted in the humourous spirit it was posted in. i don't believe LBird has any anger management issues, but if you read his posts on other threads ypou may find his pschological problem is OCDYeah, you're spot on, aj, I'm afflicted with Obsessive Communist Disorder!The good news is that it confers an evolutionary advantage, so one day we'll all 'have it', and it 'affects' all skin colours!
Hrothgar wrote:…this is directed at me, … I have no problem with the remonstration and I accept the 'telling off'.Tut, tut, Hrothy! Caught out by the mod, naughty boy!Try and keep your cool, though – we don't want any displays of 'Aryan Superiority' [sic] on here. We all know just where that leads!
Hrothgar wrote:Maybe you shold speak to Alan Johnstone about it – he knows a lot about mental disorders.Nah, 'e just sez I'm a fuckin' nutter!'Takes one to know one', I just shout back, when I grab 'im by the froat!
Hrothgar wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:That, and your other contributions, suggest to me you're not very bright. That's not meant as an insult, just an honest observation.
Yeah, I've noticed this too, aj! You aren't 'very bright', are you? You're just like me, in fact. Thank god for some 'honest observation', at last!Perhaps… just a suggestion… we could elect… no, no, no, not 'elect'.. no, we should declare by popular acclamation (nothing so brutish as democratic methods; mass emotion, irrational outbursts of fervour, are best) that Hrothgar is our new Fuhrer!Hail Hrothgar!Your untermensch await you, Duce! Subject us to your superior honesty, master! [crying tears of joy at the coming of our saviour]
Hrothgar wrote:You won't because you know you're in deep water here and no match for me intellectually.Well, at least you've got a sense of humour, Hrothy!I actually burst out laughing at reading this!Cheered up my day, no end!
ALB wrote:There's nothing to argue about in this case.That's good enough for me.I'll direct my curiosity elsewhere.
ALB wrote:I don't understand why you always seem to want to pick an argument when there's nothing to argue about.So, your assumption here is that 'there's nothing to argue about'.There is an alternative assumption, though.That you don't understand the issues involved.If you reply, once more that 'there's nothing to argue about', that's fine comrade, I'll leave the issue alone.Ball's in your court, ALB.
ALB wrote:I understood Morgernstern to be making the basic point that all our knowledge is derived from the ever-changing world of experience and that anyone who claimed otherwise was an idealist…[my bold]Yes, that's what I thought Morgenstern was claiming, and you'll already be aware that I don't agree with this so-called 'basic point'.On the contrary, as I've claimed on the Pannekoek thread, I think that Marx's (and Pannekoek, et al) 'basic point' was that 'all our knowledge is derived from the interaction of humans with the ever-changing world of experience'. Plus, I don't regard myself as an idealist, I regard myself as a critical realist, which, again, I think Marx was.As I've already shown, too, the label 'idealist', for anyone who stresses interaction of society with reality (as opposed to 'proper' materialists, who just deal with 'the real world of hard experience') emerged from Engels' mistakenly simplistic separation of philosophy into a two-fold schema of 'idealism versus materialism'. So, 'idealist' is, in effect, a Leninist slur upon those who disagree with Engels' (and thus Lenin's) mistaken philosophical views.As we've seen on the other thread with twc, the slandering of one's opponents with 'idealism' has a long pedigree within the 'Marxist' movement. It saves having to address serious philosophical issues.If you, Morgenstern and the others don't want a repeat of this discussion about 'knowledge', I'll refrain from posting on the issue further, and just merely register publicly my disagreement with the 'basic point' from which Morgenstern is starting.Just say the word. 'Drop it!' will be enough, comrades!
