LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Morgenstern wrote:i think ithat the easiest thing is to first establish as a tautology that you don't know anything over and above received sense data.
I don't think I agree with this assumption of yours, Morgenstern, if I understand what you're saying correctly.Do you wish to discuss it, or is it an axiom of yours, an a priori assumption which is beyond analysis? (we all have them, 'starting points', by the way, it's just that I think we should try to expose our axioms, rather than hide them, as does bourgeois science)
Morgenstern wrote:Marx adopted the skeptical approach. I have been thinking long and hard on how to explain this, because I want to write an article that might be of some use to the Party, in the near future.If I can be of any use in your attempt to write a ‘party article’, I’m keen to help. That doesn’t mean my particular contributions will be of any use, of course, but perhaps just exploring these issues between us all will help to clarify your thoughts, give you some useful insights and help you generate a better understanding, from which we’ll all benefit. Even if what I write only provides a negative for you, and you discard my thoughts, at least it will strengthen your chosen positives.
Morgenstern wrote:Look at it this way. When we talk about the world, what do we mean? We mean *our impressions of it*. That is all that we have. We are simply not talking about a world out there beyond the senses: we are talking about our shared experiences.Is it true that ‘all we have of the world is our impressions of it’? I’ve read a number of books by critical realists, who seem to be suggesting that we can go further in our knowledge of the world than just empirical experience. If I’ve misunderstood your point, and you don’t mean simple sensual experience, I apologise. Is it worth me developing this line of questioning, and me giving some quotes from the relevant authors, or have you already discounted this possibility, of the human mind going beyond simple experience? I’d hate to be condemned as an ‘idealist’, as I’m sure some are already desperate to label me. Perhaps you’ll give me some leeway to manoeuvre, because I don’t fully understand many of their arguments, and I’m keen to learn more myself.
Morgenstern wrote:This, of course, renders crude materialism obsolete.Hmmm… I think some would have you shot for daring to prefix the god ‘materialism’ with the denigratory ‘crude’. For myself, I think Marx’s materialism was of the ‘historical’ human sort, not the ‘dialectical’ wizardry of the Engelsian and Leninist ‘materialists’.One final thing:
Morgenstern wrote:We are simply not talking about a world out there beyond the senses: we are talking about our shared experiences.No, not ‘simply’, but we are ‘talking about a world out there beyond the senses’, aren’t we? A world that existed before our senses? That is, we are talking ‘complexly’ about a real world, with which we interact in manifold ways, not just through our senses, but through our minds, too, through society.Do we have any shared basis to at least continue a discussion?
ALB wrote:I think you are being too harsh on Engels. His writings on history such as The Peasant War in Germany and The Origin of the Family don't betray any influence of the dreaded "positivism". In fact, we quote from them all the time.And his The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man is not bad for its time.Well, I haven't been 'too harsh on Engels' where he's been writing about issues other than the 'philosophy of science'.That's the issue I'm 'harsh' on Engels, and it's difficult to be 'too' harsh on his nonsense on this issue.
ALB wrote:I'm not convinced either that Marx had a different understanding of the scientific developments of his day than Engels. They frequently discussed these in their correspondence and I don't think there is any evidence of Marx telling Engels that his approach was wrong (even if it was).But Marx had the sense to keep his mouth shut, if he had developed any leanings towards positivism (perhaps it is possible to argue he erroneously had?). He never told Engels his approach was right, either. Even chapter 2.10 of Anti-Duhring, written by Marx, is about socio-economics, rather than 'science', isn't it?
ALB wrote:As to what Ricky Tomlinson (of the Scargill Labour Party) should have said, it was "Dialectics of Nature? My Arse!" rather than all dialectics.There's possibly something to this, ALB. I tried to have a discussion on LibCom about 'dialectics', and tried to develop a method in conjunction with others, but met with little success. Certainly, any talk of 'dialectics in nature' is complete bollocks. But I've always been open to being persuaded about dialectics in epistemology, if I could get someone to talk in plain English about it. It always returns to mystical words and phrases, which mean either nothing or everything. Even Chomsky doesn't understand 'dialectics', so what chance do I stand!
SPGB wrote:However, in view of the fact that in socialist theory the word "law" means a social rule made and enforced by the state, and in view of the fact that the coercive machinery that is the state will be abolished in socialist society, this Conference decides that it is inappropriate to talk about laws, law courts, a police force and prisons existing in a socialist society.[my bold]Yeah, but all societies have rules, procedures, enforcers and punishments, whatever terms we give to them.We shouldn't pretend otherwise, and should discuss these and ensure that we all have a say in these inescapable social structures.
ALB wrote:I don't think Engels can be blamed for having a go, even if he failed. He did follow very closely the scientific developments of his days…Well, he could have ignored 'the scientific developments of his days', which were clouded in a positivist mystique that he, having no philosophical training (unlike Marx), was unable to disperse with a proletarian philosophical basis, 'the philosophical developments of his youth', which he either never understood or forgot as he got older and became mightily impressed by 'positivistic science' (as were almost all other thinkers) – [by his youth, here I'm referring to Marx's Theses on Feuerbach].Carr’s What is History? describes how this positivist influence even penetrated into historiography, with von Ranke's advice 'simply to show how it happened', just like ‘scientists’ were [allegedly] doing. Of course, von Ranke was a conservative bastard, as Schaff relates
Charles Beard, quoted by Schaff, p. 92, wrote:Ranke who, in disregarding stubbornly social and economic interests in history, avoided successfully any historical works infringing the conservative interests of Europe of his times, may correctly characterised as one of the most ‘partisan’ historians which the 19th century produced.This could apply to scientists, too, who are ‘partisan’, because ‘partisanship’ is unavoidable for humans.Anyway, Engels can be blamed, he was out of his depth, and his failure adversely affects the Communist movement still, today.As the proletarian Jim Royle would so aptly put it: ‘Dialectics? My arse!’
I could cry with gratitude, ALB, at both reading the mysterious E. W.'s opinion of Engels' travesty of Marx's views, and your posting of it! tears of joy, I assure you!
Brian wrote:…to try and impose a uniform process of socialisation…I think that this thread is dying a death, Brian, and that you should look to twc's views for a lead.On my part, I'm fed up with my views being misrepresented.I've argued for 'the democratic control of the process of socialisation': whether that would be 'uniform' or not, should be a democratic decision, in my view. Personally, I would vote for 'diversity', in opposition to the current ruling class practice of 'imposing' a 'uniformity' of 'individuality'.The fact that everyone in our society claims to be an 'individual', doesn't seem to strike anyone here as a 'uniform', historical, socially-produced ideology, but is assumed to be an ahistoric, biological fact.If one identifies as an 'individual', one is wearing the ideological uniform of the bourgeoisie.If I'm in favour of society trying to 'impose' anything, comrade, it's bloody 'critical thinking'!
twc wrote:Intellectual cowardice!Resolve your dilemma in your own non-dialectical fashion. But resolve it to save your credibility.[Your insult to Marx is ignorant and contemptible. You are no marxist.]I confess my sins, Father twc, I'm an undialectical, unresolved, discreditable coward!As for 'no marxist', I think that I'm in rather good company on that one!
ALB wrote:I don't know why you assume that the Party is committed to Hegelianism. As far as I'm concerned, he just wrote incomprehensible quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo.[my bold]Am I glad to hear that opinion expressed! You can add Engels to that comment, where he's talking about science and 'dialectics'.
ALB wrote:But what has this got to do with issue under discussion?Well, whilst you've got twc 'saving the party's virtue' on the other thread, and no-one from the party seems to be taking twc to task for presuming to be 'the saviour', it seems obvious that twc's anti-democratic rantings will be taken to have the imprimatur of the wider party.And your unclear statements about the commitment to democracy read like a liberal plea for 'individualism'. If society in all its manifestations, and science in all its manifestations, aren't to be under our democratic control, just whose will they be under?Are there comrades reading who do believe that they are 'individuals', and not just products of bourgeois society and its ideology?Surely Communism is the only way to ensure that all humans do actually develop into thinking, critical social individuals? It's a collective task to produce such a society, not merely the 'freeing' of a biological imperative in humans from political ideologies (as liberal ideology would have it).
ALB wrote:Remember this all started with an off-hand remark of yours about "the democratic control of ideology (including religion". Maybe it's just a semantic thing about the meaning of "ideology"?Well, according to 'democracy-hater' twc on the Pannekoek thread, Communism will involve the 'dialectical control of ideology'.I'll leave comrades to decide for themselves which is preferable.'Dialectics'? The 'Holy Water' of The Party, for use whilst genuflecting to Hegel.Perhaps I'm on the wrong site, after all, comrade. I was just impressed by the SPGB's commitment to democratic politics, as opposed to Leninist 'party consciousness'. Well, we all live and learn, eh?
twc wrote:DialecticsThis is a signature Hegelian problem.Are you capable of resolving thesis and antithesis into a synthesis?Reveal what sort of a dialectician you are.Dialectics? As I predicted, Engelsian 'science', opposed to Marx's.'Dialectics', now, the last refuge of the scientific scoundrel.
ALB wrote:Do you really think that democratic control should extend to what people should think?What's the alternative? Leave it in the hands of a minority, as it is now?What? You actually believe the ruling class myth that 'we are all individuals'? That we all now think as 'individuals', and that future democratic control of our socialisation processes would be a retrograde step? That we shouldn't have a collective say in how we reproduce our society?
Brian wrote:It seems to be implicit within LBird's contributions that he's fixed on one particular methodology ruling the roost in reference to the scientific method.Yeah, the method of democratic control of science. You obviously disagree with me, and seem to be in agreement with twc. But twc hasn't explained, unlike me, what their method actually looks like in practice. In effect, twc's method comes down to placing one's trust in scientists: 'Our betters'. No thanks.I suppose this derail saves anyone from the SPGB having to discuss the method of science. Surely there must be someone reading who can discuss these fundamental issues?
twc, post 365, wrote:Its author takes the view that social practice determines social thought in direct opposition to the view you express here that social thought determines social practice.After some consideration, I thought that I should revisit this statement by twc, as it seems to suggest that there are only two contrasting views about a particular subject. I seem to remember that other posters, too, at least initially, tried to reduce these issues of cognition to an either/or problem.I’ve tried to show, through Schaff, that there are numerous stances which could be taken, and there are some that Schaff mentions that I haven’t even covered. This led me to try to uncover the basis of this dichotomous approach to issues which don’t lend themselves to such a simple viewpoint, like ‘theories of cognition’. Since I’ve experienced similar problems elsewhere, regarding other different issues (that is, the constant reduction of various philosophical issues to a simplistic two-sided view), I though that I should point out what I consider that the problem might be.To be clear, it seems to be the reduction of all philosophical problems to the fundamental issue of idealism versus materialism. In short, any attempt of mine to discuss ideas, ideology, consciousness, cognition, epistemology, understanding, etc., when I try to bring human thinking into the debate, seems to always be met by accusations of ‘idealism’ on my part, which is contrasted to the ‘proper’ Marxist method of ‘materialism’. This is embodied in twc’s view, above, that ‘practice determines thought’ (implying a ‘materialist’ position) which ‘opposes my view’ that ‘thought determines practice’ (implying an ‘idealist’ position).Of course, the latter is not my view, but then, neither is the former. My view is essentially the same as Marx’s, that ‘praxis’, the unity of though and practice, is a method which overcomes the separation into either the passive, thoughtless, practice of materialism or the active, practiceless, thought of idealism.
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, wrote:IThe chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity. … Hence he does not grasp the significance of “revolutionary”, of “practical-critical”, activity.IIThe question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.IIIThe materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.Here, Marx thought that he had overcome both Feuerbach’s ‘materialism’, which ignored ‘the active side’ which had correctly been developed by idealism, and earlier ‘idealism’, which he condemned as ‘thinking that is isolated from practice’. For Marx, early materialism was passive and ‘contemplative’, whereas earlier idealism had captured something important, ‘abstract activity’ but it had forgotten ‘real, sensuous activity’.I think that Schaff’s third model of tripartite cognition (subject, object, knowledge) is the one that meets Marx’s desired method: the active social subject interacts through practice with the really-existing object, to produce knowledge. This also meets Pannekoek’s belief that:
Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, wrote:Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.The culprit, I think, for this ‘return’ to pre-Marxian materialism, that notion that ‘matter’ impinges on the passive senses, and that any talk of ‘human consciousness being essential’ is ‘idealism’, is Fred Engels. His works have been massively influential upon ‘Marxism’ from before Lenin, and it’s arguable that Engels’ philosophical ideas are not Marxist at all, but a return to pre-Marxist ‘materialism’.I think that a discussion of Engels’ views, as opposing Marx’s, would require a new thread, so I won’t discuss it further on this one, but I felt obliged to make comrades aware of what I consider to be a fundamental problem within all discussions by Communists about issues relating to consciousness. This includes not just cognition, but also science and the class/party relationship, in my experience.To finish, twc and any other posters who wish to understand these issues of cognition must be very wary of this simplistic separation of materialism versus idealism.[edit]I've just seen twc's latest diatribe, after I posted this, and I despair.
