LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bijou Drains wrote: “…we discover as children that things that are hot burn us.”
Yes, so every member of humanity could participate in a vote on this and agree. Hot things burn.
But what has this to do with ‘science’? Almost everything to do with ‘science’ can’t be sensed in such a direct way. Who would have an interest in making others believe that a political and philosophical discussion about the democratic control of science within socialism is about ‘burnt fingers’? Perhaps those who wish to deny democracy within ‘science’.
No-one ever saw, heard, smelt, tasted or touched an atom.
Atoms are social products, produced by an atomised society (initially by wealthy Ancient Greeks, and then again by wealthy Europeans, for similar socio-economic reasons). For generations within bourgeois society, ‘atoms’ (I know it’s unbelievable!) were believed to be real! They simply existed.
We now know much better, though. The ‘uncuttable’ was ‘cut’.
The problem is, who determines whether atoms ‘exist’ of not? They certainly ‘existed-for’ someone, at some period. ‘Atoms’ have a history, and go in and out of ‘existence’, depending upon the society that has an interest in creating them.
But you try telling this to the ‘materialists’!
Thomas More wrote: “I think L. Bird is saying that humanity is God, and nothing exists without us.” [my bold]
Yes, I am saying this, Thomas – with one caveat. It’s better expressed as:
“I think L. Bird is saying that humanity is God, and nothing exists-for-us without us.” [my bold]
The basic concept of ‘materialism’ is ‘exists’; whereas for Marx it is ‘exists-for-us’ – that is, ‘what exists’ is an externalisation of our conscious activity, and so is ‘what exists-for-us’.
This is a commonplace in post-Kantian German Idealism, and was Marx’s starting point. What he introduced was the notion of a ‘social individual’, rather than, for example, Fichte’s ‘biological individual’.
For Marx, the active subject in the process of creation was ‘social’, not ‘individual’, not ‘god’, and not ‘matter’. We create individuals, god and matter. They are all social products, and we can change them. We do not contemplate ‘existence’, but create ‘existence-for-us’. And thus, we can change ‘existence-for-us’.
Wez wrote: “Beware of contemporary conceit ALB. The future may look back on our own view of ‘reality’ as anachronistic just as we see the metaphysics of the past as outdated.”
Yes, Wez, ‘reality’ is historical – and thus social and human. The metaphysics of 18th century ‘materialism’ have been outdated for a long while. Ironically, Marx participated in that. But his views have been obscured.
Marx today would probably be called a ‘constructionist’. He argued that we ‘externalise’ our own ‘nature’. His term ‘Entausserung’ means ‘externalisation’, or ‘production’. We are active in the process of building our world.
ALB wrote: “…postmodernists and oids use in their dogma that “beliefs create reality.””
But who here is arguing that postmodernist dogma, ALB?
As far as I can tell, the postmodernists/idealists/religious have no presence on this site, never mind on this thread.
The conversation here is between those, like you, the ‘materialists’, who argue that ‘reality itself’ pre-exists the social production of it. And so, ‘reality itself’ is sitting there, waiting to be ‘discovered’. Fine, it’s a common enough belief, and focusses on ‘The World’.
But the other side, like me, the ‘Marxists/democratic socialists’, argue that ‘reality’ is a social product. This is not anyone saying ‘beliefs create reality’. It’s following Marx’s views, that human conscious activity creates what it knows (Marx refers to Vico in Capital, so he was familiar with Vico’s arguments). That is, social theory and practice produces ‘Our World’.
The problem with the concept of ‘The World’ is that we can’t change it, if ‘reality itself’ precedes our making of it. We can only simply contemplate it. Once known, this ‘reality’ is known forever.
This is the problem and the debate.
We know that the ‘scientists’ of the 19th century were wrong about this belief in ‘reality itself’, as Einstein showed (and many, many others).
And for us, who aspire to build towards socialism, surely we’re better adopting a scientific ideology that stresses ‘society and nature’ as an intertwined couplet, as did Marx, and that democracy must play a part in this social production of our reality.
ALB, quoted Loren Goldner: “Our starting-point must be the direct opposition between the body of doctrine which came to be known as ‘Marxism’, codified in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Internationals, and the ideas of Karl Marx. After separating these two, I want look at the relation between ‘Marxism’ and the body of ideas known as the Enlightenment, chiefly those of the French eighteenth century thinkers. Then I should turn to the earlier tradition sometimes called ‘Hermetic’, which includes magic, astrology and alchemy. I want to show how, when modern rational science defeated this outlook, it also lost something of value: its attitudes to humanity and nature.”
I must say, I totally agree with Goldner, here.
It’s precisely the ‘lost value’ of ‘humanity and nature’ that Marx, too, focussed upon.
ALB wrote: “Sounds a bit mumbo-jumboist to me”
It sounds of inestimable value to democratic socialists, to me.
The bourgeoisie’s separation of ‘society and ‘nature’ was an entirely ideological step. It’s purpose was to keep ‘science’ and ‘nature’ out of the hands of democratic forces, as displayed during the English Revolution of the 1640s.
Only the ruling class benefitted from this separation. To maintain it, is to support the ruling class, and separate society into two: those who know and do ‘science’, an elite minority, and those who can’t know and can’t do ‘science’, the vast majority.
The role of socialists is to challenge the power of the elite, wherever it is manifested – as it is in their current version of ‘science’.
Thomas More wrote: “So science, irrespective of class, can be defined as discovery and know-how.”
So, if Fascists ‘discover’ Jews, and have the ‘know-how’ to kill them… that’s ‘science’?
Thomas More wrote: “Reason, irrespective of class, and even of species, is the ability to discern.”
So, if wealthy people can ‘discern’ the poor (and simply accept it as a ‘fact’ and do nothing)… that’s ‘reason’?
Surely such asocial and ahistorical ‘definitions’, which take no account of who defines and does ‘discovery’, who defines and has ‘know-how’, who determines ‘reason’ (and thus ‘what’s reasonable’), and who determines who are the ‘discerners’, is meaningless?
You seem to have a view that ‘discovery’, ‘know-how’, ‘reason’ and ‘discernment’ are universal properties, given to all biological individuals, simply by virtue of them being alive. And that the ‘science’ based on these is thus timeless – there is no need to address historical specificities, changes in social production, or power relationships between opposed social groups.
I must say, I don’t share these assumptions, if they are yours.
I think that both ‘science’ and ‘reason’ change, and that both are socially produced, and we can historically locate when they emerged, who produced them, and the interests behind their production, and the purposes for which they were employed.
So, I don’t regard ‘reason’ or ‘science’ as universal, or the property of each biological individual, but as socio-historical products.
Thus, to defend ‘reason and science’, we have to know what we think that they are, and we have to identify who’s putting them in danger, and why.
I regard this as a political task, because the issue of ‘power’ is central to this process, which is why I ask who, when, where and most importantly why, long before I ask how.
Thomas More wrote “Reason is…”
Thomas, you might be interested to read this article by Loren Goldner:
‘The Renaissance and Rationality: The Status of the Enlightenment Today‘
https://sites.google.com/site/comuneiro/home/the-renaissance-and-rationality
LBird asked: “It’s odd that ‘materialists’ fear that ‘Reason and Science’ are both ‘in Danger’, but won’t discuss just what ‘Reason and Science’ are, where they came from, who created them, and from who or what they are in danger.”
Thomas More answered: “Here’s how reason and science are in danger.”
This conversation, Thomas, is taking a similar route to any other that I’ve had with ‘materialists’.
I ask a question, and the materialists avoid it.
We can see here, I ask ‘what’, ‘where/when’, ‘who’ (on either side), and you answer ‘how’.
And the ‘how’ of the anti-science people is extremely similar, to ‘how’ the materialists answer questions from Marxists. Both anti-science and materialists denigrate their opponents, with personal attacks. ALB’s use of the term ‘weirdo’ for me is one of the milder disgraceful responses. Even when pretending to answer Marxists, he calls them ‘postmodernists’, even though I have specifically, time and again, over years, attacked postmodernism. It’s not an argument by ALB, but simple slander, to muddy the issues. I might add, also a typical method employed by Lenin.
Regarding your latest post, on ‘Reason is…’, I ask, whose ‘reason’, when did this ‘reason’ appear, in who’s interests does this ‘reason’ work, what does this ‘reason’ consist of?
You’re trying to use a ‘common sense’ approach to political and philosophical questions of great subtlety, whereas we need to define what we mean by ‘science’ and ‘reason’, and place these terms in their socio-economic and historical context.
If you’re not interested in doing this, that’s OK, but I don’t think that you’ll get much further in your enquiries, without doing so first, and will fall into the trap of just calling names against the anti-science people. I share your concerns, and I am pro-science – it’s just that the ‘science’ that I’m ‘pro-‘ is democratic science, which I think is necessary for socialism to work.
It’s odd that ‘materialists’ fear that ‘Reason and Science’ are both ‘in Danger’, but won’t discuss just what ‘Reason and Science’ are, where they came from, who created them, and from who or what they are in danger.
Perhaps simple ‘common sense’ informs their claims, and it doesn’t need discussing.
Well, if so, then the subject is certainly a dead-end as far as any form of ‘democratic socialism’ is concerned.
The bogeyman of ‘postmodernism’ seems to satisfy and calm the ‘materialists’ fears. Black Hat / White Hat politics. Boo the baddies, cheer the goodies.
Thomas More wrote: “The diameter of the sun is certainly beyond the control of any human society, even the most democratic.”
But ‘diameter’ is a human construct, and its measurement is a human activity.
For example, any ‘diameter’ would change depending upon the required accuracy and units employed to determine a ‘diameter’.
Thus, ‘the diameter of the sun’ is entirely within ‘the control of any human society’.
The real political question is, who would you have control that ‘diameter’ – an elite, or ‘the most democratic’?
Thomas More wrote: “Science is only bourgeois when it is hijacked to back up bourgeois beliefs and perceptions.”
This statement starts from the ideological assumption that there is an asocial, ahistorical activity called ‘science’ which can be ‘hijacked’.
You’d have to prove this ‘science’ is a universal, absolute entity, not subject to change, and describe the parts which can’t be ‘hijacked’. There has to be an ‘unmalleable essence’ which you can appeal to, and ‘restored’, after it has been rescued from the ‘hijackers’.
History can easily demonstrate the origins and development of any ‘science’ that you can identify, how it changes over time and who made these changes.
Thomas More wrote “L. Bird, are you not confusing social reality with natural?”
It’s very apt that you’ve asked this question, Thomas, because one of the key ideological beliefs that was introduced by the bourgeoisie was the separation of ‘social’ and ‘natural’.
This is reflected in the separation of arts/science, fact/value, truth/opinion, ‘material/ideal’, etc., and is a dead end which has been causing concern even to their thinkers for a long time.
It’s a reflection of class society, and the determination of an elite to keep the power of ‘nature’ in their undemocratic hands, by presenting ‘the world’ as outside the reach of democratic controls.
Thomas More wrote: “Of course science will always have problems because it is open-ended and enquiring, which ideology is not.”
I’m afraid I disagree with you here, Thomas.
‘Science’ is as ideological as any other human activity.
Bourgeois ‘science’ emerged in very specific socio-historical conditions, and was built upon bourgeois ideas, concepts, interests and purposes.
We’d need to rethink what we socialists mean by ‘science’, and certainly introduce democracy to the social activity.
Thomas More wrote: “I believe science in socialism would be open to all, and scientists today are inaccessible to the masses, which has fuelled in part the populist anti-science movement of the conspiraloons.”
I agree, Thomas. But, in political terms, what does ‘open to all’ mean to you? Where would ‘power’ lie, in this openness? Who would have the power of ‘education’?
As a democratic socialist, I would answer ‘open to all’ implies democratic control of science – ie. its theories, methods, concepts, universities, professors, etc. would be within the open power of all.
The masses would control science, not an elite (which is what the ‘materialists’ argue, as did Lenin).
Thomas More wrote: “L.Bird, Einstein didn’t believe in external reality?”
Of course he did, and I do too, Thomas. It’s a myth expounded by ‘materialists’ that their political opponents don’t. Lenin smeared his opponents by lying, and it seems to be a key part of the materialist method – personal abuse and untrue smears, anything but engagement with critics.
The fundamental question is (and has been since Kant in the modern period (if we ignore Protagoras and Ancient Greek thinkers for the moment)) ‘Who creates this ‘external reality’?‘.
The Idealists answer ‘God‘.
The Materialists answer ‘Matter‘.
Marx, who reconciled Idealism and Materialism (which was the contemporary task of German Idealism, which he solved) into Social Productionism, answered ‘Humanity‘.
Any ‘external reality’ that we know, we create by our conscious activity, and so, we can change it. ‘External Reality’ is a social product, and changes.
Only the third ideology is suitable for democratic socialism, because both ‘god’ and ‘matter’ supposedly have the divine power of ‘creation’, and are under the control of an elite of priests or scientists.
Marx argued for ‘Entausserung’ (‘Externalisation’, or ‘Production) of our own ‘nature’. That’s why ‘production’ figures in all of his key theoretical terms, like Mode/Means/Forces of Production.
So, Thomas, who or what produces your ‘external reality’? The answer has political implications.
