[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Non-sequitur. Your making a jump from 'knowledge' to truth.

And you're still locating 'truth' in the 'object'.One can only do this if one follows Lenin and holds to a 'reflection theory of knowledge', where the 'object' and 'knowledge' are identical.One can't do this if one follows Pannekoek, where the 'object' and 'knowledge' are not identical.One has to choose.I choose Pannekoek, and see 'knowledge' as a 'mental reproduction'. This means I locate 'truth' in 'knowledge'. This means 'truth' can be wrong.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

As far as I can see, when it comes to "faithful copy", the last man standing is Lenin but nobody here is defending him. Nobody can after Pannekoek's demolition job in Lenin As Philosopher.

I agree, ALB.But the logic of this position is that 'scientific knowledge' has a human component. Thus, humans not being infallible, that 'scientific knowledge' can be wrong. If this logic is accepted, then we can see that what's 'true' for one set of humans (due to social and historical conditions) can be 'untrue' for another set.So we have our 'sun/earth' debate, Piltdown man, the 'ether', and many other examples.We can now explain why we should not regard 'science' as producing 'objective truth', which helps undermine the notion of 'scientific authority', which is used by the bourgeoisie as a central pillar of their ideological control of society, a bit like 'the market', There Is No Alternative (TINA) to following their experts.Given all this, I think we should now move onto a consideration of the 'subject' and its nature and, especially, ask is the 'subject' any individual, a special individual or genius, or a social entitiy.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, I thought too that LBird was being a bit unfair to Feuerbach in suggesting that he was a "naive realist" and a "positivist".

Oh, no, not someone else who doesn't do 'didactic devices'!Look, everybody, forget Feuerbach and Marx (for now, not 'forever', I'm not Pol Pot suggesting 'Year Zero'), just for a while, and focus on the issue, which apparently I've obscured, and discuss the nature of the entity of cognitive knowledge.'Faithful copy', or 'mental reproduction'?Can anybody else help me explain? Please.If comrades don't agree with my view of 'mental reproduction', then we can discuss it. But… I'll quote Marx and Pannekoek…

[LBird]

twc, you really must read what other posters are writing:

LBird wrote:

He spells out some similarities and differences between these two models of cognition, on pp. 60-1 (I’ll call these ‘Feuerbach’ and ‘Marx’, if it helps to simplify; please note, this is a didactic device, for those desperate to insist ‘Marx never said that!).

I was trying to contrast two ways of looking at 'cognition'.Would you like to discuss point 4, which is really about what we consider our 'knowledge' to be?That is, either a 'faithful copy' or a 'mental reproduction'.I think that point 4 is the sticking point within our discussion, on this thread.

[LBird]

If no-one's got any more contributions on the issue of the entity of 'knowledge' (within our tripartite schema of cognition), and it seems to be accepted that 'knowledge' is always 'socially produced knowledge' (as for Pannekoek) and not a 'copy of the object' (as for positivists, and the 'common-sense' view of bourgeois 'discovery' science), shall we move on?Perhaps I could give a lead on the second entity, the 'cognising subject'? Anyone still interested?

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

Rise above it Ed, he's just another local boy made good by the sweat of his brow. We can all do it, you know.The trouble is that his kind are touted as aspirational figures for the workers to emulate, British and immigrant alike.

Yeah, some people survived Auschwitz, it's like one of them saying, 'I did it, so all 6 million could!'.No mention of structural factors, history, society, or contingency.The method of 'individualist anecdotal shite', it's scientifically called, Jamie.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That the Sun went round the Earth was their "mental reproduction" of what they observed (and which we still do), but, surely, the theory of "knowledge as a process of mental reproduction of the object" allows for inaccurate or wrong "mental reproductions"? So, why can't we say that the pre-1700 mental reproduction of the same phenomena that we observe today was wrong?

Of course, we can.The "pre-1700 mental reproduction" is "wrong", from the stance of "2013 mental reproduction".But this presents a philosophical problem. If 'we' know our 'mental reproduction' is 'true' to us, and is different from 'their' 'mental reproduction' which was 'true' to them……what's to prevent a future 'mental reproduction' from doing the same thing?Unless one clings to the 'scientific discovery' model of 'truth' as a one-off 'act of discovery' (that Pannekoek denies), then we have to separate 'truth' (a social creation) from 'object' (the 'real' sun/earth relationship, 'out there').Thus, we can account for changes in 'truth', whilst holding on to a 'realist' scientific method, which relates to an 'object' which can be later interrogated again.Naive Realism (positivist science?) versus Critical Realism (Marx and Pannekoek?).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Or, more precisely, do they lead us to the view that before 1700 it was "true" that the Sun went round the Earth as this is what people then "knew" to be the case?

You're still confusing 'the object' with 'knowledge', ALB. They are different entities. Don't my latest efforts help at all? Difference number 4 refers, I think. If what I've written so far hasn't helped, please ask for a better explanation.

[LBird]

I’d like to make a post to hopefully help to clarify some of the differences between my position and that of some other posters. This is based upon Schaff, pp. 59-61. I’ve obviously truncated, summarised and re-worded what he says, to get to the point, for posters who haven’t got access to his book.The key difference seems to lie in our differing interpretations of what Schaff calls a ‘theory of reflection’. He points out that the ‘subjective-idealist’ model of cognition (the second one that he covers, on pp. 50-1) does not use a theory of reflection. We’re not interested in this model, either (it’s related to idealism and relativism). But the ‘contemplative-receptive’ m. of c. (his first, pp. 49-50), which we would identify with Feuerbach and positivism, and the ‘social-objective’ m. of c. (his third, pp. 51-3), which we would identify with Realism and Marxism, are both covered by Schaff’s theory of reflection.He spells out some similarities and differences between these two models of cognition, on pp. 60-1 (I’ll call these ‘Feuerbach’ and ‘Marx’, if it helps to simplify; please note, this is a didactic device, for those desperate to insist ‘Marx never said that!’).Similarities.1 object exists (outside of subject);2 object is origin of sensual experiences of subject;3 cognition is a relationship between subject and object;4 object is knowable.Differences.1 Feuerbach sees subject as mentally passive-receptive; Marx sees subject as mentally active;2 F. sees subject as individual; M. sees subject as social;3 F. sees subject as contemplative; M. sees subject as actively practical;4 F. sees knowledge as a faithful copy of object; M. sees knowledge as a process of mental reproduction of the object.This last point, difference 4, is where I think that our differences lie (thus, being a titchy thing, we have lots in common, comrades!).The form of ‘materialism’, that regards ‘object’ and ‘knowledge’ as identical, Schaff calls ‘naïve realism’. This position sees ‘knowability as a unique act’ producing a ‘perfect copy’ or ‘faithful image’ of the object.He contrasts this with ‘critical realism’, which regards ‘knowability as an infinite process’ which thus can’t produce a ‘perfect copy’, but it is an imperfect reproduction, a mental image, of the object. But as a mental image produced by the subject, it is able to be acted upon, by the subject: ‘it makes effective action possible’ (p. 61).To my mind, to leave Schaff behind, this ‘knowledge as a process’ is a dynamic form of social cognition, which fits, I think, with Pannekoek’s quote, provided earlier. Thus, ‘knowledge’ is not an ‘act of discovery’, as for bourgeois scientists, but on ongoing active human relationship with nature; ‘knowledge’ is a ‘social process’.I suspect that these differing views of the cognitive entity of ‘knowledge’ are at the heart or our differences. I’m a ‘critical realist’.DJP, is this issue related to your worries, expressed in post #30, about ‘cultural relativism’? The notion of the malleability of ‘knowledge’ can be seem as endorsing ‘cultural relativism’, I suppose, but I don’t think it does. After reading this post (and, even better if possible, having read Schaff’s argument in the original), what do you think?In effect, I’m asking, ‘do Marx, Pannekoek and Critical Realism lead us to cultural relativism?’.Hope this post helps, comrades.

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

So that is your way of having a 'political discussion'?? Head in the sand more-like!

Yes, I'm a 'head-in-the-sand-ist'.I still find it a position, though, which is an advance on the 'head-up-the-own-arse-ist'.

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

LBird wrote:

The method I suggest is:1. off your own back, start to question capitalism;2. come here and ask questions;3. read answers, and respond to them by developing your argument (either by agreeing with those answers, or rejecting them with reasons).Unfortunately, ignoring what's being said in reply to your questions, and merely re-iterating right wing myths, will lead to accusations that you are trolling.

 1. Done that already2. That is what I am doing, but getting few answers!3. Doing that if you hadn't noticed.

No, I hadn't noticed. I'll leave you now to your 'activities', which will be defined by other posters.

[LBird]

wiscalatus wrote:

LBird wrote:

wiscalatus, I think that you're a troll.You've stopped discussing with us, and developing your argument from the new information that you've been given, and are now merely repeating right-wing myths.You're still mentioning 'money', when you've already been put straight on that. No money. No nations, host or otherwise.As for 'immigrants' not having a clue about socialism, those who live in glass houses…

 Not a troll at all, just wanting some answers, perhaps I need the 'right wing myths' debunking.Can you do that?

No, only you can 'do that'.The method I suggest is:1. off your own back, start to question capitalism;2. come here and ask questions;3. read answers, and respond to them by developing your argument (either by agreeing with those answers, or rejecting them with reasons).Unfortunately, ignoring what's being said in reply to your questions, and merely re-iterating right wing myths, will lead to accusations that you are trolling.As a concrete suggestion, I'd go back to page 1 and engage with what posters have already said to you. If you disagree, fine: make your point with reasoned argument, and posters will develop and deepen their explanations for you.

[LBird]

wiscalatus, I think that you're a troll.You've stopped discussing with us, and developing your argument from the new information that you've been given, and are now merely repeating right-wing myths.You're still mentioning 'money', when you've already been put straight on that. No money. No nations, host or otherwise.As for 'immigrants' not having a clue about socialism, those who live in glass houses…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It's 19 pages and over 6000 words long and done using old-fashioned technology (roneoed from a stencil, but at least the pages are A4 not foolscap), but it's not proving too difficult to scan. In the meantime here's some extracts to give an idea of the argument developed in it…

Thanks for the 'heads-up', ALB.I'll have a read and see if I can orientate myself to it.

[LBird]

Lyla Byrne wrote:

‘the only sensible use of the word 'truth' is to mean 'in accord with reality'

But this is an ideological statement.'Truth' can't simply mean 'reality', because 'truth' changes, even when the 'object' doesn't. Science teaches us that.Where did you get your ideas from, Lyla?

LB wrote:

For example – suggesting that I have to cite influences before anything I say is valid.

This is an ideological statement. There are no un-influenced humans. We are social animals. Unless you expose your 'influences', we can't go any further.Plus, 'validity' is a social concept, not an individual one.I'd guess you're some sort of 'individualist', Lyla. I'm not. I'm a Communist and a Marxist. I don't hide my influences.[later edit]The reason for asking about whether you consider yourself an 'individual' or not (I don't, I'm a worker), is that, as I've already mentioned in passing and will re-visit at greater length, the 'subject' in the tripartite theory of cognition must be seen as a 'social individual', rather than the isolated bourgeois individual.Thus, anyone who employs the notion of 'the individual' will find they disagree with the argument that I will make about 'scientific method'. In short, the 'social individual' is a creation of a society, with all the baggage that entails, so if any poster wants to argue against the notion of the 'subject as social', they need to have a think now about which ideology they are employing against my ideological position.[end edit]

[Author]

Posts