robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Nothing is ‘independent’ of human production…Marx and Dietzgen: humanity produces matter and mind.”
This is misleading. Humanity produces the idea of matter but not literally matter itself. The dinosaurs went extinct some 66 million years- millions of years before human beings roamed the earth and were capable of conceptualizing the notion of “dinosaurs”. Or is LBird seriously trying to tell us that they didn’t exist before human beings “produced” them. Is he saying the fossil record is false?
What human beings produce is the idea of dinosaurs and, certainly, ideas are not independent of “human production” in the Kantian sense. But sensory perception has to operate on something independent of itself otherwise the very term makes no sense.
We cannot apprehend “dinosaurs” independently of our mind, our cognitive apparatus, but the idea of “dinosaurs” doesn’t come from nowhere which is what LBird seems to be suggesting. If he had said humanity produces “matter” in the phenomenal sense that would kind of make sense. But that’s not what he is suggesting. He is suggesting, albeit probably unintentionally because of the clumsy way he formulates his argument, that human beings produce matter in the noumenal sense as things in itself. But we don’t and can’t.
Even if we cannot apprehend dinosaurs apart from our minds we use our minds to infer that dinosaurs must have existed independently of us since they clearly predate us by millions of years
Also, since we cannot directly apprehend what goes on in the minds of other human beings, we cannot directly experience what they are thinking, Their minds are unknowable in the same way that dinosaurs are unknowable outside of our minds, according to LBird’s logic
If so, what then are we to make of LBird’s notion of the social production of ideas. Since the social production of ideas entails other people who cannot exist outside of our minds and which we “produce” in the same way as we produce dinosaurs according to LBird, then we cannot posit that these ideas are “socially produced”. To say that ideas are socially produced is to say that other people exist apart from us and independently of us – like dinosaurs
This is why LBird’s idealist way of approaching the question of “matter” fundamentally contradicts everything he has to say about the social production of knowledge. So it turns out that LBird is the ultra-individualist here since reality for him is entirely subjectively constituted. Subjectivity is a function of the individual alone since “society” is not some entity capable of “thinking”
Yet again LBird has shot himself in the foot!
And since you’ve returned, as I always predict materialist will, to insults rather than reasoned discussion, I’ll now return to ignoring your naive questions.
This is rich coming from our feathered friend who has done nothing except insult the SPGB, dismissing it as Leninist-Engelsist, elitist, undemocratic etc etc blah blah blah and then has gone out of his way to completely avoid reasoned discussion by completely ignoring all questions such as HOW he proposes to organise a vote by the global population on tens of scientific theories
robbo, if anyone’s ‘living in a complete dreamworld’, it’s those who believe science is powerless.
Once again more distortion from our feathered friend.
I was NOT talking about science but about the presumed power that you imagine a scientific elite would exercise over the general population in the absence of your crackpot idea of the general population voting for tens of thousands of scientific theories
Typically , you produce not the slightest argument in support of your claim that a so called scientific elite would be able to exercise power over the population in a society based on common ownership of the means of production where goods and services are free and labour is perfomed on a purely voluntary basis. In these circumstances there is no leverage in which anyone, let alone a so called scientific elite, could use to exercise power over anyone else and I defy anyone to show otherwise. The state through which such power could be exercised would have disappeared.
As usual, LBird, your incoherent and sloppy sociologising is proving to be your undoing. And you still havent answered my question – HOW do you propose to go about organising a democratic vote on not just one scientific theory amongst 8 billion people but tens of thousands of them!!!!
HOW, LBird? HOW HOW HOW???????
Once more, robbo, if 8 billion workers (to use your terms) are not going to democratically determine science in its entirety, who is?
Once more LBird no one has to determine science in its entirety at all, and why should they? Where did you get this crackpot idea from? Don’t tell me it is from Marx because nowhere did Marx ever suggest that tens of thousands of scientific theories should be subject to a vote by the global population. Your view has nothing to do with Marx, it is entirely your own invention
Insofar as Marx referred to the need for social production to be democratically organised he was emphatically NOT referring to the social production of scientific theories. If you think otherwise PROVE IT!
Just becuase something is “socially produced” does not automatically mean it should be subject to a democratic vote. My breakfast is a social product inasmuch as the ingredients I consume are socially produced. Would you have that the world population vote on what I have for breakfast, eh?
Once more you continue not to provide the slightest suggestion of a reason as to WHY scientific theories should be voted on. What purpose would a vote serve? Democratic decision making needs to be purposeful in order to meaningful
Once more you fail to to explain HOW the fact that scientific theories would not be voted upon (and would have absolutely no need to be voted on) in communism, somehow gives the scientists some kind of “elite power” over others in a free access, voluntaristic society in which people will be free to determine their own needs and be free to determine their own contribution to society.
Once more you fail totally to explain HOW you propose to organise a global vote on just one scientific theory, let alone tens of thousands of them. You seem to have zero understanding of what a massive undertaking this – and all for no good reason whatseover since you are never going to stop people disagreeing over the things like scientific theories. And why should they? New understandings arise from disgreements and debate which you want to stifle under your version of a revived Spanish Inquistion.
You want to impose a conformist blanket on public opinion with your fascistic reoganisation of society in which THE TRUTH gets voted upon – FFS – and your tiny unrepresentive and undemocratic political elite (which is what it will be) gets to enforce what it claims “society” has democratically voted for. Even if (optimitically) only 0.000000057 per cent of the population voted!!!
You are living in a complete dreamworld, LBird
The self-emancipation of the proletariat means we will determine ‘science’ (both its theories and its practices), by democratic means.
How? How are tens of thousands of scientific theories going to be voted on by the workers of the world (nearly 8 billion of us)?
Why is it even necessary? What do you hope to achieve by voting on a scientific theory?
Explain
It’s amazing how hostile the reaction has been to talk of democracy within the communist mode of production.
More lies from our feathered friend.
We have repeatedly said that means of production will be subject to democratic control in a communist society. We just don’t see the point of extending democratic decision making to such things such as the truth of scientific theories etc etc
lBird’s latest charm offensive…
Anyone who refuses to sign up to his “democratic social productionism in science” must be a closet dictator.TWC
If anything is a recipe for a fascist dictatorship its LBird’s abomination of a scenario dressed up as “democratic social productionism” in science, truth, maths et al. Its amusing that he prattles on about Marx but is reduced to complete silence when asked to show where Marx supported the crackpot and insanely impractical idea that tens of thousands of scientific theories should be subjected to a democratic vote by the whole population
LBirds view of democratic socialism is a complete distortion (or perhaps I should say abortion) of democracy. This is not what democracy is about. What he is calling for is more suited to hierarchical ant colony than a democratic human society
Imagine if 8 billion of us were asked to vote on some “Truth” (yes “truth” is also something that would be subject to a democratic vote according to LBird). Since, it would be wildly optimistic to suggest that anything more than 0.00000057 percent of the global population would even bother to vote in such a ludicrous referendum what would happen once the “democratic will of the people” had been asserted. Would those of us who disagree with this ..er. .”socially approved” version of this particular truth, be rounded up and incarcerated? If not what was the point of the exercise?????
The whole point of democratic decision-making is to arrive at decisions that are inherently implementable. So your local community decides between two of three options for building a new local school or hospital. It selects one and rejects the rest and goes ahead with implementing this democratic decision
How is a democratic vote on some obscure scientific theory which most of us have never heard of – the mating habits of aphids, say – going to be enforceable? If it is enforced this will spell the end of science as a self critical enterprise. We will back to the days of the Holy Inquisition, when a tiny elite – and of necessity it will be a tiny elite because the vast majority are not going to bother to vote on the matter – will determine what ideas are deemed to be socially acceptable and the rest of us will just have to conform whether we like it or not
Talk about 1984 and all that..
The active, conscious subject creates its object for itself. There is no ‘nature’ outside of human conscious activity, outside of humanity’s social production.
But social production entails other people and we cannot access directly what is going on in the minds of other people. Therefore, according to this argument, humanity’s social production must bear the same relation to human conscious activity as “nature” inasmuch as both are objects that the conscious subject creates for itself. So how then can it be the case that social production ‘creates’ nature when society (which consists of other people who are objective to us) is not something that “thinks” or possesses consciousness and therefore is logically incapable of utilising or deploying human conscious activity to create nature as an object for itself.
So it turns out that LBird is basically an extreme individualist since it is only the individual – not groups – that is capable of experiencing consciousness which then creates “nature” – meaning of course the concept of nature – as well as the concept of “social production”
The fact that science. a social product, has been able to date the extinction of the dinosaurs to 66 millions year ago – long before there were any human beings around (which self evidently demonstrates that their existence was not dependent on human consciousness) – is of no concern to our ultra individualist, LBird, who thinks there is is no ‘nature’ outside of human conscious activity which only the individual is capable of engaging it by virtue of possessing that organ called a brain
But then presumably there is no ‘brain’ outside of human conscious activity either according to lBird’s way of thinking…..
How much physics do we all need to know before we can start the revolution? How about chemistry, biology, quantum mechanics, musical theory and the rules of football? Do you have an estimate of how long it will all take? Please tell.
Its pointless trying to reason with our feathered friend, Rod. Its like arguing with a Jehovah Witness. He says truth, maths, scientific theories et al will all be subject to a democratic vote by everyone in socialism – an insanely impractical and pointless idea – and then claims he wants “to engage with the question of by who and how are the practical limits set, which will then lead to what they are”. Which basically means he has already decided on behalf of humanity that there will be no limits. He has already decided on behalf of, and without consulting, humanity that scientific theories need to be voted upon and without even explaining WHY such a vote is needed. Some “democrat”!
As a member of humanity, its within my rights to say 1) I see absolutely no point in voting on the question of whether or anti matter exists 2) I am not qualified to express an opinion one way or another on the question of whether anti matter exists since I am not an astrophysicist and don’t pretend to be. But according to LBird I am not allowed to say these things because that would be “undemocratic”. In the name of his “democracy” I cant express an opinion
LBird’s model of “democracy” is not a recipe for human society but for an ant colony or a beehive. Paradoxically and by default it would lead to a fascist totalitarianism in which an elite will effectively govern in the name of the people
Did this ‘in itself’ tell you that, or are you keeping quiet about where you got the concept of ‘in-itself’ from?
Groan. You never will get it, will you, LBird? Forever diverting the discussion away from any consideration of the practical limits of democratic decision making into Kantian philosophising. While that may be interesting in its right , it not what concerns me here. What me concerns here is only the former
Since you are clearly not interested in engaging with the question of what are the practical limits of democratic decision-making, I am not going to waste my time any longer trying in vain to engage you in constructive debate on this question. It is obviously pointless.
So cling on to your crackpot little idea about scientific theories being subject to a democratic vote by the global population, safe in the knowledge that no one is going to bother now to argue you out that idea. You have the complete right to be a batty as a moorhen if you so chose. I wash my hands of you…
You apparently want Marxists and democrats to simply and uncritically accept your ‘case’ as a ‘fact’, which just happens to be there, and doesn’t have any social producer.
More lies from our feathered friend…
I haven’t ever denied the reality of “social production” and “social producers”. All I have pointed out is the fact that something is a “social product” does not in itself make it a suitable candidate for being subject to a democratic vote. Democracy is crucial to socialism but there are limits to how far you can push or extend democratic decision-making – unless you want to seriously propose the global population should have a vote on what I have for breakfast (as I think BD mentioned, breakfast also being a “social product”, incidentally) in which case be my guest and go ahead and argue this point. Since you have already made yourself look utterly foolish there is little to be lost in plumbing new depths of folly.
It is not me, LBird, but you that wants us “Marxists and democrats” to uncritically accept your insane idea that the tens of thousands of scientific theories should each be subjected to a democratic vote of world’s population. It is totally impractical and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Yet you have the nerve to call us “uncritical” when you have never made even the slightest attempt to defend this idea against criticism but have consistently sought to steer the line of argument away from , or around , this idea to deflect any criticism of it.
There is a limit to my patience. As I said, arguing with a brick wall becomes a bit pointless after a while – not to mention dull as dishwater. I had hoped in your case a chink of light might have opened up through a gap in that wall but sadly it seems to have been made up of solid brick throughout.
‘per se’ is a political opinion, robbo.
Who determines ‘per se’, and how?
FFS. Whatever the case, you still misrepresented me since I explicitly said “who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE” to the question of whether scientific theories should be democratically voted upon by the global population
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
If you can’t defend this idea or are unwilling to do so then at least have the grace to say so. Its pointless arguing with a brick wall
