Rosa Lichtenstein
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB:"I am surprised that anyone should try to deny that in his writings of 1844-5 by "philosophy" and "philosophers" Marx meant German philosophy, i.e that of Hegel and in particular its radical offshoots. In fact, your quotes are from a writing which was called The German Ideology. The other work that you ought to re-read is his A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (the one where he coined the phrase that religion is the opium of the people). Here he uses interchangeably the terms "German theory", "German ideology", "German philosophy of right and the state"."You could be right, but when I began to work on these ideas I was first of all guided by this famous quotation from Marx:" "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch…." [The German Ideology. Bold added.]You will no doubt notice that Marx tells us that the ruling class do this "in the whole range" and that they "rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age".Of course, they exercise "control at the same time over the means of mental production", that is they very often employ others to do the thinking for them, and to manage the dissemination of these ideas.Now, this must include traditional philosophy (what perhaps you call "speculative metaphysics", and I'd not disagree with that).The problem now is to decide where "speculative metaphysics" breaks off and where an 'acceptable philosophy' might begin.So, would you count the following as speculative metaphysicians: Parmenides, Plato, Proclus, Plotinus, Boethius, John Scotus Eriugena, Anselm, Duns Scotus, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Jean Buridan, Ockham, Suarez, Descartes, Berkeley, Spinoza, and Leibniz? [Of course there are many more I could name.]If so, then the distinction you draw between German "speculative metaphysics" and the theories of the above is unsustainable, and Marx's comments will apply to them too — especially since he said the above about the ruling-class controlling ideas "in the whole range" and that they rule also as thinkers (which, in the case of Heraclitus, Plato, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, was literally true).The next question is, which theorists do you include in the 'British materialists"? I think I know who you might mean, but their materialism was metaphysical and speculative too. So, we must include them, as well.In which case, I can see no reason not to extend what Marx had to say to cover all of philosophy, especially in view of the next point I wish to make.You quote Marx to this effect (I will only reproduce one of your quotations for reasons of space):"It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked."But, this comes from an earlier work than the ones I quoted (as well as the passage from the German Ideology about "ruling ideas"). Now, after the late 1840s there are no positive comments about philosophy in Marx's entire work (and that includes his letters — and I checked all fifty volumes of the Collected Works a year or so ago). So, and once again, I maintain that when he said the following in the German Ideology:"One has to 'leave philosophy aside'…one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality…"this was in fact his farewell to this ruling-class discipline. You half admit this yourself when you say:"Later, of course, Marx abandoned this elitist view of the proletariat as a tool in the hands of philosophers to accept that, rather, the emancipation of the working class must be the task of the working class itself…."And with that went philosophy, too.
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'?
Morgenstern:"Philosophy is only what we call a particular part of brain work. Marx, in hoping for "one, true science" was, I would argue, making the dialectical point that philosophy, science, doing the football pools, are all parts of one activity that we separate out into arbitrary categories."This looks like speculative metaphysics to me."By saying you reject all philosophy you presumably think to say that you do not think in a fanciful way – that you think in terms of what is real. But, again as DJP and ALB have pointed out, this is not only naive realism, but considered nonsense now by just about everyone."No, it is perfectly clear what I mean: I reject all of philosophy — not 99%, but 100%."In any event, people who encourage workers to reject more developed thinking are equally dangerous, whether they presume to do workers' thinking for them or whether they assert that there is nothing to be thought. The answer is that the modern proletariat does all of society's thinking also and is sufficiently intellectually mature to handle the occasional more abstract question."Well, I am a worker, and until recently a trade union rep (unpaid), but I have no problem with workers investigating/studying "more developed thinking" (not that they need my permission or even acquiescence), but I fail to see why that useless boss-class discipline called 'philosophy' should be included.
The Lollard:"Triple LOL. You'll be hard pressed to find any serious "substance dualists" these days, you're at least 50 years behind the times!"In fact Cartesianism involves more than Dualism. Happy to explain — if you stop 'LOL'-ing, and ask really nicely.
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.
DJP:"Historical Materialism is dialectical in that it refers to change and dynamic processes."It certainly could be, but if every Hegelian concept has been removed, then it doesn't have to be.But, even if it were still dialectical with every Hegelain concept removed, I'd be Ok with that.[Just so long as Hegel has been excised (upside down or 'the right way up').]"I don't think the distintion between philosophical and scientific theories is a clear cut as you would wish it to be. For example there is a vast amount of cross-over in neuroscience and philosophy of mind."I agree, but that is why Marx said the ideas of the ruling-class always rule — they have also infected science (to take your example: in neuroscience and cognitive science, Cartesisn ideas are still dominant).
ALB:"I would have thought that by "philosophy" Marx meant the German philosophy of his day (which was both speculative and metaphysical) of which he was once an adept himself, both before and, for a while, after he became a socialist. I don't think he included the English, Scottish and French materialists in this."Well, had he meant this he'd have said :"Feuerbach's great achievement is…. The proof that German philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned…."Or:"One has to 'leave German philosophy aside'…, one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality…." [The German Ideology.]"The German philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Ibid.]But he didn't, he said:"Feuerbach's great achievement is…. The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned…."One has to 'leave philosophy aside'…, one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality…." [The German Ideology.]"The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Ibid.]And he said that sicne phislophy is the most abstract form of ruling-cass thought/ideology:"Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age…." [Ibid. Bold added.]ALB:"Maybe that's why Morgenstern suspected you of naive realism and kicking Dr Johnston's stone. We'll see if this is so after round two."In which case, he'll need to show where I advocate, or have ever advocated, naive realism — and he'll find that rather hard to do, since I reject all philosophical theories (not 98%, not 99%, but 100%), as incoherent non-sense.
DJP:"What "Rosa", rather amusingly doesn't seem to notice is that "philosophy is a useless discipline" is itself a philosophical statement and a self-negating one at that. But don't take my word for it, everything I say is false."Why is "Philosophy is useless" philosphical? You negelected to demonstrate this point.And even if it were, why is "Philosophy useless" self-negating? Something could still be true but remain useless; for example: The 456,667th mouse born in Japan since 1734 is brown. That could be true. But is it any use? It might be some use, but it doesn't have to be (which is all I need). And it could be false, and still useless. Either way, it could be useless while also being either true or false.
ALB"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.!Well, he didn't add the words 'speculative' or 'metaphysical' to 'philosophy' when he declarded that "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought…", nor when he said "One has to 'leave philosophy aside'", so no, he didn't mean "speculative, metaphysical philosophy", but philosophy. In fact, after the late 1840s there are no positive remarks about this useless discipline in Marx's writings (and that includes his letters)."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)."Why do we need a 'theory of science'? What use it is?In fact I prefer Imre Lakatos's remark:"This…bears out my pet thesis that most scientists tend to understand little more about science than fish about hydrodynamics."
ALB, thank you for those comments, and the links. However, my negative view of epistemology wasn't inspired so much by Marx's lack of interest in it, but by my own conviction that the entire subject is little more than ruling-class hot air, as indeed, is all of traditional philosophy (and that includes Dialectical Materialism [DM]):http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htmI not only take the same view of Traditional Philosophy as Wittgenstein, but as Marx himself:"Feuerbach's great achievement is…. The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned…." [1844 Paris Manuscripts.]"One has to 'leave philosophy aside'…, one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality…." [The German Ideology.]"The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Ibid.]So, according to Marx, "philosophy is nothing but religion rendered into thought". It must, therefore, be "left aside", and one has to "leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality"; that is because Philosophy stands in the same relation to the "study of the actual world" as onanism does to sexual love. Furthermore, Philosophy is based on "distorted language of the actual world", empty abstractions and fabricated concepts. No wonder then that Marx contrasts practicalities and a desire to change the world with the pursuit of that empty and pointless boss-class discipline called "Philosophy".And we know that Philosophy is a ruling-class form-of-thought, since Marx told us it was:"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch…." [Ibid.]Notice how Marx pointed out that:"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it…. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age…." [Ibid. Bold added.]The elite thus control the production and distribution of ideas that represent their interests and how they see the world, and because of that they control education:"The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance." [Ibid.]They rule also as "thinkers", and they do so in "its whole range"; they also rule as "producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age".It is worth adding that phrases like "ruling-class theory", "ruling-class view of reality", and "ruling-class ideology" — which I use at my site (and above) in connection with Traditional Philosophy and the concepts that underpin DM/'Materialist Dialectics', upside down or 'the right way up' — aren't meant to imply that all or even most members of various ruling-classes actually invented this way of thinking or of seeing the world (although some of them did — for example, Heraclitus, Plato, Cicero and Marcus Aurelius). They are meant to highlight theories (or "ruling ideas") that are conducive to, or which rationalise the interests of the various ruling-classes history has inflicted on humanity, whoever invents them. Up until recently this approach had almost invariably been promoted by thinkers who relied on ruling-class patronage, or who, in one capacity or another, helped run the system for the elite. Unfortunately, Marxists, who seem to have ignored Marx's own advice/words, haven't helped by engaging in this empty and pointless boss-class discipline (Philosophy).And here is why (I am, of course, simplifying greatly):As is easy to show, Hegel lifted many of his doctrines from earlier mystics and ruling-class hacks. These ideas have appeared in the philosophical theories of boss-class thinkers from ancient times until today. The founders of this quasi-religion [DM] weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the Classics, the Bible, and Philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there lies a 'hidden world', accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.This way of seeing things was invented by the aforementioned ruling-class ideologues. They did so because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep 'order' in several ways.The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).Another way is to win over the majority (or, at least, a significant proportion of "opinion formers", bureaucrats, judges, bishops, generals, intellectuals, philosophers, editors, teachers, administrators, etc., etc.) to the view that the present order either (1) Works for their benefit, (2) Preserves and defends 'civilised values', (3) Is ordained of the 'gods', or (4) Is 'Natural' and thus cannot be fought against, reformed or negotiated with.Hence, a 'world-view' that helps rationalise one or more of the above is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling "in the same old way". While the content of this aspect of ruling-class ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth (about this 'hidden world' underlying appearances) can be ascertained by thought alone, and can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically and aprioristically.Some might object that philosophical ideas can't have remained the same for thousands of years, across different modes of production; that belief runs counter to core ideas in Historical Materialism [HM]. But, we don't argue the same for religious affectation. Marx put no time stamp on the things he said about religious belief; they applied back in Ancient Babylon and Egypt, just as they did in China and India, in Greece and Rome, in the Middle Ages, and they have done so right across the planet ever since.The same is true of the core thought-forms found right throughout Traditional Philosophy — that there is indeed an invisible world, accessible to thought alone. No wonder then that Marx said that: "philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought."So, the non-worker founders of our movement — who had been educated from an early age to believe there was just such a 'hidden world' lying behind 'appearances', and which governed everything — when they became revolutionaries, looked for 'logical' principles relating to this abstract world that told them that change was inevitable, and was thus part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of that ruling-class mystic, Hegel. The dialectical classicists were thus happy to impose their 'new' theory on the world (upside down or the "right way up") since that is how they had been taught 'genuine' philosophers should behave. The vast majority of Comrades have simply made the same mistake ever since.Hence, "ruling ideas" have cone to dominate Marxism, too.So, no, we don't need a philosophical theory (or, indeed, DM); HM (a scientific theory) is quite enough.
Morgenstern:"suffers from the same problem as Johnson centuries earlier who on hearing Berkeley's theories, said "I refute him thus" and kicked a rock. She thinks that her common sense is reality and that philosophy and, in general, thought is presumably vanishingly subordinate. But her common sense is just a construct. If you say that what you see is what there is then you have just insulated yourself from further thought."1) Where have I expressed this opinion: "She thinks that her common sense is reality and that philosophy and, in general, thought is presumably vanishingly subordinate"?I have in fact shown that all philsophical theories are incoherent non-sense. No suggestion there that my "common sense is reality…, etc. etc."http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm2) "If you say that what you see is what there is then you have just insulated yourself from further thought."You mean, rather like you have just done ("insulated yourself from further thought"), but with the added complication that you haven't 'said what you see', for if you had, you would have seen how irrelvant your comments are and that they bear no relation to anything I have ever argued, or ever would.3) "Why was she considered of any value, anyway?"My arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Care to take me on?
Thanks for that DJP; but Quine’s argument was effectively answered by Grice and Strawson’s paper “In Defence of a Dogma”:
http://www.hist-analytic.org/Gricestrawson.pdf
Hic Rhodas, as I have just pointed out to Young Master Smeet, I have yet to see even so much as one aspect of ‘the dialectic’ that is of any use at all, in science or anywhere else for that matter. So perhaps you can enlighten me: which parts of ‘the dialectic’ are of any use?
Moreover, I deny that Prygogine’s work is an example of ‘the dialectic’ in use — that is, any more than Quantum Mechanics is an example of Buddhism at work (as some phsyicists claim).
Maybe you can say which parts of his work (or even which aspects of ‘chaos theory’) are examples of dialectics at work?
YMS:
“And yet 2.00138E-09 seconds after I hit a key, a character appears on the screen that was previously outside the light cone, connected in a direct chain of causation. If I stab a man and he dies of the stab wounds an hour later, you wouldn’t say the two things were unconnected. All points in space are connectable”
And how is that character outside the light cone?
But, you interpret ‘connected’ to mean ‘causally connected’, and yet there are countless events in history that aren’t now causally connected with, say, you. For example , the death of Julius Caesar isn’t now causally connected with you, since it no longer exists.
“I wouldn’t wait, it’s nothing, really.”
But, we don’t define anything in relation to nothing, as you seem to believe.
“That is all dialectic is: indeed, Rosa has been engaging in dialectics on this forum from the off. (I’ll have top go off and read the rest of the book now).”
I’m OK with the classical definition of ‘dialectic’ (connected with argument), although I prefer to avoid it since it creates confusion when I say such things; what I am not Ok with is the metaphysical version of the dialectic many of you seem to have accepted. Moreover, I have yet to see a good reason to accept it — and I have only been looking for nigh on 30 years! Certainly, and with all due respect, no one here has come up with even so much as a weak reason.
Anyway, Schopenhauer is wrong about logic; it isn’t the ‘science of thought’. If it were, logicians would do brain scans, psychometric testing and conduct surveys; they’d not waste their time with all those useless proofs and defintions.
YMS:
“Seconds it is outside the light cone. That is, the time it takes light to travel 60 cm (give or take a few extraneous quibbles). Now, in the duration of that time period, characters cannot appear on my screen following a keystroke, because the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit of effects/information. Characters cannot appear before I have struck a key, because that would be effect preceding cause. Now, the key point is that time vectors can only go one way in a causal universe, we cannot go backwards in time. “
In other words, given your ‘causal interpretation’ of ‘connection’, most things in the universe aren’t connected, and never will be — as I asserted.
And we still await your explanation of ‘no-thing’.
