stuartw2112
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I found DJP's summary useful. So what have we got? Everything that appears in the mind, including science and philosophy, and our sense impressions of the outside world, is presumably mind-stuff. Our attempts to penetrate what is "out there", to find out what physical stuff is, has had some interesting results. First, physical stuff is mostly empty space. Empty space is mostly made up of stuff we literally know nothing about. And stuff itself is just energy – not physical stuff? Also, that what we observe depends on whether or not it's being observed. In the living world, we know the complete genome and wiring of the C elegans worm, and yet still can't figure out how it decides whether to turn left or right.And you'd build a materialist theory of history on such slender foundations as these? Good luck!
When you say that "primitive accumulation" was unavoidable and necessary and that morality has nothing to do with it, and that this is a matter of objective scientific fact and that you wooly minded idealists and religious nutjobs shouldn't stand in the way of the march of history, you send shivers down my spine. The Bolsheviks would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. As would Mao as he sent his troops into Tibet. Imagine your argument with a gun (state power) in its hands. Chilling.
If you want to consider the evidence even-handedly before coming to a decision, then I applaud you Vin, but you'll have your work cut out! I'd start with some books by Frans De Waal:http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_moralsIs sociality and caring in our genes? It would be very surprising indeed if there weren't a genetic element. But again, if you want to look at the evidence, you'll have a lot of work ahead of you!
I once asked a primatalogist that very question, and he said that pretty much all social animals have something like a morality – how would it work otherwise? It's a controversial question, but I think most primatologists would agree with that.
SocialistPunk and Robin are so obviously right that it's worth wondering why we're having the argument at all. The answer is Marx. Where on earth could the ridiculous idea that humans are individualised, rational, self-interested, utility-maximising machines come from in the first place? From bourgeois society, and faithfully reflected in bourgeois ideology, especially, and even to this day, in economics. In Capital, Marx, being the clever old dialectical stick that he was, took the assumptions of bourgeois ideology for granted, and ploughed ahead "as if" they were true, in order to show that the logic of the argument led to socialist conclusions, even without bringing morality into it. Later Marxists, not being quite so clever as Marx, forgot the "as if" nature of the argument, and have ever since been going round saying the morality is bourgeois bunk. No! The argument that morality is bunk is bourgeois! Thoroughly bourgeois! The argument may sound all up your arse and philosophical, but it matters, as the history of Bolshevism and Stalinism readily attest.Stuart
I've just seen your party election broadcast – it was very good indeed, well done to everyone involved.
Whatever you think of LU, you can't deny it's been remarkably successfu with the media. The guy responsible explains how it's done:http://www.theleftvote.org.uk/?p=666
If you haven't spent your days reading books by people trying to convince you of crazy things, then you haven't lived Vin. Give it a go before it's too late.Thanks for the video DJP. Such a refreshing change to see a philosopher who looks the part!
Vin, no, not really, the dispute is caused because no one knows the answers. You'd definitely have to read Dennett if you're interested in these questions, but you'd definitely have to read his critics too (his critics are also respected philosophers and scientists, so no, it's not Dennett verus the cretins).
I've read quite a lot of Dennett, and he writes great books and they should definitely be read. But he can't really be used as an authority to settle this dispute, because Dennett represents just one side in a hotly contested area of science and thought. Not that this dispute can be settled, at least not yet. We (humanity) don't know enough. It's an interesting dispute to have is all, at least it's interesting to me!
DJP: Yes, I agree with you, religion seems to have had a remarkably successful and resilient history.TWC: Was that addressed to me? Surely I've spelled it out often enough, on the Left Unity thread and elsewhere? Here's an example of the kind of thing I "hold as a socialist":http://bigchieftablets.wordpress.com/2014/04/13/what-is-to-be-done/
DJP: Well, nothing's a reliable guide is it? Not even religion.Vin: Yes, well, quite: value has a social reality, not a physical one. That's what I was saying.twc: You have a problem, you look at it and think hard about it and study it, think about ways in which you might try to solve it, while reading up on how others have solved it, keeping your mind open, and being willing to be wrong, and fail, and make a fool of yourself.
But DJP, you don't need a philosophy to get out of bed and walk down the street. You don't need Newton to stop you jumping out the window. Maybe you need some kind of intuitive philosophy, but then a great deal of this is almost certainly present from birth, built into your brain (in other words, we're born idealists).
