Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wikipedia wrote:Transcendental realism attempts to establish that in order for scientific investigation to take place, the object of that investigation must have real, manipulable, internal mechanisms that can be actualised to produce particular outcomes. This is what we do when we conduct experiments. This stands in contrast to empiricist scientists' claim that all scientists can do is observe the relationship between cause and effect and impose meaning. Whilst empiricism, and positivism more generally, locate causal relationships at the level of events, Critical Realism locates them at the level of the generative mechanism, arguing that causal relationships are irreducible to empirical constant conjunctions of David Hume's doctrine; in other words, a constant conjunctive relationship between events is neither sufficient nor even necessary to establish a causal relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_the_social_sciences%29Not so far from what Engels said, unless I'm misreading one or the other heinously…
DJP,of the cuff, I'd say that the point is that subject and object are not separate but part of the same thing/process, the concepts are a part of the system that needs them (or, another way, that concepts are just transformations of the same substance).Let's not forget my basic oprating position is that I don't exist, the mental state called 'I' is just a retroactive justification of a small portion of my brain for the operations of the meat-bot and it's associated system.
LBird,Maybe we come from different experiences of philosophy, but I'm actually a bit sniffy about real, given its etymology, i.e. that real = royal, i.e. that what is real is a product of authority (Money is "real" because the King says so). Maybe you could define what you mean by real (and by critical-realism)?
DJP wrote:But where then does this "real substance of social relations" exist?Everywhere, and, importantly, historically, during the process of creation: i.e. in the concrete social actions of sensuous human beings,
LBird,Charlie pre-dated Einstein by a wee bit, so didn't have the benefit of knowing (or is that "flapping") that E=MC^2, i.e. that matter and energy are the same thing.Anyway, it would have helped if you'd continued the quote:
Uncle Charles wrote:If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity.My bold. The value is a substance, and definitely material. That is, not in human minds, not in the mind of God, but in the real substance of social relations.
I think you're working slightly hard to drive a wedge between Charlie and Freddy, given Fred acknowledges the contingency of knowledge himself.I think what this discussion needs is a bit of "For whomness" — science for Joe Schmoe on the street is one thing, for the working scientist another, and for the philosopher of science another, their objects (and objectives) are different, given the massive body of scientific ideas we cannot see them accurately and see them whole (to be slightly Heisenbergian).I agree that religion was scientific, in as far as it was part of the practice of tryign to understand and control the world with the means then available.Consciousness is material, the precise opposite of cartesian dualism, I don't know where on Earth you got that.
LBird, I said "I normally stop at Pragmatism", normally it is sufficient to live with that.Everythign is matter, there is no-thing outside or beyond matter.
LBird,if you applied more critical reason to my posts, you would find your answers contained within already.
LBird wrote:And if this "Ha'peth of tobacco" is 'not sarcasm', as you insist, could you explain why you find adding 'idealism' to the front of 'materialism' so time-consuming and irritating, and yet have time for a complex scientific term like "Ha'peth of tobacco", which, I admit, I've never heard used for scientific explanation?According to my stop watch it just took me 1.5 seconds to type idealism. By using the commonly understood term "Fishcakes" without typing idealism, I could save myself upwards of a minute of my life before I die. Likewise, i shall henceforth compound truth/knowling/believing/understanding into the single word "Flap". So, I flap the speed of light, and that'll do pig.
Lbird,not sarcasm: an expression of irritation of having to treat every five second sentence on an internet discussion as having the precision of a carefully thought out essay. I used word that, if I'd put more effort in, I wouldn't have, but they were good enough, and I appologise for "Bucket of Cod" "Ha'peth of tobacco" would have been more apposite.
LBird wrote:Why not 'simplify' it to "idealism-materialism"?I dunno, I suppose because in the 30 seconds I took to type the post, those were the words that occurred to me.
LBird wrote:According to Pannekoek, the 'laws of nature' are a human construct, and so would 'vary' with the society that constructs them.Light in Andromeda travels at 299,792,458kps, we know this because if it doesn't our constructed models don't work.Anyway, i appologise for saying "laws of nature" I meant "buckets of cod".
LBird,It's materialism simplified to one sentence for the benefit of simpification. I'd suggest in contains/encapsulates the extrapolations you note (If necesary). It would be as much to assert that the laws of nature are invariant with regards to location. Same thing said with other words.Anyway, I appeal to authority:
Wikipedia wrote:In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that all things are composed of material, and that all emergent phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material properties and interactions. In other words, the theory claims that our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action.Que j'ai dit.
The SPGB is a materialist organisation, we don't require members to have an in depth understanding of evolutionary theory, but we do expect materialism, the basic principle that the world is explicable in terms of observable phenomena, and that we don't need to ascribe events to supernatural forces. The account of evolution (more accurately speciation through the modification of inherited characteristics by natural selection) works without preying in aid any transcendent entity (nor aliens). It enjoys the consensual support of biologists, and there is no serious scientific challenger to that model.The point of materialism is that we understand human agency can change the world. If a nebulous transcendent entity could interfere and turn off gravity tomorrow, then we needn't bother, we can just pray to it.
robbo203 wrote:A state entails guns – yes certainly – and all the other stuff you mention. But guns dont necessarily entail a state – anymore than a peice of machinery necessarily entails "capital". The "state" and "capital" are only phenomena that happen under certain socio-economic conditions i.e. the state implies the existence of class relations. No classes means no stateGuns are a necessary, but not sufficient condition of statedom. However, I'd suggest that even if the wages system were abolished, and an autonomous organised military force existed, it would shortly reconstitute itself as anew ruling class. It isn't just symbollic, it is necessary to physiocally take and hold the mechanisms of state.
Quote:So I would fundamentally question your claim that Capitalism's historic response in the face of its "apparent eminent abolition" has been to fight . We have never ever been in this situation. Not even remotely.Oh, but we have. From Russia to Chile the capitalists *believed* they were about to be abolished. Hence why I said apparent.
