Materialism Fails

[trivas7]

Having read some of the overblown rhetoric by Marxists here on this forum regarding the profundity of material explanations of society and having been underwhelmed by most of the official documentation of Communist Party records I have read -- everything from Lenin's pronouncements re Marxism, from Stalin to Mao to Bob Avakian -- I'm beginning to take Rosa Lichtenstein's argument to heart that materialism qua philosophy fails to deliver the goods in its prescriptions for revolutionary theory and am becoming convinced that Marxism has become little more than ideology in the hands of those who wish to legitimatize themselves or their "mass lines".

It's as if one needs to step out of the political realm altogether as David Harvey has done to enjoy the fruits of Marxian analysis. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Except, I am a historical materialist!

As a scientific theory, it works admirably well; as a philosophical theory, it is, alas, non-sensical.

But, then, so are all philosophical theories.

[trivas7]

Except, I am a historical materialist!
As a scientific theory, it works admirably well [...]
Historical materialism -- a scientific theory?!? Hahahahah...



Scientific theories are usually not just an idea some guy wrote about in a book; they are usually actually entire fields of study and there are multiple steps an initial concept must undergo as per the scientific method in order for it to gain the status of theory and warrant the field of study that develops.

A scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists - until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory.

Theories and fact are not mutually exclusive; evolution is both a theory and a fact; just as the theory of gravity is a theory, a law of science, and a fact. Just as the theory of bacteria and cell theory, and the theory of heliocentrism are all theories and facts. Scientific theories are also falsifiable and analysing falsifiability is one of the reasons for the constant reproduction of results and attempts to reproduce experiments.


Per this splendid little summary historical materialism doesn't cut it as scientific theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Historical materialism -- a scientific theory?!? Hahahahah...

Well, that's about the best arggument you have produced so far...

Except, it would be even more convincing if you knew what science was.

But, we already know you 'do not think about things you don't think about', don't we?

[Hit The North]

Except, I am a historical materialist!



Only inasmuch as Adams Smith and Ferguson are.

[trivas7]

Only inasmuch as Adams Smith and Ferguson are.
Those paragons of scientific methodology.

Re Rosa:


They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Only inasmuch as Adams Smith and Ferguson are.

And Marx -- according to his endorsement of a summary of 'his method', which he added to the Preface to Das Kapital.

I wonder if you have seen it?

---------------------------

Trivas:


Re Rosa:


Originally Posted by Lenin
They all call themselves Marxists, but their conception of Marxism is impossibly pedantic. They have completely failed to understand what is decisive in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics.

They are in good company then, since no one 'understands' dialectics -- not even Lenin.


Those paragons of scientific methodology.

Compared to you, they certainly are.

[trivas7]

Compared to you, they certainly are.
Yazman gets it right. You're too stupid to admit you're wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You're too stupid to admit you're wrong.

Not too stupid to know you are mostly hot air.

[Hit The North]

BTB:
And Marx -- according to his endorsement of a summary of 'his method', which he added to the Preface to Das Kapital.

I wonder if you have seen it?

---------------------------


Ah, yes, the magic spell to which you ascribe great powers; the incantation of which banishes the spectre of Hegel.

You do go on about it rather a lot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Ah, yes, the magic spell to which you ascribe great powers; the incantation of which banishes the spectre of Hegel.

Not I, but Marx.

You really must try not to confuse little old me with him.


You do go on about it rather a lot.

Nearly as many times as you stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'La! La! Lah!'

[Hit The North]

R:

Not I, but Marx.

Except it is you who imbues it with holy writ, not Marx, who, obviously holding a different interpretation of the review to you, continued to refer to Capital as the first attempt at a dialectical exploration of capitalism.*

*words to that effect.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Except it is you who imbues it with holy writ, not Marx, who, obviously holding a different interpretation of the review to you, continued to refer to Capital as the first attempt at a dialectical exploration of capitalism.*

On the contrary, I accord it the same importance as Marx: as an expression of his non-Hegelian method.

And, what 'diferent interpretation' do you have in mind -- one that ignores what Marx actually said in favour of what you would like him to have said, as before?

Moreover, his use of the word 'dialectics' is explained in that quotation: no Hegel anywhere in sight.

In addition, we already know that your idiosyncratic 'understanding' of this word is not shared by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Cliff, Harman, Callinicos...

So, sonny Jim, I'm not the only maverick 'dialectician' here (except I go by what Marx actually said, you prefer to ignore it).

[Hit The North]

R:
Moreover, his use of the word 'dialectics' is explained in that quotation: no Hegel anywhere in sight.

Actually there is no direct explanation of how Marx uses the word 'dialectics' in that quotation. And even if it is inferred, you have still failed to say what that use is except to mention Aristotle and Kant in passing and button-up when asked to explain how Marx's dialectic is similar, or more indebted, to those gentlemen's use than to Hegel's.

[trivas7]

So, sonny Jim, I'm not the only maverick 'dialectician' here [...]
OTC, your dialectics have nothing in common w/ that of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

[Kronos]

that materialism qua philosophy fails to deliver the goods

But chu can't do it any other way. You'll always end up dipping your feet in the philosophical pool. And when you try something radical like "all philosophy is nonsense", you merely start another brand of philosophy.

Science cannot give you an ought, ever. When you set out thinking in terms of "right" and "wrong", "fair" and "just", which is the dialectical mantra behind communist ethical theory, your back walking in the garden with Epicurus looking for ataraxia. Well, they never found it and you people won't either.

Listen, if you can't beat philosophy, do it better then your opponents. My advice is to stop meddling with Hegel and create something even MORE OBSCURE than the dialectic.

What, you think I'm kidding? At this very moment I have a five hundred thousand word essay on a new theory I call "Trialectical Materialism". I've spent the last three years reading Hegel and Rosa....and I've found a way to reconcile them both. You'd never think it was possible, but it is...and I have done it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


OTC, your dialectics have nothing in common w/ that of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

So you keep saying, but in the case of Marx, we have yet to see the proof.

As I said, you are mostly hot air.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:


"all philosophy is nonsense", you merely start another brand of philosophy.

That's like saying you can't fight capitalism without becoming a capitalist, or a doctor without becoming diseased.


Science cannot give you an ought, ever. When you set out thinking in terms of "right" and "wrong", "fair" and "just", which is the dialectical mantra behind communist ethical theory, your back walking in the garden with Epicurus looking for ataraxia. Well, they never found it and you people won't either.

But, it is laughably easy to get an "ought" from an "is":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-you-get-t107435/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ought-problem-t63775/index.html


Listen, if you can't beat philosophy, do it better then your opponents. My advice is to stop meddling with Hegel and create something even MORE OBSCURE than the dialectic.

After 2400 years of going nowhere slowly, one would have thought that you'd have got the message: philosophy is little more than the systematic capitulation to the misuse of language, and a self-important expression of ruling-class forms of thought.


What, you think I'm kidding? At this very moment I have a five hundred thousand word essay on a new theory I call "Trialectical Materialism". I've spent the last three years reading Hegel and Rosa....and I've found a way to reconcile them both. You'd never think it was possible, but it is...and I have done it.

No, we don't think you are kidding, we know you are.

[9]

Does anyone have a rough idea when the second coming of Marx might be?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Right after you stop asking stupid questions.

[9]

^^^Right after you stop asking stupid questions.
Aw, lighten; I kid.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Me too.

[trivas7]

So you keep saying, but in the case of Marx, we have yet to see the proof.

The proof is that not only are you (self-admittedly) confused re dialectics but you have the power to confuse others.

[Kronos]

Premiss: All cars require lubricants to run well

Conclusion: Therefore, if you want your car to run well, you ought to put oil in the engine.


Rosa, I don't see how you think it is "laughably easy" to get to an "ought", especially using examples like the above....which I consider laughably vague.

What exactly would "run well" mean? This is ambiguous. "Well" could be defined as different degrees of performance. One guy might consider a vehicle with only fifty percent of the transaxle grease to run "well", even though the manufacturer advises otherwise.

On the other hand (the Humean hand), when someone says "the sun has risen 99 days in a row, therefore it ought to rise tomorrow", they are using the term "ought" unambiguously- there are no degrees of "rise" for the sun- either it rises or it does not, while the car can run "kinda" good, or a "little rough", or "perfectly" or what have you.

And as you know, past events in no way logically guarantee future events. Future events at best can be probable. That is what Hume's means, no?

The "ought" in the example you gave is a contextually different "ought" than the one we are dealing with...concerning science....concerning an attempt to say that some natural phenomena ought to happen based on some past event or value judgement (as in the case of saying something like "one ought to be nice to your neighbor because being nice is good.")

This are the terms of the use of the word I was getting at when I said science will never get to an ought. I am talking about causality, which makes value judgements and moral propositions irrelevent.

There are countless ways to use the term "ought" in ordinary language and I am aware of that....and in those cases you certainly can get to an "ought".

"If I want Rosa to read this post, I ought to submit the reply."

I only meant to suggest that scientific communism cannot rely on materialism to establish itself. It will take some philosophy, because nowhere in the universe does it say "there ought to be one working class and no capitalists." Now if you manipulate a statement such that one says "if you don't want to be exploited, therefore you ought to abolish capitalism"....you are back in the domain of evaluations, and the universe doesn't play that, Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:


Rosa, I don't see how you think it is "laughably easy" to get to an "ought", especially using examples like the above....which I consider laughably vague.

What exactly would "run well" mean? This is ambiguous. "Well" could be defined as different degrees of performance. One guy might consider a vehicle with only fifty percent of the transaxle grease to run "well", even though the manufacturer advises otherwise.

It's no more vague than 'ought' already is. But, whatever 'run well' means, a car needs oil in order to do that.


On the other hand (the Humean hand), when someone says "the sun has risen 99 days in a row, therefore it ought to rise tomorrow", they are using the term "ought" unambiguously- there are no degrees of "rise" for the sun- either it rises or it does not, while the car can run "kinda" good, or a "little rough", or "perfectly" or what have you.

And as you know, past events in no way logically guarantee future events. Future events at best can be probable. That is what Hume's means, no?

Ah, you are now using the vague word 'events' to make a precise point, I see. You can do this, but no one else is allowed, is that it?

Anyway, the problems facing inductive 'logic' have nothing to do with the deductive examples I gave.


This are the terms of the use of the word I was getting at when I said science will never get to an ought. I am talking about causality, which makes value judgements and moral propositions irrelevent.

But, you have just advanced this thesis:


And as you know, past events in no way logically guarantee future events. Future events at best can be probable. That is what Hume's means, no?

And now you want to tell us the following:


This are the terms of the use of the word I was getting at when I said science will never get to an ought. I am talking about causality, which makes value judgements and moral propositions irrelevent.

Make your mind up! If the past cannot bind the future, how do you know "science will never get to an ought"?

Anyway, as I have shown, it is ridiculously easy to get an 'ought' from an 'is', so easy in fact, even scientists can do it.


There are countless ways to use the term "ought" in ordinary language and I am aware of that....and in those cases you certainly can get to an "ought".

"If I want Rosa to read this post, I ought to submit the reply."

So, what's the problem?

Maybe this:


I only meant to suggest that scientific communism cannot rely on materialism to establish itself. It will take some philosophy, because nowhere in the universe does it say "there ought to be one working class and no capitalists." Now if you manipulate a statement such that one says "if you don't want to be exploited, therefore you ought to abolish capitalism"....you are back in the domain of evaluations, and the universe doesn't play that, Rosa.

But:

1) Scientific socialism relies on the working class, not philosophy.

2) Philosophy is a 2400 year old, ruling-class failure, and you want us to adopt it? I'd rather adopt a bullet in the head.

3) What have 'evaluations' got to do with anything?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Arguments like this make me glad I'm just a simple Anarchist. Smash the State... no science needed for that one.

[IcarusAngel]

To define the state you need political SCIENCE. You can't ignore politics if you want to be political. That said, I consider all of this stuff social science and political philosophy, including Marxism. Marxism is no more of a science than Morgenthau's "realism."

[Kronos]

Make your mind up! If the past cannot bind the future, how do you know "science will never get to an ought"?

So that's how it's gonna be, huh? Fair enough.


Philosophy is a 2400 year old, ruling-class failure

How do you know philosophy will always be a failure?

( you asked for it, Rosa )


What have 'evaluations' got to do with anything?

They cannot be affirmed or denied through a scientific method. Science deals only with objective facts, not moral or ethical qualities. The closest one can come to making a legal scientific statement concerning value would be in the pragmatic sense- "giving a person antibiotics is "good" for curing a virus", for instance. But this is not to say that curing a virus is "good".

Back to my point: communism needs more than "scientific materialism" to advance itself. It needs philosophy...it needs moral theory, and science can't give it that.

People like to stretch the definition of science as if they are trying to replace philosophy with it, but they are worlds apart. Science is a method of investigation involving hypothesis, experimentation, and controlled parameters. It is nothing more than a proper way of observing the world...how to observe it, under what conditions, so that accurate knowledge can be gleaned. It has nothing to do with how we "feel" about what we learn or what we think "should" happen or not happen. These issues are philosophical.


Scientific socialism relies on the working class, not philosophy.

.....who in turn have their class philosophy, which is proportionate to and respective of their class interests. What do you think Marx was venturing to describe when he used the concepts of alienation and estrangement? A scientific condition? Clearly not....these are psychological concepts and therefore matters of philosophy. And when we read over and over again in communist literature how the working classes are miserable and isolated, do we surmise that these conditions are matters of scientific fact? Impossible. Science has nothing to do with such existential feelings and emotional dissonance. Unless one wants to make a vulgar estimation and claim the poor blokes are lacking in neurotransmitters and therefore feel like shit.

No, this is not enough. Science is not enough here. We need philosophy.

Your assignment, Rosa Lichtenstein, is to spend the next five years developing a new Marxist philosophy and metaphysics.

[Kronos]

The closest one can come to making a legal scientific statement concerning value would be in the pragmatic sense- "giving a person antibiotics is "good" for curing a virus", for instance. But this is not to say that curing a virus is "good". This needs more clarification.

Objective scientific fact is indubitable. When two or more people agree that "the speed of sound is X" this decision is not determined by personal opinion or circumstance. But when two or more people agree that "genocide is bad", this agreement has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific objective fact. Of course, they can agree to call it "bad", but not in the same way they agree on the speed of sound- the speed of sound is the same regardless of their agreement.....while the moral evaluation "bad" is not.

Here, science acts like a third party to guarantee the truth. No matter how anybody "feels", the speed will always be the same. But in the case of a moral evaluation, there is no overseeing third party. If one of them claims that genocide is "good", there is nothing to stop this opinion from being an expression of the truth. What could stop it? Another opinion? But that again is just an opinion.

This is the fine line communist theory must tread on. Utilizing science in the field of economics is appropriate, but it doesn't work to legitimatize moral theory.

So when people say that science is "good", or can establish what is "good", they can only mean good for something, not good in itself for anything other than acquiring knowledge about the world. This "knowledge" concerns quantifiable facts, not quality.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:


So that's how it's gonna be, huh? Fair enough.

It's your hole; now you are in it, stop digging.


How do you know philosophy will always be a failure?

(you asked for it, Rosa )

Unfortunately for you, I was not foolish enough to advance the philosophical prediction you carelessly made (nor would I, since all philosophical 'propositions', and thus predictions, are non-sensical):


And as you know, past events in no way logically guarantee future events. Future events at best can be probable. That is what Hume's means, no?

I merely quoted it to expose your inconsistency.


They cannot be affirmed or denied through a scientific method. Science deals only with objective facts, not moral or ethical qualities. The closest one can come to making a legal scientific statement concerning value would be in the pragmatic sense- "giving a person antibiotics is "good" for curing a virus", for instance. But this is not to say that curing a virus is "good".

I think you are making the usual error of thinking that 'value'-judgements have got anything to do with how we use 'ought', or 'good' --, or, indeed, with morality.

You are in good company, most theorists make the same error.

That is why I asked this:


What have 'evaluations' got to do with anything?

K:


Back to my point: communism needs more than "scientific materialism" to advance itself.

I have already conceded this; Marxism needs the working class. End of story.


It needs philosophy...it needs moral theory, and science can't give it that.

Once more:


Philosophy is a 2400 year old, ruling-class failure

We need that bogus 'discipline' like the fire service needs a chocolate ladder.


People like to stretch the definition of science as if they are trying to replace philosophy with it, but they are worlds apart. Science is a method of investigation involving hypothesis, experimentation, and controlled parameters. It is nothing more than a proper way of observing the world...how to observe it, under what conditions, so that accurate knowledge can be gleaned. It has nothing to do with how we "feel" about what we learn or what we think "should" happen or not happen. These issues are philosophical.

What has 'feeling' got to do with anything?

And we already know that it is easy enough to get an 'ought' (or indeed a 'should') from an 'is'.


.....who in turn have their class philosophy, which is proportionate to and respective of their class interests. What do you think Marx was venturing to describe when he used the concepts of alienation and estrangement? A scientific condition? Clearly not....these are psychological concepts and therefore matters of philosophy. And when we read over and over again in communist literature how the working classes are miserable and isolated, do we surmise that these conditions are matters of scientific fact? Impossible. Science has nothing to do with such existential feelings and emotional dissonance. Unless one wants to make a vulgar estimation and claim the poor blokes are lacking in neurotransmitters and therefore feel like shit.

I'd like to see the proof that workers have a 'philosophy'; and 'alienation' (etc.), as Marx used the term, does not mean what you seem to think it does. [Or, if you still think it does, let's see that proof, too.]

And, what has psychology got to do with philosophy?

In addition, I fail to see what this has got to do with philosophy, either:


And when we read over and over again in communist literature how the working classes are miserable and isolated, do we surmise that these conditions are matters of scientific fact? Impossible. Science has nothing to do with such existential feelings and emotional dissonance. Unless one wants to make a vulgar estimation and claim the poor blokes are lacking in neurotransmitters and therefore feel like shit

Unless, of course, it involves an analysis of how we actually use the words associated with such conditions -- aimed at debunking yet more philosophical gobbledygook in this area.


No, this is not enough. Science is not enough here. We need philosophy.

I disagree, and you have yet to prove your point.


Your assignment, Rosa Lichtenstein, is to spend the next five years developing a new Marxist philosophy and metaphysics.

I'd rather watch my toenails grow -- a far more useful occupation.

-----------------------

Kronos:


Objective scientific fact is indubitable. When two or more people agree that "the speed of sound is X" this decision is not determined by personal opinion or circumstance. But when two or more people agree that "genocide is bad", this agreement has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific objective fact. Of course, they can agree to call it "bad", but not in the same way they agree on the speed of sound- the speed of sound is the same regardless of their agreement.....while the moral evaluation "bad" is not.

Why are you using the pleonasm 'objective fact'; that's like talking about 'curved circles'.

And, in making ethical judgements, of course, we do not always have to appeal to the facts (even though we often do), but that has nothing to do with science -- it's connected with the additional the fact that we all use the same language.


Here, science acts like a third party to guarantee the truth. No matter how anybody "feels", the speed will always be the same. But in the case of a moral evaluation, there is no overseeing third party. If one of them claims that genocide is "good", there is nothing to stop this opinion from being an expression of the truth. What could stop it? Another opinion? But that again is just an opinion.

But, scientists change their minds every generation or so. Hence, not even they can 'guarantee' the truth.

And disagreement over fundamental issues (like the one you mentioned over genocide) also happens in science; that is what creates those revolutions that take place every hundred years or so (for example, in the 17th century -- try getting an Aristotelian to agree with a Newtonian!).


This is the fine line communist theory must tread on. Utilizing science in the field of economics is appropriate, but it doesn't work to legitimatize moral theory.

So when people say that science is "good", or can establish what is "good", they can only mean good for something, not good in itself for anything other than acquiring knowledge about the world. This "knowledge" concerns quantifiable facts, not quality.

I'm not sure we are ready to take advice from you; why, you can't even get yourself out of that hole!

[trivas7]

[...] Marxism needs the working class. [...]
How do you justify this statement without philosophy?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


How do you justify this statement without philosophy?

As I have said to you several times already, I'll consider answering your questions when you answer the ones I have already asked you.

[Kronos]

Well then, we'll have to agree to disagree. I stand by my assertion that science cannot advise, suggest, insinuate, or propose what 'ought' to happen when concerning anything other than a prediction....as in the case of something having a high 'probability' of happening. Other than that, 'ought' may be used in a directive/command sense...as in the case of 'if you want to shorten the grass, you ought to mow it,' or 'if you don't want a ticket you ought to slow down'. (Or your example of the lubricated car...although "well" is vague)

Nowhere else in language does the term belong. If it is used in any other context, it is out of bounds- 'the sun ought to rise' is nonsense, and 'we ought to enjoy this' or 'you ought to love your mother' is nonsense too.

Of course, the word is used in these ways all the time in ordinary language....and is excused because people who use it thus don't think about the implications of what they are saying.

I must admit, sometimes, Rosa, you simplify things so much it makes me want to slap my momma. I can't stand the way you stereotype all philosophy as being nonsense.

93% of it is nonsense, and on that I got yer back, but you will not take that remaining seven percent away from me. Over my dead body.

I'll respond to the rest of your musings after my yoga.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:


Well then, we'll have to agree to disagree. I stand by my assertion that science cannot advise, suggest, insinuate, or propose what 'ought' to happen when concerning anything other than a prediction....as in the case of something having a high 'probability' of happening. Other than that, 'ought' may be used in a directive/command sense...as in the case of 'if you want to shorten the grass, you ought to mow it,' or 'if you don't want a ticket you ought to slow down'. (Or your example of the lubricated car...although "well" is vague)

It's not a matter of 'agreeing to disagree'; at every stage your arguments (or, rather, your bald assertions) have been shown either to be invalid, false or confused.

And whether or not science can advise, it is easy to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.


Nowhere else in language does the term belong. If it is used in any other context, it is out of bounds- 'the sun ought to rise' is nonsense, and 'we ought to enjoy this' or 'you ought to love your mother' is nonsense too.

In fact, 'the sun ought to rise tomorrow' makes perfect sense, and can have a use. For example, "If the universe continues in the same way it has done for the last few thousand years, the sun ought to rise tomorrow -- otherwise not."


Of course, the word is used in these ways all the time in ordinary language....and is excused because people who use it thus don't think about the implications of what they are saying.

But then, you do not seem to think about what you post, either.


I must admit, sometimes, Rosa, you simplify things so much it makes me want to slap my momma. I can't stand the way you stereotype all philosophy as being nonsense.

Well, I have published a long and complex proof that philosophy is 100% non-sense (based on Wittgenstein's work, and that of others); so I rather think it is you who is 'simplifying' things:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2012_01.htm


93% of it is nonsense, and on that I got yer back, but you will not take that remaining seven percent away from me. Over my dead body.

If need be.


I'll respond to the rest of your musings after my yoga.

Let's hope it improves your arguments.:lol:

[trivas7]

As I have said to you several times already, I'll consider answering your questions when you answer the ones I have already asked you.
If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. Per this simple criteria Marxism is a loser.

What you and I agree on is that Marx's use of the dialectical method amounts to fallacious reasoning.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. Per this simple criteria Marxism is a loser.

Dialectical Marxism is, I agree. Marxism as such has not been tried out yet.

[trivas7]

Dialectical Marxism is, I agree. Marxism as such has not been tried out yet.
If you're saying that Marxism was stillborn at its birth, I guess I have to agree.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


If you're saying that Marxism was stillborn at its birth, I guess I have to agree.

Your words, not mine.

In fact, Marxism was infected very early on by ruling-class ideology (dialectics), much of which Marx managed to eradicate. Unfortunately, Engels failed to copy him. Dialectical Marxism has not recovered from this early screw up. Nor can it.

[Hit The North]

R:
Well, I have published a long and complex proof that philosophy is 100% non-sense (based on Wittgenstein's work, and that of others); so I rather think it is you who is 'simplifying' things If this is true then how does Wittengstein's work escape being nonsense?


Dialectical Marxism is, I agree. Marxism as such has not been tried out yet. What does this even mean? In what way does the "untried" non-dialectical Marxism improve on the dialectical version? How are its explanations different? How does it improve our practice?

[Jazzratt]

Arguments like this make me glad I'm just a simple Anarchist. Smash the State... no science needed for that one.

Smash the state: Why? How? And what do you put in its place?

Of course it takes no science to simply scream "smash the state" but giving your reasons, methods and aims in doing so requires thought. Otherwise all you end up with is "anarchy" as in "complete fucking chaos". :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


If this is true then how does Wittengstein's work escape being nonsense?

You have had this explained to you before. It's hardly my fault if your memory is not too good.


What does this even mean?

What it says.


In what way does the "untried" non-dialectical Marxism improve on the dialectical version? How are its explanations different? How does it improve our practice?

Once more, you have had this explained to you before. May I suggest you eat more oily fish?

http://www.health4youonline.com/newsletter9.htm

[Hit The North]

So you don't know?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


So you don't know?

You're right, I don't know why your memory is rather poor, but I did try to help.

More oily fish. Remember?

Er, clearly not...:(

[Hit The North]

BTB:



Er, clearly not...:(

That's what I thought.

[trivas7]

Your words, not mine.

Exactly; your words are something to the effect that there is somewhere an ur-Marx that has yet to be discovered. Good luck w/ that. :thumbup:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Exactly; your words are something to the effect that there is somewhere an ur-Marx that has yet to be discovered. Good luck w/ that.

Yes, it's so difficult, all I had to do was open Marx's works, and there it was.

Amazing...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


That's what I thought.

You mean, you've mastered thought now?

Incredible. http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/Surprise/surprised-004.gif

[trivas7]

Yes, it's so difficult, all I had to do was open Marx's works, and there it was.

If that's the ur-text where's the Dialectical Marxism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


If that's the ur-text where's the Dialectical Marxism?

I refer the honourable know-nothing to my previous reply to 'him':


As I have said to you several times already, I'll consider answering your questions when you answer the ones I have already asked you.

[Zurdito]

Materialism fails?

I expect Trivias to walk through my computer screen and tell me I'm wrong then. Or he could try going a month without food to show he has faith in his words.

I could go on but I will just refer yall to The Iron Heel Chapter 1 by Jack London where the character Ernest Everhard defenestrates metaphysics. It's online, look it up. :)

there's a saying in Spanish about people who greet you with the left hand but live from the right one. Anti-materialists are analogous. :p

[trivas7]

I refer the honourable know-nothing to my previous reply to 'him':
It was a rhetorical question, Rosa -- Dialectical Marxism exists only in your addled brain.

[trivas7]

Materialism fails?

I don't see the success of Marxian revolutionary theory, supposedly based on materialism, which was the point of the OP. Are you arguing otherwise?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


It was a rhetorical question, Rosa -- Dialectical Marxism exists only in your addled brain.

Well, at least I have a brain.

[Zurdito]

I don't see the success of Marxian revolutionary theory, supposedly based on materialism, which was the point of the OP. Are you arguing otherwise?

a theory can't be successful, it can only be correct or incorrect. people's actions based (or not) on a theory are what can be successful or unsuccesful.

maybe you oculd point me to a "succesful" (from the point of view of the working class) antimaterialist theory?

[trivas7]

a theory can't be successful, it can only be correct or incorrect. people's actions based (or not) on a theory are what can be successful or unsuccesful.

Nonsense; If a theory fails it is incorrect.

The third law of physics is a successful theory b/c it predicts the motion of matter; revolutionary theory predicts nothing.

[laminustacitus]

maybe you oculd point me to a "succesful" (from the point of view of the working class) antimaterialist theory?

How about we drop this "working class" distinction, and start working from an objective point of reference - or do I blaspheme your precious bias doctrine?

Even Keynesian economics is better at explaining social phenomena in society than any "working class" materialist theory. Materialist theories cannot predict anything, and have been unmasked as completely untenable - in fact, dialectical materialism is not even materialism since it cannot trace back the factors of production to material roots, there comes a point at which there are no factors of production until man first creates them.

[Zurdito]

Nonsense; If a theory fails it is incorrect.

The third law of physics is a successful theory b/c it predicts the motion of matter; revolutionary theory predicts nothing.

and historical materialism correctly predicts class struggle, and as anyone can see by turning on the news, this prediction remains correct. Obviously implied in any struggleis the possibility of one pole completely overcoming the other, and more than this, this is the logical extension of any dynamic of struggle. Examples of this possibility becoming reality happened in countries like Russia and parts of Spain for a time where the bourgeoisie and landowners were expropriated by the workers and peasants.

Both sides know this which is why the bourgeoisie globally (at least throughout the Cold War) had as its primary aim avoiding a global socialist revolution, and took actions consciously to avoid this possibility, either through reforms to divert class struggle or outright repression to supress it. Their very doing so is proof that they acknoweldged the possibility of socialist revolution. Obviously for Marxists the key question is the conscious intervention of the vanguard to convert this possibiltiy into reality. The successes or fialures of the vanguard do not disprove the theory which outlines the dynamics of the situation they operate in.

regarding an anti-materialist theory which is successful from the point of view of the working class, I am still waiting...

[Zurdito]

[QUOTE]How about we drop this "working class" distinction, and start working from an objective point of reference#

But the working class has been objectively shown to exist


Even Keynesian economics is better at explaining social phenomena in society than any "working class" materialist theory.

Example? It didn't predict that the same social actors in whom it placed the task of implementing Keynesianism would dismantle its legacy resulting in a second great depression, for example...


in fact, dialectical materialism is not even materialism since it cannot trace back the factors of production to material roots, there comes a point at which there are no factors of production until man first creates them.

But yet Marx counted natural resources among the means of production, so how does this claim work? Are you claiming Marx thought man created the natural world?:lol: (it would be up there with your claim that "working class" is not an objective point of reference).

[Kronos]

In fact, 'the sun ought to rise tomorrow' makes perfect sense, and can have a use. For example, "If the universe continues in the same way it has done for the last few thousand years, the sun ought to rise tomorrow -- otherwise not."Of course, because you are using the conditional "if" (nice try, though). But without that conditional, a statement like "the universe ought to continue in the same way" is coming from nowhere. Why ought it? There is no reason.

Don't you worry about me, Rosy. You need to focus on getting your own neck out of Hume's guillotine.


If this is true then how does Wittengstein's work escape being nonsense? Wittgenstein is the least ridiculous of all philosophers. His point of departure, which was taken very well by Rosa, too, in her essays, is that there are certain kinds of statements which belong to certain kinds of expressions, and which, if taken literally, in a context where they do not belong, become nonsense.

(Rosa will probably burst in and claim I misunderstand her, but don't listen to her. I understand her better than she does.)

Philosophy has done this- it misuses language by attempting to make certain kinds of statements with terms that cannot make sense in the context they are used. Marx too makes this point with his comment that workers need to "absolve philosophical language into ordinary language", or something along those lines.

A good example of what I mean can be made by comparing metaphorical terms with metaphysical terms. A metaphorical term is a figure of speech that is used literally but without literal meaning. For instance, "he is wise like an owl". When someone says this, it is meaningful....we know he isn't literally "wise as an owl", and that we wouldn't know if owls are wise or not, but we interpret the expression to mean "he is very wise".

A metaphysical expression does the same thing but intends to be taken literally. The metaphor, like the metaphysical, acts as a representational expression, but the metaphysical acts as if representation is literal, as if there is a true concept behind what is literal and real. The metaphor represents a kind of meaning that does not reach beyond ordinary behavior- the metaphysical represents a kind of meaning that establishes what is true by representation. See the difference?

Okay. One says "in the spirit of love". "Spirit" may be understood as an expression of the metaphor "love". Then one says "it is because of love that we have a spirit". Now, the metaphysician is calling "spirit" an actual "thing", rather than a symbolic metaphor.

Wittgenstein would call this off sides, a language foul, the interaction of two kinds of language games which do not belong together. Philosophy is like a hybrid of poetic language and analytical language, so to speak....and this mixing brings about great confusion.

And as we know, ruling class metaphysicians considered themselves licensed by God to be the oracles of "real reality behind the apparent world", and to reveal/discover this reality by inventing esoteric terms....unordinary language that, for better or worse, has absolutely no practical value in communication. These idiots made up imaginary problems so they could then make up imaginary solutions so that they could be made useful. (Nietzsche's critique of metaphysics deals with the psychological causes behind the desire to think metaphysically.)

I'm telling you man, Marx, Wittgenstein and Rosy make one helluva trio. One day our children's children will read about Rosy in their history books. She will be inducted into the parthenon of great thinkers. I will see to it.

[trivas7]

and historical materialism correctly predicts class struggle,

No, it calls the class struggle the engine of history, it doesn't predict it.


regarding an anti-materialist theory which is successful from the point of view of the working class, I am still waiting...This assumes a science of society, which I deny. Science is neither materialist nor anti-materialist, which are philosophical categories.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos:


Of course, because you are using the conditional "if" (nice try, though). But without that conditional, a statement like "the universe ought to continue in the same way" is coming from nowhere. Why ought it? There is no reason.

In fact, what you claimed was this:


Nowhere else in language does the term belong. If it is used in any other context, it is out of bounds- 'the sun ought to rise' is nonsense, and 'we ought to enjoy this' or 'you ought to love your mother' is nonsense too.

Which I showed was as incorrect as many of the other things you have rashly said.

Now you change it to this:


But without that conditional, a statement like "the universe ought to continue in the same way" is coming from nowhere. Why ought it? There is no reason

And yet, it's not 'coming from nowhere' -- unless you think I created it ex nihilo. It follows from what went before. That tells you the 'why'. Now, you needn't agree with it, but it is a perfectly sensible sentence, contrary to what you asserted:


'the sun ought to rise' is nonsense,

K:


Don't you worry about me, Rosy. You need to focus on getting your own neck out of Hume's guillotine.

Hume was a rather poor logician; if you learn from him, then no wonder you end up dropping logical clangers all the time.


(Rosa will probably burst in and claim I misunderstand her, but don't listen to her. I understand her better than she does.)

Your comments so far suggest this is a couple of star systems from the truth.


I'm telling you man, Marx, Wittgenstein and Rosy make one helluva trio. One day our children's children will read about Rosy in their history books. She will be inducted into the Parthenon of great thinkers. I will see to it

I hope not.

[Hit The North]

Kronos:
Wittgenstein is the least ridiculous of all philosophers.

This may be so, but he remains a philosopher - unlike Marx who moved into social science. My point to Rosa is that if philosophy is 100% non-sense, then so, too, must Wittgenstein's. She seems to be in a quandary, so I'm not surprised she refuses to answer the charge.

Of course she could remove herself from this quandary by merely scaling down her claim to 99% non-sense.

Thanks for the metaphor/metaphysics discussion, though. It was instructive. It reminds me of Joseph Campbell's claim that Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion suffers from a similar delusion: mistaking the mythic for the real, the metaphor for the actual. It's a similar insight but drawn from Jungian psycho-analysis rather than analytical philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


This may be so, but he remains a philosopher - unlike Marx who moved into social science. My point to Rosa is that if philosophy is 100% non-sense, then so, too, must Wittgenstein's. She seems to be in a quandary, so I'm not surprised she refuses to answer the charge.

Once more, I have explained this to you; I am certainly not going to waste time doing so again.


Of course she could remove herself from this quandary by merely scaling down her claim to 99% non-sense.

No, it's 100%. And you seem not to know the difference between 'nonsense' and 'non-sense'.

[Hit The North]

R:
No, it's 100%. And you seem not to know the difference between 'nonsense' and 'non-sense'.

Is it a hyphen of difference?

[Kronos]

This may be so, but he remains a philosopher - unlike Marx who moved into social science.

I have seen comments from Marx that are really on the fence between scientific vocabulary and philosophical vocabulary. When you read his Critique of Hegel, you'll explicitly notice he is not claiming that Hegel's ideas are meaningless. You will see him reverse and reorder many of Hegel's ideas, and by doing so he concedes that such ideas aren't nonsense, but only misguided. One example of this is in his comments on concepts like "abstract" and "concrete". Now, who is going to tell me these terms are not philosophical? Outside of a philosophical language game, the term "concrete" doesn't mean anything.....except the stuff your driveway is made out of.

And "social science" can be fudged into a philosophical subject as well, especially when psychology, sociology, uses hypothetical constructs (an allusion to metaphysics again) for describing human behavior. Wittgenstein, who was fond of Behaviorism, claimed that in many ways the concept of "mind" was not used properly in psychology. An example would be Freud's construct of the "ego" or the "libido". Mind as some kind of internal contents concealed from the public. There can be no such thing as a subconsciousness (why not sub-sub-consciousness, and so forth?). The only thing private about being conscious is the act of thinking....and this is only speaking in inaudible language (when you think you hear words in your head).

Anyway my point is that sociology can be scientific only insofar as it addresses patterns and tendencies in social behavior. The very moment it becomes prescriptive it becomes philosophical. It may assert that group X does Y and does not do Z in conditions W, but it cannot say why without going behind the physicality of behavior....unless that explanation of why involves the description of more conditions.

Hegel's concept of the master/slave dichotomy is a metaphysical idea with which he attempts to explain one aspect of psychology- estrangement. Now, it may be the case that an individual feels emotional discord in some condition, some interaction with another person. But, Hegel would go on this long diatribe of how the subjective consciousness becomes objectified by the Other and loses its freedom as the for-itself, becoming an in-itself, an object for the other, and in so is alienated from the universal.

All that crap is metaphysical explanation. The prescriptive mistake is identifying the problem as a conflict between theoretical entities and concepts rather than examining the material circumstances the problem is situated in.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Is it a hyphen of difference?

As I said, you do not seem to know.