Empirio-Criticism and Materialism

[A.R.Amistad]

Pretty simple question. Before I start reading it I'd like to get an idea of what the book Emperio-Critiscism and Materialism is all about and what the main points that it stresses are. A basic understanding will help me read the book a lot easier.

[vyborg]

It is not the simplest book of Lenin you can put your hands on..for sure

The real reason Lenin wrote the book was to avoid idealistic degeneration of the leadership of the party during a period of strong political reaction after the 1905 revolution.

His critics towards idealistic philosohical tendencies are good even if sometimes harsh. His defence of materialism clear and simple.

[A.R.Amistad]

Cool. So basically he's criticizing the 20th century Utopian socialists?

[vyborg]

No, he attacks scientist and philosophes that happen to have an idealistic outlook and, attacking them, he criticizes a fraction fo the party

[A.R.Amistad]

What were the idealists of this time period asserting?

[¿Que?]

What were the idealists of this time period asserting?
I think they were arguing for a more empirical look at Marxian concepts. Hence, they were called emprionominalists or empirio-critics. The former term I got from wikipedia. The latter, I derived from an article I read for school entitled "Empirical Marxism":

Empirio-critics rejected Engels's and Plekhanov's materialism. Authentic Marxists must admit questions concerning the nonempirical nature of truth are irrelevant and absurd. In contrast, they argued, human perception is
entirely free of mystery. The experienced world is defined by the objects,
things, and people empirically present, not by a hidden transcendent reality.

Here s the citation:
Empirical Marxism
Author(s): Robert A. Gorman
Source: History and Theory, Vol. 20, No. 4, Beiheft 20: Studies in Marxist Historical Theory
(Dec., 1981), pp. 403-423

The article talks a lot about why empirical approaches to Marxism, of the type just mentioned, have failed.

[¿Que?]

Thought I'd add this foot note, which is the only mention of Lenin's critique (as to be expected from academe).


2. Empirio-criticism was born in the work of Ernst Mach and Richard Avenarius,
two natural scientists who worked independently of each other but nevertheless created
surprisingly similar Marxist theories. Their ideas became quite popular among Russian
Marxists, and elicited harsh denunciation from pillars of orthodoxy like Plekhanov,
Akselrod, and Lenin -whose Materialism and Empirio-Criticism immortalized the
movement even as its critique ruined its credibility. For background information see
George L. Kline, "Changing Attitudes Toward the Individual" in The Transformation
of
Russian Society, ed. C. E. Black (Cambridge, 1960), 618-723.

[A.R.Amistad]

So the Empiricalists believed that individuals were incapable of comprehending reality because reality was hidden behind matter?

[Hit The North]

What were the idealists of this time period asserting?

Ernst Mach, who influenced Bogdanov, the target of Lenin's attack, despite being a physicist, denied the existence of external mind-independent things, asserting that only sense-datum, or sensations, could be considered real.

Btw, Bogdanov went on to develop Tectology, an early form of systems theory. All systems theories of society tend towards models which prioritise equalibrium of social systems and tend to generate reactionary political conclusions.

If you read this Wikipedia article, you'll see the contrast with the dialectical model of Marxism which focuses on contradiction and conflict:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectology

[A.R.Amistad]

Wiki

Lenin argued that human perceptions correctly and accurately reflect the objective external world.


According to Bogdanov [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectology#cite_note-5) "the aim of Tectology is the systematization of organized experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience)", through the identification of universal organizational principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle): "all things are organizational, all complexes could only be understood through their organizational character.

OK, so I'm still a little confused. I jotted down some of the main points from both Lenin and Bogdanov. What is the main point of friction?

[Faceless]

I'm half way through it and I recommend it.

Basically Bogdanov was of the opinion that we cannot prove that an external world really exists - all we know is real are the sensations that we experience: tastes, smells, sounds, visions, feeling. We can't prove that there is an objective world outside of ourselves which is real and which stimulates our senses. You can see in that case how Bodanov ties himself in knots trying to distinguish between the "physical" (e.g. the taste of a real apple) and the "psychical" (dreams for example) if we do not take it as given that physical sensations are produced by the outside world acting on our senses then what is the difference between the real world and a dream?

Lenin, on the contrary, believed that you can "prove" that the physical world exists by practically manipulating it and showing that our ideas approximate to the laws we discover in nature.

Lenin uses the term agnostic to describe Bogdanov because whereas a materialist believes through sesations the material world is acts on us and receives its reflection in our mind, the idealist believes the contrary that it is mind which produces the material world and our sensations. On the other hand the agnostic says we cannot know if the world exists, whether it is as an objective reality or the product of mind. They sit on the fence! Obviously Bogdanov was moving away from materialism in the direction of idealism and this is why he came under attack from Lenin.

It is fascinating that in such a factional struggle Lenin chose to undermine the reputation of Bogdanov as a serious philosopher by using parallels with contemporary scientists and philosophers. He expected a lot and it shows what a tremendous confidence he had in the level of the Bolshevik cadres!

[A.R.Amistad]

Could it be said that Bogdanov was being a sort of proto-Phenomenologist? (Phenomenology makes me laugh lol :D)

[vyborg]

No, he was simply a classical subjectivist: reality is there but cannot be proved so let's not discuss of it etc

[Dean]

I'm half way through it and I recommend it.

Basically Bogdanov was of the opinion that we cannot prove that an external world really exists - all we know is real are the sensations that we experience: tastes, smells, sounds, visions, feeling. We can't prove that there is an objective world outside of ourselves which is real and which stimulates our senses. You can see in that case how Bodanov ties himself in knots trying to distinguish between the "physical" (e.g. the taste of a real apple) and the "psychical" (dreams for example) if we do not take it as given that physical sensations are produced by the outside world acting on our senses then what is the difference between the real world and a dream?

Lenin, on the contrary, believed that you can "prove" that the physical world exists by practically manipulating it and showing that our ideas approximate to the laws we discover in nature.

Lenin uses the term agnostic to describe Bogdanov because whereas a materialist believes through sesations the material world is acts on us and receives its reflection in our mind, the idealist believes the contrary that it is mind which produces the material world and our sensations. On the other hand the agnostic says we cannot know if the world exists, whether it is as an objective reality or the product of mind. They sit on the fence! Obviously Bogdanov was moving away from materialism in the direction of idealism and this is why he came under attack from Lenin.

It is fascinating that in such a factional struggle Lenin chose to undermine the reputation of Bogdanov as a serious philosopher by using parallels with contemporary scientists and philosophers. He expected a lot and it shows what a tremendous confidence he had in the level of the Bolshevik cadres!

See, this isn't very meaningful to me. I can appreciate Bogdanov's point, but that doesn't have any repercussions on my materialist philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I was able to show that on the basis of what Lenin argued in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism , he must have believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Big Foot.

You doubt me?

Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-lenin-believe-t70368/index.html?p=1072191

In other words, this is among one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist.

I have taken it apart here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13%2001.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Faceless:


Lenin, on the contrary, believed that you can "prove" that the physical world exists by practically manipulating it and showing that our ideas approximate to the laws we discover in nature.

But, Lenin can't do this, since, according to his own theory, all he has is an image of practice, and an image of practice can in no way show that the external world isn't also just an image, too.

He is no better off than Mach or Bogdanov, then.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


If you read this Wikipedia article, you'll see the contrast with the dialectical model of Marxism which focuses on contradiction and conflict:

Which is no more of an advance that it would be for us to reject the Ptolemaic system in favour of astrology.

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm sorry, not to be rude, Rosa, but what exactly is your authority on this subject? You claim that all philosophy is just "ruling class hot air" yet you make your presence pretty well known on the subject for being so disinterested.

[black magick hustla]

Ernst Mach, who influenced Bogdanov, the target of Lenin's attack, despite being a physicist, denied the existence of external mind-independent things,


I don't think this is true. He didn't denied the existence of "external mind independent" things. He simply argued against the realist stance that there is such thing as a a "physical law", which in his mind, was nothing more than a nice model.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AR Amistad:


I'm sorry, not to be rude, Rosa, but what exactly is your authority on this subject? You claim that all philosophy is just "ruling class hot air" yet you make your presence pretty well known on the subject for being so disinterested.

1) What was Marx's authority to write about politics and economics, subjects he hadn't studied at university, or Lenin's, or Mao's, or Trotsky's?

2) I not only have a degree in Philosophy, my PhD was on Wittgenstein.

3) May I refer you to Marx's comments:


"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. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, pp.64-65.]

Here is how I have used the above (taken from an earlier post in answer to the question "Why is Dialectical Materialism a World-view?"):


There are two interconnected reasons, I think.

1) The founders of this quasi-religion weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is 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 ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it 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 persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling 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 is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was just such a hidden world that governed everything, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

2) That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and their reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history has predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for the rest of us, which means that they are our 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could 'legitimately' substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand. This is because the masses are too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why DM is a world-view....

And it is undeniable that there is such a thread of ideas running through traditional philosophy since Ancient Greek times: that fundamental truths about 'reality' (valid for all of space and time), that relate to a hidden world underlying 'appearances', which is more real that the material world around us, can be derived from thought alone.

Finally, I merely generalise this other comment of Marx's (using ideas from Wittgenstein, and several others):


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." [Marx and Engels (1970), p.118. Bold emphasis added.]

So, if the ideas of philosophers are the result of linguistic distortion, as Marx says they are, then the results may accurately be described both as "self-important hot air" and "ruling class ideology".

[Faceless]

Rosa, you claim:


Lenin can't do this, since, according to his own theory, all he has is an image of practice, and an image of practice can in no way show that the external world isn't also just an image, too.

Where does Lenin ever say that all we have is an image of practice? What on Earth do you even mean by an image of practice? Practice is the interaction of the subject and the object. I throw a ball. Throwing is a practical activity in which I consciously interact with the ball. How can I have an image of "throwing"?? You are trying to turn practice itself into an object whose existence has to be proven! And you call yourself a Leninist! We prove the correctness of our ideas through practice. SO for example we prove the general objective law that gravity attracts two bodies by dropping the ball and measuring it as it falls to Earth!

I'll refer you to Marx's second thesis on Feurbach:

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

You also say:


In other words, this is among one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist.

You can keep the tradition of Schachtman, Burnham and Wittgenstein of all people, for the rest of us I'd like to think the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would do.



ANYWAY, Dean, you said that you don't feel that Bogdanov's points are a big deal for materialists. I would disagree. If we imagine that Bogdanov's right then the idea of an objective reality is meaningless and all we have are our sensations. The logical conclusion is that there is no need then to deepen our knowledge of science because this presupposes an external reality which is as yet unknown to our senses but which can become the object of investigation. It closes the door on science. It leaves the door open to solipsism on the one hand or complete idealism on the other.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Faceless:


Where does Lenin ever say that all we have is an image of practice? What on Earth do you even mean by an image of practice? Practice is the interaction of the subject and the object. I throw a ball. Throwing is a practical activity in which I consciously interact with the ball. How can I have an image of "throwing"?? You are trying to turn practice itself into an object whose existence has to be proven! And you call yourself a Leninist! We prove the correctness of our ideas through practice. SO for example we prove the general objective law that gravity attracts two bodies by dropping the ball and measuring it as it falls to Earth!

In fact, Lenin says this:


"Once we accept the point of view that human knowledge develops from ignorance, we shall find millions of examples of it just as simple as the discovery of alizarin in coal tar, millions of observations not only in the history of science and technology but in the everyday life of each and every one of us that illustrate the transformation of 'things-in-themselves' into 'things-for-us,' the appearance of 'phenomena' when our sense-organs experience an impact from external objects, the disappearance of 'phenomena' when some obstacle prevents the action upon our sense-organs of an object which we know to exist. The sole and unavoidable deduction to be made from this -- a deduction which all of us make in everyday practice and which materialism deliberately places at the foundation of its epistemology -- is that outside us, and independently of us, there exist objects, things, bodies and that our perceptions are images of the external world...." [Lenin (1972) Materialism and Empirio-Criticism [MEC], pp.110-11. Cf., also: p.108, p.127, p.153, and p.312. Bold emphasis added.]


"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world." [Ibid., p.69. Bold emphasis added.]

And he says such things many times in that book. So, what can we infer from this?

If we engage in practice, we register it through our senses (according to the above), but this representation of practice in 'consciousness' is, according to Lenin again, just another image. So, all we have, according to Lenin, are images of practice.

How can be escape these images? More practice is no use, since they too are images.

Hence, Lenin has no way out of the solipsistic world into which he has dumped himself.


Throwing is a practical activity in which I consciously interact with the ball. How can I have an image of "throwing"?? You are trying to turn practice itself into an object whose existence has to be proven! And you call yourself a Leninist! We prove the correctness of our ideas through practice. SO for example we prove the general objective law that gravity attracts two bodies by dropping the ball and measuring it as it falls to Earth!

I agree with you, but, alas, Lenin doesn't.

Unless of course you can find something in his work that allows him to escape from the aforementioned solipsistic prison?


You can keep the tradition of Schachtman, Burnham and Wittgenstein of all people, for the rest of us I'd like to think the tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky would do.

1) Yes, you mystics are big fans of tradition, aren't you? If humanity had followed your example, we'd still believe the earth was the centre of the universe.

2) I'm not sure why you mentioned Schachtman and Burnham (they have nothing to do with me), and you may or may not be right about Wittgenstein, but that doesn't affect the fact that MEC is still one of the worst books ever written by a Marxist (closely rivalling Anti-Dühring and Trotsky's lame attempt to expose the alleged limitations of Formal Logic) -- not least for the above reasons.


I would disagree. If we imagine that Bogdanov's right then the idea of an objective reality is meaningless and all we have are our sensations. The logical conclusion is that there is no need then to deepen our knowledge of science because this presupposes an external reality which is as yet unknown to our senses but which can become the object of investigation. It closes the door on science. It leaves the door open to solipsism on the one hand or complete idealism on the other.

But Lenin ends up in the same predicament as Bogdanov. Sure, he says things like this:


"It is beyond doubt that an image cannot wholly resemble the model, but an image is one thing, a symbol, a conventional sign, another. The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [Lenin (1972), p.279.]

"A reflection may be an approximately true copy of the reflected, but to speak of identity is absurd. Consciousness in general reflects being -- that is a general principle of all materialism. It is impossible not to see its direct and inseparable connection with the principle of historical materialism: social consciousness reflects social being." [Ibid., p.391.]

But, how Lenin knew all this to be so is somewhat unclear. Indeed, and quite the opposite, Lenin could not possibly have known that an image is an "approximate" copy of the "thing reflected", unless he had independent access to the "thing reflected" with which he could compare it. And this he hasn't got -- and neither have you if you accept his 'theory' -- leaving him in no better position than Mach or Bogdanov, since he now has to depend on faith alone to prove the existence of the outside world.

[Faceless]

Rosa, all I asked you was where does Lenin say that all we have is an image of practice?

You gave me this:


outside us, and independently of us, there exist objects, things, bodies and that our perceptions are images of the external world....
Lenin is clearly saying that our perceptions are images of the physical object, things and bodies in the external world outside us. Practice is not a "thing" that we can have an image of, and he does not say this here!

You gave me this:

Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world.
Which is just a restatement of the fact the same. He does not say we have an "image of practice"! Where did you get that from??

These statements are the basic, fundamental premises of materialism but from them you infer that Lenin has constructed a solipsistic prison!!

In the jargon of philosophy what you are doing is called reification. You are turning practical activity into a "thing" that you can have an image of! Practice is not just some "thing" out there that our brains passively "image". It involves our causal and purposeful action on the world and the reaction of the world on ourselves. And it is through this that we show that the objective world, with its own laws, exists outside of ourselves. We expect the ball to hit the ground when released - we release it, it hits the ground. This is proof enough that a material world exists outside and independent of us! Through practice!

That you don't understand the difference between solipsism and materialism does not bother me. What bothers me is that you call yourself a Marxist and a Leninist when clearly you think that Lenin was chatting nonesense, Engels before him was chatting nonsense in Anti-Duhring, Marx was chatting nonsense in his theses on Feurbach. You reject their method lock, stock and barrel, so don't call yourself a Marxist! It's embarrassing Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Faceless:


Rosa, all I asked you was where does Lenin say that all we have is an image of practice?

And I answered you by quoting passages from Lenin that show that he thought that all we have in our 'consciousness' are images delivered to us by our senses.

Or, are you suggesting that we are not in contact with practice via our senses, or that we have no 'consciousness' of it?


Lenin is clearly saying that our perceptions are images of the physical object, things and bodies in the external world outside us. Practice is not a "thing" that we can have an image of, and he does not say this here!

In fact, Lenin said this:


Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world


The sole and unavoidable deduction to be made from this—a deduction which all of us make in everyday practice and which materialism deliberately places at the foundation of its epistemology—is that outside us, and independently of us, there exist objects, things, bodies and that our perceptions are images of the external world.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two1.htm#v14pp72h-098


Sensation is a subjective image of the objective world

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two3.htm#v14pp72h-117


For the materialist, sensations are images of the sole and ultimate objective reality, ultimate not in the sense that it has already been explored to the end, but in the sense that there is not and cannot be any other.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/two4.htm#v14pp72h-122


The fundamental distinction between the materialist and the adherent of idealist philosophy consists in the fact that the materialist regards sensation, perception, idea, and the mind of man generally, as an image of objective reality. The world is the movement of this objective reality reflected by our consciousness. To the movement of ideas, perceptions, etc., there corresponds the movement of matter outside me.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five3.htm#v14pp72h-266


Sensation is an image of matter in motion. Save through sensations, we can know nothing either of the forms of substance or of the forms of motion; sensations are evoked by the action of matter in motion upon our sense-organs.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/five7.htm#v14pp72h-299

So, is practice part of the 'external world'? Yes.

Does practice involve 'matter in motion'? Yes.

If so, then Lenin is committed to the view that all we have is an image of practice.


These statements are the basic, fundamental premises of materialism but from them you infer that Lenin has constructed a solipsistic prison!!

And I am happy to re-assert it.

Unless, of course, you can show us how Lenin is able to move from these images to a proof that the external world exists. Sure, he may fervently believe it exists, but he can't show it exists, and hence he is in the same predicament as Bogdanov and Mach -- he has to rely on faith.

Note, I am not denying the external world exists, only that Lenin can't show that it does, since all he has are images (and plenty of bluster).


In the jargon of philosophy what you are doing is called reification. You are turning practical activity into a "thing" that you can have an image of! Practice is not just some "thing" out there that our brains passively "image". It involves our causal and purposeful action on the world and the reaction of the world on ourselves. And it is through this that we show that the objective world, with its own laws, exists outside of ourselves. We expect the ball to hit the ground when released - we release it, it hits the ground. This is proof enough that a material world exists outside and independent of us! Through practice!

Not so; Lenin says that our sensation of matter in motion (i.e. processes) is an image, and since practice is a process (it depends on matter in motion) then my allegations about Lenin still stand.


We expect the ball to hit the ground when released - we release it, it hits the ground. This is proof enough that a material world exists outside and independent of us!

But, according to Lenin, all you have is an image of a ball, an image of you releasing it, an image of it falling, and an image of it hitting the ground. No amount of practice can thus extricate you from the solipsistic dungeon in which Lenin's theory (or your image of it) has imprisoned you.


That you don't understand the difference between solipsism and materialism does not bother me. What bothers me is that you call yourself a Marxist and a Leninist when clearly you think that Lenin was chatting nonsense, Engels before him was chatting nonsense in Anti-Dühring, Marx was chatting nonsense in his theses on Feuerbach. You reject their method lock, stock and barrel, so don't call yourself a Marxist! It's embarrassing Rosa.

Well, I am a genuine materialist, unlike you dialectical solipsists.

Indeed, I do not need to worry about your baseless attack on me, since, according to your 'theory', I'm just an image in your head. Hence all this bluster of yours is merely directed at your own image of me, not me.

So, in future, please address me as "image of Rosa".:)

And, if I were an image of you, I'd have a word with that wayward image of a brain of yours for conjuring up an image of me that keeps wiping an image of a floor with and image of you.

[Leo]

I don't think this is true. He didn't denied the existence of "external mind independent" things. He simply argued against the realist stance that there is such thing as a a "physical law", which in his mind, was nothing more than a nice model. It is a bit more than that, I think. Mach did deny the existence of things that could not be observed, experienced etc. and claimed that all there is was what people can (physically) observe or experience. In this way, since concepts, categories etc. can't be experienced or observed, he denied their existence completely. On a philosophical level, this ultra-empiricism lead him to deny the existence of matter, and on a practical level this lead him to deny the existence of atoms, and all physical theories based on atoms (including, of course, the theory of relativity) because neither matter nor atom, he thought, could be experienced. Obviously his general approach has been vanquished by the scientific developments of the 20th century. The question of whether nature has laws, of course, is a discussion going back more to people like Hume and Kant. As for Mach's, and the Vienna Circle's general philosophy of science, it is simply ahistorical, and history has over and over shown that this is not how science works at all. It is rather a doctrine dictated at science than a philosophy of science, and is as far above the solid ground of reality than the ideas of those they criticize, perhaps even more, in fact.

Anyway, on the point, Lenin's Emprio-Criticism and Materialism itself develops several ideas which were themselves disproved by scientific developments. Anton Pannekoek's "Lenin as Philosopher", although a bit harshly in my opinion, does point out the problems with Lenin's text clearly: http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/index.htm

The four-part critique, prepared by the Internationalisme group in 1948, in turn, points out most errors of Pannekoek: http://en.internationalism.org/node/3102
http://en.internationalism.org/node/3111
http://en.internationalism.org/node/3118
http://en.internationalism.org/node/2951
("Harper" was the pseudonym Pannekoek used for the book)

[black magick hustla]

It is a bit more than that, I think. Mach did deny the existence of things that could not be observed, experienced etc. and claimed that all there is was what people can (physically) observe or experience. In this way, since concepts, categories etc. can't be experienced or observed, he denied their existence completely. On a philosophical level, this ultra-empiricism lead him to deny the existence of matter, and on a practical level this lead him to deny the existence of atoms, and all physical theories based on atoms (including, of course, the theory of relativity) because neither matter nor atom, he thought, could be experienced. Obviously his general approach has been vanquished by the scientific developments of the 20th century. The question of whether nature has laws, of course, is a discussion going back more to people like Hume and Kant. As for Mach's, and the Vienna Circle's general philosophy of science, it is simply ahistorical, and history has over and over shown that this is not how science works at all. It is rather a doctrine dictated at science than a philosophy of science, and is as far above the solid ground of reality than the ideas of those they criticize, perhaps even more, in fact.




I have never read Mach but I heard of him in my philosophy of sciences class. Maybe you are right. However, I would not dismiss everything the logical positivists say. I think they had some very doctrinaire positions and in a sense metaphysical (the truth correspondence theory). However, some of their anti-realist attacks on scientism were really interesting and relevant. There where good reasons for Mach to reject atoms at that time: Nobody had seen them. They worked as a theoretical framework but so did Ptolemy/s epycicles. The approach today is still relevant though. For example, I don't think you can say a photon exists in the same way, George Bush exists. A photon is a mathematical-theoretical model to make predictions. There are no little squiggly things with momentum in the air I think. There is no such thing as a localized electron either. An electron is rather a smudge, a probability density. One has to think iof this things are not just useful theoretical constructs or are there really point particles "smudged" around a funny time dependent cloud.