Nature lover, science, and socialism

[Milk Sheikh]

I happen to be a nature lover. I could spend hours marveling at the beauty of the trees. And I've always hated science and math when I was a kid.:thumbdown:

The problem is, this totally contradicts my leftist inclinations. While I am rational enough to appreciate the need for workers' state, I am also romantic enough to succumb - not only to nature but to 'irrational' stuff like music or poetry.

This creates a conflict: hate science but love Marx's scientific approach. Love arts and music, incurable romantic and all, but part of me wants to be rational as well.:confused:

How is it possible to be a socialist, then?

[BuddhaInBabylon]

I was not the best math student when i was a kid either, and i am from a place where the mountains dominate every horizon for miles and miles, and i find no difficulty in being a socialist. Your ability to critique the current capitalist domination and imperialist agendas does not hinge on your love of beauty and your dislike for the sciences and mathematics.
I think you are analyzing yourself way too much.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's nothing irrational about liking music or poetry - that stuff has been intentionally created to appeal to people.

Why exactly do you "hate" science? Do you find certain scientific concepts difficult to understand?

[ZeroNowhere]

Technically speaking, Marx and Engels were both fans of Shelley. Hell, Engels even wrote a poem influenced by him in his pre-communist days, and remained a large fan of his throughout his days.

The birds on their green branches greet the dawn
With paeans of tumultuous song, and know
That when the drifting cloudlets have withdrawn
Their steamy summits to the vales below,
Then shall the sun begin to mount his throne —
These birds are minstrel singers, every one;
Their words fly free as the free winds that blow;
And winds and words as one united go.
These songsters do not haunt the castle walls
(Those stately homes have long since tumbled down),
But, in proud oaks unbent by howling squalls,
Boldly they look towards the rising sun,
Though they be dazzled when his brilliance falls
To ring the earth with radiant light around.
1, too, am one of Freedom’s minstrel band.
’twas to the boughs of Börne’s great oak-tree
I soared, when in the vales the despot’s hand
Tightened the strangling chains round Germany.
Yes, I am of those plucky birds that make
Their course through Freedom’s bright aethereal sea;
Though I be just a sparrow in their wake,
Rather that little sparrow would I be
Than the caged nightingale that can’t take wing
And only to a prince’s car may sing.

-Friedrich Engels.



Hellas had the good fortune of seeing the nature of her landscape brought to consciousness in the religion of her inhabitants. Hellas is a land of pantheism; all her landscapes are — or, at least, were — embraced in a harmonious framework. And yet every tree, every fountain, every mountain thrusts itself too much in the foreground, and her sky is far too blue, her sun far too radiant, her sea far too magnificent, for them to be content with the laconic spiritualisation of Shelley’s spirit of nature, of an all-embracing Pan. Each beautifully shaped individual feature lays claim to a particular god, each river will have its nymphs, each grove its dryads — and so arose the religion of the Hellenes. Other regions were not so fortunate; they did not serve any people as: the basis of its faith and had to await a poetic mind to conjure into existence the religious genius that slumbered in them. — If you stand on the Drachenfels or on the Rochusberg at Bingen, and gaze over the vine-fragrant valley of the Rhine, the distant blue mountains merging with the horizon, the green fields and vineyards flooded with golden sunlight, the blue sky reflected in the river — heaven with its brightness descends on to the earth and is mirrored in it, the spirit descends into matter, the word becomes flesh and dwells among us — that is the embodiment of Christianity. The direct opposite of this is the North-German heath; — here there is nothing but dry stalks and modest heather, which, conscious of its weakness, dare not raise itself above the ground; here and there is a once defiant tree now shattered by lightning; and the brighter the sky, the more sharply does its self-sufficient magnificence demarcate it from the poor, cursed earth lying below it in sackcloth and ashes, and the more does its eye, the sun, look down with burning anger on the bare barren sand — there you have a representation of the Jewish world outlook.

The heathland has been much reviled, all literature Note by Engels.] has heaped curses on it and, as in Platen’s Oedipus, it has been used only as a background for satire, but people have scorned to seek out its rare charms, its hidden poetic connections. One must really have grown up in a beautiful region, on mountain heights or forest[crowned crags, to feel properly the frightening, depressing character of the North-German Sahara, but also to be able to detect with pleasure the beautiful features of this region, which, like the mirage in Libya, are not always visible to the eye. [...] On a stormy night, when clouds stream ghost-like past the moon, when dogs bay to one another at a distance, gallop on snorting horses over the endless heath and leap with loose reins over the weathered granite blocks and the burial mounds of the Huns; in the distance the water of the moor glitters in the reflected moonlight, will-o'-the-wisps flit over it, and the howling of the storm sounds eerily over the wide expanse; the ground beneath you is unsafe, and you feel that you have entered the realm of German folk-lore. Only after I became acquainted with the North-German heathland did I properly understand the Grimm brothers’ Kinder- und Haus-Mirchen. It is evident from almost all these tales that they had their origin here, where at nightfall the human element vanishes and the terrifying, shapeless creations of popular fantasy glide over a desolate land which is eerie even in the brightness of midday. They are a tangible embodiment of the feelings aroused in the solitary heath dweller when he wends his way in his native land on such a wild night, or when he looks out over the desolate expanse from some high tower. Then the impressions which he has retained from childhood of stormy nights on the heath come back to his mind and take shape in those fairy-tales. You will not overhear the secret of the origin of the popular fairy-tales on the Rhine or in Swabia, whereas here every lightning night — bright lightning night, says Laube — speaks of it with tongues of thunder.-Engels, 'Landscapes'



Now follows, as we promised in the previous chapter, the proof that the aforesaid sum of 25 talers is the personal property of the dear Lord.

They are without a master! Sublime thought, no mortal power owns them, yet the lofty power that sails above the clouds embraces the All, including therefore the aforesaid 25 talers; with its wings woven from day and night, from sun and stars, from towering mountains and endless sands, which resound as with harmonies and the rushing of the waterfall, it brushes where no mortal hand can reach, including therefore the aforesaid 25 talers, and--but I can say no more, my inmost being is stirred, I contemplate the All and myself and the aforesaid 25 talers, what substance in these three words, their standpoint is infinity, their tinkle is angelic music, they recall the Last Judgment and the state exchequer, for -- it was Grethe, the cook, whom Scorpion, stirred by the tales of his friend Felix, carried away by his flame-winged melody, overpowered by his vigorous youthful emotion, presses to his heart, sensing a fairy within her. -Marx, 'Scorpion and Felix'.

Indeed, I like to think of the introduction to 'Dialectics of Nature' as a sort of cosmicism, to borrow a term; certainly, there's an artistic image at the back of it. Nonetheless, it's unclear why somebody who liked poetry and nature would dislike science, being in itself a highly poetic field. Nature itself is unconscious art, and poetry is but reflection of the skylark's song, with the meanings of words in place of trills and crescendos, so then the encapsulation of nature is the basis of poesy, and therefore its grasping an artistic endeavour.

[Milk Sheikh]

Thanks, but I'll explain it differently.

I neither enjoy nor understand math; nor do I care to. But economics requires a lot of math and, without understanding it, you cannot be a Marxist, nor can you convince others about Marxism. But I'd rather gaze at the stars than bury my head in the books.

This creates a conflict. I am the sort of person that enjoys nature, beauty, and music; think of me as a right hemisphere guy. But economics, with its emphasis on math and scientific analysis, is for those who have a dominant left hemisphere. Like it or not, most of Marxism is about economics and how it defines every aspect of our lives. So how can one be a socialist when there is this right-left hemisphere conflict?

I hope now things are clear and people can see where I am coming from.

[Zanthorus]

economics requires a lot of math

This is probably true of a lot of mainstream economic theories and models. You can probably get through the equations in the three volumes of Capital with a five year olds knowledge of maths, however.

[Widerstand]

But economics requires a lot of math and, without understanding it, you cannot be a Marxist, nor can you convince others about Marxism. But I'd rather gaze at the stars than bury my head in the books.

This is about as true as saying you can't know sociology without knowing math. Sure you need math if you want to work as a sociologist or economist, but you can easily explain or understand (or even apply) a lot of economical or sociological theories without mentioning maths once.

[Ocean Seal]

Thanks, but I'll explain it differently.

I neither enjoy nor understand math; nor do I care to. But economics requires a lot of math and, without understanding it, you cannot be a Marxist, nor can you convince others about Marxism. But I'd rather gaze at the stars than bury my head in the books.

This creates a conflict. I am the sort of person that enjoys nature, beauty, and music; think of me as a right hemisphere guy. But economics, with its emphasis on math and scientific analysis, is for those who have a dominant left hemisphere. Like it or not, most of Marxism is about economics and how it defines every aspect of our lives. So how can one be a socialist when there is this right-left hemisphere conflict?

I hope now things are clear and people can see where I am coming from.
My friend you need not bring yourself down. You don't need to be a person with a passion or a great understanding of economics to be a Marxist. That is auxiliary. Look socialism is common sense ultimately. It is based on the idea that workers can manage their own affairs without having to pay tribute to their bourgeois oppressors. And to be quite honest, a superb knowledge of economics is not required to convince people to become Marxists, because I assure you that a test on Marx's Kapital is not required to join revleft. If you started spouting equations about capitalism's downfall, how many would you think to convince? Perhaps a few intellectuals, and with an emotional argument someone like Glenn Beck would kill off support from the workers in an instant. What we need is a diverse movement, we need one with people with a series of different talents. It would be an honor to have you in our movement.

[Targaryen]

There is no reason for conflict. Be a socialist because of love and compassion not because some scientific or economic theory.

[ZeroNowhere]

There is no reason for conflict. Be a socialist because of love and compassion not because some scientific or economic theory.
I love everyone = let us change the mode of production through a potentially violent revolution?

Surely there must be some mediation here?


But economics requires a lot of math and, without understanding it, you cannot be a Marxist, nor can you convince others about Marxism.
To be honest, this amuses me somewhat, given the sheer amount of times in 'Capital' where Engels notes that Marx had made numerous mathematical errors which Engels had to correct.

[Milk Sheikh]

I love everyone = let us change the mode of production through a potentially violent revolution?

Surely there must be some mediation here?


To be honest, this amuses me somewhat, given the sheer amount of times in 'Capital' where Engels notes that Marx had made numerous mathematical errors which Engels had to correct.

I meant economics in general. Many people lose interest because they can't handle the math; the bourgeois knows this.

[Milk Sheikh]

My friend you need not bring yourself down. You don't need to be a person with a passion or a great understanding of economics to be a Marxist. That is auxiliary. Look socialism is common sense ultimately. It is based on the idea that workers can manage their own affairs without having to pay tribute to their bourgeois oppressors. And to be quite honest, a superb knowledge of economics is not required to convince people to become Marxists, because I assure you that a test on Marx's Kapital is not required to join revleft. If you started spouting equations about capitalism's downfall, how many would you think to convince? Perhaps a few intellectuals, and with an emotional argument someone like Glenn Beck would kill off support from the workers in an instant. What we need is a diverse movement, we need one with people with a series of different talents. It would be an honor to have you in our movement.

Thanks for the inspiration, comrade. I wish I could thank you more than once for this post.

[Milk Sheikh]

This is probably true of a lot of mainstream economic theories and models. You can probably get through the equations in the three volumes of Capital with a five year olds knowledge of maths, however.

That's the whole point - you can't just study Marxism in isolation. Everything is interrelated. Studying one, you're forced to study the other.

[Tablo]

I love everyone = let us change the mode of production through a potentially violent revolution?

Surely there must be some mediation here?
Lol, I think the idea is that our acts of violence are justified in that they are self defense inspired by our love.

[Revolution starts with U]

I love art and math... what's your point?
You can still be a socialist even if you can't explain yourself very well.

[Ocean Seal]

Thanks for the inspiration, comrade. I wish I could thank you more than once for this post.
You are welcome, comrade.

[blake 3:17]

Understanding economics doesn't involve much math. If you're running a small business basic arithmetic works. And what Marx actually wrote, if you understand very basic quantitative relationships, eg bigger/smaller, big/bigger/biggest etc then you're OK.


I happen to be a nature lover. I could spend hours marveling at the beauty of the trees. And I've always hated science and math when I was a kid.:thumbdown:

The problem is, this totally contradicts my leftist inclinations. While I am rational enough to appreciate the need for workers' state, I am also romantic enough to succumb - not only to nature but to 'irrational' stuff like music or poetry.

This creates a conflict: hate science but love Marx's scientific approach. Love arts and music, incurable romantic and all, but part of me wants to be rational as well.

I want to give you a hug!

I hate the idea of Marxism reduced to a bunch of algorithms. I don't know where you at in terms of science -- I assuming in school, no idea which level -- most science in schools is super dull, just like they teach most anything else unless you have particularly good teachers who bend the rules.

And if you can understand pretty basic bigger/smaller relationships you can get the Labour Theory of Value. Please don't worry.

My math ends at algebra. I would love to learn calculus one day, but my not understanding it hasn't hindered my political work.

[mikelepore]

I neither enjoy nor understand math; nor do I care to. But economics requires a lot of math and, without understanding it, you cannot be a Marxist, nor can you convince others about Marxism.

The only math in Marx's writings is add, subtract, multiply and divide.

[MarxSchmarx]

The only math in Marx's writings is add, subtract, multiply and divide.

and calculus.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/index.htm

[Dimentio]

I happen to be a nature lover. I could spend hours marveling at the beauty of the trees. And I've always hated science and math when I was a kid.:thumbdown:

The problem is, this totally contradicts my leftist inclinations. While I am rational enough to appreciate the need for workers' state, I am also romantic enough to succumb - not only to nature but to 'irrational' stuff like music or poetry.

This creates a conflict: hate science but love Marx's scientific approach. Love arts and music, incurable romantic and all, but part of me wants to be rational as well.:confused:

How is it possible to be a socialist, then?

Gah! It is impossible to be a socialist and not be creative... what you're talking about is not socialism but puritanism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:


and calculus.

I'm afraid that Marx's notebooks on the calculus are not worth the paper they were written upon -- having been fatally compromised by his use of Hegelian concepts.

He was unaware of the path breaking work done by Cauchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin-Louis_Cauchy), Riemann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Riemann) and Weierstrass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Weierstrass) (among others), even though they published their results in his lifetime.

That's like doing work on economics (in his day) but being unaware of Smith and Ricardo!

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm afraid that Marx's notebooks on the calculus are not worth the paper they were written upon -- having been fatally compromised by his use of Hegelian concepts.
Hadn't he abandoned these by 1873?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think so -- but others imagine they're the last word on the subject!

[mikelepore]

and calculus.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/index.htm

I'm not saying that Marx never made any notes about calculus. I'm saying Marx's explanation of economics doesn't use calculus. The original post was about how to learn and explain his economics. In chapter 9 of 'Capital' he introduces a quotient s/v, and the math never gets any more difficult that that.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm not saying that Marx never made any notes about calculus. I'm saying Marx's explanation of economics doesn't use calculus. The original post was about how to learn and explain his economics. In chapter 9 of 'Capital' he introduces a quotient s/v, and the math never gets any more difficult that that.

Actually now that you mention it, didn't he have a geometry analogy in the opening chapters of capital? I seem to remember something about how an object can be multiple things at once.

Tho you're of course right, one doesn't need to understand anything beyond secondary school algebra to appreciate marx's math.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Methinks you're overthinking this. Don't be a socialist that doesn't like math or science and finds beauty in nature and therefore can't or shouldn't be a socialist. Just be who you are.

[Ovi]

There is no contradiction. I love both math and the complexity and beauty of the natural environment, hiking, camping and stuff. In fact, I find a forest or other rather isolated and natural place even best to do science stuff. It takes away all distractions, such as internet and tv and lets me concentrate on what I want to do.