Being determines consciousness

[Entrails Konfetti]

You can't be conscious before being a being,
a dog for instance isn't aware of what it is: Of its nature, its personality--
it only knows of what it wants, its a being, but it isn't conscious.

The dog doesn't study its urges, thoughts or sensations, it just acts upon it.

True, it may recognize what it wants by acting upon emotion and urges, but it doesn't recognize what its interests are compared to other beings. In a pack it is set in a pecking order, only because of the strengths of other dogs.

But, if dogs could reason, and think rationally;then they would be conscious?

[KC]

You can't be conscious before being a being,
a dog for instance isn't aware of what it is: Of its nature, its personality--
it only knows of what it wants, its a being, but it isn't conscious.

Why would you assume it isn't aware of what it is?

This belongs in philosophy, not theory.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Lazar

Why would you assume it isn't aware of what it is?

I assumed this because it isn't aware that its individual existence on earth is limited. It doesn't understand death.

I was kind of confused where to put this post, but this is part of philosophy that intertwines with materialist theory.

If this post is in the wrong place, let it be moved.

[KC]

So if it doesn't know about death then it doesn't have consciousness?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:03 PM
So if it doesn't know about death then it doesn't have consciousness?
Yes I assuming that, and the fact that dogs don't think in rational concepts.

They are primal beings, they aren't aware of their primitiveness, or where they stand in relation to the rest of society.

The being determines if its conscious.

[drain.you]

What interests me regarding this subject is monkeys and other primates. I went to London zoo this weekend and theres a bit where you can walk through an enclosure of these really small monkeys (dunno what they were exactly) but they were running around, looking at people, looking around the ground and finding nuts and things to eat. Was really weird. They were just like minature men. What makes other primates different from us? Its just trippy how similiar they are to us in behaviour and appearence and for the record, I accept Darwinism.

[redstar2000]

The statement that being determines consciousness is one of the important axioms of historical materialism.

It means specifically that the ways in which humans make their livings determine the kinds of ideas that they have about the real world.

We could modernize the terminology, of course, to make it clearer.

Your ideas about things come from the ways that you acquire what you need to live.

Before Marx, it was generally the philosophic consensus that "people had ideas" and then "used those ideas to alter the real world".

Change was a product of "individual genius" (or sometimes "cultural genius").

After Marx, I think that most serious people realize that our ideas do not simply "fall out of the sky"...they are based on how we interact with the real material world.

I agree that this might be more suitably discussed in the Philosophy Forum...so moved. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[fpeppett]

To say animals don't have conciousness or are not concious is being fairly anthropomorphic, we can't determine are assumption of conciousness is TRUE consciousness.
Life is about perception, and animals percept too.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:57 PM
To say animals don't have conciousness or are not concious is being fairly anthropomorphic, we can't determine are assumption of conciousness is TRUE consciousness.
Life is about perception, and animals percept too.
I've realized this now. And redstar2000 has defined what I meant to explain.

Dogs do have their own type of society, the pack.

Do animals realize death?

[FalceMartello]

Do animals realize death?

Prehaps they do. Aren't there certain species of animals that will act differently or do certain actions when they sense death coming? This doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are aware of death their whole lives, but I think it's possible.

[The Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 05:48 AM
The statement that being determines consciousness is one of the important axioms of historical materialism.

It means specifically that the ways in which humans make their livings determine the kinds of ideas that they have about the real world.

We could modernize the terminology, of course, to make it clearer.

Your ideas about things come from the ways that you acquire what you need to live.

Before Marx, it was generally the philosophic consensus that "people had ideas" and then "used those ideas to alter the real world".

Change was a product of "individual genius" (or sometimes "cultural genius").

After Marx, I think that most serious people realize that our ideas do not simply "fall out of the sky"...they are based on how we interact with the real material world.

I agree that this might be more suitably discussed in the Philosophy Forum...so moved. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Well put.

Most bourgeois ideologies have it the other way around. They fail to understand that what each person believes depends upon the totality of their past experiences.

[The Red Scare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 12:48 AM

Do animals realize death?

Prehaps they do. Aren't there certain species of animals that will act differently or do certain actions when they sense death coming? This doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are aware of death their whole lives, but I think it's possible.
I think certain animals understand death. Elephants, for example, actually bury and mourn their dead.

[Bannockburn]

You can't be conscious before being a being,
a dog for instance isn't aware of what it is: Of its nature, its personality--
it only knows of what it wants, its a being, but it isn't conscious.

The dog doesn't study its urges, thoughts or sensations, it just acts upon it.

True, it may recognize what it wants by acting upon emotion and urges, but it doesn't recognize what its interests are compared to other beings. In a pack it is set in a pecking order, only because of the strengths of other dogs.

But, if dogs could reason, and think rationally;then they would be conscious?

You restrict consciousness way to much. To begin with, consciousness is much more than thought, sensations, or rationality. It is memory, imagination, intentionality etc.

Let me give yo some food for thought. If a dog just acts upon “it”, which I'm assuming our its sensations, then what is, the “it”. It can not be sensation itself, but must be something other than sensation, thus, it must have conscious of its sensation.

Also – how would you know a dog isn't conscious, have you ever experienced being a dog? I know haha.

Okay, seriously here though. Memory is an act of consciousness. All animals have memory, and act upon it. Such as when I hit it, it will run away from me. Animals have intentionality, insofar their consciousness is directed, insofar its consciousness of something. Be it, food, me, or another object.

Granted, I agree with you, dogs, probably don't have reflective knowledge, insofar it can reflect on the content of its object...the cerebral cortex actually lacks compared to other mammals such as humans or apes. Yet, that doesn't mean its not conscious, so its certainly conscious.

[Doshka]

Wasn't it Bishop Berkeley who said "to be is to be perceived"? There is a strong argument for the opposite of what you're saying, which states that we cannot exist before we are perceived - how Berkeley explained the existence of god as the omniscient being that perceives all, which in turn explained to him why things don't disappear when nobody is around to perceive them (sort of like big brother. I'm not sure how he found this reassuring).

Redstar2000! I remember you! I used to hate you, I think, but I can't remember why. I don't know if you remember me, I used to post on che-lives two years ago.

[Xvall]

It doesn't understand death.

Nor do we.

[RevolverNo9]

Yes, as RedStar stated, the quote in question is Marx about the materialist conception of history, for which the 'base-superstructure' model is often used (or too, the 'organic totality').

What is important to remember is that the economic 'base' is also influenced by the ideological level of social existence. Anything less, a strict economic determinism, is Engelsite folly adopted by the soviet Leninists. Vulgar Marxism must be rejected and the 'interplay' between levels of social existence realised.

Here's an example concerning the end of slavery as a 'pillar' in the social edifice of Western Europe in the 10th Century. As the change in social relations begain, we read a deluge of ecclesiastical statements repeating the words of Christian men on slavery and class; Paul says men must not be removed from their social situation - everyone has there place; Augstuine says slavery is the punishment of sin etc...

Yet inspite of this, the church was integral to the process of the slave's amelioration and emancipation (well, his transformation into a different form of expoitation). The slave is an inherent contradiction - a subhuman-human, a 'tool with a voice', 'cattle with faces' etc... As the practice of the shared Christian face grew among slaves and freemen, this contradiction was intensified. The economic requirement for slaves to reproduce meant the existence of a stable, conjugal unit. The strength of the family must have been intensified by the Christian ideology which was therefore a crucial dynamic in the transformqation into serf labour at about the year 1000, although in the last instance we must not loose sight of the primary motor - the economic self interestwhich caused slave-owners to move slaves onto seperate pieces of land, where the slave fostred a sense of autonomy and claim that would result in with other factors the feudal system.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RevolverNo9
What is important to remember is that the economic 'base' is also influenced by the ideological level of social existence...Vulgar Marxism must be rejected and the 'interplay' between levels of social existence realised.

A "delicate" point.

When we say that a certain ideology has "influenced" the economic "base", it seems to me that what is really being said is that a set of ideas previously developed in response to a certain level of production is now "influencing" the further development of that level of production.

I don't think, for example, that slavery waned in western Europe as a response to "Christian ideas". As the western Roman Empire disintegrated, it became "easy" for slaves to run away. Serfdom gradually evolved into existence as a less burdensome and thus more effective way of retaining peasant farm labor.

When "order was finally restored" in western Europe, it was a feudal order rather than a slave-owning order that was established.

And Christian ideas changed accordingly to fit this new economic situation.

Slavery on a very small scale, by the way, continued to exist. There were African slaves in Venice, for example, before the "new world" was even discovered. They were valued not for their labor but rather as objects of "conspicuous consumption" by the "merchant princes"...like an expensive painting is today. To own a black slave or two was "status enhancing"; it "showed" that you were "really somebody" (and not to be trifled with!).

The Christian clergy had no problem with this at all; in fact, it would be surprising if the popes (at least some of them) or the Church itself did not own at least a few slaves.

The reason we must be cautious about the "reciprocal effect" of "ideas" on the economic base is that this insight can be rather easily "extended" to the proposition that ideas can determine economic and political developments.

When you stop and think about it, this was an important core element of 20th century Leninism...the "idea" that you could "build socialism" on pre-capitalist economic foundations if only you "understood correctly what needed to be done" -- that is, if you had the "correct ideas".

Indeed, the "Communist" Party of China still officially claims to be constructing the "material foundations" of "socialism". :lol:

The ideological evolution of Russia, China, et.al., are, I think, particularly vivid illustrations of how "ideas" adjust to changing economic realities. What was once considered the "ideal objective" (socialism and communism) came to be considered "utopian pipe-dreams"...and what was once considered utterly reactionary (capitalism) is now considered "realistic" and even "praise-worthy".

My "vulgar Marxist" interpretation of this is already known here. The economic conditions in pre-revolutionary Russia and China strongly favored the rise of modern capitalism in those countries.

And the ideas changed to fit.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RevolverNo9]

My "vulgar Marxist" interpretation of this is already known here. The economic conditions in pre-revolutionary Russia and China strongly favored the rise of modern capitalism in those countries.

I couldn't agree more that the failiure of Leninism was the petit-bourgeois attempt to 'stand outside history', to forget one's of the most insightful statements of time: 'Man makes his own history, but not as he chooses.'

The irony of an idealist political system that gave forth to a vacuous intellectual heritage of vulgar economic-determinism can only be understood as an ideological justification of soviet/[x] rule.

As regards the 'feudal revolution' you will have to indulge my borish drive for exactness; I have a spent a good few months studying the matter. I would argue that the ancient system lasted in Western Europe (or Western Francia at least) until the end of the Tenth Century. The number of slaves may have been small (say 20%? a figure perhaps harmful to calculate but anyway) but it constituted a slave society if we recognise that slavery was a pillar of the social edifice, without which the structure collapses. To engage in public life, politicaly, militarily or religiously - it was necessary for labour to be carried out by slaves - hence an ideoligical repullsion to manual labour, especially in the fields.


As the western Roman Empire disintegrated, it became "easy" for slaves to run away.

This certainly wasn't the case; the imperial Roman empire we can say collapsed fourth century, ages before even outdated explanations of slavery's expiration. We now recognise the dramatic model of 'The Year 1000', a symbolic watermark for a break down in public and centralised control withcorresponding growth in centrifugal power primarily wielded by the 'milites', knights and castallans - a new ruling class. This is when we can see slavery transform to serfdom and the system of personal contracts often termed feudalism.

Slaves didn't 'break free', in fact one of the remarkable things sbout medieval 'class war' is the almost total absence of contentious violence between slave and master. The freeing of the productive forces took place as it became more economicly viable to install a slave on a seperate piece of land so that the master was not responsble anymore for his upkeep. This led to a greater autonomy for the slave that would eventually lead to his bond being one of serfdom (the holding of land and 'usufruct' (use of commodities for self) in return for service).

Now the point of Christianity is not that it 'changed the direction of history' or anything. It is merely an example of a ruling ideology that maintained the position of slaves while also intensifying the issue of the sub-human/human contradiction. It was economically necessary for the masters for slaves to reproduce, this family 'value' was emphasised by Christianity which in that way further 'humanised' the slave, increasing the autonomy of the individuals and rendering them less liable to a juridical status that passed no way beyond the master. In the last instance of course it was the economic interst that led to the end of slavery as a social pillar, yet ideology had its part to play.

Of course slaves were a later luxury in the middle ages, but they were not an integral section of the economic system.

To adopt economic determism is to listen to Engels and countless, clueless 'soviet scientists' (and lots of inane books about medieval Christianity as an evil empire used to subjugate the downtrodden) and analyse a priori (idealism strikes) while ignoring the voluminous writings of that very clever brain of Marx's - as well as any rational historical observer.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RevolverNo9
I would argue that the ancient system [slavery] lasted in Western Europe (or Western Francia at least) until the end of the Tenth Century.

Well, though I haven't spent "a good few months" studying the transition from slavery-despotism to feudalism, I think you greatly "overstate" the matter.

For one thing, I believe there is actually extant material from 5th and 6th century sources complaining of the pronounced tendency of rural slaves to "run away" and even "join the barbarians".

Secondly, where could you even buy a slave in, say, 7th or 8th century France? There were no more "great slave markets" or probably even small ones. Indeed, there was not much then that could even be called a "city"...except for the communities that sprang up in the immediate vicinity of some bishop's headquarters.

Third, where would a supply of slaves come from? Imperial Rome made its prisoners-of-war into slaves...but that ended c.300CE or so because Rome stopped winning wars.

Meanwhile, as the cities of what was formerly the "western" Roman Empire declined, landowners moved to their fortified rural estates and took their slaves with them. But the "infrastructure" for capturing "runaway slaves" broke down.

In other words, I would argue that "progressive" landlords gradually introduced serfdom long before anyone thought in any kind of systematic way about "feudalism".

The "formal codification" of feudalism, which may indeed date from the 10th century, was a ratification of a process that had been taking place for centuries.


It is merely an example of a ruling ideology that maintained the position of slaves while also intensifying the issue of the sub-human/human contradiction. It was economically necessary for the masters for slaves to reproduce, this family 'value' was emphasised by Christianity which in that way further 'humanised' the slave, increasing the autonomy of the individuals and rendering them less liable to a juridical status that passed no way beyond the master.

Here, of course, you "have me". I am unaware of any Christian sources from, say, 500-1100CE, that explicitly "make the case" for slaves as "humans" or, at least, not "tools that speak".

What would be most useful, in this regard, would be a kind of "handbook" written by a Christian authority on "How To Be A Good Christian Slaveowner" sometime in the period 500-1000CE.

Perhaps such a work does exist and I am just ignorant of it.

Or perhaps there is documentary evidence that Christian bishops delivered many sermons on the subject in that period...pointedly suggesting that proto-serfdom was the "Christian alternative" to slavery.

Again, I plead ignorance.

I doubt the existence of such sources but I can't "rule out" the possibility that they might exist.

I might also say that I've never run across a good text on the transition from despotism to feudalism...perhaps because reliable sources for that period are so scarce.

That is, there are plenty of works that describe the disintegration of the "western" Roman Empire...but have little to say about what was emerging to "take its place". The general impression is "the barbarians won; end of story".

I think it's agreed that the "barbarians" often went to some length to preserve some existing civil institutions of the old empire...or to adapt them to the changed conditions.

But with decreasing success as the cities "withered away" and even literacy was mostly lost.


...and lots of inane books about medieval Christianity as an evil empire used to subjugate the downtrodden...

Well, it was that. The landed properties of the medieval Catholic Church were enormous...and farmed by serfs in the wretched conditions characteristic of that era. I've never heard anyone contend that the Church treated its serfs "better" than other feudal nobility.

If anything, I expect that the Church treated them even worse!

Why? Well, as it happens, I once took a course in medieval history in which we discussed those Italian territories that later came to be known as the "Papal States"...places where everything was "owned and operated" directly by the Vatican.

During the 19th century unification of Italy, the peasants of the "Papal States" were given the opportunity to actually vote on whether they wished to become part of Italy subject to secular rule or wished to remain under the care of "the Holy Father".

You know the outcome of the plebiscite! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RevolverNo9]

Well, though I haven't spent "a good few months" studying the transition from slavery-despotism to feudalism, I think you greatly "overstate" the matter.

I think you're confusing two phenomena: the Fall of Rome and the 'Feudal Revolution'. The latter, for those historians who both accept the existence or validity of feudalism as a concept and an abrupt shift in social relations, is placed about the year 1000.


I might also say that I've never run across a good text on the transition from despotism to feudalism...perhaps because reliable sources for that period are so scarce.

The feudal transformation is one of the most contentious and discussed debates in medieval historiography. By the sounds of it though you are merely looking in the wrong place... about 600 years too early.

I realise that serious history books are not easy to come by but if for some reason you do try to seek out a text on the transition, Guy Bois, The Transformation of the year one thousand: the village of Lournand from antiquity to feudalism is a fantastsic account by a very brilliant Marxist historian.

Marc Bloch wrote the classic total history of what feudalism was and is still essential reading, as long as you find out what is now severly out-dated. Georges Duby is the main authority for the transition these days, with Pierre Bonnassie as another exponent of the radical rupture at 1000. Revisionists arguing for a gradual mutation are typified by Dominique Barthelemy while further along is a character like E A R Brown, who denies the whole concept of Feudalism all together.


In other words, I would argue that "progressive" landlords gradually introduced serfdom long before anyone thought in any kind of systematic way about "feudalism".

People didn't start thinking 'in any kind of systematic way about "feudalism" untill centuries after the system ended. There was no conciously 'feudal' behaviours of law and government, it is merely how we describe such systems.

While I have no doubt that at the Fall of Rome, some slaves broke away in the chaos, the idea that a whole class just scarpered is simply not true: slavery perpetuated into the tenth century.

The Carolingian state could not have existed without slavery; who would be free to act in public life? Militarily, legally, governmentally, religiously... all thse roles required the support of slave labour. The break-down of public order and centralised control occurs during the tenth-century; written laws cease, literacy plummets, law is localised and oral, authority passes to the local militarily powerful. It is at this point that we observe events that lead to a change in social relations about 1000; ie, the decline of allodial peasents, the disintegration of slavery, the dependence of workers on local castallans who became a new ruling class - the knights and lords.


Secondly, where could you even buy a slave in, say, 7th or 8th century France? There were no more "great slave markets" or probably even small ones. Indeed, there was not much then that could even be called a "city"...except for the communities that sprang up in the immediate vicinity of some bishop's headquarters.

The vast majority of slaves were born into slavery. They were a social class excluded from public life absolutely, with no juridical status beyond the will of their owner. They were property and the element of a patrimony. Slaves were connected through blood by the nexus servitutis, the servile bond, and held the stain (macula) of servility. They owed servitium to their owners who could demand anything of a slave without granting anything in return. No slave/freeman marriage occurred in the period.

Guy Bois, for one, calculates a figure of 15% slaves working 20%-25% of the land in the period before 1000. This does not include slaves of monasteries and public institutions, whose role was more autonomous and held more semblance to the serf relationship.


Meanwhile, as the cities of what was formerly the "western" Roman Empire declined, landowners moved to their fortified rural estates and took their slaves with them. But the "infrastructure" for capturing "runaway slaves" broke down.

Yes, there was urban decline. However that does not eliminate the Carolingian state or slavery. The old cities became became small shells where rich elites lived together living off an exclsuive urban market of luxuries. After the birth of 'feudalism' there is a new urban model which grow rapidly, accomodating the trade of peasents and serfs. Again this phenomenon is after 1000.


The "formal codification" of feudalism, which may indeed date from the 10th century, was a ratification of a process that had been taking place for centuries.

Feudalism is not a conscious contemporary system. However the 'ratification' of the new ruling class ca be found growing over the 11th century as the violent and unruly 'milites', knights and castallans (who 'took power' as it were during the 10th C) became accepted by society before being santioned and protected by ideology. The Church at the time of feudal 'revolution' is threatened by the knights and condemns and enacts phenomea against it. A hundred years later, it forms liturgy to accept their position and blesses them as an essential part of temporal order (The Three Orders of workers, fighters and worshippers).


Or perhaps there is documentary evidence that Christian bishops delivered many sermons on the subject in that period...pointedly suggesting that proto-serfdom was the "Christian alternative" to slavery.

Perhaps you mistunderstand me:

1. The primary cause of serfdom is the ecomic imperitive that drove masters to install their slaves on a seperate exploitation and absolve themselves of running their upkeep.

2. It was economically neccessary for slaves to reproduce, otherwise the master's workforce depletes.

3. 10th Century Christian ideology and sermons, as part of the superstructure of slave society (yet more evidence that slavery was a 'pillar in the edifice', as if it was somehow needed...) talk of slavery being the punishment of sin and how one's status must be immutable. No doubt the intensification of such words towards the end of C10th is indicative of the disintegration of slavery.

4. Christian ideology fully penetrated rural areas in the C10th, workers would have been under the full extent of the Church's teaching. Christianity puts emphasis on the family unit, which is essential for reproduction which is turn must occur for the master's social status to be maintained. The quality of the family unit is something more 'human' which further conflicts with the 'subhumanity' of the slave. Thus autonomous slaves are less 'stained' with servility and are less barred from public life ideologically which further accomodates the acceptance of 'serf' status. This is already more or less the case with slaves working for public estates - comital or monastic.

The case of Christian ideology intensifying this particular vicissitude is entirely 'in spite of itself'.


QUOTE
...and lots of inane books about medieval Christianity as an evil empire used to subjugate the downtrodden...



Well, it was that. The landed properties of the medieval Catholic Church were enormous...and farmed by serfs in the wretched conditions characteristic of that era. I've never heard anyone contend that the Church treated its serfs "better" than other feudal nobility.

I will reply to this, but it's approaching 1.00am and I have other thing about. Safe to say, 'anachronism', 'value-judgement' and 'materialism' will abound.

I've tried to pack a lot of stuff into little space in little time. I expect without prior knowledge much of what I said more incoherently may need further explanation.

[gilhyle]

A few comments:

the phrase being determines consciousness reflects, within the most general conception of human history, the Marxist rejection of religion and thus (indirectly) the recognition of the continuity of the consciousness of man and the consciousness of animals, based in turn on an implicit recognition of the social determination of the extent and nature of the consciousness of death. THis may be counterposed both to views which suggest that the nature of our recognition of death derives from the structural charactersistics of consciousness or from the distinct character of man as the creation of God i.e. as an expression of the primacy of holy consciousness over being.

Secondly, I think (although not clear what it has to do with the original topic) that the nature of the class struggle within the slave mode of production needs to be conceived in a way which reflects the complex strata which made up the society of which actual slaves were always a minority, even at the height of the Roman Empire. So to say that slaves were a minority in 1000 is not that significant.

But what then are we to think about the persistence of slavery through the early centuries of feudalism ? I think the answer is in Marx's Ethnographic Notebooks where he writes at length about the transition to feudalism and the slow, almost imperceptible way in which it changes social relations which often retain earlier forms.

I agree with the earlier comment that a key part of the 'class struggle' involved slaves running away. At a time when virgin land was common throughout Europe this was a very practical and important method of struggle.

What was going on around the year 1000 was the transition to 'high feudalism', an epochal transition WITHIN the overall period of the feudal mode of production.

[redstar2000]

Well, RevolverNo9, I must retire from the controversy on the transition from slavery/despotism to feudalism. You are clearly more conversant on this topic than I am...and I feel "overmatched". :P

Should I ever be fortunate enough to live in a real city again where there are real libraries with real books available, I will attempt to educate myself on the current historical "consensus".

Nevertheless, I remain highly skeptical of the proposition that Christian ideology served to "humanize the slaves"...even indirectly.

And I repeat my warning...


Originally posted by redstar2000
The reason we must be cautious about the "reciprocal effect" of "ideas" on the economic base is that this insight can be rather easily "extended" to the proposition that ideas can determine economic and political developments.

I think that's a "real danger" to be guarded against.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif