Beyond anti-dialectics... anti-materialism! [Archive]

LuÃs Henrique

14th August 2006, 16:00

Materialism encompasses a lot of assumptions - the prime one being that there is an objective material reality which is independent of human perception; a secondary, but important proposition is that this objective reality can be accessed and understood via human perception and thinking.

So, objective reality exists independently of human perception, but it can only be acessed by human perception (and thinking... but this does not change the problem, since objective reality also exists independently from human thinking). So, we really don't know if objective reality exists independently of human perception, we just assume it... what kind of assumption is this? An act of faith, a logical extrapolation...?

From a Marxist point of view (i.e. Historical Materialism) the main proposition is that the course of human life is partly the result of the objective circumstances in which people find themselves.

Hm, this is important... one would say that matter opposes some kind of resistance to human action? Or am I misreading you?

In other words, people create society by forming definite relations which then take on an objective, material force and compell individuals to act in specific ways. Humans are both the creators of society and the creatures of society.

Well, this definitely smells dialectics. Would you say that dialectics is necessary in a materialist approach of human societies, or this is just a particular branch of materialism?

The materialist dialectic (as a mode of analysis) is important in order to demonstrate the relationship between human action and the objective circumstances. It enables us to appreciate both the constraining elements of social forces and the creative capacity of human social action as elements within a mediating totality. This is what makes Marxist materialism an indispensible tool of revolutionary action and theory.

So you would say that while someone can be a communist without being a materialist, only a materialist approach would be able to transform society into Communism?

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

14th August 2006, 16:30

So, we really don't know if objective reality exists independently of human perception, we just assume it... what kind of assumption is this? An act of faith, a logical extrapolation...?

Well, Marx argues that the test of our thinking is how far it is proved in practice. I'd suggest that science has produced enough practical evidence to suggest this key assumption is a reasonable one.

Hm, this is important... one would say that matter opposes some kind of resistance to human action? Or am I misreading you?

Of course, at a very basic and obvious level, material reality provides resistance, or sets real limits, to the actions of humans. For instance, a woman without legs will not walk no matter how much she wants to. Similarly, a stone age culture will never put men on the moon, no matter how much they may desire it.

Well, this definitely smells dialectics. Would you say that dialectics is necessary in a materialist approach of human societies, or this is just a particular branch of materialism?

Yes, it reeks of it, doesn't it? That's why I can't accept Rosa's dismissal of dialectical thinking. Although i want to emphasise that dialectics only make sense to me if it's located within the realm of society, not nature. Marxism is a theory of society not a theory of the natural world.

So you would say that while someone can be a communist without being a materialist, only a materialist approach would be able to transform society into Communism?

Absolutely. Combined with a political realism.

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th August 2006, 17:33

Z:

Well, Marx argues that the test of our thinking is how far it is proved in practice.

I am glad you mentioned that, since the last 130 years of almost total failure refutes dialectics.

Hit The North

14th August 2006, 17:43

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14 2006, 03:34 PM
Z:

Well, Marx argues that the test of our thinking is how far it is proved in practice.

I am glad you mentioned that, since the last 130 years of almost total failure refutes dialectics.
Only if you think that Historical Materialism tells us that social change is the result of theorists imposing their theory on the world.

And I know you don't. ;)

Hit The North

14th August 2006, 18:04

Rosa,

What’s with the obsession to smash dialectics? As far as I understand your politics, you are a Leninist, although you think his philosophy is 4th rate. Nevertheless, you support his positions on imperialism, political organisation, etc. So either you must think:

(a) a dialectical analysis played no part in Lenin’s theory and practice and hence he arrived at correct conclusions; or

(b) he did apply dialectics and was just lucky that he got things right.

If it’s (a), then what’s the problem? Obviously even Lenin didn’t take the dialectic seriously (and we could extend that to the SWP(UK) who’s line you support despite it’s nominal attachment to dialectics) and therefore, dialectics is a mere conceit that has no real impact on the revolutionary movement. In which case, you're wasting an awful lot of your time and could be putting your big brain to better use for the worker's movement.

LuÃs Henrique

14th August 2006, 18:05

Well, Marx argues that the test of our thinking is how far it is proved in practice. I'd suggest that science has produced enough practical evidence to suggest this key assumption is a reasonable one.

I agree, but am also tempted to point out that this implies "knowledge" is a bidirectional road. Our assumptions about reality must be shaped in a way that can be tested against reality, otherwise they remain idle. As such, the "reality" we are able to know isn't "reality in itself", but reality as it reacts when manipulated by actions directed by our knowledge. Am I forcing this interpretation?

Of course, at a very basic and obvious level, material reality provides resistance, or sets real limits, to the actions of humans. For instance, a woman without legs will not walk no matter how much she wants to. Similarly, a stone age culture will never put men on the moon, no matter how much they may desire it.

And this "resistance" also applies to knowledge?

For instance, when we look at sky, we see the sun circling around the earth. We know that this is false, that the earth rotates around itself, causing that impression. But your stone age culture cannot deal practically with that; for all they know, the sun circles the earth - and some stone age visionary who maintains the opposite view isn't a scientist with a better grasp of reality, but just a speculative - or mystical - thinker. Is that right?

Yes, it reeks of it, doesn't it? That's why I can't accept Rosa's dismissal of dialectical thinking. Although i want to emphasise that dialectics only make sense to me if it's located within the realm of society, not nature. Marxism is a theory of society not a theory of the natural world.

This raises an important issue. To which extent "society" is detached from the "natural world"? And why different laws would apply to society, as compared to nature?

Absolutely. Combined with a political realism.

Now, see the following. You have been proposing a theory of interaction between men, and between man and the natural world. But does this theory require a monistic approach, in which man and its society stem from nature (which seems to me what we would call "materialism"), as opposed to a dualist approach (see, for instance, your position above, in which you limit "dialectics" to social world), or even a reverse monist approach (in which the "objective" reality is considered a product of mind)?

In other words, "political realism" is dependent on epistemological or onthological materialism, or even positively correlated to it? (We seem to have seen a lot of political irrealism attached to professed materialism; the converse seems rare, but would it be impossible?)

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

14th August 2006, 18:32

As such, the "reality" we are able to know isn't "reality in itself", but reality as it reacts when manipulated by actions directed by our knowledge. Am I forcing this interpretation?

I think that your interpretation is particularly apposite to social reality, which is a secondary form of reality (in other words, man-made, not nature-made) and necessarily more contingent on patterns of human action and interaction. This is why I insist on seeing Marxism as a social theory, not a meta-theory of nature.

If Marx had wanted otherwise, he would have abandoned philosophy for biology. But he he didn't, he became a political economist.

So in answer to this question:

This raises an important issue. To which extent "society" is detached from the "natural world"? And why different laws would apply to society, as compared to nature?

Yes, society obeys different laws to nature. The main reason being that, unlike nature, society is produced by conscious, more or less self-directed beings. Capitalism isn't created by nature (although it occupies a particular productive relationship to it), it's created by human interaction, where the scope for human freedom is determined by specific property relations.

Now, see the following. You have been proposing a theory of interaction between men, and between man and the natural world. But does this theory require a monistic approach, in which man and its society stem from nature (which seems to me what we would call "materialism"), as opposed to a dualist approach (see, for instance, your position above, in which you limit "dialectics" to social world), or even a reverse monist approach (in which the "objective" reality is considered a product of mind)?

It is a totalising system in so far as it seeks to explain the connectivity between nature, society and humans. However, I believe it is stretched to breaking point if it's used to explain the internal workings of nature itself.

To argue that because society depends upon nature (which it surely does), it must operate in the same way is unnecessary - unless your monism argues that all things which arise out of nature behave in the same way (water and starlings, for instance).

Rosa Lichtenstein

14th August 2006, 19:29

Z:

What’s with the obsession to smash dialectics?

We have been over this; if (a big 'if', I grant you) I am right and this mystical theory has been the biggest subjective reason why Marxism has suffered long term failure, then few things are more important.

(a) a dialectical analysis played no part in Lenin’s theory and practice and hence he arrived at correct conclusions; or

(b) he did apply dialectics and was just lucky that he got things right.

Newton used some dodgy Neoplatonic ideas (mixed in with some even dodgier Hermetic notions -- drawn out of the same cesspit from which Hegel dredged his own concepts) to derive his theory of universal gravitation etc.

His theory is pretty successful, but the mysticism is crap.

So, we can reject the mysticism, but accept the science.

Same with Lenin.

dialectics is a mere conceit that has no real impact on the revolutionary movement

Its effects are all negative, hence the tone and persistence of my attacks on it.

LuÃs Henrique

14th August 2006, 22:33

I think that your interpretation is particularly apposite to social reality, which is a secondary form of reality (in other words, man-made, not nature-made) and necessarily more contingent on patterns of human action and interaction. This is why I insist on seeing Marxism as a social theory, not a meta-theory of nature.

I have no practical problem with doing this, and in fact, much prefer it to the attempts to "enforce" dialectics on nature, that can easily end in a Lysenkoist quagmire.

But, theorically, it should be pointed that, since man is part of nature, its interactions with nature aren't purely externalist. The dicotomy between natural and cultural cannot be as abrupt as the dicotomy between natural and "spiritual" or supernatural.

Yes, society obeys different laws to nature. The main reason being that, unlike nature, society is produced by conscious, more or less self-directed beings.

Agreed. Now, this introduces a new dimension into our analysis, doesn't it? "Consciousness" is something that seems, a) to be entirely natural; and b) ultimately irreducible to nature. Now, how can something that stems entirely out from nature be ultimately irreducible to nature? If there is a solution for this problem (let's, carefully, not label it a contradiction), it seems to beg for a new concept that would make a proper mediation, isn't it? What could it be?

Capitalism isn't created by nature (although it occupies a particular productive relationship to it), it's created by human interaction, where the scope for human freedom is determined by specific property relations.

Marx says that the difference between the worse architect and the best bee is that the architect puts himself to work with a plan; that human activity is finalistic. Now, it comes to mind that much of human activity isn't really finalistic; the behaviour of men in the construction of capitalism seems to resemble "nature" a lot, in that the final results aren't planned at all.

It is a totalising system in so far as it seeks to explain the connectivity between nature, society and humans. However, I believe it is stretched to breaking point if it's used to explain the internal workings of nature itself.

I see; it certainly is a possible approach. But it still looks, to me at least, to hide some degree of inconsistency (as pointed above, im my first paragraph in this post).

To argue that because society depends upon nature (which it surely does), it must operate in the same way is unnecessary - unless your monism argues that all things which arise out of nature behave in the same way (water and starlings, for instance).

Agreed, but to the effect that we should consider that "dialectics" arise at the moment in which "counsciousness" arises (instead, for instance, of the moment in which life arises, or molecular organisation) I still think that we would need a more precise definition of "counciousness" and a theory of why it inaugurates such new onthological stage (or would it be just an epistemological one?).

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

14th August 2006, 22:36

Rosa:

I think that the discussion on Lenin and his ability to derive a correct political practice from a mystical pseudo-theory is ongoing on the other thread; this is the reason I am not addressing your latest post here.

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

15th August 2006, 00:09

Luis,

But, theorically, it should be pointed that, since man is part of nature, its interactions with nature aren't purely externalist. The dicotomy between natural and cultural cannot be as abrupt as the dicotomy between natural and "spiritual" or supernatural.

Of course. In fact not only is our relationship with the external environment important but also our biological condition - we are a species of animal in nature; the result of a long-standing evolutionary process. However, we're distinctive in that we rarely act on instinct - we act consciously and rationally upon nature rather than act because of our nature. This means that there isn't a direct relationship between nature and culture; otherwise our societies would reflect an easily known human nature.

One of the chief proposals of Historical Materialism is that human society needs to be understood historically. From here, I'd argue (very unoriginally) that culture is more a product of history than nature.

"Consciousness" is something that seems, a) to be entirely natural; and b) ultimately irreducible to nature. Now, how can something that stems entirely out from nature be ultimately irreducible to nature? If there is a solution for this problem (let's, carefully, not label it a contradiction), it seems to beg for a new concept that would make a proper mediation, isn't it? What could it be?

Why isn't it reducible to nature? It's the result of having a big brain. Many other species have consciousness (they know when they're hungry, they know when they smell prey, they know when the wind blows and moves a twig in the forest, etc.); what they lack is 'self-consciousness' and a theory of mind.

In terms of how Marx bridged the gap between external reality and subjective mind, he introduced the concept of sensuous human practice. It follows that his concern about our relationship to nature is not with how nature acts upon us, but on how we act upon it and transform both it and ourselves.

It's quite interesting to think about how our increased mastery over nature, and the societies that we create as a consequence of that, becomes part of our evolutionary journey. For instance, I believe there's evidence that the agricultural revolution over 8,000 years ago was followed by genetic changes as people began to establish larger settlements and increase the complexity of their interaction. It seems that the more complex our societies become, the smarter we get.

Marx says that the difference between the worse architect and the best bee is that the architect puts himself to work with a plan; that human activity is finalistic. Now, it comes to mind that much of human activity isn't really finalistic; the behaviour of men in the construction of capitalism seems to resemble "nature" a lot, in that the final results aren't planned at all.

Yes, the architect builds it in his imagination before building it in the real world. Again, no other species can perform this trick. I'm not sure what you mean by 'finalistic', but obviously capitalism is an open-ended system, the result of billions of finalistic decisions made by individual capitalists which are not consciously connected to a plan but motivated by their own narrow self-interest - sometimes acting as a class; but often not. That's one of the reasons we want rid of it. But it also demonstrates the complexity of social reality - and yes, it would perhaps be more useful using nature and evolution as a metaphor for society rather than the architects plan.

Agreed, but to the effect that we should consider that "dialectics" arise at the moment in which "counsciousness" arises (instead, for instance, of the moment in which life arises, or molecular organisation) I still think that we would need a more precise definition of "counciousness" and a theory of why it inaugurates such new onthological stage (or would it be just an epistemological one?).

No, I think it arises when humans begin to act self-consciously upon nature and forge societies.

I'm not too clear on the meaning of your last statement.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th August 2006, 00:51

LH; yes well I'll leave you two to exchange mystical pleasantries.

LuÃs Henrique

15th August 2006, 01:14

Why isn't it reducible to nature?

Not all nature is conscious, so you can't reduce counsciousness to nature.

Many other species have consciousness (they know when they're hungry, they know when they smell prey, they know when the wind blows and moves a twig in the forest, etc.); what they lack is 'self-consciousness' and a theory of mind.

So you make a distinction between "counsciousness" and "self-consciousness". Fine, it is a good distinction. In any way, what I said about counsciousness stands for self-consciousness.

In terms of how Marx bridged the gap between external reality and subjective mind, he introduced the concept of sensuous human practice.

Certainly. Which means knowledge, for Marx, is active knowledge, not contemplative wisdom. But the problem remains in that the subjective mind is simultaneously entirely natural, in the sence that it
It's the result of having a big brain. as you aptly put it, and stands, in another sence, opposed to nature (which, by the way, I suspect is the historical origin of the concept of supernatural):
we act upon it and transform both it and ourselves (because we are self-counscious, I believe?).

I think that the concept we need here is the concept of level; the subjective mind is entirely natural on one level (like a software is a series of zeroes and ones in one level), but is opposed to nature in another, "higher" level (like the same software is a word editor or a videogame in another level).

I'm not sure what you mean by 'finalistic'

That men propose an end to their own activity, and then act accordingly to attain the proposed end.

obviously capitalism is an open-ended system, the result of billions of finalistic decisions made by individual capitalists which are not consciously connected to a plan but motivated by their own narrow self-interest - sometimes acting as a class; but often not.

Yes; from here one of my favourite analogies: capitalism is the opposite of a computer; a computer is a smart machine made up of stupid pieces, capitalism is a stupid machine made up of smart pieces.

yes, it would perhaps be more useful using nature and evolution as a metaphor for society rather than the architects plan.

As long as such society is capitalist, yes.

No, I think it arises when humans begin to act self-consciously upon nature and forge societies.

I'm not too clear on the meaning of your last statement.

It is your argument that dialectics is related to social science, not to biology or chemistry. So it would be reasonable to conclude that dialectics is related to self-consciousness (which is the phenomenon studied in social sciences), not to life (which is the subject of biology) or molecular organisation (which is the subject of chemistry)? In this case, the appearance of a new onthological object (self-counsciosness) would explain the need for a different epistemological apparatus (dialectics)?

I am assuming, perhaps wrongly, that some kind of correspondence must exist between the organisation of the objective reality and the organisation of the subjective mind; at very least, the subjective mind must be organised in a way that can appropriately "reflect" the objective reality, isn't it?

Luís Henrique

Hit The North

15th August 2006, 02:54

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14 2006, 10:52 PM
LH; yes well I'll leave you two to exchange mystical pleasantries.
How wonderfully predictable of you, Rosa. :) But you're right, it is pleasant to work through some issues without getting the hi-hat.

Luis,

Not all nature is conscious, so you can't reduce counsciousness to nature.

Well not all nature is trees, either. I don't really understand the point of that remark.

I think that the concept we need here is the concept of level; the subjective mind is entirely natural on one level (like a software is a series of zeroes and ones in one level), but is opposed to nature in another, "higher" level (like the same software is a word editor or a videogame in another level).

I don't understand either, how or why the subjective mind is opposed to nature, any more than the eye or the tongue is opposed to nature. As far as I know, the subjective mind is the product of a specific and highly complex biological organ called the brain. It does not exist independently of nature and so I can't see how it can be opposed to nature.

Yes; from here one of my favourite analogies: capitalism is the opposite of a computer; a computer is a smart machine made up of stupid pieces, capitalism is a stupid machine made up of smart pieces.

I like that analogy very much.

As long as such society is capitalist, yes.

No the analogy of nature and evolution could be applied to non-capitalist societies. Although I'm not sure the analogy gives us much insight, except in terms of appreciating complexity. In fact, when the analogy is pushed too far you end up with a kind of Durkheimian reformism at best, or at worst, social darwinism.

It is your argument that dialectics is related to social science, not to biology or chemistry. So it would be reasonable to conclude that dialectics is related to self-consciousness (which is the phenomenon studied in social sciences), not to life (which is the subject of biology) or molecular organisation (which is the subject of chemistry)? In this case, the appearance of a new onthological object (self-counsciosness) would explain the need for a different epistemological apparatus (dialectics)?

I think, perhaps for Marx, the new ontological category is sensuous human activity (or praxis) and the inate self-consciousness of the human mind is an important element. I'm not too clear on this at the moment. Perhaps Rosa can help (we can but hope! :rolleyes: ).

But as I've said, I certainly wouldn't argue that chemical or physical phenomena "followed the dialectic". For a start I don't know enough about chemistry or physics. But like Rosa, I'd reject Dialectical Materialism as presented by Engels and Plekhanov and others as a fairly unproven and redundant superscience - and certainly not something needed by the revolutionary movement.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th August 2006, 04:00

Z:

How wonderfully predictable of you, Rosa.

The only thing is, so are you....

Hit The North

15th August 2006, 04:15

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15 2006, 02:01 AM
Z:

How wonderfully predictable of you, Rosa.

The only thing is, so are you....
Yes and neither of us seem to get much in the way of sleep.

But I'm going to try. Night night. x

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th August 2006, 04:48

Ah, but I come out at night, and bite the heads off dialecticians, if they are lucky....

apathy maybe

15th August 2006, 14:22

Originally posted by Luís Henrique[/quote+--> (Luís Henrique[/quote)can we define what "scientific means" are?[/b]You know, science...

Originally posted by Luís [email protected]
I am "against" capitalism, and the reason I am against capitalism is that capitalism is, in my opinion, very much real. Should I be against fairies and gods for the same reason, or there is a different reason we should oppose them?You should be against capitalism because it is "nasty" (and very real). You should fight against the myths of fairies and gods because, while they do not exist, they promote irrationality.

Luís Henrique
Yet, this is the most common belief here. Some even propose that non-materialists be restricted. Where does this idea come from, and why do you think it is wrong?People think that non-materialists and communists can't be the same because the confuse communism with Marxism (which is materialist). The fact that there have been communistic communities that have centred around a shared religious belief is proof enough that communism does not mean materialism. You have them in the Americas, you have the Diggers in England during the revolution, and the Anabaptists in southern France.

Communism And Freedom

15th August 2006, 18:37

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 14 2006, 11:52 AM
Materialism encompasses a lot of assumptions - the prime one being that there is an objective material reality which is independent of human perception; a secondary, but important proposition is that this objective reality can be accessed and understood via human perception and thinking.

From a Marxist point of view (i.e. Historical Materialism) the main proposition is that the course of human life is partly the result of the objective circumstances in which people find themselves. However, despite Marx beginning his analysis with humanity's relationship to nature, Historical Materialism is really concerned with man's relationship to man and the way this is conditioned by social forces which exist independently of individual will.

In other words, people create society by forming definite relations which then take on an objective, material force and compell individuals to act in specific ways. Humans are both the creators of society and the creatures of society.

The materialist dialectic (as a mode of analysis) is important in order to demonstrate the relationship between human action and the objective circumstances. It enables us to appreciate both the constraining elements of social forces and the creative capacity of human social action as elements within a mediating totality. This is what makes Marxist materialism an indispensible tool of revolutionary action and theory.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

Hear, hear. I agree.

As an Anarchist, I appreciate the amazing depth that historical materialism and dialectic materialism take in examining human society and man's relation to man.

Where I differ from Marx is that I believe idealism is just as much a part of man's relation with his surroundings and with himself as materialism. I guess one could call me a dialectic monist (as opposed to materialist or idealist). :P

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th August 2006, 20:56

Hit The North

15th August 2006, 20:59

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 15 2006, 06:57 PM
Don't get too excited C & F, dialectical materialism (despite this anomalous thread), has been systematically trashed at this site over the last few months by us consistent Marxist materialists.

More details at my site; link below
Rosa, are you in advertising?

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th August 2006, 21:34

Z, you, of all people, should know better than to ask that question: I am too keen to tell the truth to be in advertising.

Rosa Lichtenstein

15th August 2006, 21:36

Double post in error!!

Communism And Freedom

16th August 2006, 06:41

Ah, materialism. Materialism has come such a long way from the days of the 18th century in which it became popular amongs the intellectual community. Materialism in the 20th century was different from the 19th century materialism of Marx's day.

Sometimes it makes me wonder how up-to-date on science people are when they talk about Materialism, because most materialists I've heard and met still seem to believe in 19th century materialism. Materialism in the 21st century is far more advanced than just the position "Matter is all that exists and everything is just illusion/delusion."

Quantum Physics is one of my favorite scientific fields of study, because it casts doubt on both materialism and idealism alike. It makes us wonder, "Why assume that matter is inherently existent? Why assume that the mental is inherently existent?"

Communism And Freedom

16th August 2006, 06:45

Don't get too excited C & F, dialectical materialism (despite this anomalous thread), has been systematically trashed at this site over the last few months by us consistent Marxist materialists.

More details at my site; link below

Really? Interesting.

I didn't say I was a dialectic materialist, I'm a neutral/dialectic monist (neither materialist or idealist). But even if dialectics in general is wrong, I still lean towards neutral monism.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th August 2006, 11:37

C&F, forgive me over-hastily attributing dialectical materialism to you!

However, all forms of dialectics have been trashed here, so my slip was merely a matter of detail only.

Moreover, at my site, I also trash all forms of philosophy: dualism, monism, anythingism.

Why? Well we have been through all this on other threads at this site too.

[I notice, from the link on your profile page, you are perhaps into mysticism; well that is part of the reason I reject all forms of philosophy: they mystify reality, and hence power. Which is why, in contrast, all ruling-classes like mysticism. And why Marx said the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.]

Communism And Freedom

16th August 2006, 11:55

C&F, forgive me over-hastily attributing dialectical materialism to you!

That's okay. No probs. ;) I'm partially materialist and partially not. I see materialism as half-right but limited since it doesn't take non-material reality into consideration.

However, all forms of dialectics have been trashed here, so my slip was merely a matter of detail only.

Moreover, at my site, I also trash all forms of philosophy: dualism, monism, anythingism.

Why? Well we have been through all this on other threads at this site too.

So what's your personal stance then :P?

[I notice, from the link on your profile page, you are perhaps into mysticism; well that is part of the reason I reject all forms of philosophy: they mystify reality, and hence power. Which is why, in contrast, all ruling-classes like mysticism. And why Marx said the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.]

Ah you saw? :) You are right that ruling classes often do like to get into mysticism to mystify reality and keep people's minds off of actuality. But I wouldn't say that mysticism is inherently something of the ruling class because it existed long before class societies arose. I personally don't see to 'mystify' reality, I seek to understand it through a wide, universal examination taking all things into consideration. Well, that's just me personally.

My spiritual/existential searching is actually what led me to be a communist in the first place. When I examined life, reality and the universe and came to see that there is no natural hiearchy and no natural isolation, I came to realize that the belief in natural private ownership is an illusion created by society.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th August 2006, 12:08

C&F:

I have no philosophical stance, except to show all philosophy is ruling-class nonsense.

But I wouldn't say that mysticism is inherently something of the ruling class because it existed long before class societies arose.

Even if this were so (and there is no way we can say for sure), that would be no more of a reason to go along with it than we would accept religious notions.

The incoherent, pre-historic babblings of our ancestors (based on their alienated condition, and almost total ignorance) can form no part of a science of nature, or of society.

However, when our rulers adopt this form, and systematise it, then we can, and should, take a class position against it.

However, your own trajectory into socialism is interesting.

You have therefore only one more step to make: the rejection of mystical thought altogether.

[At my site, I show how ruling-class thinkers latched onto Hermetic ideas, since they found them of use in mystifying class power; such Hermetic ideas, as I am sure you are aware, formed the backbone of Hegel's Philosophy.]

Hit The North

16th August 2006, 13:49

C & F:

That's okay. No probs. wink.gif I'm partially materialist and partially not. I see materialism as half-right but limited since it doesn't take non-material reality into consideration.

What is non-material reality?

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th August 2006, 14:54

I suspect it is the interpenetrated opposite of 'material reality', which forms a nice 'unity of opposites'.

[Don't complain; everything is supposed to be contradictory, according to you DM-fans.]

Communism And Freedom

16th August 2006, 20:53

C&F:

I have no philosophical stance, except to show all philosophy is ruling-class nonsense.

Good stance. ;)

Even if this were so (and there is no way we can say for sure), that would be no more of a reason to go along with it than we would accept religious notions.

Alienation? This was before the rise of class societies. They were far less alienated than people in the 19th century. Some of those societies didn't even have a concept of private possessions.

The incoherent, pre-historic babblings of our ancestors (based on their alienated condition, and almost total ignorance) can form no part of a science of nature, or of society.

However, when our rulers adopt this form, and systematise it, then we can, and should, take a class position against it.

Actually, my existential ideas are based little on ancient mysticism and more on Quantum Science.

But not everything pre-historic can be simply haphandedly dismissed as "babbling" (let us remember that materialism itself is also unfalsifiable). Dogons (a tribe in West Africa) new about double stars and calculated stellar distance before the invention of telescopes. Human discovery existed long before the rise of 17th century science. Today's science is just the newest vehicle of human discovery.

However, your own trajectory into socialism is interesting.

You have therefore only one more step to make: the rejection of mystical thought altogether.

Actually I don't like to use the term "mystical" because of the negative connotation that goes along with it. But I don't think that it is necessary to drop my existential thought because it does not dampen my revolutionary thinking. In fact it makes me more revolutionary in a way because it reminds me there are no natural laws which justify capitalism.

I see no reason to reject studying Quantum Science.

[At my site, I show how ruling-class thinkers latched onto Hermetic ideas, since they found them of use in mystifying class power; such Hermetic ideas, as I am sure you are aware, formed the backbone of Hegel's Philosophy.]

I'm aware, and I'm against mystifying ruling class power. ;)

Communism And Freedom

16th August 2006, 20:57

C & F:

What is non-material reality?

Possible parallel or perpendicular dimensions. String Theory raises the possibility of non-material realms. It could be dimensions composed of a different manifestation of energy, matter itself is like a less energetic form of energy.

Hit The North

17th August 2006, 00:09

Originally posted by Communism And [email protected] 16 2006, 06:58 PM

C & F:

What is non-material reality?

Possible parallel or perpendicular dimensions. String Theory raises the possibility of non-material realms. It could be dimensions composed of a different manifestation of energy, matter itself is like a less energetic form of energy.
String theory?

Given that we don't even know if superstrings exist, what's the point of basing our ideas on pure speculation about what might exist if the strings do?

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2006, 02:02

C&F, apologies for the delay in replying, but over the last few days, it has been very difficult to access this site, since my internet provider is screwing around with the network.

Alienation? This was before the rise of class societies. They were far less alienated than people in the 19th century. Some of those societies didn't even have a concept of private possessions.

Alienation preceeded class society; indeed the former gave rise to the latter. Sure it got worse in class society, but that is a different matter.

Actually, my existential ideas are based little on ancient mysticism and more on Quantum Science.

Sounds like you have accepted a mystical version of the latter.

Myself, I can see nothing mystical in quantum mechanics.

(let us remember that materialism itself is also unfalsifiable)

I do not accept this as a criterion of meaning, nor is it of any use in classifying scientific propositions.

Anyway, I do not see its relevance here.

Dogons (a tribe in West Africa) new about double stars and calculated stellar distance before the invention of telescopes.

So I have heard, but I retain a healthy scepticism about such tales.

As with the things one hears about Nostrodamus, it is quite 'easy' to fit vague ideas into any form one wants.

But even if this were so, I do not see its relevance either -- I was not denying that pre-historic people knew nothing, only that their mystical babblings should not impress us.

Actually I don't like to use the term "mystical" because of the negative connotation that goes along with it. But I don't think that it is necessary to drop my existential thought because it does not dampen my revolutionary thinking.

In contrast, I prefer to keep this term, since it reminds us how the ruling class like to mystify the source of their power.

I see no reason to reject studying Quantum Science.

Did I say you should not?

The more science the better; but let's drop the mystical stuff....

Communism And Freedom

17th August 2006, 06:56

C&F, apologies for the delay in replying, but over the last few days, it has been very difficult to access this site, since my internet provider is screwing around with the network.

No prob. ;)

Alienation preceeded class society; indeed the former gave rise to the latter. Sure it got worse in class society, but that is a different matter.

Ah I see.

Sounds like you have accepted a mystical version of the latter.

Myself, I can see nothing mystical in quantum mechanics.

Some people do, some people don't. Myself, I see a larger inter-connected/inter-woven view of the universe than most of us realize. If you consider that "mystical" I guess.

What do you mean when you say "mystical"?

I do not accept this as a criterion of meaning, nor is it of any use in classifying scientific propositions.

Anyway, I do not see its relevance here.

I didn't say materialism is meaningless if that's what you thought I meant. I simply implied that I don't see it as inherently "more correct" than idealism or pluralism.

So I have heard, but I retain a healthy scepticism about such tales.

It's in their history, it's not along the lines of Nostradamus prophecies. In their history, passed down for hundreds of years, they tell of Sirius being a triple-star system (which Western scientists discovered relatively recently). Some elders in the community also know complex mathematic theorems and equations.

As with the things one hears about Nostrodamus, it is quite 'easy' to fit vague ideas into any form one wants.

I don't believe the story about aliens in their history, but I believe they might have calculated stellar distances using advanced math.

But even if this were so, I do not see its relevance either -- I was not denying that pre-historic people knew nothing, only that their mystical babblings should not impress us.

What are their "mystical babblings"?

In contrast, I prefer to keep this term, since it reminds us how the ruling class like to mystify the source of their power.

I don't mean to sound rude, but some Marxists use dialectical materialism in a way that seems similar to 'mystifying' class power. Only with the proletariat being the mystically justified ones.

Did I say you should not?

The more science the better; but let's drop the mystical stuff....

What is "mystical stuff"? If you mean things beyond materialism, I don't see how it's unscientific.

And even if I held beliefs like those of ancients (I don't really), if it does not hinder my revolutionary spirit, I see no reason to drop them. One does not have to accept European materialism to be a revolutionary.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2006, 11:45

C&F:

Myself, I see a larger inter-connected/inter-woven view of the universe than most of us realize.

And this has been held 'true' in all the mystical systems I know of (as I am sure you are aware too). Check these out:

http://www.jadedragon.com/archives/june98/tao.html

http://www.ancientquest.com/embark/hermetic.html

There is no way that this can be proven scientifically.

Sure, it is a theoretical implication of Quantum Mechanics ('entanglement', etc), but, as I said, there is no way this can be confirmed across the entire universe, for all of time (always assuming that the physical universe is the 'all' that mystics refer to, which I doubt).

And, there are many physicists, with a more secure grasp of scientific realism than others display, who question 'entanglement'.

What do you mean when you say "mystical"?

I tend to use it is as appertaining to systems of 'thought' that are avowedly mystical (connected with the belief that there is a mysterious unity between the 'soul' and 'god', or the 'one', or whatever), that there is an inexplicable interconnectedness to everything, and that reality is run by forces we cannot fully comprehend, but which we can gain some knowledge of by looking backward into the writings of various 'masters', like Hermes Trismegistus, Hegel, Lao Tzu....

In effect, it encompasses practically anything that is not genuine materialism, and it forms an important part of most forms of Idealism (particularly 'objective idealism' and 'transcendental idealism') in some way or another.

I didn't say materialism is meaningless

Well, I took you to mean that since materialism cannot be falsified, it must be metaphysical, or that its propositions are pseudo-scientific, or meaningless (a la Popper).

As for the Dogon, I prefer to accept this explanation:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/dogon.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html

http://skepdic.com/dogon.html

[This is following Hume's advice (I paraphrase and elaborate): if you encounter something odd, it is more likely that those who believe it are 1) mistaken, 2) lying, 3) are seeking fame/attention, or 4) are out to fool/rob you.

but I believe they might have calculated stellar distances using advanced math.

I doubt it, and so should you (for the reasons I noted above).

It is certainly not a secure enough piece of knowledge on which to base a system of knowledge.

What are their "mystical babblings"?

Recall, I used this phrase to depict the sorts of things you attributed to pre-historic peoples earlier, so it was dependent on you producing some examples of such pre-historic beliefs.

Of course, if there were none, then I withdraw that phrase.

I don't mean to sound rude, but some Marxists use dialectical materialism in a way that seems similar to 'mystifying' class power. Only with the proletariat being the mystically justified ones.

Precisely, that is one reason why I am an anti-dialectician (hence the name of my site: 'anti-dialectics.org'); check this out:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51742

And the proletariat are not 'mystically' anything in my system; they are the only force on earth capable of stopping the destruction of our planet, and ending capitalist oppression/exploitation.

There is no guarantee they will succeed, but nothing else can end class division. Nothing mystical here; just hard-headed historical materialism.

What is "mystical stuff"? If you mean things beyond materialism, I don't see how it's unscientific.

See above.

And even if I held beliefs like those of ancients (I don't really), if it does not hinder my revolutionary spirit, I see no reason to drop them. One does not have to accept European materialism to be a revolutionary.

I agree, but it will make you prone to accepting substitutionist ideas.

Why and how?

Check these out:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...(stitutionists) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm#Sub(stitutionists))

Hit The North

17th August 2006, 15:14

At the risk of derailing the thread:

Rosa:

Alienation preceeded class society; indeed the former gave rise to the latter. Sure it got worse in class society, but that is a different matter.

What then is the origin of alienation if it pre-exists class society and how can the abolition of class society result in the de-alienation of man?

Also, Rosa, given that the concept of alienation is rooted in the work of Hegel and tends to be prioritised by so-called Hegelian-Marxists who insist that the concept itself is only intelligable within the dialectic, do you reject the concept as another example of mysticism?

It seems to me that alienation is mired in philosophical abstraction and remains impervious to empirical investigation.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2006, 18:58

Z:

What then is the origin of alienation if it pre-exists class society and how can the abolition of class society result in the de-alienation of man?

It is a basic idea in the '1844 Philosophical Manuscripts'; in pre-class society human beings have a sense of their own freedom but they are oppressed on every side by nature.

In order to free themselves from that opression it is necessary for them to form social structures, based on the division of labour.

But in doing that, while humanity progressively frees itself from nature's oppression, it only succeeds in subjecting itself to class oppression.

A socialist society will use the gains made by class society, but in abolishing class division, humanity will free itself from class oppression, without going back to the oppression of nature.

In entering the 'realm of freedom', as Marx called it in Capital volume 3, humanity will further overcome its alienation from itself and from nature -- by controlling both in a conscious and democratic fashion (as best it can). As necessary labour time is reduced, human beings will become freer to chose what they want to be, as opposed to what they have to be because of these two former oppressive states of affairs.

Sure, alienation will never completely disappear, but we will be the masters of our own destiny to an increasing extent as knowledge and technique grow.

I summarise, here, I hope you know!

Also, Rosa, given that the concept of alienation is rooted in the work of Hegel and tends to be prioritised by so-called Hegelian-Marxists who insist that the concept itself is only intelligable within the dialectic, do you reject the concept as another example of mysticism?

Well, I am quite happy to ditch this Hegelian notion, and interpret it materialistically, along the lines metioned above.

It's just a useful shorthand. [It is fact, based on ideas in Rousseau, among others.]

And it is not an abstraction; you feel it everytime you get pissed off with something that happens in capitalism. So do others.

Eminently concrete.

And psychologists can and do study it.

Communism And Freedom

17th August 2006, 21:55

And this has been held 'true' in all the mystical systems I know of (as I am sure you are aware too). Check these out:

http://www.jadedragon.com/archives/june98/tao.html

http://www.ancientquest.com/embark/hermetic.html

There is no way that this can be proven scientifically.

Sure, it is a theoretical implication of Quantum Mechanics ('entanglement', etc), but, as I said, there is no way this can be confirmed across the entire universe, for all of time (always assuming that the physical universe is the 'all' that mystics refer to, which I doubt).

True, but scientifically, if things could be totally independent of one another and being able to exist in a vacuum, wouldn't that present a problem for Cause & Effect?

And, there are many physicists, with a more secure grasp of scientific realism than others display, who question 'entanglement'.

The scientific theory of interdependence has even been supported by physicists such as Stephen Hawking.

I tend to use it is as appertaining to systems of 'thought' that are avowedly mystical (connected with the belief that there is a mysterious unity between the 'soul' and 'god', or the 'one', or whatever), that there is an inexplicable interconnectedness to everything, and that reality is run by forces we cannot fully comprehend, but which we can gain some knowledge of by looking backward into the writings of various 'masters', like Hermes Trismegistus, Hegel, Lao Tzu....

Well that's not what I believe in (the looking backwards to writings of the past thing). I do believe in a "soul" of sorts although it's certainly not like the soul of most religions. I believe that the 'soul' is simply the consciousness of a person's ever changing personality. I do not believe in an eternal soul, although I believe in the possibility of reincarnation.

It sounds like you have a stereotype in your mind of what you think I would believe or be like. Why don't you just ask me what do I believe first instead of assuming? :)

In effect, it encompasses practically anything that is not genuine materialism, and it forms an important part of most forms of Idealism (particularly 'objective idealism' and 'transcendental idealism') in some way or another.

I see no reason to embrace or accept either materialism or idealism a priori in the first place. Both of them start off from unfalsifiable fundamental assumptions.

Well, I took you to mean that since materialism cannot be falsified, it must be metaphysical, or that its propositions are pseudo-scientific, or meaningless (a la Popper).

Of coruse not. :) I simply see materialism as relatively true but not necessarily objectively true. In other words, matter might be self-existent from the perspective of a material being, but not necessarily self-existent from a quantum perspective.

With the term "metaphysical", I simply use the term in it's classical meaning: 'beyond physical'.

As for the Dogon, I prefer to accept this explanation:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/dogon.html

http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html

http://skepdic.com/dogon.html

[This is following Hume's advice (I paraphrase and elaborate): if you encounter something odd, it is more likely that those who believe it are 1) mistaken, 2) lying, 3) are seeking fame/attention, or 4) are out to fool/rob you.

I've always believed that the Dogon simply used complex math to calculate stellar distance and astrophysical orbitation. I don't see why it's so hard for us moderners to believe that people had complex mathematical knowledge prior to the European Scientific Revolution. In fact, I've read that there was more scientific knowledge in 200 BCE than there was in 1500 CE.

And as for Hume's advice, I respectfully disagree. The scientific thing to do is investigate all claims, not just off-handedly dismiss ones that may sound fantastic. 300 years ago, the notion of traveling to the Moon sounded like fantasy, but we ended up doing it anyway. Many fantastic claims are a simple case of mistaken assumption, but some are not.

There are some things that occur in our universe which simply cannot be given a simple explanation with our current knowledge. Now that doesn't mean we should turn to religion to give us the answers, but it doesn't mean that we should dismiss them because of a phobia that it will lead to religious dogma if we speculate and investigate. I have a feeling that as our knowledge of the universe expands, it would shock materialists and religionists alike.

I doubt it, and so should you (for the reasons I noted above).

It is certainly not a secure enough piece of knowledge on which to base a system of knowledge.

So you're saying they had no advanced math? No one (at least not me) said anything about aliens or astral projecting to gain the knowledge.

Recall, I used this phrase to depict the sorts of things you attributed to pre-historic peoples earlier, so it was dependent on you producing some examples of such pre-historic beliefs.

Of course, if there were none, then I withdraw that phrase.

I view the pre-historic speculations of the ancients as pre-scientific philosophy. Doesn't mean that it's simply "babble" (granted much of it is scientifically), but some ancient philosophy was actually based off of theories built around phenomena they discovered and experienced.

That doesn't mean it's relevant today however.

IPrecisely, that is one reason why I am an anti-dialectician (hence the name of my site: 'anti-dialectics.org'); check this out:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51742

Will do! ;)

And the proletariat are not 'mystically' anything in my system; they are the only force on earth capable of stopping the destruction of our planet, and ending capitalist oppression/exploitation.

There is no guarantee they will succeed, but nothing else can end class division. Nothing mystical here; just hard-headed historical materialism.

No argument from me. :)

I agree, but it will make you prone to accepting substitutionist ideas.

Why and how?

Check these out:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...(stitutionists) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm#Sub(stitutionists))

Hmm, actually she's right in a way. When I first became a socialist, I was still prone to ruling class ideologies. In fact, I once debating with a Libertarian who used historical materialism to try to justify capitalist rule and claim that a proletarian revolution would be impossible.

His claims disturbed me because they made me question why I believed there would be a proletarian revolution. I went back and studied historical materialism and I studied the writings of Neo-Marxists as well. I actually discovered that when viewed culturally and perspectively, both historical materialism and historical idealism made capitalism unfeasible. Historical materialism shows that the material contradictions of the capitalist system causes it's internal decay. Historical idealism shows that the cognitive dissonance that capitalism requires for it's participants to believe would lead to it's destruction as the reality of capitalism, as opposed to capitalist theory and rhetoric, become more apparent as conditions worsen.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th August 2006, 23:03

C&F:

True, but scientifically, if things could be totally independent of one another and being able to exist in a vacuum, wouldn't that present a problem for Cause & Effect?

Well, in opposing this view of nature, I am not recommending its opposite, that everything is disconnected. It could be a mixture of both, or something else.

The scientific theory of interdependence has even been supported by physicists such as Stephen Hawking.

Scientists are well known for changing their minds, and on a regular basis.

Moreover, Hawking may believe this, but there is no way that he, or anyone else, can show that everything is interconnected -- for one thing, we have no idea what 'everything' is.

Check this out:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/meta.html

I believe that the 'soul' is simply the consciousness of a person's ever changing personality.

Well, this is just a belief, and can form no basis for a materialist view of nature.

Apart form the fact that you have to reify a verb (i.e., 'to be conscious') to make it work.

In other words, the only evidence that 'consciousness' exists, is a piece of linguistic tinkering.

It sounds like you have a stereotype in your mind of what you think I would believe or be like. Why don't you just ask me what do I believe first instead of assuming?

I could say the same of you.

But, up to now, it looks like you are partially, at least, living up to the 'stereotype'; I think I could have predicted this:

I believe in the possibility of reincarnation

This is par for the course!

Why do you keep appealing to falsifiability?

Both of them start off from unfalsifiable fundamental assumptions.

I do not accept it as a criterion (of anything), and I'd like to see you try to show it can be so used.

This is quite apart from the fact that you seem to be quite fond of a few such assumptions yourself.

In contrast, my acceptance of materialism is not based on any assumptions; materialism is given in our use of ordinary language.

I don't see why it's so hard for us moderns to believe that people had complex mathematical knowledge prior to the European Scientific Revolution. In fact, I've read that there was more scientific knowledge in 200 BCE than there was in 1500 CE.

Well, we can account for their knowledge in several ways, among which are these:

1) They were given this knowledge by superior beings;

2) They managed to develop complicated mathematics based on primitive technique, something that is impossible to explain;

3) The original anthropologists screwed up when they described the Dogon.

The available evidence suggests the latter is the case. [If you read those links I posted you will see this is so.]

And as for Hume's advice, I respectfully disagree. The scientific thing to do is investigate all claims, not just off-handedly dismiss ones that may sound fantastic.

Well, Hume did not say we should not investigate things, only that we should not just believe the odd things people say, just because they say it

It's called 'not being naive'.

There are some things that occur in our universe which simply cannot be given a simple explanation with our current knowledge. Now that doesn't mean we should turn to religion to give us the answers, but it doesn't mean that we should dismiss them because of a phobia that it will lead to religious dogma if we speculate and investigate. I have a feeling that as our knowledge of the universe expands, it would shock materialists and religionists alike.

Yes, I have heard this loads of times, but this 'shocking' stuff never seems to turn up.

And I think Hume's criteria explain why: it is far more likely that people are mistaken, naive or charlatans, than this 'shocking' stuff is correct.

On balance of probabilities, I think we can discount such tales.

So you're saying they had no advanced math?

There is no evidence they had any such, so I am saying that if you think they did, then you need to show it (with hard evidence), rather than surmise it based on faulty anthropology.

No one (at least not me) said anything about aliens or astral projecting to gain the knowledge.

Well, [i]you might not, but others have.

And those assertions (about aliens etc.) were based on the same faulty anthropology; so all three claims (these two, and yours) have nothing to support them but this dubious data.

I view the pre-historic speculations of the ancients as pre-scientific philosophy.

Well, forgive me for saying this, but this is just more conjecture on your part.

I'd agree with you if you said it was pre-historic science (on this see C Conner, (2005), 'A People’s History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And “Low Mechanicks”' (Nation Books)), but why you want to call it 'Philosophy' beats me.

But since no philosophy makes any sense, I'd be loathe to attribute this to our ancient ancestors.

Communism And Freedom

18th August 2006, 05:29

Well, in opposing this view of nature, I am not recommending its opposite, that everything is disconnected. It could be a mixture of both, or something else.

Hmm, sounds like Chaos Theory. Interesting. Go on. =D

Well, this is just a belief, and can form no basis for a materialist view of nature.

Materialist? Maybe not. But who says nature has to be confined to a materialist view?

Apart form the fact that you have to reify a verb (i.e., 'to be conscious') to make it work.

In other words, the only evidence that 'consciousness' exists, is a piece of linguistic tinkering.

True, but matter can't be proven to exist either without appealing to physical senses. In a way, all views require some kind of circular logic.

I could say the same of you.

Sorry if I'm stereotyping you. :(

But, up to now, it looks like you are partially, at least, living up to the 'stereotype'; I think I could have predicted this:

This is par for the course!

Why do you keep appealing to falsifiability?

Isn't empircism based off the concept of falsifiability?

I do not accept it as a criterion (of anything), and I'd like to see you try to show it can be so used.

What do you mean?

In contrast, my acceptance of materialism is not based on any assumptions; materialism is given in our use of ordinary language.

So what do you accept it off of? If you say that it is a given, that means you're accepting it a priori.

Well, we can account for their knowledge in several ways, among which are these:

1) They were given this knowledge by superior beings;

Which I doubt.

2) They managed to develop complicated mathematics based on primitive technique, something that is impossible to explain;

Does one need modern equipment to make complex calculations? Egyptians used complex math to design pyramids without our modern computers or equipment.

Well, Hume did not say we should not investigate things, only that we should not just believe the odd things people say, just because they say it

It's called 'not being naive'.

If that's what he mean, I agree. :)

Yes, I have heard this loads of times, but this 'shocking' stuff never seems to turn up.

And I think Hume's criteria explain why: it is far more likely that people are mistaken, naive or charlatans, than this 'shocking' stuff is correct.

On balance of probabilities, I think we can discount such tales.

But that's going beyond Hume's advice and discounting them without finding evidence to do so. Unless Hume meant that if a story sounds weird assume that it is false or imaginary.

If scientists had done that, European scientists never would have found gorillas. Gorillas were once thought by Europeans to be just a legend because they sounded so unlike any animal they had known.

There is no evidence they had any such, so I am saying that if you think they did, then you need to show it (with hard evidence), rather than surmise it based on faulty anthropology.

Fair enough.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-4/p30.html

Well, you might not, but others have.

And those assertions (about aliens etc.) were based on the same faulty anthropology; so all three claims (these two, and yours) have nothing to support them but this dubious data.

Personally I don't believe they were taught math by aliens. I believe that aliens might exist, but I doubt the majority of the stories about so-called encounters with them.

Well, forgive me for saying this, but this is just more conjecture on your part.

I'd agree with you if you said it was pre-historic science (on this see C Conner, (2005), 'A People’s History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And “Low Mechanicks”' (Nation Books)), but why you want to call it 'Philosophy' beats me.

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention and used the wrong word. I meant "science".

But since no philosophy makes any sense, I'd be loathe to attribute this to our ancient ancestors.

Communism is a philosophy. A philosophy is simply an intellectualization of phenomena. That includes Capitalism is as well. All politics and economics are philosophies. Or soft sciences at best. It's nothing to be ashamed of to believe something isn't scientifically proven.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2006, 11:58

C&F:

Hmm, sounds like Chaos Theory. Interesting. Go on.

Well, no (it's not chaos theory, just my refusal to theorise), and since I am not a scientist, I won't speculate.

But who says nature has to be confined to a materialist view?

No one, it’s just that any other view will decay into nonsense pretty quickly.

In a way, all views require some kind of circular logic.

If so, then that is circular, too, and we can ignore it.

Isn't empiricism based off the concept of falsifiability?

Well, this dubious notion was popularised by Popper, who was not an empiricist.

What do you mean?

Just what I say, that this notion is useless, and best ignored.

So what do you accept it off of? If you say that it is a given, that means you're accepting it a priori.

Not a priori, it is that any attempt to say anything that makes sense depends on a use of ordinary language, and since the latter is materially-grounded in human practice, it is impossible to gainsay materialism.

Does one need modern equipment to make complex calculations? Egyptians used complex math to design pyramids without our modern computers or equipment.

First, I referred to technique, not equipment -- the former of which the Egyptians had, and they had that because of their complex social structures. Unless the Dogon had these, then the supposition that they were using advanced mathematics is baseless.

Second, the fact that the Egyptians did this or that on the earth in no way supports the indirect inference that the Dogon did the same with respect to distant star systems, to observe which you do need equipment, and more especially if they got the details wrong.

Thirdly, we know about egyptian mathematics from artefacts (etc), so whatever we say about them is not baseless. All we have of the Dogon is highly suspect mythology, based on dubious anthropology. No other evidence exists that they had an advanced form of mathematics.

So Hume's scepticism about the odd idea that such a tribe could study a distant star system is, I think, eminently reasonable.

[b]But that's going beyond Hume's advice and discounting them without finding evidence to do so. Unless Hume meant that if a story sounds weird assume that it is false or imaginary.

Hume's point is that, it is more likely that odd stories people tell are either mistaken, fabricated or mendacious, not that they are a priori wrong.

So, unless you have more evidence than you seem to have (all I have seen up to now is an assertion, and an erroneous analogy drawn against Egyptian culture), Hume's criterion is, as I said, applicable in this case.

No one is saying this odd idea about the Dogon is impossible, just that there is nothing to support it other than highly dubious anthropology, based on selective evidence (as those links show). In that case, it is far more likely here that the originators of this tale were either mistaken, liars or rip-off merchants.

[b]If scientists had done that, European scientists never would have found gorillas. Gorillas were once thought by Europeans to be just a legend because they sounded so unlike any animal they had known.

Recall, Hume's criterion is not about preventing research, just about the giving of credence and the use of time. If a story sounds fabulous (like the Dogon one does) then only a very naive person will spend time on it. If more evidence turns up, fine -- we will revise our ideas.

And the gorilla story is no use; remember for every correct traveller’s tale about amazing animals there were ten that were fabulous.

So, scientists are right to be sceptical.

Fair enough.

Thanks for that link, but I am not denying that ancient people had mathematical skills, only that the evidence does not support the Sirius myth.

Your link does not contain anything that supports the Dogon tale. Sure the Dogon knew about star positions, as did the ancient people of Britain, and elsewhere. Calling this 'advanced math' is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.

Moreover, detailed knowledge of twin star systems, elliptical orbits and the rest are not supported by this superficial article. [In fact, as my links show, the Dogon believed that this star was a three-object system, when we now know it is only two. The elliptical orbit was fabricated by the original anthropologists, too. In addition, other details were wrong.]

Communism is a philosophy.

I deny this.

Sure, comrades have often said this sort of thing, and dialectical materialism is a philosophy, but since communism does not need this fake theory, and it has no practical applications (other than to confuse), then communism is (or should be seen as) a science, and not a philosophy.

A philosophy is simply an intellectualization of phenomena.

It is in fact a mystification of the phenomena.

It's nothing to be ashamed of to believe something isn't scientifically proven.

Agreed, but what has that got to do with philosophy?

The theses philosophers come out with are too confused to be proved, or disproved.

Communism And Freedom

18th August 2006, 12:39

No one, it’s just that any other view will decay into nonsense pretty quickly.

You have a point. At this point all we can do is speculate materially since that's all we have access to.

Not a priori, it is that any attempt to say anything that makes sense depends on a use of ordinary language, and since the latter is materially-grounded in human practice, it is impossible to gainsay materialism.

Ah, I get what you're saying.

First, I referred to technique, not equipment -- the former of which the Egyptians had, and they had that because of their complex social structures. Unless the Dogon had these, then the supposition that they were using advanced mathematics is baseless. [But see below.]

Does one need complex social structures to have advanced math? They had/have an affinity for math and astronomy in their culture, which is maybe what fostered discovery.

Second, the fact that the Egyptians did this or that on the earth in no way supports the indirect inference that the Dogon did the same with respect to distant star systems, to observe which you do need equipment, and more especially if they got the details wrong. [But see below, too.]

Thirdly, we know about egyptian mathematics from artefacts (etc), so whatever we say about them is not baseless. All we have of the Dogon is highly suspect mythology, based on dubious anthropology. No other evidence exists that they had an advanced form of mathematics.

So Hume's scepticism about the odd idea that such a tribe could study a distant star system is, I think, eminently reasonable.

Well this science news article seems to support the idea that they had an advanced math.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-4/p30.html

Recall, Hume's criterion is not about preventing research, just about the giving of credence and the use of time. If a story sounds fabulous (like the Dogon one does) then only a very naive person will spend time on it. If more evidence turns up, fine -- we will revise our ideas.

And the gorilla story is no use; remember for every correct traveller’s tale about amazing animals there were ten that were fabulous.

So, scientists are right to be sceptical.

True, I was just trying to determine whether he was being skeptical or cynical.

Thanks for that link, but I am not denying that ancient people had mathematical skills, only that the evidence does not support the Sirius myth.

Your link does not contain anything that supports the Dogon tale. Sure the Dogon knew about star positions, as did the ancient people of Britain, and elsewhere. Calling this 'advanced math' is a bit of an exaggeration, I think.

Moreover, detailed knowledge of twin star systems, elliptical orbits and the rest are not supported by this superficial article. [In fact, as my links show, the Dogon believed that this star was a three-object system, when we now know it is only two. The elliptical orbit was fabricated by the original anthropologists, too. In addition, other details were wrong.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogon#Robert_Temple

James Oberg had this to say:

Journalist and skeptic James Oberg collected claims that have appeared concerning Dogon mythology in his 1982 book.[9] According to Oberg, the Dogon's astronomical information resembles the knowledge and speculations of European astronomical knowledge of the late 1920's. The Dogon could have gotten their astronomical knowledge, including the information on Sirius, from European visitors before their mythology was recorded in the 1930s. Oberg also points out that the Dogons were not an isolated tribe, thus it was not even necessary for outsiders to inform the Dogon about Sirius, they could very well have acquired such knowledge abroad, passing it on to their tribe later. In this way, by the time Temple visited the Dogon in the 1970s, they had had a great deal of contact with the western world and had time to incorporate Sirius B into their religion.

Although I have doubts about his theory as there is no proof they gained knowledge from Europeans beyond speculation. They could, more likely, have calculated this and then invented a legend about having contact with aliens. Or, the "aliens" could have been another African civilization with advanced mathematic knowledge.

However, behind this all, I do sense some conscious or unconscious racism (not from you, but from some experts). Maybe to some, the idea of a tribal African civilization making advanced findings is silly because of the biased belief that one needs a class society with advanced equipment. Or maybe because they believe that African tribal people are inherently backwards and incapable of discovery on the scale of 'advanced' Europeans. Temple could have so easily believed the story as well due to the notion amongst Westerners that non-European societies are "mysterious" and "exotic".

I deny this.

Sure, comrades have often said this sort of thing, and dialectical materialism is a philosophy, but since communism does not need this fake theory, and it has no practical applications (other than to confuse), then communism is (or should be seen as) a science, and not a philosophy.

I never said communism requires dialectical materialism. I'm an Anarchist Communist. :)

But still, Communism is a soft science at best. All political, social and economic sciences are. It's not a science in the same right as physics or geology. Nor does it have to be for it to be tenable.

To equate communism with hard science, I would need hard evidence that can make accurate and specific verifiable predictions. Like, communist theory predicting the year and date of communist revolution the way calculus can predict the exact or near exact location of a star in a gravity field.

It is in fact a mystification of the phenomena.

Which all social sciences, including communism, are, if you consider that 'mystification'. Communism can't be proven to the same extent as the Law of Gravity, nor can it use scientific method or data to make predictions as science and math can. No social science can.

Agreed, but what has that got to do with philosophy?

The theses philosophers come out with are too confused to be proved, or disproved.

It has to do with philosophy because communism is a philosophy. Or a soft science at best. A philosophy can be based in soft science instead of just pure intellectual speculation.

Communism, like capitalism, takes phenomena and social trends and uses data to make best guess predictions and theorems. Which is scientific, but not scientific to the same degree as the Law of Gravity or Theory of Evolution or Theory of Relativity. Why I'm a communist is because I find communist theory to be more convincing intellectually and scientifically than capitalist theory.

JimFar

18th August 2006, 15:59

Rosa wrote:

Well, I am quite happy to ditch this Hegelian notion, and interpret it materialistically, along the lines metioned above.

It's just a useful shorthand. [It is fact, based on ideas in Rousseau, among others.]

And it is not an abstraction; you feel it everytime you get pissed off with something that happens in capitalism. So do others.

Eminently concrete.

And psychologists can and do study it.

Well, in Hegel, the notion of alienation is clearly a metaphysical concept. In fact, the idea, in its origins, seems to be theological in nature, as in the notion of sin as man's alienation from God. Rousseau partly secularized this idea in such writings as The Origins of Inequality and The Social Contract. In Hegel, this notion was still tied up with his concept of the Absolute Spirit. It's in Feurbach that we first see a fully secularized version of this concept, but even in Feuerbach, the concept is still mostly metaphysical, since he seemed to regard alienation as something that was inherent in the human condition. It is Marx who gives us a fully materialist version of the concept.

As I am sure that Rosa is well aware, back in the 1960s, Louis Althusser objected to those Marxists who were placing special emphasis on the concept of alienation. For Althusser, this concept was seen as part and parcel of a Feuerbachian humanist idelogy, which he claimed that Marx had come to reject, following an "epistemological rupture." Althusser always had trouble pinpointing when this "rupture" was supposed to have occured. In his earlier writings, he seemed to locate the time of it in the mid to late 1840s. But when critics began to point out that many of these ideas that the mature Marx had supposedly rejected, could be found in his later writings, including Capital, he found himself forced to push the timing of this rupture, later and later. I think he eventually pushed it as far up as the time that Marx wrote his Critique of the Gotha Program.

Rosa, as everyone here knows, is a fierce opponent of dialectics and Hegelianism, mostly for very sound reasons. Nevertheless, it is apparent that Marx did take many ideas out of the Hegelian tradition, including ideas like the concept of alienation, that she accepts as a valid tool of social analysis. That suggests that at least in the past, dialectics may have been able to play a useful role as a heuristic, just as has other metaphysical ideas have done in the past. A critique of metaphysics should recognize this aspect of metaphysics, even if it believed that we can now outgrow the need for metaphysical modes of thought.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2006, 20:15

JimFarr

Nevertheless, it is apparent that Marx did take many ideas out of the Hegelian tradition, including ideas like the concept of alienation, that she accepts as a valid tool of social analysis. That suggests that at least in the past, dialectics may have been able to play a useful role as a heuristic,

Thankyou once again for those comments Jim, but I do not accept this last thought.

Although there were contingent reasons why Marx used this word, any sense it has is given by the non-metaphysical experiences we have in class society.

Hence, just as religious ideas are a reflection of our own loss of power in class society (etc.), so Rousseau's use of this notion drawn from religious experience, reflects that loss (etc.) too.

So, Marx could have arrived at the same point without either Rousseau, Hegel or Christianity (although of course, he might not have -- which is why I used the word 'contingent' earlier).

Hence, dialectics is still useless, except in a negative sense: the use of the term 'alienation' it is in effect a reflection of its own origin in alienated ruling-class thought (interpreted materially, of course), and Marx's own class position vis-à-vis that.

Saying it is useful is like saying a venom is useful otherwise we would not have thought to have looked for the antidote.

Rosa Lichtenstein

18th August 2006, 21:07

C&F:

At this point all we can do is speculate materially since that's all we have access to.

Well, I do not like the word 'speculate' since it arises from ancient hermetic thought anyway.

A good old-fashioned "think" will do.

Does one need complex social structures to have advanced math?

I think that there are very good anthropological/historical materialist reasons for supposing so.

Recall, I am not denying 'less advanced societies' could do mathematical calculations, only that they (i.e., the Dogon) were not as 'advanced' as you depict them (or if you still suppose they were, you/we have no evidence to support that idea).

Mathematics in the West did not become 'advanced' until we imported algebra from the Arabs, and our social structures allowed it to develop.

Hence, if you could go back in time to, say, Thales, and tried to teach him partial differential equations, for instance, you would lose him pretty quickly.

The material and conceptual resources would not be extant then for you to be able to do this.

Well this science news article seems to support the idea that they had an advanced math.

I read it carefully, and if it does suggest this then this is an indirect inference, and not evidence.

Secondly, it is impossible to say how complex this mathematics was since cultural 'contamination' could have occurred in the last few centuries (as those links I posted earlier suggested, but see below).

By way of contrast, we do have the artefacts (etc.) that allow us to say how complex was the mathematics the Egyptians used.

But all of this is irrelevant if the anthropological data on which the original Sirius fable was based is suspect anyway.

Sirius B is 2 seconds of arc away from Sirius A (i.e., 1/1800th of a degree! -- Tycho Brahe could detect differences of the order of one minute of arc (indeed Kepler trusted Tycho to an accuracy of the order of 2 minutes if arc) in the 16th century, using the best techniques then available; I doubt the Dogon could do better by a factor of 30!), and it is 10,000 times less bright. To be able to see it you need very sophisticated instruments, which the Dogon did not have.

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/sirius.html

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Bi...hies/Brahe.html (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Brahe.html)

And the detection of the orbital changes Sirius B induces in Sirius A is also a technological feat way beyond the capacity of the Dogon.

Hume's criteria are sorely needed here, especially since there are alternative explanations for what little the Dogon do know.

Although I have doubts about his theory as there is no proof they gained knowledge from Europeans beyond speculation

Well, if you read the links I posted, you will see that this is more than speculation.

And, since this is all based on dubious anthropology, as those links also show (the anthropologists had to doctor the evidence to make the Dogon believe what has been attributed to them), all this is academic anyway.

If the Dogon did not actually have this set of beliefs, then cultural cross-contamination goes by the board.

However, behind this all, I do sense some conscious or unconscious racism (not from you, but from some experts). Maybe to some, the idea of a tribal African civilization making advanced findings is silly because of the biased belief that one needs a class society with advanced equipment. Or maybe because they believe that African tribal people are inherently backwards and incapable of discovery on the scale of 'advanced' Europeans. Temple could have so easily believed the story as well due to the notion amongst Westerners that non-European societies are "mysterious" and "exotic".

Yes I am aware of this (and the best account of this can be found in the works of Martin Bernal), but the original data upon which this tale was based are faulty, so racism is irrelevant here.

And you will find the alleged Euro-centrism we Marxists are often accused of well balanced by Conner's account (in that book I mentioned a few posts ago).

Supposedly primitive people were capable of quite remarkable science and mathematics, but there is no evidence that the Dogon were more capable than western scientists were two or more centuries after Kepler and Brahe.

If there were good evidence to the contrary, I would be the first to use it against the racists, but appealing to a dodgy story (that has the Dogon believing falsehoods, and that is based on doctored data) to combat racism is not a good idea. It merely makes one look naive, or, indeed, foolish.

Which all social sciences, including communism, are, if you consider that 'mystification'.

I specifically referred to philosophical mystification, as the context will confirm.

I said nothing about genuine science, so I cannot see why you made this comment.

It has to do with philosophy because communism is a philosophy. Or a soft science at best. A philosophy can be based in soft science instead of just pure intellectual speculation.

I suspect we are just bandying with words here; if, as I do, you mean by 'philosophy' the sort of a priori superscience that has been practiced in the West since at least Thales' time, then I deny, once again, that communism is a philosophy.

If you mean by it a 'vague sort of study', then that use is too wishy-washy to do anything with.

The rest of what you say is not something I'd want to disagree with, except I deny that it is a viable criterion of science that it has to be able to 'predict'.

Communism And Freedom

20th August 2006, 09:34

I think that there are very good anthropological/historical materialist reasons for supposing so.

Recall, I am not denying 'less advanced societies' could do mathematical calculations, only that they (i.e., the Dogon) were not as 'advanced' as you depict them (or if you still suppose they were, you/we have no evidence to support that idea).

Mathematics in the West did not become 'advanced' until we imported algebra from the Arabs, and our social structures allowed it to develop.

Hence, if you could go back in time to, say, Thales, and tried to teach him partial differential equations, for instance, you would lose him pretty quickly.

The material and conceptual resources would not be extant then for you to be able to do this.

Point taken. By "advanced", I meant sciences that would have allowed them to study stars in-depth had they built astronomical technology.

Now that I think about it, what in a class society allows for advanced technology and sciences?

I read it carefully, and if it does suggest this then this is an indirect inference, and not evidence.

Secondly, it is impossible to say how complex this mathematics was since cultural 'contamination' could have occurred in the last few centuries (as those links I posted earlier suggested, but see below).

By way of contrast, we do have the artefacts (etc.) that allow us to say how complex was the mathematics the Egyptians used.

But all of this is irrelevant if the anthropological data on which the original Sirius fable was based is suspect anyway.

Sirius B is 2 seconds of arc away from Sirius A (i.e., 1/1800th of a degree! -- Tycho Brahe could detect differences of the order of one minute of arc (indeed Kepler trusted Tycho to an accuracy of the order of 2 minutes if arc) in the 16th century, using the best techniques then available; I doubt the Dogon could do better by a factor of 30!), and it is 10,000 times less bright. To be able to see it you need very sophisticated instruments, which the Dogon did not have.

http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/sirius.html

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Bi...hies/Brahe.html (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Brahe.html)

And the detection of the orbital changes Sirius B induces in Sirius A is also a technological feat way beyond the capacity of the Dogon.

Hume's criteria are sorely needed here, especially since there are alternative explanations for what little the Dogon do know.

Couldn't one determine the positions or the existence of Sirius B and C by observing Sirius A and noting the orbital eccentricities throughout it's motions through the sky over periods of time?

Well, if you read the links I posted, you will see that this is more than speculation.

And, since this is all based on dubious anthropology, as those links also show (the anthropologists had to doctor the evidence to make the Dogon believe what has been attributed to them), all this is academic anyway.

If the Dogon did not actually have this set of beliefs, then cultural cross-contamination goes by the board.

Hm, you could have a point. I found this interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2754524

And you will find the alleged Euro-centrism we Marxists are often accused of well balanced by Conner's account (in that book I mentioned a few posts ago).

Well, some (not all) Marxists are accused of being Eurocentric because Marxism, in original form was largely based off the constructs of European society and history. And some Marxists absolutely insist that people from other countries (non-European ones) adopt Marxism in it's full European form even though some parts of it (such as dialectic materialism and some historical materialist stages) may not be applicable or relevant to many non-European societies.

Supposedly primitive people were capable of quite remarkable science and mathematics, but there is no evidence that the Dogon were more capable than western scientists were two or more centuries after Kepler and Brahe.

Don't know about others, but I don't think the Dogons were 'more' capable than Western scientists two centuries afterwards, perhaps one of the reasons that people in Brahe's day didn't discover that Sirius is a multi-stellar system because people in his country in his day were largely relying on Copernican science.

If there were good evidence to the contrary, I would be the first to use it against the racists, but appealing to a dodgy story (that has the Dogon believing falsehoods, and that is based on doctored data) to combat racism is not a good idea. It merely makes one look naive, or, indeed, foolish.

Perhaps you're right. Maybe this particular example is a waste of time.

I specifically referred to philosophical mystification, as the context will confirm.

I said nothing about genuine science, so I cannot see why you made this comment.

Well, you said this earlier:

by Rosa Lichtenstein
I deny this.

Sure, comrades have often said this sort of thing, and dialectical materialism is a philosophy, but since communism does not need this fake theory, and it has no practical applications (other than to confuse), then communism is (or should be seen as) a science, and not a philosophy.

So I assumed you meant science in the usual sense (hard science). I was simply saying that, unfortunately, communism, as any political theory, can't be considered a 'science' beyond the loose definition: a system of knowledge. It's a 'science' in the sense of a soft social science.

But I find communist theory a heck of a lot more convincing than capitalist theory.

I suspect we are just bandying with words here; if, as I do, you mean by 'philosophy' the sort of a priori superscience that has been practiced in the West since at least Thales' time, then I deny, once again, that communism is a philosophy.

I agree with that. It's not a "philosophy" in the sense of sheer speculation..

If you mean by it a 'vague sort of study', then that use is too wishy-washy to do anything with.

The rest of what you say is not something I'd want to disagree with, except I deny that it is a viable criterion of science that it has to be able to 'predict'.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_me..._the_hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Predictions_from_the_hypotheses)

Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning including deductive reasoning. It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction can also be statistical and only talk about probabilities.

It is essential that the outcome be currently unknown. Only in this case does the eventuation increase the probability that the hypothesis be true. If the outcome is already known, it's called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the hypothesis.

If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet useful for the method, and must wait for others who might come afterward, and perhaps rekindle its line of reasoning. For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.

As it is right now, the scientific method holds that a scientific theorem or law must be able to make accurate and specific verifiable predictions.

One of the reason why communism would be a soft science is that it studies human society, but unlike constants and variables that scientists test in laboratories, human beings are irrational creatures. Humans, by nature are both rational and irrational. And people don't make informed decisions before acting. The study of human society, material or ideological, can never be more than soft science unless humans behaved like robots and always made level-headed, predictable rational decisions in the confines of logical algorithmic programming.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th August 2006, 13:35

C&F:

what in a class society allows for advanced technology and sciences?

It depends on how complex the social structures are, and how advanced technology is. Science is a collective activity, and the more sophisticated the latter is, the more advanced the science can become. If you do not have the machines, instruments and sources of energy, or an educated skill base, you cannot develop much beyond the basics.

Couldn't one determine the positions or the existence of Sirius B and C by observing Sirius A and noting the orbital eccentricities throughout it's motions through the sky over periods of time?

Sure but to do that you are going to have to be able to observe within a few seconds of accuracy -- something the Dogon I doubt were able to do (that is even allowing for atomspheric distortion, something they would not have known about, but until this was factored in relatively recently, even 'western' science did not get this right)).

But, once again, this whole tale is based on fabricated 'evidence'; the original anthroplogists screwed up, either deliberately or accidentally.

And whoever wrote the stuff on that BBC link you posted has not researched this 'non-story' very well.

Well, some (not all) Marxists are accused of being Eurocentric because Marxism, in original form was largely based off the constructs of European society and history. And some Marxists absolutely insist that people from other countries (non-European ones) adopt Marxism in it's full European form even though some parts of it (such as dialectic materialism and some historical materialist stages) may not be applicable or relevant to many non-European societies.

In a way you are right, but Marxism is a science, and it has had to adjust to new material as it became available -- as you see Marx himself doing later on when he did extensive research into Russian society.

Don't know about others, but I don't think the Dogons were 'more' capable than Western scientists two centuries afterwards, perhaps one of the reasons that people in Brahe's day didn't discover that Sirius is a multi-stellar system because people in his country in his day were largely relying on Copernican science.

But, you are still basing this conclusion on defective data. The Dogon tale is a dead duck; you need to move on.

As it is right now, the scientific method holds that a scientific theorem or law must be able to make accurate and specific verifiable predictions.

That is the popular view, but it is still highly controversial among the experts.

For example, any number of theories will predict the same observation set.

Second, why is prediction so important? Future events are no more significant than past ones.

Third, many erroneous theories made successful predictions, and many correct theories made false predictions.

There are many examples of each of these.

In fact there is no generally accepted criteria that define science. And, I would go further: there is no such thing as science, just many overlapping disciplines which share some features but not all (which we should call the 'scientifc enterprise') -- indeed, this is what allows Marxism to be a science.

JimFar

20th August 2006, 15:43

Rosa wrote:

Nevertheless, it is apparent that Marx did take many ideas out of the Hegelian tradition, including ideas like the concept of alienation, that she accepts as a valid tool of social analysis. That suggests that at least in the past, dialectics may have been able to play a useful role as a heuristic,

Thankyou once again for those comments Jim, but I do not accept this last thought.

My point is simply that Marx found inspiration for some of his ideas, such as his concept of alienation, in modes of thought like Hegel's that were metaphysical in character and that this is something that is not unusual in the history of science. In the natural sciences, atomic theory had its origins in the atomisms that had been developed by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers and which were clearly metaphysical in character. It was not until the 19th century, that atomic theory began to become something more than just a metaphysical theory with the work of Dalton and his successors who were able to show that if we posit the existence of atoms then the laws of constant proportions and of multiple proportions in chemistry become readily explicable. That suggests to me that metaphysics can sometimes have a heuristic character in which certain metaphysical ideas lead to and/or replaced by genuinely scientific ideas. The atomisms of the ancient Greeks and Indians were metaphysical theories that could not be tested scientifically but the atomic theories that were developed by Dalton and his successors were empirically testable and verifiable. I would suggest that the same is true in regards to the notion of alienation, a concept that had theological and metaphysical origins but which in the hands of Marx was transformed into a genuinely scientific idea that could form the basis for an empirically verifiable social science.

Rosa also writes:

So, Marx could have arrived at the same point without either Rousseau, Hegel or Christianity (although of course, he might not have -- which is why I used the word 'contingent' earlier).

I suppose it's possible that Dalton might have come up with his atomic theory of matter even if he had been completely ignorant of the ideas of people like Democritus or Lucretius but that's probably not very likely. We don't want to confuse, what Reichenbach called, the context of discovery with the context of justification. Atomic theory as developed by Dalton was justified because it provided empirically testable explanations of phenomena like the observed tendencies of chemical compunds to follow the laws of constant proportions and of multiple proportions. That, rather than the metaphysical ideas out of which atomic theory originally arose provided it with its scientific justification. But, nevertheless, metaphysical ideas like materialist atomism had played a useful heuristic role in promoting this advance in the natural sciences. I would suggest that certain ideas in the Hegelian tradition had likewise played a similarly heuristic role in helping Marx to develop his science of history.

JimFar

20th August 2006, 16:00

T follow up on my previous post, I think that Stephen Jay Gould makes my point rather elegantly in an essay, "The Patterns of Life's History" (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gould/gould_p3.html), where he wrote:

Arthur Cain brought up the subject of political implications. In a sense, I brought it on myself, but I'll defend how it happened. Niles Eldredge and I wrote the first punctuated- equilibrium paper in 1972. I wrote a follow-up in 1977, in which I tried to analyze some of the theory's social and psychological sources, because they're in every theory of gradualism, and I had tried to argue that gradualism is a quintessential notion of Victorian liberalism. I thought it would be so ridiculous and — to use a biblical term — vainglorious to claim that gradualism, at least in part, was not a truth of nature but recorded a social context, and then to argue that "punctuated equilibrium is true; it's just a fact of nature." There obviously had to be a social context for punctuated equilibrium, too. I thought it only fair to write about what might have been some of the sources of punctuated equilibrium, and since there's a long tradition in Hegelian and Marxist thought for punctuational theories of change, it was clearly not irrelevant that I had been brought up by a Marxist father. I'd learned about these things.

That's not the reason the punctuated-equilibrium theory exists — if only because Niles developed most of the ideas, and he didn't have any such background. But it is relevant that I, rather than someone else, thought of it, in that my own background is probably a relevant fact. It was necessary for me to say that; it would have been absurd to claim that gradualism is politically influenced but punctuated equilibrium is a fact of nature. People seize upon that one statement.

Historians of science make a distinction between what they call context of justification and context of discovery, and it's fair enough. There's a logic of justification, which is independent of the political and social views of the people who develop the ideas. But if you want to ask why certain people develop ideas rather than other people, and why they develop them in this decade rather than that decade, then for those questions, which are about context of discovery rather than context of justification, surely the personal side is very relevant; it has to be explored and understood. But it has very little bearing on whether the idea is right or not. The fact that I learned Marxism from my father may have predisposed me toward being friendly to the kind of ideas that culminated in punctuated equilibrium; it has absolutely nothing to do with whether punctuated equilibrium is true or not, which is an independent question that has to be validated in nature.

Here he was pointing out the heuristic role that ceertain Hegelian and Marxist ideas had played in inspiring his theory of punctuated equilbrium. He is certainly not claiming that the validity of this theory is in any way dependent on it source of inspiration, quite the contrary. Nor is he claiming that this particular source of inspiration was necessary for the theory's development, since he points out that Niles Eldredge developed similar ideas without Gould's background in Marxism.

LuÃs Henrique

20th August 2006, 20:38

Originally posted by apathy maybe
You know, science...

Hm, well, maybe I know what science is.

But it is a quite mistified word, and it has several different meanings.

From the top of my mind, science is, a) a method to enhance knowledge about things; b) the knowledge accumulated through that method; c) any knowledge accumulated, even if through other methods; d) the social organisation(s) whose task is to apply the method refered in the first option, and organise the knowledge acquired through it.

Particular confusion arises in the understanding of science as a method.

So, I will rephrase the question... what do you mean by "science"?

You should fight against the myths of fairies and gods because, while they do not exist, they promote irrationality.

Is it possible for something that does not exist to "promote" anything? How?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th August 2006, 23:40

Jim I do not doubt all you say, except that it was impossible even for one like Marx, to avoid the poisonous influence of idealism.

However, that does not mean that metaphysical ideas are of any use to anyone as I tried to argue.

And I am well aware of the standard account of the alleged relation between metaphysics and science (a fable written by and large by ruling-class hacks), but I do not buy it, and for good reason.

Naturally, I do not think for one second that someone as sophisticated as you will accept such a superficial 'argument', so you will have to wait until I publish Essay Twelve in full over the next year or so (if you can be bothered), to see why I say this (although you will be able to ascertain in oultine what I will say from my earlier Essays, and from the summary already published).

The bottom line will be that since metaphysical theses are nonsensical, no one can learn from them.

Recall, I am trying to do something new here (and I do not mean slightly new), so you'd expect me to reject what the brochure (the contents of which you all seemed to have swallowed) says -- what was that about the 'ruling ideas....'?

Exactly where Marx got his ideas from I will leave annoyingly mysterious until that Essay is published, and more fully until I venture into Historical Materialism itself -- when the negative part of my project is finished (i.e., in about 10 years time!).

Thanks for the Gould quote, which I have seen before, but I do not think it helps one bit.

Wittgenstein called such 'heuristic' stuff 'prose', so if you know what he meant by that, you will know the line I am going to take on this (i.e., it's all post facto hot air), written in a tradition that has dominated everyone's thought since Greek times.

Not me, though.....

Hit The North

21st August 2006, 00:05

Exactly where Marx got his ideas from I will leave annoyingly mysterious until that Essay is published, and more fully until I venture into Historical Materialism itself -- when the negative part of my project is finished (i.e., in about 10 years time!).

Oh, go on, tell us, you big tease.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st August 2006, 03:06

Citizen Z:

Oh, go on, tell us, you big tease.

You know, if you spent less time slavishly following tradition, and thought for yourself -- like Marx tried to do himself -- you'd know.

Hit The North

21st August 2006, 03:53

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 01:07 AM
Citizen Z:

Oh, go on, tell us, you big tease.

You know, if you spent less time slavishly following tradition, and thought for yourself -- like Marx tried to do himself -- you'd know.
Would I?

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st August 2006, 11:55

Citizen Z:

Would I?

Why do I have to answer every question for you?

hoopla

21st August 2006, 15:32

when the negative part of my project is finished (i.e., in about 10 years time!).What if you die unexpectedly/you are assasinated etc. How will we finish your work. You must be sure to leave clues.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st August 2006, 18:10

Here's a clue: start thinking for yourself -- and stop respecting (ruling-class) tradition.

[Oh, and since you have yet to read what I have already written, I suspect the above advice is wasted on you.]

hoopla

21st August 2006, 18:30

Oh RLY?

Well, ok, you are right.

:lol:

I read the first paragraph, and it didn't seem too different from any other interpretation of histomat. Why not, say, how it is different, and why this difference is an advantage?

LuÃs Henrique

22nd August 2006, 00:08

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 12:07 AM
Citizen Z:

Oh, go on, tell us, you big tease.

You know, if you spent less time slavishly following tradition, and thought for yourself -- like Marx tried to do himself -- you'd know.
Leaving apart you constant belligerancy - I can assure you that I, at least, have always strived to think by myself.

However, no one is a-historical, and our political, economical, psychological situation interfers with our thinking. Call it bias, ideology, whatever.

We can be colour-blind, you know.

Perhaps you have in fact discovered some facts that are worth being discussed, about Marx's thought process. If you don't want to share this with us, fine - its your privilege. But then stop hinting that you would, and then hiding the cookies.

There are many, many, many books to read, Rosa, and there is no time enough to read all of them. Give us some reason to believe that your work is worth reading, and we will read it. Keep doing what you are doing, and we won't.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

22nd August 2006, 00:12

By the way, can you tell us if "matter" is another of those subjects about which we should keep silence?

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2006, 03:27

Hoopla:

I read the first paragraph, and it didn't seem too different from any other interpretation of histomat. Why not, say, how it is different, and why this difference is an advantage?

Eh?

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2006, 03:34

LH:

Leaving apart you constant belligerancy - I can assure you that I, at least, have always strived to think by myself.

By 'belligerancy' you really mean 'she knows how to fight her corner'.

By 'always strived to think by myself', you mean, 'Oops, I ended up thinking traditionally, after all'.

But then stop hinting that you would, and then hiding the cookies.

Er, no.

There are many, many, many books to read, Rosa, and there is no time enough to read all of them. Give us some reason to believe that your work is worth reading, and we will read it. Keep doing what you are doing, and we won't.

Who is this 'we'?

Are you speaking for the masses, or have you got royal pretentions?

And, my work is only worth reading if you like having your ideas challenged.

Otherwise , not.

By the way, can you tell us if "matter" is another of those subjects about which we should keep silence?

You mean like dialectical materialists have(n't)?

We still do not know, after 150 years, what 'matter' means to a DM-fan.

On this, I am quite clear: as I said earlier on in this thread (but you were too busy spinning a few more traditional ideas to notice): we have countless words in ordinary language to describe the material world.

You should know; you use them every day.

LuÃs Henrique

22nd August 2006, 18:27

By 'belligerancy' you really mean 'she knows how to fight her corner'.

No. I mean things like this:

By 'always strived to think by myself', you mean, 'Oops, I ended up thinking traditionally, after all'.

Who is this 'we'?

We people here in RevLeft.

Are you speaking for the masses,

Sure, why not?

We still do not know, after 150 years, what 'matter' means to a DM-fan.

And I still don't know what 'matter' means to Rosa Liechtenstein.

we have countless words in ordinary language to describe the material world.

You should know; you use them every day.

What does this mean, Rosa? I cannot make heads or tails of it.

Luís Henrique

hoopla

22nd August 2006, 20:24

I see nothing philsophical about my last statement! I suspect, that, she just invents on the spot, what this mythical "ordinary language" is, each time she finds a post she doesn't like.

:o

LuÃs Henrique

22nd August 2006, 21:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:25 PM
I see nothing philsophical about my last statement! I suspect, that, she just invents on the spot, what this mythical "ordinary language" is, each time she finds a post she doesn't like.

:o
I think that, as a philosopher, she is a bad advertiser.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2006, 06:29

LH:

No. I mean things like this:

As I said, you are not comfortable with the fact that I can defend my corner.

We people here in RevLeft.

I obviously missed to vote that nominated you as spokesperson.

Sure, why not?

Again, I missed this vote, too.

And I still don't know what 'matter' means to Rosa Liechtenstein.

Oh dear.

What does this mean, Rosa? I cannot make heads or tails of it.

Luís Henrique

I think it's your name.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2006, 06:30

Hoopla:

I see nothing philsophical about my last statement! I suspect, that, she just invents on the spot, what this mythical "ordinary language" is, each time she finds a post she doesn't like.

Eh?

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2006, 06:33

LH:

I think that, as a philosopher, she is a bad advertiser.

And yet you are all talking about me.

LuÃs Henrique

24th August 2006, 01:33

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 03:34 AM
And yet you are all talking about me.
Ya, but not about your ideas.

Luís Henrique

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th August 2006, 06:25

LH:

Ya, but not about your ideas.

The threads here say different.

Communism And Freedom

3rd September 2006, 03:21

It depends on how complex the social structures are, and how advanced technology is. Science is a collective activity, and the more sophisticated the latter is, the more advanced the science can become. If you do not have the machines, instruments and sources of energy, or an educated skill base, you cannot develop much beyond the basics.

I see your point.

Second, why is prediction so important? Future events are no more significant than past ones.

Third, many erroneous theories made successful predictions, and many correct theories made false predictions.

There are many examples of each of these.

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

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results.

In fact there is no generally accepted criteria that define science. And, I would go further: there is no such thing as science, just many overlapping disciplines which share some features but not all (which we should call the 'scientifc enterprise') -- indeed, this is what allows Marxism to be a science.

Yes, Marxism is a science, that much we agree on. But not a science of the same caliber as say Physics or Astronomy. It's a science on the same level as economic, political or social science. Thus a "soft" science.

Just like "mysticism" (which is actually a pretty broad label for a various field of different philosophies) is a soft science.

Rosa Lichtenstein

3rd September 2006, 04:51

C&F, thanks for that link to Wiki on the 'scientific method', but Wiki does not record the serious controversies there are in the Philosophy of Science, so that link is not really of any use.

There is no good reason to prefer the future over the past as far as evidence is concerned. And that article does not address this issue, as far as I could see.

There are books that discuss this sort of thing; I'll post a few titles later (however I think Peter Lipton's Book Inference to the Best Explanation (Routledge, 2nd edition, 2004), is the best work on this).

You can read some of his work here:

http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/dept/lipton.html

https://ecommerce.tandf.co.uk/catalogue/Det...2Easp&curpage=1 (https://ecommerce.tandf.co.uk/catalogue/DetailedDisplay.asp?ISBN=0415242037&ResourceCentre=SEARCH&RedirectPage=PerformSearch%2Easp&curpage=1)

In the meantime, if you take a look here, you will see how much controversy there is in this area of philosophy; the short version is that there is as yet no agreed definition of the scientific method:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/view/subjects/

And there is a good discussion of the difficulties here:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:WdR8Cu...k&ct=clnk&cd=10 (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:WdR8CuBk2sUJ:www.geocities.com/ioannisv/The_Scientific_Realism_Debate.pdf+%22Larry+Laudan% 22+%2B+%22Scientific+Realism%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=10)

Or as a PDF here:

http://www.geocities.com/ioannisv/The_Scie...20Realism%22%22 (http://www.geocities.com/ioannisv/The_Scientific_Realism_Debate.pdf#search=%22%22Lar ry%20Laudan%22%20%2B%20%22Scientific%20Realism%22% 22)

Philosophy of science I think is one of the most difficult and most interesting areas of the subject; it is indeed, one I spend a lot of time studying. It is in fact one of the few areas where I reckon philosophers can make a genuine contribution (but not in the way you might imagine).

Just like "mysticism" (which is actually a pretty broad label for a various field of different philosophies) is a soft science.

Well, if you are going to lump everything into the meaning of the word 'science', you might as well throw in myths, fables, lies, and WMD dossiers.

The word loses all meaning if you do that (even if you qualify it with the word 'soft'), and then we will have to invent a new word to distingusih things again.

All you will have achieved in that case is terminological reform/confusion.