"Thing in itself" and Materialism

[heiss93]

I was reading through Lenin's Empirocriticism and many important question were raised about DiaMat and materialism in general. One interesting critique is that of the empiricists who claim that Materialists, turn matter into a new deity based on faith, since objectively we don't have any basis of any matter outside of our senses. This brings up Kant's idea of "the thing in itself". Its a hard concept but my interpretation is that there are certain categories that all objects belong to that we could never understand since they are outside time and space. From my reading of it, it almost sounded like a revival of Plato's forms.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lenin's book, I am sorry to have to tell you, is perhaps one of the very worst ever written on this subject, and is full of errors. It consists of wall-to-wall bombast and sarcasm, and contains nothing of any worth, still less of any validity.

I will be publishing an Essay in the next week or so that substantiates this negative assessment.

And, Kant's phrase 'thing in itself' is meaningless; I'd ignore it if I were you.

[heiss93]

The blog of Political Affairs magazine will also be posting a critique of Empirocrticism shortly. I recently debated a green socialist at the blog about the merits of Dia-Mat and modern science. We debated the applications of contradiction and quantitative change on such issues as computer programming, evolution and the butterfly effect. I myself am planning on posting a point by point criticism of Stalin's paper on Diamat while trying to pull out the kernel of truth in his corrupted version.

I agree that Nouemenom is bunk, however the manner in which it is debunked is the basis for the diverging philosophies of Schopenhauer Nietzsche and Hegel and in point of fact, all western philosophy since Kant. So I would say while Noumenom may be a wrong idea, its one of the most important wrong ideas in all of philosophy. So I would say its certainly a bad idea worth waisting your time on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I beg to differ, for just like the vast bulk of Philosophy before Kant, most of it since has been an exercise in the production of hot air.

Why that is so I try to outline here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm)

My objections to dialectics (in all its forms) are summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

[gilhyle]

I agree that Nouemenom is bunk, however the manner in which it is debunked is the basis for the diverging philosophies of Schopenhauer Nietzsche and Hegel and in point of fact, all western philosophy since Kant. So I would say while Noumenom may be a wrong idea, its one of the most important wrong ideas in all of philosophy. So I would say its certainly a bad idea worth waisting your time on.

I agree

[Juche96]

Anr, Kant's phrase 'thing in itself' is meaningless; I'd ignore it if I were you.

No its not meaningless (whether it's useful is another subject). Kant pointed out that in many respects, we are limited to what are senses tell us.

We don't experience things like "causality" and "free will" through our senses, however, Kant argues that we bring these categories to our experiences to make sense of the world. The "thing in itself" refers to the fact that there are many facets of existence that we do not and cannot perceive through our senses, but that we can infer to exist since our experience would not make sense without them.

I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of Kant's Philosophy, but it might be interesting to discuss it more and compare it with Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Juche96:



No its not meaningless (whether it's useful is another subject). Kant pointed out that in many respects, we are limited to what are senses tell us.

We don't experience things like "causality" and "free will" through our senses, however, Kant argues that we bring these categories to our experiences to make sense of the world. The "thing in itself" refers to the fact that there are many facets of existence that we do not and cannot perceive through our senses, but that we can infer to exist since our experience would not make sense without them.


Yes, I am fully aware of Kant's confused ideas; but that does not imply that the term 'thing-in-itself' has any meaning at all.

Kant had to invent this term since language prevented him saying what he thought he wanted to say; but since then no one has been able to explain what the term means.

And neither have you.

[Volderbeek]

The "thing-in-itself" is actually the same as Nothing; it has to be determined first.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A silence descends on the gathered multitude, for V, the prophet, has spoken:


The "thing-in-itself" is actually the same as Nothing; it has to be determined first.


How can you possibly know this?