Did Lenin Believe In Santa Claus?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apparently so, since he argued as follows:



"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm).]


This can only mean that if you can form an image of something in your mind, it must exist in reality!

So, not only are there unicorns and hob-goblins in Lenin's universe, it is graced with Big Foot and dear old Santa (and Hitler, and Mussolini, and...).

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm

This is a link to a long-overdue demolition of Lenin's egregious book.

It must be avoided at all costs by comrades who like to pontificate about my work without actually having read it, and by those whose sycophantic worship of Lenin turns him into an infallible god.

[Hit The North]

It must be avoided at all costs by comrades who like to pontificate about my work without actually having read it, and by those whose sycophantic worship of Lenin turns him into an infallible god.

Right-o. ;)

[RedAnarchist]

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g311/xphile2868/leninandsanta.png

[Marsella]

:lol:

[Hiero]

Rosa, that is pathetic.

Lenin said an image, not a thing. The image is of couse imagined. And the thing exists independently of the person who imagines it. Lenin isn't using the term imagine to describe making something up. I assume he means to create the image in your head. This it the biological process of the senses.

I think you have gone of the deep end with this one. I can see where you can distort or misread the sentance. It is a hard one, if you miss read the commas or bold the last part of the sentance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Right-o.


As I have said to you before, we can't have you waving goodbye to your self-imposed ignorance, can we?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero, way out of his depth again:



Rosa, that is pathetic.

Lenin said an image, not a thing. The image is of couse imagined.


Read what Lenin said, not what you would like him to have said:



"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm).]


Got that? An image cannot exist without the thing imagined and the latter exists independently of that which images it.

So, conjure up an image of Santa, and according to Lenin, he must exist.

Don't pick a fight with me over this, but with Lenin who cooked this dopey theory up.



I think you have gone of the deep end with this one. I can see where you can distort or misread the sentance. It is a hard one, if you miss read the commas or bold the last part of the sentance.


Oh yes I have; you can see for yourself at that link (I have gone into nearly 50,000 words of depth on this, and considered every conceivable reply that could be made to each of my allegations).

But, hey, I said that if you want to jump to conclusions about my work without actually having read it, fine.

But, then you'd be making a public fool of yourself yet again.

Oddly enough, I can live with that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAKN as was, thanks for that -- and, as luck would have it, according to Lenin, that image of him proves he is still alive!

But, I rather suspect the other anarchists here are going to hate your guts for resurrecting him!! :mad:

[Hit The North]

When I picture Santa in my imagination, it is a reflection of a cultural construct which exists "out there" in various representations. The same when I imagine a goblin or Big Foot.

Because these things have a cultural existence in myth, fairy tale, etc. it is correct to say that they "exists independently" of my imagination.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


 
When I picture Santa in my imagination, it is a reflection of a cultural construct which exists "out there" in various representations. The same when I imagine a goblin or Big Foot

 
Ah, more profundities from RevLeft's very own ignoramus.
 
Too bad Lenin did not have you to advise him, for he certainly believed in Santa.
 


Because these things have a cultural existence in myth, fairy tale, etc. it is correct to say that they "exists independently" of my imagination.

 
Nice try, but if you read this execrable book that Lenin inflicted on Marxists, you will see that when he says "independently" he means "independently" of all thought, and castigated those who tried, like you, to water this down.
 

""...only one solution is possible, viz., the recognition that the external world reflected by our mind exists independently of our mind. This materialist solution alone is really compatible with natural science..." [Lenin (1972), p.82.]

[T]he sole 'property' of matter with whose recognition philosophical materialism is bound up is the property of being an objective reality, of existing outside our mind." [Lenin (1972), p.311.]
 
"Thus…the concept of matter…epistemologically implies nothing but objective reality existing independently of the human mind and reflected by it." [Ibid., p.312.]
         
"[I]t is the sole categorical, this sole unconditional recognition of nature’s existence outside the mind and perception of man that distinguishes dialectical materialism from relativist agnosticism and idealism." [Ibid., p.314.]

[KC]

I knew this'd be some bullshit thread started by Rosa when I saw it in the "Last post" section.


Got that? An image cannot exist without the thing imagined and the latter exists independently of that which images it.

Let's rebold:

"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm).]

An image here is obviously an "imagination" of a real objective thing. In other words, the image can't exist without that objective thing existing and being imagined (imagined being the process of "transforming" that objective thing into an image through sensation). So no, Santa Claus doesn't exist because he is not an objective thing that can be sensed (imagined).

Sorry, Rosa. It doesn't work both ways. You're just injecting your idealism into Lenin's materialism.

And no, I will not read your essays, because they're as full of shit as this thread.

[Vanguard1917]

We should note here that, with the help of his intensive studies of Hegel which began in 1914, Lenin moved away from the simplistic and mechanistic materialism which we find in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (first published in 1909).


I'd recommend the book Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism by Kevin Anderson. It's a very interesting read, and it documents in detail the post-1914 shift in Lenin's views on philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zamparo:



An image here is obviously an "imagination" of a real objective thing. In other words, the image can't exist without that objective thing existing and being imagined (imagined being the process of "transforming" that objective thing into an image through sensation). So no, Santa Claus doesn't exist because he is not an objective thing that can be sensed (imagined).



But, Lenin actually struggles in this egregious book to try to show that the images he says we have actually reflect things in the world, and which are thus objective.

Now, although he continually repeats this mantra (I have counted over 60 places in MEC where he keeps saying the same thing over and over again) his only 'proof' is the passage I quoted.

So, his whole theory of 'objectivity' is based on this inference, that an image implies the existence of the object which it images.

In that case, his theory implies Santa does exist.

Now, if you begin with the objective world and try to work back from there, that would be a more reasonable position to adopt, but Lenin doesn't; he begins with images and tries to derive the objective world from them. This is his clinching 'argument', the one I originally quoted. He has no other. You may wish that he had, but it is absent from MEC. [In fact, there is no way that the world can be derived from images, so Lenin was strugggling against impossible odds here. But he got himself into this hole, so he should get little sympathy.]

So, you have got his theory the wrong way round.


And no, I will not read your essays, because they're as full of shit as this thread.


Well it was a s*it-free zone until you came up with this nasty dose of verbal diahorrea.

And I hope you do not read my Essays; I'd hate to think my pearls had been cast before such low grade swine as you, sweetie.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VG:


We should note here that, with the help of his intensive studies of Hegel which began in 1914, Lenin moved away from the simplistic and mechanistic materialism which we find in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (first published in 1909).


I'd recommend the book Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism by Kevin Anderson. It's a very interesting read, and it documents in detail the post-1914 shift in Lenin's views on philosophy.



Yes, and it is apparent that Lenin moved from confusion in MEC to mysticism in the Notebooks.

So, your advice is of little help.

[Hit The North]

Z:


Ah, more profundities from RevLeft's very own ignoramus.


Cheers.


Too bad Lenin did not have you to advise him, for he certainly believed in Santa.
Of course he did, dear. Now, have a nice cup of tea and the nurse will be in soon with your magic pills!


Are you that nice Mr Chamberlain?'K, I made that one up. :blushing:


Nice try, but if you read this execrable book that Lenin inflicted on Marxists, you will see that when he says "independently" he means "independently" of all thought, and castigated those who tried, like you, to water this down. A cultural representation is independent of thought. It's not put in my head by telepathy :confused:. But just to confirm my ignoramus status further, I'll admit that I've never read the MEC. Your book review don't exactly help. :rolleyes: And if you think I'm gonna waste hours of my life reading a book which you describe as "execrable" just so I can get talked down to on the internet by some loony-tune who honestly thinks that Lenin believed in Santa Claus, then you are also guilty of believing in the ridiculous. :)


But, Lenin actually struggles in this egregious book to try to show that the images he says we have actually reflect things in the world, and which are thus objective. So he was wrong. Some of them are inter-subjective (still existing outside of individual consciousness). It's called culture, baby :cool:


Now, if you begin with the objective world and try to work back from there, that would be a more reasonable position to adopt, but Lenin doesn't; he begins with images and tries to derive the objective world from them.But that wouldn't solve the major problem which is that he would retain a one-way causal account of our relationship with reality which lacks any kind of praxis. Anyway, as Van1917 points out, Lenin later abandoned this mechanical formulation.


Yes, and it is apparent that Lenin moved from confusion in MEC to mysticism in the Notebooks. Hey, maybe you're right. Perhaps Lenin was wrong. Maybe he was a dud of a philosopher. Maybe you're a million times cleverer than he. But so what? He led the first workers revolution in history. What have you done? :glare:

[Zurdito]

Fat men with beards do exist. This is why I can imagine Santa. I could not imagine shapes and colours which do not exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Fat men with beards do exist. This is why I can imagine Santa. I could not imagine shapes and colours which do not exist.


So, you too believe in Santa, eh?

[Forward Union]

I think Lenin is right in this insance.

If I imagine Santa, it doesn't mean santa exists, but I have seen images, depictions and costumes of Santa that exist, and it is intact those that I picture in my mind.

I cannot imagine a square circle, because one does not exist, and cannot exist.

I can't imagien God, I imagine depictions of God, which do exist...

if you see what I mean.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Of course he did, dear. Now, have a nice cup of tea and the nurse will be in soon with your magic pills!


I think Z has finally cracked.:scared:



A cultural representation is independent of thought. It's not put in my head by telepathy :confused:. But just to confirm my ignoramus status further, I'll admit that I've never read the MEC. Your book review don't exactly help. :rolleyes:

How can a cultural representation be independent of all thought, if it takes people who think to create it?

[Try the same argument with hallucinations -- they too must exist, according to Lenin. So, if you have an image of an oasis then it must exist.]



And if you think I'm gonna waste hours of my life reading a book which you describe as "execrable" just so I can get talked down to on the internet by some loony-tune who honestly thinks that Lenin believed in Santa Claus, then you are also guilty of believing in the ridiculous.


What makes you think I want someone as benighted as you to read a single one of my Essays?

In fact I warned nescient comrades like you to stay away, and you seemed to agree.

I prefer you in your ignorant state, as a salutary warning to others.


So he was wrong.

I agree.



Some of them are inter-subjective (still existing outside of individual consciousness). It's called culture, baby


Ah, but inter-subjectivity cannot be generated from Lenin's premisses, since all he has to play around with are images, and that includes images of other human beings, and images of 'practice', too. At no point can he ground his images in objectivity, except by the use of the 'Santa Claus' argument, which has such unacceptable implications.

Now, we all know Lenin's position is crazy, but I did tell you it's an execrable book, sweeite.



But that wouldn't solve the major problem which is that he would retain a one-way causal account of our relationship with reality which lacks any kind of praxis. Anyway, as Van1917 points out, Lenin later abandoned this mechanical formulation.


I did not say I accepted this, just that it was more reasonable.

And VG asked us to accept the mystical deliverances Lenin culled from Hegel -- a thinker that not even you will touch with VG's barge pole. You still refuse to read his 'Logic' (one of the few sensible things you have ever done), but yet you now ask us to believe this helped Lenin!


Hey, maybe you're right. Perhaps Lenin was wrong. Maybe he was a dud of a philosopher. Maybe you're a million times cleverer than he.

No maybes about it, sunshine.


But so what? He led the first workers revolution in history. What have you done?

Shown that his philosophy was hogwash, and that he not only did not, he could not use it in the revolution.

Where?

Somewhere where your tender eyes are not allowed to venture, for fear your ignorance quotent might fall as a result.

[Oh, and by the way, Dialectical Marxism also presided over the decay and reversal of the revolution; I note you ignored that...]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Wat:



If I imagine Santa, it doesn't mean santa exists, but I have seen images, depictions and costumes of Santa that exist, and it is intact those that I picture in my mind


But Lenin says the exact opposite to this, so how can he be 'right'?

[Zurdito]

Z:



So, you too believe in Santa, eh?

I believe in pictures of Santa. Does the picture in this very thread not exist? ;)

You may be able to catch Lenin out if you try harder, but this is not a good example.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



I believe in pictures of Santa. Does the picture in this very thread not exist?


You really must focus: Lenin argued that if you have an image of something, the object of which it is the image must exist in reality, not parts of it (like colours, or stand-ins for Santa, or pictures of Santa).

So, If you have an image of Santa, Santa must exist.

Sure, it I have an image of a picture of Santa, then, according to Lenin, that picture must exist.

But, neither Lenin nor I were arguing that.

Once more; if I have an image of Santa, the individual called Santa must exist, according to Lenin.

Now, I know it's a screwy argument, but it's the only one Lenin advances to ground his theory in objective reality.

Which is why MEC is among one of the very worst books ever written by a revolutionary.



You may be able to catch Lenin out if you try harder, but this is not a good example.


Well, your naive faith is very touching, but you can only make your reply work by ignoring the very person you are trying to defend: Lenin.

And, there are plenty more screw-ups in MEC; this was just one of the worst.

[He also thought the Ether was 'objective', and that the fourth dimension implied priestcraft!!]

[Zurdito]

Once more; if I have an image of Santa, the individual called Santa must exist, according to Lenin.

I have an image of a picture in my mind. I decide to call it Santa. That doesn't make it an image of Santa



Well, your naive faith is very touching,

It's not about naive faith. I do have well founded faith that Lenin was an extremely clever person who wasn't making the howling error you are accusing him of. However I am open to Lenin being proved wrong. But you are misrepresenting the argument to make him seem like an absolute idiot who believed in fairies and goblins, when you must know full well he wasn't arguing that. If he had actually been that degenerate it wouldn't have been hidden away in a few lines of one book, it would instead permeate everything he ever wrote. And you wouldn't be the only person to see through it. You really should think again on this one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zurdito:



I have an image of a picture in my mind. I decide to call it Santa. That doesn't make it an image of Santa



You keep going on about images of pictures. Why? Lenin did not speak about these, nor did I (except in response to your attempt to do so).



It's not about naive faith.


It is a naive faith if you have to ignore Lenin's actual words, and constantly change the subject (to images of pictures), but still refuse to attend to the actual argument.



I do have well founded faith that Lenin was an extremely clever person who wasn't making the howling error you are accusing him of. However I am open to Lenin being proved wrong. But you are misrepresenting the argument to make him seem like an absolute idiot who believed in fairies and goblins, when you must know full well he wasn't arguing that. If he had actually been that degenerate it wouldn't have been hidden away in a few lines of one book, it would instead permeate everything he ever wrote. And you wouldn't be the only person to see through it. You really should think again on this one.


Lenin was extremely clever, I agree -- but he was a philosophical incompetent.

And you are not open to Lenin being proved wrong, for you constantly ignore what he actually says in order to defend a sanitised Lenin, who you would prefer had said something other than what he actually did say.

Let's walk you through it again:


"and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm).]

Notice that: "an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it"

So, the thing imagined (the real Santa) exists independently of the image anyone has of him.

No pictures mentioned here, just the simple inference from images to real objects

On page 279 he is even clearer:


The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”

Quoted from here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm#v14pp72h-232), about half way down the page.

So, the image of Santa inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it "images" -- an image of Santa implies he is an objective reality, for that image of Santa "images" Santa, who now, of necessity, is an "objective reality".

So, it is you, my naive friend who needs to rethink things.

Lenin belived in Santa.

So should you...

[Zurdito]

[QUOTE]You keep going on about images of pictures. Why?

Because if you have an image of Santa in your mind, inr eality it is an image of a picture, or of a bloke dressed up as Santa. Both of those things objectively exist.



Lenin did not speak about these, nor did I (except in response to your attempt to do so).


He didn't speak about Santa either. ;)



It is a naive faith if you have to ignore Lenin's actual words, and constantly change the subject (to images of pictures), but still refuse to attend to the actual argument.

We have to change Lenin's words, because you yourself are taking his argument and and applying it to a situation he did not deal with, therefore the conversation itself moves beyond what he specifically said. If what he specifically said was self-evident, you wouldn't need the Santa example. Therefore to ahve this conversation, you apparently find it necessarry (and I agree, it is necessarry) to go beyond what was written, and instead apply our own understanding of the logic to a given situation.


And you are not open to Lenin being proved wrong,

Well that's your projection based on past experiences with other people.



Notice that: "an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it"

So, the thing imagined (the real Santa) exists independently of the image anyone has of him.

No pictures mentioned here, just the simple inference from images to real objects


No Santa mentioned here either.

A picture is a real object. There is one on this thread. I looked at it and formed an image in my mind. Were my eyes decieving me? Was it not "real"?



Quoted from here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm#v14pp72h-232), about half way down the page.

So, the image of Santa inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it "images" -- an image of Santa implies he is an objective reality, for that image of Santa "images" Santa, who now, of necessity, is an "objective reality".



You're conflating mental image with the term "image" used to describe a picutre. My understanding is that Lenin strictly meant "mental image" when he said image, and was not saying that drawing a picture of something means that that thing depicted in the picture exists outside of the picture. that's a totally different argument. Nothing I have read implies that he believed that.

[Forward Union]

You really must focus: Lenin argued that if you have an image of something, the object of which it is the image must exist in reality, not parts of it (like colours, or stand-ins for Santa, or pictures of Santa).


Oh please you're takign what he's saying far too literally.

I don't even know any christians that woudl argue such anti-scientific garbage.

[Hiero]

Rosa I think you need to put the books down for a week or too. Go experince life or something. The sentance is very simple, there is no need to analyse it.

"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm).]



But, then you'd be making a public fool of yourself yet again.


People are criticising you. No one buys your bullshit.

[Volderbeek]

"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm).][Still having trouble with the board software, or are you gratuitously changing fonts just for fun?]

The error comes in at the underlined part; it suggests that consciousness is tied inexorably to something external to it. Such is the limitation of non-dialectical materialism. Perhaps you could qualify it, however, by saying that consciousness has Photoshop. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zurdito:



Because if you have an image of Santa in your mind, inr eality it is an image of a picture, or of a bloke dressed up as Santa. Both of those things objectively exist.



You do not know this at the start; remember, Lenin begins with images, and has not clues as to their nature. All he knows are images.

Now his only attempt to break out of this prison is this argument, which is not about images of pictures (he does not use this wording -- and you find you need to add it to try to sanitise Lenin), or about pictures you can draw, but about mental images.

Now, we both know this is a crazy place to begin any investigation into knowledge, but that is where Lenin began.



He didn't speak about Santa either



No, but he did argue that if you have an image, whatever it is an image of must necessarily exist.

So, if you have an image of a picture, that picture must exist.

And, if you have an image of a hand, that hand must exist.

And, if you have an image of Santa, Santa must exist.

It was a general argument that covered every possibility, including images of unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, Big Foot, Santa...



We have to change Lenin's words, because you yourself are taking his argument and and applying it to a situation he did not deal with, therefore the conversation itself moves beyond what he specifically said. If what he specifically said was self-evident, you wouldn't need the Santa example. Therefore to ahve this conversation, you apparently find it necessarry (and I agree, it is necessarry) to go beyond what was written, and instead apply our own understanding of the logic to a given situation.



1) This means that we are no longer discussing Lenin, but your beliefs.

2) It means that your claim that you are ready to countenance the fact that Lenin was wrong was empty since, when you face a difficulty, you simply alter his words.

3) It was a general claim, and so it covers every eventuality. Now, if he had made a more limited claim, my argument would be in trouble, but he did not, he said:


The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”

No wiggle room there: "inevitably and of necessity".

Which is why I said he was an philosophical incompetent. Not even Locke would have made this mistake, and he was nearly as bad.


Well that's your projection based on past experiences with other people.


Yes, and I am right to be suspicious of you dialecticians. You, for example, attempted to alter Engels's words when I showed his crazy 'law' ('Quantity into Quality') was defective, and now you are trying to do the same to Lenin.

You probably think Marx wrote: "The marxist philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change what they say".


No Santa mentioned here either.

Yes, I can see you are getting desperate, here; you are clearly having difficulties defending Lenin, so you now have to pretend not to understand the indefinite or the definite article: you clearly think that unless Lenin had given an exhaustive list of acceptable "images", no one can read his words and apply them generally.


The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”

This looks pretty general to me; no ifs and buts here. The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”

He did not say "some images", but "the image", and earlier "an image". Now unless you think he was referring to a single image, the "the" here must work as it does when we say "The whale is a mammal".

It would be no use you saying the when we say "The whale is a mammal" we did not mean, say, that specific whale over there, since it was not mentioned.



and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added.



And when we say "a capitalist is a class enemy" it will not do for you to reply that this does not apply to, say, Bill Scroggins, CEO of the Santa Corporation, since he was not mentioned specifically.

Similarly, when Lenin spoke about "an image", it will not do for you to say 'he did not mean this or that image, since that would imply Santa exists'.

He said it -- you can't alter that fact.

And this just confirms how naive you are; you have to pretend you do not understand language just to bale Lenin out.



A picture is a real object. There is one on this thread. I looked at it and formed an image in my mind. Were my eyes decieving me? Was it not "real"?



Sure, and had Lenin said this:



and it is obvious that an image of a picture cannot exist without the thing imagined as a picture, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added.



you would have a point.

But, unfortunately for desperate little old you, he did not.



You're conflating mental image with the term "image" used to describe a picutre. My understanding is that Lenin strictly meant "mental image" when he said image, and was not saying that drawing a picture of something means that that thing depicted in the picture exists outside of the picture. that's a totally different argument. Nothing I have read implies that he believed that.


Well you tell me what the "an" in "an image" means. Was Lenin just referring to one individual image, or images in general?

And when someone says to you "a policeman is an agent of the capitalist class", do you take that to mean only one specific policeman?

And I do know that he meant 'mental images'. That is what makes his argument so crass.

He was in effect saying, if you can conjure up an image of something (in your mind's eye), it must exist in reality".

As I said, he was a philosophical incompetent.

And you are naive to think otherwise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Wat:



Oh please you're taking what he's saying far too literally.



You mean, I am taking Lenin at his word, and show he was confused.

But, would you take the same lenient approach to, say, hompohobes who use vile language, or to racists who use offensive language?

Would you argue: "Oh please you're taking what he's saying far too literally"?

Now, these words appeared in a published work, and he said it several times.

If you can only make his 'argument' work by interpreting his words non-literally, then you should have no problem making the Book of Genesis compatible with Darwin.



I don't even know any christians that woudl argue such anti-scientific garbage.



Ah, but creationists do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Rosa I think you need to put the books down for a week or too. Go experince life or something. The sentance is very simple, there is no need to analyse it.


I hold down a full-time job, and I am a union rep (unpaid); I devote my time to this to try to remove confusion from Marxism.

If you do not like it, I do not care.

I have been working on this now for ten years (reading around it for 25), devoting 90% of my free time (in the last 5 years) to it. I am sure as hell not going to stop just because you know how to use abusive language like this:



People are criticising you. No one buys your bullshit.



Yes, and they are getting pretty desperate in their attempts to change what Lenin said, or ignore what he actually said.

But, at least they try to make a weak sort of response; you just resort to abusive language.

[And then you try, in another place, to censure me for flaming!]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



The error comes in at the underlined part; it suggests that consciousness is tied inexorably to something external to it. Such is the limitation of non-dialectical materialism. Perhaps you could qualify it, however, by saying that consciousness has Photoshop.


And Lenin's only proof of this is the 'Santa argument' (as I will now call, it).

But, that 'argument' is too generous, for it implies that if you have an image in your 'consciousness' it:


inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”

So, Santa must exist -- according to Lenin.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, you Lenin-worshippers are really getting desperate, aren't you?

Just wait till I post other crass things he says are 'objective'...

[Hiero]

I hold down a full-time job, and I am a union rep (unpaid); I devote my time to this to try to remove confusion from Marxism.

If you do not like it, I do not care.

I have been working on this now for ten years (reading around it for 25), devoting 90% of my free time (in the last 5 years) to it. I am sure as hell not going to stop just because you know how to use abusive language like this:



And maybe you need a holiday.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:



And maybe you need a holiday.


Maybe you need to address the serious weaknesses in Lenin's 'philosophy'.

[Saorsa]

I have been working on this now for ten years (reading around it for 25), devoting 90% of my free time (in the last 5 years) to it.


You need to find some outside interests.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Alastair:


You need to find some outside interests.

What has that got to do with the subject of this thread?

If you visit the page I linked to in my original post, which contains a very detailed demolition of Lenin's hopeless book, you will see there 12 pictures of a magnificent mountain in Scotland, where I regularly go climbing -- I'm off there in May.

So, can we stick to the subject in hand, and stop trying to deflect attention away from the fact that you Lenin-worhipers can't answer my challenge?

Here is one of them:

http://www.loveofscotland.com/pics/liathachloch1.jpg


More here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm)

[Saorsa]

OK, so you don't spend ALL your time on RevLeft :blushing:... but you obviously do spend a lot more than is truly necessary, if you really do invest 90% of your free time into it.


inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”

Key word there is implies. He's not saying it's a certainty, he's saying it's probable, unless you're dealing with ridiculous notions like the existence of Santa Clause.

When Lenin speaks of "an image" (which is where the greater part of your argument lies), he means an image of something that objectively exists.


and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

Ffs. You're deliberately misinterpreting these two lines. Lenin is saying that to have an image of a thing, that thing must correspondingly exist in reality.

It is impossible to deliver 6 billion toys in one night, that is physically impossible. Therefore, Santa in the sense of a guy who does this, cannot exist. If he did exist, he couldn't do it, and since the notion of Santa we're dealing with here is a guy who does this, Santa in that sense does not exist.

However, even while knowing this to be true, I can still have an image of a fat beared old guy in a red suit in my head, because Santa in the sense if a pop culture entity does exist.

Now I'm off to do check out a thread much less pointless than this one. Shouldn't be hard to find...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Alastair:



but you obviously do spend a lot more than is truly necessary, if you really do invest 90% of your free time into it.



No, I said I spent 90% of my free time on my project, of which about 10% is spent here.



Key word there is implies. He's not saying it's a certainty, he's saying it's probable, unless you're dealing with ridiculous notions like the existence of Santa Clause.



Not so; he says this:



The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”


That looks pretty certain to me.

So, any image you have of Santa, "implies inevitably and of necessity the objective reality of that which it images", which in this case is Santa.

Lenin's logic may be loopy, but he is pretty clear about it.


When Lenin speaks of "an image" (which is where the greater part of your argument lies), he means an image of something that objectively exists.


Yes he asserts this, but his only argument supporting this conclusion is the 'Santa argument', otherwise he has nothing with which he can answer those who say that his images might not reflect objective reality. This is his attempt to answer them.

What you have done is reverse his inference: from reality to the image. Lenin, on the other hand, infers the opposite way round: from our images to objective reality.

Now, there would be no point answering a critic who argued that all we have in our minds are images, and that we have no way of showing they are of objective reality, by just asserting that our images are of objective reality.

The critic would just say: how do you know?

Lenin thus had to find a way of answering this unanswerable question; so he came up with this 'argument', one of the few in the entire book (a book that is full of repetiton, bluster, abuse and ad hominems).

So, his response is that an image 'inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”'

If images were already known to be of objective reality, what would be the point of Lenin arguing as he does here?

It would be like arguing that objective images are objective. A critic would still want to know how Lenin knew an 'objective image' was indeed objective.

So, the implication goes from the presence of images in the mind to 'objective' reality, not the other way round, as indeed his words indicate.


You're deliberately misinterpreting these two lines. Lenin is saying that to have an image of a thing, that thing must correspondingly exist in reality.

You are in fact adding to Lenin's words in order to to sanitise them (just like other comrades have done here) for he does not talk this way. Here it is again:


"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/one3.htm). Bold emphasis added.]


The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”


He does not talk about "images of objects", but images, and he says that the presence of an image implies that of which the image is, exists.

So he did not say:


and it is obvious that an image of an objective thing cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it."

nor:


The image of an objective thing inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”

Had he done so, I would not have used it.



It is impossible to deliver 6 billion toys in one night, that is physically impossible. Therefore, Santa in the sense of a guy who does this, cannot exist. If he did exist, he couldn't do it, and since the notion of Santa we're dealing with here is a guy who does this, Santa in that sense does not exist.

However, even while knowing this to be true, I can still have an image of a fat beared old guy in a red suit in my head, because Santa in the sense if a pop culture entity does exist.


I agree, but that is not the point; if Lenin was right then this odd character must exist.

Since Santa does not exist, Lenin's argument is defective.

Now,when I was researching this material, I read through this book very carefully many times, making detailed notes, specifically looking for an argument that Lenin used to break out of the phenomenalist prison he was in (or, rather, his opponents were in), and this was the only one I could find.

As I have shown above, this is a defective argument, since it is obvious that Lenin did not believe what I alleged of him -- I made these allegations deliberately controversial to bring this out.

But, this is his [I]only argument, and if it is a dud, which it is, then Lenin's theory is no better than the theories of those he was attacking.

Now, the comrades here have fallen into a trap (as have you), for I have successfully exposed the serious flaw in Lenin's attempt to refute Bogdanov, Mach and Avenarius.

So, if we accept his proof, then Lenin must have believed in Santa.

On the other hand, if we reject this inference, then Lenin's proof is no good, and he is a phenomenalist.

You can be sure that his opponents will not have missed this flaw, that is if they could be bothered to read this awful book.


Now I'm off to do check out a thread much less pointless than this one. Shouldn't be hard to find...

I feel the same about Lenin's attrocious book.

But, unlike you, I do not wimp out when the going gets tough.

[Hit The North]

But it still remains a puzzle as to why you think any of this is worthy of our consideration - never mind your own. So Lenin was a shit philosopher. Big deal. Trotsky was a lousy pianist, so what?

I asked comrades at our monthly branch organizing meeting (aka the monthly piss up) last night what they thought of Lenin's "execrable book" and no one had read it (only two people had heard of it). Furthermore, no one could think of a good reason why they'd want to read it! Maybe I'm just lucky enough to belong to a branch full of philistines, I dunno.

Maybe this is what the top brass of Oxford want to hear from you Rosa: obscurantist sneering at heroes of the international proletariat. :rolleyes:

[Dimentio]

The concept of Santa Claus do exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



But it still remains a puzzle as to why you think any of this is worthy of our consideration - never mind your own. So Lenin was a shit philosopher. Big deal. Trotsky was a lousy pianist, so what?

It seems to me to be way down the list of things worthy of our consideration; far below even: who cares what you think?



I asked comrades at our monthly branch organizing meeting (aka the monthly piss up) last night what they thought of Lenin's "execrable book" and no one had read it (only two people had heard of it). Furthermore, no one could think of a good reason why they'd want to read it! Maybe I'm just lucky enough to belong to a branch full of philistines, I dunno.

Who cares what your philistine friends think?



Maybe this is what the top brass of Oxford want to hear from you Rosa: obscurantist sneering at heroes of the international proletariat.


You like repetition almost as much as Lenin, it seems.

Once more, care to e-mail Alex Callinicos and say the same to him, for he is going too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:


The concept of Santa Claus do exist.


You mean, we can speak about this fictional character, sure.

But Lenin wants to argue from its mere presence, as an image, to his real existence.

Or, at least, that is what his inference, quoted above, implies.

And that further implies his argument is defective.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Rosa Lichtenstein,

This thread is carrying out an act much worse than picking quotations out of a hat and trying to validate a claim on their basis. Picking a quotation from a hat that you can use for an argument one way or the other that Lenin did or did not believe in Santa Claus [or rather, the use Santa Claus as a means of refuting the argument- which appears to have more relevance in this thread.

This is a weak argument and lacking more coherence than the argument that "The USSR would have been more socialist if Trotsky was in power following Lenin's death". Neither history or science can prove it, which makes it sound like nonsense to any comrade with even the least bit of intelligence.

That aside, this thread hardly provides on any basis a conclusion that "Lenin's arguments where nonsense" -- as you try to prove.

Take any quotation out of context and use to fuel an argument that had nothing to do with it - on a topic that had nothing to do with the quotation - and what you end up with then is that of a strawman argument.

Certainly, it will get much attention from the anarchists- and by all means they will thank you for your contribution - but you have failed to supply the intelligent comrades here with any valid basis for your claims.

[Hit The North]

R:
Who cares what your philistine friends think?

Obviously not you. But then they're just worker comrades of a party you purport to support, not dignitaries of an ivory tower.


Once more, care to e-mail Alex Callinicos and say the same to him, for he is going too.

Sure, give me his e-mail address. But I doubt he's going there to denounce Marxism in front of its enemies like you are.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CN:



That aside, this thread hardly provides on any basis a conclusion that "Lenin's arguments where nonsense" -- as you try to prove


You are right; it is impossible to establish anything in such a thread. That is why I wrote a 50,000 word essay on this topic.

This thread was made deliberately provocative to direct the few comrades here who are sufficiently open to new ideas to that essay. I think we can scrub you from that list.

Others can rest safe in their dogmatic slumbers.



Take any quotation out of context and use to fuel an argument that had nothing to do with it - on a topic that had nothing to do with the quotation - and what you end up with then is that of a strawman argument.

But, Lenin has no other argument allowing him to move from his own subjective images, to objective reality.

You are welcome to try to find one, if you think otherwise. I have been looking for one for longer than many here have been alive, and to no avail.


Certainly, it will get much attention from the anarchists- and by all means they will thank you for your contribution - but you have failed to supply the intelligent comrades here with any valid basis for your claims.


Translated, this means: not one single Leninist here can defend Lenin (and I say that as a Leninist, too).

And you lot are not alone; I have yet to meet fellow Leninist who can.

But, they, like you, are experts in trying to deflect attention from that fact.

Witness Citizen Z, Zurdito and Hiero's inane comments.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Obviously not you. But then they're just worker comrades of a party you purport to support, not dignitaries of an ivory tower.



Philistines by any other name, and defended by, who else but: the uber-Philistine himself.


Sure, give me his e-mail address. But I doubt he's going there to denounce Marxism in front of its enemies like you are.

I wish I had it; but if you give me your real name, I'll pass your ignorant remarks on, and the control commision will then sort you out.

Moreover, all those present will be Marxists; the conference is called 'Renewal of the Left', and has been organised by Marxists.

And all I will be denouncing is the poisonous influence of the mystical ideas that still have the likes of you in their grip

[Hit The North]

Philistines by any other name, and defended by, who else but: the uber-Philistine himself. Miaow.

EDIT: I find it weird that you would judge someone to be a philistine because they don't want to read what you consider to be an "execrable book" of bad philosophy. :D



I wish I had it; but if you give me your real name, I'll pass your ignorant remarks on, and the control commision will then sort you out. (Emphasis added)Eh?


And all I will be denouncing is the poisonous influence of the mystical ideas that still have the likes of you in their gripYeah, be sure to tell everyone there what a bunch of idiots you think they are :lol:.

[Luís Henrique]

The following is the complete paragraph to which the sentence in the OP belongs:


The reference to “naïve realism,” supposedly defended by this philosophy, is sophistry of the cheapest kind. The “naïve realism” of any healthy person who has not been an inmate of a lunatic asylum or a pupil of the idealist philosophers consists in the view that things, the environment, the world, exist independently of our sensation, of our consciousness, of our self and of man in general. The same experience (not in the Machian sense, but in the human sense of the term) that has produced in us the firm conviction that independently of us there exist other people, and not mere complexes of my sensations of high, short, yellow, hard, etc.—this same experience produces in us the conviction that things, the world, the environment exist independently of us. Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



Miaow.



Ah, your best point to date.



EDIT: I find it weird that you would judge someone to be a philistine because they don't want to read what you consider to be an "execrable book" of bad philosophy.


Your word mate:


Maybe I'm just lucky enough to belong to a branch full of philistines, I dunno.


And, according to your latest outburst, that means you are "wierd".


Eh?


As I said, "wierd".



Yeah, be sure to tell everyone there what a bunch of idiots you think they are


I will in fact be telling them that mystics like you invent stuff to put in my mouth, since you cannot respond to my critique.

I suspect they too will think you a wierd Philistine.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that LH, but in what way does that defend Lenin; especially when he went on to say:



The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.” p.279.

[Luís Henrique]

Thanks for that LH, but in what way does that defend Lenin;

Did I say it did?

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

Thanks Luis, the quote is mor einteresting in the full context. I still think it makes perfect sense on its own, too, but its much more worthy of consideration in its real context.


But it still remains a puzzle as to why you think any of this is worthy of our consideration - never mind your own. So Lenin was a shit philosopher. Big deal. Trotsky was a lousy pianist, so what?

I asked comrades at our monthly branch organizing meeting (aka the monthly piss up) last night what they thought of Lenin's "execrable book" and no one had read it (only two people had heard of it). Furthermore, no one could think of a good reason why they'd want to read it! Maybe I'm just lucky enough to belong to a branch full of philistines, I dunno.

Maybe this is what the top brass of Oxford want to hear from you Rosa: obscurantist sneering at heroes of the international proletariat. :rolleyes:

Good point, why would a member of a leninist party read a book by Lenin? Ridiculous suggestion. Workers love Lenin because he was a great leader, and that's what workers like, leaders, right? Obviously they wouldn't read his book and question it, they're workers. Not like them intellectuals in their ivory tower who read. Now let's get pissed.

hmmm I wonder why the left does so badly in Britain.

:rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Thanks for that LH, but in what way does that defend Lenin; especially when he went on to say:

By the way our editions of M&E seem to be different; I can't find that in page 279. In which chapter and section is it?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



Did I say it did?



You didn't say anything, so I was seeking clarification.

Don't tell me that you too have moved into an enigmatic phase...

If you click on the link in my original post, it will take you to the right section of MEC.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Good point, why would a member of a leninist party read a book by Lenin? Ridiculous suggestion. Workers love Lenin because he was a great leader, and that's what workers like, leaders, right? Obviously they wouldn't read his book and question it, they're workers. Not like them intellectuals in their ivory tower who read. Now let's get pissed.


Still avoiding the issues I see.


hmmm I wonder why the left does so badly in Britain.


It's not doing too well anywhere else, either.

If truth is tested in practice, and this sort of guff lies at the heart of Leninist theory, then practice, and not just Rosa, has refuted it.


Thanks Luis, the quote is mor einteresting in the full context. I still think it makes perfect sense on its own, too, but its much more worthy of consideration in its real context.


Then if Luis won't answer, perhaps you will: how does that defend Lenin against my accusations?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, here is the link in full:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm#v14pp72h-232

It's almost exactly half way down that page.

Use "The image inevitably" to search for it.

[Luís Henrique]

LH, here is the link in full:

Fine. And here is the complete paragraph to which the sentence you quote belongs:

Albrecht Rau, a follower of Feuerbach, therefore vigorously criticises Helmholtz’s theory of symbols as an inconsistent deviation from “realism.” Helmholtz’s basic view, says Rau, is a realistic hypothesis, according to which “we apprehend the objective properties of things with the help of our senses”.[2] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four6.htm#fwV14P235F01) The theory of symbols cannot be reconciled with such a view (which, as we have seen, is wholly materialist), for it implies a certain distrust of perception, a distrust of the evidence of our sense-organs. It is beyond doubt that an image cannot wholly resemble the model, but an image is one thing, a symbol, a conventional sign, another. The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.” “Conventional sign,” symbol, hieroglyph are concepts which introduce an entirely unnecessary element of agnosticism. Albrecht Rau, therefore, is perfectly right in saying that Helmholtz’s theory of symbols pays tribute to Kantianism. “Had Helmholtz,” says Rau, “remained true to his realistic conception, had he consistently adhered to the basic principle that the properties of bodies express the relations of bodies to each other and also to us, he obviously would have had no need of the whole theory of symbols; he could then have said, briefly and clearly: the sensations which are produced in us by things are reflections of the nature of those things”Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

Still avoiding the issues I see.


No, but you weren't convinced when myself or Wat Tyler proved the point to you, so you keep clinging to a lost battle. I just posted that because I am grateful that Luis posted up the full quote because I went on to read more, and found the passage interesting.


It is not doing too well anywhere else, either.

Not necesarily true, Venezuela and Bolivia are in revolutioanry situations, and France, Italy and Greece have come pretty close in recent years too. But this is probably not the palce for that conversation. The point is that Britain is particularly bad.


Then if Luis won't answer, perhaps you will: how does that defend Lenin against my accusations?

I didn't say it did, it simply places the quote in a context where it actually has a purpose, which makes it more valuable.

Of course that is the difference between formal and dialectical logic. Formal logicians take the "component parts" of a dialogue out of the time and space which gives them meaning, which is pretty idealist at its core as you seem to expect to find "inherent value" to a sentence. This ties in pretty well with the whole rationalist tradition which sees the universe like clockwork, which can be broken down to self-contained component parts, all working of their own accord (in rational self-interest I presume).

I suppose you think saying that makes me a mystic, however, it's you who expects to find the meaning of a sentence in and of itself rather than as part of a whole, which suggests fetishization of the component part.

[Luís Henrique]

Don't tell me that you too have moved into an enigmatic phase...

I am not telling you that I moved into an enigmatic phase... and I would not tell even if I did.

******************
It seems of interest that the Lenin text you are criticising does not derive its "dialectics" from Hegel, but from Kautsky... in fact, Lenin's later turn to Hegel was a direct response to Kautsky's support of war.

In other words, M&E is vulgar materialism; which can be seen as he calls Feuerbach's materialism "consistent"...

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



No, but you weren't convinced when myself or Wat Tyler proved the point to you, so you keep clinging to a lost battle. I just posted that because I am grateful that Luis posted up the full quote because I went on to read more, and found the passage interesting.



Well, I managed to show that you could only defend Lenin by ignoring what he actually said, or (in Wat's case) by pretending it wasn't literal.

I countered by re-quoting Lenin, and arguing that on Wat's basis you could make Genesis compatible with Darwin.

Now, you tell me, how does that not demolish all you (both) had to say?


Not necesarily true, Venezuela and Bolivia are in revolutioanry situations, and France, Italy and Greece have come pretty close in recent years too. But this is probably not the palce for that conversation. The point is that Britain is particularly bad.

I hope you are right, but it is not too clear that this has anything to do with reading MEC.


I didn't say it did, it simply places the quote in a context where it actually has a purpose, which makes it more valuable.


So, how does it help defend Lenin from my accusations? You seem (understandably) reluctant to say.


Of course that is the difference between formal and dialectical logic. Formal logicians take the "component parts" of a dialogue out of the time and space which gives them meaning, which is pretty idealist at its core as you seem to expect to find "inherent value" to a sentence. This ties in pretty well with the whole rationalist tradition which sees the universe like clockwork, which can be broken down to self-contained component parts, all working of their own accord (in rational self-interest I presume).

What are you blathering on about?

This has nothing to do with 'formal logic', but everything to do with what Lenin actually argued -- and your incapacity to defend his actual words underlines this.

I could just as easily argue that Dialectical 'Logic' allows you to re-write any passage you like that has been shown to be b*llocks, as these of Lenin's have.

And since you know nothing of Formal logic, you are in no position to judge, even if there were an atom of truth in what you say.



I suppose you think saying that makes me a mystic, however, it's you who expects to find the meaning of a sentence in and of itself rather than as part of a whole, which suggests fetishization of the component part.


No it confirms you are a dissembler.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



It seems of interest that the Lenin text you are criticising does not derive its "dialectics" from Hegel, but from Kautsky... in fact, Lenin's later turn to Hegel was a direct response to Kautsky's support of war.

In other words, M&E is vulgar materialism; which can be seen as he calls Feuerbach's materialism "consistent"...



I agree, but you try getting the orthodox Lenin-clones here to agree.

And, it's not too clear that Lenin's reliance on the Hermetic confusion one finds in Hegel helped him all that much.

It certainly did not help him defend the idea that we are in touch with 'objective' reality through our 'images'.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'm sure that Lenin does not think everything we imagine corresponds perfectly to reality. Say, if you imagine an alien. You can imagine preposterous aliens, ones that don't exist in reality, but you have to make them out of components that do in fact exist. Say your alien has massive black eyes with stars in them. The massive black eyes don't exist, but things that are massive exist, things that are black exist, and stars exist. So each of the individual components making up "Santa Claus" has to exist, (Beards, for example) but that doesn't imply that the whole thing has to exist.

-Alex

[Hit The North]

Good point, why would a member of a leninist party read a book by Lenin? Ridiculous suggestion. Workers love Lenin because he was a great leader, and that's what workers like, leaders, right? Obviously they wouldn't read his book and question it, they're workers. Not like them intellectuals in their ivory tower who read. Now let's get pissed.

hmmm I wonder why the left does so badly in Britain.

:rolleyes:

Do I detect a shed-load of sarcasm here?

How many workers have you won to the cause by expounding the thoughts of comrade Lenin as found in Materialism and Empirico-Criticism? A hundred? Five? None?

Now if we were talking about What Is To be Done, Imperialism, State & Revolution, or Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, then it would be a different matter. Now, yes, my comrades in the branch are workers, with jobs to do, and therefore have limited time to read. Do you think we should be telling them to use that time to study a badly executed polemic regarding an antiquated dispute over the theory of knowledge? Do you think that this will advance the course of revolutionary socialism in Britain by a mile? An inch? Less than a millimeter?

And sorry if the idea of us having a few drinks after a meeting offends some deep-seated moral that you cannot extricate yourself from. But if you're just having a go so you can be a sanctimonious twat, then you can shove it, comrade.:)

[Dystisis]

I'm sure that Lenin does not think everything we imagine corresponds perfectly to reality. Say, if you imagine an alien. You can imagine preposterous aliens, ones that don't exist in reality, but you have to make them out of components that do in fact exist. Say your alien has massive black eyes with stars in them. The massive black eyes don't exist, but things that are massive exist, things that are black exist, and stars exist. So each of the individual components making up "Santa Claus" has to exist, (Beards, for example) but that doesn't imply that the whole thing has to exist.

I am thinking the same. But I am not particularily schooled in this topic, I'd just assumed that this was indeed what Lenin meant, as anything else would obviously be a false assertion.

I got to note that it's foolish to believe a person to be correct all the time, people always makes inaccurate claims which (in the case of more or less enlightened people) often are simply a result of the advancement (or lack thereof) in their fields at the time. That doesn't mean they can't be contributing towards the goal (of total enlightenment,) though. Even though I am not qualified to tell, something like this could obviously be the case here...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, I am sure you are right, but then he has no valid way of arguing from his own images to objective reality without the 'Santa argument' as I call it.

On the other hand, if only some of his images relate to objective reality, he has no way of telling the valid ones from the bogus.

And with that goes his entire case against Mach, Bogdanov and Avenarius.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dystisis:


I am thinking the same. But I am not particularily schooled in this topic, I'd just assumed that this was indeed what Lenin meant, as anything else would obviously be a false assertion.

I got to note that it's foolish to believe a person to be correct all the time, people always makes inaccurate claims which (in the case of more or less enlightened people) often are simply a result of the advancement (or lack thereof) in their fields at the time. That doesn't mean they can't be contributing towards the goal (of total enlightenment,) though. Even though I am not qualified to tell, something like this could obviously be the case here...

Once more, this is Lenin's only argument that grounds his own subjective 'images' in objective reality. Without it, the central core of his book collapses.

He is scathing in his criticsim of the beliefs of others, but it now turns out that all he has to offer in return is a vague sort of faith in the objectivity of the world, based on his own ungrounded subjective images.

He ends up worse off that Locke, Berkeley and Hume, to say nothing of Mach, Bogdanov, Avenarius and Poincare -- who did know what they were talking about (unlike Lenin), even if they too were misguided.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Burn, I am sure you are right, but then he has no valid way of arguing from his own images to objective reality without the 'Santa argument' as I call it.


Well this is what I meant - Lenin, if we attribute to him an intelligence slightly above an average 5 year old, must be aware that composite images in his mind aren't necessarily real things in the world. So it makes more sense to interpret him as saying all the individual "bits" of our images do correspond to reality. And this view makes sense - ideas don't come out of a vacuum. You can't think of a new colour, for example.

Basically he'd have had to have been an absolute fruit loop to believe his imagination necessarily produced real things, so it's more likely that he meant to say what I was saying. Isn't it?

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unfortunately, he did not have the benefit of your sound advice; he was trapped in a solipsistic world without this argument. His theory is like a car without a motor.

That is the bottom line, I'm afraid.

[Zurdito]

I'm sure that Lenin does not think everything we imagine corresponds perfectly to reality. Say, if you imagine an alien. You can imagine preposterous aliens, ones that don't exist in reality, but you have to make them out of components that do in fact exist. Say your alien has massive black eyes with stars in them. The massive black eyes don't exist, but things that are massive exist, things that are black exist, and stars exist. So each of the individual components making up "Santa Claus" has to exist, (Beards, for example) but that doesn't imply that the whole thing has to exist.

-Alex

This is true


How many workers have you won to the cause by expounding the thoughts of comrade Lenin as found in Materialism and Empirico-Criticism? A hundred? Five? None?

Once in a trotskyist organisation I would expect (weekly) branch meetings to be set aside for real political discussion and educating members about the fundamentals of marxism. If a book by Lenin came up I'd expect people to be interested in hearing from anyone who had read it instead of laughing at the idea.


Now if we were talking about What Is To be Done, Imperialism, State & Revolution, or Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, then it would be a different matter. Now, yes, my comrades in the branch are workers, with jobs to do, and therefore have limited time to read.

yes, the intelelctual division of labour, I'm familiar with the concept, but it is another thing to expect and encourage anti-intellectualism amongst workers. If it does exist then it's a problem. In my experience worker comrades who have joined and pay to be part of a revolutionary movement do not have that attitude though.


And sorry if the idea of us having a few drinks after a meeting offends some deep-seated moral that you cannot extricate yourself from. But if you're just having a go so you can be a sanctimonious twat, then you can shove it, comrade.:)

After a meeting sounds fair enough to me, comrades need to let their hair down just like anyone else. Revolutionary piss ups in my experience are wilder than any other.:) But it's not me who is being a sanctimonious twat though, you just honestly have come across as extremely anti-intellectual and almost workerist in this thread. Maybe usually you aren't like that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, I see you are still avoiding the issues I raised.

Very wise. I'd do the same in your predicament.

[Zurdito]

Ah, I see you are still avoiding the issues I raised.

Very wise. I'd do the same in your predicament.

What issues am I avoiding? As far as I am concerned you had lost the argument by the first page. A picture is a real object. The component parts of an imagined human being are all real objects.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zurdito:


What issues am I avoiding? As far as I am concerned you had lost the argument by the first page. A picture is a real object. The component parts of an imagined human being are all real objects.

I agree with you that they are, but Lenin cannot prove this from his 'images'.

Can you?

All he can prove (if that is the word) is that he has these 'images'. For all he knows, given his starting point, they could all be illusory or merely subjective.

How do you propose to ground his 'images' in objective reality?

That is the issue you keep avoiding.

[Good luck with that one...]

[Zurdito]

I agree with you that they are, but Lenin cannot prove this from his 'images'.

No, I agree he can't prove that simply from the fact that he imagines something, that it's real. But I also don't see how he could imagine something which is not drawn from reality, that would be idealist.




[All he can prove (if that is the word) is that he has these 'images'. For all he knows, given his starting point, they could all be illusory or merely subjective.


That's true. maybe he framed his argument back to front. I can think of worse mistakes though,this would hardly make him a philosophical incompetent or mean that he believed in Santa.



How do you propose to ground his 'images' in objective reality?

He could draw them. :laugh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zurdito:




That's true. maybe he framed his argument back to front. I can think of worse mistakes though,this would hardly make him a philosophical incompetent or mean that he believed in Santa.




Ah, at last, the penny is beginning to drop.


But, this is no help to Lenin, he needs the 'Santa argument'; without it his whole thesis falls flat.


Without it, all his opponents would have to do is point out that Lenin has argued in a circle, from the naive (but totally subjective) ideas of 'commonsense', back to the naive ideas of 'commonsense'.


In other words, he would have to assume the truth of what he was trying to prove, and had just wasted 400 pages beating about the bush, abusing his opponents' theories with nothing to offer in their place.


And you probably missed this comment of mine earlier (in response to Alastair:



Alastair





It is impossible to deliver 6 billion toys in one night, that is physically impossible. Therefore, Santa in the sense of a guy who does this, cannot exist. If he did exist, he couldn't do it, and since the notion of Santa we're dealing with here is a guy who does this, Santa in that sense does not exist.


However, even while knowing this to be true, I can still have an image of a fat beared old guy in a red suit in my head, because Santa in the sense if a pop culture entity does exist.

I agree, but that is not the point; if Lenin was right then this odd character must exist.


Since Santa does not exist, Lenin's argument is defective.


Now, when I was researching this material, I read through this book very carefully many times, making detailed notes, specifically looking for an argument that Lenin used to break out of the phenomenalist prison he was in (or, rather, his opponents were in), and this was the only one I could find.


As I have shown above, this is a defective argument, since it is obvious that Lenin did not believe what I alleged of him -- I made these allegations deliberately controversial to bring this out.


But, this is his [I]only argument, and if it is a dud, which it is, then Lenin's theory is no better than the theories of those he was attacking.


Now, the comrades here have fallen into a trap (as have you), for I have successfully exposed the serious flaw in Lenin's attempt to refute Bogdanov, Mach and Avenarius.


So, if we accept his proof, then Lenin must have believed in Santa.


On the other hand, if we reject this inference, then Lenin's proof is no good, and he is a phenomenalist.


You can be sure that his opponents will not have missed this flaw, that is if they could be bothered to read this awful book.



So my claims about Santa were merely aimed at bringing this point out.


1) Lenin needed an argument to ground his images in reality.


2) He argued that an image implies the existence of that which it is the image of.


3) This imples Santa must exist.


4) But, Santa does not exist.


5) Therefore Lenin's inference (in 2)) is invalid.


This leaves Lenin with no way of breaking out of subjectivism.




He could draw them



And then, he'd have only an image of his drawing.


How would he (how would you) prove that the drawing exists in reality, and not just as an image in his (your) mind?


As I said, good luck with that one.


And a joke will no longer do...

[Zurdito]

How would he (how would you) prove that the drawing exists in reality, and not just as an image in his (your) mind?


I don't know what happened to your font, but if your intention was to hurt my eyes, it worked.

A drawing is a real object and it does exist in reality. The point being that you can only draw shapes and colours which can exist externally from your mind. The same goes with imagining them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zurdito:


A drawing is a real object and it does exist in reality. The point being that you can only draw shapes and colours which can exist externally from your mind. The same goes with imagining them.

I agree with you, but Lenin has no way of proving this, since he begins with images.

Now, if you imagine something, we know that you have got your ideas from reality.

But, Lenin does not begin with that; he starts with images.

That is why he needed the 'Santa argument'.

Once that falls flat, as we have seen, his theory is left high and dry.

That is the point you keep skipping past.

[Zurdito]

Zurdito:



I agree with you, but Lenin has no way of proving this, since he begins with images.

Now, if you imagine something, we know that you have got your ideas from reality.

But, Lenin does not begin with that; he starts with images.

That is why he needed the 'Santa argument'.

Once that falls flat, as we have seen, his theory is left high and dry.

That is the point you keep skipping past.

Fair enough then, I thought you were arguing something different. I think I agree with you. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, now we have to think of a way to reconstruct our theory to make it immune to the attacks of idealists and subjectivists.

[Guest1]

Moved to chit-chat.

No real content in the first post, and further trolling is ill-advised, Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You have merely panicked because you cannot respond to my demolition of Lenin's core argument in favour of his belief in objective reality.

And you mistake my intentions; I deliberately made this a controversial post to make comrades think.



1) This is Lenin's only solid argument allowing him to establish the objectivity of the outside world.

2) But, his argument is too rich, for it implies Santa exists.

3) Manifestly Santa does not exist, and nor does Lenin believe he exists.

4) So, Lenin's inference from his images to objective reality fails.

5) Lenin has no other argument.

6) He is now in a worse position than Mach, Bogdanov and Avenarius, since he has made a 400 page fool of himself by attacking them, when he is still trapped in a solipsistic world, and one which he has accused their theories of implying.

7) Conclusion: Because he has not thought this through, he is an incompetent Philosopher.

Now, it is interesting to see that you think that now I have established that MEC is a 400 page waste of paper, that there in no content to this thread. Like it or not, that is an important result. It means that one of the key texts we use to defend our ideas is useless, and that we had better address this weakness pretty quick.

But, you prefer the head in the sand, safe approach -- again.

Are you not concerned to put up some sort of defence of Lenin?



and further trolling is ill-advised, [B]Rosa.


Ooooh, scary! :scared:

[blackstone]

wtf Che, this should be moved back to philosophy or theory.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Apparently so, since he argued as follows:



This can only mean that if you can form an image of something in your mind, it must exist in reality!

So, not only are there unicorns and hob-goblins in Lenin's universe, it is graced with Big Foot and dear old Santa (and Hitler, and Mussolini, and...).

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm)

This is a link to a long-overdue demolition of Lenin's egregious book.

It must be avoided at all costs by comrades who like to pontificate about my work without actually having read it, and by those whose sycophantic worship of Lenin turns him into an infallible god.
Well in fairness Rosa, what do you picture when you picture Santa Claus? Do you picture some completely novel entity previous unknown to mankind? Something which bears no relation in any way whatsoever to external reality? No, you picture a man in a red suit wearing a hat. Similarly with unicorns; they themselves do not exist, but ponies exist, and it's not very hard to go from pony -> pony with horn on head. Indeed, we could even extend this to include the hobgoblin example; of course no one has ever seen a hobgoblin, but even when one imagines a hobgoblin one can only form an image consisting of the kind of colours, features, shapes and bodily tissue that exist, or at some point have existed, even in altered form, in the real world. If you form an image of anything in your head it will be based on your past experience of matter. I think this is what Lenin was saying; that our ability to form images in our mind is bound by our experiences with external reality.

[Leo]

I think what was meant in the original sentence will be more clear if we replace the term 'imagining' with 'perceiving':

"Our sensation, our consciousness is only a perception of the external world, and it is obvious that a perception cannot exist without the thing perceived, and that the latter exists independently of that which perceives it."

It is after all a translation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:



"Our sensation, our consciousness is only a perception of the external world, and it is obvious that a perception cannot exist without the thing perceived, and that the latter exists independently of that which perceives it."



This does not help Lenin, for our perceptions might be misleading, or entirely subjective.

And, you too are trying to 'sanitise' Lenin.

As I noted of several other posters, this tactic would allow Genesis to be made compatible with Darwin -- just change a few words here and there, and bingo...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RS1916:


Well in fairness Rosa, what do you picture when you picture Santa Claus? Do you picture some completely novel entity previous unknown to mankind? Something which bears no relation in any way whatsoever to external reality? No, you picture a man in a red suit wearing a hat. Similarly with unicorns; they themselves do not exist, but ponies exist, and it's not very hard to go from pony -> pony with horn on head. Indeed, we could even extend this to include the hobgoblin example; of course no one has ever seen a hobgoblin, but even when one imagines a hobgoblin one can only form an image consisting of the kind of colours, features, shapes and bodily tissue that exist, or at some point have existed, even in altered form, in the real world. If you form an image of anything in your head it will be based on your past experience of matter. I think this is what Lenin was saying; that our ability to form images in our mind is bound by our experiences with external reality.

But, lenin cannot argue this way, for all he has are 'images'; he needs this inference to ground his 'images' in objective reality.

He was not arguing that we have images (of colours, shapes, objects, etc) because things exist in reality which cause them, but the fact that we have an image implies that of which it is the image exists.

So, if I have an image of red, it exists.

If I have an image of a door, it exists.

If I have an image of King Canute, he exists.

If I have an image of Santa, he exists...

His wording and context bear no other interpretation:



The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”


He did not say:



The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of the component parts of that which it “images.”


Nor did he say



The image inevitably and of necessity was caused by that which it “images.”


He might believe this, as we might, but he has no proof of this. That is why he needed this inference to work -- which it does not.

So, since Santa does not exist, Lenin's inference is defective.

But he has no other argument that allows him to break out of his subjective prison, and so he is in the same predicament as Mach, Bogdanov, and Avenarius -- except they knew what they were talking about.

[temp918273]

This thread is a ridiculous ploy for your book and you're acting like a fucking pompous asshole. Is your approach to any philosophical idea/book/sentence/word you deem incorrect as bitter and elitist as this post? Hopefully you'll remain invisible and unimportant because the last thing the communist movement needs is some self-important prick with their head up their own ass as a representative.

"The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”"

The mind's ability to create an image of Santa, or any mythological being/object is in fact a result of external stimuli interpreted through sense organs. Lenin was just reciting the old materialist argument that all images in our minds are composed of memories(either whole or components) of our body's interpretation of an objective external reality.
When read in context it's very clear what he meant, but you're right in that it wasn't the best sentence for him to communicate that idea. Maybe poor editing or translation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TemperTemper918273:



This thread is a ridiculous ploy for your book and you're acting like a fucking pompous asshole. Is your approach to any philosophical idea/book/sentence/word you deem incorrect as bitter and elitist as this post? Hopefully you'll remain invisible and unimportant because the last thing the communist movement needs is some self-important prick with their head up their own ass as a representative.



I do not have a book; and if you think you can come here and simply abuse me, you are sadly mistaken.

You can accuse me of being wrong, confused, ideologically adrift...; no problem. But any more straight abuse like this will be deleted.

And, I note, once more, a comrade (perhaps a 'Leninist') who cannot respond to my refutation of Lenin's only argument in the entire book that tries to break out of the subjectivist pit he had dug for himself.



The mind's ability to create an image of Santa, or any mythological being/object is in fact a result of external stimuli interpreted through sense organs. Lenin was just reciting the old materialist argument that all images in our minds are composed of memories(either whole or components) of our body's interpretation of an objective external reality.

We know this, and Lenin certainly believed this, but he has no way of proving it (and neither have you) -- except by means of this 'argument'.

But this 'argument' is far too strong; it implies the existence of that which an image is the image.

So, once more, an image of a unicorn implies at least one unicorn exists.

Now, I have made this point very carefuly and clearly several times, so I can only imagine that you either did not read this thread too carefully, or you do not understand the issues involved.



When read in context it's very clear what he meant, but you're right in that it wasn't the best sentence for him to communicate that idea. Maybe poor editing or translation.


The translation cannot affect the fact that this is Lenin's only 'proof', and it does not work (no argument will work here).

In fact, far better Philosophers than Lenin have come unstuck in this area.

If you begin with 'images', as Lenin does, there is no way out of this epistemological hole. So, re-translating Lenin will not rescue him -- no argument exists that can transform subjective images into objective realities.

This is all so unfortunate; there are far better ways of defending materialism than this.

[temp918273]

Go back in the thread and read some of your own abuse. Everyone who has attempted to defend the comment has been dismissed as a Lenin worshiper in a of slumber of ignorance.
I've read some of your essays on the need to get past DM and I agree with large sections of them, but approaching it like this doesn't help anyone. There are much more useful ways of presenting your argument than childish iconoclasm and accusing any opponents as fools with a personality fetish.



So, once more, and image of a unicorn implies at least one unicorn exists.You're being a vulgar reductionist and intentionally misrepresenting what is being said. The image of a unicorn is essentially a combination of two existing component images(horn and horse) so it's not shocking that the human mind by way of imagination could combine the two into a unicorn.
That was what Lenin was saying. In order for a human to create an image in his/her head there must be some image or images that exist which consist of either the whole or parts of the image in the person's head.

Granted, that's not exactly what he says, but any reasonable interpretation(not one looking to "demolish" everything he says by nitpicking individual sentences). Lenin is not saying that the imaginary is real, and hopefully you know that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Temp:



Go back in the thread and read some of your own abuse. Everyone who has attempted to defend the comment has been dismissed as a Lenin worshiper in a of slumber of ignorance.



My words of censure directed at those individuals you mention followed upon their abuse of me. I did not begin by attacking them.

I do not use the sort of language you used on me. Now, I said you can call me ignorant, confused or plain stupid, but any more posts with the kind of language you used will be deleted. There is no excuse for that.


I've read some of your essays on the need to get past DM and I agree with large sections of them, but approaching it like this doesn't help anyone. There are much more useful ways of presenting your argument than childish iconoclasm and accusing any opponents as fools with a personality fetish.


And there is a reason for my cussidness (which I explain on the opening page); but I have done nothing to deserve the extreme abuse you dished out.



You're being a vulgar reductionist and intentionally misrepresenting what is being said. The image of a unicorn is essentially a combination of two existing component images(horn and horse) so it's not shocking that the human mind by way of imagination could combine the two into a unicorn.


Others here tried that line of defence and it won't work; for a start it is reductionist itself.

Secondly I quoted his exact words; you are the one who is ignoring them, or seeking to have them sanitised (perhaps by re-translating them), not me

But, more importantly, Lenin cannot establish the objectivity of even the parts of his images, or the images of part of objects without this argument. It grounds what he takes to be his images of objects and/or their parts in objective reality.

If Lenin has an image of, say, blue, he cannot show that any blue object, or source of blueness, exists in the outside world without this argument. For all he knows colour could be a subjective experience created by his own mind. And this could be the case with his other images.

Sure he can [I]say it isn't, he can beleive it isn't, and he can take others to task for saying the opposite (as you can too). But none of these constitute proof.

This is the only argument in the entire book that supports the view that this is not the case, and that his images are objective. There is no other. Without it, he has no way of knowing his images are not subjective. [You are welcome to try to show otherwise.]

So, if he has an image of blue, according to this argument, blue objects must exist.

He is not arguing the other way round (for, if he did, it would not have helped him).

It is no use him arguing that blue exists in reality therefore we have images of it (as you are attempting to do), for a follower of Mach, Bogdanov, or Berkeley would just retort: "How do you know?" And Lenin has no answer to that, other than this argument. Without it, he is sunk.

Sure, he deployed all manner of irrelevant rhetorical devices to attack subjectivists, but the one argument that allowed him to base his images in objective reality was this one.

But it is too strong, and implies the existence of things Lenin would have denied. Hence it is a useless argument, and I am right to point this out.


That was what Lenin was saying. In order for a human to create an image in his/her head there must be some image or images that exist which consist of either the whole or parts of the image in the person's head.


You can claim this, but but the wording of these passages is the exact opposite of what you say:



The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”


It wasn't:



The parts of an image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it “images.”


Or even:



The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of the component parts of that which it “images.”


So he was arguing from images of anything (part, component, whole object) to the existence of whatever it is that it is the image of.

Not the other way round:


The image inevitably and of necessity was caused by that which it “images.”

Once more, he might believe this, and even thump the table to underline that fact; but he has no proof without this argument.

However, your argument traps all Lenin's images in his head. How is he going to show they are objective, on your view? [There is no way; and that is why he deployed this argument.]

Now, I have been over this many times here. If you have any textual evidence from MEC (or from anything else Lenin wrote) that supports your interpretation, let's see it.

Without it, your response is just wishful thinking, or, like one or two others here, just an attempt to sanitise Lenin, and remove the embarrassment of having to admit his argument implies Santa Claus exists.

So, as I have noted, your reply still traps Lenin in the subjectivist hole he has dug for himself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the final analysis: well, Lenin DID celebrate X-mas in 1923, so perhaps he did believe in Santa Claus! :D

[LSD]

So.... if I'm to summarize this thread, Rosa's problem is that Lenin apparently postulated in some obscure philiophical text that, of all things, sentio ergo est; the mere notion of a thing makes the thing real. i.e., if I can think it, it must exist. Rosa judges that to be a bad basis for a materialistic philosphy.

Well, she's right, of course. And Lenin was a rather lousy philisopher (he was also a rather lousy politician but that's another discussion), but one wonders as to the relevency of this issue today.

Is someone proposing that we utilize Lenin's theoretics? Or that we should employ his particular "intepretation" of objectivity? 'Cause if not, who cares if he happened to take an overbroad view of materialism?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, Lenin obviously couldn't take his own thinking to its logical conclusion. Good thing Rosa is here to do that for us. :rolleyes:

We know Lenin didn't believe in Santa.. so he certainly didn't think in a way that would have lead him to do so. What Lenin is describing has already been defined earlier in this thread, i.e. that consciousness is a reflection of reality, and that anything we can conjure up can only be a reflection of what really exists (for example, unicorns don't exist, but horses and horns do).

[MarxSchmarx]

Well I had a look at your essay, Rosa, and there was one point you didn't address.

Could there be a charitable reading of the Russian original terms for Lenin's "image", "thing imagined", and "exists independently"? Possibly one dealing with a sense of the term "image" for example, in Russian, that is not quite captured in English. "Thing" after all is one of the most loaded, nuanced terms one could attempt to translate. I've tried translating philosophy before and gave up very, very quickly.

I expect your answer to be an unqualified no. For your essay, perhaps you'd like to explain away this possibility for the sake of completeness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LSD, you are right about his philosophy, but I cannot, as you might expect, agree with you about his politics.

But, unfortunatley, as you can see from the reception I have experienced here, far too many comrades think this book of Lenin's is almost the last word on the subject (especially if it is beefed-up with his later, more Hegelian thoughts).

So, it is important for me to deflate these ideas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CDL-as-was:



Good thing Rosa is here to do that for us.


Well, you seem incapable of defending Lenin...



We know Lenin didn't believe in Santa.. so he certainly didn't think in a way that would have lead him to do so. What Lenin is describing has already been defined earlier in this thread, i.e. that consciousness is a reflection of reality, and that anything we can conjure up can only be a reflection of what really exists (for example, unicorns don't exist, but horses and horns do).


You are right, Lenin certainly believed the reflection theory, but his only argument in support was the one I quoted, and since it does not work, that puts Lenin in the same invidious position as Mach, Avenarius and Berkeley: he is a subjective idealist/fideist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarxSchmarx:



Could there be a charitable reading of the Russian original terms for Lenin's "image", "thing imagined", and "exists independently"? Possibly one dealing with a sense of the term "image" for example, in Russian, that is not quite captured in English. "Thing" after all is one of the most loaded, nuanced terms one could attempt to translate. I've tried translating philosophy before and gave up very, very quickly.



I suspect you might be right, and an article I cite in that essay (by Goldstick) actually argues along precisely these lines. [As I also note, in a later re-write of this Essay, I will add a long critique of this paper -- I had to break-off in order to help prepare for my trip to Oxford.]

Unfortunatley, no re-write of Lenin (or new translation) can get him out of this hole.

If you begin with images, then you are stuck with them for good, as should seem obvious.