Relativism, objectivism and communsim.

[apathy maybe]

This post is in response to some comments by Nothing Human is Alien (CdL) in the feminism thread in politics. http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminism-bourgeois-ideology-p1083294/index.html

I won't bother to address the points about feminism, there are enough other people who are saying what I would say. So I'll just talk about relativism and objectivism.



For non-physical things it becomes much more likely, however, that people don't agree with each other on terminology or definitions. (Example, the "Leninist" definition of the state vs the "anarchist" definition.) Doesn't make either party wrong, it just means that they disagree on a definition.
So you basically answered my question: no, it's not worth trying to talking to you. If you reject that there are correct and incorrect answers, there's zero point in debate. Let's all 'respect each others diverse opinions' and be on our way..

(On the state, it is an objective thing. If communists and anarchists think it is two completely different things, than one or both of them are wrong. There is a correct and incorrect answer, regardless or not if we've found out what it is yet.)
You're crazy. If you seriously think that there is an objective definition of what a "state" is, then I suggest you do some reading about what objective actually means. Maybe do a philosophy course or something (if nothing else read Hume, heck, everyone should read Hume, even if they don't cling to a brain-damaged philosophy).

I never said that there were not "incorrect" or "correct" answers full-stop (though for somethings, there obviously are no objective answers, such as "which side of the road should we drive on?" or "is it OK to claim to have written something that you didn't really write?" (plagiarism)).



As such, while we can agree that "things are knowable", and that "one can be correct or incorrect on things", if you try and force this onto politics,
It's not a question of whether or not I try to do something.. There are correct and incorrect approaches and understandings. Some theories about what will bring about communism are right and others are wrong.. that would the case even if we didn't know which were which yet.
Is communism "good"? Is communism "inevitable"?
Is communism "objectively good"?

I would say that communism is "good" from my perspective, because it is in my interest to have a communist system. Is it objectively good? You would have to be be either crazy or Plato to say that anything is "objectively good". The universe doesn't (can't care about anything.

If you think that communism is "inevitable", is that a scientific hypothesis (which I would say it isn't because there is no way of testing it)? I would say that it is probably likely that communism will come about, but saying that it is "inevitable" is irrational. (Using induction is irrational, if you disagree, I direct your attention to Hume, because I want no further part in this.)

If you don't think your politics are correct, why do you* have them?

* I'm speaking more generally here, as I don't believe you have any politics to speak of at all.
Where did I say that I didn't think that my politics were correct? What exactly do you mean by "politics", and why don't you think I have any?
Personally I do think that my political opinions are correct, otherwise I wouldn't have them. By "correct" I am talking about a few different things, both ethical (by my ethics, my politics are the best), and self-interested (it is in my self-interest to have an anarchistic system for society).



well there is no point in having a discussion is there.
I agree. That's why I asked the question earlier. See you later.
I hope you'll continue this discussion here, and even if you can't get anything out of it, maybe someone else will.


Regardless of what's floating around in the muck of relativism in that brain of yours, communism is a science. We are revolutionary scientists, as we seek not just to understand the world, but to change it.
Keep dreaming baby.




If they say that communism is an authoritarian state, then by their definition of communism, they are correct.
No they're not. Just 'cause 5 billion people are wrong, doesn't mean they somehow become correct. Ideas are not correct or incorrect based on how many people believe them. Most people believe in god, but god still doesn't exist. Likewise, communism is a classless, moneyless society. Whether or not anyone understand that, it's still the case.
by their definition of communism, they are correct
You can't get around that relativism.

On the idea of ideas being correct or not in a more general sense, for so many things you cannot have a "right" or "wrong". 1+1=2 is an idea that is "correct" (meaningful might be a better term). But mathematical truths are one of the few things that are always meaningful (actually, if you are in the power of a very powerful manipulative being, then maybe they could even manipulate your perception of mathematics, thus rendering 1+1=2 as meaningless, but assuming that this isn't the case...).
You might believe everything is objective, but it doesn't change that people have different definitions for words,

Gravity was gravity, and worked as gravity works, before anyone understood it. That's objective fact.
Obviously. But you are trying to tie together two distinct concepts, and failing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM, Hume is the very worst place to start!

Even he said his ideas were crazy:



"I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.

"Here then I find myself absolutely and necessarily determin'd to live, and talk, and act like other people in the common affairs of life. But notwithstanding that my natural propensity, and the course of my animal spirits and passions reduce me to this indolent belief in the general maxims of the world, I still feel such remains of my former disposition, that I am ready to throw all my books and papers into the fire, and resolve never more to renounce the pleasures of life for the sake of reasoning and philosophy." Hume Treatise Book I Section VII (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Hume%20Treatise/hume%20treatise1.htm).

And I have to side with CDL-as-was here, for if the message you bring us is that there is objectivley no objectivity, then it that message itself implodes.

But, I do not happen to like this word ('objective'); when used philosophically it causes all manner of problems (some of which are evident already in this thread). There are far better words available to us, which do not have such untoward consequences.

[apathy maybe]

I knew I could count on you at least responding Rosa, though I wasn't quite sure what position you would take...

AM, Hume is the very worst place to start!

Even he said his ideas were crazy:
Hume on induction, on "intelligent design", on miracles, on god(s), and on a number of other subjects, is one of the best reads available. Ideas that many other people bring up again and again, Hume thought of before them. That's why I suggest Hume. (I'm surprised you don't think more of him, he appears to me to have been against much of the same thought of things you are against.)


And I have to side with CDL-as-was here, for if the message you bring us is that there is objectivley no objectivity, then it that message itself implodes.

But, I do not happen to like this word ('objective'); when used philosophically it causes all manner of problems (some of which are evident already in this thread). There are far better words available to us, which do not have such untoward consequences.
Well, while I can understand your first sentence, rest assured that is not what I'm arguing (I don't think...). I'm reasonably sure that there is an objective reality, whether humans can access it or not is a different question (we can't see radio waves for example, perhaps there are other things which we can't see and don't have the technology to detect). But that is a different question if to whether there is an objective morality (which I would argue that there isn't), or objective definitions of words (which CdL seems to argue that there are..., an idea that I find as absurd as an objective morality).

Anyway, a question, what words would you suggest to replace "objective" or "objectivity" ?

[Black Dagger]

If words had 'objective' meaning - wouldn't that mean that this meaning would remain fixed over-time? (which is clearly not the case with language) 'Objective' implies that there is a single, correct definition of a word - when in reality language (and its meaning) is in flux, often contested etc. Indeed, one of the key features of language is that words can have multiple meanings depending on context.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:



Hume on induction, on "intelligent design", on miracles, on god(s), and on a number of other subjects, is one of the best reads available. Ideas that many other people bring up again and again, Hume thought of before them. That's why I suggest Hume. (I'm surprised you don't think more of him, he appears to me to have been against much of the same thought of things you are against.)



Well, certainly Hume on the design argument and miracles, but that is about all. Much of the rest of his work is rather poor.



Anyway, a question, what words would you suggest to replace "objective" or "objectivity" ?


How about: "true", "accurate", "precise", "exact", "valid", "veridical", "reliable", "certain"...?

The list is almost endless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Black Dagger, I am not sure 'objective' means this; it is usually taken to mean 'independent of all observers', or, 'invariant across all descriptions', or 'as things are in themselves'. [As I hinted earlier, a totally hopeless set of 'definitions'.]

The problem is that if words change their meanings, including the ones you have just used, and we failed to keep abreast of these changes, then what you have to say here will be subject to unspecified 'short-comings'/changes, such that not even you would be able to say what these are, for you would have failed to keep up with these new meanings, and would have lost touch with the old ones.

[That is because you would have to access the 'old meanings' via your memery, and its deliverances to you would have to be in words, which would likewise be subject to these unspecified 'short-comings'/changes, too.]

On the other hand, of course, if you have kept up with these changes, then you will have kept up with the changes to the word 'objective', too.

I just do not think this word is much use (in philosophy), whether it changes or not.

[Black Dagger]

I don't think i follow how this relates to my post :blushing:

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my proposition that the meaning of words/language is subjective (as opposed to objective)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Meaning cannot be 'subjective', or you and I could not communicate.

But, I do not like these words ('subjective'/'objective').

[Black Dagger]

Meaning cannot be 'subjective', or you and I could not communicate.At first i thought - 'yeah that makes sense'

But now maybe not.

The phrase 'everything to everybody' refers to a person who seems to satisfy all interests (regardless of difference) - indeed political rhetoric often falls into this category (or at least i think, many politicians would aim for this) - people frequently read different meanings into the same text/speech (take critical theories of literature for example) depending on their gender, age, race, class, political persuasion etc. etc. points of view, perspectives that colour our interpretation of the world around us and language seem almost limitless.

This doesn't mean that we don't understand each other, but merely that what we think another person means is not always what they specifically intended (in many instances this has little-to-no broad effect - but this is not always the case). After all, language is not a perfect form of communication - a flawless transmission of meaning from one person to another without slippage of any kind.

Art, and literature are full of examples of this.

Where an artist or author construct a text (or if you prefer an object to be read/interpreted by an observer/reader) - they may have a specific meaning intended - this does not prevent the reader or observer of this text from constructing their own meaning - reading into the symbols and language in their own way - to construct meaning for themselves - perhaps nothing like the author imagined! This is one of the strengths of language and human culture generally i think.

To say that meaning cannot be subjective is to deny that individuals approach language and meaning differently - that we all think the same and have no subjectivity.




But, I do not like these words ('subjective'/'objective').

Ditto.

[bcbm]

Well as long as we're talking about language and objectivity, I'll inject Robert Anton Wilson in to the mix...

"Is", "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.

I think a lot of the problems being faced here relate to the issue Wilson is getting at. Everyone pushes the way they see the world and make sense of it as the way (objective), not acknowledging their role as an interpreter of what they see, etc. If we try to move away from this and try to recognize our views on the world as (to borrow more from Wilson) maybe true, it'd be easier to communicate and figure things out. Rigid dogmatism doesn't really serve anybody and that's what objectivity promotes. So perhaps we could say there maybe objectively no objectivity?;)


How about: "true", "accurate", "precise", "exact", "valid", "veridical", "reliable", "certain"...?

I think most of these words more or less lead to the same problems. What difference does it make if someone claims what they're saying is "objective" or "true?"


But, I do not like these words ('subjective'/'objective').

I don't really like those concepts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Black Dagger:



The phrase 'everything to everybody' refers to a person who seems to satisfy all interests (regardless of difference) - indeed political rhetoric often falls into this category (or at least i think, many politicians would aim for this) - people frequently read different meanings into the same text/speech (take critical theories of literature for example) depending on their gender, age, race, class, political persuasion etc. etc. points of view, perspectives that colour our interpretation of the world around us and language seem almost limitless.


But even this depends on me agreeing with you about the meaning of the words in which you chose to express this, as do you too.

If there were no agreed upon meanings, then not even you would have access to your own words, since, for all you know, they could alter from moment to moment.

In which case, this view of language self-destructs, for it is not now possible to express this possibility without using words whose meanings are inderterminate.

In that case, this very possibility is without content, and says nothing.


Art, and literature are full of examples of this.

Sure, but they have to innovate on the basis of words already understood (or which can be translated into them).

Not even Finnegan's Wake could by-pass this requirement; if it had, it would have just been like the nonsense rhymes one finds in, say, Lewis Carrol (such as the Jabberwocky).

If a writer wants to say something innovative, as opposed to something nonsensical, he/she will have to ground his/her words at some point in the common meanings already available in language.

And art (if by that you mean the visual arts) does not use language (in any straight-forward sense) so it is not relevant.

BCBM (quoting Wilson):



"Is", "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.


This makes little sense, for on that basis he cannot know what he is denying.

Even he will have to use the verb 'to be' to express his seemings, as in "This seems to be an objection to my rash conclusion". 'To be' and 'is' are indistinguishable (except stylistically and perhaps in tense).

So, it is not a good idea to take advice from a philsophical incompetent like Wilson

[For some reason, the software will not allow me to alter the above, and remove the italics!]



Everyone pushes the way they see the world and make sense of it as the way (objective), not acknowledging their role as an interpreter of what they see, etc. If we try to move away from this and try to recognize our views on the world as (to borrow more from Wilson) maybe true, it'd be easier to communicate and figure things out. Rigid dogmatism doesn't really serve anybody and that's what objectivity promotes. So perhaps we could say there maybe objectively no objectivity?


Well, this might have been the case if we all entered the world as social atoms, with no parents, siblings, peers, carers, teachers, friends, cultural/social history --, but we didn't.

In that case, we were taught what our words mean and how to interpret our senses, and one another. So, even though there is room for us all to innovate (and thus reject dogmatism), we can only do so within the narrow constraints within which we were socialised.

And a significant part of that involves is our shared language, with shared meanings (which, of course, allows you to communicate your ideas to me -- and for you to retrieve your own meanings).


What difference does it make if someone claims what they're saying is "objective" or "true?"


Well, neither word is any use in philosophy, and the ordinary use of these words is uncontroversial. So, there is in fact no problem with the non-philosophical use of either word (they just have different connotations).

I was just moaning about the use of 'objective' in Philosophy.

[bcbm]

But even this depends on me agreeing with you about the meaning of the words in which you chose to express this, as do you too.

But will you agree on all words, all the time? If not, then the meaning of those words cannot be "objective," unless some words have objective meaning and others don't? Given the debate occurring elsewhere right now over certain words and their meaning, I think it is pretty obvious that language is very subjective. While we may agree upon many meanings most of the time (what makes language possible), disagreements over meaning are inevitable.


Even he will have to use the verb 'to be' to express his seemings, as in "This seems to be an objection to my rash conclusion". 'To be' and 'is' are indistinguishable (except stylistically and perhaps in tense).

Actually he could just say, "This seems an objection to my rash conclusion." Its entirely possible to phrase most sentences without a "to be" verb (trust me, I had to do it for an entire year in high school English), and there's an entire linguistics theory dedicated to this: E-Prime. They basically argue that eliminating the use of "to be" verbs creates fewer misunderstandings and contradictions in language, leading to fewer conflicts, beyond stylistic concerns (why I had to do it). I think that relates to some of the discussion on hand here.


In that case, we were taught what our words mean and how to interpret our senses, and one another. So, even though there is room for us all to innovate (and thus reject dogmatism), we can only do so within the narrow constraints within which we were socialised.

I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing where exactly you're disagreeing with my here. I don't think having certain meanings and ways to perceive our sensory data makes it impossible to acknowledge um, exactly that and our role as interpreters of that data. As you acknowledge, we can still reject dogmatism (in everything?), so... where's the argument?


Well, neither word is any use in philosophy, and the ordinary use of these words is uncontroversial. So, there is in fact no problem with the non-philosophical use of either word (they just have different connotations).

What is the ordinary use? In traditional science? I wouldn't say it is uncontroversial there. Especially in more experimental branches of sciences (Quantum, etc) the use of the word objective (or "is") becomes extremely problematic. And it seems many have a problem distinguishing philosophy from science... see the start of this thread.

[Black Dagger]

But even this depends on me agreeing with you about the meaning of the words in which you chose to express this, as do you too.

If there were no agreed upon meanings, then not even you would have access to your own words, since, for all you know, they could alter from moment to moment.

In which case, this view of language self-destructs, for it is not now possible to express this possibility without using words whose meanings are inderterminate.

In that case, this very possibility is without content, and says nothing.

This is not what i'm arguing.

Indeed in my last post i explicitly rejected the idea that words don't have 'agreed meaning'! (see the bold bits):


This [that people frequently read different meanings into the same text/speech] does not mean that we cannot understand each other, but merely that what we think another person means is not always what they specifically intended (in many instances this has little-to-no broad effect - but this is not always the case). After all, language is not a perfect form of communication - a flawless transmission of meaning from one person to another without slippage of any kind.Of course words have agreed definitions (though again these definitions change over-time, expanding and contracting as words become archaic)- this is why its possible to have a dictionary. Although print dictionaries are obviously deficient in keeping up-to-date with the evolution of language, hence things like the urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/) - but the real issue here is not words but how they are used.

Most words have agreed definitions (though sometimes even these are contested - particularly when they relate to politics) - what we can't 'agree' on in advance is the meaning we convey when we use words to construct sentences. Although when we speak or write, we select words and arrange them into sentences (which we think will aptly convey our intended meaning) - this does not prevent readers from deriving a separate meaning from the one we had intended.

Indeed this is the bread and butter of historians - who analyse documents and other written sources in the hope that they can glean the intentions, motivations, even feelings of the creators of a text (hence why post-structuralists have taken an axe to 'objectivist' history) - they're engaging in interpretation - and disputes of the interpretations of these sources leads to historical debate and controversy.

Literary theory also posits a variety of lenses with which to view a text - a text can be read from a feminist, or marxist perspective for example - even when the author did not intend or taken into account these interpretations when constructing their work.

So although most words may have an agreed definition in isolation - it's not true that when words are used in combination to construct sentences - that is, when humans attempt to communicate on a complex level - that the meaning of theses words remains fixed (indeed even the use of single words is contextual - the meaning dependant on who the speaker is - to whom they're speaking etc.). They exist within the context of a sentence, subject to emphasis, directed to a specific audience (or none at all) - a plethora of factors - both under the control of the speaker or writer - and completely beyond them - the perspective of the listener, reader - the influence if any of their gender, age, class, politics etc. upon their perspective of the speaker or writer and what they are attempting to communicate.

As i said in my last post, To say that meaning cannot be subjective is to deny that individuals approach language and meaning differently - that we all think the same and have no subjectivity.

That when we hear someone speak we draw the same conclusions from their words that everyone else does - the same meaning that the speaker had intended. That is a complete denial of the nuanced nature of human communication.

This also ignores the fact that some speakers/writers deliberately construct their language in a way that lends itself to multiple interpretations/meanings - even if they are using words that in-and-of-themselves have an agreed meaning.



And art (if by that you mean the visual arts) does not use language (in any straight-forward sense) so it is not relevant.

Of course visual arts utilise language!

Language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language) is not only words, but a system of symbols of communication - concepts - (much) visual art utilises the language of symbols in order to communicate ideas to viewers.

Visual art, like speech or the written word is a form of communication - in this case between the artist and the viewer - this communication relies on references to concepts in order to create meaning (this is more obvious in non-abstract visual art forms).

Indeed, without these references to existing concepts it would be very difficult for a viewer to draw any meaning from the text. In renaissance art for example artists frequently used a commonly understood 'code' in their imagery - so certain objects displayed in a certain way had a specific meaning that was commonly understood - again as human language changes over-time many of these layers of meaning become lost - simply because we can no longer access 'codes' such as this.

Like with written language, the meaning assigned by the author of a text (in this case a painting or what-have-you) can often differ from the meaning derived by the viewer of the text (for essentially the same reasons that the meanings we draw from the speech and writing of others are not always that which they intended).


But will you agree on all words, all the time? If not, then the meaning of those words cannot be "objective," unless some words have objective meaning and others don't? Given the debate occurring elsewhere right now over certain words and their meaning, I think it is pretty obvious that language is very subjective. While we may agree upon many meanings most of the time (what makes language possible), disagreements over meaning are inevitable.

Exactly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM:



But will you agree on all words, all the time? If not, then the meaning of those words cannot be "objective," unless some words have objective meaning and others don't? Given the debate occurring elsewhere right now over certain words and their meaning, I think it is pretty obvious that language is very subjective. While we may agree upon many meanings most of the time (what makes language possible), disagreements over meaning are inevitable.



Well, the word 'objective' is not helping, for words themselves cannot be 'objective'; facts can, theories can, aims can, but words not.

But, not all our words have to overlap all the time, just the ones we are currently using. And you seem to have got my message, so we can at least start from there, and as soon as communication breaks down (if it does), we can address any differences that caused it. [There is in fact an example of this below.]

And language cannot be subjective for the reaons I pointed out above (they mirror the reason why words cannot be said to be or not to be objective -- here, only opinions, or feelings can be subjective, etc.), and for the reasons I pointed out to Black Dagger.


Actually he could just say, "This seems an objection to my rash conclusion." Its entirely possible to phrase most sentences without a "to be" verb (trust me, I had to do it for an entire year in high school English), and there's an entire linguistics theory dedicated to this: E-Prime. They basically argue that eliminating the use of "to be" verbs creates fewer misunderstandings and contradictions in language, leading to fewer conflicts, beyond stylistic concerns (why I had to do it). I think that relates to some of the discussion on hand here.


Certainly, and some languages manage quite well without the verb 'to be', or its cognates.

But even you had to use it to make your point (highlighted above)! "Its" is short for "It is", as I am sure you know, and I bet this Wilson guy lets the subjectivist side down too, and uses it all the time. It is a ubiquitous feature of European languages, and has a variety of different uses/meanings (varying from predication, to identity, to composition, to location...).

And, I rather doubt that the grammar you suggested could be made to work (in the real world, as opposed to the classroom), just as I doubt that this verb creates any contradictions at all.


I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing where exactly you're disagreeing with my here. I don't think having certain meanings and ways to perceive our sensory data makes it impossible to acknowledge um, exactly that and our role as interpreters of that data. As you acknowledge, we can still reject dogmatism (in everything?), so... where's the argument?


I am sorry, I just could not follow this.


What is the ordinary use?

A few examples:

"Can you put your feelings to one side, and try to be objective for a change?"

"The objective tonight is to raid a Nazi pub."

"You need to keep your personal objectives in front of you, or you will screw up your entire future."

"I am sorry, the judge is not being objective here, since the accused is clearly being treated with considerable bias owing to his working class background."

So, I was not referring to science.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Black Dagger:


Originally Posted by me
This [that people frequently read different meanings into the same text/speech] does not mean that we cannot understand each other, but merely that what we think another person means is not always what they specifically intended (in many instances this has little-to-no broad effect - but this is not always the case). After all, language is not a perfect form of communication - a flawless transmission of meaning from one person to another without slippage of any kind.


Well, it seems to me that this is precisely what you are arguing.

But, I think the problem here is that the word 'meaning' itself has many different meanings, and we are at cross purposes because we each have in mind a different alternative here.

I have posted this before, but here goes again:

(1) Significance or importance: as in “His Teddy Bear means a lot to him.”

(2) Evaluative import: as in “May Day means different things to different classes.”

(3) Point or purpose: as in “Life has no meaning.”

(4) Linguistic meaning: as in “‘Vixen’ means female fox.”

(5) Aim or intention: as in “They mean to win this strike.”

(6) Implication: as in “Winning that strike means the boss won’t try another wage cut again in a hurry.”

(7) Indicate, point to, or presage: as in “Those clouds mean rain.”

(8) Reference: as in “I mean him over there.”

(9) Artistic theme: as in “The whole meaning of this novel is to examine political integrity.”

(10) Conversational focus: as in “I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% rise in the first place?”

(11) An expression of sincerity or determination: as in “I mean it, I really do want to go on the demonstration!”

(12) The content of a message, or the import of a sign: as in “It means that the strike starts on Monday”, or “It means you have to queue here.”

(13) Interpretation: as in “You will need to read the author’s novels if you want to give any meaning to her latest play.”

(14) The import of a work of art: as in “Part of the meaning of that play was to change our view of drama.”

This does not exhaust its meanings, and some of the above overlap.

I was using this word in sense (4); you perhaps in senses (1), (2), (3), (5), ...(9)?

I have had debates like this before, and they never get anywhere becuse of this equivocation.

So, let me be clear, there have to be shared lingusitic meanings (sense (4)) or communication (and many of the other listed senses of meaning) would not be possible.

I will respond to the other things you say later. Got to dash.

[Black Dagger]

Well, it seems to me that this is precisely what you are arguing.

Then i can only ask that you please re-read my posts in full - as i spent several paragraphs in my last post addressing your misconceptions about what i'm 'arguing'.



So, let me be clear, there have to be shared lingusitic meanings (sense (4)) or communication (and many of the other listed senses of meaning) would not be possible.

I agreed to this point in my last post:


Of course words have agreed definitions (though again these definitions change over-time, expanding and contracting as words become archaic)- this is why its possible to have a dictionary.



Most words have agreed definitions (though sometimes even these are contested - particularly when they relate to politics)

This is two replies now Rosa where you've attributed positions to me which i do not hold (and worse, in both cases they were positions i had already repudiated!).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Black Dagger, I am sorry I will have to pass on this for a day or so -- I have to prepare for a lecture I am helping a supporter of my site give (on -- surprise, surprise --, the baleful effects of dialectics on Marxism -- for a recent example, check out gilhyle's current ramblings) at Oxford University (no, I am not kidding!).

[Black Dagger]

No worries - get back to me whenever you've got time :)

[bcbm]

Well, the word 'objective' is not helping, for words themselves cannot be 'objective'; facts can, theories can, aims can, but words not.

Well we're not talking about words being objective, but rather the meaning of words. That is, that words always have one, or one set, of meanings without any relation to the subjective interpretations of the individual. Or at least that's been my understanding of the argument that is taking place here. If I'm mistaken in that, please correct me.



But even you had to use it to make your point (highlighted above)! "Its" is short for "It is", as I am sure you know, and I bet this Wilson guy lets the subjectivist side down too, and uses it all the time. It is a ubiquitous feature of European languages, and has a variety of different uses/meanings (varying from predication, to identity, to composition, to location...).

I recognized that I used a "to be" verb in my argument, and probably will in this post as well. That doesn't mean I have to. And the theorists behind e-prime recognize that not all of the uses are problematic-


And, I rather doubt that the grammar you suggested could be made to work (in the real world, as opposed to the classroom), just as I doubt that this verb creates any contradictions at all.

Like I said, though difficult, one can eliminate the use of the verb, even in the real world. A number of individuals have undertaken that task, but undoing what you've learned since birth obviously proves difficult. As for contradictions, I like this set personally (standard v. e-prime):

lA. The electron is a wave. lB. The electron appears as a wave when measured with instrument-l.
2A. The electron is a particle. 2B. The electron appears as a particle when measured with instrument-2.There are others. The generally problem to e-primers is that use of the "to be" verb promotes a sort of naive realism, where objects have an "essence" of sorts, while e-prime registers the signals entering and being interpreted by the body.


I am sorry, I just could not follow this.

As I couldn't follow you. I don't understand where you were disagreeing with me in whatever bit I quoted before that.


A few examples:

"Can you put your feelings to one side, and try to be objective for a change?"

Okay, I see what you're saying. I find this example a bit controversial.


I have to prepare for a lecture I am helping a supporter of my site give (on -- surprise, surprise --, the baleful effects of dialectics on Marxism -- for a recent example, check out gilhyle's current ramblings) at Oxford University (no, I am not kidding!).

Good luck!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM and Black Dagger -- normally, I'd try to reply, but, as I noted earlier, I have had discussions like this so many times -- all of which went nowhere --, so I will leave you two with ('technically') the last word.

I just cannot summon up the will to argue this yet again --, for the gazillionth time!

Sorry guys - but thank you for your well-argued contributions.

[bcbm]

You're breaking my heart! :crying:

Can you link to any previous discussions of a similar matter? I'd be interesting in reading your contributions there.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM, I am sorry, as I said.

We have had many discussion here on similar lines, and they have all gone around in circles.

The last two I will try to trace for you, though.

[bcbm]

I was only kidding Rosa, I understand completely.

Thanks for digging up the other ones. Post them whenever you get a chance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here is one, but it is only partially related to this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/commonsense-t63497/index.html

It had originally been split from Learning:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/common-sense-t62239/index.html

The most recent is this (which is, again, only partially related):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/language-sexist-t41825/index.html

The most relevant perhaps is this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/nihilism-t61363/index.html

This was also split from somewhere, but I cant recall from where.

[bcbm]

Thanks, I'll take a look at those.

[Chapaev]

According to dialectical materialism, knowledge is relative not in the sense of a denial of objective truth, but in the sense of recognizing the historical limitations of each level of knowledge that is achieved. Every relative truth contains elements of absolute truth, which makes possible the development of scientific knowledge.

Relativism as an approach to interpreting history is characteristic of the subjective-idealist currents in bourgeois philosophy of history. Denying the objectivity of historical knowledge, some maintain that the evolution and judgments of historians are completely relative and reflect their subjective experiences and dependence on political aims and that every representation of the historical process is the product of the historian’s arbitrary judgment.

Relativism has objectively contributed to the rejection of outmoded social principles, dogmatic thinking, and bigotry. Usually, relativism is a consequence and reflection of a crisis in society and an attempt to justify the loss of historical perspective in social development. It is precisely for this reason that relativism is inherent in a number of trends in modern bourgeois philosophy, such as existentialism and personalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Velior:


According to dialectical materialism, knowledge is relative not in the sense of a denial of objective truth, but in the sense of recognizing the historical limitations of each level of knowledge that is achieved. Every relative truth contains elements of absolute truth, which makes possible the development of scientific knowledge.

Well, if this is 'absolutely true', then the claim that all truth is 'relative' is false.

On the other hand, if it is only 'relatively true', then how do we know 'absolute truth' exists?

But, if we do know 'absolute truth' exists then that must be 'absolutely true', in which case it cannot be a 'relative truth'.

Even worse, how do we know that 'relative truth' itself exists? If we do, then that too must be an 'absolute truth'.

In short, this 'dialectical' way of conceiving of truth and falsehood is shot-through with confusion, and should be abandoned. It has not served Marxism at all well for over 150 years.

[trivas7]

In short, this 'dialectical' way of conceiving of truth and falsehood is shot-through with confusion, and should be abandoned. It has not served Marxism at all well for over 150 years.
From Lenin's Materialism and Emperio-Criticism:


[...]it is obvious that for dialectical materialism there is no impassible boundary between relative and absolute truth.[...] From the standpoint of modern materialism, i.e., Marxism, the limits of approximation of our knowledge to the objective, absolute truth are historically conditional, but the existence of such truth is undconditional, and the fact that we are approaching nearer to it is also undconditional. The contours of the picture are historically conditional, but the fact that this picture depicts an objectively existing model is unconditional. When and under what circumstances we reached, in our knowledge of the essential nature of things, the discovery of alizarin in coal tar or the discovery of electrons in the atom is historically conditional; but that every such discovery is an advance of "absolutely objective knowledge" is unconditional. In a word, every ideology is historically conditional, but it is unconditionally true that to every scientific ideology (as distinct, for instance, from religious ideology), there corresponds an objective truth, absolute nature.
This seems eminently reasonable to me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This seems eminently reasonable to me.

Yes, well we already know you are a Low Church Dialectician, who dogmatically believes all he reads in the Holy Books, as I noted in a recent post at another forum (here is part of it):


There are in fact two main types of dialectician (which groups can, of course, overlap at the edges):

(1) Low Church Dialecticians [LCDs]: Comrades in this category cleave to the original, unvarnished truth laid down in the sacred DM-texts (written by Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, or Mao). These simple souls are highly proficient at quoting endless passages from the holy books as an answer to everything and anything, just like the faithful who bow to the East or who fill the gospel halls around the world. Their unquestioning faith is as impressive as it is un-Marxist.

They may be naive, but they are at least consistently so.

[FL = Formal Logic; DM = Dialectical Materialism/Materialist.]

In general, LCDs are blithely ignorant of FL. Now, on its own this is no hanging matter. However, such self-inflicted and woeful ignorance does not stop them from pontificating about FL, or from regaling us with its alleged limitations -- charges based on ideas they unwisely copied from Hegel, surely the George W Bush of Logic.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/bushbinoc.jpg

Figure Three: Advanced Logic Class At Camp Hegel

LCDs are, by-and-large, active revolutionaries, committed to 'building the party'. But they have alas conspired to do the exact opposite: helping to keep it small, with countless splits and expulsions. This is a rather fitting pragmatic contradiction that the cosmic dialectic has visited upon these, the least of it slaves.

Of course, they cannot see the irony in all this (even when it is pointed out to them -- I know, I have lost count of the number of times I have tried!), since they too have not taken the lens caps off!

This has meant that despite the fact that every last one of these poor souls continually strives to "build the party", and urges others to do so, few revolutionary groups can boast membership roles that rise much above the risible. In fact, all we seem to have witnessed since WW2 is the creation of more and more fragmented sects -- but still no mass movement.

Has a single one of them made this connection (and this for comrades who claim that everything is interconnected)?

Over and above blaming everyone and everything else for this sorry state of affairs -- are you kidding!?

The long-term failure of Dialectical Marxism and its core theory (i.e., 'Materialist Dialectics') are thus the only two things in the entire universe that are not interconnected.

I note, however, that you ignored what I actually had to say:


Well, if this is 'absolutely true', then the claim that all truth is 'relative' is false.

On the other hand, if it is only 'relatively true', then how do we know 'absolute truth' exists?

But, if we do know 'absolute truth' exists then that must be 'absolutely true', in which case it cannot be a 'relative truth'.

Even worse, how do we know that 'relative truth' itself exists? If we do, then that too must be an 'absolute truth'.

In short, this 'dialectical' way of conceiving of truth and falsehood is shot-through with confusion, and should be abandoned. It has not served Marxism at all well for over 150 years.

So we can apply the same dilemma to what Lenin had to say.

I'll let you work out the details; your brain needs the exercise...:lol:

[Invader Zim]

And I have to side with CDL-as-was here, for if the message you bring us is that there is objectivley no objectivity, then it that message itself implodes.

Quite, however that isn't the message being brought forth. You seem to equate the hyper-relativism of postmodernists to the position AP put forth, which is not the same thing. After all, as Ap stated: -

"I never said that there were not "incorrect" or "correct" answers full-stop"

But moving on:


"Regardless of what's floating around in the muck of relativism in that brain of yours, communism is a science. We are revolutionary scientists, as we seek not just to understand the world, but to change it."

The claim that Communism is a science is derived from the fundermentally and objectively inaccurate claim that history can be, or is a 'science'; and that like in the sciences you can adopt 'laws' which propose inevitability. To expand further it is the idea that you can know exactly, and be entirely sure of what happened in the past, and then use that knowledge to draw a stable pattern (a law if you will) with which to concoct a view of the future. Sorry, but its simply wrong and for the life of me I can't understand why some historians, who must know deep down its bullshit, repeat it.

It assumes that you can know everything about a subject. Personal experience in the archives sifting through hundreds of manuscripts tells me otherwise. It is pretty much impossible to read everything of relevence. Say you are writing a biography of one man, and he was a prolific letter writer, you would have to locate every single one of his letters.

Firstly, the nature of archival research makes that inordinately difficult. Even if the letters are stored in high quality well mainated and structured archives, they are typically dotted about in multiple locations. This can mean that your project can suddenly become an international affair. Obviously that creates a huge logistical difficulty, and often it is simply not possible to repeatedly travel between countries, reading documents in different languages, etc.

Secondly, you have no guarantee that all the documents have survived, or even if most have, so you quite simply cannot read them all.

Thirdly, of the letters you have found how can you be sure that your reading of the document has uncovered all the nuances and information it contains correctly? Different terms have different meanings in different languages and different ages. You also have the issue of not actually understanding what the author is talking about. If they are discussing highly archane, highly nuanced, and very dated, theological or legal (for example) issues then you will often find that you have little idea what they are talking about.

Fourthly, not everything of relevence to understanding the past was put to paper. the archival evidence which survives can only tell you so much.

Fifthly, if you are reading the letters of one person, then it makes sense to know and understand to whom they are writing to. As a result your project suddenly starts to become infinately more complicated. If you are truly attempting to understand everything, then you must read everything. The task very swiftly would become utterly unmanagable and impossible.

So in reality the idea that you can know enough to adopt historical laws is false. Yet many historians think they can and have, and they are pretty much always mistaken. Historian Richard J. Evans, in his work In Defence of History, pointed this out with a rather amusing and self depricating example where he noted that he himself had claimed that the Soviet Union wouldn't collapse, and was proven wrong just a few years later.

This of course is only the practical difficulties arising from the task of attempting to know enough to concoct 'laws'. There are also the issues of perception and a historians ability to actually objectively look at a document, both consciously and subconsciously. It is, after all, easy to see what you want to see rather than that which is there. This problem doubles when you consider that the author of the manuscript had their own reasons for writing it, their own biases, their own misconceptions, etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Invader:


Quite, however that isn't the message being brought forth. You seem to equate the hyper-relativism of postmodernists to the position AP put forth, which is not the same thing. After all, as Ap stated: -

"I never said that there were not "incorrect" or "correct" answers full-stop"

I really could not follow this. In fact, I have forgotten what the earlier discussion was all about, and cannot really be bothered to find out.

Anyway, when the dust settles, I rather suspect you and I agree on this (or, if not, it would be hard to slip a party card between us).