Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Science and values etc.

gorski said:
You really can't think for love or money, you silly crude materialsts, even if your very life depended on it...:rolleyes:

I am a "materialist"! But you wouldn't be able to undertsand it, so not gonna bother!:rolleyes:

I am a "Hegelian", in a critical manner, as we've seen it possible and necessary with his Left!:cool:

I am a "Marxist" but not in an uncriticial", fan-like manner you espouse... :rolleyes:

You [CM's] wouldn't recognise something as bold even if it'd hit you on the head...:D

I think I understand where you are coming from better than you realise.

The left Hegelians were just as idealistic as Hegel. They said many radical things but it came to nothing, they achieved nothing and they are now just a small historical note.

So why retreat to this nonsense when you have embraced Marxist materialism? Whereas Marx provides a useful critique of capitalism, he also provides a program. If you prefer radicalism without commitment, then critique without program is the philosophy of choice. The discussion of ideas or hermeneutics does the work for you. Hence the need for idealist crutches. Ideas need to shape society if your only commitment is to the discussion of ideas.
 
You're talking to somebody who actually did something in relation to his backwards society [much more than most Westerners ever imagined it's possible...] - so please think before you write, just so as you're not utterly unfair or silly, not to mention... oh, never mind...:(

Marx was from the Hegelian Left...:rolleyes:

And no, you can not provoke me, unless I let you. And I ain't going to. This is a silly way to "debate" anything! So, I'll pass, thanx...
 
gorski said:
You're talking to somebody who actually did something in relation to his backwards society [much more than most Westerners ever imagined it's possible...] - so please think before you write, just so as you're not utterly unfair or silly, not to mention... oh, never mind...:(

Marx was from the Hegelian Left...:rolleyes:

And no, you can not provoke me, unless I let you. And I ain't going to. This is a silly way to "debate" anything! So, I'll pass, thanx...

I don't mean to comment on what you personally have done, which I know nothing about. But how much can a single individual do anyway? To change anything requires people to act collectively. Is it likely that people will realise the idea of freedom or whatever in the form it is in your head? Or is it more likely that ideas will express the conditions and tasks in front of us?

Why the need for idealist crutches?

Incidently your idea that Marx was somehow a continuation of the left Hegelians is frankly absurd. This is Marx's critique of the left Hegelians. Its a truly biting satire. It is also clear that Marx actually prefered Hegelian conservativism to this sort of radicalism.

Critical Criticism, however superior to the mass it deems itself, nevertheless has boundless pity for the mass. And Criticism so loved the mass that it sent its only begotten son, that all who believe in him may not be lost, but may have Critical life. Criticism was made mass and dwells amongst us and we behold its glory, the glory of the only begotten son of the father. In other words, Criticism becomes socialistic and speaks of "works on pauperism". It does not regard it as a crime to be equal to God but alienates itself and takes the form of a master-bookbinder and humiliates itself to the extent of nonsense — indeed even to Critical nonsense in foreign languages.

Brutal stuff.
 
Knotted said:
I don't mean to comment on what you personally have done, which I know nothing about.

It didn't prevent you to do it anyway! [And then you try to wriggle out of your own thoughtless formulations, trying to minimise and relativise it, so you don't have to apologise for your gross unfairness and thoughtlessness, not to mention presumptuousness! Nice work...]

Knotted said:
But how much can a single individual do anyway? To change anything requires people to act collectively. Is it likely that people will realise the idea of freedom or whatever in the form it is in your head? Or is it more likely that ideas will express the conditions and tasks in front of us?

Who said I did anything on my own? Do I look to you as if I think of myself as Superman or something?

Knotted said:
Why the need for idealist crutches?

Marx has them, for sure, in the beginning. Only after 1844-48 [if memoery serves] and his careful studies of Hegel and National [later Political] Economy [the difference in how he grounds the programe he alway has] does he become a proper Materialist!

Btw, would a programe of democratisation for an "underground organisation" in a police, totalitarian state qualify as "idealist" in some manner, do you think?

Knotted said:
Incidently your idea that Marx was somehow a continuation of the left Hegelians is frankly absurd. This is Marx's critique of the left Hegelians. Its a truly biting satire. It is also clear that Marx actually prefered Hegelian conservativism to this sort of radicalism.

Don't embarrass yourself so freely. Go study the subject first and then come and eat some humble pie.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108466/Karl-Marx#35431.toc

Marx's crucial experience at Berlin was his introduction to Hegel's philosophy, regnant there, and his adherence to the Young Hegelians. At first he felt a repugnance toward Hegel's doctrines; when Marx fell sick it was partially, as he wrote his father, “from intense vexation at having to make an idol of a view I detested.” The Hegelian pressure in the revolutionary student culture was powerful, however, and Marx joined a society called the Doctor Club, whose members were intensely involved in the new literary and philosophical movement. Their chief figure was Bruno Bauer, a young lecturer in theology, who was developing the idea that the Christian Gospels were a record not of history but of human fantasies arising from emotional needs and that Jesus had not been a historical person. Marx enrolled in a course of lectures given by Bauer on the prophet Isaiah. Bauer taught that a new social catastrophe “more tremendous” than that of the advent of Christianity was in the making. The Young Hegelians began moving rapidly toward atheism and also talked vaguely of political action.

The Prussian government, fearful of the subversion latent in the Young Hegelians, soon undertook to drive them from the universities. Bauer was dismissed from his post in 1839. Marx's “most intimate friend” of this period, Adolph Rutenberg, an older journalist who had served a prison sentence for his political radicalism, pressed for a deeper social involvement. By 1841 the Young Hegelians had become left republicans. Marx's studies, meanwhile, were lagging. Urged by his friends, he submitted a doctoral dissertation to the university at Jena, which was known to be lax in its academic requirements, and received his degree in April 1841. His thesis analyzed in a Hegelian fashion the difference between the natural philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus. More distinctively, it sounded a note of Promethean defiance:

Philosophy makes no secret of it. Prometheus' admission: “In sooth all gods I hate,” is its own admission, its own motto against all gods, . . . Prometheus is the noblest saint and martyr in the calendar of philosophy.


In 1841 Marx, together with other Young Hegelians, was much influenced by the publication of Das Wesen des Christentums (1841; The Essence of Christianity) by Ludwig Feuerbach. Its author, to Marx's mind, successfully criticized Hegel, an idealist who believed that matter or existence was inferior to and dependent upon mind or spirit, from the opposite, or materialist, standpoint, showing how the “Absolute Spirit” was a projection of “the real man standing on the foundation of nature.” Henceforth Marx's philosophical efforts were toward a combination of Hegel's dialectic—the idea that all things are in a continual process of change resulting from the conflicts between their contradictory aspects—with Feuerbach's materialism, which placed material conditions above ideas.

Ahem...

The fact he grew more radical and started leaning towards Socialism is neither here nor there in this sense. This is how he started. This is what shaped him.

Anyway, it's becoming tedious, this...:(
 
gorski said:
It didn't prevent you to do it anyway! [And then you try to wriggle out of your own thoughtless formulations, trying to minimise and relativise it, so you don't have to apologise for your gross unfairness and thoughtlessness, not to mention presumptuousness! Nice work...]

Nice try yourself! You wriggle out of the question I raise of program by counterpoising action. Relativise indeed! I'm just undoing your obfustication.

gorski said:
Who said I did anything on my own? Do I look to you as if I think of myself as Superman or something?

It can seem that way at times. But regardless you continually raise policital points without political conclusions.

gorski said:
Marx has them, for sure, in the beginning. Only after 1844-48 [if memoery serves] and his careful studies of Hegel and National [later Political] Economy [the difference in how he grounds the programe he alway has] does he become a proper Materialist!

As if I didn't know that! But that just shows that Marx made a break in his own thinking. He resolved his contradictions. He made a decisive turn to materialism. Plain 'crude' materialism if you like. There is no half-way house between Hegel and Marx. The fact that Bauer's and Feuerbach's philosophies were unsustainable is testament to this fact.

If there is one systematic error in your thinking is that you conflate conclusions with insights or ideologies with methods. You think that because Marx was influenced by Hegelian thinking that he must retain some Hegelian conclusions. You think that when science is incorrect it is worthless. You think that science is aphilosophical - that there is no dialectic of scientific reasoning in history.

gorski said:
Btw, would a programe of democratisation for an "underground organisation" in a police, totalitarian state qualify as "idealist" in some manner, do you think?

No.
 
Knotted said:
Nice try yourself! You wriggle out of the question I raise of program by counterpoising action. Relativise indeed! I'm just undoing your obfustication.

Nope, you're just too obvious as an amateur [when it comes to Philosophy!], who thinks he's clever and can get people going, provoke and tease into a reaction you want to see.

Guess what: you can't do it for very long without being spotted.:p

I never wriggled out of any question. I refused to do as ordered, because someone felt lazy and/or mean/"clever", which is an entirely different proposition.;) Anyone seen my posts will know I do not mince my words and answer comprehensively and in detail, whenever necessary/possible. Point-by-point! So, no nonsense, please!:p

Knotted said:
It can seem that way at times. But regardless you continually raise policital points without political conclusions.

Utter bullshit, I'm happy to note!

Knotted said:
As if I didn't know that! But that just shows that Marx made a break in his own thinking. He resolved his contradictions. He made a decisive turn to materialism. Plain 'crude' materialism if you like. There is no half-way house between Hegel and Marx. The fact that Bauer's and Feuerbach's philosophies were unsustainable is testament to this fact.

More pretense, vicar?:rolleyes:

You have a long way to go in Philosophy, m8. My honest advice would be to ease off a bit with "far reaching conclusions" and jumping to conclusions based on "half-baked thoughts", based on loadsa presumptions and semi-information... You are just sooooo uninformed in the matter - I don't know wehere to begin... And it IS complex!!!

Knotted said:
1) If there is one systematic error in your thinking is that you conflate conclusions with insights or ideologies with methods.
2) You think that because Marx was influenced by Hegelian thinking that he must retain some Hegelian conclusions.
3) You think that when science is incorrect it is worthless.
4) You think that science is aphilosophical - that there is no dialectic of scientific reasoning in history.

1) Potential for misunderstanding is great here, I think, so please explain. I don't wanna be unfair!
2) Actually, that is true. He did - as I explained above, at least a little bit, I hope - when he realised that his earlier work was wrong on many points, as he worked on the basis of an non-historicised notion of ownership etc.
3) Absolutely! When it's incorrect it IS worthless. And that's judged by its own standards! Not by Philosophical ones! It prides itself by at least being "correct"...:p But seriously, you are jumping to this Balkanic type of thinking, once again: if you're not 100% with me - you're my enemy. That is to say: tertium non datur! Not so!!
4) Science thinks it's a-philosophical, if I understand you correctly, and that's the sad part in it all. I certainly don't! Such an attitude is Philosophy 0- and a bad one at that! Just what kind of "dialectic" we are talking about here - is another story...

Knotted said:

Interesting. How cold of you...
 
gorski said:
Nope, you're just too obvious as an amateur [when it comes to Philosophy!], who thinks he's clever and can get people going, provoke and tease into a reaction you want to see.

That's about right.

gorski said:
Guess what: you can't do it for very long without being spotted.:p

It doesn't help when I tell you this myself!

gorski said:
I never wriggled out of any question. I refused to do as ordered, because someone felt lazy and/or mean/"clever", which is an entirely different proposition.;) Anyone seen my posts will know I do not mince my words and answer comprehensively and in detail, whenever necessary/possible. Point-by-point! So, no nonsense, please!:p

Ha!

gorski said:
Utter bullshit, I'm happy to note!

Well that's my judgement.

gorski said:
You have a long way to go in Philosophy, m8. My honest advice would be to ease off a bit with "far reaching conclusions" and jumping to conclusions based on "half-baked thoughts", based on loadsa presumptions and semi-information... You are just sooooo uninformed in the matter - I don't know wehere to begin... And it IS complex!!!

I've never claimed to be particularly informed. I just apply what I know. Actually its long been clear to me that if you are as informed as you claim to be, then you haven't the first clue of how to apply what you know. Its also clear that you have never read Marx & Engels on 'critical criticisim'. I think it would be a good one for you to read.

gorski said:
1) Potential for misunderstanding is great here, I think, so please explain. I don't wanna be unfair!

Why break the habit? I was getting used to it. I thought we could have a wonderful unfair relationship.

Anyway the point is that incorrect theories can be insightful. They can show how a way of thinking or a strategy can lead to a dead end. They can inform. They can show where a commonly held premise is flawed.

ETA: There is also the reverse where theories are right for the wrong reasons. CF the link to the essay by John Post earlier in the thread with respect to non-transitive inferences.

gorski said:
2) Actually, that is true. He did - as I explained above, at least a little bit, I hope - when he realised that his earlier work was wrong on many points, as he worked on the basis of an non-historicised notion of ownership etc.

As if Marx was being ahistorical in the first place! Sure Marx refined his political economy. But that does not mean he converged with Hegel. Nor does it mean that he ever completly rejected Hegel. See above.

gorski said:
3) Absolutely! When it's incorrect it IS worthless. And that's judged by its own standards! Not by Philosophical ones! It prides itself by at least being "correct"...:p But seriously, you are jumping to this Balkanic type of thinking, once again: if you're not 100% with me - you're my enemy. That is to say: tertium non datur! Not so!!

See. I charaterise you quite fairly and reasonably accurately.

gorski said:
4) Science thinks it's a-philosophical, if I understand you correctly, and that's the sad part in it all. I certainly don't! Such an attitude is Philosophy 0- and a bad one at that! Just what kind of "dialectic" we are talking about here - is another story...

'Science' doesn't think. Scientists think and they think many different things.

gorski said:
Interesting. How cold of you...

OK then:

No. :)
 
Knotted said:
I've never claimed to be particularly informed. I just apply what I know. Actually its long been clear to me that if you are as informed as you claim to be, then you haven't the first clue of how to apply what you know. Its also clear that you have never read Marx & Engels on 'critical criticisim'. I think it would be a good one for you to read.

Says who? You silly sod, methodically speaking you can only say this if you're a big authority...:rolleyes:

FYI, that was my thesis! You silly, silly sod....:D

Knotted said:
As if Marx was being ahistorical in the first place! Sure Marx refined his political economy. But that does not mean he converged with Hegel. Nor does it mean that he ever completly rejected Hegel. See above.

Refined? He changed it completely. Go suck a lemon...:D

Knotted said:
See. I charaterise you quite fairly and reasonably accurately.

Ja, mein Fuhrer!:rolleyes:

Knotted said:
'Science' doesn't think. Scientists think and they think many different things.

No kidding! HAHAHAHAHA! [very funny... NOT...]

There is a serious potential for you becoming a second Jonti. And that is an insult! :D
 
Anyone seen my posts will know I do not mince my words and answer comprehensively and in detail, whenever necessary/possible*.
You couldn't make it up! :D

* It's post-modernism gone mad, I tell you!
 
gorski said:
Says who? You silly sod, methodically speaking you can only say this if you're a big authority...:rolleyes:

FYI, that was my thesis! You silly, silly sod....:D

In that case I feel quite embarrassed on your behalf.

Still don't get this thing about obeying authorities.

gorski said:
Refined? He changed it completely. Go suck a lemon...:D

You almost had me thinking that you actually believe that.

gorski said:
No kidding! HAHAHAHAHA! [very funny... NOT...]

There is a serious potential for you becoming a second Jonti. And that is an insult! :D

Was that really necessary? You should learn how to duck without being snide. You need better defence mechanisms.
 
gorski said:
3) Absolutely! When it's incorrect it IS worthless. And that's judged by its own standards! Not by Philosophical ones! It prides itself by at least being "correct"...:p But seriously, you are jumping to this Balkanic type of thinking, once again: if you're not 100% with me - you're my enemy. That is to say: tertium non datur! Not so!!
4) Science thinks it's a-philosophical, if I understand you correctly, and that's the sad part in it all. I certainly don't! Such an attitude is Philosophy 0- and a bad one at that! Just what kind of "dialectic" we are talking about here - is another story...

I've managed to squeeze these two points out of you. If you were up for it you would defend these points. I don't think that science is a-philosophical. I've gone into some detail as to where and how science is philosophical in my opinion.

However, my argument has been that (good) science is objective. Your association with objectivity and unphilosophical thinking is quite curious (and in line with Bauer and Co. as well thinking about it). The problem is that you seem to think that this position is a triviality. That is you have never given it any thought. I suggest that you go away and give it some thought before replying.
 
In fairness, the three of you have successfully managed to demonstrate that no matter how smart or intellectually open anyone is, when confronted with someone with a wildly divergent world view, they can become as dogmatic about it as and religious zealot. You're all just stamping your feet at this point, and demonstrating astonishing levels of unwillingness to listen to what each other are saying.

Still a good thread tho.
 
kyser_soze said:
In fairness, the three of you have successfully managed to demonstrate that no matter how smart or intellectually open anyone is, when confronted with someone with a wildly divergent world view, they can become as dogmatic about it as and religious zealot. You're all just stamping your feet at this point, and demonstrating astonishing levels of unwillingness to listen to what each other are saying.

Still a good thread tho.

Actually as far as I can tell there is almost no disagreement. Its the vague disagreeable noises that are annoying me. The thread should have died after post 125. We had all pretty much thrashed out a common view by that point. Everything after that is either meandering off topic or bun-fight. Personally I can't see anything wrong with that, but editor's the boss.

Its a pity some of the real cynics and contrarians didn't contribute anything.
 
Knotted said:
Its a pity some of the real cynics and contrarians didn't contribute anything.

If you mean me, I ran out of patience with the earlier obfuscation, and didn't want to derail too much with my more recent disagreement with Jonti, not least since I was moving house last week and wouldn't have had time for lengthy posts. :)
 
8ball said:
If you mean me, I ran out of patience with the earlier obfuscation, and didn't want to derail too much with my more recent disagreement with Jonti, not least since I was moving house last week and wouldn't have had time for lengthy posts. :)

Oh no, I didn't mean you at all. I was thinking about the handful of urbanites who (in diferent ways and for different reasons) have the view that certain sections of the scientific community have a vested interest in sticking to a certain line. They tend to haunt the science and environment forum rather than this one, so its not surprising that they haven't said anything. But if they had it would have provided an interesting contrast.
 
Back
Top Bottom