Sort of up against the wall with two deadlines, so very briefly 1) With Kant the issue is, the correct characterization of his views (which is very hard), and the incorrect characterization, as a sort of Berkeleyean (which is easy). This matters for lots of reasons, undewrstanding the context of classical German philosophy in which Hegel and Marx and Engels operated, some of the difficulty in the notions of idealism and realism, and the intrinsic interest of Kant's views -- he still has a lot to teach us.
2) I reject Kant's transcendental idealism/empirical realism, but what we are arguinga bout is in part what I am rejecting. You can't actually reject the view unless you sort of understand it. And "sort of understand" is all claim, this is as hard stuff as there is in philosophy. 3)This "shamefaced" stuff is a load of crap. Kant thought he had good arguments that Berkleyean idealism was necessarily wrong, but he also thought he had good arguments that "transcendental realism," more or less your view and maybe mine, if it's taken more modestly, was hopeless. So K think there are definite resaons not to adopt this position and the idea that he's chicken or embarassed is merely indivious. 4) Maybe Lenin studied Kant, no doubt Engels had done at one point. That doesn't make them Kant scholars. I've studied Kant and that doesn't make me a Kant scholar. Kant scholars devote careers to this stuff. 5) Lenin's definition of materialism (as the existence objective reality outside us) is not transparent, Engels'(in terms of nature and spirit) less so. My ability to raise difficulties for these definitions does not show they are transparent but the reverse. They show that the terms are slippery, unclear, and obsure. I don't really understand them myself. 6) That's why I say I'm a realist about somethings, and by that I just mean that there are specific things and types of things, some physical, some not (I'm not an emergent materialist, at least in the sense that I don't think there is any reason to think that everything there is is physical), some of these have more or less the properties we think they do as well as others we might not know about, plus there are other things we don't know about, some of which might discover, and for some of these things they are not made up by us, alterable just by thinking or wishing or willing, or themselves psychological properties. Although I am a realist about psychology too -- I'm not an eliminativist. Cjhrist, evenever I start to talk about this stuff it falls apart. Which just goes to show it's not transparent. 7) Your are Lenin's identification of idealism, whatever that is, and theism, is unjustified and unjustifiable. As Ralph points out, for example, a standard interpretation of Nietzsche, arguably wrong but widely held and advocated by Nietzscheans and postmodernists, is that his perspectivism is a form of idealism, and he's the original God is Dead guy. Your insistence on this point reinforces my conviction taht your attitude towards Marx, Engels, and Lenin is scriptural rather than scientific. 8) To say we are interested in this stuff because this is a Marxism list is consistent with a merely historical interest that has no current relevance. Some of Marx(ism) is surely alive. Other parts are (in my view) dead as doornail, interesting to Marx scholars like me (I _am_ a Marx scholar if not a Kant scholar), but nothing one would want to maintain today. I wouldn't expecy you to agree, but it would be interesting to know if there is any major point on which you disagree with Marx, Engels, or Lenin. Replt to Ralph when I am able. It's hellish here. --- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, "spirit" and "nature" are not transparent > terms > either, not is "primacy," so it's not much help to > say > that idealists make spirit primary to nature and > materialists vice versa. This is a Hegelian-flavored > formula that is highly specific to a narrow > philosophical tradition. > ^^^^ > CB; On the one hand you say the terms are not > transparent. On the other hand > you explain an esoteric connotation of the terms > which implies that they > _do_ have transparent meaning to you. Which is it ? > You want to say you > understand , but "avoid" understanding at the same > time. > > Lenin's definition is succinct and transparent. > > ^^^^^ > Clip- > > > So I am still not answered, what is materialism? Why > should we care? > > ^^^^^ > CB: You are dodging. The posts have given enough for > you to understand what > they are saying. Engels and Lenin are not unclear on > what they mean by > materialism. It is not a confusion on definitions. > > As to whether you should care, having an > understanding as to what E and L > mean by materialism is necessary for having > discussions on Marxism and > philosophy, a main topic on this MARXIST-thaxis > list, from its beginning and > throughout. This is sort of a Marxist philosophy > list. So, the Marxist > notion of materialism is fundamental for discussion > on this list. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
