[Marxism-Thaxis] Marx & Engels on Skepticism & Praxis
I'm assembling some key quotes relevant to recent discussions on these lists and also to projects I'm working on. I would appreciate suggestions for additional quotes surrounding this theme: Marx & Engels on Skepticism & Praxis http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marx-skeptic.html I'm sure I'm forgetting something. There is some quote in young Marx's works about the spectator theory of knowledge (crouching outside the universe looking in), but I can't place it. I thought there was something else from Engels on the nature of deductive, axiomatic reasoning (proofs stemming from axioms), but I haven't found what I was looking for, and I may have misremembered quotes I've already found. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist Internet Archive snafu?
The search engine is functioning now. Can someone remind me where to find the passage by Marx where he criticizes the spectator view of knowledge, as if the thinker is crouching outside the universe looking at it from outside? I know I've seen this a thousand times but I can't place it. At 12:49 PM 6/8/2005 +0200, Victor wrote: Positive. They appear to be fooling around with the organization of the site. So far they've mostly succeeded in making searches more difficult. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:24 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist Internet Archive snafu? Is anyone else finding that the MIA search engine doesn't work properly now? I get the number of results for a search, but not the results themselves. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Again, my stuff is shelved just below your commentary: - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:51 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Note my interleaved comments on a fragment of a key post of yours At 03:08 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: .. > I don't see this. I see the problem this way: that stage of the > development of materialism is inadequate to grasp the nature of human > activity, both practical and cognitive. Labels such as 'nature as > such' or > 'contemplative' don't work for me without such clarification, though it > does seem that your characterization here is consistent with me though > apparently not synonymous. The old materialism, as well as the course > of > development of modern natural science, is such that it begins with the > study of the lowest levels of the organization of matter and works its > way > up. But once it works its way up to the human species itself as an > object > of study, its intellectual limitations become manifest. And I think > this > is where Marx intervenes. If I understand you correctly, you argue that so long as the natural sciences dealt with phenomena that was simple enough to contemplate without our needing to be aware o the activity of the contemplating subject, the old materialism served as a sufficient paradigm for explanations of the observed. It is only when we deal with men, i.e. ourselves that we must take into account our own subjectivity to understand what's going on. I prefer to stand your argument on its head. As long as human needs could (and given the available technology, only could) be satisfied by manipulation of his world on a purely mechanical level, the contemplative and mechanical paradigms of classical materialism was a viable system for explaining the effectiveness of human practice. In turn, I could stand your argument on its head. What is the vantage point: objective reality with the relation of human practice as a reflection of it, or the justification of practice by its ability to fulfill needs? Either vantage point could be considered a question of perspective from one angle or the other. They could be equivalent. Yet I see my argument as basic as yours as derivative, though that perspective is also valid, i.e. explaining the effectiveness of human practice under defined conditions. It appears that my argument is not clear enough here. The point is that the determination any objective reality is always a function of some sort of practical activity. To try first to describe object reality in all its concreteness and then to try to determine which part of that reality is relevant to practical activity is an impossible task. To carry out an aimless effort to produce a comprehensive (concrete) representation of objective reality is one with the kinds of hopeless sisyphusian tasks that Borges likes to write about. The determination of objective reality can only be seriously countenanced when we've decided what we want to do with that reality. Once we've determined the aims of our theorizing activity we can determine the essence of the problem (which is a description of the universal property or properties of the object of our theory) and then proceed to a rational determination of the concrete (particular) conditions of the world and of our activities relevant to the object of our theorizing. With the development of new technologies and new needs, (like the development of machinery and instruments powered by electricity). One of the earliest examples of this development in Physics was the birth (emergence?) Heisenberg principle in Quantum physics. Newtonian physics dealt with big things that could be measured with instruments that had no apparent effect whatsoever on the measure itself, thus the measurement itself could be factored out of the explanation of the activities of the things measured. Small particle, high energy physics deals with things so small and so sensitive to the effects even of light that physicists must at very least take into account the effect of their measuring activities on the subjects of their research. As I suggest below the big revolution in modern natural science, the revolution that is giving birth to concepts such as autopoiesis, emergence and non-linear causality (attractors and Feigenbaum trees) is mostly, (if not mistaken the attractor was first formally described by Lorenz in 1963 a weatherman and the term "strange attractor was first used in 1971 by Ruelle and Takens to describe fluid dynamics) connected to the investigation of systems that are ever more sensitive to our handling of their components; such as weather, the behaviour of ecosystems, animal ethology and so on. This is of course a function of the kinds of needs that our once largely mechanical handling of the conditions of our existenc
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Steve, Doesn't it make you wonder? A philosopher who regards the Diamat and all that utter rubbish as theory to be comparable to the works of Marx, Lenin, Deborin and Ilyenkov? It's Propaganda, certainly, theory, never! I'll never forget my old man's colourful reaction to Stalin's perceptive contribution to linguistics, and he didn't even finish High School! Do you think D Bakhurst classifies the classic philosophic work, Mein Kampf, Rosenburg's brilliant meanderings about race and destiny, and Mussolini's masterful contributions to human thought as serious theory? Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Steve Gabosch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and thethinkers he inspired" Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 0:36 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! I continue to enjoy this thread, but will be gone for some days and it will probably be a little while after that before I can reengage. I will think about the position Charles and Ralph have taken on the relationship of the brain to the origins of humanity. I think Engels' argument about how labor created the human hand applies also to the brain, language organs, bipedalism, etc. so I will try to make a case for that. And I have been enjoying the exchanges between Ralph and Victor, especially on the issues of the role of practice in science, the nature of scientific thought, and the big question, just what is nature - and can humans really "know" what nature is in any fundamental ontological sense. I recently read the book by Bakhurst that Victor mentions, and have a different take on it. Briefly put, I disagree with Bakhurst's negative assessment of Leninist politics, his tendency to see Stalinism as a form of Bolshevism, and his general opinion of dialectics. But I agree with many of his insights into Ilyenkov and Vygotsky. Oops, got to get packing. See you all again soon. - Steve ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
I'm writing up an alternative interpretation to Ilyenkov's writings on ideality as the integration of the concept of ideality into Marxist-Leninist Theory. When I finish that... Thanks for the offer. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 16:22 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Yes, I have this book somewhere. So are you going to forward your review to this list? At 03:31 PM 6/7/2005 +0200, Victor wrote: Unfortunately, the mainstay of Western interpretations of Ilyenkov's works is the absolutely wierd product of a Brit academic who represents them as a sort of sociologically oriented form of Neo-positivism (itself a contradiction!). I wrote a first draft on his work that was totally unsatisfactory (too lacking in focus), and am now finishing up the outline of a revision which hopefully will be the basis of a more accurate presentation than was my first effort. I don't quite get this. But my first question is: who is this Brit neo-positivist academic? Dave Bakhurst of Queens College Ontario and author of Consciousness and Revolution in Soviet Philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. 1991 ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Commentary inserted below: - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 16:35 Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Very interesting post. Just a few isolated comments to begin . . . At 03:10 PM 6/7/2005 +0200, Victor wrote: .. The fact that life forms activities are directed to concrete future states, they are, no matter how simple or mechanical, exercises in reason. This why, if you will permit a reference to an earlier thread, I regard the investigation into biosemiology to be a vitally important exploration of the roots of reason. The most primitive forms of self reproduction are a totally mechanical process yet they are at the very root of the rational process. We are not here proposing that nature has a rational aspect, a la Spinoza. As I wrote earlier I really have no idea what nature or Nature is. What I am proposing is that the roots of rationality are in the mechanical purposive activity of life forms and that whatever life forms "know" [including ourselves of course] is a function of our practical activities in nature FROM THE VERY ORIGINS OF THE ACQUISITION OF KNOWLEDGE in whatever form it may be acquired, stored, recovered etc. But biosemiology itself seems to be rather obscurantist, more akin to Whitehead's philosophy of organism than to Marx. I'm more interested in Sharov's work (despite indications that his general methodological approach is Dubrovskian*) than in Hoffmeyer and the Western Biosemiologists. 2. Objectivity: In its essence objectivity refers to conscious reflection on something rather than the reflection of something in consciousness. That is to say that objectivity is the function of a activity and not something we passively assimilate as we confront the daily world. Some of the things or, better, activities we objectify (very few in my opinion) are those of our own subjective consciousness. Most are not. Most of our objectifying involves activities that are the preconditions for our own subjectivities, either the activities that emerge out of the collective subjective activities of men learned or developed in the course of collaborative activities while others involve activities that are preconditions for consciousness in all its aspects. Hegel, for example, divides his system of logic into two parts, objective logic and subjective logic or notional logic where the former is that logic which we enact without subjective reflection. Objective logic is objective because the only way we can deal with it intellectually in any other fashion than just doing it is as an object of reflection [I expect AB to come down on me like a ton of bricks on this one]. In its many concrete manifestations in human activity, intellectual and material, the principle of self-perpetuation, at least for men, is as subjective an issue as is the concept of self; the idea of property, of individual interests and even of "family values" are directly related to the activity of primitive self-perpetuation, though highly charged with many concrete connections to the complexities of human social existence. These slogans of superficial individualism of Social Darwinism and its inheritors, the bio-sociologists and others like them, only scratch the surface of things. Regarded objectively, the self-perpetuating activity of life forms is sublated in virtually all forms of human activity from eating and intercourse to social labour, wage slavery, and social revolution. Sounds like some version of Lenin's (or the Soviets' in general) theory of reflection. Life activity is a form of reflection. However, the 'roots of reason' strike me as no more than roots, not reason. No, not at all. As you must of read further on in this message I reject Lenin's passivist, "reflection in consciousness", for the activist, "conscious reflection on...". See point 2 in the original message: "2. Objectivity: In its essence objectivity refers to conscious reflection on something rather than the reflection of something in consciousness. That is to say that objectivity is the function of a activity and not something we passively assimilate as we confront the daily world. " ... The natural sciences reflect exactly this relation between intellect and practice. There are no real ontological truths in science. Nothing is holy or beyond question and the only real proof is a sort of abstracted form of practice, experimentation. Whatever ontologising scientists do, and some do, is tolerated by the scientific community only insofar as it remains speculation and does not interfere with the scientific process. Great scientists have had "ideas"; Newton philosophized that the world was a clock wound up by the creator and then left to its own devices, Einstein was sure that "God does not play dice", and Hawkins was until a few years ago sure that unifie
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist Internet Archive snafu?
Positive. They appear to be fooling around with the organization of the site. So far they've mostly succeeded in making searches more difficult. Oudeyis - Original Message - From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:24 Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist Internet Archive snafu? Is anyone else finding that the MIA search engine doesn't work properly now? I get the number of results for a search, but not the results themselves. ___ 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 ___ 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
[Marxism-Thaxis] Marxist Internet Archive snafu?
Is anyone else finding that the MIA search engine doesn't work properly now? I get the number of results for a search, but not the results themselves. ___ 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
