"Objective Reality"
Dan Clore
quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to
extend this list of quotations indefinitely." I've extended
the list accordingly. All source texts can be found easily
with google searches, so I haven't bothered to document
them.
As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
objective truth, without falling into the arms of
bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the
course of development of all capitalist countries in the
last few decades, proves only the objective truth of Marx�s
_whole_ social and economic theory in general, and not
merely of one or another of its parts, formulations, etc.;
it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of the
Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion
held by Marxists that Marx�s theory is an objective truth is
that by following the _path_ of Marxian theory, we shall
draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever
exhausting it); but by following _any other path_ we shall
arrive at nothing but confusion and lies."
As Trotsky said: "We call our dialectic materialist, since
its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our
'free will', but in objective reality, in nature."
As Stalin said: "Contrary to idealism, which asserts that
only our consciousness really exists, and that the material
world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in
our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist
philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being,
is an objective reality existing outside and independent of
our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the
source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that
consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a
reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is
a product of matter which in its development has reached a
high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the
brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot
separate thought from matter without committing a grave
error."
And Stalin again: "Contrary to idealism, which denies the
possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does
not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not
recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full
of 'things-in-themselves' that can never be known to
science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the
world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of
the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is
authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth,
and that there are no things in the world which are
unknowable, but only things which are as yet not known, but
which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of
science and practice."
And Stalin again: "Lenin defends the well-known materialist
thesis of which our scientific knowledge of the laws of
nature is authentic knowledge, and the laws of science
represents objective truth. Hence the sciences of the
history of society, despite all the complexity of the
phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as
biology and capable of making use of the law of development
of society for practical purposes."
As Mao said: "Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have taught us
that it is necessary to study conditions conscientiously and
to proceed from objective reality and not from subjective
wishes; but many of our comrades act in direct violation of
this truth."
And Mao again: "We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in
our approach to a problem we should start from objective
facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should
derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an
analysis of these facts."
As Enver Hoxha said: "What does the experience, what does
the life show? The experience and life both before and after
1955 show that in the assessment of the Yugoslav question
Stalin and the Information Bureau were right, because their
assessment rested on objective facts, on the teachings of
Marxism-Leninism. The experience and the practical life, on
the other hand, show that in their stand towards Tito's
revisionist clique N. Khrushchev and those who follow him
are not right, because their actions are based on subjective
viewpoints and are contrary to the teachings of
Marxism-Leninism, contrary to the objective reality."
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Zerkon
> objective truth
"When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went
to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the
elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?"
tooly
> I said before, when presenting a few of the following
> quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to
> extend this list of quotations indefinitely." I've extended
> the list accordingly. All source texts can be found easily
> with google searches, so I haven't bothered to document
> them.
>
> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
> Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
> objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
> any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
> and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
> piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
> premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
> objective truth, without falling into the arms of
> bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
>
> And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the
> course of development of all capitalist countries in the
> _whole_ social and economic theory in general, and not
> merely of one or another of its parts, formulations, etc.;
> it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of the
> Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
> economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
One thing to consider is the possibility that 'objective reality' is
really the annihilation of all human idealism. This might mesh well
with the materialism of marxism, but leaves humanity with only the
chaos of jungle law as it's essential 'objective reality', serving
only the nihilist cause. In constrast, Civilization might be homo
sapien's flight from such chaos, and it's creation of this thing we
call 'HUMAN' and the condtions under which it might thrive as
something 'better'.
Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil, that does not seek
utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what it
sees as the ignorance of the masses. It's promise is a totaltarian
state and little else. Besides, it seeks to destroy the family unit.
Even many communists find that unpalatable.
Michael Coburn
The "one thing to consider" is that reality is actually not going to
change because a human bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevs that reality isn't
real. 'objective reality' is to be dealt with as opposed to being
"wished away". This "dealing with reality" is a far cry from both
"jungle law" and "nihilism". So there is no "contrast" between Marxism
and civilization's desire to rise above the dictates of nature.
> Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil,
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> that does not seek
> utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what it
> sees as the ignorance of the masses.
Marxism does, in fact, seek the rise of intellectualism over superstition
and abject stupidity. To couch this in the terms of authoritarianism is
a convenient lie using the Boogerman of Stalinism.
> It's promise is a totaltarian
> state and little else.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Besides, it seeks to destroy the family unit.
> Even many communists find that unpalatable.
The rightarded will forever sling the commie paint brush and raise the
"family" as the most sacred of all institutions. The family is a "good"
in the mind of most people who claim to understand Marx. But those who
understand the true meaning behind "tragedy of the commons" will also
understand the limitation of "family values" as well as the limitations
of organized religion.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
John Stafford
> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
> Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
> objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
> any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
> and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
> piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
> premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
> objective truth, without falling into the arms of
> bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
That's Rand stripped down to Communist core.
James A. Donald
> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
This a redefinition of objective truth.
The "objective truth" of Marx and Lenin is not
discovered by means of the senses. It is not the
reality that bangs your head when you walk around with
your eyes closed.
Rather, a Marxist considers the kind of things that bang
your head when you walk around with your eyes closed are
evil plots by capital, which will go away if the Marxist
punishes enough people with sufficient severity. What a
Marxist calls "Material reality" is not bricks and
stones, rather it is a product of dialectics.
The Marxist asserts that it is possible to see and touch
the product of dialectics, but if what is seen and
touched differs from what it should be, then that is a
problem for which someone needs to be punished, rather
than reason to re-evaluate one's dialectics, for the
problem will go away with punishments of sufficient
severity.
*Anarcissie*
All that seems like par for the course for
those who are hot about objective reality.
The product of the senses does not give
us objective reality; they have to be
interpreted, and the senses are subject to
illusion. This is one of the reasons science
is never finished. However, a particular
interpretation of the senses can be insisted
upon by those who have power, whereupon
it becomes the absolute truth.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil, that does not seek
> utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what it
> sees as the ignorance of the masses. It's promise is a totaltarian
> state and little else. Besides, it seeks to destroy the family unit.
> Even many communists find that unpalatable.
I'm curious as to where you find all that in Marx.
Or are you talking about Marxists generally? If
so, which ones in particular?
James A. Donald
> All that seems like par for the course for those who
> are hot about objective reality.
>
> The product of the senses does not give us objective
> reality; they have to be interpreted,
The senses do give us objective reality, or rather a
large part of it, though the objective reality we are
interested in has to be inferred by interpreting the
part of objective reality we have direct information
about.
Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
other material things, and enters the head through the
clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
is an exposed surface of the brain
This gives us real, but shifting and two dimensional
patterns of light. Similarly for the objective reality
of the impact that happens when one bangs into a thing.
Suppose, however, our method for deducing stable three
dimensional things from the shifting and two dimensional
light scattered from those things was wrong. We would
find out swiftly, because we would bang into those
things.
Thus we can readily verify the validity of our
interpretations.
Marxism ignores our ability to verify the validity
of our interpretations, thus licensing the Marxist to
believe whatever he pleases.
Monsieur Turtoni
>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Truck driver thinks we're all created equal. Which is why they pay the
same rate for spinal stenosis and running weed through Canada. Call me
psychic.
Michael Gordge
> Marxism ignores our ability to verify the validity
> of our interpretations, thus licensing the Marxist to
> believe whatever he pleases.
Meaning the athiest Marxist / socialist is an accident / a coincidence
and not a consequence of anything in Marxist / socialist philosophy.
MG
bigfl...@gmail.com
Objective lable "Marx".
Subjective trigger to many being idealism.
For me, the subjective response is "Groucho"....but I didnt have to
live through a pogrom or live in a gulag.
Who dictates your reality?
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:11:17 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > All that seems like par for the course for those who
> > are hot about objective reality.
>
> > The product of the senses does not give us objective
> > reality; they have to be interpreted,
>
> The senses do give us objective reality, or rather a
> large part of it, though the objective reality we are
> interested in has to be inferred by interpreting the
> part of objective reality we have direct information
> about.
>
> Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
> other material things, and enters the head through the
> clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
> is an exposed surface of the brain
>
Fact is, the energy you describe only becomes light 'in' the brain(as
with sound).
This realization canges ones understanding of reality at a most
profound level, and 'illuminates' the recognition of the reality of
the subjective view.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Co(lliding)incidents, dont happen by coincidence, but are creations of
people at similar levels of perception, so they can spend eons arguing
who has the correct view, and even fight over it 'to the death'.
BOfL
*Anarcissie*
We would bang into things like the leg of
an elephant, and call it a tree. But as long
as we kept clear of the "trees", we would be
more or less all right.
I haven't encountered any Marxists whose
views of the relation between the testimony of
the senses and the physical universe were all
that much different from anybody else's. The
statements by Lenin and company posted at
the beginning of this thread, however, seem
rather religious; the poetry about Marxist
thought being cast from a single piece of
steel was particularly entertaining (since I
am well out of Lenin's reach).
Authoritarians are especially fond of
absolute, objective reality because it is
their basis for ordering everyone about.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters
> > off other material things, and enters the head
> > through the clear windows of the eyes, landing on
> > the retina, which is an exposed surface of the brain
> Fact is, the energy you describe only becomes light
> 'in' the brain(as with sound).
You have it the wrong way around. It is light,
illumination, the real thing, the thing in itself, until
it hits the brain, and only then does the mind make from
it an idea.
Touch the loudspeaker with your finger, and feel the
bass beat as you hear it. That is the thing in itself,
the real thing entering the body through two paths, and
itself impacting the brain.
And from our direct access to some real things, we can
deduce truths about other real things that those have
interacted with, as the light scattered off objects.
In the cave of our skulls, we are not limited to shadows
on the walls, but can look out through the windows, and
reach out and touch. Our models of reality are ultimately
tested by not bumping our head into things.
James A. Donald
> We would bang into things like the leg of an elephant,
> and call it a tree.
If we were blind, and if we jumped to conclusions
without further ado, we would call the leg of the
elephant a tree. If, however, our blind man keeps poking
around, as Marxists conspicuously fail to do, he will
very shortly discover the rest of the elephant.
> I haven't encountered any Marxists whose views of the
> relation between the testimony of the senses and the
> physical universe were all that much different from
> anybody else's.
Trotsky:
"One cannot be right against the party.
One can only be right with the party."
Ho Chi Minh:
"Truth is what is beneficial to the fatherland and
the people. What is detrimental to the interests of
the fatherland and the people is not truth "
Lenin said much the same, though in a considerably more
long winded manner.
Stalin did not say anything as pithily quotable as the
above, though he probably co authored Trotsky's words
above.
> The statements by Lenin and company posted at the
> beginning of this thread, however, seem rather
> religious; the poetry about Marxist thought being cast
> from a single piece of steel was particularly
> entertaining
If it is cast from a single piece of steel, it is not
tested against observation, and indeed, is impervious to
observation - hence the propensity of Marxists to
discredit the senses.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Co(lliding)incidents, dont happen by coincidence, but are creations of
> people at similar levels of perception,
Wrong, athiesm and the mystical god crap are hardly "similar levels"
of perception, whereas Marxism / socialism and the mystical god crap
are. The athiest Marxist / socialist is not athiest as a consequence
of anything found in Marxism and religionism, therefore the athiest
Marxist / socialist is a coincidence.
MG
Rockinghorse Winner
Funny how Hegelian dialectic was usurped by both Communism and national
Socialism, and the end result was a miniature Armageddon. Has any philosopy
of man ever produced so much evil as Objective Idealism?
--
Powered by Linux 2.6.31.6-166 Fedora 12
In rotation: Pacific Ocean Blue (D. Wilson) 2.6.31.5-0.1 OpenSUSE
"Hug your cat today" 2.6.24-16 Mint Elyssa
*Anarcissie*
I doubt if it can be shown that any philosophy
produces anything beyond talk and some warm
chairs in academia.
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt if it can be shown that any philosophy
> produces anything beyond talk and some warm
> chairs in academia.
Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth
century.
Today, in the twenty first century, a discussion that ultimately boils
down to "what is science, what is truth" will resolve whether we
destroy our economy and create a world quasi government to control
everyone's carbon usage.
Rod Speed
You wouldnt know what a real world govt was if one bit you on your lard arse.
And we wont see anything like that anyway, you watch.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> --
> James A. Donald:
>
> > > Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters
> > > off other material things, and enters the head
> > > through the clear windows of the eyes, landing on
> > > the retina, which is an exposed surface of the brain
>
>
> > Fact is, the energy you describe only becomes light
> > 'in' the brain(as with sound).
>
> You have it the wrong way around. It is light,
> illumination, the real thing, the thing in itself, until
> it hits the brain, and only then does the mind make from
> it an idea.
>
> Touch the loudspeaker with your finger, and feel the
> bass beat as you hear it.
You are confirming my point. Without ears, you detect vibration in a
sympathetic medium.
Regarding light, where else are their rods and cones that convert the
energy into light, other than in biologicaly independent creatures?
This 'thing in itself'...only when it has been processed by our
sympathetic processors.
After a few decades of contemplating such questions,for me, this was
the great irony, otherwise known as a light bulb moment. It just didnt
occur to me until recently.
In the beginning was the light, could be associated with 'the
beginning ' as also a brain creation.We do like to 'create' even about
creation.
BOfL
tooly
Experience, observation, reading, history...mainly history.
But I read history from a western perspective that defined communism
as an evil and enemy of the west. Marxism was successful in
conquering over a billion people almost overnight, so one must realize
there is something very potent to it...and socialism is a profound
inticement to anyone who is NOT independently wealthy. So, even to
read of it as an objectiver observer, I think it is necessary to
become armed with history and the truth of it's design as not a means
to social justice, but more as a centralization of power and a means
of intellectual rule [and ultimate enslavement] of those masses. It's
really the same madness that infected Josef Mengele; where objective
rationality is taken to levels of alienation from humanity [ha, even
as it argues such humane promise...see, quite insidous].
BTW, objective reality has been discussed many times on this NG and
consensus is that it can never be KNOWN, but only approached. What we
do know is our 'perception', which may or may not be aligned with that
objective reality. The more we know, the more we can become better
aligned with such objective reality. I think it goes something like
that anyway.
*Anarcissie*
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:51:00 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > I doubt if it can be shown that any philosophy
> > produces anything beyond talk and some warm
> > chairs in academia.
>
> Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth
> century.
I don't think so. People were killing one another
in large numbers before philosophy was ever
thought of and have continued to do so after
the invention of philosophy. So philosophy is
not a relevant variable.
Hume was right.
3877
> On Dec 23, 8:16 pm, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 12:21 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Whatever the case, Marxism is a profound evil, that does not seek
>>> utopian existence, but rather the rule of intellectualism over what
>>> it sees as the ignorance of the masses. It's promise is a
>>> totaltarian state and little else. Besides, it seeks to destroy the
>>> family unit. Even many communists find that unpalatable.
>>
>> I'm curious as to where you find all that in Marx.
>> Or are you talking about Marxists generally? If
>> so, which ones in particular?
>
> Experience, observation, reading, history...mainly history.
> But I read history from a western perspective that defined communism
> as an evil and enemy of the west. Marxism was successful in
> conquering over a billion people almost overnight,
No it did not. The absolute vast bulk of those just went along with what
was outside their control, they did not even consider it rationally at all.
A few did, most obviously some like Burgess, McClain etc but not very many at all.
so one must realize
> there is something very potent to it...
Nope, just that once mass movements get going, they can achieve a hell of a momentum.
and socialism is a profound
> inticement to anyone who is NOT independently wealthy.
That is just plain wrong too with the most basic socialism like public
education, the police and the judicial system and the military.
So, even to
> read of it as an objectiver observer, I think it is necessary to
> become armed with history and the truth of it's design as not a means
> to social justice, but more as a centralization of power and a means
> of intellectual rule [and ultimate enslavement] of those masses.
It is very arguable whether Marx and Engles etc were driven by that.
Lenin and Mao certainly. Stalin was more just a complete
arsehole that was only really interested in raw power.
It's
> really the same madness that infected Josef Mengele; where objective
> rationality is taken to levels of alienation from humanity [ha, even
> as it argues such humane promise...see, quite insidous].
Not with Marx and Engles it was not.
> BTW, objective reality has been discussed many times on this NG and
> consensus is that it can never be KNOWN, but only approached.
It is never about consensus.
What we
> do know is our 'perception', which may or may not be aligned with that
> objective reality.
The objective reality that our planet orbits around a damned great fusion
reactor has nothing to do with perception.
The more we know, the more we can become better
> aligned with such objective reality. I think it goes something like
> that anyway.
No it does not.
James A. Donald
> > Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth
> > century.
"*Anarcissie*"
> I don't think so. People were killing one another
> in large numbers before philosophy was ever
> thought of and have continued to do
The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and
exceptional. Among peoples who have written history, so that we may
know their motives, the only comparable slaughters have been holy
wars, which have much in common with the twentieth century democides.
James A. Donald
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding light, where else are their rods and cones that convert the
> energy into light, other than in biologicaly independent creatures?
Light is light. It is real, it is outside us. It is what comes from
the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
What the rods and cones do is convert light into qualia, sensation,
the impact of light on our brains, which are then converted into
instances of concepts.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>> Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth century.
>> I don't think so. People were killing one another
>> in large numbers before philosophy was ever
>> thought of and have continued to do
> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and exceptional.
Yes, but that was mostly because the industrialisation of war made that possible.
> Among peoples who have written history, so that we may know
> their motives, the only comparable slaughters have been holy wars,
That is just plain wrong, most obviously with the mongols.
> which have much in common with the twentieth century democides.
Very little in fact.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:04:45 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> Yes, but that was mostly because the industrialisation of war made that possible.
Pol Pot generally had people killed by hitting them with sticks,
impaling them with blunt objects, or crucifying them by tying them to
trees, which is impressively pre-industrial.
Pol Pot's killings were stone age technology motivated by the ideas of
late twentieth century academia. Therefore, it was the ideas of
academia that made the difference.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Philosophy killed a hundred million or so during the twentieth century.
>>>> I don't think so. People were killing one another
>>>> in large numbers before philosophy was ever
>>>> thought of and have continued to do
>>> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and exceptional.
>>> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were extraordinary and exceptional.
>> Yes, but that was mostly because the industrialisation of war made that possible.
> Pol Pot generally had people killed by hitting them with sticks,
> impaling them with blunt objects, or crucifying them by tying
> them to trees, which is impressively pre-industrial.
I had the word MOSTLY there for a reason.
> Pol Pot's killings were stone age technology motivated
> by the ideas of late twentieth century academia.
Yes, but those Pol Pot had killed was only a small part of those killed during the 20th century.
> Therefore, it was the ideas of academia that made the difference.
Yes, but those Pol Pot had killed was only a small part of those killed during the 20th century.
Anarcissie
<96iaj55fphdvsv7hh...@4ax.com>,
Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
another. But they don't really need the fables and in
any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
They have been doing so throughout recorded history
and as far as we can guess, before.
More people were killed in the 20th century because
there were more people around to kill, and some new
technologies as well. For example, the business in
Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio. Pol
Pot made large piles of skulls, but then so did
Attila the Hun (according to Gibbon).
If you want to prove that philosophy actually does
anything, you've got your work cut out for you, I'd
say. I mean besides the aforesaid keeping warm of
chairs in philosophy departments.
James A. Donald
> > The wars and democides of the twentieth century were
> > extraordinary and exceptional. Among peoples who
> > have written history, so that we may know their
> > motives, the only comparable slaughters have been
> > holy wars, which have much in common with the
> > twentieth century democides.
Anarcissie
> Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
> cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
> them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
> another. But they don't really need the fables and in
> any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
The murders the communists committed were undeniably
motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
No one was more saintly than Pol Pot. The Soviet
commissar that held the kulak's child in the fire till
the mother revealed where the seed corn was buried was
apt to find himself in due course summoned to Moscow to
himself face torture and death, and obediently and
faithfully went.
> More people were killed in the 20th century because
> there were more people around to kill, and some new
> technologies as well. For example, the business in
> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
Oh come on. You think they went to kill their neighbors
because of some guy on the radio?
They killed their neighbors because of modern western
ideology.
There are large differences between the races in Rwanda.
The Tutsi are genetically superior to the two other
races, which in the pre-colonial period led to them
aristocratically ruling. Modern ideology taught the
more primitive races that they were equal. They got the
vote, they got affirmative action, they got preference
in government jobs and education, they got educational
degrees and job titles that testified to their equality,
the police and courts were on their side, yet strangely,
despite all that, they remained inferior. They
concluded more drastic measures were required, that the
Tutsi, merely by existing, oppressed the other races,
and that this outrage must be ended.
> Pol Pot made large piles of skulls, but then so did
> Attila the Hun (according to Gibbon).
Attila made piles of skulls in wartime, Pol Pot in
peacetime. All is fair in war.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie
>>> The wars and democides of the twentieth century were
>>> extraordinary and exceptional. Among peoples who
>>> have written history, so that we may know their
>>> motives, the only comparable slaughters have been
>>> holy wars, which have much in common with the
>>> twentieth century democides.
>> Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
>> cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
>> them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
>> another. But they don't really need the fables and in
>> any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
> The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
Yes.
> No one was more saintly than Pol Pot.
You wouldnt know what a real saint was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> The Soviet commissar that held the kulak's child in the fire till
> the mother revealed where the seed corn was buried was apt
> to find himself in due course summoned to Moscow to himself
> face torture and death, and obediently and faithfully went.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
They were certainly revved up by the radio, fuckwit.
> They killed their neighbors because of modern western ideology.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> There are large differences between the races in Rwanda.
> The Tutsi are genetically superior to the two other races,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> which in the pre-colonial period led to them aristocratically ruling.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> Modern ideology taught the more primitive races that they were equal.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> They got the vote, they got affirmative action, they got preference
> in government jobs and education, they got educational degrees
> and job titles that testified to their equality, the police and courts
> were on their side, yet strangely, despite all that, they remained inferior.
Just like the non whites in the US eh, you flagrantly racist fucking arsehole ?
> They concluded more drastic measures were required,
> that the Tutsi, merely by existing, oppressed the other
> races, and that this outrage must be ended.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
>> Pol Pot made large piles of skulls, but then so did Attila the Hun (according to Gibbon).
> Attila made piles of skulls in wartime,
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> Pol Pot in peacetime.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant rabidly racist fantasyland.
> All is fair in war.
Thats what Adolf claimed as he killed all those jews and slavs, arsehole.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > > The wars and democides of the twentieth century were
> > > extraordinary and exceptional. Among peoples who
> > > have written history, so that we may know their
> > > motives, the only comparable slaughters have been
> > > holy wars, which have much in common with the
> > > twentieth century democides.
>
> Anarcissie
>
> > Religions and philosophies are similar in that in both
> > cases, people make up a lot of fables and then use
> > them as excuses to kill, torture, imprison and rob one
> > another. But they don't really need the fables and in
> > any case the supply of fables is virtually infinite.
>
> The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or
whatever.
At least the Mafia, when they give you a gun and
tell you to pop someone off, doesn't tell you to
pretend you're doing them good.
You ought to read up on Attila sometime.
The Wikipedia article isn't bad, although I don't
think they get into the piles of skulls except by
implication.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > Anarcissie
> >> More people were killed in the 20th century because
> >> there were more people around to kill, and some new
> >> technologies as well. For example, the business in
> >> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
> > Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
> > neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
> They were certainly revved up by the radio, fuckwit.
What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
because it was important that they be carried out
quickly. It does sound a bit weird, but as you may
recall radio was also used in the 20th century by
fascist leaders to wind up the masses. I guess when
the medium is new, people believe in what they hear,
not realizing that it's mostly hot air, like philosophy.
Rod Speed
>>>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>>>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>>>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>>>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
>>> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
>>> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
>> They were certainly revved up by the radio, fuckwit.
> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
More revved them up.
And it wasnt just the radio anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Media_propaganda
> because it was important that they be carried out quickly.
Nope, what was important was to rev up the Hutus to kill every Tutsi
they could find and make it clear that there would be no attempt by govt
to stop that happening, because it was the govt doing that revving up.
> It does sound a bit weird,
Its just plain silly.
> but as you may recall radio was also used in the
> 20th century by fascist leaders to wind up the masses.
Not in anything like the same way with say the jews.
> I guess when the medium is new,
It was nothing like new in Rwanda at that time.
> people believe in what they hear, not realizing that it's mostly hot air, like philosophy.
It wasnt hot air that the govt was advocating the Tutsis be killed. Thats all it took to get that done.
James A. Donald
> > >> there were more people around to kill, and some new
> > >> technologies as well. For example, the business in
> > >> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
James A. Donald wrote:
> > > Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
> > > neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
> because it was important that they be carried out
> quickly.
Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and
joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled the murderers
to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled those attacked to
make a more coordinated retreat. Modern technology did not enable the
attack, nor cause the attack.
Rod Speed
>>>>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>>>>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>>>>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>>>>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
> James A. Donald wrote:
>>>> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
>>>> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
>> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
>> because it was important that they be carried out quickly.
> Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and joined the resistance.
Mindlessly silly. They could still have attempted to do
that because even someone as stupid as you should
be able to grasp that they can listen to the radio as well.
> But if modern technology enabled the murderers to make a more coordinated
> attack, it also enabled those attacked to make a more coordinated retreat.
> Modern technology did not enable theattack, nor cause the attack.
It did make it clear that the govt would make no attempt to stop the killing of
the tutsis, because it was clearly the govt encouraging the killing of the tutsis.
James A. Donald
> > The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> > motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> > merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> > make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or
> whatever.
Except that we see the good Christians turning the other cheek, and
the good Muslims committing murder, and the good communists committing
mass murder, exactly at their ideologies command them to do.
Observe the response to "piss christ" They all turned the other
cheek, every single one.
Compare the response to "piss christ" with the reaction to the
Mohammed cartoons.
> At least the Mafia, when they give you a gun and
> tell you to pop someone off, doesn't tell you to
> pretend you're doing them good.
Actually the Mafia does tell you that you are doing good, and I think
they are usually right. By and large, the people a mafia kills, need
killing.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie
>>> The murders the communists committed were undeniably
>>> motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
>>> merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
>>> make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
>> Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or whatever.
> Except that we see the good Christians turning the other cheek,
Like hell we ever did when they were furiously ripping each others
throats out and quite literally burning each other at the stake over
the silliest doctrinal issues and stuff like whether the sun revolves
around the earth and the reverse etc.
And there is the tiny matter of the crusades etc.
> and the good Muslims committing murder,
You cant list even a single example of that in that century you rabid racist arsehole.
> and the good communists committing mass murder,
> exactly at their ideologies command them to do.
Another bare faced lie.
> Observe the response to "piss christ"
> They all turned the other cheek, every single one.
Like hell they all did.
> Compare the response to "piss christ" with the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons.
Hordes of moslems did just what the xtians did with piss christ.
>> At least the Mafia, when they give you a gun and
>> tell you to pop someone off, doesn't tell you to
>> pretend you're doing them good.
> Actually the Mafia does tell you that you are doing good,
Like hell they do.
> and I think they are usually right.
More fool you.
> By and large, the people a mafia kills, need killing.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Try telling that to Falcone's family, you fucking arsehole.
James A. Donald
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:11:24 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> Hordes of moslems did just what the xtians did with piss christ.
Not one Christian engaged in physical violence against the artist or
the gallery, despite the complete absence of security precautions.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims engaged in murder and arson in
response to the Mohammed cartoons.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Compare the response to "piss christ" with the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons.
>> Hordes of moslems did just what the xtians did with piss christ.
> Not one Christian engaged in physical violence against the artist or the gallery,
Yeah, their arseholes concentrated on killing abortionists instead.
> despite the complete absence of security precautions.
> Hundreds of thousands of Muslims engaged in murder
> and arson in response to the Mohammed cartoons.
Bare faced rabidly racist lie.
And in earlier times hundreds of thousands of xtians engaged
in murder and arson and burning each other at the stake over
such trivial stuff as how you crossed yourself etc.
Rockinghorse Winner
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:28:55 -0800 (PST), "bigfl...@gmail.com"
><bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Regarding light, where else are their rods and cones that convert the
>> energy into light, other than in biologicaly independent creatures?
>Light is light. It is real, it is outside us.
That is a declarative statement based on the senses. It simply begs the
original question.
It is what comes from
>the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
That is true, but you have not told us how you know this to be true, beyond
appealing to the senses.
>What the rods and cones do is convert light into qualia, sensation,
>the impact of light on our brains, which are then converted into
>instances of concepts.
--
Powered by Linux 2.6.31.6-166 Fedora 12
In rotation: Pacific Ocean Blue (D. Wilson) 2.6.31.5-0.1 OpenSUSE 11.2
James A. Donald
> > the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
Rockinghorse Winner
> That is true, but you have not told us how you know this to be true, beyond
> appealing to the senses.
The senses are reliable. We know how they work. The organs of sense
are part of the world, and themselves available to inspection.
John Stafford
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
And I agree with DAJ's pragmatic point-of-view. For those who wish to
pretend or believe that there is a reality unavailable to us, I would
agree but I add that there is nothing we can do with it or about it
except to remind ourselves that we are beings with limited senses. Being
so limited also means our means of conveying understanding is limited to
another impoverished ability - our very language.
Good show, Mr. Donald.
*Anarcissie*
> In article <q2ldj59ofhp1amkagjqdau2nu0qfirt...@4ax.com>,
He has not shown that the senses are reliable, and you
have pointed out two of the major reasons why they are
not.
*Anarcissie*
At a certain stage, many technologies are available only
to elites. This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
The targets evidently did not have access to powerful
radio transmitters as the attackers did. Broadcast radio
has an authoritarian form -- at any given time, one or a
very few are speaking to many, who cannot reply over
the same media. If radio was instrumental in the case
of the massacres in Rwanda, then I suspect it was at
this stage of its development, that is, before the arrival
of walkie-talkies, CB, cell phones, and so on.
I am not suggesting that technology makes people
murderous, any more than philosophy does. But
technology can facilitate murder just as it can
facilitate more desirable things.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald
>
> > > The murders the communists committed were undeniably
> > > motivated by sincere and passionate belief, were not
> > > merely excuses, but motivated by passionate desire to
> > > make new socialist man by breaking old unsocialist man.
>
> "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Yes, or "good Christians" or "good Muslims" or
> > whatever.
>
> Except that we see the good Christians turning the other cheek
Not really. The slaughters perpetrated by those
describing themselves as Christians continue today.
If you look around you may find some interesting
material on religious influences among American
military forces in the Middle East. This sort of
thing is not reassuring since it can easily be
transferred to the home country, which is also
full of heretics and infidels.
I'll point out as well that in 2004, when it was
well known that George W. Bush and company
were lying, murderous imperial warmongers,
responsible for the deaths of thousands of
innocent people, 70% of Evangelical Christians
voted for him. Since the founder of Christianity
preached peace if not radical pacifism, this
phenomenon shows not only that plenty of
Christians are still devoted to hatred, war and
violence, but as well how little philosophy and
religion affect people's behavior. There is
always some way of twisting words around
so you can do what you want to do, which
in the cases of many people is kill someone
or get someone else to do it for you.
Rod Speed
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>>>>> More people were killed in the 20th century because
>>>>>> there were more people around to kill, and some new
>>>>>> technologies as well. For example, the business in
>>>>>> Rwanda was greatly facilitated by the radio.
>>>>> Oh come on. You think they went to kill their
>>>>> neighbors because of some guy on the radio?
>>> What I read is that the radio facilitated the massacres
>>> because it was important that they be carried out quickly.
>> Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and
>> joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled the murderers
>> to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled those attacked to
>> make a more coordinated retreat. Modern technology did not enable the
>> attack, nor cause the attack.
> At a certain stage, many technologies are available only to elites.
Not that many, actually, just a few.
> This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
And then the world moved on when it became
clear how useful that would be for almost everyone.
> The targets evidently did not have access to
> powerful radio transmitters as the attackers did.
They didnt have access to any broadcast radio.
> Broadcast radio has an authoritarian form -- at any
> given time, one or a very few are speaking to many,
> who cannot reply over the same media.
The world has moved on on that too with talkback radio.
> If radio was instrumental in the case of the massacres
> in Rwanda, then I suspect it was at this stage of its
> development, that is, before the arrival of
> walkie-talkies, CB, cell phones, and so on.
None of those are broadcast radio.
> I am not suggesting that technology makes people
> murderous, any more than philosophy does. But
> technology can facilitate murder just as it can
> facilitate more desirable things.
Duh.
James A. Donald
I briefly outlined the explanation.
1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around with your
eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of your senses, reality
is going to cause you pain.
2. Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
other material things, and enters the head through the
clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
is an exposed surface of the brain
James A. Donald
> > Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run away and
> > joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled the murderers
> > to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled those attacked to
> > make a more coordinated retreat. Modern technology did not enable the
> > attack, nor cause the attack.
"*Anarcissie*"
> At a certain stage, many technologies are available only
> to elites. This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
> The targets evidently did not have access to powerful
> radio transmitters as the attackers did.
They had, however, cell phones. The Rwandan genocide was widely
anticipated, they had inside information widely leaked, so in this
case technology favored those attacked, and disfavored the attackers.
The relevant thing is not wireless, but men with machetes motivated to
chop women and children apart. And what motivated them?
What motivated the Rwandan genocide is the ideology of affirmative
action that kids get taught at Berkeley, which ideology is based on
the epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
James A. Donald
> describing themselves as Christians continue today.
Every month more people die as a result of environmentalism, than were
killed by the Spanish inquisition during its entire seven hundred year
history.
Any communist ruler or communist allied ruler who killed no more than
three times as many as the Spanish inquisition is hailed as a living
saint.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie wrote
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>> Why important? Because otherwise the targets would have run
>>> away and joined the resistance. But if modern technology enabled
>>> the murderers to make a more coordinated attack, it also enabled
>>> those attacked to make a more coordinated retreat. Modern
>>> technology did not enable the attack, nor cause the attack.
>> At a certain stage, many technologies are available only
>> to elites. This is the case with the earlier stages of radio.
>> The targets evidently did not have access to powerful
>> radio transmitters as the attackers did.
> They had, however, cell phones. The Rwandan genocide was widely
> anticipated, they had inside information widely leaked, so in this
> case technology favored those attacked, and disfavored the attackers.
> The relevant thing is not wireless, but men with machetes motivated
> to chop women and children apart. And what motivated them?
> What motivated the Rwandan genocide is the ideology of affirmative
> action that kids get taught at Berkeley, which ideology is based on
> the epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
Wrong, as always. It was just another tribal conflict that has always been endemic to africa.
Adolf was just a bit more sophisticated about it.
The Mongols didnt bother with shit like that, or radios either.
Rod Speed
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:17:07 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>> The slaughters perpetrated by those
>> describing themselves as Christians continue today.
>
> Every month more people die as a result of environmentalism, than were
> killed by the Spanish inquisition during its entire seven hundred year history.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim when we have
worked out how to completely eliminate the effects of famine and drought
except where the area has deteriorated into the most obscene levels of civil
war or civil chaos or where there is some arsehole like Kim Jong Il ruling the roost.
> Any communist ruler or communist allied ruler who killed no more than
> three times as many as the Spanish inquisition is hailed as a living saint.
Only by fools like you that wouldnt know what a real saint was if one bit you on your lard arse.
James A. Donald
> > of affirmative action that kids get taught at
> > Berkeley, which ideology is based on the
> > epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:03:29 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> Wrong, as always. It was just another tribal conflict
> that has always been endemic to africa.
Before and during the colonial period, Tutsi peacefully
ruled the other races, not by violent conquest, but
through prestige, and political and economic supremacy.
The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race
over other Rwandan races was previously interpreted as
evidence of right to rule. In recent times, that same
superiority was interpreted as proof of criminality.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> What motivated the Rwandan genocide is the
>>> ideology of affirmative action that kids get
>>> taught at Berkeley, which ideology is based
>>> on the epistemology of Kant and Heidegger.
>> Wrong, as always. It was just another tribal
>> conflict that has always been endemic to africa.
> Before and during the colonial period, Tutsi peacefully
> ruled the other races, not by violent conquest, but
> through prestige, and political and economic supremacy.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race over other Rwandan races
They arent even separate races, just different tribal groups.
> was previously interpreted as evidence of right to rule.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
> In recent times, that same superiority was interpreted as proof of criminality.
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
James A. Donald
> > The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race over other Rwandan races
"Rod Speed"
> They arent even separate races, just different tribal groups.
Tutsi are taller, their hair is different, and tutsi women are hotter
to european eyes. They are obviously different races.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> The visible and manifest superiority of the Tutsi race over other Rwandan races
>> They arent even separate races, just different tribal groups.
> Tutsi are taller, their hair is different,
Another bare faced pig ignorant rabidly racist lie.
> and tutsi women are hotter to european eyes.
Another bare faced pig ignorant rabidly racist lie.
> They are obviously different races.
Even if those lies were accurate, and they are just lies, that would not make the separate races, fool.
Rockinghorse Winner
Obviously.
--
Rockinghorse Winner
"Hug your sweetie today."
zzbunker
> I said before, when presenting a few of the following
> quotations, that "Anyone who wishes to will be able to
> extend this list of quotations indefinitely." I've extended
> the list accordingly. All source texts can be found easily
> with google searches, so I haven't bothered to document
> them.
>
> As Lenin said: "Marx's theory is the objective truth.
> Following the path of this theory, we will approach the
> objective truth more and more closely, while if we follow
> any other path we cannot arrive at anything except confusion
> and falsehood. From the philosophy of Marxism, cast of one
> piece of steel, it is impossible to expunge a single basic
> premise, a single essential part, without deviating from
> objective truth, without falling into the arms of
> bourgeois-reactionary falsehood."
>
> And Lenin again: "The criterion of practice, i.e., the
> course of development of all capitalist countries in the
> last few decades, proves only the objective truth of Marx’s
> _whole_ social and economic theory in general, and not
> merely of one or another of its parts, formulations, etc.;
> it is clear that to talk here of the 'dogmatism' of the
> Marxists is to make an unpardonable concession to bourgeois
> economics. The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion
> held by Marxists that Marx’s theory is an objective truth is
> that by following the _path_ of Marxian theory, we shall
> draw closer and closer to objective truth (without ever
> exhausting it); but by following _any other path_ we shall
> arrive at nothing but confusion and lies."
>
> As Trotsky said: "We call our dialectic materialist, since
> its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our
> 'free will', but in objective reality, in nature."
>
> As Stalin said: "Contrary to idealism, which asserts that
> only our consciousness really exists, and that the material
> world, being, nature, exists only in our consciousness' in
> our sensations, ideas and perceptions, the Marxist
> philosophical materialism holds that matter, nature, being,
> is an objective reality existing outside and independent of
> our consciousness; that matter is primary, since it is the
> source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and that
> consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a
> reflection of matter, a reflection of being; that thought is
> a product of matter which in its development has reached a
> high degree of perfection, namely, of the brain, and the
> brain is the organ of thought; and that therefore one cannot
> separate thought from matter without committing a grave
> error."
>
> And Stalin again: "Contrary to idealism, which denies the
> possibility of knowing the world and its laws, which does
> not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does not
> recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full
> of 'things-in-themselves' that can never be known to
> science, Marxist philosophical materialism holds that the
> world and its laws are fully knowable, that our knowledge of
> the laws of nature, tested by experiment and practice, is
> authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth,
> and that there are no things in the world which are
> unknowable, but only things which are as yet not known, but
> which will be disclosed and made known by the efforts of
> science and practice."
But, eccentric idiots like Stalin also never like to admit
that just about all scientific knowledge comes from methods called
ballistics and reverse engineering. Which is why the educable
people even started working on AI, Digital, Microcomputers, Lasers,
Masers,
Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Autonomous
Vehicles,
Satellites, Cruise Missiles, Drones, DU, Holographics, Atomic
Clock Wristwatches,
GPS, and Post Nobel-nomics anyway.
>
> And Stalin again: "Lenin defends the well-known materialist
> thesis of which our scientific knowledge of the laws of
> nature is authentic knowledge, and the laws of science
> represents objective truth. Hence the sciences of the
> history of society, despite all the complexity of the
> phenomena of social life, can become as precise a science as
> biology and capable of making use of the law of development
> of society for practical purposes."
>
> As Mao said: "Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have taught us
> that it is necessary to study conditions conscientiously and
> to proceed from objective reality and not from subjective
> wishes; but many of our comrades act in direct violation of
> this truth."
>
> And Mao again: "We are Marxists, and Marxism teaches that in
> our approach to a problem we should start from objective
> facts, not from abstract definitions, and that we should
> derive our guiding principles, policies and measures from an
> analysis of these facts."
>
> As Enver Hoxha said: "What does the experience, what does
> the life show? The experience and life both before and after
> 1955 show that in the assessment of the Yugoslav question
> Stalin and the Information Bureau were right, because their
> assessment rested on objective facts, on the teachings of
> Marxism-Leninism. The experience and the practical life, on
> the other hand, show that in their stand towards Tito's
> revisionist clique N. Khrushchev and those who follow him
> are not right, because their actions are based on subjective
> viewpoints and are contrary to the teachings of
> Marxism-Leninism, contrary to the objective reality."
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
> (Wait for the new edition:http://hplmythos.com/)
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
*Anarcissie*
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:59:52 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > He has not shown that the senses are reliable
>
> I briefly outlined the explanation.
>
> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around with your
> eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of your senses, reality
> is going to cause you pain.
Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely. In
any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the
totality.
> 2. Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters off
> other material things, and enters the head through the
> clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina, which
> is an exposed surface of the brain
Unless you're dreaming, hallucinating, or otherwise
deluded.
This is Philosophy 101 stuff. I don't see the point of
going over it. Read Hume.
Rockinghorse Winner
Your senses are in question. You can't underpin them by an appeal to the
senses. That is reason that is traveling in a circle.
Obviously, this surety of an outside world comes from somewhere other than
our physical senses. We appeal to the senses when we try to establish a fact
of science, but where do the senses attain *their* facticity? Indeed, this
is the same as asking where does the world attain it's facticity?
It is a fascinating question. Is reality that which bumps us on the head in
a moment of inattention? That doesn't appear to be very scientific. It
appears to partake of a daily, day to day, unrelective mode of living. Is
this an accurate account of how the True manifests itself? Is this what
science is built upon?
If it is, then how is it that the collision with a hard object leads us to
the True? How is it that Truth, the ultimate goal of all science, is most
manifest to us in a thoughtless bump on the head? What is the nature of
that minor event that reveals the world to us in all it's truth? It is not
science that reveals the world to us, but natural day to day living.
Indeed, it seems as if we have an inate sense of the reality of the world,
prior to all scientific experiment, prior to all philosophy or theorizing.
The question is, where does this sense come from? How are we so sure of the
reality of the outside world? For it is this that all science, far from
confirming, assumes as it's starting point.
James A. Donald
wrote:
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around with your
> > eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of your senses, reality
> > is going to cause you pain.
"*Anarcissie*"
> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
By and large, people with strange ideas about reality tend to want
*other* people to act as if those ideas were true, but are less keen
on themselves acting as if those ideas are true.
However, the most saintly believers, who tend to be the most
influential, do act as if those ideas were true, and do get hurt
because of it - thus for example the white guy who believes there is
no such thing as races and walks around at night in a "diverse" part
of the city.
> In
> any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
> to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the
> totality.
All those women who forgot to have children, seems to be
that false ideas are hurting a lot of people.
James A. Donald
> > The senses are reliable. We know how they work. The organs of sense
> > are part of the world, and themselves available to inspection.
Rockinghorse Winner
> Your senses are in question. You can't underpin them by an appeal to the
> senses. That is reason that is traveling in a circle.
Recursion, not circularity.
Recursion ends. You are just making excuses to refuse to walk down a
short path because you know where the destination will be.
Rod Speed
> Anarcissie <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk around
>>> with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the reliability of
>>> your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
>> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
>> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
> By and large, people with strange ideas about reality tend
> to want *other* people to act as if those ideas were true, but
> are less keen on themselves acting as if those ideas are true.
That is just plain wrong, most obviously with
religious ideas, but also with social ideas too.
> However, the most saintly believers, who tend to be the most influential,
That is just plain wrong.
> do act as if those ideas were true, and do get hurt because of it
> - thus for example the white guy who believes there is no such thing
> as races and walks around at night in a "diverse" part of the city.
And those who believe that most people are fundamentally
decent and honest, hardly ever get hurt because of that.
And arguably end up with a much better life than
those who are very suspicious of other's motives etc.
>> In any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
>> to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the totality.
> All those women who forgot to have children,
They didnt forget, they just got it wrong about how viable it was to put them off till later.
> seems to be that false ideas are hurting a lot of people.
Thats not even a false idea.
The false idea that there is some damned god or other doesnt really
hurt very many at all, particularly now that we stop them from killing
those who have other ideas about the detail most of the time.
Rod Speed
>>> He has not shown that the senses are reliable
>> I briefly outlined the explanation.
>> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk
>> around with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the
>> reliability of your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
They do indeed. Most obviously with scientist who believe that the
bible is the quite literal word of some damned god or other, but
who are quite capabable of doing decent rigorous science as well.
One of the odder aspects of the human 'mind'
> In any case, the amount of reality one needs to know
> to survive may be a miniscule proportion of the totality.
Indeed, and not only to survive but to do very well as well.
Joan of Arc was quite literally barking mad, hearing 'the
voices' and all and managed to get quite a bit done as well.
>> 2. Real light from the sun, a material thing, scatters
>> off other material things, and enters the head through
>> the clear windows of the eyes, landing on the retina,
>> which is an exposed surface of the brain
> Unless you're dreaming, hallucinating, or otherwise deluded.
> This is Philosophy 101 stuff. I don't see the point of going over it. Read Hume.
Indeed.
Rockinghorse Winner
>Recursion, not circularity.
I wish the argument were recursive. At least then, we would know how you
ground sense. But you are saying in essense, we know the senses are reliable
because we have studied them and the world, and the conclusion is that
the world is real and the senses, being part of that world, are real as
well. But how did you study the world, if not by sense? And *if* by sense,
then the question as to how sense reaches a positive affirmation of Truth
remains open.
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissie wrote
>
> > James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> >> Anarcissie wrote
> >>> He has not shown that the senses are reliable
> >> I briefly outlined the explanation.
> >> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk
> >> around with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the
> >> reliability of your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
> > Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
> > divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
> They do indeed. Most obviously with scientist who believe that the
> bible is the quite literal word of some damned god or other, but
> who are quite capabable of doing decent rigorous science as well.
>
> One of the odder aspects of the human 'mind'
I believe that "doublethink", as it's called by George
Orwell, is a survival characteristic. It probably takes
a long time to construct a worldview, a framework in
which individual perceptions have meaning. If one
has sufficient processing power one can construct
several worldviews and switch them in and out
rapidly. Then, if one can't handle a given phenomenon
in one's current worldview, one just switches another
one in which can handle the problem.
For example, most people don't think about death
and the afterlife much of the time -- they are more
concerned with other things, like getting stuff or
getting laid or achieving power. However, if they
are confronted by death, say by the death of a
near relative, there is no way to handle this in the
everyday common-sense framework, so they
switch in some set of religious fables to put the
death in a framework that can handle it. "He's
gone to a better world," etc. As soon as their
grief and anxiety subside, they'll switch back to
the everyday, common-sense framework.
In some areas like politics many people hold,
and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas at
one and the same time, which may be another
aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
a poll of certain populations, "The government
should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
bad" will both win.
Except on the Net, it's considered rude not to
play along.
gob...@ntlworld.com
> In some areas like politics many people hold,
> and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas at
> one and the same time, which may be another
> aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
> a poll of certain populations, "The government
> should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
> bad" will both win.
[Sideshow]
What makes you think these views are contradictory?
*Anarcissie*
"Welfare" among the same populations is defined
as "the government doing things for the poor."
You can probably get a similar result by informally
polling people at the next large social gathering
you attend.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>>>> Anarcissie wrote
>>>>> He has not shown that the senses are reliable
>>>> I briefly outlined the explanation.
>>>> 1. Reality is what bangs you on the head if you walk
>>>> around with your eyes closed. Should you doubt the
>>>> reliability of your senses, reality is going to cause you pain.
>>> Not necessarily. Many people sustain apparently
>>> divergent ideas about what is real indefinitely.
>> They do indeed. Most obviously with scientist who believe that the
>> bible is the quite literal word of some damned god or other, but
>> who are quite capabable of doing decent rigorous science as well.
>> One of the odder aspects of the human 'mind'
> I believe that "doublethink", as it's called by George Orwell, is a survival characteristic.
Hard to see that its got any survival advantage.
> It probably takes a long time to construct a worldview,
> a framework in which individual perceptions have meaning.
Nope, it clearly doesnt when even little kids and animals can do that.
> If one has sufficient processing power one can construct
> several worldviews and switch them in and out rapidly.
They arent actually switching between them rapidly at all.
What appears to be happening is that they have a need
for certainty, thats why they are stupid enough to believe
that that pathetic collection of fairy storys is the quite literal
word of some god or other, even tho there is so much like
the Noah story and even the childish silly shit about walls
being brought down by very load music is part of that.
They just find it very uncomfortable that there are no
absolute certaintys at all, everything is up for negotiation,
essentiallly because they they have no absolutes to live by.
Its not hard to see how that can be kept
separate from their job doing rigorous science.
Just like those whose children or spouses end up being
psychopaths, quite a few can never bring themselves
to accept that, even when the evidence is completely
overwhelming complete with the corpses they have produced etc.
Its just a fact that is so unspeakable that they cant accept it.
> Then, if one can't handle a given phenomenon in
> one's current worldview, one just switches another
> one in which can handle the problem.
Its not so much a world view as just believing in something
like that book being the absolute word of some god or other.
> For example, most people don't think about death
> and the afterlife much of the time -- they are more
> concerned with other things, like getting stuff or
> getting laid or achieving power. However, if they
> are confronted by death, say by the death of a
> near relative, there is no way to handle this in the
> everyday common-sense framework, so they
> switch in some set of religious fables to put the
> death in a framework that can handle it. "He's
> gone to a better world," etc. As soon as their
> grief and anxiety subside, they'll switch back
> to the everyday, common-sense framework.
It isnt really a switch, they just believe that they
will see that individual again etc, even tho its
more than a tad unlikely that there is actually
some place where everyone who has ever lived
is hanging out now carrying on regardless.
Its easy to see why some need that sort of a
crutch for their pathetically inadequate minds.
> In some areas like politics many people hold,
> and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas
> at one and the same time, which may be another
> aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
> a poll of certain populations, "The government
> should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
> bad" will both win.
Not in the same individual tho. Thats just divirgent
ideas on the basics, and both positions are sustainable,
particularly the downsides of welfare like it having one
hell of a capacity for producing inter generational
welfare dependance which hardly ever produces
anyone who isnt welfare dependant.
> Except on the Net, it's considered rude not to play along.
Plenty are very rude when asked that sort of question in person.
And that isnt actually double think if they are just telling the pollster
what they think is the socially acceptable answer anyway.
Its certainly true that you dont see too many prepared to admit
to a pollster some of their racist opinions or even be prepared to
admit that they dont like Obama just because he is half black etc.
Thats not double think tho, thats just being careful about
stating your real beliefs publicly to those you dont know well.
And plenty are polite, like not actually saying to someone
that they believe that their brat is an obnoxious little shit that
needs a good kick up the arse when its misbehaving.
Its only the most gung ho individuals who will actually say that
to the parent when the child is behaving like that in a public
place and causing a lot of disruption for everyone there.
Rod Speed
> gob...@ntlworld.com wrote
>> Anarcissie wrote
>>> In some areas like politics many people hold,
>>> and are aware of, strongly contradictory ideas at
>>> one and the same time, which may be another
>>> aspect of the talent for doublethink. If you take
>>> a poll of certain populations, "The government
>>> should do more for the poor" and "Welfare is
>>> bad" will both win.
>> [Sideshow]
>> What makes you think these views are contradictory?
> "Welfare" among the same populations is defined
> as "the government doing things for the poor."
Nope, thats just one way of doing something for the poor.
The other obvious ways of doing things for the poor is
to increase the minimum wage which will do something
for the working poor, and reducing the unemployment
rate which will do something for those who are poor
because they dont have a job, and say mandating
the employment of cripples to reduce the number of poor
who are poor because no one wants to employ them etc.
> You can probably get a similar result by informally polling
> people at the next large social gathering you attend.
Yes, but thats not double think, thats just recognising that
there are real downsides with welfare, if only that it does
tend to produce inter generational welfare dependancy,
particularly when its generous enough so that you end
up with living standards that are as good as you get
when working. Hordes dont really like the sort of work
they are qualified to do and would prefer to 'live' on welfare.
My govt is actually stupid enough to pay everyone very substantial
child benefits and that means that if you have enough kids, you can
actually end up with a higher income than in the worst paid jobs.
Its hardly surprising that some do choose to just have quite a few
kids, often each with a different father. Its not surprising that some
do that, the lifestyle is much better than say running a checkout at
a supermarket etc. Someone else looks after the kids for a decent
chunk of the day while they are in school, and you get to decide for
yourself what you do at any particular time. Quite a few even
like kids and some enjoy the fucking that produces them too.
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> writes:
>
> >James A. Donald
> >> > The senses are reliable. We know how they work. The organs of sense
> >> > are part of the world, and themselves available to inspection.
>
> >Rockinghorse Winner
> >> Your senses are in question. You can't underpin them by an appeal to the
> >> senses. That is reason that is traveling in a circle.
>
> >Recursion, not circularity.
>
> >Recursion ends. You are just making excuses to refuse to walk down a
> >short path because you know where the destination will be.
>
>
> I wish the argument were recursive. At least then, we would know how you
> ground sense. But you are saying in essense, we know the senses are reliable
> because we have studied them and the world, and the conclusion is that
> the world is real and the senses, being part of that world, are real as
> well. But how did you study the world, if not by sense? And *if* by sense,
> then the question as to how sense reaches a positive affirmation of Truth
> remains open.
Donald did not say this so exactly. Besides, the answer to the question
about whether the senses are reliable depends on the context and exact
meaning of the question. Under some interpretations it might only appear
to have a clear meaning (like the question "What is the meaning of
life?).
Do you really suppose that your expression "positive affirmation of
Truth" has some clear general meaning?
It is perfectly true that we use senses to verify the reliability of
senses. Eye doctors do it all the time. They even quantify the results.
--
dorayme
James A. Donald
> because we have studied them and the world, and the conclusion is that
> the world is real and the senses, being part of that world, are real as
> well. But how did you study the world, if not by sense?
The question presupposes a separation between mind and the world which
is refuted every time you walk into something and are dazed by the
resulting thump. Our mind is part of the world, and part of the world
is in our minds.
Rockinghorse Winner
>--
>dorayme
I agree that sense gives us a more or less true picture of the world. I also
agree that science can use knowledge to help people, by applying its
knowledge of the world to human concerns.
My question was not whether or not the senses give us a true picture of the
world, but if science can justify itself in terms of predicted outcomes of
applied science. These outcomes are just additional sensory experiences that
in turn beg justification, just as the precipient phenomena did. So, a
predicted outcome is *not* the final verdict as to the truth of the senses,
but just additional evidence in favor of it. And, by the nature of this
process, a final verdict on the absolute truthfulnesses of the senses
will never occur, if we confine ourselves to phenomena.
So, if science cannot give us an absolutely certainty as to the truth of
perception, perhaps a knock on the head can. Are we so uncertain as to the
reality of the door frame we just walked into as we are about our scientific
theses? No, we have a direct and irrefutable conviction of the truth of the
existence of that door frame. We did not practice science upon it, we did
no theorizing or testing. And yet, has a conviction ever been stronger than
this one?
My question is, what accounts for this direct perception of truth? Is this
the basis for our judgement of the reality of the world that comes in
through the senses, rather than applied science? If it is, then what
explanation can we offer for it? How is it that *truthfulness* seems to
follow us in all our doings with the world? Why do we *know* the senses are
accurate, before we have even tested them by scientific experiment? What
accounts for truth?
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
...
> >... the answer to the question
> >about whether the senses are reliable depends on the context and exact
> >meaning of the question. Under some interpretations it might only appear
> >to have a clear meaning (like the question "What is the meaning of
> >life?).
>
> >Do you really suppose that your expression "positive affirmation of
> >Truth" has some clear general meaning?
>
> >It is perfectly true that we use senses to verify the reliability of
> >senses. Eye doctors do it all the time. They even quantify the results.
>
...
I don't want to start picking apart *all* this. You are, in a way,
asking some important and interesting questions about epistemology. You
are musing about what might be the foundations of knowledge and how we
might have come across such knowledge and how we might expand it.
Interesting and deep questions indeed with a rich history and literature.
For now, I will say that the assumption that there are foundations to
our knowledge is almost certainly unlikely. Scientists do not make
predictions about sensory events in the main. They predict things like
that the moon has water and other more complicated things. They are not
sensory outcomes in any way that you are supposing through the lens of
some imagined philosophical theory about initial theory free data.
As I see it, and this is nothing too original, it is quite impossible to
separate out some clean cut level of sensory data, not even a set of
statements that are open to simple sensory verification. When we see a
car, we are already working with complex understandings and theory about
these objects. I could put it this way: the least theoretical of
statements are nevertheless theory laden. Science is a sophistication of
what even aboriginal humans operated with. They did not have kangaroo
shaped sensory impingements, at least not that they knew or said or
thought, they saw kangaroos or at least often thought they did.
If you accept that a human mind, in order to operate at any sort of
normal level in the world must be a carrier of many and complicated
theories about the sort of world that is lived in, the question then is
how to improve those theories. That is a large question and I won't deal
with it here and now.
But the question, how does the holder of the theories know they are
true, the short answer is that he tries his best and would not be
holding those theories if he could think of anything better! The
emphasis here is on doing the best we can, not on how do we know what we
have is the slightest bit of good! <g>
The reason the last question is not very useful to answer is that no
thought is possible without the thinker having a conceptual system in
which some general theories about the world are incorporated. One cannot
seriously think from outside all conceptual system. There is no such
place.
--
dorayme
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:28:55 -0800 (PST), "bigflet...@gmail.com"
>
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regarding light, where else are their rods and cones that convert the
> > energy into light, other than in biologicaly independent creatures?
>
> Light is light. It is real, it is outside us. It is what comes from
> the sun and from light bulbs. It is still there when no one sees it.
> the impact of light on our brains, which are then converted into
> instances of concepts.
It is a huge leap to recognise that nohing 'real' is outside the
individual.
The energy you refer to as light doesnt change because a bat or a
human is picking up and who's 'eqipment' reacting to a specific
frequency.Would a bat call it 'light'?
Woud you describe frquencies above the audible range of human
hearing , as sound?
If you think about that, is is ludicrous to come to such conclusions.
BOfL
Immortalist
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Steven Pinker: EXCERPT
The blank slate, the noble savage, and the ghost in the machine
Everyone has a theory of human nature. Everyone has to anticipate the
behavior of others, and that means we all need theories about what
makes people tick. A tacit theory of human nature-that behavior is
caused by thoughts and feelings-is embedded in the very way we think
about people. We fill out this theory by introspecting on our own
minds and assuming that our fellows are like ourselves, and by
watching people's behavior and filing away generalizations. We absorb
still other ideas from our intellectual climate: from the expertise of
authorities and the conventional wisdom of the day.
Our theory of human nature is the wellspring of much in our lives. We
consult it when we want to persuade or threaten, inform or deceive. It
advises us on how to nurture our marriages, bring up our children, and
control our own behavior. Its assumptions about learning drive our
educational policy; its assumptions about motivation drive our
policies on economics, law, and crime. And because it delineates what
people can achieve easily, what they can achieve only with sacrifice
or pain, and what they cannot achieve at all, it affects our values:
what we believe we can reasonably strive for as individuals and as a
society. Rival theories of human nature are entwined in different ways
of life and different political systems, and have been a source of
much conflict over the course of history.
For millennia, the major theories of human nature have come from
religion. The Judeo-Christian tradition, for example, offers
explanations for much of the subject matter now studied by biology and
psychology. Humans are made in the image of God and are unrelated to
animals. Women are derivative of men and destined to be ruled by them.
The mind is an immaterial substance: it has powers possessed by no
purely physical structure, and can continue to exist when the body
dies.4 The mind is made up of several components, including a moral
sense, an ability to love, a capacity for reason that recognizes
whether an act conforms to ideals of goodness, and a decision faculty
that chooses how to behave. Although the decision faculty is not bound
by the laws of cause and effect, it has an innate tendency to choose
sin. Our cognitive and perceptual faculties work accurately because
God implanted ideals in them that correspond to reality and because he
coordinates their functioning with the outside world. Mental health
comes from recognizing God's purpose, choosing good and repenting sin,
and loving God and one's fellow humans for God's sake.
The Judeo-Christian theory is based on events narrated in the Bible.
We know that the human mind has nothing in common with the minds of
animals because the Bible says that humans were created separately. We
know that the design of women is based on the design of men because in
the second telling of the creation of women Eve was fashioned from the
rib of Adam. Human decisions cannot be the inevitable effects of some
cause, we may surmise, because God held Adam and Eve responsible for
eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, implying that they could
have chosen otherwise. Women are dominated by men as punishment for
Eve's disobedience, and men and women inherit the sinfulness of the
first couple.
The Judeo-Christian conception is still the most popular theory of
human nature in the United States. According to recent polls, 76
percent of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation, 79
percent believe that the miracles in the Bible actually took place, 76
percent believe in angels, the devil, and other immaterial souls, 67
percent believe they will exist in some form after their death, and
only 15 percent believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best
explanation for the origin of human life on Earth.5 Politicians on the
right embrace the religious theory explicitly, and no mainstream
politician would dare contradict it in public. But the modern sciences
of cosmology, geology, biology, and archaeology have made it
impossible for a scientifically literate person to believe that the
biblical story of creation actually took place. As a result, the Judeo-
Christian theory of human nature is no longer explicitly avowed by
most academics, journalists, social analysts, and other intellectually
engaged people. Nonetheless, every society must operate with a theory
of human nature, and our intellectual mainstream is committed to
another one. The theory is seldom articulated or overtly embraced, but
it lies at the heart of a vast number of beliefs and policies.
Bertrand Russell wrote, "Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed
by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies
on a summer day." For intellectuals today, many of those convictions
are about psychology and social relations. I will refer to those
convictions as the Blank Slate: the idea that the human mind has no
inherent structure and can be inscribed at will by society or
ourselves.
That theory of human nature-namely, that it barely exists-is the topic
of this book. Just as religions contain a theory of human nature, so
theories of human nature take on some of the functions of religion,
and the Blank Slate has become the secular religion of modern
intellectual life. It is seen as a source of values, so the fact that
it is based on a miracle-a complex mind arising out of nothing-is not
held against it. Challenges to the doctrine from skeptics and
scientists have plunged some believers into a crisis of faith and have
led others to mount the kinds of bitter attacks ordinarily aimed at
heretics and infidels. And just as many religious traditions
eventually reconciled themselves to apparent threats from science
(such as the revolutions of Copernicus and Darwin), so, I argue, will
our values survive the demise of the Blank Slate.
The chapters in this part of the book (Part I) are about the
ascendance of the Blank Slate in modern intellectual life, and about
the new view of human nature and culture that is beginning to
challenge it. In succeeding parts we will witness the anxiety evoked
by this challenge (Part II) and see how the anxiety may be assuaged
(Part III). Then I will show how a richer conception of human nature
can provide insight into language, thought, social life, and morality
(Part IV) and how it can clarify controversies on politics, violence,
gender, childrearing, and the arts (Part V). Finally I will show how
the passing of the Blank Slate is less disquieting, and in some ways
less revolutionary, than it first appears (Part VI).
Chapter 1
The Official Theory
"Blank slate" is a loose translation of the medieval Latin term tabula
rasa-literally, "scraped tablet." It is commonly attributed to the
philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), though in fact he used a different
metaphor. Here is the famous passage from An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding:
Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all
characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? Whence
comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man
has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all
the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word,
from experience.
Locke was taking aim at theories of innate ideas in which people were
thought to be born with mathematical ideals, eternal truths, and a
notion of God. His alternative theory, empiricism, was intended both
as a theory of psychology-how the mind works-and as a theory of
epistemology-how we come to know the truth. Both goals helped motivate
his political philosophy, often honored as the foundation of liberal
democracy. Locke opposed dogmatic justifications for the political
status quo, such as the authority of the church and the divine right
of kings, which had been touted as self-evident truths. He argued that
social arrangements should be reasoned out from scratch and agreed
upon by mutual consent, based on knowledge that any person could
acquire. Since ideas are grounded in experience, which varies from
person to person, differences of opinion arise not because one mind is
equipped to grasp the truth and another is defective, but because the
two minds have had different histories. Those differences therefore
ought to be tolerated rather than suppressed. Locke's notion of a
blank slate also undermined a hereditary royalty and aristocracy,
whose members could claim no innate wisdom or merit if their minds had
started out as blank as everyone else's. It also spoke against the
institution of slavery, because slaves could no longer be thought of
as innately inferior or subservient.
During the past century the doctrine of the Blank Slate has set the
agenda for much of the social sciences and humanities. As we shall
see, psychology has sought to explain all thought, feeling, and
behavior with a few simple mechanisms of learning. The social sciences
have sought to explain all customs and social arrangements as a
product of the socialization of children by the surrounding culture: a
system of words, images, stereotypes, role models, and contingencies
of reward and punishment. A long and growing list of concepts that
would seem natural to the human way of thinking (emotions, kinship,
the sexes, illness, nature, the world) are now said to have been
"invented" or "socially constructed."2 The Blank Slate has also served
as a sacred scripture for political and ethical beliefs. According to
the doctrine, any differences we see among races, ethnic groups,
sexes, and individuals come not from differences in their innate
constitution but from differences in their experiences. Change the
experiences-by reforming parenting, education, the media, and social
rewards-and you can change the person. Underachievement, poverty, and
antisocial behavior can be ameliorated; indeed, it is irresponsible
not to do so. And discrimination on the basis of purportedly inborn
traits of a sex or ethnic group is simply irrational.
The Blank Slate is often accompanied by two other doctrines, which
have also attained a sacred status in modern intellectual life. My
label for the first of the two is commonly attributed to the
philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), though it really comes
from John Dryden's The Conquest of Granada, published in 1670:
I am as free as Nature first made man,
Ere the base laws of servitude began
, When wild in woods the noble savage ran.
The concept of the noble savage was inspired by European colonists'
discovery of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, and (later)
Oceania. It captures the belief that humans in their natural state are
selfless, peaceable, and untroubled, and that blights such as greed,
anxiety, and violence are the products of civilization. In 1755
Rousseau wrote:
So many authors have hastily concluded that man is naturally cruel,
and requires a regular system of police to be reclaimed; whereas
nothing can be more gentle than him in his primitive state, when
placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and
the pernicious good sense of civilized man. . . .
The more we reflect on this state, the more convinced we shall be that
it was the least subject of any to revolutions, the best for man, and
that nothing could have drawn him out of it but some fatal accident,
which, for the public good, should never have happened. The example of
the savages, most of whom have been found in this condition, seems to
confirm that mankind was formed ever to remain in it, that this
condition is the real youth of the world, and that all ulterior
improvements have been so many steps, in appearance towards the
perfection of individuals, but in fact towards the decrepitness of the
species.
First among the authors that Rousseau had in mind was Thomas Hobbes
(1588-1679), who had presented a very different picture:
Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common
power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is
called war; and such a war as is of every man against every
man. . . .
In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit
thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no
navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no
commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things
as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no
account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst
of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of
man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Hobbes believed that people could escape this hellish existence only
by surrendering their autonomy to a sovereign person or assembly. He
called it a leviathan, the Hebrew word for a monstrous sea creature
subdued by Yahweh at the dawn of creation.
Much depends on which of these armchair anthropologists is correct. If
people are noble savages, then a domineering leviathan is unnecessary.
Indeed, by forcing people to delineate private property for the state
to recognize-property they might otherwise have shared-the leviathan
creates the very greed and belligerence it is designed to control. A
happy society would be our birthright; all we would need to do is
eliminate the institutional barriers that keep it from us. If, in
contrast, people are naturally nasty, the best we can hope for is an
uneasy truce enforced by police and the army. The two theories have
implications for private life as well. Every child is born a savage
(that is, uncivilized), so if savages are naturally gentle,
childrearing is a matter of providing children with opportunities to
develop their potential, and evil people are products of a society
that has corrupted them. If savages are naturally nasty, then
childrearing is an arena of discipline and conflict, and evil people
are showing a dark side that was insufficiently tamed.
The actual writings of philosophers are always more complex than the
theories they come to symbolize in the textbooks. In reality, the
views of Hobbes and Rousseau are not that far apart. Rousseau, like
Hobbes, believed (incorrectly) that savages were solitary, without
ties of love or loyalty, and without any industry or art (and he may
have out-Hobbes'd Hobbes in claiming they did not even have language).
Hobbes envisioned-indeed, literally drew-his leviathan as an
embodiment of the collective will, which was vested in it by a kind of
social contract; Rousseau's most famous work is called The Social
Contract, and in it he calls on people to subordinate their interests
to a "general will."
Nonetheless, Hobbes and Rousseau limned contrasting pictures of the
state of nature that have inspired thinkers in the centuries since. No
one can fail to recognize the influence of the doctrine of the Noble
Savage in contemporary consciousness. We see it in the current respect
for all things natural (natural foods, natural medicines, natural
childbirth) and the distrust of the man-made, the unfashionability of
authoritarian styles of childrearing and education, and the
understanding of social problems as repairable defects in our
institutions rather than as tragedies inherent to the human
condition.
The other sacred doctrine that often accompanies the Blank Slate is
usually attributed to the scientist, mathematician, and philosopher
René Descartes (1596-1650):
There is a great difference between mind and body, inasmuch as body is
by nature always divisible, and the mind is entirely
indivisible. . . . When I consider the mind, that is to say, myself
inasmuch as I am only a thinking being, I cannot distinguish in myself
any parts, but apprehend myself to be clearly one and entire; and
though the whole mind seems to be united to the whole body, yet if a
foot, or an arm, or some other part, is separated from the body, I am
aware that nothing has been taken from my mind. And the faculties of
willing, feeling, conceiving, etc. cannot be properly speaking said to
be its parts, for it is one and the same mind which employs itself in
willing and in feeling and understanding. But it is quite otherwise
with corporeal or extended objects, for there is not one of them
imaginable by me which my mind cannot easily divide into parts. . . .
This would be sufficient to teach me that the mind or soul of man is
entirely different from the body, if I had not already been apprised
of it on other grounds.
A memorable name for this doctrine was given three centuries later by
a detractor, the philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976):
There is a doctrine about the nature and place of minds which is so
prevalent among theorists and even among laymen that it deserves to be
described as the official theory. . . . The official doctrine, which
hails chiefly from Descartes, is something like this. With the
doubtful exception of idiots and infants in arms every human being has
both a body and a mind. Some would prefer to say that every human
being is both a body and a mind. His body and his mind are ordinarily
harnessed together, but after the death of the body his mind may
continue to exist and function. Human bodies are in space and are
subject to mechanical laws which govern all other bodies in
space. . . . But minds are not in space, nor are their operations
subject to mechanical laws. . . .
. . . Such in outline is the official theory. I shall often speak of
it, with deliberate abusiveness, as "the dogma of the Ghost in the
Machine."6 The Ghost in the Machine, like the Noble Savage, arose in
part as a reaction to Hobbes. Hobbes had argued that life and mind
could be explained in mechanical terms. Light sets our nerves and
brain in motion, and that is what it means to see. The motions may
persist like the wake of a ship or the vibration of a plucked string,
and that is what it means to imagine. "Quantities" get added or
subtracted in the brain, and that is what it means to think.
Descartes rejected the idea that the mind could operate by physical
principles. He thought that behavior, especially speech, was not
caused by anything, but freely chosen. He observed that our
consciousness, unlike our bodies and other physical objects, does not
feel as if it is divisible into parts or laid out in space. He noted
that we cannot doubt the existence of our minds-indeed, we cannot
doubt that we are our minds-because the very act of thinking
presupposes that our minds exist. But we can doubt the existence of
our bodies, because we can imagine ourselves to be immaterial spirits
who merely dream or hallucinate that we are incarnate.
Descartes also found a moral bonus in his dualism (the belief that the
mind is a different kind of thing from the body): "There is none which
is more effectual in leading feeble spirits from the straight path of
virtue, than to imagine that the soul of the brute is of the same
nature as our own, and that in consequence, after this life we have
nothing to fear or to hope for, any more than the flies and the
ants."7 Ryle explains Descartes's dilemma:
When Galileo showed that his methods of scientific discovery were
competent to provide a mechanical theory which should cover every
occupant of space, Descartes found in himself two conflicting motives.
As a man of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of
mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as
Hobbes accepted, the discouraging rider to those claims, namely that
human nature differs only in degree of complexity from clockwork.
It can indeed be upsetting to think of ourselves as glorified gears
and springs. Machines are insensate, built to be used, and disposable;
humans are sentient, possessing of dignity and rights, and infinitely
precious. A machine has some workaday purpose, such as grinding grain
or sharpening pencils; a human being has higher purposes, such as
love, worship, good works, and the creation of knowledge and beauty.
The behavior of machines is determined by the ineluctable laws of
physics and chemistry; the behavior of people is freely chosen. With
choice comes freedom, and therefore optimism about our possibilities
for the future. With choice also comes responsibility, which allows us
to hold people accountable for their actions. And of course if the
mind is separate from the body, it can continue to exist when the body
breaks down, and our thoughts and pleasures will not someday be
snuffed out forever.
As I mentioned, most Americans continue to believe in an immortal
soul, made of some nonphysical substance, which can part company with
the body. But even those who do not avow that belief in so many words
still imagine that somehow there must be more to us than electrical
and chemical activity in the brain. Choice, dignity, and
responsibility are gifts that set off human beings from everything
else in the universe, and seem incompatible with the idea that we are
mere collections of molecules. Attempts to explain behavior in
mechanistic terms are commonly denounced as "reductionist" or
"determinist." The denouncers rarely know exactly what they mean by
those words, but everyone knows they refer to something bad. The
dichotomy between mind and body also pervades everyday speech, as when
we say "Use your head," when we refer to "out-of-body experiences,"
and when we speak of "John's body," or for that matter "John's brain,"
which presupposes an owner, John, that is somehow separate from the
brain it owns. Journalists sometimes speculate about "brain
transplants" when they really should be calling them "body
transplants," because, as the philosopher Dan Dennett has noted, this
is the one transplant operation in which it is better to be the donor
than the recipient. The doctrines of the Blank Slate, the Noble
Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine-or, as philosophers call them,
empiricism, romanticism, and dualism-are logically independent, but in
practice they are often found together. If the slate is blank, then
strictly speaking it has neither injunctions to do good nor
injunctions to do evil. But good and evil are asymmetrical: there are
more ways to harm people than to help them, and harmful acts can hurt
them to a greater degree than virtuous acts can make them better off.
So a blank slate, compared with one filled with motives, is bound to
impress us more by its inability to do harm than by its inability to
do good. Rousseau did not literally believe in a blank slate, but he
did believe that bad behavior is a product of learning and
socialization.9 "Men are wicked," he wrote; "a sad and constant
experience makes proof unnecessary." But this wickedness comes from
society: "There is no original perversity in the human heart. There is
not a single vice to be found in it of which it cannot be said how and
whence it entered."11 If the metaphors in everyday speech are a clue,
then all of us, like Rousseau, associate blankness with virtue rather
than with nothingness. Think of the moral connotations of the
adjectives clean, fair, immaculate, lily-white, pure, spotless,
unmarred, and unsullied, and of the nouns blemish, blot, mark, stain,
and taint.
The Blank Slate naturally coexists with the Ghost in the Machine, too,
since a slate that is blank is a hospitable place for a ghost to
haunt. If a ghost is to be at the controls, the factory can ship the
device with a minimum of parts. The ghost can read the body's display
panels and pull its levers, with no need for a high-tech executive
program, guidance system, or CPU. The more not-clockwork there is
controlling behavior, the less clockwork we need to posit. For similar
reasons, the Ghost in the Machine happily accompanies the Noble
Savage. If the machine behaves ignobly, we can blame the ghost, which
freely chose to carry out the iniquitous acts; we need not probe for a
defect in the machine's design.
Philosophy today gets no respect. Many scientists use the term as a
synonym for effete speculation. When my colleague Ned Block told his
father that he would major in the subject, his father's reply was
"Luft!"-Yiddish for "air." And then there's the joke in which a young
man told his mother he would become a Doctor of Philosophy and she
said, "Wonderful! But what kind of disease is philosophy?" But far
from being idle or airy, the ideas of philosophers can have
repercussions for centuries. The Blank Slate and its companion
doctrines have infiltrated the conventional wisdom of our civilization
and have repeatedly surfaced in unexpected places. William Godwin
(1756-1835), one of the founders of liberal political philosophy,
wrote that "children are a sort of raw material put into our hands,"
their minds "like a sheet of white paper."12 More sinisterly, we find
Mao Zedong justifying his radical social engineering by saying, "It is
on a blank page that the most beautiful poems are written."13 Even
Walt Disney was inspired by the metaphor. "I think of a child's mind
as a blank book," he wrote. "During the first years of his life, much
will be written on the pages. The quality of that writing will affect
his life profoundly."
Locke could not have imagined that his words would someday lead to
Bambi (intended by Disney to teach self-reliance); nor could Rousseau
have anticipated Pocahontas, the ultimate noble savage. Indeed, the
soul of Rousseau seems to have been channeled by the writer of a
recent Thanksgiving op-ed piece in the Boston Globe:
I would submit that the world native Americans knew was more stable,
happier, and less barbaric than our society today. . . . there were no
employment problems, community harmony was strong, substance abuse
unknown, crime nearly nonexistent. What warfare there was between
tribes was largely ritualistic and seldom resulted in indiscriminate
or wholesale slaughter. While there were hard times, life was, for the
most part, stable and predictable. . . . Because the native people
respected what was around them, there was no loss of water or food
resources because of pollution or extinction, no lack of materials for
the daily essentials, such as baskets, canoes, shelter, or firewood.
—from The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, Copyright © October 2002,
Viking Press, a member of Penguin Putnam, Inc., used by permission.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Dec 24, 11:48 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Co(lliding)incidents, dont happen by coincidence, but are creations of
> > people at similar levels of perception,
>
> Wrong, athiesm and the mystical god crap are hardly "similar levels"
> of perception,
Believers are believers. Check your premise. There is god crap, and
mystical crap. Not linked except in your belief.
whereas Marxism / socialism and the mystical god crap
> are. The athiest Marxist / socialist is not athiest as a consequence
> of anything found in Marxism and religionism, therefore the athiest
> Marxist / socialist is a coincidence.
Believers believe anything.
BOfL
>
> MG
Rockinghorse Winner
Which makes the problem of grounding truth in sense that much more
problematic. If the question is, is the image of the world given by sense a
true one, and the senses themselves are a part of that image, you have a
problem that you cannot gain a vantage on which to judge that perception.
The problem in the sciences is that predictable outcomes are themselves
phenomena that need to be independently verified. Even more important, all
experiments rely on the fact that what we are seeing is in fact a faithful
representation of reality. But just like any axiomatic system, this axiom
cannot be tested: it must be assumed.
It is this assumption, that perception gives us a faithful representation of
reality, that is in question. It cannot be tested by science -- it is the
*basis* of science. Science cannot proceed without a silent assumption that
we can perceive reality in a true fashion.
How then do we know we know? Where does the immediate knowledge of the truth
of the world - such as we experience by a knock on the head - come from?
Two different explanations have been given. One, that truth is the
correspondence of our perceptions with the real world (so called
correspondence theory). I said in answer that this requires that we *see*
the world truthfully, and I asked how this was possible.
Two, that truth is validated by predicting outcomes. I answered that any
outcome is subject to the same doubts as the phenomena that preceded it.
All phenomena depend on the true rendering of the world to our senses, or
else the whole enterprise is in vain. So the question again presents
itself, "where does this true apperception of the world arise from?" Science
merely takes it for granted, but unless we ground it somehow, it is an
unproven axiom.
Also, how can science claim to be the ultimate arbiter of Truth, when it is
an offshoot of Truth? Far from the enterprise known as science grounding
Truth, it is Truth that grounds science. Again, we come full circle to
question, what grounds Truth?
To begin to answer this question, I believe we need to look to poetry and
the arts. Why is it that the arts, which deal so much in artifice and
imagination, and religion which deals so much in myth, have anything to tell
us about Truth? By cutting ourselves off, many of us, from the arts, have we
cut ourselves off from Truth? What *is* truth, as it is revealed in the
arts?
Michael Gordge
wrote:
>
> Believers are believers. Check your premise. There is god crap, and
> mystical crap. Not linked except in your belief.
You have already mentioned that is a belief you have.
> Believers believe anything.
Only when they dont believe in some thing.
MG
James A. Donald
> >> But you are saying in essense, we know the senses are reliable
> >> because we have studied them and the world, and the conclusion is that
> >> the world is real and the senses, being part of that world, are real as
> >> well. But how did you study the world, if not by sense?
James A. Donald:
> > The question presupposes a separation between mind and the world which
> > is refuted every time you walk into something and are dazed by the
> > resulting thump. Our mind is part of the world, and part of the world
> > is in our minds.
Rockinghorse Winner
> Which makes the problem of grounding truth in sense that much more
> problematic. If the question is, is the image of the world given by sense a
> true one, and the senses themselves are a part of that image
You have this the wrong way around. Our senses, and ourselves, are
part of the world, not of the image.
We know stuff because the world impinges on us, and if we are not
careful, is apt to impinge in a manner direct, crude, and violent. If
we can avoid knowing stuff as a result of crude and direct
interactions, this shows that our more delicate and subtle ways of
knowing stuff have been successful.
Suppose we were brains in vats, viewing a dream. When our dream
selves banged into something, they would have no problems.
> How then do we know we know? Where does the immediate knowledge of the truth
> of the world - such as we experience by a knock on the head - come from?
> Two different explanations have been given. One, that truth is the
> correspondence of our perceptions with the real world (so called
> correspondence theory).
>
> Two, that truth is validated by predicting outcomes.
Yet I have been arguing neither theory, since both theories presuppose
a brain in a vat, isolated from the world, both theories presuppose
the isolation that I deny.
James A. Donald
"bigfl...@gmail.com"
> The energy you refer to as light doesnt change because
> a bat or a human is picking up and who's 'eqipment'
> reacting to a specific frequency.Would a bat call it
> 'light'?
He does not call it anything, but thinks of it as light.
But it does not matter what a bat, or man, thinks of it.
Light is what it is, and would be what it is even if
there was no one around to name it.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> We know stuff because the world impinges on us, and if we are not
> careful, is apt to impinge in a manner direct, crude, and violent. If
> we can avoid knowing stuff as a result of crude and direct
> interactions, this shows that our more delicate and subtle ways of
> knowing stuff have been successful.
>
> Suppose we were brains in vats, viewing a dream. When our dream
> selves banged into something, they would have no problems.
That would depend on the vat-master.
Rockinghorse Winner
I agree with almost all you said. The discussion started with the
presumption that the senses give us a more or less accurate picture of the
world. I questioned what test we can apply that would confirm this. None has
been forthcoming. My addition has been to ask if perhaps the role of sense
in perceiving reality can be better answered within the realm of poetry and
the arts, than in science.
Who sees a tree more truly: the scientist or the poet? Who sees it more as
it acutally is?
*Anarcissie*
> dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
> >In article <OfWdnVKFFKkqI6fWRVn_...@giganews.com>,
> > Rockinghorse Winner <rwin...@8600.com> wrote:
How could you measure one of those views against the
other, so that you could say one is more as it actually
is? Does "actually is" have any specific meaning?
I think the best that can be done in the case of seeing
a tree is to ask whether the view corresponds with or
accomplishes the purposes of the viewer. There is no
way of determining what the absolute, universal view
of a tree is. If such a thing exists it is not available to
us. Any particular coherent human view seems to
give only a small part of this totality.
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
...
>
> >If you accept that a human mind, in order to operate at any sort of
> >normal level in the world must be a carrier of many and complicated
> >theories about the sort of world that is lived in, the question then is
> >how to improve those theories. That is a large question and I won't deal
> >with it here and now.
>
> >But the question, how does the holder of the theories know they are
> >true, the short answer is that he tries his best and would not be
> >holding those theories if he could think of anything better! The
> >emphasis here is on doing the best we can, not on how do we know what we
> >have is the slightest bit of good! <g>
>
> >The reason the last question is not very useful to answer is that no
> >thought is possible without the thinker having a conceptual system in
> >which some general theories about the world are incorporated. One cannot
> >seriously think from outside all conceptual system. There is no such
> >place.
>
>
> I agree with almost all you said. The discussion started with the
> presumption that the senses give us a more or less accurate picture of the
> world. I questioned what test we can apply that would confirm this. None has
> been forthcoming.
And none is possible except all the ones we all know about that I have
mentioned in passing.
> My addition has been to ask if perhaps the role of sense
> in perceiving reality can be better answered within the realm of poetry and
> the arts, than in science.
>
> Who sees a tree more truly: the scientist or the poet? Who sees it more as
> it acutally is?
You have lost me completely on this one!
--
dorayme
James A. Donald
> > We know stuff because the world impinges on us, and if we are not
> > careful, is apt to impinge in a manner direct, crude, and violent. If
> > we can avoid knowing stuff as a result of crude and direct
> > interactions, this shows that our more delicate and subtle ways of
> > knowing stuff have been successful.
> >
> > Suppose we were brains in vats, viewing a dream. When our dream
> > selves banged into something, they would have no problems.
"*Anarcissie*"
> That would depend on the vat-master.
You suggest that when the dream self bangs into something, the vat
master leaps onto the vat and pokes the brain in the vat with his
thumb. A busy guy.
*Anarcissie*
Well, he could have computers and solenoids and
everything.
Of course, if the vat-master were reliable, there would
be no internal difference between the world we observe
and the world the vat-master creates, so we could use
the same physical laws. The difference would be in its
setting and perhaps its ultimate meaning, if any. And
that isn't even getting into the vat-master's vat-master.
Rockinghorse Winner
>> I agree with almost all you said. The discussion started with the
>> presumption that the senses give us a more or less accurate picture of th=
>e
>> world. I questioned what test we can apply that would confirm this. None =
>has
>> been forthcoming. My addition has been to ask if perhaps the role of sens=
>e
>> in perceiving reality can be better answered within the realm of poetry a=
>nd
>> the arts, than in science.
>>
>> Who sees a tree more truly: the scientist or the poet? Who sees it more a=
>s
>> it acutally is?
>How could you measure one of those views against the
>other, so that you could say one is more as it actually
>is? Does "actually is" have any specific meaning?
>I think the best that can be done in the case of seeing
>a tree is to ask whether the view corresponds with or
>accomplishes the purposes of the viewer. There is no
>way of determining what the absolute, universal view
>of a tree is. If such a thing exists it is not available to
>us. Any particular coherent human view seems to
>give only a small part of this totality.
This answer is the scientifically correct one. There *is* no way for science
to determine what the absolute, universal view of a tree is. It must stop at
*accomplishing the purposes* of the scientist, and this is where all science
stops: the end of science is when the will of the scientist has been
accomplished, either in *proving* his theory, or in accomplishing some
work, for good or ill.
This points up some important distinctions. The scientific point of view
seeks to exploit it's knowledge. In doing this, it eventually equates success
with Truth. This is what all experiment does. The truth of what is being
*studied* fades until it is just a distant echo. This applies not just to
things but to our own selves.
Rockinghorse Winner
The truth of things are contained not just in the things themselves, but in
ourselves, who perceive that truth. Therefore the poet, whose poem is a
joining of imagination and perception, is fulfilling the mission of humanity
in *naming* the things of nature and therefore bestowing their truth upon
them. Truth is a 2-way street, for a tree to be truly a tree, someone must
know it. Because truth is not just a quality of *things*. It is also a
quality of perception.
The scientific view of things is not concerned with things' true essence, but
in whether something *works* or not, whether a theory is predictive or not.
When success is acheived in experiment, we say the *theory* is true, not the
*thing* we are studying.
This is necessary for science as an ongoing enterprise, because it cannot
question it's own assumptions that human perception reveals truth. It relys
on this perception for it's being able to look objectively at an object, but
cannot turn it's gaze at the perception itself: it cannot objectify it's own
metaphysical ground.
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> >I think the best that can be done in the case of seeing
> >a tree is to ask whether the view corresponds with or
> >accomplishes the purposes of the viewer. There is no
> >way of determining what the absolute, universal view
> >of a tree is. If such a thing exists it is not available to
> >us. Any particular coherent human view seems to
> >give only a small part of this totality.
>
> This answer is the scientifically correct one.
It might be if it was clear what the words in the question and the
question itself was clear.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> The truth of things are contained not just in the things themselves, but in
> ourselves, who perceive that truth. Therefore the poet, whose poem is a
> joining of imagination and perception, is fulfilling the mission of humanity
> in *naming* the things of nature and therefore bestowing their truth upon
> them. Truth is a 2-way street, for a tree to be truly a tree, someone must
> know it. Because truth is not just a quality of *things*. It is also a
> quality of perception.
>
This is just pure waffle!
Truth is not a quality of any object or event. The word does not work
that way. It is used to assert things about sentences or statements. The
truth of a statement rarely depends on anyone knowing it to be true.
> The scientific view of things is not concerned with things' true essence, but
> in whether something *works* or not, whether a theory is predictive or not.
> When success is acheived in experiment, we say the *theory* is true, not the
> *thing* we are studying.
>
> This is necessary for science as an ongoing enterprise, because it cannot
> question it's own assumptions that human perception reveals truth. It relys
> on this perception for it's being able to look objectively at an object, but
> cannot turn it's gaze at the perception itself: it cannot objectify it's own
> metaphysical ground.
--
dorayme
so+...@ntlworld.com
> The truth of things are contained not just in the things themselves,
> but in ourselves, who perceive that truth. Therefore the poet, whose
> poem is a joining of imagination and perception, is fulfilling the
> mission of humanity in *naming* the things of nature and therefore
> bestowing their truth upon them. Truth is a 2-way street, for a tree
> to be truly a tree, someone must know it. Because truth is not just a
> quality of *things*. It is also a quality of perception.
> The scientific view of things is not concerned with things' true
> essence, but in whether something *works* or not, whether a theory is
> predictive or not. When success is acheived in experiment, we say the
> *theory* is true, not the *thing* we are studying.
> This is necessary for science as an ongoing enterprise, because it
> cannot question it's own assumptions that human perception reveals
> truth. It relys on this perception for it's being able to look
> objectively at an object, but cannot turn it's gaze at the perception
> itself: it cannot objectify it's own metaphysical ground.
Yes, as J.G.Bennett points out in 'The Dramatic Universe' - there is
the world of FACT (the legitimate domain of science) and the world of
VALUE (domain of religion). This can be represented by two
intersecting triangles - an upward pointing triangle (the world of
VALUE) and a downward pointing triangle (the world of FACT). In the
hexagon so formed, where the two worlds overlap, we find ranging from
(at the base) things that are almost bare facts and almost without
value - things like 'there is a speck of paper on the carpet' to
things (at the top) - like 'there is a purpose to human life' - that
are almost without any factual content.
He says (in The D.U. vol.II):
10.25.2. The Irreducibility of Value
The twelve categories of Fact have no value content, nor should they
have, for values have no place in natural philosophy. There is no
goodness in nature, no beauty in its laws, and there are no
obligations in its actualizations. The natural order is what it is;
and, despite its stupendous scale of magnitudes and durations and
truly awe-inspiring ordered structure of worlds within worlds, it is a
Fact that exists and can be known, and not a Value that can give
meaning and purpose to our lives.
Had we sufficient intelligence and could we live long enough, we might
perhaps hope to reduce all phenomena that are within range of our
perceptions to a coherent system of Fact, and so give an account of
all forms and functions, and of all their interrelations. In spite of
this, we should still have left unsaid all that is most important for
us. Indeed, we should not have given any account of the very impulse
that drives us to search for a meaning and a purpose in Existence,
instead of being content to elucidate its laws. ... The irreducible
element of value in experience bears the burden of all that matters
to us; and so we should, whatever may be the difficulty, endeavour
to construct a System of Values, consistent on the one hand with the
System of Fact, and adequate on the other to our deep need for
guidance in the practical ordering of our life on earth.
*Anarcissie*
Equating scientific success with capital-T Truth is called
"scientism", I believe. Belief that one had achieved this
sort of truth would kill science, which depends on doubt
and skepticism to move it forward. Science is always
wrong: this is what gives it its power.
*Anarcissie*
"There is a purpose to human life" is not without
factual content. It may be unanswerable by
presently available methods, but assuming its
terms can be defined, the factual truth of the
statement could be determined with sufficient
knowledge.
The realm of value, though, is not religion but
one's subjective reaction to objects that one
encounters or thinks about. One prefers one
thing to another: that is the measure of value.
But at the heart of the matter, one's feelings
are not statements. They exist independent
of their truth-value.
Religion, it seems to me, is the attempt to
solve the problem of providing answers about
the world one can't answer by making up fables
and attempting to force or persuade others to
believe in them. Of course there was once a
certain amount of technology involved in the
effort to command the spirits.
Rockinghorse Winner
I would however put the world of fact down as an extension of the world of
value, though connected at this point in history by the most tenuous of
threads.
--
Hug your sweetie today.
*R* *H*
Rockinghorse Winner
>Equating scientific success with capital-T Truth is called
>"scientism", I believe. Belief that one had achieved this
>sort of truth would kill science, which depends on doubt
>and skepticism to move it forward. Science is always
>wrong: this is what gives it its power.
Yes. But science as an ongoing concern cannot stop there. It sets up a
vortex in which truth is centered and reduces all other types of knowing -
poetic, religious, mystical - to sentimentalism. This cynical side of
science is subtle and all pervasisve. It serves to secure itself in the seat
of ultimate wisdom. This is necessary, because it is not content with the
formulation you give. After appropriating truth from the original artistic
vision, it seeks to break it's ties with it. It does this because it carries
over from poetry the all-engulfing vision of Truth, even though it has
in the most subtle of turns of thought, moved on from that vision to
mechanism and *cause and effect.*
dorayme
Rockinghorse Winner <rwi...@8600.com> wrote:
> I would however put the world of fact down as an extension of the world of
> value, though connected at this point in history by the most tenuous of
> threads.
You say the most intriguing things that make no clear sense.
--
dorayme