Apologies for my time zone, Martin, aggravated by lots of domestics
this morning. Usually those in Europe and America are blissfully
unaware of the roundness of the world, so believe me, I appreciate
your frustration.
You know, I would never quote Engels or Lenin unless I had to. As it
happens Lenin is completely right on this point, even if he did
boringly spin it out to sledgehammer weight. It was not without
reason that Ilyenkov devoted a whole book to defending MEC in the
1970s, and had great difficulty getting it published inside or
outside of the USSR.
It is most important to recognize that what Lenin is talking about
is consciousness as a *philosophical category*. Note that *matter*
is simultaneously defined in the same way, and whatismore matter is
defined as a category *derivative* of "consciousness"! How about
that for philosophical materialism! Consciousness is what we are
given immediately, and the idea of "matter" is derived from that,
i.e., the conviction that something else exists. So we can't turn to
Hegel for an answer to this question, because for Hegel *it is all
thought*! "Being," for example, the starting point of the
Encyclopedia, is a category of thought. Again, Hegel derives matter
as a subcategory of Spirit, but only through the Matter/Form
dialectic, not the Matter/Thought dichotomy.
Nonetheless, it is absolutely ruled out that you can derive a
"science of matter" or a "science of consciousness" (i.e. natural
science or psychology) from these philosophical categories. Hegel on
the other hand, tried to derive natural science from the concept of
space, and he was wrong in that. Likewise in 1908, a lot of
scientists and Bolsheviks were concluding that "natural science had
proved that matter does not exist," and a whole lot of other rubbish
which was causing havoc inside the Bolshevik Party suffering at the
time from a period or repression and reaction.
If you want a deconstructionist response to the question, then ask
M. Derrida or M. Foucault exactly what exists "beyond the text" ...
if anything.
Random points.
Lenin had not read Hegel or Kant in 1908, but he had been trained by
Plekhanov who had read everything. Plekhanov was his teacher in
philosophy. (BTW, Plekhanov was also one of LSV's teachers in
philosophy I suspect)
You say that LSV's claim that "consciousness is material"
contradicts the claim that matter as a philosophical category is
"that which exists independently of consciousness." The only way
that I can interpret your meaning here is that you insist on
interpreting the conceptual claim in "substantialist" terms. If you
want to insist on concepts as names for things, then obviously
clarity can never be achieved here. See Davydov.
If I make a distinction been marble and statue, does that really
prevent me from claiming that Michelangelo's David is marble? or a
million such examples. A categorical distinction does not divide the
universe into two groups of stuff or things.
You are now claiming that Cs is material. OK, so my thought of the
dollar in my pocket has no categorical difference from the dollar
that may actually be in my pocket? Consult your Kant. Lenin was
perfectly aware of the symmetry between his claim and Kant's and
says that the difference, however, is that the thing-in-itself is
continuously passing into appearance, rather than there being an
impenetrable barrier between appearance and thing-in-itself (not the
categories of course, but the content). Arguing here exactly along
Hegelian lines, though it is certainly possible to argue with
Lenin's philosophy on this as well as other points in the book.
You say: "to write that material reality is what exists
independently of Cs is really misleading." (NB, not "material
reality, but matter - not the same at all) And OF COURSE we add that
"Cs does not exist independent of material reality." This is Lenin,
the philosophical materialist remember. But you kow, you can't argue
this from God's eye view, looking down on human life from the
heavens. Descartes had a point: how does he (Descartes) know that
the material world exists? Only by means of consciousness. Now, you
can start from a truth and argue your way into falsehood, but if you
start from a falsehood - that you know (??) that the material world
exists even without consciousness - then you cannot argue your way
to truth.
Enough.
It is a difficult question, and one known to often lead to acrimony!!
Andy
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca