Re: [xmca] Consciousness: Ilyenkov Epistemology Quiz

[Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>]

I have something fun, entertaining and educational for everyone on xmca!

It just so happens that I took a close look at the Ilyenkov passages  
following Andy's quotes, did a little tinkering with the text, and  
came up with something fun: the Ilyenkov Epistemology Quiz, which  
anyone can take right on their own personal computer!

Ilyenkov asks some fundamental questions regarding epistemology:  
"Where is the clear-cut dividing line between  …  philosophical  
idealism and … philosophical materialism? … which of these two points  
of departure is determining the direction of all your thought,  
regardless of the subject of your reflection … ?  Here … is the  
question: take your thought, your consciousness of the world, and the  
world itself ... what is the relationship between them?"

This can also be called: The How Much Do You Agree With Ilyenkov on  
Consciousness? Test ...

(Hmm.  Somehow, it doesn't seem likely that this will become the rage  
on Facebook ... does it? ... LOL ...)

Taking this "quiz" is very simple. It is comprised of 40 propositional  
statements by Ilyenkov, which I edited for clarity, about the  
relationship of consciousness and materiality, from the first chapter  
of his short book "Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of  
Positivism" (1979, New Park).  To take the quiz, simply list the  
propositions that you agree with, and those you don't agree with,  
count them all up, and give Ilyenkov a score.

Read critically like this, sentence by sentence, Ilyenkov is  
surprisingly clear.  But one still has to think pretty hard about what  
he is saying.  Hopefully, people will find it worthwhile to do so.

Here is a little explanation of the editing I did to create this (this  
is the fine print part - can be skipped).  What I have done is edit 15  
of Ilyenkov's paragraphs (starting where Andy's quotes began) into  
what wound up becoming 40 propositional statements.  They read quite  
coherently.  This material makes for a decent introduction to both  
Ilyenkov and dialectical materialism.  I eliminated his references to  
the Machists to keep things focused on his propositional statements  
about epistemological issues, and took out various other (for this  
purpose) secondary passages for the same reason.  This makes him a  
little easier to grasp - he has a tendency to make a lot of side  
points as he goes.  Also, I did some sentence rearranging to help  
clarify the specific proposition that is being made.  There are a  
couple sentences which could be interpreted in different ways if they  
are not read very closely, so I included my interpretations below  
them.  And I spelled out one or two important implications that  
Ilyenkov makes but does not explicitly state.  (He makes these points  
in many other places in his writings, so they are supportable.)

Everyone will see what I did - I am trying to be completely  
transparent.  If I have misinterpreted or muddled Ilyenkov in any way,  
please let me know!

I would be very interesting to compare notes on what propositions,  
formulations, ideas etc. people agree and disagree on.  Some may  
disagree quite sharply on some points, and others may find themselves  
surprisingly in agreement with Ilyenkov on some issues but didn't know  
it.  Some might find this stimulating ideawise.  Others who are bored  
by philosophical discourse might save this for later if they need  
something to put them to sleep tonight!  LOL This little quiz might  
even help clarify aspects of this interesting discussion on  
consciousness.  Fun for the whole family!  :-))

Andy, after carefully reading your posts about the how "consciousness  
is what is given to us" and "the idea of matter is derived from  
consciousness" - as well as other things you have said from time to  
time - it will be very interesting to see how you "score" Ilyenkov's  
positions on epistemology.  I would actually be quite interested in  
everyone's thoughts ...

**********************
The Internet Ilyenkov Epistemology Quiz also known as  The How Much Do  
You Agree With Ilyenkov on Consciousness? Test

from **Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism** by EV  
Ilyenkov, edited by Steve Gabosch, Sept 2009

downloaded from http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/positi.htm

***********************

a. Where is the clear-cut dividing line between  …  philosophical  
idealism and … philosophical materialism? …

b.  … which of these two points of departure is determining the  
direction of all your thought, regardless of the subject of your  
reflection … ?

c.  Here … is the question: take your thought, your consciousness of  
the world, and the world itself ... what is the relationship between  
them?

1. … there is no middle here … [no] middle path …

2.  In philosophy the 'party of the golden mean' is the 'party of the  
brainless', [that is, those that attempt the middle path are destined  
to fail if they] ... try to unite materialism with idealism in an  
eclectic way, by means of smoothing out the basic contradictions, and  
by means of muddling the most general ... and clear concepts.

3.  These concepts [the two general concepts which must be clearly  
differentiated] are matter and consciousness.

4.  [By consciousness we are referring to the] psyche, the ideal,  
spirit, soul, will, etc. etc.

5.  'Consciousness' – let us take this term as Lenin did – is the most  
general concept which can only be defined by clearly contrasting it  
with the most general concept of 'matter', as something secondary,  
produced and derived.

6. [[sg interpretation: ‘Consciousness’ [in its most general sense]  
can only be defined by clearly contrasting it with ‘matter’ [in its  
most general sense.]]]

7. [[sg interpretation: …moreover … [consciousness can only be  
contrasted with matter] as something that is secondary, produced and  
derived.]]

8.   Dialectics consists in not being able to define matter as such …

9.  … it [matter] can only be defined through its opposite, and only  
if one of the opposites is fixed as primary, and the other arises from  
it.

10.  [[sg interpretation: Dialectics can only define things through  
their opposites, and furthermore can only do so if one of these  
opposites is fixed as primary and the other as arising from it.]]

11.  [[sg interpretation of an implication made above: In dialectical  
materialism, the material is primary; and consciousness, its opposite,  
arises from it.]]

12.  Lenin's position … [is as follows]:  for materialism … matter –  
the objective reality given to us in sensation … is the basis of the  
theory of knowledge (epistemology) …

13.  … for idealism of any type, the basis of epistemology is  
consciousness ...

14.  [Consciousness for the idealist can take a multitude of forms and  
can appear] under one or another of its pseudonyms (be it the  
'psychical', 'conscious' or 'unconscious', be it the 'system of forms  
of collectively-organised experience' or 'objective spirit', the  
individual or collective psyche, individual or social consciousness).]

15.  [Social consciousness is sometimes described as] … 'collectively- 
organised' … experience …

16.   … the relationship of matter to consciousness is complicated by  
the fact that social consciousness … from the very beginning precedes  
individual consciousness as something already given, and existing  
before, outside, and independent of individual consciousness.

17.  Just as matter does.

18.  [[sg interpretation:  Just as social consciousness does, matter,  
from the very beginning, precedes individual consciousness as  
something already given.]]

19.  [There is] …  even more [to it] than that.

20.  This social consciousness – forms ... [the individual’s]  
consciousness to a much greater degree than [does] the 'material world'.

21.  [Social consciousness] of course, in its individualised form,  
[takes] … the form of the consciousness of one's closest teachers, and  
after that, of the entire circle of people who appear in the field of  
vision of a person …

22.  But social consciousness, according to Marx, is not 'primary',  
but secondary, derived from social being, i.e. the system of material  
and economic relations between people.

23.  [[sg interpretation:  According to Marx, social consciousness,  
which is secondary, is derived from social being, which is the system  
of material and economic relations between people.]]

24.  It is … not true that the world is cognised in our sensations.

25.  In sensations the external world is only given to us, just as it  
is given to a dog.

26.  ... [The external world] is cognised not in sensations, but in  
the activity of thought ...

27.  [Dialectical] Logic is defined by Lenin … as the science of those  
universal laws … to which the development of the entire aggregate  
knowledge of mankind is objectively subordinated.

28.  These laws are understood [by dialectical materialism] as the  
objective laws of development of the material world, of both the  
natural and socio-historical world, of objective reality in general.

29.  ... [These laws] are reflected in the consciousness of mankind  
and verified by thousands of years of human practice.


d.  What is … 'thought'?

30. … [A materialist] line of thought [about what thought is] proceeds  
from Spinoza. He understands thinking to be an inherent capability,  
characteristic not of all bodies, but only of thinking material bodies.

31.  With the help of this capability, a body can construct its  
activities in the spatially determined world, in conformity with the  
'form and disposition' of all other bodies external to it, both  
'thinking' and 'non-thinking'.

32.  Spinoza therefore includes thinking among the categories of the  
attributes of substance, such as extension.

33.  In this form ... [thinking] is, according to Spinoza,  
characteristic also of animals.

34.  For him [Spinoza] even an animal possesses a soul, and this view  
distinguishes Spinoza from Descartes, who considered that an animal is  
simply an 'automaton', a very complex 'machine'.

35.  Thought arises within and during the process of material action  
as one of its features, one of its aspects, and only later is divided  
into a special activity (isolated in space and time), finding [the]  
'sign' form only in man.

36.  A completely different picture arises when, proceeding from  
individual experience, it is precisely the verbally formed world which  
is taken as the starting point in the theory of knowledge.

37.  It is all the more easy to yield to such an illusion, since in  
individual experience, words (and signs in general) are in actual fact  
just as much given to sensual contemplation as are the sun, rivers and  
mountains, statues and paintings, etc. etc.

38.  Here are the roots of idealism in its 'sign-symbolic' variation.

39.  If one proceeds from individual experience, making it the point  
of departure and basis of the theory of knowledge, then idealism is  
inevitable.

40.  But it is also inevitable if one relies on 'collective  
experience', if the latter is interpreted as something independent of  
being, as something existing independently, as something primary.

<Ilyenkov moves on to other questions at this point in the text.>
<End of quiz.>

So how did you score Ilyenkov?

Cheers,
- Steve_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca