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