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