Ain't no answer sheet! LOL This "quiz" is nothing more than
comparing Ilyenkov's actual answers to one's own views.
I've simplified this thing. It did need streamlining. There are
now 25 Ilyenkov propositions.
If my editing is accurate, Ilyenkov's points are preserved in each
numbered sentence below. I kept the numbers from the previous
version.
Martin's very helpful reading of these passages confirms and
clarifies my interpretations. Thank you, Martin. I've added
headlines (in my words) to clarify Ilyenkov's key themes. As can
be seen, I've also used some of Martin's nicely worded summaries
for this task (and could have used more - I'm kind of duplicating
what he did).
Some of these statements by Ilyenkov seem to me to be in conflict
with some of the points you have been recently making, Andy. See
what you think.
This is an 'open book' quiz, by the way - you are welcome to
consult any texts ... :-))
from **Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism**,
Chapter One, by EV Ilyenkov, 1979, New Park, material below edited
by Steve Gabosch, Sept 2009, downloaded from http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/positive/positi.htm
Ilyenkov is addressing the epistemological question: What is the
relationship between consciousness and the world itself?
**********
A. << No middle path is possible.>>
**********
1. … there is no middle here … [no] middle path …
**********
B. << Consciousness is derived from, produced from, and secondary
to matter.>>
**********
3. These concepts [that is, 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.
6. ‘Consciousness’ [in its most general sense] can only be defined
by clearly contrasting it with ‘matter’ [in its most general sense.]
7. [Moreover, consciousness can only be contrasted with matter] as
something that is secondary, produced and derived.
9. … [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.
**********
C. <<For materialists, matter is the basis of epistemology. For
idealists, the basis is consciousness.>>
**********
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 ...
**********
D. <<Just as social being, (that is, material and economic
relations) precedes and exists independently of social
consciousness, social consciousness (as does matter) precedes and
exists independently of individual consciousness.>> <<Btw, Martin
has an interesting objection to Ilyenkov's claim that 'primary'
things exist independently of 'secondary' things insofar as humans
are concerned.>>
**********
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.
**********
E. <<Individual consciousness is formed to a greater degree by
social consciousness than it is by the material world. At the same
time, as explained by Marx, social consciousness is derived from
social being, the system of material and economic relations between
people.>>
**********
20. ... social consciousness ... forms ... [the individual’s]
consciousness to a much greater degree than the 'material
world' [does].
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.
**********
F. Martin summarized the next sentences very nicely as follows:
"<We are *given* the world in sensation. But it is in thought that
the world is *cognised.*>"
**********
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 ...
**********
G. <<Lenin explained that dialectical logic is the science of
discovering the universal laws of human and natural development.
These are the objective laws of development of the material world,
which includes the natural world, the socio-historical world, and
objective reality in general. These laws are reflected in the
historical consciousness of humanity.>>
**********
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.
**********
H. <<Martin: "<Thought arises in material activity, even in
animals. In humans it takes a more advanced form, in which activity
is adjusted to signs.>" I continue: However, if one proceeds from
the perspective of individual experience, the sign will be taken as
the starting point in the theory of knowledge, which will lead to
idealist-leaning errors.">>
**********
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.
**********
I. Martin again: "<It is a mistake to try to understand human
knowledge in terms of individual consciousness or experience. But
it is also a mistake to try to understand knowledge in terms of
*social* consciousness.>"
**********
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.
************
<end of 'quiz'>
************
- Steve
On Sep 25, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
I can't understand your quiz, Steve. Could you perhaps make us a
shorter version with answers at the end of the post?
Andy
Steve Gabosch wrote:
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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca