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