Steve, I will respond to your points one at a time, but you might reflect
on the observation that if you were to re-write your message inserting the
word "God" in lieu of "Nature" and the names of the various Christian
saints and prophets in lieu of the names of Marxist figures, it would read
perfectly well as a defence of Christianity. Are we really disputing over
the name of God?
>Andy, what do you believe happened in the post-world war two period - or
>for that matter, since the latter half of the 19th century - that has
>invalidated or rendered obsolete the positions of Engels, Lenin, Vygotsky
>and others on the historic struggle between idealism and materialism in
>science and philosophy?
Well, why not say "Plekhanov, Stalin, Mao" instead of "Engels, Lenin,
Vygotsky", after all it was Plekhanov who invented the term?
One of the things we have learnt from Hegel is the concept of "Zeitgeist",
and the way the focus of struggle changes in the course of history. Despite
Engels' observation about "two great camps", this conception does not
withstand an actual study of the history of philosophy. A reading of the
history of philosophy (and even more science) shows that the focus of
disputes changes from generation to generation. "Materialism vs. Idealism"
was indeed the focus of philosophical struggle in the wake of the collapse
of Hegelianism in 1841, until sometime close to the beginning of the first
world war, i.e., exactly that period when the classics of Marxism were
written. Now Marx, Engels and Lenin are beyond criticism in taking a clear
position in the forefront of the philosophical dispute of their day, but it
gives no glory to their followers to repeat these arguments in a later
period. Need I explain that this does not mean that failing to join in this
ancient battle means joining the enemy (i.e., idealist) camp; it simply
means to fight the battle of today rather than the battle of the day before
yesterday.
>>"The Prophet hath 99 names, and one of them is Nature" and I should add,
>>"dialectical-materialism" is another.
>I am not sure what you are saying about prophets, Nature or dialectical
>materialism here, Andy. Perhaps this refers to a specific quote I am not
>familiar with - am I missing a deeper meaning?
"The Prophet hath 99 names" is a Muslim saying, and followers of Mohammed
all give themselves one of those 99 names. My point is that in the sense in
which the word "Nature" is used in philosophy (as opposed to meaning "the
birds and the bees", etc), it means exactly the same thing as "God". Of
course, the primitive, naive conception of God as a man with a grey beard
hiding behind a cloud is very different from the conception you may have of
Nature, but so is the conception of God of Spinoza or St. Augustine.
Arguments in the history of religion may be arguments about the name of
God, in which case the religious argument is simply a cover for a war over
territory and empire. In theology, religious arguments are about
conceptions of God and how He may be known. There is absolutely no barrier,
in theology, to calling God "Nature" and proceeding exactly as you have
proceeded. One can then argue whether one can know God by His works or by
Reason or Faith, ... or dia-mat.
>>Nature exists independently of human consciousness. But there is not a
>>lot else you can say about Nature other than formulations like "Nature is
>>such that human beings can ...".
>
>Returning to the original question, do you include the formulation of
>scientific laws as something you *can* say about Nature?
Yes. But correctly interpreting the meaning of scientific laws turns out to
be not as obvious as it seems at first. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
is a case you will be familiar with. What about the concept of
"phlogiston"? When we state a scientific law, we give the appearance that
we are saying something specific about Nature, such as "phlogiston leaves a
body when it burns". Our American friends - Peirce, Dewey, Bridgman & Co -
did a good job of showing (long after Marx did it very well) that when we
enquire closely into the meaning of such statements we arrive eventually at
a description of objective human practice. Einstein worked this conception
out in the greatest detail, albeit under the philosophical influence of
idealists. Marx put it all very succinctly in his "Theses on Feuerbach". I
could not improve on Marx.
>>One of these things that Nature is such that, is that the reification of
>>thought forms turns out to be a valid practical guide to day-to-day action.
>
>As I understand it, reification is the process of treating thoughts as
>real objects and acting accordingly. Surely, I am misreading your
>statement if I take it to mean that the process of reification in general
>is a valid practical guide to day-to-day action. What am I missing in
>your statement?
No you did not misread me. If I treat a policeman with the respect due to
the law, I am being wise. Equally well I don't step in front of the thing I
call "bus" (unless its indicators are blinking).
>>Just as commodity fetishism is also a passably good practical guide to
>>day-to-day economic activity. But it is not very good epistemology.
>
>This question can easily lead us into a whole other subject, since Marx's
>notion of the fetishism of commodities is so interesting, but I am
>curious: how do you see commodity fetishism as a practical guide to
>day-to-day economic activity, and what you mean by saying it is not very
>good epistemology?
Well, in day to day practice I pay the price asked for things that I buy
and make sure that I earn enough to live on one way or another, even though
I know that value is a social construct, and look forward to a world in
which everything does not have a price tag. If I were to act as if
socialist society had arrived, and not bother about earning a wage or
paying for what I take from the shop I would have a very bad life.
>I hope we don't get too far away from this discussion of the lawfulness
>(or not) of Nature - I am still especially interested in your thoughts on this.
Don't worry Steve, God created man in His image. It'll all be alright.
>- Steve
PS. All this stuff about God and religion is said in good humour, to make
the point as strongly as I can, and is not intended as insult. I take it
absolutely for granted Steve that you are NOT religious!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 01 2003 - 01:00:11 PST