Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 76

Thread: dialectics

  1. #21
    Voting Member Iapetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Ok, I will not treat you with contempt in the future. Will you respond now?

  2. #22
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    In that case:

    As for giving an explanation of meaning, don't we use phrases when we speak with ourselves that have a specific meaning for us? ( This has nothing to do with dialectics by the way). I wouldn't be able to explain those kinds of thoughts to anyone else, for they are very personal. Why does every phrase need to be understandable by everyone in order to make sense?
    Well, that depends on what you mean by 'meaning', doesn't it? Check these possibilities out (from Essay 13:03 at my site):

    (1) Personal Significance: as in "His Teddy Bear means a lot to him."

    (2) Evaluative Import: as in "May Day means different things to different classes."

    (3) Point or Purpose: as in "Life has no meaning."

    (4) Linguistic Meaning, or Synonymy: as in "'Vixen' means 'female fox'", "'Chien' means 'dog'", "Comment vous appelez-vous?" means "What's your name?", or "Recidivist" means someone who has resumed their criminal career.

    (5) Aim or Intention: as in "They mean to win this strike."

    (6) Implication: as in "Winning this dispute means that management won't try another wage cut again in a hurry."

    (7) Indicate, Point to, or Presage: as in "Those clouds mean rain", "Those spots mean you have measles", or "That expression means she's angry".

    (8) Reference: as in "I mean him over there", or "'The current president of the USA' means somebody different at most once every eight years."

    (9) Artistic or Literary Import: as in "The meaning of this novel is to highlight the steep decline in political integrity."

    (10) Conversational Focus: as in "I mean, why do we have to accept a measly 1% offer in the first place?"

    (11) Expression of Sincerity or Determination: as in "I mean it, I do want to go on the march!", or "The demonstrators really mean to stop this war."

    (12) Content of a Message, or the Import of a Sign: as in "It means the strike starts on Monday", or "It means you have to queue here."

    (13) Interpretation: as in "You will need to read the author's novels if you want to give new meaning to her latest play", or "That gesture means those pickets think you are a scab."

    (14) Import or Significance: as in "Part of the meaning of this play is to change our view of drama", or "The real meaning of this agreement is that the bosses have at last learnt their lesson."

    (15) Speaker's Meaning: as in "When you trod on her foot and she said 'Well done!' she in fact meant the exact opposite".

    (16) Communicative Meaning: as in "You get my meaning", or "My last letter should tell you what I meant", or "We have just broken the code, hence the last message meant this...."

    (17) Explanation: as in "When the comrade said the strike isn't over what she meant was that we can still win!", or "What is the meaning of this? Explain yourself!"

    (18) Translation, or a Request for Translation -- as in "What does 'Il pleut' mean in German?"

    This isn't to suggest that these are the only meanings of "meaning", or that several of the examples listed don't overlap. [For example, items (4) and (17) intersect, as do (5) and (11), and (9) and (14), as well as (4) and (18).]
    http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

    Where I cover this topic at PhD length.

    And you must separate out "sense" from "meaning".
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  3. #23
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Iapetus View Post
    Ok, I will not treat you with contempt in the future. Will you respond now?
    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.

    What a stunning example of counter-revolutionary thinking.



    **Note "imaged", not "imagined".

  4. #24
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.

    ravn:

    What a stunning example of counter-revolutionary thinking.
    Don't be so hard on yourself.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  5. #25
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist ...
    & as what has been already pointed out here, imaged doesn't mean imagined. Optical duplications depend on external objects, not the imagination.

    Are posting from a mental institution or what?

  6. #26
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn (as usual ignoring stuff he can't answer):

    & as what has been already pointed out here, imaged doesn't mean imagined. Optical duplications depend on external objects, not the imagination.
    Already covered:

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.
    ravn:

    Are posting from a mental institution or what?
    Yes, I was visiting you.

    --------------------------------------

    So, can we have answer to these?

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    If you can't substantiate them, withdraw them.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  7. #27
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post

    'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but ... no way of telling the difference.
    That is merely a retreat into solipsism, but that infinite rabbit hole is a denial of the physical world & the evidence it presents. Stupid is as stupid does.

  8. #28
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, the coward and liar, still ignoring what he can't answer/understand:

    That is merely a retreat into solipsism, but that infinite rabbit hole is a denial of the physical world & the evidence it presents.
    Yes, I agree, that is precisely what Lenin's theory implies. Good to see you have finally wised up.

    Stupid is as stupid does.
    Again why are you so hard on yourself?

    That's my job.

    Still waiting for an effective response from you to this:

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  9. #29
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    ravn, the coward and liar, still ignoring what he can't answer/understand:
    You're evidently the dissembler here on this topic. It is you who can't understand dialectics. A defense of formal logic is not an attack against dialectical logic. & claiming somebody means the opposite of what they express is just buggering the truth.

    Get a shrink.

  10. #30
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn (still refusing to face up to the fatal defects of his 'theory' by the simple expedient of ignoring them, and then confusing abuse with proof):

    You're evidently the dissembler here on this topic.
    So, you still have no effective response to these (why does that not surprise us?):

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    ravn:

    It is you who can't understand dialectics.
    In that case, I'm in good company since not even Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin or Mao understood this failed 'theory'/'method', or if they did, they kept that fact well hidden.

    Add to that the fact that you don't understand this 'theory'/'method' since you are clearly incapable of explaining how, if Lenin had nothing but 'images' in his head, he knew that they reflected the 'outside world'. Was he able to jump out of his head to check they reflected the world? In fact, neither he, nor you, could/can prove this 'external world' exists.

    [I hasten to add that I do not doubt the world exists, but then I reject this crazy 'theory'/'method' of yours.]

    ravn:

    A defense of formal logic is not an attack against dialectical logic.
    1) Where have I even so much as tried to defend Formal Logic [FL] in this thread?

    2) What has FL got to do with Lenin's defective 'theory'/'method'?

    3) You know no FL, so I don't need to defend it when engaging with you.

    ravn:

    & claiming somebody means the opposite of what they express is just buggering the truth.
    OK, so where have I claimed "somebody means the opposite of what they express"? Or is this just another of your bare-faced lies you refuse to substantiate?

    ravn:

    Get a shrink.
    I'm sorry, I didn't know you needed one.

    [It certainly helps explain your rather odd ideas. (I blame dialectics.)]

    How urgently do you need one? Let me know where you live, and I'll do a Google search...
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  11. #31
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    ravn (still refusing to face up to the fatal defects of his 'theory' by the simple expedient of ignoring them, and then confusing abuse with proof):
    Well if it escapes you, (which I doubt because I am of the opinion that you're just a dishonest snarky troll pissed off by a lack of tenure), you claimed here among other things:
    "1) If ... we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]"

    It's plain that you morphed "imaged" into "imagined" & then took this whole thing out of context. Mirroring from an object is not the same thing as forming a mental picture or drawing a picture. There has to be an object that is being mirrored.

    Just exactly what is so revolutionary about lying & dissembling? Nothing.

  12. #32
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, 'image' of his head still stuck in his 'image' of sand:

    Well if it escapes you, (which I doubt because I am of the opinion that you're just a dishonest snarky troll pissed off by a lack of tenure), you claimed here among other things:

    "1) If ... we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]"
    1) No mention of 'imagination' in the above quote. You made that up, too.

    2) Well, Numbnuts, what do you think Lenin's imagination was based on when, as he admits, all he had in his head were 'images'?

    3) What 'tenure'? As I have told you many times, I am a worker, and until a few years ago I was a Trade Union rep (unpaid). You just can't resit making stuff up, can you?

    4) And it is you, Sunny Jim, who is the 'troll'. Since you arrived here over two years ago, you have shown that you haven't the slightest intention of engaging with anyone here, and ignore facts and arguments you can't handle, posting lies (like the above, and those re-posted below) and unsupported allegations, which you continue to do even though you have been repeatedly asked to substantiate what you post.

    But, what about this?

    It's plain that you morphed "imaged" into "imagined" & then took this whole thing out of context. Mirroring from an object is not the same thing as forming a mental picture or drawing a picture. There has to be an object that is being mirrored.
    In fact, I merely quoted Lenin; here it is again for you to explain the right context:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    Read it again: the image "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'"

    So, if you or Lenin have an image of Santa Claus, that "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" -- so, Santa, according to Lenin (and you), must exist.

    ravn:

    Mirroring from an object is not the same thing as forming a mental picture or drawing a picture. There has to be an object that is being mirrored.
    1) What does this mean: "Mirroring from an object"? Don't you mean "Mirroring of an object"?

    2)
    "There has to be an object that is being mirrored."
    That would be a safe inference if you (or Lenin) could show that there are such objects out there to be mirrored. But all Lenin had are 'images' with no way of knowing which were valid, and which weren't.

    To compound matters, you keep ignoring all my requests for you to step in where Lenin failed: that is, prove there is an objective world out there that is reflected by his 'images'. You keep ducking that challenge, and until you meet it satisfactorily, I will keep pointing out this fatal defect of Lenin's 'theory'.

    [I hasten to add once more that I do not doubt the world exists, but then I reject this crazy 'theory'/'method' of yours.]

    ravn:

    "There has to be an object that is being mirrored."
    Bold added.

    In that case, there "has to be" a real Santa Clause out there if you have an image of him, or if that 'image' is "mirrored" in your brain/'consciousness'.

    Your words, Sunny Jim, not mine!

    You have just dropped yourself in it, Numbnuts.

    ravn:

    Mirroring from an object is not the same thing as forming a mental picture or drawing a picture.
    Indeed, but given Lenin's theory, you (or he) can't tell the difference. Or, if you can tell the difference, you will need to explain how you know which of your 'images' are valid and which aren't.

    ravn:

    Just exactly what is so revolutionary about lying & dissembling? Nothing.
    So, stop doing it.

    Stop posting lies like this (or those posted above) -- or quote me directly saying what you allege of me:

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.
    Or this:

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    Still waiting for a response to this, too:

    So, you still have no effective response to these (why does that not surprise us?):

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  13. #33
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    ravn, 'image' of his head still stuck in his 'image' of sand:



    1) No mention of 'imagination' in the above quote. You made that up, too.
    That imagination isn't mentioned is exactly the point. You're treating "imaged" to mean "imagined".




    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    3) What 'tenure'?
    Exactly. You're apparently incompetent.

    Here's your chance to prove otherwise.

    Can you actually refute w/o sophistry or dissembling?
    The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
    The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
    The law of the negation of the negation.

    & if you no longer wish to refute them, can you bring some depth to the discussion of them?

  14. #34
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn (now lost in fantasy-land):

    That imagination isn't mentioned is exactly the point. You're treating "imaged" to mean "imagined".
    So, your 'argument' here is that because I didn't mention "imagination" I actually meant something about it?

    Where is your evidence that I 'treated' "imaged" to mean "imagined"?

    But you'll ignore that question since we both know you are a serial liar and coward.

    [Looks like Diabolical Logic has really messed with your head.]

    ravn, in full "Let's make up stuff about Rosa, since I can't respond to her demolition of my 'theory'":

    Exactly. You're apparently incompetent.
    Well, you have done an excellent job proving you're the incompetent one here, Sunshine, since you plainly can't defend your own 'theory'.

    ravn:

    Can you actually refute w/o sophistry or dissembling?

    The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
    The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
    The law of the negation of the negation.
    Already done it:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...t-Law-Debunked

    http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

    http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007_03.htm

    You have yet to show where I go wrong.

    2) You have also yet to substantiate the above obscure nostrums that Engels imported in Marxism from that Christian Mystic, Hegel.

    & if you no longer wish to refute them, can you bring some depth to the discussion of them?
    Already refuted. Just because you don't know enough philosophy and/or logic to follow the argument that's hardly my fault, Numbnuts.

    ----------------------------

    So, you still have no effective response to these (why does that not surprise us?):

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    Also waiting for you to tell us the right context for this:

    In fact, I merely quoted Lenin; here it is again for you to explain the right context:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 06-15-2017 at 9:56 PM.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  15. #35
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    Where is your evidence that I 'treated' "imaged" to mean "imagined"?
    When you said: "If ... we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist". What is clearly meant by imaged is: "An optically formed duplicate or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction of an object formed by a lens or mirror."

  16. #36
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Ravn, astounding everyone in the western hemisphere by actually attempting to answer one of my questions, albeit rather pathetically (and ignoring the rest, as predicted):

    When you said: "If ... we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist". What is clearly meant by imaged is:
    Nope, I meant what I actually said (re-posted below) -- although, you might be some sort of expert psychic who, across great distances, can read minds in general, and my mind in particular. If so, can we see the proof? What am I thinking now?

    "An optically formed duplicate or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction of an object formed by a lens or mirror."
    You failed to explain where you obtained this epistemological gem. You either (i) Made it up; (ii) Found it in a dictionary; (iii) Read it on-line; or (iv) Were told it by a friend, acquaintance, or expert.

    But, other than (i), these are all external sources, and unfortunately for you, Lenin inserted a layer of 'images' between you and them. So, the next question is rather obvious, and you have been asked it nearly as many times as you have posted lies here: how do you know the 'images' you have of the sources mentioned in items (ii)-(iv) are valid?

    You either (a) know they are valid, or (b) you only believe they are.

    If (a) is the case, how do you know this? You can't jump out of your head to check these sources independently of your senses -- and Lenin says sensation is the only source of knowledge:

    [b]All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two4.htm

    So, how did you pull this impressive trick off? Obtaining knowledge independently of your senses?

    If (b) is the case then you are in the same boat as the fideists and idealists Lenin was criticising in Materialism and Empiriocriticism.

    One the other hand, if (i) from earlier is the case, then we already know you are a fantasist and like to make stuff up. We have even seen it several times in this thread (some of them have been re-posted below).

    You neglected to respond to these, by the way (no worries, I'll keep reminding you):

    So, you still have no effective response to these (why does that not surprise us?):

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    Also waiting for you to tell us the right context for this:

    In fact, I merely quoted Lenin; here it is again for you to explain the right context:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  17. #37
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post

    Nope, I meant what I actually
    You actually said: "If ... we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist". But the image is depended on what is being reflected. That's not equivalent to arbitrarily forming an image which is what you're trying to claim here.

    You should be drowned in your own non-sequitur(s).

  18. #38
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, visibly floundering:

    You actually said: "If ... we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist". But the image is depended on what is being reflected. That's not equivalent to arbitrarily forming an image which is what you're trying to claim here.
    Now it might be that there are now only a few brain cells left working in your head so that you have forgotten that both you an Lenin argued this, too.

    Here is Lenin:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, according to Lenin, if we have an image then it "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" So, if we have an 'image' of Santa Claus, again according to Lenin (not me), it "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa Claus!

    So it's not my inference, Numbnuts, it's Lenin's. You need to pick a fight with him, not me.

    You, earlier:

    "There has to be an object that is being mirrored."
    Bold added.

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post39053

    So, if Santa is being "mirrored" (and that must mean you have an 'image' of him), then, according to you, not me, "there has to be an object". So, according to you, not me, you: if you have an 'image' of Santa, there "has to be" Santa.

    In that case, you now have to pick a fight with yourself!

    ravn:

    You should be drowned in your own non-sequitur(s).
    1) Good job there aren't any, then, isn't it? Or if there are, you have yet to show (as opposed to merely allege) I have committed any.

    2) We now know that these are your non-sequiturs, not mine. So, I am sure with the agreement of everyone here: please go drown yourself.

    ------------------------------

    Still waiting for the following:

    1) Your proof that I have mixed up "image" with "imagination".

    and:

    2):


    ravn:

    "An optically formed duplicate or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction of an object formed by a lens or mirror."
    You failed to explain where you obtained this epistemological gem. You either (i) Made it up; (ii) Found it in a dictionary; (iii) Read it on-line; or (iv) Were told it by a friend, acquaintance, or expert.

    But, other than (i), these are all external sources, and unfortunately for you, Lenin inserted a layer of 'images' between you and them. So, the next question is rather obvious, and you have been asked it nearly as many times as you have posted lies here: how do you know the 'images' you have of the sources mentioned in items (ii)-(iv) are valid?

    You either (a) know they are valid, or (b) you only believe they are.

    If (a) is the case, how do you know this? You can't jump out of your head to check these sources independently of your senses -- and Lenin says sensation is the only source of knowledge:

    [b]All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two4.htm

    So, how did you pull this impressive trick off? Obtaining knowledge independently of your senses?

    If (b) is the case then you are in the same boat as the fideists and idealists Lenin was criticising in Materialism and Empiriocriticism.

    One the other hand, if (i) from earlier is the case, then we already know you are a fantasist and like to make stuff up. We have even seen it several times in this thread (some of them have been re-posted below).

    You neglected to respond to these, by the way (no worries, I'll keep reminding you):

    So, you still have no effective response to these (why does that not surprise us?):

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    Also waiting for you to tell us the right context for this:

    In fact, I merely quoted Lenin; here it is again for you to explain the right context:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

  19. #39
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    [A]ccording to Lenin, if we have an image then it "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" So, if we have an 'image' of Santa Claus, again according to Lenin (not me), it "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa Claus!
    Forming an image, which is how you put it, implies either imagining a thing, or drawing a picture of a thing, not perception. Perceiving somebody standing in a Santa suit is one thing. Forming an image of Santa, either in the mind, or rendering an image of Santa, is another.

    It's your modus operandi to confuse things in this way in order to draw absurd conclusions & then attribute it to something other than the confusion you intentionally or unintentionally create.

  20. #40
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,701

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, supplying us with yet another 'in depth' analysis (all of two paragraphs -- impressive, eh?):

    Forming an image, which is how you put it, implies either imagining a thing, or drawing a picture of a thing, not perception. Perceiving somebody standing in a Santa suit is one thing. Forming an image of Santa, either in the mind, or rendering an image of Santa, is another.
    Well, that's not what Lenin said. Here it is again, since you clearly want to ignore his words (you even quoted this earlier, clearly failing to note its significance):

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it."
    So, and once more, if you have an 'image' of Santa Clause, then, according to Lenin, not me, Lenin: "the thing imagined" (not a drawing or picture) "exists independently" of that which images it", and hence, according to Lenin, and you, Santa Claus must exist.

    ravn from earlier:

    "There has to be an object that is being mirrored."
    Notice you said there "has to be an object" -- not a picture or drawing of an object.

    So, and once again, pick a fight with Lenin and yourself for promoting such a crazy 'theory'

    ravn:

    It's your modus operandi to confuse things in this way in order to draw absurd conclusions & then attribute it to something other than the confusion you intentionally or unintentionally create.
    As we can now see, and as we have seen all along, it is you and Lenin who have proposed this crazy 'theory'.

    -----------------------------

    Still waiting for the following:

    1) Your proof that I have mixed up "image" with "imagination".

    and:

    2):


    ravn:

    "An optically formed duplicate or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction of an object formed by a lens or mirror."
    You failed to explain where you obtained this epistemological gem. You either (i) Made it up; (ii) Found it in a dictionary; (iii) Read it on-line; or (iv) Were told it by a friend, acquaintance, or expert.

    But, other than (i), these are all external sources, and unfortunately for you, Lenin inserted a layer of 'images' between you and them. So, the next question is rather obvious, and you have been asked it nearly as many times as you have posted lies here: how do you know the 'images' you have of the sources mentioned in items (ii)-(iv) are valid?

    You either (a) know they are valid, or (b) you only believe they are.

    If (a) is the case, how do you know this? You can't jump out of your head to check these sources independently of your senses -- and Lenin says sensation is the only source of knowledge:

    [b]All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two4.htm

    So, how did you pull this impressive trick off? Obtaining knowledge independently of your senses?

    If (b) is the case then you are in the same boat as the fideists and idealists Lenin was criticising in Materialism and Empiriocriticism.

    One the other hand, if (i) from earlier is the case, then we already know you are a fantasist and like to make stuff up. We have even seen it several times in this thread (some of them have been re-posted below).

    You neglected to respond to these, by the way (no worries, I'll keep reminding you):

    So, you still have no effective response to these (why does that not surprise us?):

    ravn (we've missed your baseless allegations and blatant lies -- so we welcome you and your empty head back):

    It's hard not to be contemptuous of someone who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image. "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge", (Materialism & Empirio-criticism, Chapter 1.3)
    Shock horror! ravn actually quotes Lenin!!

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imaged**, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it. Materialism deliberately makes the “naïve” belief of mankind the foundation of its theory of knowledge",
    As you have had pointed out to you countless times (and will no doubt have to have the following pointed out many more times -- no worries, I am happy to do so as many times as it takes):

    1) If this were the case, then, since we can form an image of, say, Santa Claus, then Santa must exist; after all, Lenin also said this:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm

    So, an 'image' of Santa, according to Lenin, "inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it images" -- i.e., Santa!

    Hence, according to this brilliant 'theory' of yours, Santa must exist!

    2) Lenin has no way of knowing if his 'images' actually reflect external reality or are figments of his own imagination, since he can't jump out of his own head and check his images with that 'independent reality'.

    3) Now, you very helpfully tell us that 'image' isn't the same as 'imagined', but Lenin has no way of telling the difference. And, if you accept his crazy theory, neither have you.

    4) No good appealing to 'practice' to tell the difference, since all Lenin has are 'images' of 'practice' with no way of knowing if these 'images' of practice are valid or not.

    5) No use, either, appealing to the 'naive' belief of mankind, since all Lenin has are 'images' of other humans and their beliefs, and no way of knowing if these 'images' of mankind are valid or not.

    6) Where have I said this?

    who claims that someone saying consciousness is the image of the external world is equivalent to saying that the external world is just an image.
    Nowhere, that's where, and I defy you to prove otherwise.

    What I have said is that Lenin has no way of knowing which of his 'images' are valid, and no way of proving there is an 'external world' out there for them to reflect -- and neither have you if you accept his theory.

    ravn:

    & yet, RL disparages this view & promotes the sophist confusions of Wittgenstein, as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class.
    7) As we saw in the Wittgenstein thread, you were in the end forced to agree with Wittgenstein:

    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...genstein/page2

    8) Where have I argued this?

    as if this is going to lead to the emancipation of the working class
    Find one place at my site, or here, or anywhere else, for that matter, where I have argued this, or anything even remotely like it. Come on, put your evidence where your lying mouth is.
    Also waiting for you to tell us the right context for this:

    In fact, I merely quoted Lenin; here it is again for you to explain the right context:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [4.6]
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

    http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •