Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 76

Thread: dialectics

  1. #41
    Leon Freeman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ho Chi Minh City
    Posts
    472

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Can we stop now?

  2. #42
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    You don't have to read this Riou.

    I never stop wiping the floor Dialectical Mystics, and never will.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

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

  3. #43
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    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."
    You misquoted Lenin. It's "imaged". Anybody can see that for themselves.
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/one3.htm

    So consequently all of this is wrong:
    "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."


  4. #44
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn:

    You misquoted Lenin. It's "imaged". Anybody can see that for themselves.
    Yes, that was a typo, but I have quoted him as follows, many, many times (here are just a few, from this thread and earlier threads on the same topic):

    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!
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post38775

    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.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post39057

    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]
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post39071

    You even tried out this lie a few posts ago:

    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.]
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post39071

    From an earlier thread:

    Lenin most definitely didn't believe in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy, but if he were consistent with what he wrote in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism [MEC] he should have:...

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'" [Ibid., p.279. Bold emphasis added. In both of these, the quotation marks have been altered to conform to the conventions adopted at my site.]
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len.../mec/four6.htm
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31419

    Yes, thanks for that, I do know what a mirage is (although I am glad this gave you the opportunity to look this up for yourself -- and well done too!) -- but according to Lenin, these mirages imply the existence of whatever it is that they image:

    "The image inevitably and of necessity implies the objective reality of that which it 'images.'"
    Bold added. Reference and link in my last post.

    So, if he were right, and you were wandering across a desert, and you saw a mirage of some water, then that water must exist "of necessity".
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31429

    I quoted several passages in my last reply to you where Lenin tells us that 'images' are all we have as a basis for knowledge -- which you seem to want to ignore (as usual!).

    Here they are again (in case you missed them from earlier), edited in order to help you out:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "and it is obvious that these mental images arise exclusively from sensations."
    "sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exist within us..."
    "that our perceptions are images of the external world.
    "things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images.
    "the outer world, the image of which is our sensations.
    And here is one I didn't quote, where Lenin corrects Bazarov:

    "This is either an idealist lie or the subterfuge of the agnostic, Comrade Bazarov, for sense-perception is not the reality existing outside us, it is only the image of that reality."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two2.htm

    Again, the question is: Can you quote even so much as one single passage where Lenin adds another factor, here?
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31447
    ---------------------------------------------------

    What about this, though?

    So consequently all of this is wrong:

    "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."
    1) You have yet to explain how Lenin could tell the difference between one of his 'images' and something he had merely 'imagined'.

    Unless you can do this, these two words are synonymous for Lenin -- and, because of that, they are for you, too.

    2) Now, Lenin had this to say:

    "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."

    Bold added.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/one3.htm

    But, this is easy to fix:

    So, and once more, if you have an 'image' of Santa Clause, then, according to Lenin, not me, Lenin: "the thing imaged" (not a drawing or picture) "exists independently" of that which images it", and hence, according to Lenin, and you, Santa Claus must exist."
    You still have no answer to this, have you?

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

    Still waiting for your response to the following:

    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]
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 06-23-2017 at 4:17 AM.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

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

  5. #45
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post



    Yes, that was a typo, but I have quoted him as follows, many, many times

    & you make conclusions based on interpreting the term imaged to mean imagined one way or another.

  6. #46
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, still inventing:

    & you make conclusions based on interpreting the term imaged to mean imagined one way or another.
    OK, smarty pants, let's see you prove this.

    In the meantime, you seem to have forgotten to respond to these:

    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

  7. #47
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    "An optically formed duplicate or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction of an object formed by a lens or mirror."

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    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.
    If you can't refute that the image is dependent on the object it reflects, then what is your real point here besides being stupidly pedantic?

  8. #48
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, back for another pummeling:

    Easy to see why you prefer to ignore this:

    ravn, still inventing:

    & you make conclusions based on interpreting the term imaged to mean imagined one way or another.
    OK, smarty pants, let's see you prove this.
    But, what about this?

    If you can't refute that the image is dependent on the object it reflects, then what is your real point here besides being stupidly pedantic?
    1) Unfortunately for you, Lenin inserted a layer of 'images' between you and your 'image' of this this forum. So, the real question is: how do you that I exist, as opposed to your 'image' of my posts being a figment of you imagination?

    2) I'll be happy to respond to your question when you respond to the many I have posted here, and other threads, which you blithely ignore (and we both know why you ignore them).

    Like these:

    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

  9. #49
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    ... Lenin inserted a layer of 'images' between you and your 'image' of this this forum. So, the real question is: how do you that I exist, as opposed to your 'image' of my posts being a figment of you imagination?
    There is no array of images between anybody & any object that reflects itself. In order for there to be an image, an external object exists. Whomever or whatever you really are doesn't deter from the fact that the post which is attributed to you objectively exists.

    If promoting solipsism is all you can do then your PH.d isn't worth the paper you wipe your ass with. OTOH, if you let go of your bourgeois illusions, you can apply yourself more constructively.

  10. #50
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, his mind paralysed by his adherence to a mystical dogma he not only struggles to defend, he plainly doesn't 'understand', attempts to post an 'answer':

    There is no array of images between anybody & any object that reflects itself. In order for there to be an image, an external object exists. Whomever or whatever you really are doesn't deter from the fact that the post which is attributed to you objectively exists.
    According to Lenin, there is a layer of 'images' between all of us and the 'external world'.

    Here is one of my replies to you (when you made similar claims, which you also failed to substantiate with a single quote from Lenin) from one of the other threads we have had on Lenin's crazy 'theory':

    Yes, so you keep saying, but what we still lack is some explanation from Lenin, or, indeed, from you, how he/you know this, when, according to Lenin, not me, Lenin, all we have are images of the objects around us.

    I quoted several passages in my last reply to you where Lenin tells us that 'images' are all we have as a basis for knowledge -- which you seem to want to ignore (as usual!).

    Here they are again (in case you missed them from earlier), edited in order to help you out:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "and it is obvious that these mental images arise exclusively from sensations."
    "sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exist within us..."
    "that our perceptions are images of the external world.
    "things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images.
    "the outer world, the image of which is our sensations.
    And here is one I didn't quote, where Lenin corrects Bazarov:

    "This is either an idealist lie or the subterfuge of the agnostic, Comrade Bazarov, for sense-perception is not the reality existing outside us, it is only the image of that reality."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two2.htm

    Again, the question is: Can you quote even so much as one single passage where Lenin adds another factor, here?

    Up to now, you seem content to tell us what Lenin did or did not believe without quoting one single passage in support. While I have no doubt that your ideas are interesting, this thread is about what Lenin believed, not what ravn thinks he can sell us.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31447

    Links supplied on request.

    So, and once again, can you quote a single passage from Lenin that tells us he thought there was some other source of knowledge I have missed out? You can easily shut me up. Just one will do.

    But what about this?

    In order for there to be an image, an external object exists. Whomever or whatever you really are doesn't deter from the fact that the post which is attributed to you objectively exists.
    Ok, so let's see your proof that there are these 'external objects, when as we have just seen, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images'.

    Here's how I dealt with an answer like this from you in an earlier exchange:

    ravn:

    Because it's a scientific fact.
    You can only know that this is a fact because you are either (1) an expert in this field, or (2) you have read it in a book, or series of books and articles.

    Taking (2) first: let us suppose you read this 'fact' somewhere. To do that, you must have used your eyes (or, if it was read to you, your ears -- if you are deaf, you will have felt this with your fingers, using Braille). In other words, your senses will have put you in touch with this 'fact'.

    Now, Lenin tells us (and you) the following:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    And:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    Bold added in both cases.

    Hence, according to Lenin, you can only know this 'fact' because it was communicated to you via your senses. But he also tells us (and you) that "Our sensation...is only an image of the external world."

    So, this fact also comes to you via these 'images'.

    The question now is: how do you know these images are correct?

    Well, Lenin tells us that we know they are correct (or we can distinguish the reliable from the unreliable images) by testing them in practice.

    Call this Option (2a).

    But the same problem only asserts itself in relation to (2a) as it did with (2), for if all our knowledge, including any that is communicated to us via practice, is mediated by these 'images', we end up testing one set of 'images' against another set, with no way of knowing which set is reliable and which isn't, once more!

    Perhaps you know a way out of this circle (of 'images' being used to check other 'images') that eluded Lenin (he certainly failed to address this fatal defect in his 'theory'), as well as all subsequent Leninists, but you have yet to tell us what that is.

    Turning now to alternative (1): Let us suppose you are an expert in this branch of physiology, and you know this for a fact because of (1a) experiments you have conducted, or (1b) specialist books and papers you have read.

    As seems obvious, (1b) is just a variant on option (2), so I think we can put it to one side.

    Turning to option (1a), let us suppose that as a result of work you yourself have done, you know this for a fact.

    But this is just a variant of (2a) above!

    So, whichever way we turn, you are trapped in a world of 'images' with no way out.

    Maybe I am being unfair, so let's hear your way out of this solipsistic circle.

    How do you propose to solve this problem (and one, incidentally, that has defeated some of the best philosophical minds in the last four centuries)?

    Perhaps you know more than they do? One can only hope...

    Instead of spinning around in circles over a quote out of context, read the whole book.
    So, what, in your opinion, is the correct context for, say, these words of Lenin's:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.... Our sensation...is only an image of the external world...."
    Looks pretty clear to me: all knowledge comes from sensation, and sensation is "only" an image of the external world.

    If you think differently, maybe you can inform us of some other source of knowledge that isn't from sensation -- which would, by the way, end up refuting Lenin, since he says "All knowledge comes from sensation".

    Or, maybe, inform us of some part or aspect of sensation which isn't a 'image' of the world -- again refuting Lenin, since he tells us that "our sensation is only and image of the external world" and that "our perceptions are images of the external world."

    Perhaps you can quote a passage (just one will do), where Lenin tells us how he proposes to break out of the phenomenalist prison he has built for himself.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31452

    You had no answer to this back then, and I suspect you have none today.

    Go on, smarty pants, prove me wrong.

    ravn:

    If promoting solipsism is all you can do then your PH.d isn't worth the paper you wipe your ass with. OTOH, if you let go of your bourgeois illusions, you can apply yourself more constructively.
    Don't be silly. How is my quoting Lenin 'promoting solipsism' -- unless you agree with me that it is Lenin who is the solipsist here?

    Oh, and by the way, you have yet to respond to the following:

    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

  11. #51
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post

    According to Lenin, there is a layer of 'images' between all of us and the 'external world'.
    Layer implies a stratum between one & external objects, but images are produced by light reflecting from objects, & light as waves & as particles are external objects as well. & the senses are not external to the world but are a part of it. So just exactly what are you trying to prove by the term layer?

    & why exactly do you object to: "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception." & "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...." that isn't based on idealism no matter how you disguise it or confuse it?


  12. #52
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn returns for another floor wiping:

    Layer implies a stratum between one & external objects, but images are produced by light reflecting from objects, & light as waves & as particles are external objects as well. & the senses are not external to the world but are a part of it. So just exactly what are you trying to prove by the term layer?
    1) And that layer of 'images' means you have no way of knowing there is a world out there for them to 'reflect'. Can you jump out of your head to check this?

    2) But, let us suppose you are right; even then you have no way of knowing what "layer" means, since, according to Lenin, all you have is an 'image' of the use of this word, which you learnt off your 'image' of others using it (perhaps when you were an 'image' of a child). For all you know "layer" could mean something totally different, or even nothing at all. You can't check its meaning in a dictionary, since all you have is an 'image' of a dictionary.

    3) But, if you don't like "layer", check this out:

    Lenin asserted that all you have as a basis for your knowledge of anything are 'images'. But, how do you know these 'images' are valid? No good appealing to practice since, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images' of practice. No good appealing to science -- see below for why that is so.

    4) You have to tell us what other source there is to which Lenin appealed in addition to his 'images' that is a source of knowledge. Or don't you know enough about your own 'theory' to be able to say?

    Here is one of my replies to you (when you made similar claims, which you also failed to substantiate with a single quote from Lenin) from one of the other threads we have had on Lenin's crazy 'theory':

    Yes, so you keep saying, but what we still lack is some explanation from Lenin, or, indeed, from you, how he/you know this, when, according to Lenin, not me, Lenin, all we have are images of the objects around us.

    I quoted several passages in my last reply to you where Lenin tells us that 'images' are all we have as a basis for knowledge -- which you seem to want to ignore (as usual!).

    Here they are again (in case you missed them from earlier), edited in order to help you out:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "and it is obvious that these mental images arise exclusively from sensations."
    "sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exist within us..."
    "that our perceptions are images of the external world.
    "things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images.
    "the outer world, the image of which is our sensations.
    And here is one I didn't quote, where Lenin corrects Bazarov:

    "This is either an idealist lie or the subterfuge of the agnostic, Comrade Bazarov, for sense-perception is not the reality existing outside us, it is only the image of that reality."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two2.htm

    Again, the question is: Can you quote even so much as one single passage where Lenin adds another factor, here?

    Up to now, you seem content to tell us what Lenin did or did not believe without quoting one single passage in support. While I have no doubt that your ideas are interesting, this thread is about what Lenin believed, not what ravn thinks he can sell us.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31447

    Links supplied on request.

    So, and once again, can you quote a single passage from Lenin that tells us he thought there was some other source of knowledge I have missed out? You can easily shut me up. Just one will do.

    But what about this?

    In order for there to be an image, an external object exists. Whomever or whatever you really are doesn't deter from the fact that the post which is attributed to you objectively exists.
    Ok, so let's see your proof that there are these 'external objects, when as we have just seen, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images'.

    Here's how I dealt with an answer like this from you in an earlier exchange:

    ravn:

    Because it's a scientific fact.
    You can only know that this is a fact because you are either (1) an expert in this field, or (2) you have read it in a book, or series of books and articles.

    Taking (2) first: let us suppose you read this 'fact' somewhere. To do that, you must have used your eyes (or, if it was read to you, your ears -- if you are deaf, you will have felt this with your fingers, using Braille). In other words, your senses will have put you in touch with this 'fact'.

    Now, Lenin tells us (and you) the following:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    And:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    Bold added in both cases.

    Hence, according to Lenin, you can only know this 'fact' because it was communicated to you via your senses. But he also tells us (and you) that "Our sensation...is only an image of the external world."

    So, this fact also comes to you via these 'images'.

    The question now is: how do you know these images are correct?

    Well, Lenin tells us that we know they are correct (or we can distinguish the reliable from the unreliable images) by testing them in practice.

    Call this Option (2a).

    But the same problem only asserts itself in relation to (2a) as it did with (2), for if all our knowledge, including any that is communicated to us via practice, is mediated by these 'images', we end up testing one set of 'images' against another set, with no way of knowing which set is reliable and which isn't, once more!

    Perhaps you know a way out of this circle (of 'images' being used to check other 'images') that eluded Lenin (he certainly failed to address this fatal defect in his 'theory'), as well as all subsequent Leninists, but you have yet to tell us what that is.

    Turning now to alternative (1): Let us suppose you are an expert in this branch of physiology, and you know this for a fact because of (1a) experiments you have conducted, or (1b) specialist books and papers you have read.

    As seems obvious, (1b) is just a variant on option (2), so I think we can put it to one side.

    Turning to option (1a), let us suppose that as a result of work you yourself have done, you know this for a fact.

    But this is just a variant of (2a) above!

    So, whichever way we turn, you are trapped in a world of 'images' with no way out.

    Maybe I am being unfair, so let's hear your way out of this solipsistic circle.

    How do you propose to solve this problem (and one, incidentally, that has defeated some of the best philosophical minds in the last four centuries)?

    Perhaps you know more than they do? One can only hope...

    Instead of spinning around in circles over a quote out of context, read the whole book.
    So, what, in your opinion, is the correct context for, say, these words of Lenin's:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.... Our sensation...is only an image of the external world...."
    Looks pretty clear to me: all knowledge comes from sensation, and sensation is "only" an image of the external world.

    If you think differently, maybe you can inform us of some other source of knowledge that isn't from sensation -- which would, by the way, end up refuting Lenin, since he says "All knowledge comes from sensation".

    Or, maybe, inform us of some part or aspect of sensation which isn't a 'image' of the world -- again refuting Lenin, since he tells us that "our sensation is only and image of the external world" and that "our perceptions are images of the external world."

    Perhaps you can quote a passage (just one will do), where Lenin tells us how he proposes to break out of the phenomenalist prison he has built for himself.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31452

    You had no answer to this back then, and I suspect you have none today.

    Go on, smarty pants, prove me wrong.
    ravn (Oops! Admitting Lenin limited the source of knowledge to 'images'):

    & why exactly do you object to: "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception." & "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...." that isn't based on idealism no matter how you disguise it or confuse it?
    Happy to answer your question (which I have in fact covered scores of times (no exaggeration) in earlier replies to you) when you answer the dozens I have asked you which you ignore; like these:

    ravn:

    If promoting solipsism is all you can do then your PH.d isn't worth the paper you wipe your ass with. OTOH, if you let go of your bourgeois illusions, you can apply yourself more constructively.
    Don't be silly. How is my quoting Lenin 'promoting solipsism' -- unless you agree with me that it is Lenin who is the solipsist here?

    Oh, and by the way, you have yet to respond to the following:

    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

  13. #53
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post



    And that layer of 'images' means you have no way of knowing there is a world out there
    This layer you keep referring to is not an immaterial stratum. The eye reacts to light, not concepts. That's how we know there's a world out there.



    Clearly, there is no image w/o an object.

  14. #54
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, revealing yet again, he hasn't a clue:

    This layer you keep referring to is not an immaterial stratum. The eye reacts to light, not concepts. That's how we know there's a world out there.
    And how do you know that your image of this 'eye' is valid, and not a figment of your imagination?

    You seem not to be able to grasp this simple point.

    How do to know, for example, that "The eye reacts to light, not concepts."

    I have already covered this point in the material you prefer to ignore, posted above. Here it is again (modified accordingly):

    Ok, so let's see your proof that there are any eyes to see out there, when as we have just seen, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images'.

    Here's how I dealt with an answer like this from you in an earlier exchange:

    ravn:

    Because it's a scientific fact.
    You can only know that this comment of yours about the eye is a fact because you are either (1) an expert in this field, or (2) you have read it in a book, or series of books and articles.

    Taking (2) first: let us suppose you read this 'fact' somewhere. To do that, you must have used your eyes (or, if it was read to you, your ears -- if you are deaf, you will have felt this with your fingers, using Braille). In other words, your senses will have put you in touch with this 'fact'.

    Now, Lenin tells us (and you) the following:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    And:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    Bold added in both cases.

    Hence, according to Lenin, you can only know this 'fact' because it was communicated to you via your senses. But he also tells us (and you) that "Our sensation...is only an image of the external world."

    So, this fact also comes to you via these 'images'.

    The question now is: how do you know these images are correct?

    Well, Lenin tells us that we know they are correct (or we can distinguish the reliable from the unreliable images) by testing them in practice.

    Call this Option (2a).

    But the same problem only asserts itself in relation to (2a) as it did with (2), for if all your knowledge, including any that is communicated to you via practice, is mediated by these 'images', you end up testing one set of 'images' against another set, with no way of knowing which set is reliable and which isn't, once more!

    Perhaps you know a way out of this circle (of 'images' being used to check other 'images') that eluded Lenin (he certainly failed to address this fatal defect in his 'theory'), as well as all subsequent Leninists, but you have yet to tell us what that is.

    Turning now to alternative (1): Let us suppose you are an expert in this branch of physiology, and you know this for a fact because of (1a) experiments you have conducted, or (1b) specialist books and papers you have read.

    As seems obvious, (1b) is just a variant on option (2), so I think we can put it to one side.

    Turning to option (1a), let us suppose that as a result of work you yourself have done, you know this for a fact.

    But this is just a variant of (2a) above!

    So, whichever way we turn, you are trapped in a world of 'images' with no way out.

    Maybe I am being unfair, so let's hear your way out of this solipsistic circle.

    How do you propose to solve this problem (and one, incidentally, that has defeated some of the best philosophical minds in the last four centuries)?

    Perhaps you know more than they do? One can only hope...
    ----------------------------

    And there is the rest you prefer to ignore, too:

    1) And that layer of 'images' means you have no way of knowing there is a world out there for them to 'reflect'. Can you jump out of your head to check this?

    2) But, let us suppose you are right; even then you have no way of knowing what "layer" means, since, according to Lenin, all you have is an 'image' of the use of this word, which you learnt off your 'image' of others using it (perhaps when you were an 'image' of a child). For all you know "layer" could mean something totally different, or even nothing at all. You can't check its meaning in a dictionary, since all you have is an 'image' of a dictionary.

    3) But, if you don't like "layer", check this out:

    Lenin asserted that all you have as a basis for your knowledge of anything are 'images'. But, how do you know these 'images' are valid? No good appealing to practice since, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images' of practice. No good appealing to science -- see below for why that is so.

    4) You have to tell us what other source there is to which Lenin appealed in addition to his 'images' that is a source of knowledge. Or don't you know enough about your own 'theory' to be able to say?

    Here is one of my replies to you (when you made similar claims, which you also failed to substantiate with a single quote from Lenin) from one of the other threads we have had on Lenin's crazy 'theory':

    Yes, so you keep saying, but what we still lack is some explanation from Lenin, or, indeed, from you, how he/you know this, when, according to Lenin, not me, Lenin, all we have are images of the objects around us.

    I quoted several passages in my last reply to you where Lenin tells us that 'images' are all we have as a basis for knowledge -- which you seem to want to ignore (as usual!).

    Here they are again (in case you missed them from earlier), edited in order to help you out:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "and it is obvious that these mental images arise exclusively from sensations."
    "sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exist within us..."
    "that our perceptions are images of the external world.
    "things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images.
    "the outer world, the image of which is our sensations.
    And here is one I didn't quote, where Lenin corrects Bazarov:

    "This is either an idealist lie or the subterfuge of the agnostic, Comrade Bazarov, for sense-perception is not the reality existing outside us, it is only the image of that reality."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two2.htm

    Again, the question is: Can you quote even so much as one single passage where Lenin adds another factor, here?

    Up to now, you seem content to tell us what Lenin did or did not believe without quoting one single passage in support. While I have no doubt that your ideas are interesting, this thread is about what Lenin believed, not what ravn thinks he can sell us.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31447

    Links supplied on request.

    So, and once again, can you quote a single passage from Lenin that tells us he thought there was some other source of knowledge I have missed out? You can easily shut me up. Just one will do.
    And:

    Instead of spinning around in circles over a quote out of context, read the whole book.
    So, what, in your opinion, is the correct context for, say, these words of Lenin's:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.... Our sensation...is only an image of the external world...."
    Looks pretty clear to me: all knowledge comes from sensation, and sensation is "only" an image of the external world.

    If you think differently, maybe you can inform us of some other source of knowledge that isn't from sensation -- which would, by the way, end up refuting Lenin, since he says "All knowledge comes from sensation".

    Or, maybe, inform us of some part or aspect of sensation which isn't a 'image' of the world -- again refuting Lenin, since he tells us that "our sensation is only and image of the external world" and that "our perceptions are images of the external world."

    Perhaps you can quote a passage (just one will do), where Lenin tells us how he proposes to break out of the phenomenalist prison he has built for himself.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31452

    You had no answer to this back then, and I suspect you have none today.

    Go on, smarty pants, prove me wrong.

    ravn (Oops! Admitting Lenin limited the source of knowledge to 'images'):

    & why exactly do you object to: "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception." & "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...." that isn't based on idealism no matter how you disguise it or confuse it?
    Happy to answer your question (which I have in fact covered scores of times (no exaggeration) in earlier replies to you) when you answer the dozens I have asked you which you ignore; like these:
    ravn:

    If promoting solipsism is all you can do then your PH.d isn't worth the paper you wipe your ass with. OTOH, if you let go of your bourgeois illusions, you can apply yourself more constructively.
    Don't be silly. How is my quoting Lenin 'promoting solipsism' -- unless you agree with me that it is Lenin who is the solipsist here?

    Oh, and by the way, you have yet to respond to the following:

    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]
    [/quote]
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

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

  15. #55
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post



    And how do you know that your image of this 'eye' is valid, and not a figment of your imagination?
    Because not only is it an established fact confirmed by scientific inquiry, it's confirmed by everyday experience. Obviously, you can always appeal to solipsism as a trap-door for some absolute skepticism, but the facts are, images are dependent on the object being reflected by light. Unless you can refute this fact with something actually counter-factual, not mere absolute skepticism, you're just indulging in ostrich denial, apparently in your never-ending quest to be aimlessly clever.


  16. #56
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn, missing the point, for the 100th time:

    Because not only is it an established fact confirmed by scientific inquiry, it's confirmed by everyday experience. Obviously, you can always appeal to solipsism as a trap-door for some absolute skepticism, but the facts are, images are dependent on the object being reflected by light. Unless you can refute this fact with something actually counter-factual, not mere absolute skepticism, you're just indulging in ostrich denial, apparently in your never-ending quest to be aimlessly clever.
    Already covered, Bozo, read it again -- but, hey, nice picture of your and your friend -- er..., which one is you?

    Ok, so let's see your proof that there are any eyes to see out there, when as we have just seen, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images'.

    Here's how I dealt with an answer like this from you in an earlier exchange:

    ravn:

    Because it's a scientific fact.
    You can only know that this comment of yours about the eye is a fact because you are either (1) an expert in this field, or (2) you have read it in a book, or series of books and articles.

    Taking (2) first: let us suppose you read this 'fact' somewhere. To do that, you must have used your eyes (or, if it was read to you, your ears -- if you are deaf, you will have felt this with your fingers, using Braille). In other words, your senses will have put you in touch with this 'fact'.

    Now, Lenin tells us (and you) the following:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    And:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    Bold added in both cases.

    Hence, according to Lenin, you can only know this 'fact' because it was communicated to you via your senses. But he also tells us (and you) that "Our sensation...is only an image of the external world."

    So, this fact also comes to you via these 'images'.

    The question now is: how do you know these images are correct?

    Well, Lenin tells us that we know they are correct (or we can distinguish the reliable from the unreliable images) by testing them in practice.

    Call this Option (2a).

    But the same problem only asserts itself in relation to (2a) as it did with (2), for if all your knowledge, including any that is communicated to you via practice, is mediated by these 'images', you end up testing one set of 'images' against another set, with no way of knowing which set is reliable and which isn't, once more!

    Perhaps you know a way out of this circle (of 'images' being used to check other 'images') that eluded Lenin (he certainly failed to address this fatal defect in his 'theory'), as well as all subsequent Leninists, but you have yet to tell us what that is.

    Turning now to alternative (1): Let us suppose you are an expert in this branch of physiology, and you know this for a fact because of (1a) experiments you have conducted, or (1b) specialist books and papers you have read.

    As seems obvious, (1b) is just a variant on option (2), so I think we can put it to one side.

    Turning to option (1a), let us suppose that as a result of work you yourself have done, you know this for a fact.

    But this is just a variant of (2a) above!

    So, whichever way we turn, you are trapped in a world of 'images' with no way out.

    Maybe I am being unfair, so let's hear your way out of this solipsistic circle.

    How do you propose to solve this problem (and one, incidentally, that has defeated some of the best philosophical minds in the last four centuries)?

    Perhaps you know more than they do? One can only hope...
    ----------------------------

    And there is the rest you prefer to ignore, too:

    1) And that layer of 'images' means you have no way of knowing there is a world out there for them to 'reflect'. Can you jump out of your head to check this?

    2) But, let us suppose you are right; even then you have no way of knowing what "layer" means, since, according to Lenin, all you have is an 'image' of the use of this word, which you learnt off your 'image' of others using it (perhaps when you were an 'image' of a child). For all you know "layer" could mean something totally different, or even nothing at all. You can't check its meaning in a dictionary, since all you have is an 'image' of a dictionary.

    3) But, if you don't like "layer", check this out:

    Lenin asserted that all you have as a basis for your knowledge of anything are 'images'. But, how do you know these 'images' are valid? No good appealing to practice since, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images' of practice. No good appealing to science -- see below for why that is so.

    4) You have to tell us what other source there is to which Lenin appealed in addition to his 'images' that is a source of knowledge. Or don't you know enough about your own 'theory' to be able to say?

    Here is one of my replies to you (when you made similar claims, which you also failed to substantiate with a single quote from Lenin) from one of the other threads we have had on Lenin's crazy 'theory':

    Yes, so you keep saying, but what we still lack is some explanation from Lenin, or, indeed, from you, how he/you know this, when, according to Lenin, not me, Lenin, all we have are images of the objects around us.

    I quoted several passages in my last reply to you where Lenin tells us that 'images' are all we have as a basis for knowledge -- which you seem to want to ignore (as usual!).

    Here they are again (in case you missed them from earlier), edited in order to help you out:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "and it is obvious that these mental images arise exclusively from sensations."
    "sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exist within us..."
    "that our perceptions are images of the external world.
    "things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images.
    "the outer world, the image of which is our sensations.
    And here is one I didn't quote, where Lenin corrects Bazarov:

    "This is either an idealist lie or the subterfuge of the agnostic, Comrade Bazarov, for sense-perception is not the reality existing outside us, it is only the image of that reality."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two2.htm

    Again, the question is: Can you quote even so much as one single passage where Lenin adds another factor, here?

    Up to now, you seem content to tell us what Lenin did or did not believe without quoting one single passage in support. While I have no doubt that your ideas are interesting, this thread is about what Lenin believed, not what ravn thinks he can sell us.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31447

    Links supplied on request.

    So, and once again, can you quote a single passage from Lenin that tells us he thought there was some other source of knowledge I have missed out? You can easily shut me up. Just one will do.
    And:

    Instead of spinning around in circles over a quote out of context, read the whole book.
    So, what, in your opinion, is the correct context for, say, these words of Lenin's:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.... Our sensation...is only an image of the external world...."
    Looks pretty clear to me: all knowledge comes from sensation, and sensation is "only" an image of the external world.

    If you think differently, maybe you can inform us of some other source of knowledge that isn't from sensation -- which would, by the way, end up refuting Lenin, since he says "All knowledge comes from sensation".

    Or, maybe, inform us of some part or aspect of sensation which isn't a 'image' of the world -- again refuting Lenin, since he tells us that "our sensation is only and image of the external world" and that "our perceptions are images of the external world."

    Perhaps you can quote a passage (just one will do), where Lenin tells us how he proposes to break out of the phenomenalist prison he has built for himself.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31452

    You had no answer to this back then, and I suspect you have none today.

    Go on, smarty pants, prove me wrong.

    ravn (Oops! Admitting Lenin limited the source of knowledge to 'images'):

    & why exactly do you object to: "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception." & "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...." that isn't based on idealism no matter how you disguise it or confuse it?
    Happy to answer your question (which I have in fact covered scores of times (no exaggeration) in earlier replies to you) when you answer the dozens I have asked you which you ignore; like these:
    ravn:

    If promoting solipsism is all you can do then your PH.d isn't worth the paper you wipe your ass with. OTOH, if you let go of your bourgeois illusions, you can apply yourself more constructively.
    Don't be silly. How is my quoting Lenin 'promoting solipsism' -- unless you agree with me that it is Lenin who is the solipsist here?

    Oh, and by the way, you have yet to respond to the following:

    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. #57
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post



    Already covered, Bozo
    You're still trying to blur the distinction between imaged & imagined. The problem isn't that nobody can tell the difference. The problem is that you prefer *not* to, just to be contrary. Is that the essence of your so-called Wittgensteinian Trotskyism?


  18. #58
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    ravn -- whoosh, over his head it goes once more (and ho hasn't yet figured out how to use the italics function at this site):

    You're still trying to blur the distinction between imaged & imagined. The problem isn't that nobody can tell the difference. The problem is that you prefer *not* to, just to be contrary. Is that the essence of your so-called Wittgensteinian Trotskyism?
    Except, we have been over this several times: if Lenin says all he has are 'images', how could he tell the difference between an 'image' and something he had merely 'imagined'?

    You have yet to answer that question (even though I have posed it many times), so the same question apples to you. In that case, how do you know you haven't 'imagined' this thread? Or me and Wittgenstein? Or this site? Or the internet? Or Lenin? Or even the entire universe (along with those irrelevant pictures you keep 'imagining' you are posting)?

    As far as I can see, you can't tell the difference between something you have 'imagined' and your 'image(s)' of 'it'/'them'.

    Now, I might have made a simple mistake here, so you can easily put me straight by explaining how you (or Lenin -- or your 'image' of him) can tell the difference between one of your (or his) 'images' and something you (or Lenin) have merely 'imagined'.

    In the meantime perhaps you'd like to respond to your 'image' of the following (which, for some odd reason, you keep ignoring -- maybe you think you have merely 'imagined' them?):

    Already covered, Bozo, read it again -- but, hey, nice picture of your and your friend -- er..., which one is you?

    Ok, so let's see your proof that there are any eyes to see out there, when as we have just seen, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images'.

    Here's how I dealt with an answer like this from you in an earlier exchange:

    ravn:

    Because it's a scientific fact.
    You can only know that this comment of yours about the eye is a fact because you are either (1) an expert in this field, or (2) you have read it in a book, or series of books and articles.

    Taking (2) first: let us suppose you read this 'fact' somewhere. To do that, you must have used your eyes (or, if it was read to you, your ears -- if you are deaf, you will have felt this with your fingers, using Braille). In other words, your senses will have put you in touch with this 'fact'.

    Now, Lenin tells us (and you) the following:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    And:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    Bold added in both cases.

    Hence, according to Lenin, you can only know this 'fact' because it was communicated to you via your senses. But he also tells us (and you) that "Our sensation...is only an image of the external world."

    So, this fact also comes to you via these 'images'.

    The question now is: how do you know these images are correct?

    Well, Lenin tells us that we know they are correct (or we can distinguish the reliable from the unreliable images) by testing them in practice.

    Call this Option (2a).

    But the same problem only asserts itself in relation to (2a) as it did with (2), for if all your knowledge, including any that is communicated to you via practice, is mediated by these 'images', you end up testing one set of 'images' against another set, with no way of knowing which set is reliable and which isn't, once more!

    Perhaps you know a way out of this circle (of 'images' being used to check other 'images') that eluded Lenin (he certainly failed to address this fatal defect in his 'theory'), as well as all subsequent Leninists, but you have yet to tell us what that is.

    Turning now to alternative (1): Let us suppose you are an expert in this branch of physiology, and you know this for a fact because of (1a) experiments you have conducted, or (1b) specialist books and papers you have read.

    As seems obvious, (1b) is just a variant on option (2), so I think we can put it to one side.

    Turning to option (1a), let us suppose that as a result of work you yourself have done, you know this for a fact.

    But this is just a variant of (2a) above!

    So, whichever way we turn, you are trapped in a world of 'images' with no way out.

    Maybe I am being unfair, so let's hear your way out of this solipsistic circle.

    How do you propose to solve this problem (and one, incidentally, that has defeated some of the best philosophical minds in the last four centuries)?

    Perhaps you know more than they do? One can only hope...
    ----------------------------

    And there is the rest you prefer to ignore, too:

    1) And that layer of 'images' means you have no way of knowing there is a world out there for them to 'reflect'. Can you jump out of your head to check this?

    2) But, let us suppose you are right; even then you have no way of knowing what "layer" means, since, according to Lenin, all you have is an 'image' of the use of this word, which you learnt off your 'image' of others using it (perhaps when you were an 'image' of a child). For all you know "layer" could mean something totally different, or even nothing at all. You can't check its meaning in a dictionary, since all you have is an 'image' of a dictionary.

    3) But, if you don't like "layer", check this out:

    Lenin asserted that all you have as a basis for your knowledge of anything are 'images'. But, how do you know these 'images' are valid? No good appealing to practice since, according to Lenin, all you have are 'images' of practice. No good appealing to science -- see below for why that is so.

    4) You have to tell us what other source there is to which Lenin appealed in addition to his 'images' that is a source of knowledge. Or don't you know enough about your own 'theory' to be able to say?

    Here is one of my replies to you (when you made similar claims, which you also failed to substantiate with a single quote from Lenin) from one of the other threads we have had on Lenin's crazy 'theory':

    Yes, so you keep saying, but what we still lack is some explanation from Lenin, or, indeed, from you, how he/you know this, when, according to Lenin, not me, Lenin, all we have are images of the objects around us.

    I quoted several passages in my last reply to you where Lenin tells us that 'images' are all we have as a basis for knowledge -- which you seem to want to ignore (as usual!).

    Here they are again (in case you missed them from earlier), edited in order to help you out:

    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception."
    "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...."
    "and it is obvious that these mental images arise exclusively from sensations."
    "sensations, i.e., the images of the external world, exist within us..."
    "that our perceptions are images of the external world.
    "things exist outside us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images.
    "the outer world, the image of which is our sensations.
    And here is one I didn't quote, where Lenin corrects Bazarov:

    "This is either an idealist lie or the subterfuge of the agnostic, Comrade Bazarov, for sense-perception is not the reality existing outside us, it is only the image of that reality."
    https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...8/mec/two2.htm

    Again, the question is: Can you quote even so much as one single passage where Lenin adds another factor, here?

    Up to now, you seem content to tell us what Lenin did or did not believe without quoting one single passage in support. While I have no doubt that your ideas are interesting, this thread is about what Lenin believed, not what ravn thinks he can sell us.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31447

    Links supplied on request.

    So, and once again, can you quote a single passage from Lenin that tells us he thought there was some other source of knowledge I have missed out? You can easily shut me up. Just one will do.
    And:

    Instead of spinning around in circles over a quote out of context, read the whole book.
    So, what, in your opinion, is the correct context for, say, these words of Lenin's:

    "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.... Our sensation...is only an image of the external world...."
    Looks pretty clear to me: all knowledge comes from sensation, and sensation is "only" an image of the external world.

    If you think differently, maybe you can inform us of some other source of knowledge that isn't from sensation -- which would, by the way, end up refuting Lenin, since he says "All knowledge comes from sensation".

    Or, maybe, inform us of some part or aspect of sensation which isn't a 'image' of the world -- again refuting Lenin, since he tells us that "our sensation is only and image of the external world" and that "our perceptions are images of the external world."

    Perhaps you can quote a passage (just one will do), where Lenin tells us how he proposes to break out of the phenomenalist prison he has built for himself.
    http://www.revforum.com/showthread.p...ll=1#post31452

    You had no answer to this back then, and I suspect you have none today.

    Go on, smarty pants, prove me wrong.

    ravn (Oops! Admitting Lenin limited the source of knowledge to 'images'):

    & why exactly do you object to: "All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception." & "Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world...." that isn't based on idealism no matter how you disguise it or confuse it?
    Happy to answer your question (which I have in fact covered scores of times (no exaggeration) in earlier replies to you) when you answer the dozens I have asked you which you ignore; like these:
    ravn:

    If promoting solipsism is all you can do then your PH.d isn't worth the paper you wipe your ass with. OTOH, if you let go of your bourgeois illusions, you can apply yourself more constructively.
    Don't be silly. How is my quoting Lenin 'promoting solipsism' -- unless you agree with me that it is Lenin who is the solipsist here?

    Oh, and by the way, you have yet to respond to the following:

    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. #59
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Isn't it about now that ravn is let out on day-release to post his Trump-like comments?
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

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

  20. #60
    Senior Voting Member ravn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,469

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein View Post
    ... if Lenin says all he has are 'images', how could he tell the difference between an 'image' and something he had merely 'imagined'?
    An image is not an immaterial stratum. The appearance of an object is a part of the object itself because that's produced by light reflecting from it. & consciousness is awareness of the external world as it presents itself.

    Trying to prove otherwise is not smart. It's just you being an asshole.

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
  •