Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 76 of 76

Thread: dialectics

  1. #61
    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, clearly out on day-release again (we can only hope he has remembered to take the 'image' of his meds):

    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.
    Of course, the next question (asked many times, and yet to be answered by our very own solipsist, ravn) -- is: If Lenin tells you that all you have are 'images' then how do you know there are any objects out there to reflect anything? For all you know there are no 'objects' out there since, according to Lenin, not me -- Lenin -- all you have are 'images'.

    [I hasten to add, once more, that I don't believe there are no objects out there that exist independently of us, but then I reject this idealist theory of Lenin's (and ravn's). The point is that our very own Subjective Idealist, ravn, accepts this 'theory' when he plainly hasn't thought it through.]

    Trying to prove otherwise is not smart. It's just you being an asshole.
    Where have I tried to prove anything? All I have done is ask you a series of questions which you struggle to understand, let alone answer.

    In which case, you are clearly more of a danger to yourself than you are to the ruling class.

    [Do you have a cork on all your forks, by any chance?]

    Oh, and by the way:

    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

  2. #62
    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
    Of course, the next question (asked many times, and yet to be answered by our very own solipsist, ravn) -- is: If Lenin tells you that all you have are 'images' ...
    ... of the external world. It's you who are questioning that, & raising uncertainty about objective reality, so it is you who is being solipsistic. & then you project that as being a problem in other people's thinking, rather than in yours.

    So, not only you're stupid. You're dishonest.

  3. #63
    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, deliberately missing the point:

    .. of the external world. It's you who are questioning that, & raising uncertainty about objective reality, so it is you who is being solipsistic. & then you project that as being a problem in other people's thinking, rather than in yours.

    So, not only you're stupid. You're dishonest.
    Well, according to Lenin, all you have is an 'image' of what my 'image' posted to your 'image' of this thread, so don't blame me -- it's you who is making me do it.

    And this:

    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

  4. #64
    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
    [A]ccording to Lenin, all you have is an 'image' of what my 'image' posted to your 'image' of this thread, so don't blame me -- it's you who is making me do it.
    That's according to you, based on your own sophistic word games & a denial of optics. Consciousness, through the senses, is awareness of the external world as it presents itself, & that reality is not immaterial. You're just hell bent to confuse perception with conception & then try to claim that's a problem inherent in what you deliberately misinterpret the meaning of.

    Even schizophrenics aren't going to deny objective reality regardless that their malady causes the confusion you deliberately try to rationalize here.

    Don't you have something better to do than be an obfuscating moron?

  5. #65
    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, now off on another planet:

    That's according to you, based on your own sophistic word games & a denial of optics. Consciousness, through the senses, is awareness of the external world as it presents itself, & that reality is not immaterial. You're just hell bent to confuse perception with conception & then try to claim that's a problem inherent in what you deliberately misinterpret the meaning of. Even schizophrenics aren't going to deny objective reality regardless that their malady causes the confusion you deliberately try to rationalize here.
    Already covered -- see below

    Don't you have something better to do than be an obfuscating moron?
    Yes, I am tired of trying to impersonate you; I'll leave all that obfuscating and all those moronic posts to you from now on, there's no way I can match your expertise in this area. I can only apologise for even thinking I could match you, oh Great One.



    OK, so here it is again for you to ignore once more (I am quite happy to keep posting it until you respond effectively to it, or show some sign you even understand the issues involved -- and you know me well enough by now to also know that this isn't an empty threat -- even if that takes six months, or a year, or...):

    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

  6. #66
    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
    ravn, now off on another planet:
    The planet you refer to is earth. In the universe that planet exists in, optic images are created by refractions or reflections of light off of real things, not ideas.

  7. #67
    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 incapable of responding to these:

    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

  8. #68
    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
    ravn, still incapable of responding to these:
    I already addressed that which you insist on misinterpreting over & over again. You're stuck on interpreting "imaged" to mean "imagined" as if there is no real discernible difference between the two. That's clearly wrong, & to insist otherwise is just deranged.

    Your whole attack against dialectics is just a pointless straw-man. The question of the day is:


  9. #69
    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, now going round in an 'image' of a circle:

    I already addressed that which you insist on misinterpreting over & over again. You're stuck on interpreting "imaged" to mean "imagined" as if there is no real discernible difference between the two. That's clearly wrong, & to insist otherwise is just deranged.
    Covered already, here it is again:

    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

  10. #70
    Paperback Writer RevForum Administrator Amoeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,902

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Received a request to close this thread.

    Unless there are any objections, I'll do so.
    To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them.

  11. #71
    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

    Well, it's not going anywhere since ravn, true-to-form, refuses to engage. It it is left open, all that will happen is that ravn will keep missing the point (deliberately) and I'll just keep re-posting the same unanswered comments, even if that takes six months or a year.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

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

  12. #72
    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
    ravn, now going round in an 'image' of a circle:
    You're demonstrating exactly what I accused you of. Now you run to your enablers. I've had enough of you, witless-stein, & this stupid forum.

  13. #73
    Paperback Writer RevForum Administrator Amoeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,902

    Default Re: The Republican Party: From Lincoln to Fascism

    Y'know, you could just...not respond to this thread or Rosa?
    To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer,
    Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them.

  14. #74
    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, responding to the 'images' in that 'image' of a head of 'his':

    You're demonstrating exactly what I accused you of. Now you run to your enablers. I've had enough of you, witless-stein, & this stupid forum.
    You've said that before, changed what little was left of your mind, and then returned.

    Hurry back so I can annoy you some more. :-)
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

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

  15. #75
    Administrator RevForum Administrator CornetJoyce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,766

    Default Re: dialectics

    Nobody seems to object to closing the thread, so maybe it's time.
    I suggest that the participants each post a summation first.
    Einstein on marxology:
    "In the realm of the seekers after truth there is no human authority.
    Whoever attempts to play the magistrate there founders on the laughter of the Gods."

  16. #76
    Senior Voting Member Rosa Lichtenstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,615

    Default Re: dialectics

    Well, CJ, ravn has flounced off in a dialectical huff. so as far as I am concerend you can close this 'image' of a thread in ravn's otherwise empty head.
    The emancipation of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.

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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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