How do we know? A scientific theory of knowledge

  • Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date
  • #1
heusdens
1,736
0
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/howdoweknow.htm" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
heusdens,
That link isn't working for me, you might need to check it.
 
  • #3
heusdens
1,736
0
Sorry!

The link is working now!
 
  • #4
Iacchus32
2,312
1
Originally posted by heusdens
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/wpnz/howdoweknow.htm" [Broken]
Hmm ... Communism. Now I see. :wink:

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Communism is anti-religion?

I'm beginning to see why you have such an inherent need to witness its demise. It never really occurred to me how much Communism embraced materialism, but now I can see that it does. While there's no doubt Communism has had a hand in the demoralization of western culture, through it's promotion of materialism. And perhaps it's one reason why people think that science, through its promotion of materialism, is also anti-religious?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Hmm ... Communism. Now I see. :wink:

Wouldn't it be fair to say that Communism is anti-religion?

I'm beginning to see why you have such an inherent need to witness its demise.

I don't have things against religion, people should be able to practice religion in their private domain (also: not in the domain of schools, government, the state, etc).

It never really occurred to me how much Communism embraced materialism, but now I can see that it does.

Communism is based on marxism-leninism, which contains:
1. Dialectical and historical materialism
2. Political economy
3. Scientific communism

While there's no doubt Communism has had a hand in the demoralization of western culture, through it's promotion of materialism.

I think you use here the word 'materialism' not in the context of it's philosophical notion.

And perhaps it's one reason why people think that science, through its promotion of materialism, is also anti-religious?

I think most scientist are effectively materialists (they need the point of view of materialism to be abe to perform science) irrespective of their own personal beliefs and convictions.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by Iacchus32


Wouldn't it be fair to say that Communism is anti-religion?

more then fair, seeing as marx labeled religion as the opiate of the masses or whatever it was exactly.
 
  • #7
Royce
1,513
0
"If you are not a socialist when your ninteen, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you are thirtnine you have no brain." Bismark

Question: How can anyone give any credability to an economic philosopher who let his wife and children starve to death because he couldn't or wouldn't get a job? Communism does not take into account the nature of human beings and what motivates them. It is at best idealistic and has no relevencey in the real world of Man as he is. In an idealistic world with perfect human beings any and all forms of government and economics would work.
 
  • #8
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by heusdens
(they need the point of view of materialism to be abe to perform science) irrespective of their own personal beliefs and convictions. [/B]

I don't think this is true at all. Why would it matter if the external worlds is real? If it isn't, then science is studying the laws of the perceived world.

I remember back in PF 2 there was a debate between LifeGazer and Tom on this very topic. LifeGazer was agreeing with you that science assumes and needs materialism and Tom was saying that it did no such thing. He claimed science didn't need to make an assumption either way to do what it does. I think I agree with Tom on this.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
FZ+
1,588
3
Strange... I remember the opposite. LG was saying that assumption of an external reality is unjustified and a hinderance to looking for knowledge, and people were disagreeing.
 
  • #10
megashawn
Science Advisor
438
0
pretty much.
 
  • #11
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by FZ+
Strange... I remember the opposite. LG was saying that assumption of an external reality is unjustified and a hinderance to looking for knowledge, and people were disagreeing.

Actully the debate you're talking about happens at least once a month. The one I'm talking about happened only once that I saw. LifeGazer was claiming that science has materialism as an assumption. Tom was saying that science makes no such assumption. According to Tom, science only assumes that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.
 
  • #12
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by FZ+
Strange... I remember the opposite. LG was saying that assumption of an external reality is unjustified and a hinderance to looking for knowledge, and people were disagreeing.

That is his personal view, this does not contradict the fact that LG acknowledges the fact that science works on the assumptions of materialism.
 
  • #13
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by Royce
"If you are not a socialist when your ninteen, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you are thirtnine you have no brain." Bismark

Question: How can anyone give any credability to an economic philosopher who let his wife and children starve to death because he couldn't or wouldn't get a job?

Is that to blame on his philosophic work or the social/economic conditions of that time.

Is Jesus to be condemnded, cause he let himself being crucified, does that discredit christianity?

Communism does not take into account the nature of human beings and what motivates them. It is at best idealistic and has no relevencey in the real world of Man as he is. In an idealistic world with perfect human beings any and all forms of government and economics would work.

Wrong. Communism is not an utopian world, with perfect human beings.
Communism is not of Idealistic nature, which does not contradict the fact that communist have ideals.

The relevance of the ideas of Communism for the real world, are not to be neglected, cause they are overwhelming. Without those ideas, in the capitalist societies, labourers would not have had social benefits, labour rights, etc.

The idea of communism is that the human socieity is ever in transition from one form to another form, determined by the laws that govern the economy and production relations.
Phases of human society are known under the name of primitive-communism (early humans), antique slaveholder societies (Greek/Roman empire), Feudalism (middle ages), Capitalism. Capitalism is not the end stage, it's highest stage is that of imperialism, which describes the current phase of capitalism. Socialism and thereafter communism will necessary follow.

The world wide recession, the war, and downfall of the capitalist economy, are clear signs that imperialism/capitalism meets it's deepest crisis today, and necessitates us to take another route for the progress of humanity.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Iacchus32
2,312
1
Determinism vs. Free will

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1873&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
It has been argued that determinism is essential for psychology... the 'free' (or self-generated) kind of behaviour does not exist. So.. is our behaviour determined or is it free? How can we chose one over the other? On what basis can you chose one over the other? Are there implications of this question for the science of psychology?
Are you sure it's not just a matter of put up or shut up? Where those who hold the "prevaling view," are empowered over those who don't? By which it becomes a means to "take liberties" over those who are unable to speak for themselves?
Isn't this pretty much what Communism entails? In fact it's probably where "modern determinism" originates ...

What do you say comrades, shall we take another meeting? ... that we might "impose" upon your views?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
heusdens
1,736
0


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Isn't this pretty much what Communism entails? In fact it's probably where "modern determinism" originates ...

What do you say comrades, shall we take another meeting? ... that we might "impose" upon your views?

Quite on the contrary! Communism will provide freedom for those, that have not sufficient material basis for enabling their lives, despite or due to the fact, that others have "free will".

It is not about conjcturing against "free will" as such, it is conjecturing against stating the absoluteness of that principle of free will on a societal level, as if other aspects of humanity (being interdependend on each other, forming a social group where one lives with each other, and not concurs with each other for available means of living) would be totally irrelevant...
 
  • #16
wuliheron
2,126
0
Stalinist-Leninist communism is, by its own definition, the dialectical opposite capitalism. Both are forms of fundamentalism with roots stretching back to Aristotelian logic. Although notably useful in the historical development of the sciences, their days are numbered as modern science is not founded upon fundamentalism and, in fact, is slowly sweeping fundamentalism under the carpet in favor of more useful, flexible paradymes. Likewise, the capitalistic world is becoming more socialist while the communist world becomes more capitalistic as the realities of life continue to contradict both extreme theories.
 
  • #17
kyle_soule
240
1
Could religion even be considered idealism? Doesn't idealism require that you have actual physical proof sometime or another?

In religions origin it would appear, to me, that it was based on materialism; they observed the world and everything in it, saw supernatural phenomena and had no explanation for the observations, so they created god(s). Today we have explained these observations and therefore have no use for god(s) and might label religion under idealism, but this would be crediting religion with real physical proof, which they don't have.

So, unless I'm terribly wrong in my assumptions, where does religion actually fall into in light of materialism and idealism?
 
  • #18
wuliheron
2,126
0
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Could religion even be considered idealism? Doesn't idealism require that you have actual physical proof sometime or another?

In religions origin it would appear, to me, that it was based on materialism; they observed the world and everything in it, saw supernatural phenomena and had no explanation for the observations, so they created god(s). Today we have explained these observations and therefore have no use for god(s) and might label religion under idealism, but this would be crediting religion with real physical proof, which they don't have.

So, unless I'm terribly wrong in my assumptions, where does religion actually fall into in light of materialism and idealism?

Modern Idealism, Materialism, and mainstream religions all evolved out fundamentalist dialectical, true or false, Aristotelian logic. The paradox of existence is often cited as proof positive for God using this true or false fundamentalism of Aristotle. From the materialistic viewpoint, God is used to explain the existence, validity, and authenticity of the material world. From an idealistic viewpoint, God is used to explain the existence, validity, and authenticity of our emotions and general cognition. Thus fundamentalist western religion can both embrace and reject fundamentalist Idealism and Materialism and vice versa.
 
  • #19
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Stalinist-Leninist communism is, by its own definition, the dialectical opposite capitalism. Both are forms of fundamentalism with roots stretching back to Aristotelian logic. Although notably useful in the historical development of the sciences, their days are numbered as modern science is not founded upon fundamentalism and, in fact, is slowly sweeping fundamentalism under the carpet in favor of more useful, flexible paradymes. Likewise, the capitalistic world is becoming more socialist while the communist world becomes more capitalistic as the realities of life continue to contradict both extreme theories.

The above just shows that you have a dogmatic fundamentalist opinion on communism, and the theory upon which communism is built. I can just state that one of the pillars of marxism-leninism is dialectical materialism. One important dialectical law, that just explains your observation, is the "interprenation of opposites".
 
  • #20
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
Modern Idealism, Materialism, and mainstream religions all evolved out fundamentalist dialectical, true or false, Aristotelian logic. The paradox of existence is often cited as proof positive for God using this true or false fundamentalism of Aristotle. From the materialistic viewpoint, God is used to explain the existence, validity, and authenticity of the material world. From an idealistic viewpoint, God is used to explain the existence, validity, and authenticity of our emotions and general cognition. Thus fundamentalist western religion can both embrace and reject fundamentalist Idealism and Materialism and vice versa.

Materialism goes without any reference to God, as far as materialism is concerned, there is no God. Dialectical materialism is far from Aristotelian logic. This post just shows, you have not much knowledge about dialectical materialism.
 
  • #21
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Could religion even be considered idealism? Doesn't idealism require that you have actual physical proof sometime or another?

In religions origin it would appear, to me, that it was based on materialism; they observed the world and everything in it, saw supernatural phenomena and had no explanation for the observations, so they created god(s). Today we have explained these observations and therefore have no use for god(s) and might label religion under idealism, but this would be crediting religion with real physical proof, which they don't have.

So, unless I'm terribly wrong in my assumptions, where does religion actually fall into in light of materialism and idealism?
[/b]

Idealism is a Philosophy and thus is not equal to religion. However the concepts which come up in Objective Idealism (such as the Absolute Idea -- Hegel) do not stand very far from religious concepts of God.

Materialism takes the position of science. Materialist philosophy could not be established without science. Religion does not originate in materialism, cause materialism actually tries to explain the world as it is, and does not deal with forces or entities that act outside of nature.
 
  • #22
wuliheron
2,126
0
Originally posted by heusdens
The above just shows that you have a dogmatic fundamentalist opinion on communism, and the theory upon which communism is built. I can just state that one of the pillars of marxism-leninism is dialectical materialism. One important dialectical law, that just explains your observation, is the "interprenation of opposites".

No, it just shows that I know the definition of words. Dialectical Materialism is based on the Fundamentalist views of black and white, true and false, and, most pointedly, that change is the only constant (sic) --the fundamental belief that this is the ultimate truth or reality.

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism goes without any reference to God, as far as materialism is concerned, there is no God. Dialectical materialism is far from Aristotelian logic. This post just shows, you have not much knowledge about dialectical materialism.

A religious scientist, for example, might adopt a Materialist view while working or paying their bills, but at other times such as when contemplating the meaning of life adopt a religious view. This is characteristic of fundamentalist western civilization as well which loves to draw neat lines between church and state, real and imagined, thoughts and feelings, etc. Again, what defines each persuit as fundamentalist is not the particulars, but the assertion of absolutes... of ultimate truth and the rejection of the alternative.
 
  • #23
heusdens
1,736
0
Originally posted by wuliheron
No, it just shows that I know the definition of words. Dialectical Materialism is based on the Fundamentalist views of black and white, true and false, and, most pointedly, that change is the only constant (sic) --the fundamental belief that this is the ultimate truth or reality.

No. Dialectics is about contradictions, that happen to reside within anything in nature. Black vs. White is not realy a contradiction.
You should do your homework again on dialectics.

A religious scientist, for example, might adopt a Materialist view while working or paying their bills, but at other times such as when contemplating the meaning of life adopt a religious view. This is characteristic of fundamentalist western civilization as well which loves to draw neat lines between church and state, real and imagined, thoughts and feelings, etc. Again, what defines each persuit as fundamentalist is not the particulars, but the assertion of absolutes... of ultimate truth and the rejection of the alternative.

Yeah. But let's keep the debate healthy, I was talking about science not about scientists. Of course a scientist can have personal judgements and opinions and or beliefs, that are not in any way sceintific or materialistic.
Yet the occupation of science is not about introducing the supernatural, God, or Santa Clause, cause it might help to work out some very profound problems in physics, for example.
That's not science.
 
  • #24
wuliheron
2,126
0
Originally posted by heusdens
No. Dialectics is about contradictions, that happen to reside within anything in nature. Black vs. White is not realy a contradiction.
You should do your homework again on dialectics.

Note that I never said anything about black vs. white, just black and white. Black vs. white is your personal interpretation and has more to do with your attitude I assume than my logic since I clearly stated my position. Before you make further recommendations I suggest you read my statements carefully.

However, along these same lines of reasoning, the position that change is the only constant is in opposition to alternative fundamentalist views. If Dialectical Materialism never took a position in opposition to anything else it would not be called Dialectical Materialism but, instead, mysticism. Thus, to say it is not about contradictions is to contradict its application and definition.

Yeah. But let's keep the debate healthy, I was talking about science not about scientists. Of course a scientist can have personal judgements and opinions and or beliefs, that are not in any way sceintific or materialistic.
Yet the occupation of science is not about introducing the supernatural, God, or Santa Clause, cause it might help to work out some very profound problems in physics, for example.
That's not science.

So, you are asserting then that from a Dialectical Materialistic point of view science is seperate and distinct and in conflict with religion?
 
  • #25
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by heusdens
The world wide recession, the war, and downfall of the capitalist economy, are clear signs that imperialism/capitalism meets it's deepest crisis today, and necessitates us to take another route for the progress of humanity. [/B]
What happens in a few years when there is economic recovery, and the war is over? And the economies WILL recovery. They always do. Recessions are not necessarily signs of a flawed economic system. Recessions are normal occurrences in capitalism. And why would the current combination of recession and war mark the peak of capitalism when this combination has been experienced many times in the past without necessitating communism? Is the sky falling? Again? sigh.

And what is meant by "the downfall of the capitalists economy"? It was mentioned in your post in the list of contributing factors and not as the result, implying that it is an obvious fact of today like recession and war are. What's this all about?

In a few years this is one those post that you wish you never posted. Because I bet every cent I own this isn't going to happen.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Maybe we need a couple of threads devoted to economic theory. I have a fair knowledge of such things and it might prove entertaining.
 
  • #27
Royce
1,513
0
Originally posted by heusdens
Is that to blame on his philosophic work or the social/economic conditions of that time.


It tells me a number of things about him. From what I have read times were tough but there was no widespread famine.
It tells me the he did not have a working knowlege or understanding of even the most basic economic principles. It was either that or he didn't give a damn that his wife and children were starving while he wrote his manefesto and sat around coffee houses debating with his cronies. HE didn't starve to death. I, being old fashioned, have to have some respect for a person or at least his intellect and character before I can give his philosphy any creditability. In short he must have some sort of sanity, sense and functionality about him, not a psychotic and/or pathalogic idealistic egocentric obsessive-compulsive.

Whether Marxism or Stalin-Leninism, communism is idealistic in the sense that it assumes Manking will evolve, become more civilized or more altruistic than now and those who CAN will willingly, happily and productively work and sacrafice their lives and families wellbeing for those who CAN'T or will not provide for themselves.
THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH; to borrow a phrase from Robert Heinline.
As far as religion being an opiate for the masses, Communism just replaces there dogma for religion.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by steppenwolf
more then fair, seeing as marx labeled religion as the opiate of the masses or whatever it was exactly.

Most interesting thing is that Marx was indeed 100% right on that.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by wuliheron
No, it just shows that I know the definition of words. Dialectical Materialism is based on the Fundamentalist views of black and white, true and false, and, most pointedly, that change is the only constant (sic) --the fundamental belief that this is the ultimate truth or reality.


Looks like you don't know what is dialectic meterialism. I studied it, so i can tell you your mistake here. By the way, "dialectic" simply means logical, or argumentative.

There is no such thing in dialectic materializm as fundamental view of world in black and white, true and false, etc. One of laws of dialectic materialism is called "unity of oppositions" - meaning that things are NOT black and white, but rather BOTH black AND white at the same time so to speak - things and phenomena have DUAL nature and this dualities are non-separable. Say, 911 hijackers are plain "black" (villians, bad, false, etc.) for americans but plain "white" (heroes, good, true, etc) for their own religion leaders. An atom (or a proton, photon, graviton, etc) is a particle and a wave at the SAME time. Ceiling of one man is floor of another, and on and on.

So don't be too fundamental in ignorance. Be flexible, acknoledge that Marxism is NOT your of expertise. Simply because you did not study it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
M. Gaspar
679
1
by Heusdens
... the occupation of science is not about introducing the supernatural, God, or Santa Clause, cause it might help to work out some very profound problems in physics, for example.
That's not science. [/B]


I can see how the the concept of "God" might be extraneous to scientific inquiry, but why is CONSCIOUSNESS left out of the equation when it seems obvious that consciousness exists at LEAST as PART of the Universe.

And if speculations lead one to the possibility that the Universe ITSELF is conscious -- and there were a means to "prove" it -- then any cosmological theories would have to INCLUDE the nature and evolution of consciousness.

Perhaps the "problem" lies with our fairy tale concept of "God" which keeps "getting in the way" of seeing the Universe as a living, conscious Being whose NATURAL FORCES -- on every plane (physical, mental, spiritual (if the last exists) -- which keep the wheels in motion...rather than a "Great Outsider".

And since we are CONNECTED to -- and also PRODUCTS OF -- this Cause & Effect Universe ...might it not be useful information to see OURSELVES as exerting "influence" upon the Universe...say, through the EFFECT of INTENTION on the lynchpin of RANDOMNESS?

Of course, there are countervaling forces, which is why we don't always get our way.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
wuliheron
2,126
0
Originally posted by Alexander
Looks like you don't know what is dialectic meterialism. I studied it, so i can tell you your mistake here. By the way, "dialectic" simply means logical, or argumentative.

There is no such thing in dialectic materializm as fundamental view of world in black and white, true and false, etc. One of laws of dialectic materialism is called "unity of oppositions" - meaning that things are NOT black and white, but rather BOTH black AND white at the same time so to speak - things and phenomena have DUAL nature and this dualities are non-separable. Say, 911 hijackers are plain "black" (villians, bad, false, etc.) for americans but plain "white" (heroes, good, true, etc) for their own religion leaders. An atom (or a proton, photon, graviton, etc) is a particle and a wave at the SAME time. Ceiling of one man is floor of another, and on and on.

So don't be too fundamental in ignorance. Be flexible, acknoledge that Marxism is NOT your of expertise. Simply because you did not study it.

I readily admit I am no expert on the subject, however I do happen to live on a commune surrounded by Marxists and have done so for many years. Here is the dictionary definition of dialectics:

dialectics (used with a sing. verb) A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions.

I understand dialectic philosophy believes everything comes in black AND white, but if the purpose of dialectics was not towards resolving contradictions it would be defined as mysticism, absurdism, or somesuch. By asserting that everything has an opposite and promoting a well defined system for resolving contradictions, dialectics defines itself as a fundamentalist belief system. That is, it asserts and promotes a fundamental set of beliefs as the absolute truth or best way to live.
 
  • #32
I find Lenin more interesting than Marx. Observe his dialectical approach as he warns against viewing things strictly as opposites;

Lenin viewed the antithesis of matter and spirit dialectically, warning that the antagonism between them should not be overemphasised, since it is just another aspect of the basic problem of philosophy - the primacy of matter or consciousness: 'To operate beyond these limits with the antithesis of matter and mind, physical and mental, as though they were absolute opposites, would be a great mistake.' Matter is primary and consciousness secondary - but they have a lot in common. Though consciousness is secondary, it is a feature of highly organised matter - the brain - and therefore exists in reality. Far from being alien to nature, consciousness is as normal a product of the natural world as those material objects which it reflects. Consciousness is a reflection of objective reality in the human brain.
Taken from; http://venus.spaceports.com/~theory/philosophy_2.htm
 
  • #33
Originally posted by heusdens
How do we know?
Didn’t this thread begin with this questions, prior to taking a swing into economics?
How can we ‘know’, well, I think Lenin had a lot to say about that too, and it ties into the definition of matter. Here is more from the link in my previous post;

How, then, does a philosopher define matter? In Lenin's view;

'Matter is a philosophical category denoting the objective reality which is given to man by his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them.'

Lenin defined matter as a philosophical category denoting objective reality, which is given to man by his sensations. This answered the question of whether it is possible for man really to know the world from the materialist stance: since matter is reflected in man's sensations, there is no barrier between our sensations and the objective world - and therefore there is no doubt that we can know the world. The basic axioms of the theory of reflection are: that things exist objectively, independent of the individual perceiving them; that they are accessible to human cognition; and that our knowledge is a reflection of the world around us.

The reflection of the objective world in the human consciousness is by no means a simple, direct mirror- image. Cognition is a manifold process with several distinct, albeit related, stages: 'From living perception to abstract thought, and from this to practice, - such is the dialectical path of the cognition of truth, of the cognition of objective reality.'

In his theory of reflection, Lenin traced the transition from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete and inaccurate knowledge to a more adequate understanding, and showed that this was a dialectical process, thus solving the problem of truth, which is central to the theory of cognition. Objective truth is arrived at gradually, dialectically.

Lenin's theory of reflection represented a great advance in philosophy. He considered that a man was a genuine philosophical materialist only if he accepted that cognition is the reflection of the objective world in the human consciousness. And that principle is equally valid today, for the bitter controversy between materialism and idealism remains a living issue.
 
  • #34
Fliption
1,081
1
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Perhaps the "problem" lies with our fairy tale concept of "God" which keeps "getting in the way" of seeing the Universe as a living, conscious Being whose NATURAL FORCES -- on every plane (physical, mental, spiritual (if the last exists) -- which keep the wheels in motion...rather than a "Great Outsider".

Good post. I have mentioned a similar idea in other posts ie. that the word "god" and all the biases it brings prevents us from considering various creative alternatives.
 
  • #35
kyle_soule
240
1
Originally posted by Alexander
Looks like you don't know what is dialectic meterialism. I studied it, so i can tell you your mistake here. By the way, "dialectic" simply means logical, or argumentative.

There is no such thing in dialectic materializm as fundamental view of world in black and white, true and false, etc. One of laws of dialectic materialism is called "unity of oppositions" - meaning that things are NOT black and white, but rather BOTH black AND white at the same time so to speak - things and phenomena have DUAL nature and this dualities are non-separable. Say, 911 hijackers are plain "black" (villians, bad, false, etc.) for americans but plain "white" (heroes, good, true, etc) for their own religion leaders. An atom (or a proton, photon, graviton, etc) is a particle and a wave at the SAME time. Ceiling of one man is floor of another, and on and on.

So don't be too fundamental in ignorance. Be flexible, acknoledge that Marxism is NOT your of expertise. Simply because you did not study it.

We learn the ideas of black and white through sensation, but having learned then we can see immediately that no black thing is white by seeing that the idea of black and the idea of white disagree.

This, IMO, supports what you are saying. To see the real difference between black and white you must observe the difference, and undeniably see that they cannot be the same because of this difference. Now in dialectic materialism, as you say, it claims that black and white aren't the same but can occupy the same thing at once. Since the difference between black and white is purely observable, you see that if indeed you can observe both black and white in the same thing they can easily coexist.

I don't think this adds to the discussion, but I thought it was worth saying:smile:
 

Suggested for: How do we know? A scientific theory of knowledge

Replies
55
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
23K
  • Last Post
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
334
Replies
57
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Top