i mean c’mon. not even an idiot can argue that mathematical or logical truths can be twisted because of “relations of production”. so my question is the extent and context in which that they believe in the notion.
I could be wrong, but I think it’s one of the main points that support the notion of classes. Hence you hear “bourgeois logic” in a mocking tone from some people.
The silliness of the positions aren’t what marxists are about. Most of them are about using violence to alleviate jealousy. And they’ll use any nonsensical arguments or whatever to rationalize their violent path to “paradise”.
Most amateur marxists don’t believe in polylogism, as most of them never even heard of the term or even came across the notion.
You’d be surprised.
Jeff Tucker has an article on this though. Good stuff.
marx dabbled in math himself. i don’t think he would argue that. so my question is the extent and context that he thought polylogism applied to people.
Again, you’d be surprised. Marx explicitly stated that relations of production dictate class behavior and outlooks on social interactions. I haven’t come across explicit sentences saying that there are various forms of logic but it is implicit in his belief that various forms of consciousness exist in the world.
so the question applies to class interests, when different classes take sides based on their prejudices. saying that a class position creates a conflict of interest and that logic is slave to material forces are different positions
Here’s a good article on what polylogic means in which Cain was referring to by Tucker. Good quote:
"And so it is today with so many political arguments. The rhetoric is on a much lower level today, but this is the usual way in which political discussion takes place in the post-Marxist society in which the polylogist assumption drives discussion. Capitalists can’t possibly understand the logic of environmentalist thinking because they are out of touch with nature and its need. Whites cannot even begin to comprehend the demands of blacks for preference and redistribution because the black experience and way of thinking are alien to the white experience and way of thinking. So too with issues of sex, sexuality, religion, and physical ability.
It is usually assumed that one may not even speak about the controversies of our time unless one belongs to the “victim group” being discussed. Even then, if a woman or a black or a gay offers a point of view that runs contrary to the dominant political agenda of the mainstream lobby for these groups, that person is dismissed as somehow lacking higher consciousness or hopelessly mired in a different mindset. She is not a real woman, he is not a real black, they are not really disabled, he doesn’t genuinely represent the views of Islam, etc.
What’s at work here is an unraveling of the entire basis for any form of intellectual discussion. If we can’t agree on universal rules of establishing the veracity of truth claims, all discussion is reduced to a series of demands followed by ad hominem attacks on anyone who resists those demands. Mises himself understood that if we are to avoid this fate, there had to be some understanding and agreement on the rules of logic."
There’s more in the article on Marxist dismissals of Böhm-Bawerk theoretical, thus, logical rebuttals against Marxism. For instance, Rudolf Hilferding responded to Böhm-Bawerk by simply saying Böhm-Bawerk was a bourgeois economist. That was Rudolf’s attempt at a refutation but obviously that kind of polylogic fails to intellectually grasp the ideas of Böhm-Bawerk works.
therefore materialist philosophers (not such marx) espouse a doctrine that is not falsifiable.
How did you come to that conclusion?
they claim that logic is grounded in digestive and biophysical processes. therefore one cannot “check” his logic by using logic.
How is that not Marxist?
im asking whether this also applies to other materialists
oh. I don’t know. I guess it depends on the materialist meaning. I think some interpret everything into materialistic terms but still recognize abstraction though attempt to interpret abstraction into materialistic terminology. Which doesn’t change anything in my opinion only identifying abstractions with matter but there is still abstraction and matter which is back to square one again. Is that what you mean?
This is interesting. Karl Kautsky actually applied Darwinian theorems with historical materialism. So our logic is merely a natural development of evolution. It is somewhat confusing to explain. He believed that throughout the animal kingdom there are behaviors that are already instilled in human beings, an example would be like a bee hive in coordination. The only thing that differs humans from animals is tools [ an orthodox Marxian view ], we developed language to strengthen social cooperation and logic. But if I am reading you correctly, a bourgeois could not disprove Marxist philosophy because he is a bourgeois. It is like saying our ‘tiny, little minds’ cannot handle the shock and awesomeness that is Marxism.
Depends on which materialists. They are pretty diverse in opinion.
"But if I am reading you correctly, a bourgeois could not disprove Marxist philosophy because he is a bourgeois. It is like saying our ‘tiny, little minds’ cannot handle the shock and awesomeness that is Marxism. "
right, but wouldnt this, according to marxians, also apply to math, science and computer programming? and if such a view is not held, what makes geology so different from political economy. if a bourgeois mind can correctly use logic to play chess, why cant he also do political economy?
Because he was born and raised in the bourgeois class. Behold the power of circular reasoning!
Well the superstructure which is composed of social and political interaction is different for a bourgeois because there is a different economic base. Think of it like two different tree diagrams. One for bourgeois and the other for proletariat.
so they are ok for math and science but their logical faculties go haywire when they analyze political economics? let’s not forget that engels was a capitalist who owned a factory and employed labor.
Well, they are picky and inconsistent people. Prima facia the whole Marxist orthodoxy is inconsistent.