JHE
.
It's from The German Ideology.Donna Ferentes said:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2KM & FE said:
The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
JHE
.
Oh, for goodness sake! Marx was being sarcastic. He used 'metaphysical' and 'theological' to mean obscure and mystified. Isn't that obvious?phildwyer said:
Can you really believe that Marx saw the commodity (or anything else, for that matter) as properly understood by means of theology or metaphysics? That is the exact opposite of his approach!
revol68
what, fucking what?
no you see phildywer likes to take a new apporach to Marx which involves the stripping of all context from his quotes.
It achieves some amazing results, for example he can show that Marx rejected materialism by quoting Marx attacking Feuerbachs ahistorical materialism.
It achieves some amazing results, for example he can show that Marx rejected materialism by quoting Marx attacking Feuerbachs ahistorical materialism.
Maybe it would be taking things a bit fast to attempt a rational proof of God's existence without first being sure we all know and agree what we mean by -God-, and what we mean by "existence"
Otherwise, we might just be talking at cross-purposes, having the illusion of debate, when in fact we all understand not what the other person is saying, but what we prefer to hear.
I admit that defining god is difficult, perhaps an impossibility, -especially if God doesn't exist?- or in any case, But, all the same, I think someone ought to do it, just for clarity's sake. Not me though. I'd be worried about blasphemy.
Existence. Well surely everyone knows what "existence" means..
But do they. ?
What do you think of the following propositions.
Wales exists.
Truth exists,
Beauty exists.
Quarks exist.
Romantic music exists.
Sexual desire exists.
Innocence exists.
The past exists.
Evil exists.
Fear exists.
Hope exists.
The future exists.
Godel's theorem exists.
Rationality exists.
Gravity exists.
The blood of christ exists.
This could go on for ever, but the list should make it clear that the meaning of "exists" is far from straightforward. For that matter, the meaning of rational is not exactly straightforward either.
There is a point of view that "existence" is a bankrupt materialist concept, and that it makes much more sense to talk about the tuned-in and the not-tuned-in, but if you think that's just hippy bollox, I won't be surprised.
Anyway, not meaning to slow things down,
but seriously, it's probably a good thing that phil's waited so long to deliver his proof, as it gives us all the opportunity to get some clarity, and make sure we know what we're discussing. 
Otherwise, we might just be talking at cross-purposes, having the illusion of debate, when in fact we all understand not what the other person is saying, but what we prefer to hear.
I admit that defining god is difficult, perhaps an impossibility, -especially if God doesn't exist?- or in any case, But, all the same, I think someone ought to do it, just for clarity's sake. Not me though. I'd be worried about blasphemy.
Existence. Well surely everyone knows what "existence" means..
But do they. ?
What do you think of the following propositions.
Wales exists.
Truth exists,
Beauty exists.
Quarks exist.
Romantic music exists.
Sexual desire exists.
Innocence exists.
The past exists.
Evil exists.
Fear exists.
Hope exists.
The future exists.
Godel's theorem exists.
Rationality exists.
Gravity exists.
The blood of christ exists.
This could go on for ever, but the list should make it clear that the meaning of "exists" is far from straightforward. For that matter, the meaning of rational is not exactly straightforward either.
There is a point of view that "existence" is a bankrupt materialist concept, and that it makes much more sense to talk about the tuned-in and the not-tuned-in, but if you think that's just hippy bollox, I won't be surprised.
Anyway, not meaning to slow things down,
but seriously, it's probably a good thing that phil's waited so long to deliver his proof, as it gives us all the opportunity to get some clarity, and make sure we know what we're discussing. 
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if god existed he'd have a rather quirky sense of humour to reveal the ineffable proof here, on this bulletin board.
It gratifies me immensely to see so many earnest seekers of truth on these boards. It has never been my policy to turn away those who thirst for wisdom. However, I regret to say that I cannot respond to any of the PM’s I have received on this subject, nor can I agree to post more than *once* a day on this thread (although I may well break my post up into two or three so that it fits on the boards). No mortal man could do more. My apologies.
I shall begin by answering *all* of the objections raised to the first stage of my argument, then I shall move onto to second stage. If anyone is still unsatisfied with my response they should say so, for I believe I can deal with every single query you can raise. The best approach is probably to tackle the various posters one by one.
GURRIER: Go away. Go far away. I candidly tell you that you are not welcome on this thread. It is clear that, as usual, your only purpose is to troll, disrupt, derail, and distract those who sincerely want to learn. There are plenty of other threads where the heathen can rage without restraint.
BUTCHERS: Before exchange, human beings were apes. No, ‘value’ is not the only mediator between the objects, but it is the paradigmatic one. No, the third factor (value) is not the same as the first two (cow and lamb). Marx says that “producing the means of subsistence” defines human beings, but he clearly doesn’t mean producing food, for hunter-gatherers do not do that. He says that they “indirectly [produce] their material life” thereby, so this production of subsistence is not material. What Marx refers to is the production of the *concept,* the means by which human beings impose their own consciousness and perceptions upon the natural world. This is how human beings live *qua* human beings: it is the production of their “means of subsistence,” and it is the “indirect means by which” they produce their material life, which is NOT the same thing as material production. It is a prior stage, it is what makes material production possible.
BERNIE: Don’t worry, I’m not going to say that value is an object or anything analogous to an object, quite the reverse. At this stage of the argument anyway.
FRUITLOOP: You couldn’t be more wrong in your attempt to predict may argument. I did not say that gift and commodity exchange were the same, I said that the former is a species of the latter. Non-reciprocity is an option in commodity exchange too, the owner of the cow could renege on the bargain once he’d taken possession of the lamb. If you accept that gift-exchange *can* be made in the expectation of something else, my argument is valid anyway. I’m talking about exchange *per se,* not any particular type of exchange.
KYSER: I’m not gay. Ladies are always welcome.
SLEATERKINNEY: No, value is not material, it is a concept, an idea.
PICKMAN’S: Do you take me for a mug? I’m published all these ideas before this, and been paid for them too. This exercise is purely a public service. Don’t mention it.
OK, I’m going to have a sausage. I’ll send this off now, since many of you are becoming impatient. I will continue in a minute.
I shall begin by answering *all* of the objections raised to the first stage of my argument, then I shall move onto to second stage. If anyone is still unsatisfied with my response they should say so, for I believe I can deal with every single query you can raise. The best approach is probably to tackle the various posters one by one.
GURRIER: Go away. Go far away. I candidly tell you that you are not welcome on this thread. It is clear that, as usual, your only purpose is to troll, disrupt, derail, and distract those who sincerely want to learn. There are plenty of other threads where the heathen can rage without restraint.
BUTCHERS: Before exchange, human beings were apes. No, ‘value’ is not the only mediator between the objects, but it is the paradigmatic one. No, the third factor (value) is not the same as the first two (cow and lamb). Marx says that “producing the means of subsistence” defines human beings, but he clearly doesn’t mean producing food, for hunter-gatherers do not do that. He says that they “indirectly [produce] their material life” thereby, so this production of subsistence is not material. What Marx refers to is the production of the *concept,* the means by which human beings impose their own consciousness and perceptions upon the natural world. This is how human beings live *qua* human beings: it is the production of their “means of subsistence,” and it is the “indirect means by which” they produce their material life, which is NOT the same thing as material production. It is a prior stage, it is what makes material production possible.
BERNIE: Don’t worry, I’m not going to say that value is an object or anything analogous to an object, quite the reverse. At this stage of the argument anyway.
FRUITLOOP: You couldn’t be more wrong in your attempt to predict may argument. I did not say that gift and commodity exchange were the same, I said that the former is a species of the latter. Non-reciprocity is an option in commodity exchange too, the owner of the cow could renege on the bargain once he’d taken possession of the lamb. If you accept that gift-exchange *can* be made in the expectation of something else, my argument is valid anyway. I’m talking about exchange *per se,* not any particular type of exchange.
KYSER: I’m not gay. Ladies are always welcome.
SLEATERKINNEY: No, value is not material, it is a concept, an idea.
PICKMAN’S: Do you take me for a mug? I’m published all these ideas before this, and been paid for them too. This exercise is purely a public service. Don’t mention it.
OK, I’m going to have a sausage. I’ll send this off now, since many of you are becoming impatient. I will continue in a minute.
A few more to consider or ignore, as you will.
The national debt exists.
Hallucinations exist.
Delusions exist.
I exist.
You exist.
Space exists.
Time exists.
What do you reckon. Is existence a well-defined concept. Does it always mean the same thing, no matter what you're talking about?
The national debt exists.
Hallucinations exist.
Delusions exist.
I exist.
You exist.
Space exists.
Time exists.
What do you reckon. Is existence a well-defined concept. Does it always mean the same thing, no matter what you're talking about?
trashpony
Hag
In Bloom said:I just wasted several minutes of my life reading this thread and I'm still none the wiser as to what is going on here
Phil Dwyer is going to prove to us that God really does exist. Part one was yesterday (OP). Part two will follow later today, providing he hasn't choked on his sausage.
It could take some time so unless you're really interested, you may want to find something more useful to do with your life.
And now to the second stage of my case. Z-WORD, no, "existence" is by no means an easy category, you are right. But I hope to allow my understanding of "existence" to emerge in the course of my argument. As yest, I have not established the grounds on which to define it. AXON and PERPLEXIS, I think you’ll find that your points are addressed in the course of my argument here, but let me know if you don’t agree. One of you (can’t remember which) said that the notion of “possession,” or private property, must precede exchange. I’d argue that it comes into being simultaneously with exchange, and could have no content without the concept of exchange. You both ask in what sense the value of the cow is “perceptible” in the material body of the lamb. Let us consider the matter further.
Obviously it is not materially perceptible. When the “owner” of the cow looks at the lamb, he does not see a cow: he sees a lamb. But he also perceives the *value* of the cow, he says to himself “that lamb is *worth* one cow, it is the *equivalent* of one cow.” The lamb thus has two distinct existences for him. It has a natural, material and essential existence as a lamb, and it also has a conceptual, ideal and arbitrary existence as the value of a cow. Thus we see how exchange necessitates the production of *concepts,* of *ideas.* Human beings are defined by their ability to produce these ideas, animals cannot do it. No ape will look at the lamb and see the value of a cow. But human beings can--and by definition must--impose their ideas on the world. The world has a dual existence for them: an existence in itself (the lamb qua lamb) and an existence that humans have invented (the lamb qua value of cow).
I think we can push the argument a bit further at this second stage. There are two worlds, the natural world and the world that human beings have made. The latter, to return to a point made by BUTCHERS, is expressed in language, so that words are certainly a mediator between things, just as value is. Now consider the notion of *mediation* itself. Clearly, the exchange of just one cow for just one lamb will be a rarity. In practice, exchange will take place between different quantities of these creatures, so that ten lambs will be exchange for five cows, for example. This involves a second, and higher, leap of reasoning. Now the respective owners must be able to conceive of some quality that cows and lambs share between them--a common denominator, if you will. Cows and lambs must be *alike* in some way, they must be *equivalent.* But naturally and materially speaking, of course, cows and lambs are different and not the same. If they were the same there would be no point in exchanging them. Human beings are thus faced with the task of *creating,* or *producing* an equivalence between two things that are naturally different.
Let us leave our ancestors in this conundrum for the present. I want to ensure that everyone is with me so far. Tomorrow, I will finish off any lingering objections to part one of my argument, provide the initial refutations to the objections to part two, and advance part three for the first time. Once again, please be aware that I cannot respond to PM’s, nor will I be cajoled into posting further on this thread until tomorrow.
Obviously it is not materially perceptible. When the “owner” of the cow looks at the lamb, he does not see a cow: he sees a lamb. But he also perceives the *value* of the cow, he says to himself “that lamb is *worth* one cow, it is the *equivalent* of one cow.” The lamb thus has two distinct existences for him. It has a natural, material and essential existence as a lamb, and it also has a conceptual, ideal and arbitrary existence as the value of a cow. Thus we see how exchange necessitates the production of *concepts,* of *ideas.* Human beings are defined by their ability to produce these ideas, animals cannot do it. No ape will look at the lamb and see the value of a cow. But human beings can--and by definition must--impose their ideas on the world. The world has a dual existence for them: an existence in itself (the lamb qua lamb) and an existence that humans have invented (the lamb qua value of cow).
I think we can push the argument a bit further at this second stage. There are two worlds, the natural world and the world that human beings have made. The latter, to return to a point made by BUTCHERS, is expressed in language, so that words are certainly a mediator between things, just as value is. Now consider the notion of *mediation* itself. Clearly, the exchange of just one cow for just one lamb will be a rarity. In practice, exchange will take place between different quantities of these creatures, so that ten lambs will be exchange for five cows, for example. This involves a second, and higher, leap of reasoning. Now the respective owners must be able to conceive of some quality that cows and lambs share between them--a common denominator, if you will. Cows and lambs must be *alike* in some way, they must be *equivalent.* But naturally and materially speaking, of course, cows and lambs are different and not the same. If they were the same there would be no point in exchanging them. Human beings are thus faced with the task of *creating,* or *producing* an equivalence between two things that are naturally different.
Let us leave our ancestors in this conundrum for the present. I want to ensure that everyone is with me so far. Tomorrow, I will finish off any lingering objections to part one of my argument, provide the initial refutations to the objections to part two, and advance part three for the first time. Once again, please be aware that I cannot respond to PM’s, nor will I be cajoled into posting further on this thread until tomorrow.
pinkmonkey
2.4 hour party person
So when are you going to mark my work, Phil? I've been waiting for fuckin' weeks.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Both possession and exchange both depend on the concept of value. The difference between them is surely this:phildwyer said:
- The concept of possession of an object requires only one person to have realised that there is such a concept as value which can be applied to the object (i.e. to his/herself).
- Exchange additionally involves:
- a second person who has also understood the concept of value, and
- concordance between the two persons' respective systems of valuation, so that they can agree on the equivalence in value of the items to be exchanged (which in turn necessitates either complex language to express concepts of value, or an inbuilt list of intrinsic values of things), and
- the concept of trust so that both persons can engage in the exchange.
Therefore the the concept of "possession" is surely a subset of the set of concepts denoted "exchange", and therefore must have preceded it.
And I've still no idea how God comes into this...
The world's most pompous man is making an abject idiot of himself in public and a crowd is gathering to point and laugh. At least that's my reading of the situation.In Bloom said:I just wasted several minutes of my life reading this thread and I'm still none the wiser as to what is going on here
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Boring potential converts? I don't think much of Phil's (peace be upon His keyboard) strategy...trashpony said:Patience! He's going to tell us in about 40 days' time I reckon, by which time he hopes he'll have worn down our resistance - or that people that disagree with him will have become bored and stopped posting.
I have it on some* authority that Rev. Sun Myung Moon is verily not quaking in his boots at this very moment.
* completely fictitious
maomao
普費斯
Phil
Here's a couple of pieces of research that you really should take into account:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000077
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050128_monkey_business.html
Monkeys with a sense of exchange. Which really means you can't be given your assumption that such things are limited to humans. Sorry. Start again.
Here's a couple of pieces of research that you really should take into account:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000077
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050128_monkey_business.html
Monkeys with a sense of exchange. Which really means you can't be given your assumption that such things are limited to humans. Sorry. Start again.
But Phil, Phil -
Kurt Gödel spent the last few decades of his life trying to prove the existence of god using modal logic.
And that was how everyone knew he'd totally lost it.
And he failed. And if anyone could have done anything with modal logic, it was he.
He died of starvation, convinced that everyone around him was trying to poison him.
It's not too late. Back away from the keyboard, slowly, now.
Take up watercolouring or something else relaxing.
Kurt Gödel spent the last few decades of his life trying to prove the existence of god using modal logic.
And that was how everyone knew he'd totally lost it.
And he failed. And if anyone could have done anything with modal logic, it was he.
He died of starvation, convinced that everyone around him was trying to poison him.
It's not too late. Back away from the keyboard, slowly, now.
Take up watercolouring or something else relaxing.
I shall be taking questions about God's special message between 10.00pm and 10.15pm tonight. Please do not respond to this post outside of these times, as I far more worthwhile and important things to do with my time than listen to your silly and irrational anti-religious dogma.
parallelepipete
Aelod cysylltiol y Taliban Cymraeg
Saturday evening thought:trashpony said:
If God is omnipotent, then why isn't he/she/it able to prove it himself? And if he/she/it is, then by failing to do so, he/she/it's obviously lazy and hasn't got his/her/its mind on the job (which might explain why there's so many fuck-ups in this world).
Brought to you by the influence of a fine Islay single malt (which will remain nameless to keep U75 pure and unsullied by advertising
)Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
phildwyer said:
No, they don't need to be equivalent. If someone is exchanging a cow for a lamb, they will be aiming to get the greatest value possible to them. So if I have a cow, I'll exchange it for a lamb if the value to me is greater than the value of my cow. If it's the same I might as well not bother. Similarly the person who is giving me the lamb values my cow as greater than the value of their lamb. We each have our own value on the cow and the lamb, which are neccessarily different between the two of us and do not have to be equivalent.
- Status
Similar threads
