ckaihatsu wrote:Hmmmm, well, I'll just note that the subject matter is about the real world, so varying approaches to it (TSSI vs. value-form) are either *correct*, or they're not.
I think people on the net these days are mature enough to know what to look for -- that which is veracious -- no matter *who* it's coming from: from you, or Marx, or me, or a commentator on Marx.
I don't think that information and knowledge is so interpersonal- and group-dependent, as you're making it out to be.
I guess I find it somewhat strange or odd that you're *providing* accurate descriptions of 'value', from Marx and Marxist commentators, but then you demur on subscribing to it yourself.
My epistemology takes it that even things which aren't wrong aren't entirely wrong and without some basis in reality.
Rather they tend to be truths stretched too far in their generalization or incomplete.
For example, if I posed mechanical materialism and subjective idealism against one another, they captured something true but were also incomplete and resolved only with the point of human activity, where man is mediated by nature and particularly as a social being primarily.
But in the second place, for Marxists, human beings are not primarily individuals, but social beings. Consequently, people make history in the various social formations which constitute humankind as a species-being.
For example, Marx says:
“But also when I am active scientifically, etc. - an activity which I can seldom perform in direct community with others - then my activity is social, because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being. [Private Property & Communism]
Constructivism was an Art movement centred in Moscow in the 1920s, which emphasised the constructed character of the world. Subsequently, constructivism has come to indicate a very broad school of psychology which asserts that meaning is “constructed” by the subject out of material provided by the external world, rather than “discovered”.
The Marxist School of psychology including Lev Vygotsky, Georges Politzer, Lucien Séve, A R Luria, A N Leontyev and others, is ‘constructivist’, emphasising the social-historical and collaborative character of human activity. On the other hand, relativist constructivism emphasises the voluntarism and autonomy of an individual subject in constructing personal meaning.
Indeed people inevitably have to judge for themselves, however I think sharing pathways is helpful. I certainly have found it helpful to have my attention directed towards something. Whether it's the name of a particular person, theory, explanation of something. Doesn't hurt any to share.
Well what you're sensing is the gap between what I know and can argue for and areas where I do not know and have not made something my own. I am sympathetic to Marxism and would struggle to dissociate my thinking from it. But that doesn't mean I have a comprehensive understanding from which to argue everything and anything, I hold faith that there are answers for somethings based on my experience with some Marxist thinkers who synthesize things greater than people give credit for. However, I do not pretend to know everything and do enjoy the spaces particularly where there is lively debate rather than dogmatic assertion. Where things are too complacent, there is an ease to rely on habits/stereotypical thinking rather than active thought. It is when there is doubt, when things no longer work or there is an obstacle that we're forced to confront things and think them through.
To be educated is also a process of which becoming free is intrinsically a part, for to be educated is not to ‘know’ a range of positions and perspectives but to understand the reasons for holding particular beliefs and rejecting others.
It's the difference between trying to use Marx's distinction of class and understanding the basis of such reasoning and why it's correct.
-For Ethical Politics