Some comments interleaved:
At 12:16 PM 5/20/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
Charles: The demonstration that Mach is an idealist in general is the main thesis of Lenin's book _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_. I don't know whether a reiteration of the main arguments is worthwhile here. .........................
^^^^^^ CB: One thinks of Marx's comments about the need for abstraction to make up for inability to directly observe in certain aspects of science. Marx was talking about political economy, but it applies to natural sciences. Just as the fact that we cannot as individuals directly observe the _whole_ of economic life doesn't thwart a science of it, neither does the indirect inference of the existence of atoms mean that they are metaphysical concepts. Much of astronomy involves indirect observation and inference. Basically anytime instruments such as microscopes and telescopes are used, there is an inference, not a direct observation.
I don't think it was just the existence of atoms at stake. Mach was stuck in the rut of phenomenalism. Dodging the materialist position, Mach attempted to redefine matter as permanent possibilities of sensation.
CB: Einstein essentially has the same position as Lenin on the philosophical dispute Lenin takes up in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_
..................
Charles: Our terminology is that Einstein is a "materialist", with respect to atoms. As Jim points out below, upholding the absoluteness of space and time are not part of what defines a materialist position. Lenin defines materlialism as belief in objective reality outside of our thoughts, not belief in absolute space and time.
I believe you are correct here.
Charles: Never said Einstein had a preconceived ideology. In fact, the point to be made here is that Einstein's arriving at a materialist ( your "realist") position based on, as you say, the dictation of science, is pretty powerful independent corroboration of the Engels-Lenin philosophy of science positions. Without starting out thinking as Engels and Lenin, the great thinker and scientist ,Einstein ,arrives at the same conclusions as Engels and Lenin, and based on actual scientific work, very high quality scientific experience.
I would word this differently. First, scientific conclusions and philosophical conclusions are not identical. Einstein in many respects converged with the (Marxist) materialist position in rejecting empiricism and inductivism. His early interest in Mach was based on the operationalization of basic concepts, hence a rethinking of the empirical meaning of time. Beyond that, Einstein rejected Mach's positivist philosophy. Einstein himself said that scientists are philosophical opportunists, taking from various philosophies what is useful to them. But yes, generically he can certainly be classified as a materialist. Einstein was a physicist, let's not forget, and while he wrote about economics and social affairs, and occasionally commented on the mind-body problem, he never worked out a position and thus never had anything to say about emergentism that I'm aware of. Engels & Lenin corroborate Einstein in the generic sense that both realized early on that scientific developments were going to force a new conception of science. This has happened in a variety of ways. See for example Milic Capek's (1961?) book on the philosophical impact of contemporary physics, as only one example. Now physics and cosmology are in a turmoil, and physicists are openly admitting the need for a revolutionary new theory to account for dark matter/energy. They seem to be tremendously naive philosophically, but the beauty of even the most confused science are the mechanisms of accountability for making empirical data cohere with mathematical formalisms, constructing some kind of physical models, however bizarre, so that science can progress even when people don't really know what they're talking about.
.........
CB: What scientific theory does Lenin dismiss on philosophical grounds in M&EC ? None. He criticizes empirio-criticism, a philosophical theory. He doesn't criticize any physical theories, Mach's or others, in M&EC. He only says the new physical theories of that period are not a basis for ditching materialism ( your realism), as Mach does.
I believe you are correct here.
Justin: As for > Einstein's "realims" it was case by case. Einstein > took no position on "materialism," the idea that > everything in the world is in some sense material.
Charles: Lenin's definition of materialism in M&EC is belief in the existence of objective reality. Einstein believes in the objective reality of atoms, which he specifically disputed with Mach, who coincidently was the main target of Lenin's book on the general issue that the atoms issue is a specific example of.
Einstein made some statements that evince belief in God. That would be non-materialism.
Lenin terms Mach a Kantian , i.e. dualist, shamefaced materialist, agnostic. Einstein may have been more dualist, just not on atoms.
I don't recall whether Einstein said it explicitly, but I'm pretty sure Einstein did think that everything in the world was material. As for belief in God, Einstein was a Spinozist, and thus his "God" was a vague impersonal concept. But I don't recall Einstein suggesting that God was non-material or spiritual in nature. I don't think Einstein really thought out this position very carefully.
_______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
