What is lbirdism?

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
lem_
Tried what - what have you ever tried to do haha

What do you mean?

Please explain... I'm only saying that you can't entirely avoid induction, do you disagree?

And that Einstein is talking about the facts of experience? Do you disagree

lem_
LBird I am not looking to

LBird I am not looking to defeat your argument, if I was trying to I would just point out that even you don't really believe it, because it isn't consistent.

I am just trying to work out what it is your believe.

Are you not answering my questions out of principle?

LBird
Without words, there is no meaning

lem_ wrote:

What do you mean?

Please explain... I'm only saying that you can't entirely avoid induction, do you disagree?

And that Einstein is talking about the facts of experience? Do you disagree

To 'explain' what I 'mean', lem_, I have to use words: mine, Marx's, Einstein's, Pannekoek's...

But you simply ignore 'words', and so can't grasp what is 'meant'.

You're not really asking for an explanation; you just want your religious devotion to 'matter' to be confirmed.

I can't do that, because I agree with Marx, Einstein and Pannekoek.

You agree with Engels and Lenin.

 

LBird
Wasted effort

lem_ wrote:

LBird I am not looking to defeat your argument, if I was trying to I would just point out that even you don't really believe it, because it isn't consistent.

I am just trying to work out what it is your believe.

Are you not answering my questions out of principle?

lem_, I've spent (and apparently, wasted) far too much time on you. Don't kid yourself that I'm at fault.

lem_
nubs

LBird wrote:

lem_ wrote:

What do you mean?

Please explain... I'm only saying that you can't entirely avoid induction, do you disagree?

And that Einstein is talking about the facts of experience? Do you disagree

To 'explain' what I 'mean', lem_, I have to use words: mine, Marx's, Einstein's, Pannekoek's...

But you simply ignore 'words', and so can't grasp what is 'meant'.

You're not really asking for an explanation; you just want your religious devotion to 'matter' to be confirmed.

I can't do that, because I agree with Marx, Einstein and Pannekoek.

You agree with Engels and Lenin.

 

i am not ignoring you!
 

do you still have the capacity to understand the words of people that aren't einstein??

i have never even read any engels, and the only lenin stuff i've read i don't really believe. but you're welcome to deduce that i do...

i will ask again (becasue unlike you i believe what you say): do you suppose that you / einstein / marx are deducing facts that are about experience? 

and whatever your answer is: what have i said that you disagree with ???

lem_
i am an idealist-materialist,

i am an idealist-materialist, like marx, einstein, rosa luxemborg, and i think LBird.

but i can't be sure cos LBird won't say what they believe 

lem_
on the grounds that LBird

on the grounds that LBird can't say what they don't believe, i conclude that unlike marx, einstein, rosa and myself, he or she is actually a bourgeois idealist-materialist.

i.e. a follower of kautsky

annoying isn't it ?

LBird
Once more, a historical account

'Induction' is 'practice and theory'.

Marx argued for 'theory and practice'. So did Einstein.

I agree with Marx and Einstein, so I don't believe in 'induction'.

Engels and Lenin, whose ideas have dominated since the 2nd International, have shaped your ideas, obviously indirectly, since you claim never to have read either, because you've listened to others who have also been so dominated.

'Induction' is a myth, because humans always, inescapably, use theory and practice. Marx was correct, and was confirmed by Einstein.

Those who claim to employ 'practice and theory', induction, are hiding their 'theory', often unconsciously, because of their bourgeois programming.

If 'private property' is the source of 'ideas', we're fucked.

lem_
i don't employ "practice and

i don't employ "practice and theory": i along with the history of left communists, employ "theory and practice about experience"

lem_
isn't there a parliamentary

isn't there a parliamentary socialist page you boruegois idealist-materialists could post on ?

i post on this left communist page, becasue my idealist-materialism is about experience.

what about the labour party have you tried their site ?

LBird
Meaningless phrase

lem_ wrote:

i don't employ "practice and theory": i along with the history of left communists, employ "theory and practice about experience"

'Theory and practice about experience' is a nonsensical claim.

Either 'theory' is the starting point, or 'experience/practice' is.

'Experience/practice' is individual, based upon one's biological senses.

'Theory' is always social, and Marx claims that even our senses are also social (perception, not sensation).

I agree with Marx, that experience is social and historical (not individual and biological), and is thus always based upon a social theory.

The 19th century bourgeoisie claimed that their elite experts had a method that allowed their experience to tell them The Truth. Engels and Lenin believed this claim.

Einstein showed that Newton was wrong, and displayed that physics was social, and that Marx had been correct.

lem_
i agree with everything

i agree with everything you've sad except the first statement...

the idea that scientific revolutions aren't about experience, is a bourgeois ideal. what are our deductions about - some transcendental realm of real Being?

no, your theory is a kind of bouregois one, that seeks to do away with science and progress. you are newton after einstein - redundant, a charicature of change that will preserve the realism of the past at any cost.

the only thing that stays the same, for us proletarian idealist-materialists, is the mathematics of it

LBird
Mathematics are produced by humans

lem_ wrote:

the only thing that stays the same, for us proletarian idealist-materialists, is the mathematics of it

No.

Mathematics are a human social product, and thus change. Gallileo was wrong to claim that 'mathematics was the language of nature'.

That myth, of 'objective maths', is a bourgeois myth.

For example, read about Kurt Godel, the most famous logician and mathematician of the 20th century. He was a bourgeois individualist, who looked to Husserl for philosophical inspiration.

lem_
i didn't say

i didn't say "objective". all i meant is that the "truths" of maths are fixed once they have been uncovered. this is proletarian: whereas you are saying that the structure of the universe can be undone and made anew by individual mathematicians. 

it is you that is the individualist, we proletarian idealist-materialists can formulate and reformulate answers freely with each other, in solidarity. but the mathematics of it is what keeps us doing so.

anyway LBird i see that you strongly believe that you know nothing about experience, so i won't keep your busy mind.

peace, and thanks for sharing your awesome insight ! even tho it is bourgeois idealist-materialist

LBird
Fixed upon discovery

lem_ wrote:

i didn't say "objective". all i meant is that the "truths" of maths are fixed once they have been uncovered.

[my bold]

The myth of 'uncovering truths' is a bourgeois myth.

Pannekoek said that the 'laws of nature' are social.

Marx argued that changing the world is the proletarian method, not simply interpreting it.

You follow the bourgeois myth of 'discovery science', lem_.

You say 'fixed', Communists say 'socially dynamic'.

The 'truth' can be changed by humans. We create it - we can change it.

lem_
we cannot change the facts of

we cannot change the facts of number.
 

i agree that some proletarians agree that the laws expressed in mathematics can change. but we alll agree that maths itself (2+3=5) are fixed

which is why you can only claim the heritage of kautsky

LBird
The basics of facts?

lem_ wrote:

we cannot change the facts of number.
 

i agree that some proletarians agree that the laws expressed in mathematics can change. but we alll agree that maths itself (2+3=5) are fixed

Communists don't agree.

Otherwise, why can 2+2=11?

 

lem_
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Marxist_Tendency

https://www.marxist.com/science-old/mathematicsreflectreality.html
 

Quote:
Kautsky’s book is a masterpiece of the method of historical materialism. That said, it must be admitted that Kautsky was not the first person to attempt a scientific (non-religious) analysis of the gospels and Christianity.

it's fine, i decided i don't want a thing to do with this bourgeois mess. fuck it, over it - good luck to the proletariat.

LBird
Round in circles

lem_ wrote:

https://www.marxist.com/science-old/mathematicsreflectreality.html

On that link, who is quoted straightaway?

Yes, you've all guessed it, Engels, and not Marx.

Why won't you accept, lem_, that you're an Engelsist, like Lenin, and not a Marxist?

lem_
LBird if you really think

LBird if you really think that einstein isn't talking about deducing facts about experience, then i'm sorry i think you are wrong and i nearly pity you.

excuse me if i don't wish you good luck, though you will need it :-)

lem_
i am not an "engelist" or a

i am not an "engelist" or a "leninst" or even a "marxist" (anymore).

get the fuck out, you live to distort other people's interpretations into being about yourself - nothing at all.

i'm out.

good luck to the communist left, you won't need it if you keep your shit together...

LBird
Ignoring Einstein's actual words

lem_ wrote:

LBird if you really think that einstein isn't talking about deducing facts about experience, then i'm sorry i think you are wrong and i nearly pity you.

excuse me if i don't wish you good luck, though you will need it :-)

Yeah, funny that, isn't it, lem_?

I quote Einstein, having read his words, and having read several books about his views, and having read Marx, Pannekoek, etc., etc., and I need 'good luck'?

Try opening a book now and then, think critically, become a Communist, and stop merely repeating your bourgeois brainwashing.

Facts are not induced from experience. Otherwise, we can't change 'The Facts'. We would be merely interpreting 'The Truth'.

Read Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.

 

LBird
Just an individual

lem_ wrote:

i am not an "engelist" or a "leninst" or even a "marxist" (anymore).

You never were the latter.

You've never read Marx - you just believe the myths that you've been told.

lem_
no, i've read marx don't just

no, i've read marx don't just be a gobshite.

i repeat, einstein worked out something based on experience. scientists don't pull this shit out their butts, ffs, it's about experience.

how can experience prove a theory wrong if it has nothing to do with experience??? ?

no i've been a marxist, congratulations for breaking me - like a long day at work you are - mr bird

lem_
it's just laughable that you

it's just laughable that you think einstein's theory of relativity isn't about the empirical world.

you've somehow confused pure maths and applied maths, like wood does above.

you've turned trotskyism on its head, which is just the latest distortion of a great figure in theory-practice - marx btw.

LBird
Gobshites of the world, unite!

'Gobshite', eh?

I prefer to quote Marx and Einstein in my discussions about the world, both social and natural.

In fact, as we now know, 'scientists' often do 'pull this shit out of their butts'. So do the mathematicians.

But as a worshipper of bourgeois materialism, you won't have a bad word said about your elite 'expert' heroes.

They must be 'geniuses' for you, lem_.

Read what the ICC has to say about 'genius in science'.

Perhaps another comrade can provide the link to that article, because I can't cut and paste.

 

lem_
i am not a brougeois

i am not a brougeois materailist.

you are simply absurdly wrong if you think that relativity has nothing to do with the history of experiment.

so wrong it's absurd.

absurdly wrong, like how could you be more wrong, wrong.

i am a gobshite, you aren't a real gobshite because you are an individualist! you won't ever "unite" with anyone except your own ego

lem_
you are a bourgeois

you are a bourgeois idealist-materialist.
maybe i am a "brouegeois" materialist, i don't know.

i know that you can't read anyway. gobshite? moi ?

do you have any idea whatsoever what quantum theory is ? it was devised to account for planck lengths, which was something we bourgeois materialist discovered about experience. your ignorance on that fact is worse than your pesudo-gobshite-ism.

have you read ibsen? troll, be thyself

lem_
Quote:In 1905 Albert

Quote:
In 1905 Albert Einstein published a paper that explained experimental data from the photoelectric effect as the result of light energy being carried in discrete quantized packets.

emphasis mine.

lem_
 “Information is not

 Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience.

Prince Alberto, no ?

Pages