Verificationist Man

seen from Ecuador

seen from Maldives
seen from Russia
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Italy

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Sweden

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China

seen from United States

seen from Maldives
seen from Japan
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
Verificationist Man
Let us assume for the sake of argument that recent research had disproved once and for all every one of Marx's individual theses. Even if this were to be proved, every serious 'orthodox' Marxist would still be able to accept all such modern findings without reservation and hence dismiss all of Marx's theses *in toto* - without having to renounce his orthodoxy for a single moment. Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's investigations. It is not the 'belief' in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a 'sacred' book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to *method*. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders. It is the conviction, moreover, that all attempts to surpass or 'improve' it have led and must lead to over-simplification, triviality and eclecticism.
Georg Lukacs, “What is Orthodox Marxism?” in History and Class Consciousness
This really changed my view about the seeming staticness of Marxist theory and the ways of engaging with the tradition when I first read it. It also, in a totally separate vein of intellectual thought, is a good rejoinder to verificationism and its deviations in that while science does advance certain propositions that can be potentially falsified, scientific methodology can’t be evaluated in the same way and isn’t subject to falsification. In the same vein, Marxism (whose status as a ‘science’ I am honestly ambivalent about - mostly because I don’t know how to characterize sciences generally, rather than any specific problem concerning Marxism proper), as a method of critical investigation and action given the name ‘dialectical materialism’, isn’t subject to the criterion of falsification, though individual Marxist propositions (like “The state is necessary for keeping the gains of the revolution” or “Fully automated luxury gay space communism is the only proper end-goal of Marxist praxis”) are subject to such. This makes Marxism into a tactic and a lens of sorts, rather than an edifice to prostrate oneself in front of - and also joins it up with Pragmatism in various ways as well.
(Wittgenstein)
Even if you don't assign as much importance to the principle of verification as the logical positivists or at times Wittgenstein did, it still seems to me to be an enormously useful way of thinking about and understanding abstract sentences and claims.
#verificationism #coherentism #williamjames #pragmatism
“Truth is one species of good, and not, as usually supposed, a category distinct from good and not coordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite assignable reasons…If there be any life that it is really better we should lead, and if there be any idea which if believed in would help us lead to that life, then it would be really better for us to believe in that idea, unless, indeed, belief in it incidentally clashed with other vital benefits.”
The Church of Psychoanalysis’s Foundational Belief, phr. There is no god and Sigmund Freud is his prophet.
Leonard Roy Frank
Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to…
This website is a fantastic resource for those interested in Christian apologetics and this audio file (though long) is well worth the listen. What is an objective truth? What is an absolute truth? What about relativism? Is it rational to believe something if it can’t be empirically verified (empirical verificationism)? On the website it provides an outline for the talk (delivered by Dr. William Lane Craig) in a logical format. Enjoy!
Well, the insomnia fairies struck, so let’s celebrate with another rambling on my approach to philosophy.
I’d like to thank polyaletheia for a very helpful series of probing questions last night; I hopefully will sound less confused today.
Also, holy shit this got long, so readmore: