>CB: This seems to be consonant , not in conflict with , the theory of
>knowledge of Engels and Lenin; objective reality ( realism), relative and
>absolute truth ( Newtoniam physics is relatively true, no pun) , practice
>is the test of theory ( good enough for most purposes).
>
This isn't as clearly expressed as it might be, but I didn't intend to suggest that Engels or Lenin were wrong in their theories of knowledge. I also didn't intend to suggest that they were right. I just didn't comment on them. Btw, the idea that strictly false theories like Newtonian mechanics may be accepted as good enough for a particular purpose isn't the same as the idea that practice is the test of truth. The latter idea affords a testing procedure: a theory is more likely to be true if accepting it helps you get what you want or attain your aims. That is not exhaustive, because (a) inconsistent theories may do that, (b) you may have other grounds for thinking a theory true or false, and (c) sometimes false theories are more likely to lead to practical success.
Thus with Newtonian mechanics, we know that it false because it is inconsistent with relativity theory, which exzplains things like constant velocity of light independently of the reference frame for which Newtonian mechanics gives the wrong predictions. It is still more useful for most practical purposes, though false if taken as Newton took it, to be universally true. Practical success does not show that it is true in that sense.
The pragmatic/Marxian idea that practice is the test of truth is based in the idea that if you track accurately track the way the world is, carve it at the joints, as it were, you are more likely to get what you want. Point (c) raises a problem for Marxism in that light, because Marx's theory of ideology is based on the idea that false theories are more likely to get you want you want in some cases. Thus the bourgeoisie is more likely to stay in power if it obscures the reality of exploitation. Hence neoclassical economics. The question is, then, why isn't historical materialism like that? That is, a false theory more likely to get workers what they want, say, by giving them an unrealistic expectation of success in bringing about socialism that is higher than it would be if they believed the truth?
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com