[OPE-L:5064] RE: Re: Reply to Andrew on "Proof" [Lenin]

From: Drewk (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2001 - 00:04:13 EST

In reply to OPE-L 5061.

"The reference to Lenin was to his *Materialism and
Empirio-Criticism* in
which he argues that science operates AS IF there is an absolute
which can never be reached but we work relatively toward it.  In
words, we struggle for objective truth but never reach it
absolutely, only

Thanks for the clarification, Paul, but I'm still not completely
clear about it.  Are you endorsing this view or opposing it?  I
like it all except for the "as if" part, which I don't understand.
The last sentence may contradict the first, because it holds that
there *is* an objective, absolute truth, that it isn't a
convenient fiction (which may be what the "as if" indicates).
Everything but the "as if" sounds to me like it is straight out of
Hegel -- perhaps Lenin got this through Plekhanov and he through
Hegel.  Does anyone know?

It seems to me that the last sentence tells us that absolute truth
is knowable (in the philosophic sense).  It is never fully known,
but there is no inherent defect in thought that prevents it from
becoming known.  This is in contrast to Kant's position, which
holds that only the world of phenomena, not things-in-themselves,
are capable of being known by us.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST