Unity of opposites

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!

For a long time I have asked myself about the connective element of the dialectic unit between the rulers and the peoples in every kind of class society. But the solidity (stability) of these society-forms requests a search for this element.

The traditionally Marxism say not so much about this, always the conflicting element, which is the basis for the class struggle is permanently mentioned and was developed to the base of Marxism which is resulted in the statement of the communism manifest:

“The history of mankind is the history of class struggle.”

But if the conflicting element is so strong and no other argument is stronger, why exist the class society for more than 5000 years and no end is visible?



Let’s start from the basics:

-> Every dialectic unit has a connective element and a separating one.

Furthermore I found out that the connective element is always the primary element. What did this mean? This means that the contradiction element is nothing else than a result of the primary-element, it forces the progress but not the destruction of the unit because it is subordinated and will be generated by the primary element permanently.

-> Thus every dialectic unit is composed of a primary and a secondary element.



Let’s try a simple example:

Take a bar magnet. Primary it is a magnet and secondary results it has a north and a south pole.
This is the being of magnetism.
The question is now:

Can you dismiss this seeming contradiction between the poles by cancel the North Pole? No, the only what you get is a new magnet with the two "contradictory" poles.



Now let’s try to find these elements in class society:

I think the primary element of this dialectic unit of rulers and peoples is their same consciousness, the level of opportunism. *

In simplification we can call this the emotional and mainly greed-controlled individual.

The secondary element of this unit is the conflict between the common creation of surplus value and the private appropriation of it.
Marx called it especially for capitalism:

The conflict between capital and work.

And this is exactly the real class society with their poles Rulers and Peoples or other richness and poverty.
*Opportunism is the being of the unconscious life which the human have overtook from the animality in the evolution.
I.E. opportunism is a three-dimensional behavior/ ethic which the dimension of time not recognizes(animal) or ignores (religious individual like democrats (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html))

-> for german readers is here a longer explanation: Opportunismus (http://aufbruch.foren-city.de/topic,795,-opportunismus.html)

Conclusion:

You cannot surmount the class society by manipulation the secondary element, but only by changing the primary element. We need a new consciousness which qualifies us to do the last step out from the animality. We must overcome our opportunistic behaviour in first.
Then the end of class society is may be real.




http://s5.directupload.net/images/100423/b7nuix82.gif (http://www.directupload.net)

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Can you dismiss the contradiction between the poles by cancel the North Pole? No, the only what you get is a new magnet with the two contradictory poles.

But, why is this a 'contradiction'?

It would be if this were the case:

This is a North pole and it isn't.

And, as I have shown, if this theory of yours were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1401000&postcount=76

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1594418&postcount=90

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index.html

[Dean]

The north pole is actually marked in its absence of prevalent capital. What capital is there, is dormant resources, but little - to none - actual active, industrial capital.

But, the ruling class paradigm is usurped and taken over by fledgling classes, who typically maintain the same power structures. These are the "syntheses" and they are usually manifested as petty-ruling class agitation which replaces the old order.

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!

Thanks. I have corrected it.



But, why is this a 'contradiction'

Whether it is a “contradiction” or not is only depending on your perspective and understanding of the functionality of the system. If you understand magnetism or opportunism then the poles are really a unit! This is what my figures should show.


-> Magnetism is the being of magnet : north and south

-> Opportunism is the being of class society*: rich and poor

And, as I have shown, if this theory of yours were true, change would be impossible

Why? You can degauss a magnet, also may be humans can leave opportunism as the main control element in society.

(democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html) for example shows unfortunately the opposite)

Kind regards.

* In my philosophy the class-society is only a special form of the "opportunistic-formations" (societies) -> this means e.g. that the society-form of the "hunters and gatherers" is not a early-version of communism! -> simplyfied: also greed-controled but the human individual could not supply any surplus value!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Whether it is a “contradiction” or not is only depending on your perspective and understanding of the functionality of the system. If you understand magnetism or opportunism then the poles are really a unit! This is what my figures should show.

-> Magnetism is the being of magnet : north and south

-> Opportunism is the being of class society: rich and poor

Ok, so from your 'perspective', explain to us why what is plainly not a contradiction is in fact a contradiction.


Why? You can degauss a magnet, also may be humans can leave opportunism as the main control element in society.

Maybe so, but, as I have shown (see the threads to which I linked), if your theory were true, this couldn't happen.

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!


Maybe so, but, as I have shown (see the threads to which I linked), if your theory were true, this couldn't happen.

Which of your Links is the most important to explain this problem, it is not so easy for me to read & understand this all in english.

Kind regards

[Lord Hargreaves]

"opportunism" has literally nothing whatever to do with the existence of class society.

The point of calling capitalism "contradictory" is that this "contradiction" is structurally inherent to the system, and that it works in and through this "contradiction". Thus, it cannot be restructured or reformed (or in the logic analogy, rewritten as something else) to make it non-contradictory, it can only be overthrown.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH (welcome back, by the way!):


The point of calling capitalism "contradictory" is that this "contradiction" is structurally inherent to the system, and that it works in and through this "contradiction". Thus, it cannot be restructured or reformed (or in the logic analogy, rewritten as something else) to make it non-contradictory, it can only be overthrown.

Yes, we all know the alleged point of calling such things 'contradictory', the problem is (1) that the things that dialecticians label as 'contradictions' aren't, and (2) even if they were, they can't explain change. Indeed, if this theory were true, change would be impossible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Which of your Links is the most important to explain this problem, it is not so easy for me to read & understand this all in english.

Well, the first link is to a list of more than thirty quotations from the dialectical classics that shows Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Mao, and many others believed that:

1) All change is a result of a 'struggle of opposites', and

2) All objects and processes inevitably turn into their opposites.

So, if you accept that this is what they believed, you can skip that link.

Now this link:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1594418&postcount=90

is to my argument that Mao's version of this theory, if true, would make change impossible. It would not be difficult to adapt it to apply to what the other dialectical classicists also argued.

So, that link is the one you should read.

[Lord Hargreaves]

LH (welcome back, by the way!):



Yes, we all know the alleged point of calling such things 'contradictory', the problem is (1) that the things that dialecticians label as 'contradictions' aren't, and (2) even if they were, they can't explain change. Indeed, if this theory were true, change would be impossible.

I think "contradiction" is a nice descriptive term, but thats just me (Althusser uses non-correspondence, it doesn't really seem to matter). And if you read most works of Marxist political economy, this kind of dialectical language rarely, if ever, gets used. Explaining class struggle in terms of the poles of magnets is, with the greatest respect to the poster in question, unhelpful

I actually agree with you that the whole language of Diamat has no real value, and should be dropped. The problem is you equate the entire Hegelian tradition with a few of Engels's ill-informed pamphlets, and so you are unable to give a proper account of the remaining merits of dialectics for Marxism (even though I admit these continuing merits are limited, and highly qualified; but, still important)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I think "contradiction" is a nice descriptive term, but thats just me (Althusser uses non-correspondence, it doesn't really seem to matter). And if you read most works of Marxist political economy, this kind of dialectical language rarely, if ever, gets used. Explaining class struggle in terms of the poles of magnets is, with the greatest respect to the poster in question, unhelpful

In what way is it descriptive if the things to which it allegedly applies aren't contradictions and do not even look like contradictions?

[Lord Hargreaves]

1) All change is a result of a 'struggle of opposites', and

2) All objects and processes inevitably turn into their opposites.

This seems to be based on some of the manoeuvres Hegel pulls in the Science of Logic (e.g. things turning into their opposite, like when Being turns into its opposite, Nothing). Tbh I think we should just take what Mao et al say when using this language as a kind of crude metaphor, a literary device. I don't see the point of treating what is essentially journalism as an example of a fully worked out philosophical treatise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


This seems to be based on some of the manoeuvres Hegel pulls in the Science of Logic (e.g. things turning into their opposite, like when Being turns into its opposite, Nothing). Tbh I think we should just take what Mao et al say when using this language as a kind of crude metaphor, a literary device. I don't see the point of treating what is essentially journalism as an example of a fully worked out philosophical treatise.

Except Mao says the following sorts of things about this alleged 'metaphor': it is "absolute", "unconditional", applies everywhere "without exception", and is "concrete".

[The Maoists here tried that one, too, but had to withdraw it when they were forced to read what Mao actually says -- oddly enough they seem not to have read it too carefully!]

But, even if you are right, what is the 'cash value' of this metaphor (to use William James's happy phrase)? For example, if I call a man a pig, its 'cash value' is that I am alludng to his oafish behaviour, his messiness, or his disgusting eating habits, etc.

So, what is the 'cash value' of Mao's 'metaphor'?

Finally, what he has to say does not even look like a metaphor. Here is a genuine metaphor:


"But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun." [Romeo and Juliet, Act Two, Scene Two.]

What Mao has to say does not look remotely like this; it's not even like my simpler 'pig' metaphor, either. So, on what basis do you call this a metaphor? I hope it's not simply that when taken literally it does not work!

But, as I have pointed out to you elsewhere, that is no more legitimate/acceptable a get-out than it is when theologians attempt to defend the Book of Genesis (in the face of modern science) by claiming it's 'just a metaphor'.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Except Mao says the following sorts of things about this alleged 'metaphor': it is "absolute", "unconditional", applies everywhere "without exception", and is "concrete".

[The Maoists here tried that one, too, but had to withdraw it when they were forced to read what Mao actually says -- oddly enough they seem not to have read it too carefully!]

But, even if you are right, what is the 'cash value' of this metaphor (to use William James's happy phrase)? For example, if I call a man a pig, its 'cash value' is that I am alludng to his oafish behaviour, his messiness, or his disgusting eating habits, etc.

So, what is the 'cash value' of Mao's 'metaphor'?

I would need to read more Mao (something I have no intention of doing in the near future) to make a detailed analysis of this. I don't actually think it has any "cash value", in fact I'd say much of what I know about Mao seems quite idiotic. But that doesn't mean his statements has to be taken as a literal claims about the scientific makeup of the universe


But, as I have pointed out to you elsewhere, that is no more legitimate/acceptable a get-out than it is when theologians attempt to defend the Book of Genesis (in the face of modern science) by claiming it's 'just a metaphor'.

Well again, the same could imply. Why can't the Book of Genesis be treated as a metaphor/narrative? It doesn't seem to matter how it was originally intended (something we will never know for sure). These things have to be judged by the claims they are making: if its not meant literally, the attack that it is not literally true necessarily fails the mark

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


"opportunism" has literally nothing whatever to do with the existence of class society..The point of calling capitalism "contradictory" is that this "contradiction" is structurally inherent to the system, and that it works in and through this "contradiction". Thus, it cannot be restructured or reformed (or in the logic analogy, rewritten as something else) to make it non-contradictory, it can only be overthrown.


Not necessary

After hearing this great message of you I called my car-dealer in haste. I told him my news and I wondered what he would answer.

He breathed deeply. “Sorry? Don´t you know it?......Really?....what a waste of money.....ok, ok....do you live in a village with only a half million people....the river Rhine flows slowly...”. He spoke some more of these phrases, so I got smaller and smaller in my armchair.

Then he told me the truth. “Cars never need an engine! This is only a trick from the oil-industries! The will to drive forward is always inherent in the car itself!”

So I removed the engine of my car. As you know BP recently shut down one of its oil rigs to stabilize the oil-price:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7107169.ece


Here you can buy my engine:

htfxp//www.ebay.com/cars/engines/Vauxhall/diesel/69horsepower

The starting price is 49 $ or 19 £ but I m afraid I will stay on it. :D



Please note the dialectic:


Marx says:


The human is the ensemble of the social relations. I think also the opposite is true:



The society is the result of the average consciousness of all individuals. I think both are true, but together.



Kind regards

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!

Thanks for your summary.


Well, the first link is to a list of more than thirty quotations from the dialectical classics that shows Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Mao, and many others believed that:

1) All change is a result of a 'struggle of opposites', and

2) All objects and processes inevitably turn into their opposites.

So, if you accept that this is what they believed, you can skip that link.
is to my argument that Mao's version of this theory, if true, would make change impossible.....



1) I agree ( I‘m not sure...-> the opposites are a result of the principle (magnetism/opportunism)...)
2) It is more difficult. It can be changed. A poor man can become rich, and you can also change the polarity of a magnet, but there is no changing of the system. But why should it be inevitably?

-> to read Mao I need a little time, I started, but I think at the moment Mao is not a great philosopher (for me) may be more a ruler? ...


Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


2) It is more difficult. It can be changed. A poor man can become rich, and you can also change the polarity of a magnet, but there is no changing of the system. But why should it be inevitably?

1) It shouldn't be inevitable, but that is what the dialectical classicists tell us.

2) Sure a rich man can become poor. So let's look at how this might happen:

A) Consider rich man R. He can only change because he struggles with his opposite.

B) Call this opposite R*. Now if he is to become poor, R* must be the poor man he becomes.

C) So, R must struggle with R* and change into R*.

D) But the first is not possible, since R* does not yet exist.

E) On the other hand, if R* already exists (which it must do, or no struggle can take place between R and R*), then R cannot change into R*, since it already exists.

This applies to anything that changes.

Now, this does not deny change, only that if change takes place, dialectics cannot explain why.

Indeed, if this theory were true, change would be impossible.

[I agree with you about Mao.]

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!

Maybe we have a complete different imagination of dialectic or I have misunderstood you.


A) Consider rich man R. He can only change because he struggles with his opposite.

I would interpret it like that:
If R. lives in a certain system, like opportunism, he will change in every case, if he struggles or not.
If he struggles good, maybe he becomes richer, if he struggles not or bad, he becomes poor.




B) Call this opposite R*. Now if he is to become poor, R* must be the poor man he becomes.

I agree, R=rich man, R*=poor man but of course not at the same time!

Because R* is the result of the changing not the cause.




C) So, R must struggle with R* and change into R*.

R struggles against other individuals, e.g. against A or A* but not against R*!




D) But the first is not possible, since R* does not yet exist.


Struggles against A, A* etc





E) On the other hand, if R* already exists (which it must do, or no struggle can take place between R and R*), then R cannot change into R*, since it already exists.

As mentioned above.


I resume you have some for me incomprehensible hypothesis and models developed.
- Your model ignore the dimension of time
- You equate a static (e.g. bar magnet) model with a dynamic model(e.g. society)

Yes, I have done this too, but only to show, that every phenomenon, like rich & poor or north & south have a cause in a higher principle, like opportunism or magnetism, but they are not caused in themselves. To change them we must struggle against this principle, not against the phenomenons. That is all what my model should show.

Good night

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I would need to read more Mao (something I have no intention of doing in the near future) to make a detailed analysis of this. I don't actually think it has any "cash value", in fact I'd say much of what I know about Mao seems quite idiotic. But that doesn't mean his statements has to be taken as a literal claims about the scientific makeup of the universe

He certainly thinks they are.


Well again, the same could imply. Why can't the Book of Genesis be treated as a metaphor/narrative? It doesn't seem to matter how it was originally intended (something we will never know for sure). These things have to be judged by the claims they are making: if its not meant literally, the attack that it is not literally true necessarily fails the mark

Sure Genesis can be treated this way, but find me a Mao-fan who is happy to do the same with all that Mao has to say, especially since Mao quite clearly regards his comments as literally true.

Otherwise, why would he call them 'objective', 'absolute', 'without exception', 'universal', and 'concrete'?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


If R. lives in a certain system, like opportunism, he will change in every case, if he struggles or not.
If he struggles good, maybe he becomes richer, if he struggles not or bad, he becomes poor.

But, the dialectical classics tell us this can only happen if R struggles with his opposite.

In which case, as I have shown, R can't change, if this theory is true.

Now, you might want to reject the dialectical classics, but then you will have no theory of change.



I agree, R=rich man, R*=poor man but of course not at the same time!

Because R* is the result of the changing not the cause.

But, in that case you do disagree with the dialectical classics.


R struggles against other individuals, e.g. against A or A* but not against R*!

And yet, the dialectical classics tell us that:

1) Everything in the entire universe that changes struggles with its opposite, and

2) Everything changes into that opposite.

So, R must struggle with R*, and change into.

In which case, R will not struggle with A or A*, unless one of them is the opposite of R.

But, even if one of them is, R can't change into A or A*, since they both already exist!

Whatever you try to do with this theory, it ends up hitting the same brick wall of material reality, and thus self-destructs.


I resume you have some for me incomprehensible hypothesis and models developed.
- Your model ignore the dimension of time
- You equate a static (e.g. bar magnet) model with a dynamic model(e.g. society)

Well, I do not have a model; all I have done is quote the dialectical classics to show what ridiculous conclusions follow from them.


Yes, I have done this too, but only to show, that every phenomenon, like rich & poor or north & south have a cause in a higher principle, like opportunism or magnetism, but they are not caused in themselves. To change them we must struggle against this principle, not against the phenomenons. That is all what my model should show.

I'm sorry, I could not follow this.:(

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li & good morning!


I'm sorry, I could not follow this.:(

I need some time, because my english, for a complete answer.

In first: I Think it would be better, we define the dialectic new ?

Have a nice day!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


In first: I Think it would be better, we define the dialectic new ?

On the contrary, I think we should throw it in the bin.

[Philzer]

On the contrary, I think we should throw it in the bin.

I dont think so, but may be we have different präpositions.

The model above explain this problem of the real world in a perfect way, it seems to me.

And I have some more about this, but I'm afraid I will shifted into the unverse before I can translate it. :D ( my philosophy is absolut contrary to capitalistic pantheism, but the most people of the world are pantheists nowadays, whether they understand it or not changes nothing in it -> This is the normality: Platon: the citizen cannot understand the true or so similarly... )

Have a nice day!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


The model above explain this problem of the real world in a perfect way, it seems to me.

Maybe so, but dialectics is far too confused even to make the bottom of the reserve list of viable theories.

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!


Philzer:
Maybe so, but dialectics is far too confused even to make the bottom of the reserve list of viable theories.

I´m interested in these theories, espacially in yours/ which do you prefer.


Quote of Philzer:
Yes, I have done this too, but only to show, that every phenomenon, like rich & poor or north & south have a cause in a higher principle, like opportunism or magnetism, but they are not caused in themselves. To change them we must struggle against this principle, not against the phenomenons. That is all what my model should show. Comment of Rosa Li:
I'm sorry, I could not follow this.

Why? If want to work with a magnet, you must work with all physical attribute of this, like north and south.

If the mankind go on with opportunistic etic, there will be richness and poverty. In horizontally and vertically. (vertically is the old form of class society, and the horizontally ist the new form since colonialism and globalisation in democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html) )

Global structure:

Example: USA&Nato-countries = richness <-> 3.world = poverty

National structure:

-->> and the same follows inside of the countries itself

Rulers & peoples

( Marx: capitalism is the war of all against all )

have a nice day

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Why? If want to work with a magnet, you must work with all physical attribute of this, like north and south.

If the mankind to hold in the opportunistic etic, there will be richness and poverty. In horizontally and vertically. (vertically is the old form of class society, and the horizontally ist the new form since colonialism and globalisation in democracy )

Global structure:

Example: USA&Nato-countries = richness <-> 3.world = poverty

National structure:

-->> and the same follows inside of the countries itself

Rulers & peoples

( Marx: capitalism is the war of all against all )

have a nice day

Well, none of this still makes any sense. After all, the dialectical classics tell us all opposites turn onto one another. Does this mean that the things you say will turn onto one another? Will the proletariat turn into the bourgeoisie? Will the USA and Nato turn into the Third World, and the Third World turn into the US and Nato?

[graymouser]

A) Consider rich man R. He can only change because he struggles with his opposite.

B) Call this opposite R*. Now if he is to become poor, R* must be the poor man he becomes.

C) So, R must struggle with R* and change into R*.

D) But the first is not possible, since R* does not yet exist.

E) On the other hand, if R* already exists (which it must do, or no struggle can take place between R and R*), then R cannot change into R*, since it already exists.

This applies to anything that changes.

Now, this does not deny change, only that if change takes place, dialectics cannot explain why.

Indeed, if this theory were true, change would be impossible.
This appears to be the heart of your vaunted "proof" against dialectics, so it's worth asking how the rich man becomes poor. The man is R (a rich man) because he is part of a system where he has a certain quantity of money, let's say a million dollars. It turns out there are factors in his life that prevail on him to become R* (a poor man) - let's say he has a number of bad investments and outstanding debts. The man, who likes being R, attempts to struggle against becoming R*, say by avoiding his creditors and making deals for his investment. But despite his struggle, there is a consistent quantitative loss of money - let's say $999,000. At the end of this process, he has ceased to be R and become R* - he only has $1000, and quantity (loss of individual bits of money) have changed into quality (he is now a poor man and probably has to find a job that pays wages).

Your objection seems to boil down to two points.

1) The unity and interpenetration of opposites can never happen because both contradictory entities need to exist at the same time. But this is a gross misunderstanding of dialectics; what exists are contradictions, such as a rich man whose life contains factors that will make him a poor man.

2) Dialectical change does not happen solely because of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. Again, this is a gross misunderstanding; it happens because of the transformation of quantity into quality (and vice versa). The rich man doesn't become poor because he "struggles with" the poor man he will become; he struggles with the factors of his life that will make him poor, but keeps losing money and eventually becomes the poor man.

If you understand dialectics as in the quoted section, no wonder you oppose it; it's word salad of the first degree. But this is your misunderstanding, not a fault in dialectical logic.

[Zanthorus]

The unity and interpenetration of opposites can never happen because both contradictory entities need to exist at the same time. But this is a gross misunderstanding of dialectics; what exists are contradictions, such as a rich man whose life contains factors that will make him a poor man.

How exactly is that a contradiction? I mean the existence of factors in his life that make him poor doesn't creat any "contradiction" between him being rich and the factors that make him poor. It doesn't seem out of the way that someone could be rich and have factors that cause him to be poor. You just seem to be slapping the label "contradiction" on the two for the sake of it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Graymouser:


This appears to be the heart of your vaunted "proof" against dialectics, so it's worth asking how the rich man becomes poor.

In fact, it's only a side issue.


The man is R (a rich man) because he is part of a system where he has a certain quantity of money, let's say a million dollars. It turns out there are factors in his life that prevail on him to become R* (a poor man) - let's say he has a number of bad investments and outstanding debts. The man, who likes being R, attempts to struggle against becoming R*, say by avoiding his creditors and making deals for his investment. But despite his struggle, there is a consistent quantitative loss of money - let's say $999,000. At the end of this process, he has ceased to be R and become R* - he only has $1000, and quantity (loss of individual bits of money) have changed into quality (he is now a poor man and probably has to find a job that pays wages).

1) I did not deny that change occurs, only that it dialectical materialism were true, change would be impossible.

2) But, let's have look at your argument.

First, the dialectical classics tell us that every object and process in the entire universe changes at some point into its opposite. They also add that this can only come about because of a struggle between those opposites.

Second, you argue as follows:


The man is R (a rich man) because he is part of a system where he has a certain quantity of money, let's say a million dollars. It turns out there are factors in his life that prevail on him to become R* (a poor man) - let's say he has a number of bad investments and outstanding debts. The man, who likes being R, attempts to struggle against becoming R*

But, R may indeed struggle against the idea of becoming R*, but then he does not change into his idea of R*, but into R* itself. In that case, according to the dialectical classics, he must struggle against the rich man he later becomes -- he must struggle not just with the idea but with his future self!

3) Moreover, your argument will not work with non-sentient objects/processes. So, a table, T, that I mentioned in another thread, will one day change into its opposite, T*. But in order to do that, according to the dialectical classics, it must also struggle with T*. However, it can't do that, since T* does not yet exist! On the other hand, if T* did exist, so that T could struggle with it, T could not change into it, since it already exists!

However you try to re-package this theory, it hits the brick way of material reality.


Your objection seems to boil down to two points.

1) The unity and interpenetration of opposites can never happen because both contradictory entities need to exist at the same time. But this is a gross misunderstanding of dialectics; what exists are contradictions, such as a rich man whose life contains factors that will make him a poor man.

2) Dialectical change does not happen solely because of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. Again, this is a gross misunderstanding; it happens because of the transformation of quantity into quality (and vice versa). The rich man doesn't become poor because he "struggles with" the poor man he will become; he struggles with the factors of his life that will make him poor, but keeps losing money and eventually becomes the poor man.

But, the alleged 'law' of the transformation of 'quantity into quality' is no less defective. On that, see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-quality-t66709/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-materialism-t66588/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-quality-t66709/index.html?t=66709

But in far more detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

However, the dialectical classics are quite clear, change can only come about through the struggle of opposites.

Here are those quotations I posted in another thread:



"If, for instance, the Sophists claimed to be teachers, Socrates by a series of questions forced the Sophist Protagoras to confess that all learning is only recollection. In his more strictly scientific dialogues, Plato employs the dialectical method to show the finitude of all hard and fast terms of understanding. Thus in the Parmenides he deduces the many from the one. In this grand style did Plato treat Dialectic. In modern times it was, more than any other, Kant who resuscitated the name of Dialectic, and restored it to its post of honour. He did it, as we have seen, by working out the Antinomies of the reason. The problem of these Antinomies is no mere subjective piece of work oscillating between one set of grounds and another; it really serves to show that every abstract proposition of understanding, taken precisely as it is given, naturally veers round to its opposite.

"However reluctant Understanding may be to admit the action of Dialectic, we must not suppose that the recognition of its existence is peculiarly confined to the philosopher. It would be truer to say that Dialectic gives expression to a law which is felt in all other grades of consciousness, and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of Dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being stable and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by that Dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than what it is, is forced beyond its own immediate or natural being to turn suddenly into its opposite." [Hegel (1975), pp.117-18.]

"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Ibid., p.174.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... Mutual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., pp.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"...but the theory of Essence is the main thing: the resolution of the abstract contradictions into their own instability, where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone than it is transformed unnoticed into the other, etc." [Engels (1891), p.414.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing, each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical, -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end.... [Ibid., pp.311-18.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"So far we have discussed the most general and most fundamental law of dialectics, namely, the law of the permeation of opposites, or the law of polar unity. We shall now take up the second main proposition of dialectics, the law of the negation of the negation, or the law of development through opposites. This is the most general law of the process of thought. I will first state the law itself and support it with examples, and then I will show on what it is based and how it is related to the first law of the permeation of opposites. There is already a presentiment of this law in the oldest Chinese philosophy, in the of Transformations, as well as in Lao-tse and his disciples -- and likewise in the oldest Greek philosophy, especially in Heraclitus. Not until Hegel, however, was this law developed.

"This law applies to all motion and changes of things, to real things as well as to their images in our minds, i.e., concepts. It states first of all that things and concepts move, change, and develop; all things are processes. All fixity of individual things is only relative, limited; their motion, change, or development is absolute, unlimited. For the world as a whole absolute motion and absolute rest coincide. The proof of this part of the proposition, namely, that all things are in flux, we have already given in our discussion of Heraclitus.

"The law of the negation of the negation has a special sense beyond the mere proposition that all things are processes and change. It also states something about the most general form of these changes, motions, or developments. It states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing.

"Conceptually the actual movement of things appears as a negation. In other words, negation is the most general way in which motion or change of things is represented in the mind. This is the first stage of this process. The negation of a thing from which the change proceeds, however, is in turn subject to the law of the transformation of things into their opposites." [Ibid., pp.170-71.]

"The second dialectical law, that of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the essentially contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a hundred years ago….

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite." [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

"Movement and change result from causes inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions….

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other....'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels (1891), p.414.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, ex pressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.'" [Rob Sewell, quoted from here.]

Bold emphases added.

References and links can be found at my site, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm

No mention there of Engel's first 'law', and even if they had have done so, it would not have helped, since that law is equally defective, and cannot answer the points I made above.

But, let us suppose it could.

Let us now suppose that R changes slowly into R* by the gradual loss of money/wealth, as you say.

Let us suppose, therefore, that he goes through the following stages: R (0), R(1), R(2), R(3),..., R(k-1), R(k), R(k+1),..., R(n-1), R(n), where R(n) is R*, and R(0) is R himself.

But, according to the dialectical classics, R can only change into R(1) if he struggles with R(1), but he can't do that since R(1) does not yet exist. If R(1) did exist, R could not change into it, since it already exists. On the other hand, if R(1) does not exist, R can't struggle with it, and so can't change.

Yet another brick wall -- and that's because my original demolition was completely general.

There is no way out for this 'theory'. It can't explain change, and if true, it would make change impossible.


If you understand dialectics as in the quoted section, no wonder you oppose it; it's word salad of the first degree. But this is your misunderstanding, not a fault in dialectical logic.

It seems I understand it better than you.

[graymouser]

How exactly is that a contradiction? I mean the existence of factors in his life that make him poor doesn't creat any "contradiction" between him being rich and the factors that make him poor. It doesn't seem out of the way that someone could be rich and have factors that cause him to be poor. You just seem to be slapping the label "contradiction" on the two for the sake of it.
No, you just don't understand contradictions. Trying to say a contradiction is as simple as "a and not-a" existing simultaneously and full-blown is facile and just poor philosophy. A dialectical contradiction is precisely two tendencies in a single system that cannot co-exist. In the case of the rich man, the contradiction is between his current circumstances that make him R, and the social forces around him that move him toward being R*. These cannot exist in stable equilibrium. There are forces in society (his existing money) that make him R, but the forces in society that make him R* (his debts, bad investments etc) are stronger and force upon him the qualitative change from R to R*.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Graymouser:


No, you just don't understand contradictions. Trying to say a contradiction is as simple as "a and not-a" existing simultaneously and full-blown is facile and just poor philosophy. A dialectical contradiction is precisely two tendencies in a single system that cannot co-exist. In the case of the rich man, the contradiction is between his current circumstances that make him R, and the social forces around him that move him toward being R*. These cannot exist in stable equilibrium. There are forces in society (his existing money) that make him R, but the forces in society that make him R* (his debts, bad investments etc) are stronger and force upon him the qualitative change from R to R*.

Then you must be using the word 'contradiction' in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense -- but what is it?

[graymouser]

It seems I understand it better than you.
Apparently your only proof of this is your ability to whip out at a moment's notice a brick wall of impenetrable, poorly formatted text. It's a neat trick but seriously, I'm not going to play that game. I'll respond to the fragments that actually tried to engage the argument I presented.


But, R may indeed struggle against the idea of becoming R*, but then he does not change into his idea of R*, but into R* itself. In that case, according to the dialectical classics, he must struggle against the rich man he later becomes -- he must struggle not just with the idea but with his future self!
No. The contradiction is not between R and R* but between the social forces that make the rich man R and the social forces that will make him R*. If you can't tell this from reading the classic works of Marx that actually used his dialectical method, and must instead launch into walls of text about how your misunderstanding is what things really are, then there's no serious need to engage with what you have to say.


3) Moreover, your argument will not work with non-sentient objects/processes. So, a table, T, that I mentioned in another thread, will one day change into its opposite, T*. But in order to do that, according to the dialectical classics, it must also struggle with T*. However, it can't do that, since T* does not yet exist! On the other hand, if T* did exist, so that T could struggle with it, T could not change into it, since it already exists!
A table is subjected to physical forces that make it change from its current form - a table - into some future form, say a piece of driftwood. Not rocket science there.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Graymouser:


Apparently your only proof of this is your ability to whip out at a moment's notice a brick wall of impenetrable, poorly formatted text. It's a neat trick but seriously, I'm not going to play that game. I'll respond to the fragments that actually tried to engage the argument I presented.

So, your only substantive reply so far is that my posts are allegedly 'poorly formatted', eh?

I'm quaking in my shoes...


No. The contradiction is not between R and R* but between the social forces that make the rich man R and the social forces that will make him R*. If you can't tell this from reading the classic works of Marx that actually used his dialectical method, and must instead launch into walls of text about how your misunderstanding is what things really are, then there's no serious need to engage with what you have to say.

Maybe so, but the dialectical classics tell us that every object in the entire universe can only change because it struggles with its opposite. The addition of forces here does not alter this fact.

But let us suppose it can. Call the forces that do this F(1) and F(2). So, according to you, R changes into R* because of the operation of F(1) and F(2), a detail I might add that Engels, Lenin and Mao, for example, left out.

How do, for example, F(1) and/or F(2) manage to do this? Well, they can only do this, according the dialectical classics, if they struggle with R. But in that case, and since objects change in to that with which they struggle according to the same classics, R must change into F(1) and/or F(2)!

But that is even worse!


A table is subjected to physical forces that make it change from its current form - a table - into some future form, say a piece of driftwood. Not rocket science there.

However, the same argument above applies -- this table must change into the forces it struggles against!

[Zanthorus]

No, you just don't understand contradictions. Trying to say a contradiction is as simple as "a and not-a" existing simultaneously and full-blown is facile and just poor philosophy.

Generally a "contradiction" is something that occurs in an argument where the first speaker asserts A and the second speaker asserts not-A and has nothing to do with the existence of anything but ignoring that...


A dialectical contradiction is precisely two tendencies in a single system that cannot co-exist. In the case of the rich man, the contradiction is between his current circumstances that make him R, and the social forces around him that move him toward being R*.

Clearly the two tendencies can co-exist only as you say:


These cannot exist in stable equilibrium.

But not being able to exist together in stable equilibrium does not equate to not being able to co-exist. Clearly they can co-exist just not for a long period of time.


There are forces in society (his existing money) that make him R,

Well the existing money isn't really a force, it's a result of a prior force, so in that case the whole example falls down anyway because the only forces that actually exist are the ones that move him from being rich to poor.


but the forces in society that make him R* (his debts, bad investments etc) are stronger and force upon him the qualitative change from R to R*.

Ok, but that doesn't prove that the change from quality into quantity is any kind of law of nature. Of course we can observe things like a rich man becoming poor or a kettle boiling where it applies. We can also observe things however where the quantitave change is directly linked to qualitative change and there is not magical point where quantity suddenly causes a qualitative leap such as butter melting. There are also things that have purely qualitative change without any quantitatve change such as stereoisomer's which have the same molecular formula and sequence of bonded atoms and which differ only because of the orientations of their atoms in three dimensional space.

And as a side note Rosa yes I have been reading your essays :)

[Tribune]

No, you just don't understand contradictions. Trying to say a contradiction is as simple as "a and not-a" existing simultaneously and full-blown is facile and just poor philosophy. A dialectical contradiction is precisely two tendencies in a single system that cannot co-exist. In the case of the rich man, the contradiction is between his current circumstances that make him R, and the social forces around him that move him toward being R*. These cannot exist in stable equilibrium. There are forces in society (his existing money) that make him R, but the forces in society that make him R* (his debts, bad investments etc) are stronger and force upon him the qualitative change from R to R*.

If the two tendencies already belong to the single system, it follows that they also already co-exist.

[Philzer]

Hi!


If the two tendencies already belong to the single system, it follows that they also already co-exist.

Exactly. And, very important: as a stabil system!

This explain, why the society after every try to escape, consequently switched back into class society.

Examples: Spartakus, Peasants' Wars, and even after the revolution in the USSR. But in every cases the same procedure is to observe:

Individuals are corrupted by the rulers. Especially in 20.century: Working class of the democratic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html) exploiter nations enables the victory for the global bourgeoisie.

A: driven the individuals of the socialistic nations in paranoia with to show: - we are get the cheepest bananas, coffee, cacao, oil etc.etc. from the 3.world, and what we have to do for this is print dollars (simplified)
- we are the driver of very cool world-wasters like american gas-guzzlers since nearly 100 years
- we can travel into the poor countries and will handled from the poor peoples like kings, buy sheep holiday homes, sex etc etc etc...

( I m really sure that the most, may be not all, of the "stupid-dictator-style", like the ill security observing, of the real exist soc.states, are caused in it)

B: for good wages we build new weapons against whatever,( may be against the communists, the low-consciousness-individuals never ask), ( remember the history of A-H-N-bomb, and the deathblow: the NATO-double-resolution of 1979 ) etc etc etc


-->> Conclusion:

I m afraid, the end of the opportunistic-principle, which is the primary-element in this unity of peoples and rulers, can only be stopped from outside of the system. It will be the end of the earth as biotop.

In next time I try to show this in my model "Negation of Negation".

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Exactly. And, very important: as a stabil system!

This explain, why the society after every try to escape, consequently switched back into class society.

Examples: Spartakus, Peasants' Wars, and even after the revolution in the USSR. But in every cases the same procedure is to observe:

Except, as I have shown, if this theory of yours were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761299&postcount=30

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1761300&postcount=31

[graymouser]

Generally a "contradiction" is something that occurs in an argument where the first speaker asserts A and the second speaker asserts not-A and has nothing to do with the existence of anything but ignoring that...
If you had read a single serious work on dialectics (aside from Rosa's stuff) you would not be saying this.


But not being able to exist together in stable equilibrium does not equate to not being able to co-exist. Clearly they can co-exist just not for a long period of time.
For co-exist, read "co-exist in a stable equilibrium." The basic difference between dialectical logic and formal logic is that formal logic considers states of equilibrium while dialectical logic considers states of change. It is possible for contradictory tendencies to exist in an organism, a society or a complex social system but they will eventually force some kind of resolution. The contradictions of capitalist society exist alongside one another but by their contradictory existence they cause tremendous social strife that periodically threatens to upset the whole system.


Well the existing money isn't really a force, it's a result of a prior force, so in that case the whole example falls down anyway because the only forces that actually exist are the ones that move him from being rich to poor.
This is silly. The existing money is congealed social labor, and is the force that provides the backing for the statement R, that the man in our example is rich. It is opposed to the forces that will make him poor, and it is through a conflict between these things he will become poor.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Graymouser:


If you had read a single serious work on dialectics (aside from Rosa's stuff) you would not be saying this.

I see, you still can't defend your 'theory'.

In fact, Zanthorous is widely read, and, as far as I'm aware, rejected this 'theory' of yours before he even heard of me.


For co-exist, read "co-exist in a stable equilibrium." The basic difference between dialectical logic and formal logic is that formal logic considers states of equilibrium while dialectical logic considers states of change. It is possible for contradictory tendencies to exist in an organism, a society or a complex social system but they will eventually force some kind of resolution. The contradictions of capitalist society exist alongside one another but by their contradictory existence they cause tremendous social strife that periodically threatens to upset the whole system.

This was in fact Bukharin's version of the dialectic, which Lenin criticised.

But, even if it weren't, as I have shown, if this 'theory' were true, change would be impossible.


The existing money is congealed social labor, and is the force that provides the backing for the statement R, that the man in our example is rich. It is opposed to the forces that will make him poor, and it is through a conflict between these things he will become poor.

"Congealed" in what sense? As in: "This white stuff is congealed fat"? If so, we should be able to see the 'congealed labour'. If not, what sense of 'congealed' are you using?

You forgot to say.

[graymouser]

This was in fact Bukharin's version of the dialectic, which Lenin criticised.
Can you provide a citation for this? Bukharin's explication of the dialectic or Lenin's critique, either will do.


"Congealed" in what sense? As in: "This white stuff is congealed fat"? If so, we should be able to see the 'congealed labour'. If not, what sense of 'congealed' are you using?

You forgot to say.
I'm sorry, I assumed that the people commenting on this thread had read Capital. I am using it in Marx's sense when he refers to money as congealed social labor.

[Zanthorus]

If you had read a single serious work on dialectics (aside from Rosa's stuff) you would not be saying this.

I've read the relevant parts of Engels "Anti-Duhring" and he meets the same question from Duhring and then merely dodges with some nonsense about boiling water and the square root of minus one. I've also read "On Dialectical and Historical Materialism" by Stalin, although I guess as a trot you'd reject this as not reflecting the one true interpretation of dialectics. Funny how everyone who accepts this theory seems to have a different interpretation of it.


For co-exist, read "co-exist in a stable equilibrium." The basic difference between dialectical logic and formal logic is that formal logic considers states of equilibrium while dialectical logic considers states of change.

Well actually we need formal logic in the first place to comprehend change. In order to know that something has changed we need to be able to see that it is no longer idential with it's former self, that A has become A*. Formal logic can handle change quite nicely.

And as far as I can see dialectics doesn't really qualify as any sort of "logic", rather a vague heuristic framework that works quite well as long as we leave variables like "nodes" or "quality" undefined so we can change them ad hoc to fit whatever we're describing.


It is possible for contradictory tendencies to exist in an organism, a society or a complex social system but they will eventually force some kind of resolution. The contradictions of capitalist society exist alongside one another but by their contradictory existence they cause tremendous social strife that periodically threatens to upset the whole system.

You could just as easily have talked about "antagonistic forces" rather than "contradictory tendencies".


The existing money is congealed social labor, and is the force that provides the backing for the statement R, that the man in our example is rich.

Except you stilll haven't managed to show us how this money is a "force". Talking about congealed social labour doesn't cut it. The money is the result of a prior force (social labour performed in the past) and not anything currently existing.

I also notice you haven't bothered refuting any of the examples I gave where the "law" of changes in quantity causing changes in quantity and vice versa doesn't work.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GreyMouser:


Can you provide a citation for this? Bukharin's explication of the dialectic or Lenin's critique, either will do.

Here is Bukharin (I have highlighted the relevant part):


"There are two possible ways of regarding everything in nature and in society; in the eyes of some everything is constantly at rest, immutable…. To others, however, it appears that there is nothing unchanging in nature or in society…. This second point of view is called the dynamic point of view…; the former point of view is called static. Which is the correct position?... Even a hasty glance at nature will at once convince us that there is nothing immutable about it….

"Evidently…there is nothing immutable and rigid in the universe…. Matter in motion: such is the stuff of this world…. This dynamic point of view is also called the dialectic point of view….

"The world being in constant motion, we must consider phenomena in their mutual relations, and not as isolated cases. All portions of the universe are actually related to each other and exert an influence on each other…. All things in the universe are connected with an indissoluble bond; nothing exists as an isolated object, independent of its surroundings….

"In the first place, therefore, the dialectic method of interpretation demands that all phenomena be considered in their indissoluble relations; in the second place, that they be considered in their state of motion….

"Since everything in the world is in a state of change, and indissolubly connected with everything else, we must draw the necessary conclusions for the social sciences….

"The basis of all things is therefore the law of change, the law of constant motion. Two philosophers particularly (the ancient Heraclitus and the modern Hegel…) formulated this law of change, but they did not stop there. They also set up the question of the manner in which the process operates. The answer they discovered was that changes are produced by constant internal contradictions, internal struggle. Thus, Heraclitus declared: 'Conflict is the mother of all happenings,' while Hegel said: 'Contradiction is the power that moves things.'

"There is no doubt of the correctness of this law. A moment's thought will convince the reader. For, if there were no conflict, no clash of forces, the world would be in a condition of unchanging stable equilibrium, i.e., complete and absolute permanence, a state of rest precluding all motion…. As we already know that all things change, all things are 'in flux', it is certain that such an absolute state of rest cannot possibly exist. We must therefore reject a condition in which there is no 'contradiction between opposing and colliding forces' no disturbance of equilibrium, but only an absolute immutability….

"In other words, the world consists of forces, acting many ways, opposing each other. These forces are balanced for a moment in exceptional cases only. We then have a state of 'rest', i.e., their actual 'conflict' is concealed. But if we change only one of these forces, immediately the 'internal contradictions' will be revealed, equilibrium will be disturbed, and if a new equilibrium is again established, it will be on a new basis, i.e., with a new combination of forces, etc. It follows that the 'conflict,' the 'contradiction,' i.e., the antagonism of forces acting in various directions, determines the motion of the system….

"Hegel speaks of a transition of quantity into quality….

"The transformation of quantity into quality is one of the fundamental laws in the motion of matter; it may be traced at every step both in nature and society…."

Bukharin, N. (1925), Historical Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm)(George Allen & Unwin).

Lenin:


“Bukharin is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favourite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified as fully Marxist with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him ([B]he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it).”

Bold added.

You can read more on this in Helena Sheehan's book Marxism And The Philosophy Of Science, page 167 onwards. He was criticised for emphasising 'balance' and not 'struggle' which Lenin said was an 'absolute'.


I'm sorry, I assumed that the people commenting on this thread had read Capital. I am using it in Marx's sense when he refers to money as congealed social labor

Indeed, I have read and studied Das Kapital, and I question Marx's use of 'congealed' too.

Of course, if you can't even defend that...

[Philzer]

Hi Zanthorus!

Philzer:


as a stabil system!&


But not being able to exist together in stable equilibrium does not equate to not being able to co-exist. Clearly they can co-exist just not for a long period of time.

Exactly. And time of 5 or 50 thousand years in the evolution is not more than just a flash!


And as far as I can see dialectics doesn't really qualify as any sort of "logic", rather a vague heuristic framework that works quite well as long as we leave variables like "nodes" or "quality" undefined so we can change them ad hoc to fit whatever we're describing.

I agree. The same like in statistic. If you change some parameters you will get completely other curves (results).

Then the layman speak from forgery (fake) because he doesn't have the background knowledge of parameters and modification...

To get any scientific expression you must define the nodes & quality and also the principle (working motor) behind this.

In my model the motor is the three-dimensional etic of the greed-controled individual. This works for some thousands of years and will stopped with the end of the earth as an exploitable planet.

Kind regards

[S.Artesian]

GreyMouser:



Here is Bukharin (I have highlighted the relevant part):



Bukharin, N. (1925), Historical Materialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/index.htm)(George Allen & Unwin).

Lenin:



Bold added.

You can read more on this in Helena Sheehan's book Marxism And The Philosophy Of Science, page 167 onwards. He was criticised for emphasising 'balance' and not 'struggle' which Lenin said was an 'absolute'.



Indeed, I have read and studied Das Kapital, and I question Marx's use of 'congealed' too.

Of course, if you can't even defend that...


Let's review, Rosa;

When your request to "move on" was agreed to, and the move was identified to the concrete analysis of the relations of capital and labor, you demur.

When you, espousing your alleged fidelity to historical materialism, are challenged as to what actually constitutes historical materialism, you demur.

When your abstract dispute of material existence "essence" and "appearance" is challenged with concrete examples from Marx's analysis of capitalism, you refuse to engage the challenge.

When your claim that Marx essentially wasted time in his infatuation with Hegel is challenged on the basis of Marx's concrete analysis, investigation and research into capitalism, you don't, won't or can't respond to the challenge.

When your claim that prior to vol 1 of Capital, Marx's analysis of capitalism was hampered, was diverted from the path established by Kant, Smith, the Scottish materialists is challenged, and the challenge is to provide a single example of a mistake, an error, an inconsistency, an inaccuracy in the earlier works which can be attributed to "Hegelian influence," which Marx then corrects in his "purified" vol 1, you refuse the challenge.

So... whenever a material question is raised about relations between capital and labor, you have nothing to say, even in defense of your own unsubstantiated assertions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian:


Let's review, Rosa;

Still not debating with me, I see.


When your request to "move on" was agreed to, and the move was identified to the concrete analysis of the relations of capital and labor, you demur.

Wrong thread, I think.


When you, espousing your alleged fidelity to historical materialism, are challenged as to what actually constitutes historical materialism, you demur.

No need to; Marx did it all for us -- or didn't you know?


When your abstract dispute of material existence "essence" and "appearance" is challenged with concrete examples from Marx's analysis of capitalism, you refuse to engage the challenge.

When asked to show there are such things as 'essences', or indeed, if they exist, whether they are different from 'appearances', you go oddly silent.

Wonder why?


When your claim that Marx essentially wasted time in his infatuation with Hegel is challenged on the basis of Marx's concrete analysis, investigation and research into capitalism, you don't, won't or can't respond to the challenge.

No need to; Marx confirmed this when he dropped that Hermetic incompetent in Das Kapital.


When your claim that prior to vol 1 of Capital, Marx's analysis of capitalism was hampered, was diverted from the path established by Kant, Smith, the Scottish materialists is challenged, and the challenge is to provide a single example of a mistake, an error, an inconsistency, an inaccuracy in the earlier works which can be attributed to "Hegelian influence," which Marx then corrects in his "purified" vol 1, you refuse the challenge.

Nonsensical work cannot be described as 'erroneous', 'mistaken', 'inconsistent' or 'inaccurate'.

When asked to provide just one quotation from a work published by Marx contemporaneous with or subsequent to Das Kapital, that supports the mystical view you are trying to con us with, you go oddly silent, too.

Wonder why?


So... whenever a material question is raised about relations between capital and labor, you have nothing to say, even in defense of your own unsubstantiated assertions.

Off-topic in this thread.

Or are you intent on stalking me in other threads, too -- just because a mere woman has shown you up?

[S.Artesian]

Playing the gender card, Rosa? So desperate you have to claim your inability to answer a concrete question about the relations of capital and labor is somehow related to your gender?

I have no idea what your gender is, and couldn't care less.

You attempt to manipulate every thread on Marx's use of dialectics to serve your own need for self-advertisement. I just want to get us all to the bottom line of your pseudo-analysis quickly so we can save time and bandwidth and quit prating about with your nonsense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

S Artesian:


Playing the gender card, Rosa? So desperate you have to claim your inability to answer a concrete question about the relations of capital and labor is somehow related to your gender?

I made no assertions, I merely asked a question. Of course, you can always ignore it, but then that might confirm suspcions.


I have no idea what your gender is, and couldn't care less.

Clearly.


You attempt to manipulate every thread on Marx's use of dialectics to serve your own need for self-advertisement. I just want to get us all to the bottom line of your pseudo-analysis quickly so we can save time and bandwidth and quit prating about with your nonsense.

Except, and this is a minor detail, hardly worth mentioning in fact: you have yet to show where I go wrong.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!



Exactly. And, very important: as a stabil system!
This explain, why the society after every try to escape, consequently switched back into class society.
Examples: Spartakus, Peasants' Wars, and even after the revolution in the USSR. But in every cases the same procedure is to observe:

Except, as I have shown, if this theory of yours were true, change would be impossible...


This dialectic unity, as well as I have demonstrated them, now can be finished in two things manner:

1. Renunciation of the principle of the opportunism, up to now doesnt work, see democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250) (overcoming from inside by higher consciousness)

2. The principle cannot be realised any more (Falsifikation by external terms> nothing more for burning down there, all fish eaten-> "mars-planet" -> Marx: The being determines the consciousness -> new consciousness is forced after global disaster)

The end of the biotope earth will destroy this dialectic unity. Because there is to exploit nothing more with which the opportunistic rulers could corrupt also opportunistic people.

(covered to the example: The magnet would be an electromagnet which gets no more energy supplied, the energy was the biotope to be squandered earth)

Kind regards

[RedMaterialist]

Hi comrades!


This dialectic unity, as well as I have demonstrated them, now can be finished in two things manner:


Kind regards

You seem to be saying that a magnet is dialectic since it has a north and south pole, two opposites. By analogy, a society is dialectic because opportunism is like a magnet with opposing "poles," rich and poor. the poles on a magnet can be switched, the earth is a giant magnet which periodically, every 100k yrs or so, switches polarity.

Your argument reminds me of Marx in The German Ideology: "since we are dealing with germans, who do not postulate anything, we must begin by stating the first premise of all human existence...." (On History

[Philzer]

Hi km1818!


the earth is a giant magnet which periodically, every 100k yrs or so, switches polarity

Yes I know this. But this switching of polarity has no relevance in my analogy!

( otherwise you come to other perspectives of our world, e.g. anti-dialectics :D )


...reminds me of Marx in The German Ideology: "since we are dealing with germans, who do not postulate anything, we must begin by stating the first premise of all human existence...."

Yes I think we need new thinking-models. This we can only reach by thinking in greater philosophical dimensions (longterm thinking) and including new knowledges from psychology and sociobiology e.g.

( and not or not only by accusation of the SovietUnion e.g., they couldn't win the fight against the mass of the democratic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)-exploiter-nations, who doesnt believe this, please count the population of NATO and Warschauer_Contract, and also the starting-conditions ! )

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


This dialectic unity, as well as I have demonstrated them, now can be finished in two things manner:

1. Renunciation of the principle of the opportunism, up to now doesnt work, see democracy (overcoming from inside by higher consciousness)

2. The principle cannot be realised any more (Falsifikation by external terms> nothing more for burning down there, all fish eaten-> "mars-planet" -> Marx: The being determines the consciousness -> new consciousness is forced after global disaster)

The end of the biotope earth will destroy this dialectic unity. Because there is to exploit nothing more with which the opportunistic rulers could corrupt also opportunistic people.

(covered to the example: The magnet would be an electromagnet which gets no more energy supplied, the energy was the biotope to be squandered earth)

Kind regards

This seems like yet more a priori dogmatics to me -- you know, of the sort you dialecticians are never supposed to indulge in:


"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels (1976) Anti-Duhring, p.13. Bold emphasis added.]


"A consistent materialism cannot proceed from principles which are validated by appeal to abstract reason, intuition, self-evidence or some other subjective or purely theoretical source. Idealisms may do this. But the materialist philosophy has to be based upon evidence taken from objective material sources and verified by demonstration in practice...." [Novack (1965) The Origin of Materialism, p.17. Bold emphasis added.]

Finally, your comment about magnets is far too obscure to do anything with.

[Philzer]

Hi!



This seems like yet more a priori dogmatics to me

May be. I dont know why. It is my view of the world. Perform a better.

I have given two posibilities: with brain and no crash, motivatet from inside

or with big crash at the end of the exploitable earth, motivatet from outside.

If it intersted to you: I think at the moment the second will be!

( Marx: the being determines the counsciousness )


Finally, your comment about magnets is far too obscure to do anything with.

Why? Is the earth in your thinking endless? I dont think so.

Have a nice day!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


May be. I dont know why. It is my few of the world. Perform a better.

Not only do I not want a 'world view', we'd all be better off without them, seeing as they all form part of the ruling ideas of the ruling class.


I have given two posibilities: with brain and no crash, motivatet from inside

or with big crash at the end of the exploitable earth, motivatet from outside.

If it intersted to you: I think at the moment the second will be!

I'm sorry, once more, but this makes little sense.


Why? Is the earth in your thinking endless? I dont think so

As does this.

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!


Not only do I not want a 'world view', we'd all be better off without them, seeing as they all form part of the ruling ideas of the ruling class.

I make a distinction between a selfcompiled world view and indoctrinated one.

First all world views are indoctrinated absolutely. This is valid for example the Pantheism of the bourgeoisie (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250) in all democratic-exploiter-nations just as for the communism in the former Eastern bloc.

The normal individual comes out in his life "no Picometer" about the Indoktrination.

Plato: The citizen cannot recognise the truth.

That is in terms of Freud, the programmed "superego" (german: "Über-Ich") takes over the function of the instinct with the animal.

My premise: Nietzsche:

He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops--and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him.


I hope in this sense we can work together a little bit, even if I love the dialectic and you hate them. :D



I'm sorry, once more, but this makes little sense.

What make a big sense?

I will further work with in that way thinking models. They are very effectively. It avoids mysteries in 1000 sides with no messages or progress in cognition.

I am an engineer, and no philosopher which his life long a lot must tell around to get money in a university to his subsistence. :D


As does this.

I cannot understand, unfortunately.


Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


I make a distinction between a selfcompiled world view and indoctrinated one.

First all world views are indoctrinated absolutely. This is valid for the Pantheism of the bourgeoisie just as for the communism in the former Eastern bloc.

The normal individual comes out in his life "no Picometer" about the Indoktrination.

Plato: The citizen cannot recognise the truth.

That is in terms of Freud, the programmed "superego" takes over the function of the instinct with the animal.

My premise: Nietzsche:

He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops--and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him.

I hope in this sense we can work together a little bit, even if I love the dialectic and you hate them.

I'm sorry Philzer, but much of this is I find too obscure and disjointed to make any sense of. However, your reference to Freud is unfortunate, since he invented the evidence which he claimed supported his 'theory', making him a liar and a cheat.

And of course you are welcome to 'the dialectic', the only question is: why are you so 'in love' with a dogmatic and a priori example of ruling-class mysticism?


What make a big sense?

What is a 'big sense'?:confused:


I will further work with in that way thinking models. They are very effectively. It avoids mysteries in 1000 sides with no messages or progress in cognition.

I am an engineer, and no philosopher which his life long a lot must tell around to get money in a university to his subsistence.

I think the problem is that your English reads like a machine (with defective software) has translated it from your native tongue!


I cannot understand, unfortunately.

Then what are you doing posting in the English language section?

[Philzer]

Hi!


why are you so 'in love' with a dogmatic and a priori example of ruling-class mysticism?

I'm not in love with dogmatism, I´m in love with a scientific recognize of the world, from which we can deduce actions and rules of behaviour.

I know that the religious individual, like the democrat (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250), always prefer the threedimensional freedom with the cycle "war-peace-war" as the inescapable consequence.

Please show in which of my thinking-models I do propagate a ruling-class mysticism? All I have shown is the permanent principle of all steps of class societies, the principle of corruption! -> democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)


Then what are you doing posting in the English language section?
&

As does this.

1. It isn't a sentence
2. There is no message!

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


I'm not in love with dogmatism,

You indulge in plenty of it though -- in fact, you post little else.


I´m in love with a scientific recognize of the world, from which we can deduce actions and rules of behaviour.

You can only deduce propositions from other propositions, not from the world. Unless, of course you think the world is made out of indicative sentences.


I know that the religious individual, like the democrat, always prefer the threedimensional freedom with the cycle "war-peace-war" as the inescapable consequence.

Eh?:confused:


Please show in which of my thinking-models I do propagate a ruling-class mysticism? All I have shown is the permanent principle of all steps of class societies, the principle of corruption! -> democracy

All that stuff about dialectics, for example.


1. It isn't a sentence

Yes it is.


2. There is no message!

Eh?:confused:

[Milk Sheikh]

Since there can be no war without preparation, that specific gap (where there is preparation for war) can be defined as peace. Therefore, for war to take place, there has to be peace. And that peace is inevitably followed by war. And so the cycle continues.

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!

Please note: I'm not in the mood to waste my time for your reactionary philosophy. Only this:


I know that the religious individual, like the democrat, always prefer the threedimensional freedom with the cycle "war-peace-war" as the inescapable consequence.
&

Eh?:confused:

Let me answer with a modificatet Sokrates/Plato:

I know that you know nothing.

PS: the reason for the cycle of all religious-opportunistic formations: war-peace-war, is explained here:

NON (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1913600&postcount=1)

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


I'm not in the mood to waste my time for your reactionary philosophy.

1) But you are the one who takes his ideas from a bourgeois reactionary, and mystic, Hegel.

2) How many more times do I have to tell you, I have no philosophy, nor do I wan't one. I'm an anti-phiolosopher, keen to see the end of the entire enterprise.


Let me answer with a modificatet Sokrates/Plato:

I know that you know nothing.

I know you are an a priori dogmatist, and that will do for starters.


PS: the reason for the cycle of all religious-opportunistic formations: war-peace-war, is explained here:

With yet more dogmatic and a priori theses you have imposed on nature.:lol:

[Amphictyonis]

Dialectical materialism = Keynesian capitalism? Oh joy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Eh?:confused:

[Philzer]

Hi!


Since there can be no war without preparation, that specific gap (where there is preparation for war) can be defined as peace. Therefore, for war to take place, there has to be peace. And that peace is inevitably followed by war. And so the cycle continues.

:DYou do not seem to me well shaken, comrade!:D (SCNR)

Your "opinion" seems very unscientific to me! If you are right, all people must be ill and are permanently in the mood to shut each other!

My short-definition of war:

War is the forcible unloading by the opportunistic life-style* of the individuals to dammed up problems. These problems can all subsumed under the problem of permanent overexploitation of biosphere.

* the religious individual, like the democrat for example, always ignore the longtime consequences of their own action!

Kind regards

[Meridian]

You have a weird idea of what constitutes a religious person.

A democrat is not necessarily religious. A Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., these are religious.

If you don't understand this, your grasp of English is even poorer than it looks.

[Revolutionair]

Meridian I think you are the one who is short-sided. In our modern society, democracy has become a religion. Now we want to 'export our democracy' instead of we want to export our faith. Democracy has also become the "opiate of the masses".
Meridian you should read Philzer his post about the evolution of religion and the evolution of democracy.

The other option is that you are a democrat yourself. You see democracy as some kind of 'created' just like Christians see the earth as created. Democracy is a part of the dialectics, not above it.

[Philzer]

Hi Meridian!


You have a weird idea of what constitutes a religious person.

I have in opposite to you a scientific understanding of the world!

I.E. I do not ignore the dimension of time like you and every other religious individual!

-> and in the time, you can see a evolution in god-abstraction:

- > pantheism read here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3)

Mythos-Polytheism-Monotheism-Pantheism, and the last is the godabstraction in capitalism, it was necessary for to make profit ot any place on the eart! ( to overcome the limes of all traditionally religions )

-> Motivation for the individual to be religious (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125)

-> And last but not least, read Marx and understand his "snakeskin-metapher" !

(may be comrades here can help you with links in english language)


A democrat is not necessarily religious. A Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, etc., these are religious.

:lol::lol:

-> Understand please that the normal-Individuen still have never understood the religion of her time as those!


If you don't understand this, your grasp of English is even poorer than it looks.

And your understanding of the world seems not be good enough to qoute here!

Please note: Here we are in phylosophy, not in basics!

Kind regards

[Meridian]

"Religion" has a meaning defined by its use in ordinary language, not in the theory of some wannabe philosopher.

'Democracy' is not a religion but a form of society or state. The word has been used in several ways, also as a form of reactionary propaganda.

I am sorry, but if you do not understand what "religion" means then I suggest taking some local English class. This is not short sidedness; not recognizing this is distorting language. It is you who have to go back to the very basics if you believe you are free to choose what the words you use are supposed to mean.

[Revolutionair]

What's your definition of religion?

We are using it as a cultural identity, just like Christianity used to be and Islam still is today, that gives you a certain position in society. There's also the same need for converting people to this religion. People of other religions like Communist (with a capital C mind you) or Islamic states are less worthy than people who share the faith in democracy. Democracy also shares the same non-scientific basis for its views.

[ZeroNowhere]

Hey guys moral views aren't scientific isn't that shocking.

[Philzer]

Hi!

Ok, lets make some basics.


"Religion" has a meaning defined by its use in ordinary language, not in the theory of some wannabe philosopher.

:lol::lol:

I am certainly you have ignored my links. This, for example, is one of the first behaviuor of all religious individuals.

Religion is a step of conscious in the history of the anthropogenesis.
Let’s see what it brings for the individual:


1. Religion as theory of cognition ( Nietzsche: Religion is the will to winter sleep. :D:D)
2.a.& b. Religion as rulers affirmation & justify corruption (exploitation-aspects)
3. Religion as comfort (like an unscientific communism e.g. anti-dialectics )
4. Religion as ethic/ strategie


to 2nd:

2a) benefit for rulers:

Since the class society is this function most important for the rulers. Marx said in class society religion has become ideology.
This you can imagin as a special kind of "knowledge of domination". I.E. the rulers are emancipated from believing in god, but they let the their people "ditching in the fog".

Even the pantheism of capitalism justifies its principal of the strongest with the in the matter containing spirit.

Quotation of Adam Smith “the egoism of the individual brings automatically the material prosperity off all people” means exactly this. If this would be true who cares about nature, environment and so on – God of course?

2b) benefit for rulers a n d crowds:

religion to justify corruption:
- democracy(pantheism): justifies exploitation of other peoples and the nature
- pre-democratic societies ( Polytheism/ Monotheism): exploitation of nature and the "own" women/ family (latent slavery in family)

The missing of both of these elements in the crowd was the reason for the instability of the real exist socialism!


to 4th:
But in my own researches I found out that all these points are not most important for people to be religious.
I also have not the same opinion at this point like Richard Dawkin. He means that religion is only an indoctrination.
In fact is it a spiritual offer which is willingly accepted by individuals of a certain conscious.
The most motivation for the individual is the ethic aspect because:

Religion is the easiest way to justify the own existence, the own willing and the own acting, with no chance for the human spirit to disprove. (-> esoteric pluralism (unscientific freedom of opinion) is the basis for the pantheism of bourgeoisie )

This means the individual use their religion as strategy!


I say, related to ethic aspect, which is conditioned the behavior of each religious individual:

Religion is the will to be right.

You can see this in overpopulation and/ or overconsumption by mankind until today.

Religion is a partially carry over of rules, principles and consequences of unconscious life**, like carelessness (overconsumption of biotopes) and fall back into powerlessness in war.*

Conclusion:

Religion is that consciousness step between animal and human which merged the 4-dimensional creativity of the human individual, with three-dimensional strategies from the unaware life, how carelessness and the principle of the strongest.

Religion and opportunism always form a unity.
The unity of theory and practise.


Kind regards and end of basics please! :)

[Meridian]

Philzer, I have no interest whatsoever in learning about any of your theories of religion. "Religion" is an ordinary word, so its meaning is clear to anyone who knows English. Because language is about the interaction of humans, and a result of it, there is nothing hidden about this word that you can excavate with your nonsensical theories. You could try and show us something about religion, something 'empirical', but that would not be a philosophical theory, and I am afraid you would find such matters boring and "basic". It would make far too much sense.


What's your definition of religion?

We are using it as a cultural identity, just like Christianity used to be and Islam still is today, that gives you a certain position in society. There's also the same need for converting people to this religion. People of other religions like Communist (with a capital C mind you) or Islamic states are less worthy than people who share the faith in democracy. Democracy also shares the same non-scientific basis for its views.
Like most people, I do not have my own definition of "religion".

I would be a terrible English teacher, but I could try: Religious people believe in something supernatural, some divinity. Religion is the worship and belief in some set of supernatural ideas, there is usually some organization handling this worship in some way (if it is an institutional religion). Sure, there is room for difference between the different applications of the word. But 'democracy' does in no way fall into this category, neither does 'cultural identity', nor 'carrot', nor 'communism'.

However, you can choose to use religion as a metaphor or simile for democracy. In some cases, this could be a good picture as it could show how, perhaps, modern democracy relies on the blind beliefs of its citizens (or something to that effect). But to claim that democracy flat out is a religion is wrong.

[ZeroNowhere]

But 'democracy' does in no way fall into this category, neither does 'cultural identity', nor 'carrot', nor 'communism'.But a game is surely just something fun, and therefore watching Satyajit Ray's 'Agantuk' is a game. Stop being so religious about the definition of the word 'game', your usage has no scientific basis.

Sometimes it's good to stop playing games with language, and rather to observe language-games.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


I have in opposite to you a scientific understanding of the world!

Not so; you post here little other than dogmatic a priori theses, which, oddly enough, more closely resemble the dogmatic things creationists say than it does science.

So, you have no room to point fingers at anyone else.

[Meridian]

But a game is surely just something fun, and therefore watching Satyajit Ray's 'Agantuk' is a game. Stop being so religious about the definition of the word 'game', your usage has no scientific basis.

Sometimes it's good to stop playing games with language, and rather to observe language-games.
I am sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

[ZeroNowhere]

I am sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.Essentially that religion only means what Philzer wishes it to mean as much as the word 'game' may be defined as 'something fun'.

[Meridian]

Well, for example a TV show may be fun but that doesn't make it a game. A joke, it may be fun but it isn't a game. Even activities that are fun are not necessarily games. If I were to walk on a trip through the forest for example. Making a game out of it would involve there being more similarity to other games, some features such as rules, points, goals, competition, etc.

[ChrisK]

Meridian I think you are the one who is short-sided. In our modern society, democracy has become a religion. Now we want to 'export our democracy' instead of we want to export our faith. Democracy has also become the "opiate of the masses".
Meridian you should read Philzer his post about the evolution of religion and the evolution of democracy.

The other option is that you are a democrat yourself. You see democracy as some kind of 'created' just like Christians see the earth as created. Democracy is a part of the dialectics, not above it.

A comparision does not create a religion. Certainly religious people impose religious ideas on democracy (Bush would have called democracy something endowed on America by God), but that does not make the thing itself a religion. In fact, this is as silly as those cappies who claim communism is a religion.

[ChrisK]

What's your definition of religion?


A family resemblence of certain features by which we understand religion. This includes some sort of metaphysical beliefs and form of worship.

Democracy does not fit either of those categories, nor does it contain other family resemblences.

[ChrisK]

Well, for example a TV show may be fun but that doesn't make it a game. A joke, it may be fun but it isn't a game. Even activities that are fun are not necessarily games. If I were to walk on a trip through the forest for example. Making a game out of it would involve there being more similarity to other games, some features such as rules, points, goals, competition, etc.

Additionally, some games are not terribly fun. Candyland is not fun, but it is a game.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades and communists!

Before the anti-scientific and anti-dialectic spammer here litter everything:


Essentially that religion only means what Philzer wishes it to mean as much as the word 'game' may be defined as 'something fun'.

This is complete wrong!

Religion is the will to be right.

You can see this in overpopulation and/ or overconsumption by mankind until today.

Religion is a partially carry over of rules, principles and consequences of unconscious life, like carelessness (overconsumption of biotopes) and fall back into powerlessness in war.

I.E.:

Religion is that consciousness step between animal and human which merged the 4-dimensional creativity of the human individual, with three-dimensional strategies from the unaware life, how carelessness and the principle of the strongest.

Religion and opportunism always form a unity.
The unity of theory and practise.

I.E.:

Religion is the counsciousness-stepp of a threedimensional-knitted Individual!

And this consciousness step can never function with any kind of communism together!

Because the religious individual wants to enforce his opportunistic claims (which can all subordinate under the boundless consumtion/overexploitation of the world) with the help of his religious-system and teir "higher sanity" unswervingly.

As long as comrades never understand this psychological principle of every religion as a strategy for the own opportunism (-> an unlimited greed-controled behaviour), they cannot uncover the religious character of the democracy as the pantheistic religion of the bourgeoisie.



additional:

@ anti-dialectics and other "for ever yesterdays":

Do not read this! It is written for scientific, real humans only! Not for religious individuals.

-> On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm)


On what grounds, then, do you Jews want emancipation? On account of your religion? It is the mortal enemy of the state religion. As citizens? In Germany, there are no citizens. As human beings? But you are no more human beings than those to whom you appeal.

Lets try a modern expression::D

On what grounds, then, do you Democrats want emancipation? On account of your religion? It is the mortal enemy of the communism. As citizens? In Capitalism, there are no citizens. As human beings? But you are no more human beings than all other religious individuals before.


pantheism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3)

Kind regards and have a nice sunday!

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, for example a TV show may be fun but that doesn't make it a game. A joke, it may be fun but it isn't a game. Even activities that are fun are not necessarily games. If I were to walk on a trip through the forest for example. Making a game out of it would involve there being more similarity to other games, some features such as rules, points, goals, competition, etc.
Sure, there's a reason why I took my example from Wittgenstein.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Before the anti-scientific and anti-dialectic spammer here litter everything:

But you are the one who is intent on spamming this site with posts that contain litte other than dogmatic assertions and sentences that barely make sense, at best.:lol:

The other 'material' you posted above about religion is, likewise, almost totally incomprehensible.


@ anti-dialectics and other "for ever yesterdays":

Do not read this! It is written for scientific, real humans only! Not for religious individuals.

1) This suggests you think that anyone who has the temerity to challenge your dogmatic ideas is somehow not human!

Do you think you are some sort of prophet?

2) You are the one who posts dogma, not scientific ideas.


On what grounds, then, do you Democrats want emancipation? On account of your religion? It is the mortal enemy of the communism. As citizens? In Capitalism, there are no citizens. As human beings? But you are no more human beings than all other religious individuals before.

Are you still drunk?:lol: