dialectics - why a world view?

[Black Sheep]

On what do dialecticians base their belief that contradiction,change etc are universal principles?

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


On what do dialecticians base their belief that contradiction,change etc are universal principles?

By observation and analysis of the objective reality!

Examples:

Unity of opposites (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=133817)

negation of negation (http://aufbruch.foren-city.de/topic,1021,-negation-der-negation.html) ( text in german but describing graphics are in english)

.......

or analysis of the principles of democracy:

Democracy & the pantheism of bourgeoisie (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=131250)


I would like to complement that I do not misunderstand the dialectic as an automatism to the establishment of the truth. But these are good tools for modern metaphysics.

Kind regards

[Black Sheep]

Is that supposed to be a response? :confused:

[Philzer]

Is that supposed to be a response? :confused:

Where is your problem?

I have given two practical examples at which one can understand very nicely that one just finds the dialectic principles very often in the objective reality.

Unity of opposites (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=133817)

negation of negation (http://aufbruch.foren-city.de/topic,1021,-negation-der-negation.html) ( text in german, describing graphics in english)

And to make them universal laws exactly this arranged Hegel and Engels.

(their headstrong use proves indeed no sense)

Kind regards

[ComradeRed]

I think one question that comes to mind with the response is...

I would like to complement that I do not misunderstand the dialectic as an automatism to the establishment of the truth. But these are good tools for modern metaphysics.
What the hell does this even mean? "Automatism"?

Try writing in a way that is meant to be understood.

A common problem I see is that dialecticians typically like to use big words to intimidate people, then say condescendingly "Oh, you don't understand? Then you don't belong here!"

[Philzer]

Hi!


What the hell does this even mean? "Automatism"?

This means that if you change the criterions for the negation-point, or categories for primary or secondary factors, you will always get a other result. It is a little bit like in mathematic statistics. And the reason is also the same, the high complexity.

Where is your problem? Please try to explain it closer.

In my figures you can see the different results, if you change the criterions:

http://s7.directupload.net/images/100821/4hagq83h.gif (http://www.directupload.net)


__________________________________________________ __________________


http://s3.directupload.net/images/100821/7zwf7wa5.gif (http://www.directupload.net)




Try writing in a way that is meant to be understood.

Ok. I try it, und you try to understand or answer with concrete questions.


A common problem I see is that dialecticians typically like to use big words to intimidate people, then say condescendingly "Oh, you don't understand? Then you don't belong here!"

Sorry?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Alas, Philzer, as we have shown many times here at RevLeft, none of the above makes the slightest bit of sense, let alone works:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htm

Here is how I answered the OP's question a year or so ago (over in Learning):


There are two interconnected reasons, I think.

1) The founders of this quasi-religion [Dialectical Marxism] weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers", administrators and theorists, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm).

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated before they became revolutionaries to believe there was just such a hidden world that governed everything, when they became revolutionaries would naturally look for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

2) That allowed the founders of this quasi-religion to think of themselves as special, as prophets of the new order, which workers, alas, could not quite grasp because of their defective education and their reliance on ordinary language and 'common sense'.

Fortunately, history has predisposed these prophets to ascertain the truth about reality for the rest of us, which means that they must be our 'naturally-ordained' leaders. That in turn meant these 'leaders' were also Teachers of the 'ignorant masses', who could 'legitimately' substitute themselves for the unwashed majority -- in 'their own interests', you understand. This is because the masses are too caught up in 'commodity fetishism' to see the truth for themselves.

And that is why Dialectical Materialism is a world-view.

It is also why dialecticians cling on to this theory like grim death (and become very emotional (and abusive!) when it is attacked by yours truly), since it provides them with a source of consolation that, despite outward appearances to the contrary, and because this hidden world tells them that Dialectical Marxism will one day be a success, everything is in fact OK, and nothing in the core theory needs changing -- in spite of the fact that that core theory says everything changes! Hence, it is ossified into a dogma, and imposed on reality. A rather nice unity of opposites for you to ponder.

So, this 'theory' insulates the militant mind from the facts; it tells such comrades that reality 'contradicts' outward appearances. Hence, even if Dialectical Marxism appears to be a long-term failure, those with the equivalent of a dialectical 'third eye' can see that the opposite is in fact the case: Dialectical Marxism is a ringing success!

In that case, awkward facts can either be ignored or they can be re-configured into their opposites.

Hence:

Dialectics is the sigh of the depressed dialectician, the heart of a heartless world. It is the opiate of the party. The abolition of dialectics as the illusory happiness of the party hack is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Unfortunately, these sad characters will need (materialist) workers to rescue them from themselves.

I stand no chance...

Moreover, the divisiveness and sectarianism found throughout Dialectical Marxism originates also in the class position of its leading figures (in the past and today); the acceptance of this 'theory' just makes things worse. This is because it gives them an incomprehensible set of dogmas (like those found in any religion, holy book, or set of holy books), which they alone really 'understand', and which they can then use to castigate and condemn any who threaten their position, accusing them of not 'understanding' dialectics (an easy claim to make since no one understands it!), and thus fit only to be expelled, imprisoned or shot.

More details here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm