Negation of Negation

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


The victory of capitalistic production and its pantheistic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3) way of life in the industrial countries over the Socialistic-World-System forces a development of the communistic theory. It does not mean adopt parts from the pantheism of bourgeois and its global exploiter-models like democracy or other ideas in the sense of classical revisionism.

As a passionate dialectical and hobby-philosopher I often think in the sense of Adorno:

“Philosophical thinking is thinking in models”.


And I think dialectics supply good models to understand the world. Of course there is no guaranty for automatic success to find the “truth of world”, because it is very complicated. So you have many possibilities to set other switching/turning-points as negation-points or choose other arguments as most important for evolution.

The here investigated dialectic law is the so called “negation of negation”. The conclusion of this law is that you can imagine many developments in nature as a cycle. Hegel described this in his “Phenomenology of spirit” on a cycle of a plant (vegetable) from the blossom over the seed to the next plant.

By the blind process of mutation the species can adapt to changes of environment. Is there some strong changing parameter, e.g. water or light, so that it has most priority for surviving of the species, than this is the criterion of negation!

The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.


A most spread thesis of negation of negation for communists for example, was the evolution from the formation of the “Hunter and gatherer” as the primitive communism, over the first negation into the class society, and over the second negation, back in a modern, scientific communism.

The switching point for the first and the second negation should be the surplus value of the society.
And, moreover, the second negation point should be dependent on the revolutionary consciousness of the people.

I have some problems with these criteria of negation, with the defining of the switching-points and also of the working principle:

The first negation is the point of “exploitable surplus value of the individual”. This point is real, understandable and we can find this point depending on a specific level of productivity caused by the division of labor.

But also here I feel this point to choose as a point of negation is problematic. Productivity and the result of the division of labor are only expressions of the human creativity which is based on the four dimensional cognition of our species!

And even much more difficult is the second point of the NON in classical Marxism, the point of switching from class society back to a scientific communism. The level of surplus value can never be a switching point because the needs of the individuals always and endless grow in conjunction of the human creativity.

I believe the theory of evolution from primitive communism over the class societies to scientific communism as a function of the productivity and consciousness in the mass for a higher distributional justice is falsified by practice. (Democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250))

The model of the classical Marxism:


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



The model of "NON" works in the same way as my model “unity of opposites”. I.E. there is also a primary and a secondary element.

But the different is, “unity of opposites (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-opposites-t133817/index.html?t=133817)” shows the stabilising-factor of a system in a specific time, abstracted from the different phenomenology’s over this timeframe.
“NON” shows in opposite an evolution. I.E. changing and progress in the time as a dialectical process with primary and secondary elements.

In this particular case the consciousness (secondary element) has to follow the biotope-reality (primary element). I think this is conforming to the quote of Marx: “The being determines the consciousness”.

My model classified all religious formations as opportunistic formations, and the class-societies are only a partial quantity of it. So in my model the formations of “Hunter and Gatherer” aren’t a primitive-communism. They are primitive-opportunistic-formations, because they have exploited all what they could get, but the productivity of the human individual was too low to get an exploitable surplus value of it.

At the second switching point the dialectical unit between the rulers and the peoples (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-opposites-t133817/index.html?t=133817), the stabilizing element over all religious-opportunistic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125) formations, will break down, because the wasting of earth ends with the exploitable earth self.

-> figure 2.

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

Kind regards

[ChrisK]

The here investigated dialectic law is the so called “negation of negation”. The conclusion of this law is that you can imagine many developments in nature as a cycle. Hegel described this in his “Phenomenology of spirit” on a cycle of a plant (vegetable) from the blossom over the seed to the next plant.

By the blind process of mutation the species can adapt to changes of environment. Is there some strong changing parameter, e.g. water or light, so that it has most priority for surviving of the species, than this is the criterion of negation!

The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.

First off, check out this link (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm#Hegels-Hermetic-Howlers) for an outline of the logical blunders that Hegel made in coming up the negation of the negation

Second, are negations externally motivated or internally motivated? If they are internally motivated then your spiecies adaption argument fails on the count that adaptions are externally influenced. If they are externally motivated, then your capitalism arguments fail as they are based on so-called internal negations.

Third, how are adaptions or changes "negations?"

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


First off, check out this link for an outline of the logical blunders that Hegel ....

rhetorical:

I'm not in the mood to follow some abstruse brain-jogging without progress in cognition of world.

Hegel is for me just as little a God like all the other philosophers.

Nevertheless is the name "blunder" for his works no scientific disproof and uninterested for me.

rational:

The only reason to follow the thinking of the "Anti-Dialectics" is they are in able to deliver better thinking-models for our understanding of the world.

If they can perform this, will be fast forgotten "dialectic".

Nothing else!

additionally:

My models supply a part to understand the history of mankind of the last 100 years. This was the motivation for me to develop this.
If you have better "thinking models", please show us!


Kind regards!

[Philzer]

Hi Christofer!


Second, are negations externally motivated or internally motivated?


“The being determines the consciousness”

In following this quote, it is definitively external motivated.

(evolution: e.g. upright walking or consciousness)

Unfortunately, how you can see in figure_1, in the classical model, it is a mix from both: external (productivity) and internal (revolutionary consciousness) motivation.

As we have seen last 100 years: it doesnt work.


If they are externally motivated, then your capitalism arguments fail as they are based on so-called internal negations.

Sorry. Which capitalism-arguments do you mean?


Third, how are adaptions or changes "negations?"

It means, that adaptions or changes in all kind of species of our earth, only possible over this process from generation to generation.
( hegel: plant -> seed -> plant )

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In fact this is a better link:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

There you will see that the 'negation of the negation' derives from a serious logical blunder committed by Hegel when he confused the negative form of the so-called 'law of idenitity' with the 'law of non-contradiction'.

We should therefore treat this obscure dogma with the same contempt we show toward Anslem's verbal trick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument) -- where he tried to derive 'God's existence from his alleged 'essence'.

In fact, both dogmas originate from the same source: mystical Neoplatonism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/neoplato/).

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li & comrades!

The screws up in which way John will turn "into the mankind and back to itself" and much more of this, is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
I will leave this to more clever people.

Moreover, my English is not liquid enough for it. Sorry.

But why do you not choose a other way:

Find real faults in my model, covered to things from the real world, or the other way, perform a better model which show us what was happening the last 100 years...

I think my models:

democracy
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)
unit of opposites
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-opposites-t133817/index.html?t=133817)
and this here, negation of negation,

explain it in a very exactly way!

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm sorry but I find it difficult to follow much of what you post.:(

[ChrisK]

Hi comrades!



rhetorical:

I'm not in the mood to follow some abstruse brain-jogging without progress in cognition of world.

Hegel is for me just as little a God like all the other philosophers.

Nevertheless is the name "blunder" for his works no scientific disproof and uninterested for me.

This is a basic attack on his misuse of language. It is not rhetorical.


rational:

The only reason to follow the thinking of the "Anti-Dialectics" is they are in able to deliver better thinking-models for our understanding of the world.

If they can perform this, will be fast forgotten "dialectic".

Nothing else!

I call it historical materialism. Anti-Dialectics is not proposing a theory, just rejecting dialectics.


additionally:

My models supply a part to understand the history of mankind of the last 100 years. This was the motivation for me to develop this.
If you have better "thinking models", please show us!


Kind regards!

Your models prove nothing. They are simply using a historical timeline and flawed Hegelian notions.

[ChrisK]

Hi Christofer!





In following this quote, it is definitively external motivated.

(evolution: e.g. upright walking or consciousness)

Unfortunately, how you can see in figure_1, in the classical model, it is a mix from both: external (productivity) and internal (revolutionary consciousness) motivation.

As we have seen last 100 years: it doesnt work.

How is productivity external to capitalism? That makes no sense.


Sorry. Which capitalism-arguments do you mean?

Sorry, I meant your arguments involving capitalism. What I mean by this is that all the things that are described are internal to captialism, thus there is no external motivation.


It means, that adaptions or changes in all kind of species of our earth, only possible over this process from generation to generation.
( hegel: plant -> seed -> plant )

Kind regards

You have not described how a thing is a negation. You have given an example, not a definition.

[Philzer]

Hi Christofer!


This is a basic attack on his misuse of language. It is not rhetorical.

...ping...attention....ball comes back...its like table tennis... :)


I call it historical materialism. Anti-Dialectics is not proposing a theory, just rejecting dialectics.

I have no problem with historical materialism.

If you can explain with it such questions like the stability of the class society?

Or things why the humanity just her world destroys?

Like you in my models sees they can explain a lot of it dialectically.

I recur: Deliver better models! We wait!


Your models prove nothing.

LOL ! :laugh:

But they destroy absolutely some of primitively communist dream thinking.

-->> Because: Truth is a process!

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Finding the truth might involve a process, but truth itself can't be a process. If someone tells the truth, they aren't telling a process.

[ChrisK]

Hi Christofer!



...ping...attention....ball comes back...its like table tennis... :)

Eh?


I have no problem with historical materialism.

If you can explain with it such questions like the stability of the class society?

Or things why the humanity just her world destroys?

Yes, historical materialism can answer these as it is the method to do so.


Like you in my models sees they can explain a lot of it dialectically.

I couldn't follow this sentence.


I recur: Deliver better models! We wait!


I already did. Historical materialism is my model. You have yet to prove that the negation of the negation is a law that I should believe. I gave you a link, as did Rosa, to attacks of this idea written by Rosa. How are they wrong?



LOL ! :laugh:

But they destroy absolutely some of primitively communist dream thinking.

-->> Because: Truth is a process!

Kind regards

How is truth a process? That makes no sense. How do your models work when the negation of the negation does not?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Hi comrades!


The victory of capitalistic production and its pantheistic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3) way of life in the industrial countries over the Socialistic-World-System forces a development of the communistic theory. It does not mean adopt parts from the pantheism of bourgeois and its global exploiter-models like democracy or other ideas in the sense of classical revisionism.

As a passionate dialectical and hobby-philosopher I often think in the sense of Adorno:

“Philosophical thinking is thinking in models”.


And I think dialectics supply good models to understand the world. Of course there is no guaranty for automatic success to find the “truth of world”, because it is very complicated. So you have many possibilities to set other switching/turning-points as negation-points or choose other arguments as most important for evolution.

The here investigated dialectic law is the so called “negation of negation”. The conclusion of this law is that you can imagine many developments in nature as a cycle. Hegel described this in his “Phenomenology of spirit” on a cycle of a plant (vegetable) from the blossom over the seed to the next plant.

By the blind process of mutation the species can adapt to changes of environment. Is there some strong changing parameter, e.g. water or light, so that it has most priority for surviving of the species, than this is the criterion of negation!

The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.


A most spread thesis of negation of negation for communists for example, was the evolution from the formation of the “Hunter and gatherer” as the primitive communism, over the first negation into the class society, and over the second negation, back in a modern, scientific communism.

The switching point for the first and the second negation should be the surplus value of the society.
And, moreover, the second negation point should be dependent on the revolutionary consciousness of the people.

I have some problems with these criteria of negation, with the defining of the switching-points and also of the working principle:

The first negation is the point of “exploitable surplus value of the individual”. This point is real, understandable and we can find this point depending on a specific level of productivity caused by the division of labor.

But also here I feel this point to choose as a point of negation is problematic. Productivity and the result of the division of labor are only expressions of the human creativity which is based on the four dimensional cognition of our species!

And even much more difficult is the second point of the NON in classical Marxism, the point of switching from class society back to a scientific communism. The level of surplus value can never be a switching point because the needs of the individuals always and endless grow in conjunction of the human creativity.

I believe the theory of evolution from primitive communism over the class societies to scientific communism as a function of the productivity and consciousness in the mass for a higher distributional justice is falsified by practice. (Democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250))

The model of the classical Marxism:


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



The model of "NON" works in the same way as my model “unity of opposites”. I.E. there is also a primary and a secondary element.

But the different is, “unity of opposites (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-opposites-t133817/index.html?t=133817)” shows the stabilising-factor of a system in a specific time, abstracted from the different phenomenology’s over this timeframe.
“NON” shows in opposite an evolution. I.E. changing and progress in the time as a dialectical process with primary and secondary elements.

In this particular case the consciousness (secondary element) has to follow the biotope-reality (primary element). I think this is conforming to the quote of Marx: “The being determines the consciousness”.

My model classified all religious formations as opportunistic formations, and the class-societies are only a partial quantity of it. So in my model the formations of “Hunter and Gatherer” aren’t a primitive-communism. They are primitive-opportunistic-formations, because they have exploited all what they could get, but the productivity of the human individual was too low to get an exploitable surplus value of it.

At the second switching point the dialectical unit between the rulers and the peoples (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-opposites-t133817/index.html?t=133817), the stabilizing element over all religious-opportunistic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125) formations, will break down, because the wasting of earth ends with the exploitable earth self.

-> figure 2.

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

Kind regards


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:QdFZJLFiBnWu4M:http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr4/Weedduck/Funny-MonkeyReaction-full.jpg&t=1

[Philzer]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:QdFZJLFiBnWu4M:http://i464.photobucket.com/albums/rr4/Weedduck/Funny-MonkeyReaction-full.jpg&t=1

Hi Gangsterio!

Nice picture!

But the look has such a horror?
Maybe because is clear to you that if one does not understand the world one can also not change them?

Have a nice day!

[Meridian]

But people change the world all the time, not really with any special theoretical knowledge of it.

[Philzer]

Hi Meridian!


But people change the world all the time, not really with any special theoretical knowledge of it.

That's right!

And all this changing is nothing else than a changing of the productivity ressources, which the productivity relations have to follow.
Exactly in the sense of Marx.

Along this way, the principle of the strongest, will never create a communism, always new types of class societies.

Kind regards

[Philzer]

Hi Christofer!


Yes, historical materialism can answer these as it is the method to do so. I already did. Historical materialism is my model.

And why in hell, you can not give any answers to my questions?


If you can explain with it such questions like the stability of the class society?

Or things why the humanity just her world destroys?

Like you in my models sees they can explain a lot of it dialectically.

I recur: Deliver better models! We wait!


The only what get to eat is:

John must turn into the mankind and back, John must be rich and poor at the same time and much more of this totally abstruse brain-jogging!

Is it onanie? (in the philosophical-sense of Marx) I fear it!!



. How do your models work when the negation of the negation does not?

It works fine. Look in the nature. :D

-> To proof the first negation-point read Kant: Everlasting peace.

-> The second point is a metaphysical hypothesis of me.

-> there is no compulsion that it works, The species always have to die the choice. More than 99% of the present kinds of our planet have become extinct.

-> The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.

Have a nice day!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.

This still looks like yet more a priori dogma -- of the sort dialectical marxists are never supposed to concoct:


"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.]

[ChrisK]

Hi Christofer!



And why in hell, you can not give any answers to my questions?




The only what get to eat is:

John must turn into the mankind and back, John must be rich and poor at the same time and much more of this totally abstruse brain-jogging!
Is it onanie? (in the philosophical-sense of Marx) I fear it!!

My apologies, I couldn't understand a word of what you wrote.


It works fine. Look in the nature. :D

-> To proof the first negation-point read Kant: Everlasting peace.

Reading Kant doesn't prove anything. Reading Kant is reading what one guy came up with sitting on his ass and taking daily walks.


-> The second point is a metaphysical hypothesis of me.

I don't understand


-> there is no compulsion that it works, The species always have to die the choice. More than 99% of the present kinds of our planet have become extinct.

That shows extinction not the negation of some other negation.


-> The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.

Have a nice day!

How so?

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


My apologies, I couldn't understand a word of what you wrote.

Oh well, which petty excuse instead to give serious answers!

I know, your own "philosophy" is only an empty space.
Or better, a mystical hyperspace.




Reading Kant doesn't prove anything. Reading Kant is reading what one


Yes we know. Kant is rubbish, dialectics are rubbish, but where is your
superb model, your own understanding of the world? It doesnt' exist!




there is no compulsion that it works, The species always have to die the choice. More than 99% of the present kinds of our planet have become extinct.
&


That shows extinction not the negation of some other negation.

&

The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.
&

How so?

This is the being of life! Called Darwinism!

You know nothing! Are you a creationist? This would at least explain why you will never be able to think dialectically!

Conclusion:

The content of your "pseudophilosphy" is:

- Preventing of knowledge, nothing else!

-> and I´m afraid your "pseudophilosophy" has only the following destinations:

- The justification of the status quo:

-> the privilegs of the democratic-exploiter-nations
-> The continuation of the carefree exploitation of people by people ( democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250) )and the disinhibited exploitation of the whole world.


Resume:

I have the ideas, I have the tools and I also think a little bit of scientific thinking and knowledge which is necessary to get a phylosophical view of the world. And if you mean you must always have the last post in my threads - note: it amuses me!. :D

Have a nice day!

[Revolutionair]

I want to start this post with thanking Philzer. As soon as you understand how his thinking works, you will see that he is 'correct'. I posted correct in the '' because like Philzer said: "there is no compulsion that it works, The species always have to die the choice. More than 99% of the present kinds of our planet have become extinct." His method of thinking involves looking at history. But not only at the material conditions but at the inner mechanics of the world. This always reminds me of the shadow-world. We are only the shadows of reality. In order to find reality we must look, not at the results, but at the machine that produced those results.

Combining this with materialism allows you to see beyond ideas. For instance, a capitalist told me that capitalism is against the state because the state taxes capitalists. But if you look at the inner mechanics, capitalism requires the capitalist to help the state. The result of this is that in the Spanish Civil War, capitalists opposed the anarchists. When the German state was threatened they rallied to people who wanted to save the state. Thus the idea of capitalism being against the state is disproved by the inner mechanics of materialism.

There are multiple ways to look at those inner mechanics of the world. Some people look at it as stand-alone ideas. Such as fascism is when someone thinks X, liberalism is when someone thinks Y, communism is when someone thinks Z, and so on. But what they miss is the dialectics between the ideas. Hypothesis -> thesis -> anti-thesis -> synthesis -> thesis -> anti-thesis. Marx and Engels dismissed the dialectics between the ideas, for the dialectics of the material relations. Philzer is just using that method.

I think I made less sense explaining Philzer, than Philzer himself. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^You have yet to tell us why we should accept Philzer's a priori dogmatics, especially when it violates Engels's declaration:


"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), p.13. Bold emphasis added.]

Compare Philzer's approach with what George Novack had to say:


"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]

This is quite apart from the fact that the 'negation of the negation' was derived from a series of crass logical blunders committed by Hegel. On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1871471&postcount=66

Finally, this:


Hypothesis -> thesis -> anti-thesis -> synthesis -> thesis -> anti-thesis.

has nothing to do with dialectics. It is in fact Kant and Fichte's method, not Hegel's:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


The realization of the criterion of negation only enables the success of the species.
&

This still looks like yet more a priori dogma ....

And, besides, I thought you would have studied Philosophy!

The expresson is a dogma, of course! Live or die!

Relevant to the sanity of the humanity it is what Freud "the dictatorship of the sanity" called.

And this, my dear Mr. philosopher, fits precisely to the freedom concept of the Marxists which you presumably do not know, or can interpret not dialectically!

Thus I must do it for you and you may grumble at my bad English.

marxist definition of freedom: Spinoza/Engels:


Freedom is the understanding of the necessity and to act after this.

( Have somebody a link to this definition in english? )

Explanation of you because you do not want to understand it definitely:

And when the species/ individual does not recognize the necessity, or not acting after this necessity, they cannot be free! This means in NON they cannot life longer, they must die!

I hope to have helped!

Kind regards!

[ChrisK]

Hi comrades!



Oh well, which petty excuse instead to give serious answers!

I know, your own "philosophy" is only an empty space.
Or better, a mystical hyperspace.

Huh? I couldn't understand because of your broken English. Unfortunately I don't speak German (I assume you are from Germany) so I can't help with the language barrier.

How is my lack of a philosophy a mystical hyperspace.


Yes we know. Kant is rubbish, dialectics are rubbish, but where is your superb model, your own understanding of the world? It doesnt' exist!

My superb model is Historical Materialism without the bullshit of dialectics stuck to it.


This is the being of life! Called Darwinism!

You know nothing! Are you a creationist? This would at least explain why you will never be able to think dialectically!

No, Darwinism has nothing to do with the negation of the negation. You have not yet explained how the negation of the negation actually applies to Darwinism. In fact, my Seminar on Human Evolution this quarter has yet to go over that. Actually, we don't, since they are not related.

How am I a creationist if I don't agree with the negation of the negation? Better let Dawkins know about his new found faith.


Conclusion:

The content of your "pseudophilosphy" is:

- Preventing of knowledge, nothing else!

Where do you get that from?


-> and I´m afraid your "pseudophilosophy" has only the following destinations:

- The justification of the status quo:

-> the privilegs of the democratic-exploiter-nations
-> The continuation of the carefree exploitation of people by people ( democracy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250) )and the disinhibited exploitation of the whole world.

Okay, knock it the fuck off. Where the fuck do I even imply this.


Resume:

I have the ideas, I have the tools and I also think a little bit of scientific thinking and knowledge which is necessary to get a phylosophical view of the world. And if you mean you must always have the last post in my threads - note: it amuses me!. :D

Have a nice day!

You have pseudo-scientific horseshit that you refuse to back up.

Have a fuck all day.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


And, besides, I thought you would have studied Philosophy!

Indeed, and to PhD level; and at the following link you will see why I think traditional philosophy (of the sort you seem to like) is little other than ruling-class hot air:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1718346&postcount=61

And in extensive (almost PhD level) detail, here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm

You see, I take Marx seriously when he told us that traditional Philosophy is based on a distortion of language:


"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

"We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970) The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

Philzer:


Relevant to the sanity of the humanity it is what Freud "the dictatorship of the sanity" called.

Please stop referring to that liar and fraud, Freud.

I want to hang on to my dinner a bit longer...http://serve.mysmiley.net/sick/sick0022.gif


Freedom is the understanding of the necessity and to act after this.

Yet more a priori dogmatics, which you seem happy to accept as if it were sent down to us from heaven on tablets of stone.:lol:


Explanation of you because you do not want to understand it definitely:

And when the species/ individual does not recognize the necessity, or not acting after this necessity, they cannot be free! This means in NON they cannot life longer, they must die!

I hope to have helped!

Not really, since, like Engels, I reject a priori dogmatics.

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!

In summary you seem to me as a mysterious philosopher.
This means you cannot/want not work in a scientific way and your aim isnt come to cognition for mankind. You prefer an esotheric way like it is typically for all bourgeois philosopher.

The shortest explanation for this behaviour is the conclusion, that the mythos is the spirit analogue to the "handycap-principle" from unconsciousness life.

I.E. it is nothing else than a takeover of strategies from there, like carelesness and the principle of the strongest merged with the creativity of our species. (timeframe of religious-opportunistic-formations shown in figure2)

Furthermore it is arrogant to call a scientist a liar!

Of course an error cannot be excluded, but the psychoanalysis is nowadays an approved science.

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer (well done for ignoring what I posted!):


In summary you seem to me as a mysterious philosopher.

On what do you base this? In fact, at my site, at RevLeft and even in this thread, I have made it plain that I am an anti-philosopher.


This means you cannot/want not work in a scientific way and your aim isnt come to cognition for mankind.

In fact, philosophy gets in the way of science.


You prefer an esotheric way like it is typically for all bourgeois philosopher.

May I remind you that Hegel (from who you are only too happy to learn) was bourgeois?

And on what basis do you assert I am a 'bourgeois philosopher'?

Or are you so used to posting dogmatic, a priori theses, which you do not even bother to support with scientific evidence, that you now assume that it is sufficient for you merely to assert something for it to become the equivalent of 'god's own truth?


The shortest explanation for this behaviour is the conclusion, that the mythos is the spirit analogue to the "handycap-principle" from unconsciousness life.

Well, at least you are consistent in your aim to post little other than a priori dogmatics!:lol:


I.E. it is nothing else than a takeover of strategies from there, like carelesness and the principle of the strongest merged with the creativity of our species. (timeframe of religious-opportunistic-formations shown in figure2)

Eh?:confused:


Furthermore it is arrogant to call a scientist a liar!

But Freud was no scientist. He was, like you, an a priori dogmatist -- compounded by lies, fabrication, the bullying of patients and colleagues, fuelled by substance abuse.


Of course an error cannot be excluded, but the psychoanalysis is nowadays an approved science.

If it is, that's only because it has rejected much of what Freud believed.

[Revolutionair]

Lol @ Rosa and Christofer who spam every dialectics thread.
Dialectics is a way of interpreting the world. It is a world view. It might be wrong, but we won't know until we encounter a situation where the predictions based on the interpretation is not the real-life result. In other words, it might be wrong, but it is the best we have. If you have a better interpretation, please share it with us. Philzer already asked for your interpretation.

A priori means doing no research right? Dialectics is based on the research on history. It tries to 'blow away the mist' that hides the machine behind our perception. If we encounter a perception which differs with the system we thought we had discovered, we know that dialectics is false. You can argue 5 hours about some John who is the entire manhood but it would be better if you would just give us a better tool to analyze.

[Philzer]

Hi!


In fact, at my site, at RevLeft and even in this thread, I have made it plain that I am an anti-philosopher.

This only could be enough to be a good politician, in the sense of Thomas Mann: a good rhetor-bourgeois



May I remind you that Hegel (from who you are only too happy to learn) was bourgeois?

I know. -> and what about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che .......?????


And on what basis do you assert I am a 'bourgeois philosopher'?

Because every unscientific philosophy serves unscientific societies.
It means all societies which are based on the principle of the strongest are mystically decorated -> democracy

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)
Good night at all!

[ChrisK]

Lol @ Rosa and Christofer who spam every dialectics thread.
Dialectics is a way of interpreting the world. It is a world view. It might be wrong, but we won't know until we encounter a situation where the predictions based on the interpretation is not the real-life result. In other words, it might be wrong, but it is the best we have. If you have a better interpretation, please share it with us. Philzer already asked for your interpretation.

Please, share an actual example of dialectics working. I have yet to actually see one that works and I have yet to have some provide an example that shows actual contradictions. I have yet to see something turn into its opposite, I have yet to see something negate something and then get negated. I have seen no example of dialectics actually working.

I do have a better interpretation. Its called historical materialism. A nice outline of it is presented in a little pamphlet known as the Communist Manifesto.


A priori means doing no research right? Dialectics is based on the research on history. It tries to 'blow away the mist' that hides the machine behind our perception. If we encounter a perception which differs with the system we thought we had discovered, we know that dialectics is false. You can argue 5 hours about some John who is the entire manhood but it would be better if you would just give us a better tool to analyze.

A priori means knowledge before experience/cognization. In other words, it is knowledge we are born with. Its a bunch of horseshit.

Dialectics is based on the thinking of philosophers who never bothered to observe the world. Please, an example of dialectics as proven by history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolutionair:


Lol @ Rosa and Christofer who spam every dialectics thread.

You obviously mean by 'spam': "Anti-dialectical arguments I can't answer."


Dialectics is a way of interpreting the world. It is a world view. It might be wrong, but we won't know until we encounter a situation where the predictions based on the interpretation is not the real-life result. In other words, it might be wrong, but it is the best we have. If you have a better interpretation, please share it with us. Philzer already asked for your interpretation.

Sure it's a world-view, but it's a very poor one, since it is hoplessly confused.

Here is what I posted in another thread on why it's a world-view:


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.

You:


In other words, it might be wrong, but it is the best we have.

It's not even close to the best we have; in fact it does not even make the bottom of the reserve list of likely theories, since, if it were true, change would be impossible. On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

And I am not offering an alternative philosophical theory, since, as I have shown, they are all non-sensical:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1718346&postcount=61

Anyway, we do not need an alternative philosophical theory; we already have an excellent scientific theory called 'Historical Materialism'. [HM]


A priori means doing no research right?

No it means 'prior to experience'; in other words DM-theses are imposed on the world in defiance of what Engels said:


"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.]

Too bad Engels also ignored his own maxim.


Dialectics is based on the research on history.

In fact, it obscures history, since, if it it were true, nothing in history would change.


It tries to 'blow away the mist' that hides the machine behind our perception. If we encounter a perception which differs with the system we thought we had discovered, we know that dialectics is false. You can argue 5 hours about some John who is the entire manhood but it would be better if you would just give us a better tool to analyze.

HM.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer (still stuck in Dogmatic-Hyperspace):


This only could be enough to be a good politician, in the sense of Thomas Mann: a good rhetor-bourgeois

Eh?:confused:


know. -> and what about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che .......?????

This (I posted this in answer to the question: 'Why is Dialectical Materialism a world view?"):


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 asked this question:

Quote:


And on what basis do you assert I am a 'bourgeois philosopher'?

To which you answered:


Because every unscientific philosophy serves unscientific societies.
It means all societies which are based on the principle of the strongest are mystically decorated -> democracy

This makes little sense.

You have yet to show I'm a philosopher to begin with, let alone a bourgeois philosopher!

Did you not read where I said I was an anti-philosopher?

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa Li!


Did you not read where I said I was an anti-philosopher?

Yes of course!

You are a individual with threedimensional behaviour!

To workout the differncy of this kind of individual to the real human, I have developed this model!

I am glad that you the model now, finally has understood.

Unfurtunetaly I found you as a part of the middle timeframe, a religious-opportunistic individual, which the modern kind of it is the so called democrat (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250).

And this kind of individual can never escape his own greed-driven overexploitation of biotop and the consequence of it, the fallen back in the helplessness of war.

Kind regards


I know that you know nothing.

[chegitz guevara]

I'm sorry but I find it difficult to follow much of what you post.:(
Now you know how the rest of the world feels.

[chegitz guevara]

Negation in negation of the negation should not be understood as negative. It stands for change. Things change, and then the change is changed.

The child negates the infant.
The adult negates the child, thus it is the negation of the negation.

It's just a high fulatin' way to describe development.

[S.Artesian]

Hi Rosa Li!

I know that you know nothing.


Word.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chegitz:


Now you know how the rest of the world feels.

What? They too can't follow Philzer?

There's a huge surprise...:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


You are a individual with threedimensional behaviour!

According to Relativity Theory, it's four dimensional.

And you say I know nothing! http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif


To workout the differncy of this kind of individual to the real human, I have developed this model!

Oh no! Not another dogmatic and a priori 'model'!


I am glad that you the model now, finally has understood.

There is nothing to understand since you have yet to make sense.


Unfurtunetaly I found you as a part of the middle timeframe, a religious-opportunistic individual, which the modern kind of it is the so called democrat.

And your proof of all this is what?

Or are we just supposed to accept all you say a semi-divine truth?


And this kind of individual can never escape his own greed-driven overexploitation of biotop and the consequence of it, the fallen back in the helplessness of war.

Alas, the more you post, the less sense you seem to make.

Are you high on something?


I know that you know nothing

Which is still more than you...:lol:

[Zanthorus]

It is in fact Kant and Fichte's method, not Hegel's:

From what I recall, Kant's method only involved the 'thesis' and the 'antithesis'. I've also never seen any evidence that Ficthe used 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis'. It is correc that Hegel never used such a formula though. By the way, the link you posted is quite ignorant on Marx's use of that formula. The only place I can recall Marx using it is The Poverty of Philosophy, where he is mocking Proudhon's vulgarisation of Hegel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chegitz:


Negation in negation of the negation should not be understood as negative. It stands for change. Things change, and then the change is changed.

The child negates the infant.
The adult negates the child, thus it is the negation of the negation.

It's just a high fulatin' way to describe development.

According to the Dialectical Bible:

1) All change is a result of a 'struggle of opposites'.

2) These opposites all inevitably change into one another; they all change into that with which they struggle..

Quotations substantiating the above can be found here:

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

Ok, so let's have a look at your example:


The child negates the infant.
The adult negates the child, thus it is the negation of the negation.

Call this infant "A", and that child "C". According to the Dialectical Prophets, A can only change if it struggles with its opposite, and it also changes into that opposite -- in fact they change into one another.

But, A turns into C, so C must be the 'opposite' of A. Hence, A must change into C and C must change into A! Children must regress and become infants again!

But that can't happen since both A and C already exist!

If they didn't, they couldn't struggle with one another. And if that is so, they can't change!

Moreover, according to this wonderful 'theory', an infant must struggle with the child it is to become!

Hence, (1) if this 'theory' of yours is true, change would be impossible.

Alternatively: (2) infants must have access to time machines so they can struggle with their future selves!:lol:

What an odd bunch you dialectical mystics are! You make those who believe in the Incarnation of Christ look normal! http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


From what I recall, Kant's method only involved the 'thesis' and the 'antithesis'. I've also never seen any evidence that Ficthe used 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis'. It is correc that Hegel never used such a formula though. By the way, the link you posted is quite ignorant on Marx's use of that formula. The only place I can recall Marx using it is The Poverty of Philosophy, where he is mocking Proudhon's vulgarisation of Hegel.

In fact, they attribute Marx's use of this Kantian/Fichtean formula to his reading of a book written by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus, professor of philosophy at the University of Kiel:


In an essay by Nicolai Hartmann on Aristoteles und Hegel, I find the following additional confirmation of all the other witnesses to the misinterpretation of Hegel's dialectic: "It is a basically perverse opinion (grundverkehrte Ansicht) which sees the essence of dialectic in the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." The legend was spread by Karl Marx whose interpretation of Hegel is distorted. It is Marxism superimposed on Hegel. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, Marx says in Das Elend der Philosophie, is Hegel's purely logical formula for the movement of pure reason, and the whole system is engendered by this dialectical movement of thesis, antithesis, synthesis of all categories. This pure reason, he continues, is Mr. Hegel's own reason, and history becomes the history of his own philosophy, whereas in reality, thesis, antithesis, synthesis are the categories of economic movements. (Summary of Chapter II, Paragraph 1.) The few passages in Marx' writings that resemble philosophy are not his own. He practices the communistic habit of expropriation without compensation. Knowing this in general, I was also convinced that there must be a source for this "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis," and I finally discovered it.

In the winter of 1835-36, a group of Kantians in Dresden called on Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus, professor of philosophy at the University of Kiel, to lecture to them on the new philosophical movement after Kant. They were older, professional men who in their youth had been Kantians, and now wanted an orientation in a development which they distrusted; but they also wanted a confirmation of their own Kantianism. Professor Chalybäus did just those two things. His lectures appeared in 1837 under the title Historische Entwicklung der speculativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel, Zu näherer Verständigung des wissenschaftlichen Publikums mit der neuesten Schule. The book was very popular and appeared in three editions. In my copy of the third edition of 1843, Professor Chalybäus says (p. 354): "This is the first trilogy: the unity of Being, Nothing and Becoming ... we have in this first methodical thesis, antithesis, and synthesis ... an example or schema for all that follows." This was for Chalybäus a brilliant hunch which he had not used previously and did not pursue afterwards in any way at all. But Karl Marx was at, that time a student at the university of Berlin and a member of the Hegel Club where the famous book was discussed. He took the hunch and spread into a deadly, abstract machinery. Other left Hegelians, such as Arnold Ruge, Ludwig Feuerbach, Max Stirner use "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" just as little as Hegel

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

SA:


Word.

Yes, trust a boss-class lackey like you to take the word of a fabulist like Philzer.

[Zanthorus]

First of all, I still have yet to see evidence that this formula is 'Fichtean', or indeed 'Kantian'. Second of all, it is difficult to see how Marx could have turned 'thesis - antithesis synthesis' into a 'deadly, abstract machinery', since the only time he uses it is in The Poverty of Philosophy when he is mocking Proudhon's terrible attempts at dialectic. It doesn't appear in Marx's 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, it doesn't appear in the Paris Manuscripts of 1844, it doesn't appear in The Holy Family, nor in the German Ideology or the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The only place I can recall seeing it in Marx's entire output is that one section of his critique of Proudhon. The evidence that Marx took up the ideas of this Chalybäus character is almost reminiscent of the attempts by Christian preachers to prove that Marx was a devil worshipper because of the size of his beard. There is no reference to Chalybäus in any of Marx's output, the only tentative connection is that the book was discussed in the DoktorClub, but there is no evidence that Marx really took his interpretation of Hegel on board. It seems so absurd as to be practically dismissable at face value that someone as intelligent as Marx would be so captivated by such an obviously flawed interpretation, yet the rest of the Left-Hegelian milieu would avoid it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


First of all, I still have yet to see evidence that this formula is 'Fichtean', or indeed 'Kantian'. Second of all, it is difficult to see how Marx could have turned 'thesis - antithesis synthesis' into a 'deadly, abstract machinery', since the only time he uses it is in The Poverty of Philosophy when he is mocking Proudhon's terrible attempts at dialectic. It doesn't appear in Marx's 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, it doesn't appear in the Paris Manuscripts of 1844, it doesn't appear in The Holy Family, nor in the German Ideology or the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The only place I can recall seeing it in Marx's entire output is that one section of his critique of Proudhon. The evidence that Marx took up the ideas of this Chalybäus character is almost reminiscent of the attempts by Christian preachers to prove that Marx was a devil worshipper because of the size of his beard. There is no reference to Chalybäus in any of Marx's output, the only tentative connection is that the book was discussed in the DoktorClub, but there is no evidence that Marx really took his interpretation of Hegel on board. It seems so absurd as to be practically dismissable at face value that someone as intelligent as Marx would be so captivated by such an obviously flawed interpretation, yet the rest of the Left-Hegelian milieu would avoid it

Well, it certainly isn't Hegel's method. The first attempt to attribute it to Hegel can be found in Chalybäus's book, which Marx studied. So, you do the math.

And so what if it doesn't appear in those other books of Marx's?

On Fichte:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis

Here are his own words:


What kind of principle is [the Principle of Consciousness]? Aenesidemus answers: ‘It is (1) a synthetic proposition, one in which to a subject there is added a predicate (viz., consciousness) which is not already included in the concept of the subject, but rather, is first annexed to it in experience.’ It is well know that Reinhold claims that this principle is merely analytic. We will here overlook the fact that Aenesidemus denies the universal validity of the Principle of Consciousness, thereby assuming that there is a type of consciousness for which this principle does not hold. But there is a deeper reason for Aenesidemus’s and Reinhold’s differing assertions regarding this question, one which lies in the difference between two ways of regarding the Principle of Consciousness. If no consciousness is conceivable apart from these three elements, then they are of course all included in the concept of consciousness, and of course the proposition which asserts this is, with respect to its logical validity a proposition based upon reflection, an analytic proposition. Yet since it involves distinguishing and relating, this very action of representing, the act of consciousness itself, is obviously a synthesis, and indeed, the highest synthesis and the foundation of all other possible syntheses. This raises the very natural question: How is it possible to trace all the action of the mind back to an act of connecting? How is synthesis conceivable without presupposing thesis and antithesis?

[3] Fichte, "Aenesidemus Review" in Fichte: Early Philosophical Writings, (trans.) Daniel Breazeale (Ithaca: Cornell, 1998), pp. 62-63.

In his in his “First Introduction into the Science of Knowledge” he considers the development thesis/antithesis/synthesis in relation to the need to obtain Ego and Not-Ego from a division the Absolute Ego. It apears elsewhere in his work quite frequently.

More details here:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CCAQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmythicmind.com%2Ffiles%2FJohann_G ottlieb_Fichte_discusses.doc&rct=j&q=Fichte%20and%20thesis%20antithesis%20synthesis&ei=C3vcTLaDB4bOhAflrpDkBQ&usg=AFQjCNHSKTEMaFH193HRJ-gqhIQV1UIoxg&sig2=Vt2TzKMwGE16o5S83uFbWA

These ideas are already in embryo in Kant (in the Antinomies).

[the youth dialectic]

for anyone confused about the negation of the negation, read my blog 'Dialectics'
and refer to the diagrams in my picture folder Dialectics
and then read 'the discovery of dialectics and the philosphy of materialism'
and refer to the diagram Negation of the Negation

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TYD:


for anyone confused about the negation of the negation, read my blog 'Dialectics'
and refer to the diagrams in my picture folder Dialectics
and then read 'the discovery of dialectics and the philosphy of materialism'
and refer to the diagram Negation of the Negation

Will do, but I doubt you'll say anything new, and you certainly won't be able to show how my demolition of this theory of yours fails:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

----------------------------

I have just checked, and all I could see was a short article: 'Socialism: Revolutionary Theory & Practice'. Can you post a link to your blog?

[S.Artesian]

SA:

Yes, trust a boss-class lackey like you to take the word of a fabulist like Philzer.


I was no lackey. I was the chief of operations. Proud of it, too. As the general chairman of the United Transportation Union told me, "I don't have to worry about any of the brothers or sisters getting killed when you're there."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^A Rose by any other name...:rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, Youth Dialectic, I have checked your blog, and, unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be much there on the Negation of the Negation [NON].

There is this, though:


Dialectics is a description of how all processes in the material universe unfold. It was discovered and revealed by the philosophers of ancient times. It was revealed in Ancient Greece by Heraclitus of Ephesus (535 BC - 475 BC)

The principle assertions of the Dialectics of Heraclitus are taken from his Wikipedia page and presented here in Italics:

“Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers.”

NOTE: This statement means that everything changes and is never the same twice.
“the upward-downward path." They go on simultaneously and instantaneously and result in "hidden harmony. A way is a series of transformations ("turnings of fire") into sea, then half of sea to earth and half to rarefied air. The transformation is a replacement of one element by another: "The death of fire is the birth of air, and the death of air is the birth of water."

NOTE: This statement means that the form changes as the relationship between the elements change.

“This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made. But it always was and will be: an ever-living fire, with measures of it kindling, and measures going out.”

NOTE: this means that the universe exists independently of our perception of it, is the same for all, and is not created by our consciousness as the Solipsists assert, that the universe was not created by gods or anybody else, but is infinite in time and space, and is constantly changing.

All things are an interchange for fire, and fire for all things, just like goods for gold and gold for goods.

NOTE: Fire is used to mean matter. This statement means that everything is a different arrangement of matter and can be broken down into the same thing.

“If objects are new from moment to moment so that one can never touch the same object twice, then each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily and an object is a harmony between a building up and a tearing down. Heraclitus calls the oppositional processes eris, "strife", and hypothesizes that the apparently stable state, dikê, or "justice," is a harmony of it: We must know that war (polemos) is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily. As Diogenes explains: “All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things (ta hola, "the whole") flows like a stream.”

In the bow metaphor Heraclitus compares the resultant to a strung bow held in shape by an equilibrium of the string tension and spring action of the bow:

There is a harmony in the bending back (palintropos) as in the case of the bow and the lyre.

NOTE: This is like the example of WATER in the article ‘Dialectics’ which shows how the form changes as the relationship between the elements (Solid force, Liquid force, Gas force) change.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=31361

This is unfortunate, for several reasons:

1) Heraclitus was a member of the ruling class, and a mystic to boot.

2) He was quite happy to impose his ideas on nature -- he concluded that everything in the entire universe changes, for all of time, from his observation about stepping into a river!

And he made a few simpe errors even over this!

[More details supplied on request.]

This further confirms that dialecticians have never conformed to Engels's principle (in fact they do the exact opposite all the time):


"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-Dühring, p.13. Bold emphasis added.]

But Heraclitus thought he could do that even before much was known about this planet, let alone all of nature.

Later dialecticians, and that includes Dialectical Marxists, have been happy to do the same. Proof here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm

And, as we have pointed out already, he and they are wrong; scientists now know that there are countless billion changeless particles in every microgram of matter -- so there are vastly more changeless things in nature than there are otherwise.

So, the world is made of both changing and changeless things. This is no threat to materialism --, but it is a threat to mysticism, since all mystics believe in universal change. Even 'god' changes for them!

And you further confirm this observation:


The ancient Chinese philosophy of Taoism contained the idea of Yin and Yang which is the idea of Dialectics this quote is taken from the Wikipedia page on Yin and Yang

“The Yin/Yang symbol is one of the oldest and best-known life symbols in the world, but few understand its full meaning. It represents one of the most fundamental and profound theories of ancient Taoist philosophy. At its heart are the two poles of existence, which are opposite but complementary. The light, white Yang moving up blends into the dark, black Yin moving down. Yin and Yang are dependent opposing forces that flow in a natural cycle, always seeking balance. Though they are opposing, they are not in opposition to one another. As part of the Tao, they are merely two aspects of a single reality. Each contains the seed of the other, which is why we see a black spot of Yin in the white Yang and vice versa. They do not merely replace each other but actually become each other through the constant flow of the universe”

http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=31361

Other mystics also believe in the 'unity of opposites'. It is indeed one of the 'ruling ideas'.

I'll comment on other things you say later.

[Broletariat]

Just out of curiosity Rosa, you mentioned changeless particles. What are they called exactly, it sounds interesting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^As we pointed out in the Unity of Opposites thread, protons are reckoned to be changeless:


In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. Proton decay has not been observed. There is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.

In the Standard Model, protons, a type of baryon, are theoretically stable because baryon number is conserved (under normal circumstances, however see chiral anomaly.) Therefore protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are the lightest (and therefore least energetic) baryon.

Some beyond-the-Standard Model grand unified theories (GUTs) explicitly break the baryon number symmetry, allowing protons to decay via the Higgs particle, magnetic monopoles or new X bosons. Proton decay is one of the few observable effects of the various proposed GUTs. To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed.

Bold added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay


Protons are stable with an empirically observed half-life of at least 6.6×10^35 yr. Although experiments so far have only resulted in a lower limit of 10^33 years for the proton's lifetime, Grand unified theories generally predict that proton decay should take place. In other words, proton decay has never been witnessed and the experimental lower bound on the mean proton lifetime (2.1×10^29 yr) is given by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Stability

Bold added.


Along with neutrons, protons make up the nucleus, held together by the strong force. The proton is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two up quarks and one down quark.

It has long been considered to be a stable particle, but recent developments of grand unification models have suggested that it might decay with a half-life of about 10^32 years. Experiments are underway to see if such decays can be detected. Decay of the proton would violate the conservation of baryon number, and in doing so would be the only known process in nature which does so.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

Bold added.

So, Proton decay is only theoretical. The evidence so far suggests they are stable.

Protons can be changed by bombardment with other high energy particles, but even then, the change induced will not be the result of their 'internal contradictions', since they have none.

Protons are composed of three quarks, which are also, as far we know, changeless. But quarks make up most particles, so even changeable particles are made of unchaging parts.

Electrons and photons are also changeles, since they are elementary particles.


The electron would decay into a photon and neutrino if the law of electric charge conservation is not respected. Such a decay would cause vacancy in closed shells of atoms giving rise to emission of x-rays and Auger electrons. Experimental searches for such very rare decay have given an estimate for the life time to be greater than 2.7 x 10^23 years. The simplest theoretical model which would give rise to such a decay is one where the electron is regarded as the first excited state and neutrino as the ground state of a fundamental spin 1/2 particle bound to a scalar particle by a super strong force and the photon is considered as a bound state of a fundamental spin 1/2 fermion-antifermion pair. The fine structure constant of the super strong coupling is found to be unity from the masslessness of the neutrino and the lower bound of the mass of the fundamental particles is estimated by using quantum mechanical formula for photon emission by atoms and found to be 10^22 GeV from the bound for electron decay time indicating thereby that the composite nature of electron, neutrino and the photon would be revealed in the Planckian energy regime. A model based on extension of SU(2) x SU(2) symmetry of Dirac equation to SU(3) x SU(3) gives a lower bound for the mass of the gauge boson mediating the decay to be 10^9 GeV which is the geometric mean of the masses of the electron and the fundamental particles.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312325

Once more, if electrons and photons were to change then that wouldn't be because of their 'internal contradictions'. They too have none.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, The Youth Dialectic -- your blog continues:


The ruling class used idealist lies to justify their positions and hid the truth by buying Materialism. They also buried the idea of Dialectics and replaced it with another of their ‘philosophies’ that “everything stays the same” to justify why they should rule for all eternity.

But, as you go on to note, 'dialectics' was 're-discoverd' by Hegel, an Absolute Idealist, and pre-eminent philosopher of change. So, this shows that idealists aren't enemies of change, contrary to what you allege.


Dialectics was hidden for thousands of years until its rediscovery in the modern era.

It was rediscovered by Hegel (1770-1831) who analyzed the evolution of consciousness.
In every period of history people will express there reflections of a changing world with philosophies and religions which are specific to their time. The history of philosophical and religious ideas, will paint a picture of constant change, of one form into another, developing in leaps, and with elements from past philosophies, reemerging in a different way, later on down the road, on a higher level.

But, Hegel's entire philosophy is based on a series of crass logical blunders, and on intricate word-play. I have summarised these for comrades here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1381066&postcount=30


This is the mechanics of dialectics, revealed through the diagram picturing the Negation of the Negation.

This is the way in which everything in the universe unfolds, as a result of the conflict between opposites. Consciousness is just one of the possible products of an arrangement of matter, which too unfolds in this way.

How can you possibly know that everything in the universe develops this way?

As I noted in my last response to you, you seem as happy as other dialecticians are to impose your views on nature.


NOTE: Just as the evolution of the realm of knowledge of Science led to the attainment of conscious materialism.

In every field of science the idea that things were created as they are, to exist eternally as they are by an ideal force, is replaced by the idea that everything is undergoing a process of evolution.

But modern scence is not at all like this!


The development of every field of science could have led to the attainment of conscious Dialectics, but it was attained earlier as a result of the development of philosophy.

Hegel was a philosopher, and philosophers at the time of Hegel were members of the educated upper-middle class who are inherently idealist by nature.

Which simply shows that he appropriated, and then passed on to Dialectical Marxists, the 'ruling ideas' of the ruling-class.


Hegel ‘re-discovered’ Dialectics, but believed that the entire material universe, which flowed in a dialectical way, was unfolding as a repeat of the path travelled before time by the Absolute spirit. This trend of Idealism clearly represents the last vestige of Idealism on its transition into its opposite: Materialism. It is called objective Idealism in distinction from all other decadent subjective forms of idealism – subjective because the they are skewed information which serves the interests of one class.

The students of Hegel abandoned Hegel’s idealism for materialism. The greatest, Feuerbach, said that religions and philosophies are abstract ways of describing what it is to be human; hinting at a material base for the evolution of consciousness.

Marx combined the Dialectics of Hegel with the Materialism of Feuerbach and resolved what it is to be human, with his theory of the class struggle; classes have their own class consciousness/morality which is a reflection of their relationship with other classes in society.

By the time Marx studied at university, Feuerbach had been replaced as head of philosophy by subjective idealists who trampled on the philosophy of Hegel. The rediscovered knowledge of Dialectics was saved by two men, Marx and Engels.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1281

Alas, this is how these 'ruling ideas' entered our movement!:(

More to follow...

[Zanthorus]

And so what if it doesn't appear in those other books of Marx's?

Well, let's think this through again shall we. There's no 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis' in Marx's 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, a whole six chapters worth of critical notes on Hegel and not a single mention of this formula. There's no 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis' in the 'Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole' in the 1844 Paris Manuscripts. The formula nowhere appears in any of Marx's major works, it's not the Holy Family, not in the German Ideology, it's not in Das Kapital, it's not in the Communist Manifesto. The only place it appears is that one section of that one chapter of that one book where Marx is mocking Proudhon's attempts at dialectic. This would seem to suggest to those of us with our critical reasoning faculties still intact that 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis' nowhere plays into Marx's understanding of Hegel, or his extraction of the rational kernel from the mystical shell. In fact the evidence suggests that Marx is hostile to such an interpretation of Hegel.


On Fichte:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis

Here are his own words:



[3] Fichte, "Aenesidemus Review" in Fichte: Early Philosophical Writings, (trans.) Daniel Breazeale (Ithaca: Cornell, 1998), pp. 62-63.

In his in his “First Introduction into the Science of Knowledge” he considers the development thesis/antithesis/synthesis in relation to the need to obtain Ego and Not-Ego from a division the Absolute Ego. It apears elsewhere in his work quite frequently.

More details here:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CCAQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmythicmind.com%2Ffiles%2FJohann_G ottlieb_Fichte_discusses.doc&rct=j&q=Fichte%20and%20thesis%20antithesis%20synthesis&ei=C3vcTLaDB4bOhAflrpDkBQ&usg=AFQjCNHSKTEMaFH193HRJ-gqhIQV1UIoxg&sig2=Vt2TzKMwGE16o5S83uFbWA

These ideas are already in embryo in Kant (in the Antinomies).


Fair dues.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Well, let's think this through again shall we. There's no 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis' in Marx's 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, a whole six chapters worth of critical notes on Hegel and not a single mention of this formula. There's no 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis' in the 'Critique of the Hegelian Dialectic and Philosophy as a Whole' in the 1844 Paris Manuscripts. The formula nowhere appears in any of Marx's major works, it's not the Holy Family, not in the German Ideology, it's not in Das Kapital, it's not in the Communist Manifesto. The only place it appears is that one section of that one chapter of that one book where Marx is mocking Proudhon's attempts at dialectic. This would seem to suggest to those of us with our critical reasoning faculties still intact that 'thesis - antithesis - synthesis' nowhere plays into Marx's understanding of Hegel, or his extraction of the rational kernel from the mystical shell. In fact the evidence suggests that Marx is hostile to such an interpretation of Hegel.

And yet, that is how it sneaked into Marxism.

[Zanthorus]

And yet, that is how it sneaked into Marxism.

Certainly, but that doesn't mean that Marx endorsed the formula. It certainly doesn't show any connection with this Chalybäus character. At best it shows that the vast majority of Marxists haven't historically been particularly good at picking up on satire or sarcasm.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here are the offending passges:


If we had M. Proudhon's intrepidity in the matter of Hegelianism we should say: it is distinguished in itself from itself. What does this mean? Impersonal reason, having outside itself neither a base on which it can pose itself, nor an object to which it can oppose itself, nor a subject with which it can compose itself, is forced to turn head over heels, in posing itself, opposing itself and composing itself – position, opposition, composition. Or, to speak Greek – we have thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. For those who do not know the Hegelian formula: affirmation, negation and negation of the negation. That is what language means. It is certainly not Hebrew (with due apologies M. Proudhon); but it is the language of this pure reason, separate from the individual. Instead of the ordinary individual with his ordinary manner of speaking and thinking we have nothing but this ordinary manner in itself – without the individual.


So what is this absolute method? The abstraction of movement. What is the abstraction of movement? Movement in abstract condition. What is movement in abstract condition? The purely logical formula of movement or the movement of pure reason. Wherein does the movement of pure reason consist? In posing itself, opposing itself, composing itself; in formulating itself as thesis, antithesis, synthesis; or, yet, in affirming itself, negating itself, and negating its negation.


But once it has managed to pose itself as a thesis, this thesis, this thought, opposed to itself, splits up into two contradictory thoughts – the positive and the negative, the yes and no. The struggle between these two antagonistic elements comprised in the antithesis constitutes the dialectical movement. The yes becoming no, the no becoming yes, the yes becoming both yes and no, the no becoming both no and yes, the contraries balance, neutralize, paralyze each other. The fusion of these two contradictory thoughts constitutes a new thought, which is the synthesis of them. This thought splits up once again into two contradictory thoughts, which in turn fuse into a new synthesis. Of this travail is born a group of thoughts. This group of thoughts follows the same dialectic movement as the simple category, and has a contradictory group as antithesis. Of these two groups of thoughts is born a new group of thoughts, which is the antithesis of them.

Just as from the dialectic movement of the simple categories is born the group, so from the dialectic movement of the groups is born the series, and from the dialectic movement of the series is born the entire system.

Apply this method to the categories of political economy and you have the logic and metaphysics of political economy, or, in other words, you have the economic categories that everybody knows, translated into a little-known language which makes them look as if they had never blossomed forth in an intellect of pure reason; so much do these categories seem to engender one another, to be linked up and intertwined with one another by the very working of the dialectic movement. The reader must not get alarmed at these metaphysics with all their scaffolding of categories, groups, series, and systems. M. Proudhon, in spite of all the trouble he has taken to scale the heights of the system of contradictions, has never been able to raise himself above the first two rungs of simple thesis and antithesis; and even these he has mounted only twice, and on one of these two occasions he fell over backwards.


The production relations of every society form a whole. M. Proudhon considers economic relations as so many social phases, engendering one another, resulting one from the other like the antithesis from the thesis, and realizing in their logical sequence the impersonal reason of humanity.


Just as the antithesis was before turned into an antidote, so now the thesis becomes a hypothesis. This change of terms, coming from M. Proudhon, has no longer anything surprising for us! Human reason, which is anything but pure, having only incomplete vision, encounters at every step new problems to be solved. Every new thesis which it discovers in absolute reason and which is the negation of the first thesis, becomes for it a synthesis, which it accepts rather naively as the solution of the problem in question. It is thus that this reason frets and fumes in ever renewing contradictions until, coming to the end of the contradictions, it perceives that all its theses and syntheses are merely contradictory hypotheses. In its perplexity, “human reason, social genius, returns in one leap to all its former positions, and in a single formula, solves all its problems.” This unique formula, by the way, constitutes M. Proudhon's true discovery. It is constituted value.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm


M. Proudhon talks of nothing but modern monopoly engendered by competition. But we all know that competition was engendered by feudal monopoly. Thus competition was originally the opposite of monopoly and not monopoly the opposite of competition. So that modern monopoly is not a simple antithesis, it is on the contrary the true synthesis.

Thesis: Feudal monopoly, before competition.

Antithesis: Competition.

Synthesis: Modern monopoly, which is the negation of feudal monopoly, in so far as it implies the system of competition, and the negation of competition in so far as it is monopoly.
Thus modern monopoly, bourgeois monopoly, is synthetic monopoly, the negation of the negation, the unity of opposites. It is monopoly in the pure, normal, rational state.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02c.htm

Bold added.

From this it is reaonably clear that Marx, even though he might have rejected it himself, certainly interpreted Hegel's method in this way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Certainly, but that doesn't mean that Marx endorsed the formula. It certainly doesn't show any connection with this Chalybäus character. At best it shows that the vast majority of Marxists haven't historically been particularly good at picking up on satire or sarcasm.

Where did I say he did? But he certainly thought Hegel's method was encapsulated by this formula.

[Zanthorus]

From this it is reaonably clear that Marx, even though he might have rejected it himself, certainly interpreted Hegel's method in this way.

Except, again, this is the only work where Marx uses this formula to describe Hegel's method. If this was his interpretation of Hegel you'd expect to find it everywhere, yet it only appears once, in a book on Proudhon.

Here's what Terrell Carver has to say on Marx's use of this formula:


Thesis-antithesis-synthesis leaps off Hunt’s page, not once, but twice (53, 287), just as Marx wrote it. What Hunt has missed, of course, is that those lines by Marx are his parody of Proudhon’s version of Hegel’s dialectic; Marx’s satire was there on the page to mock a risible version of Hegel cooked up in Proudhon. Hunt reads Marx straight off the page as if he were the comic book version Marx for Dummies.http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2010/129

[Philzer]

Hi the youth dialectic, hi comrades!




for anyone confused about the negation of the negation, read my blog 'Dialectics'
and refer to the diagrams in my picture folder Dialectics
and then read 'the discovery of dialectics and the philosophy of materialism'
and refer to the diagram Negation of the Negation

Please note:

I think it is not a confusion in "Rosa Li". It is a fight against the strongest tools of our Marxist theory, to create an altruistic religion to preach without any dangerous consequences for the capital!

Dialectically Materialism is functionally exactly, this is shown in my models!

And exactly, therefore, the octopus sprays venom!

Kind regard!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Except, again, this is the only work where Marx uses this formula to describe Hegel's method. If this was his interpretation of Hegel you'd expect to find it everywhere, yet it only appears once, in a book on Proudhon.

I take your point, but he does not specifically distance himself form this interpretation of Hegel. He clearly raised it since Proudhon did; but this would have been an ideal opportunity for him to correct Proudhon, and tell him that this wasn't Hegel's method. This he did not do.

It might be a parody, but then again, it does not look like one. But even if it were, this is clearly the place where this formula entered Marxism as a 'summary of the dialectic'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Please note:

I think it is not a confusion in "Rosa Li". It is a fight against the strongest tools of our Marxist theory, to create an altruistic religion to preach without any dangerous consequences for the capital!

What are you blathering on about? What 'religion'?


Dialectically Materialism is functionally exactly, this is shown in my models!

As an a priori and dogmatic system, that does not work anyway. If it were true, change would be impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

You seem to think that if you can draw a diagram, or a 'model', your 'theory' must be true. But anyone can draw diagrams.

Here's a supply and demand diagram:

http://tutor2u.net/economics/gcse/revision_notes/demand_supply_price_equilibrium.htm

So, what it says must be true.

Here's another:

http://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/the-trinity-diagram.jpg

According to your way of thinking, this must be true, If so, you should become a Christian!:lol:


And exactly, therefore, the octopus sprays venom!

Sounds like you are still high on something...

[ChrisK]

Hi the youth dialectic, hi comrades!






Please note:


I think it is not a confusion in "Rosa Li". It is a fight against the strongest tools of our Marxist theory, to create an altruistic religion to preach without any dangerous consequences for the capital!


Dialectically Materialism is functionally exactly, this is shown in my models!


And exactly, therefore, the octopus sprays venom!



Kind regard!



Keep on preaching

[ZeroNowhere]

First of all, I still have yet to see evidence that this formula is 'Fichtean', or indeed 'Kantian'. Second of all, it is difficult to see how Marx could have turned 'thesis - antithesis synthesis' into a 'deadly, abstract machinery', since the only time he uses it is in The Poverty of Philosophy when he is mocking Proudhon's terrible attempts at dialectic. It doesn't appear in Marx's 1843 Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, it doesn't appear in the Paris Manuscripts of 1844, it doesn't appear in The Holy Family, nor in the German Ideology or the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The only place I can recall seeing it in Marx's entire output is that one section of his critique of Proudhon. The evidence that Marx took up the ideas of this Chalybäus character is almost reminiscent of the attempts by Christian preachers to prove that Marx was a devil worshipper because of the size of his beard. There is no reference to Chalybäus in any of Marx's output, the only tentative connection is that the book was discussed in the DoktorClub, but there is no evidence that Marx really took his interpretation of Hegel on board. It seems so absurd as to be practically dismissable at face value that someone as intelligent as Marx would be so captivated by such an obviously flawed interpretation, yet the rest of the Left-Hegelian milieu would avoid it.
The evidence essentially amounts to this: Marx used the phrase 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis', when bringing up the theme of languages, given that the words do in fact come from Greek, and are more or less an equivalent expression to Hegel's own 'affirmation-negation-negation-of-negation' formula. The finite is and is not, and therefore passes into the infinite; (logical) contradictions are the principle of all self-movement. There is nothing incorrect in Marx's passage, and the text on Marx's apparent error reads as if it had less savoury motives than simply correcting an error.

[the youth dialectic]

REPLY TO ROSA
1. not all ruling class are idealist. if you believe this then you are idealist. materialism came from the ruling class as well. read my evolution of consciousness

2. dialectics is not imposed on nature, it is learned from nature*, then imposed on difficult concepts to make them simpler

ie. Dialectics explains the development of society as the result of the struggle between roles in production, and can be used to show how the next form to arrive will be due to the reconstruction of the relationship between workers and capitalists.

on the other hand, more information can be learned about this process, about the specific economic behavior of the roles in production and exactly what made one rise above the other changing the form of society. (This is explained in my article Surplus Value), this is historical materialism and is proof of dialectics. but it is easier to ‘impose’ Dialectics first, then explain historical materialism later if your goal is to teach people about revolution in the easiest way possible. because dialectics is the story of everything. it has no flaws and can not be argued against.

3. the other point of your argument is that historical materialism is different to dialectical materialism. as i have just explained. dialectics is the shortcut and proof. historical materialism is the deeper explanation of the specific process of social development.
dialectics can be used to show how animals evolve. punctuated equilibrium is the deeper explanation of the specific process.

dialectics is the shortcut to teaching people about revolution. yours is the most difficult way i have ever seen. therefore you have failed as a revolutionary.

you have failed as a materialist too by relying on idealist science to defend your idealism. when you talk about forces disappearing, they reappear with new names just as fast as they disappear, but the material force that binds things was there before and remained after the name changed in somebody's mind. you talk about changeless particles and this is idealism again. my article the discovery of dialectics and the philosophy of materialism disproves the big bang theory and proves that the scientific community is corrupted by idealism

*only an article on science proving that the unity of opposites pervades all nature that we know will prove that dialectics is learned from nature. this will be easy to do and i will publish it soon. after that you will have to overemphasize your point that the nature we don't know about might not be moving, then your idealism will be right out in the open.

in brief.
protons (positive) Electrons (negative) neutrons (neutral) (opposing particles)
H, He, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen (opposing chemical elements)
unity of opposing chemical elements makes compounds
carbon compounds can be long chains or rings.
nucleic acids are unity of three opposed compounds Phosphate (acid) Sugar (neutral) nitrogenous base (basic)
Arginine, Thiamine, Cytosine, Guanine (opposing Nucleic Acids) A determines T, C determines G
RNA are made up of nucleic acids and catalyze their own self replication
opposing orders of Nucleic Acids (AAT, ACG, AAA) determine the order of Amino Acids (opposing amino acids)
the o-N=O (nitrogen base) side of an amino acid bind to the o-C=o (carbon acid) side of another amino acid. N and C are opposite in this case, with opposite properties.

proteins are the assembly of amino acids. proteins help catalyze the replication of RNA

DNA reproduces the entire cell structure
opposed cells make up tissue
opposed tissue makes up organs
opposed organs make up organisms
opposed sexes determine each other
organisms are opposed to each other and determine each other
the circle of life evolves due to this struggle

dialectics is learned from nature, the basic laws
1.the form is the sum of and unity of the elements
2.the elements are opposed to each other and determine each other
3.the form changes as the relationship between the elements change
can then be used to show people how society will evolve into communism, without understanding social development in a deep way they can see the most profound truth of our time

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zero:


The evidence essentially amounts to this: Marx used the phrase 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis', when bringing up the theme of languages, given that the words do in fact come from Greek, and are more or less an equivalent expression to Hegel's own 'affirmation-negation-negation-of-negation' formula. The finite is and is not, and therefore passes into the infinite; (logical) contradictions are the principle of all self-movement. There is nothing incorrect in Marx's passage, and the text on Marx's apparent error reads as if it had less savoury motives than simply correcting an error.

That is certainly one way of looking at this, but as I pointed out, it would have been an ideal place to correct Proudhon that his crude formula was in any way Hegel's.

[Philzer]

What 'religion'? ....

http://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/the-trinity-diagram.jpg

According to your way of thinking, this must be true, If so, you should become a Christian!:lol:

I only can smyle about your helplessness. :lol:

But I have, also in this case, a good advice to you:

To sales your doctorate and donates the money, for example, to Africa, or to others of the democratic pantheists squeezed-out creatures!

However, betrays not that you him has even shopped!
This could damage to the price!

It relly exist a doctorate-philosopher in the world which never knows the simpliest evolutions of religions, which is the same with the andropogenesis of the human counsciousness! :lol: :lol:

And thus your obscure idea me is to be shot in the mono theism back to stand with your pantheistic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3) religion about me.

Good strategy! But in opposite to you I'm a scientifically thinking individual.
Not a threedimensional knitted!

In this sense a dear: I know that you know nothing.

[Milk Sheikh]

:confused:

Is anyone here able to understand all this?

[Milk Sheikh]

And, as we have pointed out already, he and they are wrong; scientists now know that there are countless billion changeless particles in every microgram of matter -- so there are vastly more changeless things in nature than there are otherwise.


Curious ... which particle is that? Can you give some references? Thanks in advance.

[ChrisK]

Curious ... which particle is that? Can you give some references? Thanks in advance.

Protons, Neutrons and Electrons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Stability
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0312325

All from her post below.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The Youth Dialectic:


REPLY TO ROSA

1. not all ruling class are idealist. if you believe this then you are idealist. materialism came from the ruling class as well. read my evolution of consciousness

As I said, the point is (a) Many idealists believe in universal change, and practically every mystic believes in it -- so idealism is no enemy of change, and (b) Idealists promote a ruling-class view of reality: that there is a hidden world, underlying appearances, which is more real than the world we see around us, and which is accessible by thought alone.


2. dialectics is not imposed on nature, it is learned from nature*, then imposed on difficult concepts to make them simpler

Oh yes it is; for example you are happy to impose the idea that change is universal in spite of the fact that many things do not change. Other dialecticians do the same. Proof here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2002.htm


ie. Dialectics explains the development of society as the result of the struggle between roles in production, and can be used to show how the next form to arrive will be due to the reconstruction of the relationship between workers and capitalists.

on the other hand, more information can be learned about this process, about the specific economic behavior of the roles in production and exactly what made one rise above the other changing the form of society. (This is explained in my article Surplus Value), this is historical materialism and is proof of dialectics. but it is easier to ‘impose’ Dialectics first, then explain historical materialism later if your goal is to teach people about revolution in the easiest way possible. because dialectics is the story of everything. it has no flaws and can not be argued against.

That is in fact Historical Materialism [HM], a theory I fully accept. If you add dialectical concepts to HM it ceases to work, as I have shown here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

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

And this is yet more proof that you want to impose dialectics on nature:


because dialectics is the story of everything. it has no flaws and can not be argued against.

You:


3. the other point of your argument is that historical materialism is different to dialectical materialism. as i have just explained. dialectics is the shortcut and proof. historical materialism is the deeper explanation of the specific process of social development.

They are indeed distinct. Here is how I have made this point in one of my essays:


It could be objected that the distinction between Dialectical Materialism (DM -- or, indeed, 'Materialist Dialectics') and HM drawn in this Essay is completely spurious; hence, the claims made at this site are hopelessly misguided.

However, as will be argued in Essay Fourteen Part Two, HM contains ideas that are non-sensical only when they are dressed up in DM-clothing. The eminent good sense made by HM -- even as perceived by workers when they encounter it (often in times of struggle) --, testifies to this fact.

But, few militants would ever attempt to agitate strikers with the conundrums found in DM. On a picket line the alleged contradictory nature of motion or the limitations of the 'Law of Identity' do not often crop up. Moreover, no Marxist of any intelligence would use slogans drawn exclusively from DM to communicate with workers. Consider, for example, the following: "The Law of Identity is true only within certain limits and the struggle against the occupation of Iraq!" Or "Change in quantity leads to change in quality (and vice versa) and the campaign to keep hospital HH open!" Or even, "Being is at the same time identical with but different from Nothing, the contradiction resolved by Becoming, and the fight against the Nazis!"

Slogans like these would only be employed by militants of uncommon stupidity and of legendary ineffectiveness. In contrast, active revolutionaries employ ideas drawn exclusively from HM to communicate with workers. The vast majority of revolutionary papers, for instance, use ordinary, material language, coupled with concepts drawn from HM, to agitate and propagandise; rarely do they employ DM-phraseology.

Only deeply sectarian rags of exemplary unpopularity and impressive lack of impact use ideas lifted from DM to try to educate and agitate workers. Newsline (the daily paper of the old WRP -- UK Workers Revolutionary Party) used to do this, but like the Dinosaurs it resembled, it is no more.

It could be objected that no one would actually use slogans drawn from certain areas of HM to agitate workers. Since that does not mean HM is of no use, the same must be true of DM. For example, who shouts slogans about "Base and Superstructure", or "Relative Surplus Value" on paper sales? Who tries to agitate workers with facts about the role of the peasantry in the decline of feudalism? This means the distinction drawn in this Essay is bogus.

To be sure, even though it is true that no one shouts slogans about the relation between "Base and Superstructure" on a paper sale, or prints strike leaflets reminding militants of the role of the peasantry in the decline of feudalism, they still use slogans drawn exclusively from HM --, or which connect with HM and as it relates to current events in the class war.

In contrast, none at all are used from DM.

Admittedly, most revolutionary papers use some terminology drawn from DM (like "contradiction"), but this forms only a very minor part of their output. Anyway, as will be shown in Part Two of this Essay (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm), the use of such words is plainly a traditionalist affectation -- indeed, we have to say this since no sense can be given to this use (as we saw here (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm), here (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_01.htm), here (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_02.htm) and here (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_03.htm)) --, that is, as a sign of 'orthodoxy', or as an 'in-group'/'out-group' marker.

Just like Marx in Das Kapital, such papers "coquette" with Hegelian jargon, and only "here and there".

Hence, at least at the level of practice -- where the party interfaces with the working class and material reality --, DM is totally useless.

Moreover, when the party moves into revolutionary struggle (for example, in 1917), DM is useless too, as we saw here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1520716&postcount=29).

You:


dialectics can be used to show how animals evolve. punctuated equilibrium is the deeper explanation of the specific process.

Not so. In punctuated equilibrium theory, the periods of rapid speciation last tens of thousands of years. This is hardly a "leap"!


dialectics is the shortcut to teaching people about revolution. yours is the most difficult way i have ever seen. therefore you have failed as a revolutionary.

Where have I tried to 'teach' anyone about revolution? So, how can you possibly arrive at that conclusion?


you have failed as a materialist too by relying on idealist science to defend your idealism. when you talk about forces disappearing, they reappear with new names just as fast as they disappear, but the material force that binds things was there before and remained after the name changed in somebody's mind. you talk about changeless particles and this is idealism again. my article the discovery of dialectics and the philosophy of materialism disproves the big bang theory and proves that the scientific community is corrupted by idealism.

It can't be 'idealist science' if it's based on hard evidence.

You sound like those communists who argued against genetics in the 1930s, and supported Lysenko, on the grounds that Mendelism was 'idealist'. And we all know what happened to them.


*only an article on science proving that the unity of opposites pervades all nature that we know will prove that dialectics is learned from nature. this will be easy to do and i will publish it soon. after that you will have to overemphasize your point that the nature we don't know about might not be moving, then your idealism will be right out in the open.

I do not want to prejudge your work, but I doubt there will be anything new in it. I have been studying DM now for well over 25 years and can say with some confidence that your blog, for example, is full of old and discredited ideas.

But, we will see.


in brief.
protons (positive) Electrons (negative) neutrons (neutral) (opposing particles)
H, He, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen (opposing chemical elements)
unity of opposing chemical elements makes compounds
carbon compounds can be long chains or rings.
nucleic acids are unity of three opposed compounds Phosphate (acid) Sugar (neutral) nitrogenous base (basic)
Arginine, Thiamine, Cytosine, Guanine (opposing Nucleic Acids) A determines T, C determines G
RNA are made up of nucleic acids and catalyze their own self replication
opposing orders of Nucleic Acids (AAT, ACG, AAA) determine the order of Amino Acids (opposing amino acids)
the o-N=O (nitrogen base) side of an amino acid bind to the o-C=o (carbon acid) side of another amino acid. N and C are opposite in this case, with opposite properties.

proteins are the assembly of amino acids. proteins help catalyze the replication of RNA

DNA reproduces the entire cell structure
opposed cells make up tissue
opposed tissue makes up organs
opposed organs make up organisms
opposed sexes determine each other
organisms are opposed to each other and determine each other
the circle of life evolves due to this struggle

Thanks for that, but I was aware of it already. The science is OK, but I note you find you have to impose dialectics on it. Why?

For example, you totally ignore the fact that protons, electrons and photons are, as far as we know, changeless.


dialectics is learned from nature, the basic laws

Not so. It was invented, as far as we know (and as you also point out) by that mystic, Heraclitus. As I have pointed out to you already, he was happy to impose universal change on the entire universe, for all of time, from what he thought was true about stepping into a river! And he got this example wrong too! [More details supplied on request.]

This theory was then elaborated by the following mystics and ruling-class hacks:

Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Pseudo-Dionysius, the shadowy figure Hermes Trismegistus, John Scotus Eriugena, Albertus Magnus (St Thomas Aquinas's teacher), Meister Eckhart, Raymond Lull, Nicholas of Cusa, Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, Marsilio Ficino, Henri Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim, Giordano Bruno, Robert Fludd, John Dee, Johannes Reuchlin, Paracelsus, Sebastian Franck, Valentin Weigel, Jacob Böhme, William Law, Emanuel Swedenborg, Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin, Friedrich Christoph Oetinger, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Hölderlin, Goethe, Schelling, Novalis and Hegel.

Not one of these provided any evidence to support their universalist claims, since they were happy to derive their ideas from thought alone, as I alleged above.

Modern day dialecticians make a weak gesture at attempting to substantiate their theory -- by 'cherry-picking' which parts of nature they use, ignoring what does not fit -- as do you.

I have called this approach to knowledge 'Mickey Mouse Science'; here is how I have explained this recently at The Soviet Empire Forum:


I made the point in Essay Seven Part One (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm) that Dialectical Materialism [DM] relies for its 'veracity' on what I have called "Mickey Mouse Science". Anyone who has studied or practiced genuine science knows the great care and attention to detail that has to be devoted by researchers, often over many years or decades, if they want to add to, or alter, even relatively minor areas of current knowledge, let alone establish a new law. This was the case in Engels's day, just as it is the case today. Moreover, the concepts used by scientists have to be precise and analytically sound. The use of primary data is essential (or at least it has to be reviewed or referenced by scientists) and supporting evidence has to be extensive, meticulously recorded and subject not only to public scrutiny, but peer review.

In contrast, the sort of Mickey Mouse Science one finds in Creationist literature is rightly the target of derision by scientists and Marxists alike. And yet, when it comes to dialectical materialism [DM], we find in Engels's writings (and those of subsequent dialecticians) little other than Mickey Mouse Science. Engels supplied no original data, and what little evidence he presented in support of his 'Law' would have been rejected as amateurish in the extreme had it appeared in an undergraduate science paper, let alone in a research document --, even in his day!

It is salutary, therefore, to compare Engels's approach to scientific proof with that of Darwin, whose classic work is a model of clarity and original research. Darwin presented the scientific community with extensive evidence, which has been added to greatly in the last 150 years.

The picture is almost the exact opposite when we turn to consider not just the paucity of evidence illustrating (it certainly does not prove) Engels's first 'Law', the transformation of quantity into quality [Q/Q], but also the total lack of clarity in the concepts used. In Anti-Dühring and Dialectics of Nature, for example, we are not told what a "quality" is, nor how long a dialectical "node"/"leap" is supposed to last. Furthermore, we are left completely in the dark what the phrase "addition" of matter and energy means, nor are we told what the energetic (thermodynamic) boundaries are to any of the systems under consideration. Indeed, we are not even told what constitutes a system, nor what counts as that system "developing"!

Moreover, only supporting 'evidence' is considered; problem cases are just ignored. In this, too, DM resembles Creation 'Science'.

Again, unlike genuine science, the situation as not changed much in dialectical circles in the last 140 years. This led me to observe (in an earlier Essay):


"Moreover, this Law is so vaguely worded that dialecticians can use it in whatever way they please. If this is difficult to believe, ask the very next dialectician you meet precisely how long a "nodal point"/"leap" is supposed to last. As seems clear, if no one knows, anything from a Geological Age to an instantaneous quantum leap could be "nodal"!

[I]But this introduces a level of subjectivity into what was supposed to be an objective law.

And, it really isn't good enough for dialectically-inclined readers to dismiss this as mere pedantry. Can you imagine a genuine scientist refusing to say how long a crucially important interval in her theory is supposed to be, and accusing you of "pedantry" for even asking?"

http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=49251&sid=37ceaf12d2fa1c173d85624f491d640d&start=20

You:


1.the form is the sum of and unity of the elements
2.the elements are opposed to each other and determine each other
3.the form changes as the relationship between the elements change
can then be used to show people how society will evolve into communism, without understanding social development in a deep way they can see the most profound truth of our time

Well, these are still dogmatic, a priori theses, which make little sense.

For example, if elements 'determine' one another, that suggests they have minds.

On that, see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1575116&postcount=1

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zero:


The evidence essentially amounts to this: Marx used the phrase 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis', when bringing up the theme of languages, given that the words do in fact come from Greek, and are more or less an equivalent expression to Hegel's own 'affirmation-negation-negation-of-negation' formula. The finite is and is not, and therefore passes into the infinite; (logical) contradictions are the principle of all self-movement. There is nothing incorrect in Marx's passage, and the text on Marx's apparent error reads as if it had less savoury motives than simply correcting an error.

I'm sorry, but where in Hegel do you find this: 'affirmation-negation-negation-of-negation'?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


I only can smyle about your helplessness.

Indeed, I certainly can't help you give up your dogmatism.


But I have, also in this case, a good advice to you:

To sales your doctorate and donates the money, for example, to Africa, or to others of the democratic pantheists squeezed-out creatures!

^^^ THis reads like you have imbided rather too much alcohol.:lol:

How does one "sales your doctorate"? And to whom? And where? On E-bay?


However, betrays not that you him has even shopped!
This could damage to the price!

As I have said to you before, many of your posts read like they have been translated by a computer run on cheap software!:lol:


It relly exist a doctorate-philosopher in the world which never knows the simpliest evolutions of religions, which is the same with the andropogenesis of the human counsciousness!

And what has this got to do with anything I have ever argued?

May I therefore suggest you look up the meaning of the word "relevant"?


And thus your obscure idea me is to be shot in the mono theism back to stand with your pantheistic religion about me.

Eh?:confused:


Good strategy! But in opposite to you I'm a scientifically thinking individual.

No you aren't. You are a confused dogmatist.


Not a threedimensional knitted!

Where has anyone said you were a "threedimensional knitted"?

Indeed, I doubt you will find a single person on the planet who understands what a "threedimensional knitted" actually is.

As I said, you are radically confused.


In this sense a dear: I know that you know nothing.

Even if that were true (and you can't possibly know it, so you are either a liar or you do not know what "know" means), then I would still know more than you.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Milk Sheik:


Curious ... which particle is that? Can you give some references? Thanks in advance.

I have outlined the evidence here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1922831&postcount=51