Why A is not A

[Црвена]

Can someone explain the dialectical opposition to formal logic and metaphysics, in simple terms?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Can someone explain the dialectical opposition to formal logic and metaphysics, in simple terms?

Dialectical materialism is not opposed to formal logic - dialectical contradiction is not the same as logical contradiction (the proletariat is obviously not simply ¬bourgeoisie). Some of the theoreticians - Trotsky, for example, and Plekhanov - did argue against simple "A is A" statements, but what they were arguing against was not the logical law of identity but the tendency of metaphysical thinkers to view things as static and one-sided. So when Trotsky argues against statements like "capitalism is capitalism", he is not saying that capitalism = ¬capitalism, he is saying that capitalism needs to be understood as a concrete historical form, one that is dynamic and many-sided (to the horror of systematisers, who remain at the level of A = A).

Likewise with metaphysics - metaphysics necessarily views things as one-sided and as static (even some notionally "dynamic" systems, such as the one outlined in Hegel's Logic, are in fact static, with any dynamism being a poor material reflection of the way in which ideas are interconnected).

[Slavic]

Can someone explain the dialectical opposition to formal logic and metaphysics, in simple terms?

From a brief reading of
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/system2.htm

I think I can break it down into simple terms.


"When the difference of reality is taken into account, it develops from difference into opposition, and from this into contradiction, so that in the end the sum total of all realities simply becomes absolute contradiction within itself." (Logic, p. 442)

When you look at differences between two objects, you are looking at the relationship between these two objects. Different means, not the same, but we are not looking at two objects that are not the same, but the relationship between two objects. The fact that a relationship exists means that these objects are in contradiction as opposed to being different objects. The relationship constitutes a type of unity and thus both objects can not be "not the same".


The law of dialectical logic is contradiction. This, however, is not destructive; on the contrary, the opposites constitute a whole. The whole is not only different from its contradictory moments, but also more than them. It is another, third thing in which opposites are in a systematic relation with each other. If only A is for B and B is for A there is systematicity in their unity.

Since there is no such thing as different objects, this leads to the reasoning that all objects are in some sort of unity. For an object to exist alongside another, there must exist a contradiction to separate the two, but this very contradiction is only possible if both of these objects exist within a relationship with one anther. From this the statement "If only A is for B and B is for A" makes sense. If A exists due to its contradiction to B, then B must exist as well due to its contradiction to A. The contradictions between A and B could be anything, but these contradictions result in a whole; A needs B, B needs A.


again contrary to linear character of formal logic, dialectical logic is circular. Something is explained by Other, and Other is explained by Something.

Similar to what I said above. The dialectical logic of understanding contradictions of objects is circular. It rejects the logic that A is only A while B is only B in a reality where both A and B exist. It instead states that A can only be described by its contradictions to B and vis-versa. If only A exited, then it would be impossible to explain since there exists no relationship to draw explanation from.


every concept is mediated by other concepts. Therefore, every proposition by itself lacks truth; truth is whole. Truth, dialectically, cannot be isolated within propositions.

Since objects can only be explained and examined in relationship to one another, it is impossible to isolate a proposition and examine it for its truthfulness eq. "The Sky is Blue". This statement can not be proved for its truthfulness because it exists in isolation, and as we all know, we do not live in a reality where "The Sky is Blue" is the only truth that exists. Since that is the case, we have to examine "The Sky is Blue" in its relationship with other propositions. "The Sky is Blue because it is not Green, Yellow, Red etc."

When you take this to its logical extreme, no proposition can be examined for its truthfulness unless you examine its relationship with the sum total of all reality. Nothing exists in a vac cum, and this concept is also applied to validating propositions for their truthfulness.

[ChrisK]

When you look at differences between two objects, you are looking at the relationship between these two objects. Different means, not the same, but we are not looking at two objects that are not the same, but the relationship between two objects. The fact that a relationship exists means that these objects are in contradiction as opposed to being different objects. The relationship constitutes a type of unity and thus both objects can not be "not the same".

The fact that things are in relation to one another does not prove that they are contradictory. It actually proves that they are different. Take this very basic proposition:

The cat is on the mat.


Here we have two different objects, a cat and a mat, and they stand in a relation of the cat being on the mat. Now where is the contradiction? All this shows is that the cat is not a mat.


Since there is no such thing as different objects, this leads to the reasoning that all objects are in some sort of unity. For an object to exist alongside another, there must exist a contradiction to separate the two, but this very contradiction is only possible if both of these objects exist within a relationship with one anther. From this the statement "If only A is for B and B is for A" makes sense. If A exists due to its contradiction to B, then B must exist as well due to its contradiction to A. The contradictions between A and B could be anything, but these contradictions result in a whole; A needs B, B needs A.

That is circular reasoning. You start from a position that all objects are the same and end up with the conclusion that all objects are the same.


Similar to what I said above. The dialectical logic of understanding contradictions of objects is circular. It rejects the logic that A is only A while B is only B in a reality where both A and B exist. It instead states that A can only be described by its contradictions to B and vis-versa. If only A exited, then it would be impossible to explain since there exists no relationship to draw explanation from.

Once again, these are contradictions. Also, you seem to be confusing the "is" of identity with the "is" of predication. Something that logicians have known about since at least 1879.


Since objects can only be explained and examined in relationship to one another, it is impossible to isolate a proposition and examine it for its truthfulness eq. "The Sky is Blue". This statement can not be proved for its truthfulness because it exists in isolation, and as we all know, we do not live in a reality where "The Sky is Blue" is the only truth that exists. Since that is the case, we have to examine "The Sky is Blue" in its relationship with other propositions. "The Sky is Blue because it is not Green, Yellow, Red etc."

That is a very poor analysis of truth. Propositions are capable of being truth or false, they are not true in a vacuum. No logician worth their salt would make this claim.


When you take this to its logical extreme, no proposition can be examined for its truthfulness unless you examine its relationship with the sum total of all reality. Nothing exists in a vac cum, and this concept is also applied to validating propositions for their truthfulness.

Indeed, in order for me to evaluate the proposition:

Oxford is in Great Britain.

I check to see if Oxford is actually on the other side of the universe.

[ChrisK]

Can someone explain the dialectical opposition to formal logic and metaphysics, in simple terms?

Quite honestly, the dialectical opposition to formal logic comes from ignorance about formal logic.

As to the opposition to metaphysics, dialectical materialism is a form of metaphysics itself. Marx, however, rejected metaphysics (and all of philosophy) on grounds of both historical materialism and an analysis of how philosophers use language.

As to his historical materialist rejection:

Feuerbach’s great achievement is... The proof that philosophy is nothing else but religion rendered into thought and expounded by thought, i.e., another form and manner of existence of the estrangement of the essence of man; hence equally to be condemned.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm

Hence, any of Marx's criticisms of religion can be applied to philosophy.

As to how philosophers use 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.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03p.htm#447

This is a very complex idea, but it is basically that philosophers abstract from ordinary language and create an ideal realm of concepts.

[Slavic]

The fact that things are in relation to one another does not prove that they are contradictory. It actually proves that they are different. Take this very basic proposition:

The cat is on the mat.


Here we have two different objects, a cat and a mat, and they stand in a relation of the cat being on the mat. Now where is the contradiction? All this shows is that the cat is not a mat.

"The cat is on the mat". In order to analyze this statement for its truthfulness, you must always have a cat and you must always have a mat. You can't analyze that cat alone, since the cat can never be "on" something if it is alone. Hence the contradictory relationship arises between cat and mat.

The cat is not the mat and the mat is not the cat, but we can not make these statements unless the cat is in the same reality as the mat. This is the contradiction. The cat needs the mat to make the statement "The cat is on the mat". Nothing can ever be said about the cat unless you are referencing its relationship to another object.



That is circular reasoning. You start from a position that all objects are the same and end up with the conclusion that all objects are the same.Exactly, why is this wrong? If all objects can only be examined in their relationship with one another, then all objects are contradictory. Circular reasoning doesn't mean that the statement is wrong, it is just an observation.


Once again, these are contradictions. Also, you seem to be confusing the "is" of identity with the "is" of predication. Something that logicians have known about since at least 1879.I apologize that I am indeed not a logicians since the 1879, I don't understand how that invalidates my reasoning. Not to mention, fixing my mistake of "is" as the identity and "is" as the predication just further proves my point. A is founded upon the existence of B an B is founded upon the existence of A.

You are right, these are contradictions, which again does not make the logic wrong.

The law of dialectical logic is contradiction. This, however, is not destructive; on the contrary, the opposites constitute a whole



That is a very poor analysis of truth. Propositions are capable of being truth or false, they are not true in a vacuum. No logician worth their salt would make this claim.And you correct my poor analysis of truth how? Also why would I care what some other logicians care when I am quoting a work by a logician who is analyzing dialectical logic.



Indeed, in order for me to evaluate the proposition:

Oxford is in Great Britain.

I check to see if Oxford is actually on the other side of the universe.When brought to its logical extremities, yes. Again you make a true statement as if to mock my reasoning without providing any retorts.

Oxford is only in Great Britain because Oxford is not anywhere else.

If Oxford could also be in Spain, then the statement "Oxford is in Great Britain" would not make sense.

Hence Oxford can only be in Great Britain if it is also not anywhere else.
These two propositions must exist simultaneously and are dependent on one another.

[ChrisK]

"The cat is on the mat". In order to analyze this statement for its truthfulness, you must always have a cat and you must always have a mat. You can't analyze that cat alone, since the cat can never be "on" something if it is alone. Hence the contradictory relationship arises between cat and mat.

The cat is not the mat and the mat is not the cat, but we can not make these statements unless the cat is in the same reality as the mat. This is the contradiction. The cat needs the mat to make the statement "The cat is on the mat". Nothing can ever be said about the cat unless you are referencing its relationship to another object.

How do different things existing together constitute a contradiction? The only way for that to work would be to claim that all of reality is "One" (in a very religious sense) and that "relations" are real. Hence "on" must now be an object, otherwise the cat and the mat would be different objects not held together by another object. However, what object does "on" refer to? Well the only way to answer that is to say that it refers to a concept. But concepts are products of human thinking, which means that if a concept is an object, then human thought has created reality. That is idealism.


Exactly, why is this wrong? If all objects can only be examined in their relationship with one another, then all objects are contradictory. Circular reasoning doesn't mean that the statement is wrong, it is just an observation.

It doesn't mean that the statement is wrong. It means that the conclusion does not follow from reasoning, but that you derived your conclusion from your conclusion.


I apologize that I am indeed not a logicians since the 1879, I don't understand how that invalidates my reasoning. Not to mention, fixing my mistake of "is" as the identity and "is" as the predication just further proves my point. A is founded upon the existence of B an B is founded upon the existence of A.

You are right, these are contradictions, which again does not make the logic wrong.

Actually it disproves your point. Take my simple proposition:

The cat is on the mat.

If you analyze this as the is of identity, as you were doing, then it becomes:

The cat is identical with the mat.

That is how Hegel derived the conclusion that you are upholding. However, the correct analysis of this proposition is:

The cat stands in relation to the mat says that "the cat is on the mat".

In this case, there is not identity between the two. They are separate and simply stand in a relation to one another.

I give a simpler example in my thread A Beginners Guide to Anti-Dialectics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beginners-guide-anti-t186397/index.html).

Hence, the problem is that the analysis against formal logic is both idealist and based on a basic confusion between two senses of the word "is".


And you correct my poor analysis of truth how? Also why would I care what some other logicians care when I am quoting a work by a logician who is analyzing dialectical logic.

You analyze truth as "always true". "The sky is blue" is a proposition that can be either true or false. It is not made true by comparing it to all other skies, but made true be whether or not the sky is indeed blue. (Please note that this is not a complete understanding of truth, so much as one way in which the truth of a proposition is determined ordinarily.


When brought to its logical extremities, yes. Again you make a true statement as if to mock my reasoning without providing any retorts.

Oxford is only in Great Britain because Oxford is not anywhere else.

If Oxford could also be in Spain, then the statement "Oxford is in Great Britain" would not make sense.

Hence Oxford can only be in Great Britain if it is also not anywhere else.
These two propositions must exist simultaneously and are dependent on one another.

Sure, but I was criticizing the method of determining truth, not the fact that all empirical propositions have a negation. One determines if Oxford is in Great Britain by checking to see if it is there. If it is not there, then the negation "Oxford is not in Great Britain" is true.

[Chainsaw]

Dialectics, in this context, functions as a legitimate means of measuring formal logic via pedantic micromanagement.

[Tim Redd]

Quite honestly, the dialectical opposition to formal logic comes from ignorance about formal logic.

There is no dialectical opposition to formal logic. All dialecticians understand that formal logic is the ABC, the elementary, the foundation, the fundamentals, the starting point for dialectical logic. They know that dialectical logic when relevant subsumes formal logic.

[Rafiq]

What I have always found interesting with regard to the anti-dialectics trend started by Rosa Lichtenstein, as well as the criticisms displayed here by Chris K. against dialectics, is that these criticisms (TO AN EXTENT) constitute the foundation basis of the revival of dialectics. This is meant, on my part to be ironic of course.

There is something deeply, deeply wrong with the understanding of dialectics employed by Marxists since Leninism - dialectics has become another form of metaphysics. Especially symptomatic in Trotskyists - it has birthed what we can call "dialectical magicians". But the ultimate irony is that if there is any development in Marxism throughout the 20th century that is worth noting, it is the ultimate formalization of dialectical logic. In other words, 'dialectical logic' as it is employed today, is nothing more than a form of formal logic. This is something I plan on going deeper into, in the future. Essentially, dialectics has been reduced to a mere concept or theory within the paradigm of formal logic which Marxists struggle to consciously adhere to. Dialectical logic does not stem from dialectical logic, rather, it stems from an understanding of history and more importantly movement of which has happened or is happening. Here is an example of a criticism employed by Rosa:

However, the DM-classics tell us that O* "inevitably" changes into O**, its opposite. But, O* can't change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* couldn't change for there would be no opposite with which it could "struggle" in order to bring that very change about!


For what it is - it is true. What this fails to conceptualize, however, is that dialectics does not concern prediction. Dialectical conclusions can only be drawn, not prior impositions. We can only understand the dialectical relationship between O* and O** AFTER the process occurs - AFTER O** exists.

Most Marxists have held that dialectics is some kind of key to some grand enlightenment. This is the farthest from the truth. On the contrary, in the process of being enlightened, dialectics is internalized. Ironically, this is what they call the 'disease' that is Hegelianism which disallows its host to understand the symptoms. If you have the disease - you're in the right ballpark. But the targets of (Rosa's) criticisms do not have this disease, rather, they are trying desperately hard to contract it. Another problem is that many Marxists believe that somehow, dialectics is a fundamentally "proletarian" logic. This is not true, either. In an ideal world, there would be no talk of "dialectics" - it would simply be a form of logic that would supersude formal logic by merit of its power - you cannot have these debates about "dialectical" logic against formal logic. The very background of this debate must consistute a some kind of logical foundation, whether it is formal or dialectical (in this case, it is formal). When Marxists like Lenin spoke of dialectics, they were outlining the differences between dialectics and formal logic, while at the same time adhering to its foundations. In other words, Lenin was recognizing something which already existed - he was not trying to make the case for a new form of logic. What people do not understand is that Hegel's notion of dialectics was not posited in a way that conforms to formal logic. You understand dialectics by reading Hegel, and you recognize the distinct form of logic. Hegel does not give you a "beginner's guide to dialectics). This is ultimately the point: Dialectics is not some alternative, or "just another way at looking things" - dialectics is necessary to understand processes of which previous forms of logic were incapable of doing, formal logic cannot even conceptualize the language of dialectics, or more prescisely, the topics which dialectics is concerned with (the movement of history, historical change and so on) It's not that adhereres to formal logic are incapable of EXPLAINING these things - but they are unable to conceptualize them in a consistent and cohesive way. They cannot understand the RELATIONSHIP between things or the PROCESS of change in RELATION to the idea. Which is why, famously - we are presented with the idea that "hegelianism is a discreet disease" - to cure this disease is self imposed ignorance.

Marxists ought to be more open to the anti-dialectical criticisms and recognize that there is certain truth in it. What we should violently oppose is the notion that "dialectics' itself is responsible for the failure of 20th century Communism, which is absurd. Yes there were cases of blatant ass-covering by use of dialectical wizardry, but this reveals a deeper pathology which would exist independent of dialectical excuses. What we need is an aufheben of Marxist anti-dialectics.

[Rafiq]

To put it shortly, there cannot be a debate between dialectics and formal logic. It is impossible. To reject dialectics would be a conscious decision, self imposed - but it is not a context for debate. Rather, debate would concern things dialectics is concerned about - if there are examples of "dialectical logic" in an opponents debate, there is nothing anyone can do but argue with the substance of the points at hand.

Dialectical materialism has become a rather cheap buzzword, an example of "Marxist" phrase-mongering. We ought to form a cohesive understanding of change based on the necessity of forming a cohesive understanding of change, and the active processes, relations of change - whether this can in the end be called dialectical or not must be irrelevant.

[Illegalitarian]

I think the problem here is that Dialectics is such a hard concept to grasp, or conceptualize, for so many.

It took me forever to truly understand it and I'm pretty sure I still don't understand it at all :laugh:. There needs to be a concise layman's definition laid out, somewhere, by someone who knows what they're talking about, I think.

[Rafiq]

There needs to be a concise layman's definition laid out, somewhere, by someone who knows what they're talking about, I think.

On the contrary, you must first contract the disease, and somewhere along the lines, you will recognize it. Dialectics is not a definition that you logically agree with - it is a form of understanding processes of change. When you understand the latter, you will then understand dialectics.

[Illegalitarian]

On the contrary, you must first contract the disease, and somewhere along the lines, you will recognize it. Dialectics is not a definition that you logically agree with - it is a form of understanding processes of change. When you understand the latter, you will then understand dialectics.

How must one understand this to fully understand dialectics? It's something I've always sort of struggled with, I'm afraid.

That is, if you were describing dialectics to the average person, how would you describe it?

[Rafiq]

How must one understand this to fully understand dialectics? It's something I've always sort of struggled with, I'm afraid.

That is, if you were describing dialectics to the average person, how would you describe it?

Read Hegel (with external help, I.e. Zizek) and master an understanding of his understand of history. Marx and engels make a lot more sense after you do this.

[Illegalitarian]

I've been meaning to do this, wondering if it would give a bigger insight into the work of Marx and Engels, but Hegel tends to be eh.. a bit too dry, imo. Maybe the external help from Zizek helps? I'll definitely check it out

[Rafiq]

I've been meaning to do this, wondering if it would give a bigger insight into the work of Marx and Engels, but Hegel tends to be eh.. a bit too dry, imo. Maybe the external help from Zizek helps? I'll definitely check it out

Again, it seems that way because it's impossible to read Hegel without external help. It's not even that it's too deep or complicated - it's that it contextually makes little sense and appears very vague by itself.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

As to how philosophers use language:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03p.htm#447

This is a very complex idea, but it is basically that philosophers abstract from ordinary language and create an ideal realm of concepts.

That's a half-arsed reading - the point isn't that there is an "ordinary language" (metaphysics much?) that philosophers abstract from, but that language is rooted in social relations. The problem with the language of philosophy - including the absurdities of "logicians"! - is that it is useless from the point of view of practice. In the fetishization of "ordinary language" we simply confront the same problem in different words.

[Kronsteen]

dialectics is necessary to understand processes of which previous forms of logic were incapable of doing

The usual strawman of "formal logic".


formal logic cannot even conceptualize the language of dialectics, or more prescisely, the topics which dialectics is concerned with

So dialectics can answer questions which common reason can't answer, or even frame. Religions make the same claim. But you still say it's not just "another way of seeing".


It's not that adhereres to formal logic are incapable of EXPLAINING these things - but they are unable to conceptualize them in a consistent and cohesive way. They cannot understand the RELATIONSHIP between things or the PROCESS of change in RELATION to the idea.

You haven't given any examples of dialectics asking or answering questions which "ordinary" logic can't.

You haven't given any explanation of how it does this.

You haven't show how ordinary logic can't handle "relationships" or "processes", or explained what you mean by these terms.

As usual, we hear the same grand promises of something new and insightful. And as usual, you give no clue as to how you (or Marx, or Hegel) came upon these revelations.

When we ask you to deliver on your promises...we get a load more promises.

It's exactly like scientology: Endlessly deferred enlightenment, hiding the obvious fact that there is no revelation to be had.

[Kronsteen]

To put it shortly, there cannot be a debate between dialectics and formal logic. It is impossible.

According to Hegel, formal logic is a subset of dialectics. Are you saying Hegel was wrong about hegelianism?

So far all you've done so far is say what dialectics isn't, and throw out a few tantalising words like "change" and "cohesive". Say what you think dialectics is, or admit that you have no secret to reveal.

[Dodo]

How must one understand this to fully understand dialectics? It's something I've always sort of struggled with, I'm afraid.

That is, if you were describing dialectics to the average person, how would you describe it?

You can make strong connections to the tradition of esoterism, such as sufi islam, western mysticisim and Buddhist stuff of "one-ness" of the universe.
These traditions take the concept of one-ness on a more spiritual way(and in -extreme- idealism), whereas dialectics of western philosophical tradition takes it in the rationalist sense. And by 21st century, western dialectics is pretty much automatically materialist and deals with matter when explaining the universe.

There are still significant similarities, so keep that in mind.

[Dodo]

According to Hegel, formal logic is a subset of dialectics. Are you saying Hegel was wrong about hegelianism?

So far all you've done so far is say what dialectics isn't, and throw out a few tantalising words like "change" and "cohesive". Say what you think dialectics is, or admit that you have no secret to reveal.

It is a way of looking at things and is a critical insight, a way of thinking which prevents a person from getting stuck with this or that static theory but rather deal with history in its flow. The changes in time&space take a special value.

One of the problem of its ontology is identification of the "forces" that are at play. What is the "arche" of universe that is. It does sound like a religion sometimes and bit like mysticism because it is directly connected to esoteric/mysticist stuff in history(and those traditions are direcly linked to heavily idealist ancient philosophy, neo-platonists, hermetics etc..). The problem with that is that it makes it difficult to put what dialectics is on paper because almost like the esoteric stuff you kind of sense and understand it(I am not saying this in a spiritual way).

Dialectical thinking is not a solution to a problem, an established method or the trick to the universe. It is more of an approach to things, and to me it equals to the critical attitude of Marxism. Marxism is not class struggle, means of production or dictatorship of the proleteriat or socialism/communism, it is the dialectics.

The whole approach Marx uses is dialectics. The things he identified, or abstractions he made might not correspond to reality or might be obsolete(this is where classical western science thinking fails) but the core of stuff remains the same.

You look around you, the universe, the political arena and you see everything that is happening in a totality. You see a very strong connection to the past(and even the potential future(s), but not in a static, causational(oh so this happened and so this happened) way, of all the possible alternatives, this how things took a turn. You identify the forces at play(which is what seperates marxism, the materialist outlook and abstractions based on that comes here).
When you look at a person blabbering political stuff, you are not dealing with what he is saying but you are trying to understand the whole historical background of it, how the forces of universe in millions of years changed the matter in space and time and brought in front of you this guy talking about these "ideas"(in marxist thinking, these ideas are a reflection of material conditions which then gets into the universe to change the world as a material force: an idea makes masses move and create forces that shapes the "potential" of the future)
And thats why any kind of static theory or a deterministic view fails, there are merely "potentials" of the future in this moment. And what we go through is the struggle of realizing one. Thus, you take NOTHING for granted, that includes what people call here "Marxism".

It is an unreleting, and un-ending critical approach that tries to refrain from any sort of dogma or "objectification" of a thought.

[Rafiq]

So dialectics can answer questions which common reason can't answer, or even frame. Religions make the same claim. But you still say it's not just "another way of seeing".


Dialectics doesn't "answer questions", Kronsteen. It allows one to understand the questions in the first place. Formal logic forces us to ask false questions.


You haven't given any examples of dialectics asking or answering questions which "ordinary" logic can't.

You haven't given any explanation of how it does this.

You haven't show how ordinary logic can't handle "relationships" or "processes", or explained what you mean by these terms.


Because I'm not a logician. And yet again, you pathetically and predictably emulate the same straw man that one would expect a rampant anti-dialectician to make. To put it clearly, no, I can't demonstrate this by using stupid abstractions like "cats on mats" or "cocoa and milk". This has nothing to do with dialectics. If you would have read my post, you would have realized I said there can be no debate between formal logic and dialectics within the framework of formal logic. Dialectics is not about predictions or worthless abstractions but about understanding processes which have already happened. For example, Communism is dialectical - it is (or was) a real movement that derived from capitalism. So without capitalism, there can be no Communism - even though Communism apparently seeks to destroy capitalism. This is a very elementary example.

I would rather prefer there to be no word of "dialectics". Never when I have been engaged in a debate, have people called out my logic simply by merit of it being "dialectical". Even though I clearly employ 'dialectical reasoning', I have the hegelian disease and yet - I have never been called out for it in a discussion that was not about dialectics or Hegel. Why is this, kronsteen? Because again, dialectics should remain a DISEASE which we do not try to consciously adhere to. It is not a dogma, it is not a theory. What I am trying to say, is that I have never been wrong about something because my logic was 'dialectical'. I have never demonstrated a lack of understanding of something because my understanding can be construed as "dialectical". Do you understand? When I see someone saying something that expresses a lack of understanding - I do not claim that it is because they employ formal logic. I explain - and this explanation, in the end, is "dialectical" - but no one seems to give a damn, do they? (!)


According to Hegel, formal logic is a subset of dialectics. Are you saying Hegel was wrong about hegelianism?

So far all you've done so far is say what dialectics isn't, and throw out a few tantalising words like "change" and "cohesive". Say what you think dialectics is, or admit that you have no secret to reveal.


If formal logic is a subset of dialectics (which I agree with) - how can there be a fucking debate between them, Kronsteen? Just listen to yourself. The problem is that you think there is some kind of big secret to reveal, there isn't. No one is trying to sell you dialectics, or convert you to the ways of dialectics. Dialectics does not exist within the paradigm of formal logic, the opposite is true. Dialectics is not a "thing" which we have to empirically verify, do you understand? It is not an affirmative claim, dialectics is not a hypothesis or a theory. It is a means of understanding. It is the thinking of thought itself - dialectics is the means by which we attempt to understand history and movement. When we say understanding change and the relationship between things, we don't mean something much simpler than you would think. We mean explaining relationships between things which at first appear contradictory - because the movement of history is contradictory. It's like relational quantum physics - no one is saying that the world itself is dialectical in a metaphysical sense, but that we cannot understand it without dialectics. Does this make sense to you? We apes concerned not with history, or objective truth - but our survival. We do not have any inherent predisposition toward understanding ourselves. They say animals cannot conceptualize themselves - well we are not so different.

[Rafiq]

What I mean is that nothing can EVER be valid or wrong by being dialectical. That's the point. And that is why there cannot be a debate between dialectical logic and formal logic. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

[Kronsteen]

It is more of an approach to things, and to me it equals to the critical attitude of Marxism. Marxism is not class struggle, means of production or dictatorship of the proleteriat or socialism/communism, it is the dialectics.

Reality is more complicated than the models we build of it. It doesn't fit neatly into the categories we have in our heads. It also changes all the time.

These are platitudes, which marxists love to claim are grand revelations which no one except marxists understand. It's part of the marxist habit of claiming to be more scientific than actual scientists - a habit we have in common with creationists and geocentrists.

Dialectics is a loose bundle of ideas, some obvious presented as difficult, some trivial presented as deep, some false presented as true...and some meaningless.


The whole approach Marx uses is dialectics.

Having a grand unified theory of the universe is attractive. Being in a hopeless seeming struggle to overthrow the world is less attractive. It's not surprising that people are attracted to the mystical over the political.

[Rafiq]

Reality is more complicated than the models we build of it. It doesn't fit neatly into the categories we have in our heads. It also changes all the time.


This is a profoundly dialectical statement.

[Kronsteen]

Dialectics is not about predictions

So dialectics is not a guide to action. That makes it politically useless.


Communism is dialectical - it is (or was) a real movement that derived from capitalism.Is cheese dialectical because it comes from milk, but changes the milk into something else?

You're playing wordgames and cherrypicking examples.


It is not a dogma, it is not a theory.Yet you claim that it's true, and try to explain it.


I have never demonstrated a lack of understanding of something because my understanding can be construed as "dialectical".
Of course not. When dialectics is true, it's trivial. And when it's not trivial, it's false or vacuous. You may as well say "Things are not like other things except when they are in some way" - always correct, zero use.


Dialectics does not exist within the paradigm of formal logicIf you knew anything about first order logic, predicate calculus, smooth logics, fuzzy logics, paraconsistancy, Quine, Frege and Montague...your handwaving attempt to place them in relation to dialectics might mean something.

Or had you forgotten that you admitted to not having studied the subject?


Dialectics is not a "thing" which we have to empirically verifyThen you are abandoning any attempt to substantiate it.


dialectics is not a hypothesis or a theory. It is a means of understanding.
And oxygen isn't a liquid or a gas, it's a substance. You're just playing with words you don't understand.


dialectics is the means by which we attempt to understand history and movement.
So one paragraph later, it is a means of understanding. Make up your mind.


the movement of history is contradictory

You mean, one group of people with one interest come into conflict with another group with an incompatible interest. Any two things can be called "contraditary" in one sense or another.


It's like relational quantum physicsDeepak Chopra says the same thing about his "system". Have you ever wondered why dialecticians misuse pop-science descriptions of quantum physics, but never try it with string theory?

It's because some of the ramifications of quantum theory can be mis-stated to agree with dialectics - as well as post-modern literary theory, keynsian economics etc. But not so with strings.


no one is saying that the world itself is dialectical in a metaphysical sense, but that we cannot understand it without dialectics.
Most dialecticians say both.


We apes concerned not with history, or objective truth - but our survival.Now you're saying dialectics is a useful fiction. Compared with other useful fictions like nationhood, laws and justice, it's a little unclear just what it's useful for.

[Kronsteen]

This is a profoundly dialectical statement.

You are very easily impressed.

For my next trick, I'll point out that burning a book doesn't turn it into a tree - negation of the negation.

[Dodo]

Reality is more complicated than the models we build of it. It doesn't fit neatly into the categories we have in our heads. It also changes all the time.
Like Rafiq said, this is the dialectical view. Reality is more complicated than the models, our perception of reality is always limited to our epoch, the dominating paradigms and ideologies. Being aware of this is what makes us call ourselves scientific because we choose not to go beyond our epoch in our claims. (well most marxists do, but they should not)


These are platitudes, which marxists love to claim are grand revelations which no one except marxists understand. It's part of the marxist habit of claiming to be more scientific than actual scientists - a habit we have in common with creationists and geocentrists.
Trust me, I am not the "marxist" you are referring to here.



Dialectics is a loose bundle of ideas, some obvious presented as difficult, some trivial presented as deep, some false presented as true...and some meaningless.

Dialectics is not a loose bundle of ideas, dialectics is way of handling the existing reality. It is -not- a key to put reality in front of your eyes, precisely because we know we cannot know reality fully we choose a dialectical view of the world. Thus we take nothing for granted, and thus we are revolutionaries struggling for endless change.


Having a grand unified theory of the universe is attractive. Being in a hopeless seeming struggle to overthrow the world is less attractive. It's not surprising that people are attracted to the mystical over the political.
My concern in dealing with the philosophical(and there isn't anything mystical there) bit over the political bit is because of the past 2 centuries of Marxist-experience. From the tendency to mystify and create tendencies to create dogmas are at odds with Marxism in its essence...and that is that it is the philosophy of revolution, of change. The whole point of dialectics is to take change as the absolute and no other thing to be the absolute.

[Kronsteen]

Like Rafiq said, this is the dialectical view.

It's a view that every scientist takes as axiomatic. It's also the view that dialecticians claim scientists are too indoctrinated with bourgeois ideology to understand.

It's also a view which some marxists write whole books about, but never state clearly. Instead, they babble about the physics of water boiling - which they manage to misunderstand.

Some day, one of them might notice that on one page they're saying ultimate reality is unknowable, and on the next they're saying they know that two bags of sugar are never exactly the same weight in that unknowable reality.


Dialectics is not a loose bundle of ideas, dialectics is way of handling the existing reality.All change being sudden. Some change being gradual. All change being infinitely graded.

Things becoming their opposites. Things containing their opposites. Things being their opposites. Things overlapping with their opposites. Things not becoming their opposites when they're destroyed...except when they are.

People having contradictory ideas. Reality sharing this confusion. Things not being identical with themselves.

Inevitable progress towards a predefined goal. Endlessly delayed progress. There being no goal or endpoint.

A loose bundle of ideas - some mutually exclusive, some so elastic as to be meaningless.


we are revolutionaries struggling for endless change.

You haven't noticed the "end of history" element in the narrative of overthrowing capitalism and abolishing classes forever?


there isn't anything mystical thereModern dialectics is Trotsky's version of Lenin's version of Plekhanov's simplification of Engels' attempt to make a system out of Hegel's attempt to make a system of Bohme's writings about Trismegistus.

Which makes dialectics an attempt to turn heretical christian mysticism into a philosophy...and call it a science.


the tendency to mystify and create tendencies to create dogmas are at odds with Marxism in its essence...
If that's true then the majority of marxists...are anti-marxists.

[Dodo]

It's a view that every scientist takes as axiomatic. It's also the view that dialecticians claim scientists are too indoctrinated with bourgeois ideology to understand.
Or whatever ideology. As a dialectician, I do not view the created Marxist ideologies to be free of this indoctrination.


It's also a view which some marxists write whole books about, but never state clearly. Instead, they babble about the physics of water boiling - which they manage to misunderstand.
hehe, you are not the only one who is aware of this silly rhetoric.


Some day, one of them might notice that on one page they're saying ultimate reality is unknowable, and on the next they're saying they know that two bags of sugar are never exactly the same weight in that unknowable reality.
There is a tradition which managed to make dialectics understood like formal logic and in opposition to it.


All change being sudden. Some change being gradual. All change being infinitely graded.

Things becoming their opposites. Things containing their opposites. Things being their opposites. Things overlapping with their opposites. Things not becoming their opposites when they're destroyed...except when they are.

People having contradictory ideas. Reality sharing this confusion. Things not being identical with themselves.

Inevitable progress towards a predefined goal. Endlessly delayed progress. There being no goal or endpoint.

A loose bundle of ideas - some mutually exclusive, some so elastic as to be meaningless.
It is a confusion that starts with Engels.


You haven't noticed the "end of history" element in the narrative of overthrowing capitalism and abolishing classes forever?
I am not that much in love with classical Marxist rhetoric.


Modern dialectics is Trotsky's version of Lenin's version of Plekhanov's simplification of Engels' attempt to make a system out of Hegel's attempt to make a system of Bohme's writings about Trismegistus.
There is a dialectics tradition that skips it from Engels and onwards.


Which makes dialectics an attempt to turn heretical christian mysticism into a philosophy...and call it a science.
Hehe, thats actually an interesting way to put. It isn't just Hermetic mysticism actually, you can find it from Islamic mysticism to Buddhism. I guess the world was much more connected than we thought.


If that's true then the majority of marxists...are anti-marxists.
Thats pretty much my point which gets a lot of heat to me.

[Rafiq]

Dialectics is useful, perhaps, because the means by which you address my posts is inadequate and wrong. Rather than conducting yourself as a good Hegelian, you respond to segments of my posts, bit by bit, without addressing the argument as a whole.


So dialectics is not a guide to action. That makes it politically useless.

Historical materialism, in this context, is also politically useless.

The problem with anti-dialeticians is that they are under the impression that dialectics has some kind of utilitarian value for Marxists. That dialectics is somehow is a guide to action - this is a gross misunderstanding and an attribution to the degeneration of Marxism throughout its incorporation into 20th century states to Marxism itself.

Dialectics is politically useless in this context, but as is all theory which does not concern revolutionary strategy. Without this kind of "useless" theory, however, we would be unable to understand our condition in the first place - and the predispositions toward "practical" revolutionary strategy would be non-existent (since, for example, we wouldn't know just what the fuck we are fighting against - or for that matter, fighting for). Ultimately, an incorporation of meta-dialectical logic in the revolutionary movement will have absolutely no effect on anything.

Because a conscious imposition of dialectical logic would automatically render any dialectical logic to be non-existent. As Rosa Lichestein said, dialectics is a disease which is unknowingly contracted. With the unity of Marxism and the worker's movement, and a developing, refined understanding of capitalism, the disease is necessarily contracted. Dialectics is a consequence of an understanding of the world, not a cause of it.

But you yourself acknowledge this:


Of course not. When dialectics is true, it's trivial. And when it's not trivial, it's false or vacuous. You may as well say "Things are not like other things except when they are in some way" - always correct, zero use.


But this is a fervently inconsistent logic. You again pre-suppose dialectics for us as some kind of magical remedy, or in other words - some kind of cause to our problems. Dialectics has zero use only if all theory has zero use. Even so, dialectics is somewhat incomparable to theory because it is consequential of theory, or an understanding of the world, and not a cause of it. You unjustly claim that I contradict myself by claiming that dialectics is an understanding of the world - but also not a world view. What you fail to understand is that dialecticsi s consequentially an understanding of the world.

When I say it is not a world view, I mean precisely this - it is not an imposed understanding of the world, it is not something you consciously adhere to, constantly super-imposing it on everything or fulfilling the pre-requisites of some kind of doctrine. Even Engels, who was flimsy in his crypto-metaphysical dialectics recognized this. Dialectics is more adequately summarized as a justification for a real form of logic derived solely from an understanding of history, the world, as a whole. The application of dialectics to that which it does not belong, is therefore nonsensical:


Is cheese dialectical because it comes from milk, but changes the milk into something else?


Absolutely not. While this might be a useful example allegorically, this kind of inappropriate application of dialectics s only useful symbolically - in other words, to symbolically describe real existing phenomena (like the relationship between Communism and Capitalism) relevant to dialectics. Let's be honest here: Milk and cheese, and their relationship had always existed. Peoples of all historical epochs had to concern themselves with these immediate problems.

But the social predispositions for an understanding of history as a whole, or any other totality: Things which existed beyond proximity of life and survival, did not exist before the enlightenment, or more specifically Hegel.

When I compare dialectics to relational quantum physics, I don't mean to say (quantum physics) is dialectical. That's not what we are arguing. What I mean is that these are processes, and phenomena which simply exist beyond our mechanisms of conceptualization. WE CAN ONLY understand totalities dialectically. We can only understand things as a whole dialectically. That is my point. We are unequip with the immediate mechanisms of understanding the world for what it is - we are apes not concerned with objective reality.

What I mean is simple: On an evolutionary level, we were never psychologically equipped with the means to understand the world becuase on an evolutionary level, we do not come to be in pursuit of conceptualizing objective reality. I don't know how the fuck you draw the conclusion that this is comparable to a "useful myth". A useful myth implies we are equip with the mechanisms of truth, yet suppress it - for something to be a "myth", we must assume that there is some kind of truth which we are able to consciously comprehend. I claim that dialectics is a result of the struggling human mind to properly understand history and the mechanisms which precede the mind in the first place. How is this a "useful myth"? How can you even make this argument? Hegel said to be aware of our limitations is already to be beyond them: But we must understand this carefully - we are beyond these limitations precisely because we catch the dialectical disease.

And that's the point: Truth for us can never solely be objective reality, but our relative proximity to properly conceptualizing it. Objective reality exists independently of our minds - we must make the effort to understand it for what it is, it does not CONFORM to us.

No one claims those who espouse dialectical logic "know more" than scientists refined in their respective fields. We simply claim that dialectics is a possible word we can give to the problems faced by scientists in fitting broken puzzle peaces together.


Yet you claim that it's true, and try to explain it.[B]


Let me be clear, dialectics is not true because it is dialectics. Dialectics is true because it derives from a real understanding of the world... Which began with Hegel, which happens to be true. Dialectics is consequential of this truth. When Engels, Lenin gave it a name or character, they were engaged in the thinking of thought itself - unfortunately, they layed the foundations for the formalization of dialectical logic and the conscious perpetuation of dialectics as a doctrine by states struggling to legitimize themselves ideologically.


If you knew anything about first order logic, predicate calculus, smooth logics, fuzzy logics, paraconsistancy, Quine, Frege and Montague...your handwaving attempt to place them in relation to dialectics might mean something.


So your logic is: "If you knew things, you wouldn't be saying that". Should I just take your word for it, then, Kronsteen? This isn't how discussion works. If you want to provide us with examples, you're free to do so.

Let me be clear: A so-called "application" of dialectics does not belong everywhere. Dialectics concerns totalities. No one seeks to replace formal logic, but to expound upon it. Pre-supposing its achievements.


Then you are abandoning any attempt to substantiate it.


I think we're arguing about very different things. Evidently.


It's because some of the ramifications of quantum theory can be mis-stated to agree with dialectics


Here is prescisely what I am attacking about your logic: Dialectics cannot be something things can 'agree" with or conform to. In the processes of attempting to make things "dialectical" you already step into the domain of formal logic.


Most dialecticians say both.


Frankly, if you didn't already know I don't give a fuck about what most dialecticians say. If I cared about what the majority of people said in general: I probably wouldn't be a Marxist. The only truth that most dialeticians can give us about dialectics is the truth that it has been grossly vulgarized.

[Dodo]

I am glad to see someone closer to way I understand dialectics.

I also understand Kronsteens concern, he seems to be sick of the confusion and formalization around the concept of dialectics...I can't blame him so much seeing that the pop-description of dialectics is generally given like a pill....and Many Marxists see dialectics as a detail they should deal with later which they end up never doing. So they talk of more simple things and laws in analytical terms.

[Rafiq]

Ironically, I generally agree with the fervor of the Marxist anti-dialectics crowd. I think their criticisms are a step in the right direction - and not in a Maoist self-criticism sense.

[Tim Redd]

Dialectics is useful, perhaps, because the means by which you address my posts is inadequate and wrong. Rather than conducting yourself as a good Hegelian, you respond to segments of my posts, bit by bit, without addressing the argument as a whole.

What does that mean? I get the be holistic part, but how is dialectics useful because how he addresses your posts is inadequate and wrong? What a convoluted, backwards way to make a point.


Historical materialism, in this context, is also politically useless. Concretely how does historical materialism relate to the issue and specifically as a result how would it be politically useless?


The problem with anti-dialeticians is that they are under the impression that dialectics has some kind of utilitarian value for Marxists.If Marx, Engels and Lenin explicitly state that dialectics is a major part of their movements philosophical basis then you need to refute what they say about dialectics being a critical part of their movements philosophical basis. I haven't seen that from anything you said in this current post I'm responding to.


That dialectics is somehow is a guide to action - this is a gross misunderstanding and an attribution to the degeneration of Marxism throughout its incorporation into 20th century states to Marxism itself.Who said it was a direct guide to action? It is an indirect guide to action in that it is part of the analytical toolkit employed by Marxists.


Dialectics is politically useless in this context, but as is all theory which does not concern revolutionary strategy. Without this kind of "useless" theory, however, we would be unable to understand our condition in the first place - and the predispositions toward "practical" revolutionary strategy would be non-existent (since, for example, we wouldn't know just what the fuck we are fighting against - or for that matter, fighting for). Ultimately, an incorporation of meta-dialectical logic in the revolutionary movement will have absolutely no effect on anything.If dialectics gives people predispositions toward 'practical' revolutionary strategy, why would meta-dialectics have no effect at all? Indeed what do you mean by meta-dialectical?

[Tim Redd]

Ironically, I generally agree with the fervor of the Marxist anti-dialectics crowd. I think their criticisms are a step in the right direction - and not in a Maoist self-criticism sense.

Right because the concept of criticism held by those silly Maoist is nothing like the unquestionably superior intellectual criticism that great thinkers like you can conceive of and carry out. Those vulgar Maoists, how dare they deign be your equal.

[Tim Redd]

On the contrary, you must first contract the disease, and somewhere along the lines, you will recognize it. Dialectics is not a definition that you logically agree with - it is a form of understanding processes of change. When you understand the latter, you will then understand dialectics.

What you say is nonsensical. Make up your mind, to you is it a useful method or some kind distorted thinking?

Certainly you can logically agree with dialectics. If you didn't believe that it can be logically agreed with, how can you claim to understand it as a process of change? You speak gobbledygook and somehow thinks it is profound. That's a real disease.

[Tim Redd]

Ironically, I generally agree with the fervor of the Marxist anti-dialectics crowd. I think their criticisms are a step in the right direction - and not in a Maoist self-criticism sense.

I think most of us can understand that self-criticism is different from criticism. Do you frequently make gratuitous comments that distort and are negative rather than provide light?

[Tim Redd]

Can someone explain the dialectical opposition to formal logic and metaphysics, in simple terms?

Formal logic operates according to the logic that was summarized by Aristotle as:

1) Law of Non-Contradiction – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true.

Regarding #1, when we talk about a person's leadership skills, we can often say that the leader simultaneously has the properties of being patient and impatient. In some circumstances she's patient and in others she is not.

2) Law of the Excluded Middle – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be false. Aristotle wrote, “It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect.”

Regarding #2, when we talk about a person's leadership skills, we can in fact say that a leader has the properties of both patience and impatience in the terms of the same single issue. However as long as a single issue can be broken down further into parts, it means that we can further break down the single issue into 2 so that we can assign either patience or impatience to it. Eventually we run out of parts and then that last part must part must exclusively have one property or another.

[Dodo]

Dialectics is based on Hegel...Marx never talked of "laws of dialectics"...Engels being aware of what he was doing expressed them in his own day's scientific context...Lenin took a misinterpretation too seriously and then it became an official doctrine in USSR.
We have a saying in my language, "a crazy person threw a stone to a well, 40 people could not take it out"
this is kind of like that, Engels did something and then hundreds of Marxists jumped into it in the context of their own day's beliefs.

I have made multiple points to you regarding your theoritization with quotes from Engels and Lenin themselves on the issue...and you still comfortably chase your belief in "Reddism"? :) Do you ever consider that you might be seriously wrong? Do you have think you might be mis-interpreting things and that maybe you just did not read enough?

[Rafiq]

What does that mean? I get the be holistic part, but how is dialectics useful because how he addresses your posts is inadequate and wrong? What a convoluted, backwards way to make a point.

I am only joking - or semi joking. Of course, I am renowned for my hostility towards this kind of posting style. As you will soon discover yourself. Generally, anyone who has a semblance of an understanding of dialectics knows that it describes something more than a "holistic" system. Evidently, you simply don't get what I'm saying for shit. Totalities are not the same as the holism as you are implying it to be. Equipped with the dialectical disease, I would imagine users would conduct themselves in response to posts in a manner much more thorough and useful in conveyance of information. While we might see contradictions in posts - many users lack the mechanisms of tracing those contradictions to an underlying pathology. I'm hostile to the idea of responding to posts and mending them in order to conform your in-contextual ideas.


Concretely how does historical materialism relate to the issue and specifically as a result how would it be politically useless?

If Marx, Engels and Lenin explicitly state that dialectics is a major part of their movements philosophical basis then you need to refute what they say about dialectics being a critical part of their movements philosophical basis. I haven't seen that from anything you said in this current post I'm responding to.

Who said it was a direct guide to action? It is an indirect guide to action in that it is part of the analytical toolkit employed by Marxists.


Simply because historical materialism has absolutely no strategic, or tactical value for the revolution. Make no mistake, historical materialism may be weaponized on a theoretical level, but it is not a guide to action. Also, it's important to bear in mind the fact that historical materialism as a weapon against the ideologues of the ruling order can only be a weapon insofar as it is independent of ruling ideas, or attempts to undermine them for the sake of undermining them. Of course, a degenerate petty bourgeois ideologue as yourself is horrified by this idea: Marxism for you is a formalized system of excuses and apologia. To put it in simple terms, if dialectics is politically useless because it does not provide us with specific answers to our point of action, then so is historical materialism. If someone were to direct a course of action in order to conform to historical materialism, this would be utterly nonsensical - historical materialism describes processes of change throughout history - and history is nothing short of what we call the summation of me and women attempting to fulfill their interests. To act on behalf of history, would therefore be a great contradiction. When Marx and Engels began to slowly expound upon historical materialism, or a radical supersession of Hegel's understanding of history, Marxism by that time had not even been close to being a real movement. The unity of Marxism and the working-class movement did not even truly exist before Kautsky. During Marx's time, Marxism had not even been close to being incorporated into the real movement. Instead, Marx and Engels were active figures of a movement which would have otherwise existed independent of them. Why do you talk out of your ass? You're looking for piss poor excuses to attack me, all in the name of defending the rotten carcass of the Communist movement. To directly subscribe to the Communism of previous conditions, to conform our current conditions to the condition of previous movements, is to vehemently and vigorously defend the ideological structures of the existing order's reproduction.

It's ironic that you mention Lenin - Lenin who ruthlessly attacked those who did precisely this: Who were opposed to a proletarian dictatorship in Russia because "Condition's weren't ripe" - Lenin's genius was the relentless struggle against the formalization of Marxism and dialectical logic: Perfectly a Hegelian, Lenin recognized that to be aware of our limitations is to already be beyond them. Hestitation to seize power, to fight against the enemy in the name of "Marxism" or "historical materialism" is therefore nothing short of phrase-mongering - a veil to conceal what could only historically be categorized as the intellectual cries of cowardice and an ideological last stand in defense of the ruling order. At the end of the day, historical materialism does not amount to shit on a utilitarian value. Historical materialism, while not divorced from revolutionary theory, is not bound by it. The age of reason was surely weaponized by the bourgeoisie, indeed it was bourgeois upon conception, but that does not mean this is all that matters. How was the scientific method "useful" for the French revolutionaries in their struggle to seize power? What was its political use, besides a means of legitimization? Let me rephrase myself: It was surely not a guide to action, even if it was vital to the legitimization of the new order in France.

This does not make it politically useless. That's my point. Historical materialism and dialectics are not politically useless. They are simply politically useless if we accept Kronsteen's standards of utility.

I challenge you to give me a single example in which any real movement which manifested the merger of Marxism and the proletariat was conservative in the domain of strategy, or tactics, simply because of the tenets of historical materialism - or simply to conform to the theory of historical materialism.


If dialectics gives people predispositions toward 'practical' revolutionary strategy, why would meta-dialectics have no effect at all? Indeed what do you mean by meta-dialectical?


As testament to the pathetic nature of your attacks, let me rephrase myself:
Because a conscious imposition of dialectical logic would automatically render any dialectical logic to be non-existent. As Rosa Lichestein said, dialectics is a disease which is unknowingly contracted. With the unity of Marxism and the worker's movement, and a developing, refined understanding of capitalism, the disease is necessarily contracted. Dialectics is a consequence of an understanding of the world, not a cause of it.


Any child could have concluded that precisely what I meant by meta-dialectical was simply this: A conscious imposition of dialectical logic or attempting to give Dialectics some kind of utilitarian value. Let me correct myself, not only would this be useless, it would be harmful for any revolutionary movement. At worst, and as apparent in the "organization" of which you belong, it further attempts to make impossible a Communism deriving from present circumstances simply by the pathetic, buffoonish nature of self-declared "communist" sects today.


Right because the concept of criticism held by those silly Maoist is nothing like the unquestionably superior intellectual criticism that great thinkers like you can conceive of and carry out. Those vulgar Maoists, how dare they deign be your equal.

Nice try, intellectual barbarian. The worth of content is not measured by how "great" it is or by its credentials. It is by the content itself. If you want to talk about theoretical tenets unique and vital to the revolutionary movement, it is this fact. You declare yourself an enemy of the working people as soon as you make arguments by authority. As soon as you adopt the logic of truth's legitimacy, as soon as you conform to the whims of the big other, you make yourself a toady of the ruling order. No one is talking about whether Maoist are my "equals" or not. Again, I am nothing, I am absolutely worthless and the tongue or hand through which I express theory is of no consequence. It is the theory itself which has value, and yes: I will say it shamelessly: Maoism is a disgraceful, degenerate and arguably reactionary vulgarization.

But that's not what this argument is about. The point I am trying to make is that the first step towards real dialectics is Marxist anti-dialectics fervor. It is not the last step, mind you. Maoist self-criticism is entirely different, and I could see how this point could be misconstrued as such: I therefore found it necessary to explicitly mention. When I say that the fervor of Marxist anti-dialeticians is a step in the right direction, I do not do so in the name of humble anti-dogmatism which only exists to justify and legitimize a greater dogmatism. I do it soberly and honestly.



Certainly you can logically agree with dialectics. If you didn't believe that it can be logically agreed with, how can you claim to understand it as a process of change? You speak gobbledygook and somehow thinks it is profound. That's a real disease.

Except you're misconstruing my words, and had you responded to my post propelrly, wouldn't have fucking been able to get away with. I have never argued that dialectics is incapable of being logical. What I said earlier was:

Most Marxists have held that dialectics is some kind of key to some grand enlightenment. This is the farthest from the truth. On the contrary, in the process of being enlightened, dialectics is internalized. Ironically, this is what they call the 'disease' that is Hegelianism which disallows its host to understand the symptoms. If you have the disease - you're in the right ballpark. But the targets of (Rosa's) criticisms do not have this disease, rather, they are trying desperately hard to contract it.


Logically then, you could come to the conclusion that what I meant by logically agreeing, I meant consciously adhering to for the sake of agreeing with the formalized tenets of dialectics. Here's an example: Lenin was very conscious about his dialectics, and sought to express it consciously. But his adherence to dialectics was not a matter of conscious superego, but an internalization of a form of logic derived from a real understanding of history and its 'holistic' contradictions (which are only contradictions insofar as they are conceived in retrospect, in different epochs). That's entirely different from those, such as yourself, attempting to adhere to dialectics because you want to adhere to dialectics and conform the world to its ramifications. This is beyond vulgar.

Ultimately, what you fail to understand is that the incorporation of dialectics into the proletarian movement is consequential and a convenience. Hegel didn't give a shit about the worker's movement. Dialectics was not conceived because "it is useful", rather, it became useful upon conception. Dialectics is not a means to an ends. It has no utilitarian value.

[RedMaterialist]

I challenge you to give me a single example in which any real movement which manifested the merger of Marxism and the proletariat was conservative in the domain of strategy, or tactics, simply because of the tenets of historical materialism - or simply to conform to the theory of historical materialism.



Stalinism. Stalin wanted to conserve the gains of the revolution, at the expense of destroying the revolution. For him it made perfect sense to eliminate the prospect of the permanent revolution. Or as Danton is reported to have said, "The revolution eats its own children." Has there ever been a successful revolution which did not become conservative?

As far as the historical materialist basis of the form of Stalinism, bureaucracy, that comes from the dominant type of production in the early 20th century: the monopoly corporation. It was also the basis for fascism (the state as corporation, etc.)

[Slavic]

Stalinism. Stalin wanted to conserve the gains of the revolution, at the expense of destroying the revolution. For him it made perfect sense to eliminate the prospect of the permanent revolution. Or as Danton is reported to have said, "The revolution eats its own children." Has there ever been a successful revolution which did not become conservative?

As far as the historical materialist basis of the form of Stalinism, bureaucracy, that comes from the dominant type of production in the early 20th century: the monopoly corporation. It was also the basis for fascism (the state as corporation, etc.)

I don't think Rafiq is asking what the material conditions of said specific movements were. I believe he is asking if any movements based their strategy on the principles found in historical materialism, which none of which exist.

Historical materialism isn't a force, it is an observation.

[Tim Redd]

Among others, Rafiq's response to my question as to what constitutes meta-dialectics is sophistry pure and simple. Now I know what an insufferable bag of hot air and bad manners he is.

[RedMaterialist]

I don't think Rafiq is asking what the material conditions of said specific movements were. I believe he is asking if any movements based their strategy on the principles found in historical materialism, which none of which exist.

Historical materialism isn't a force, it is an observation.

History, philosophy, etc. is the observation and interpretation of the force of materialism. Strategy and tactics are determined by the material forces of production. Life determines consciousness, etc. It is certainly true that most people don't think about materialism when making a strategic decision, but they also don't think about gravity when they are swimming. The force of gravity is still there and trying to swim by thinking that gravity doesn't exist, well, Marx told us about that.

Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro were all explicit in their acknowledgment of the historical materialism reflected in the war between the worker and the bourgeoisie. The 20th century revolutions may have been the first time in history that class struggle was consciously used strategically and tactically.

The strategy broke down in the Soviet Union when it became clear that the peasant and kulak classes in the country were absolutely opposed to the class interests of the workers in the industrial areas and cities.

[Rafiq]

So historical materialism amounts to the recognition of distinct classes. Yeah, no.

You obviously don't know what strategy, tactics even means here. We are talking about revolutionary movements. The mensheviks opposed insurrection on grounds of "historical materialism" while the revolutionaries didn't give a shit.

[RedMaterialist]

So historical materialism amounts to the recognition of distinct classes. Yeah, no.

You obviously don't know what strategy, tactics even means here. We are talking about revolutionary movements. The mensheviks opposed insurrection on grounds of "historical materialism" while the revolutionaries didn't give a shit.

It is not the recognition of anything, but is the actual force resulting from the class structure of production. Revolution has its own strategy and tactics depending on the social forces which gives rise to the revolution.

The Mensheviks were typical social democrats believing that Russia would first have to develop into full scale capitalism before socialism was possible which is also essentially what Marx had said.

What I am suggesting is that between 1848 and 1917 (which Marx began to see in the Paris Commune) there had been a material change in the class relations of production, at least in Russia, which made revolution both possible and necessary. Tsarism, serfdom, World War I, the internationalization of capital, probably made revolution inevitable. In 1917 who could have convinced either the workers or the peasants that they would have to, in effect, return to the 19th century?

The Mensheviks were controlled by the "ruling ideas" of the bourgeoisie. The genius, in my view, of Lenin and Trotsky is that they were able to see that the ruling ideas of the working class would be the dominant force in Russia after 1917. I don't think they were ever able to reconcile the worker and peasant classes.

The point is that productive, class and social forces are what control, in the end, politics, strategy, tactics, ideology, etc. Surely this has been understood at least since The German Ideology. Life is what determines our thinking. For instance, in Vietnam, the strategy and tactics of the Vietnamese were determined by the social forces of the nationalism of the peasant classes. General Giap made this clear throughout his career. Whereas, for the U.S. strategy was based primarily on large scale capitalist war production. They thought they could bomb the Vietnamese into giving up.

[Rafiq]

You don't know what you're talking about. No one denies that the events of 1917 were not explicable by historical materialism, or that they somehow make impossible a materialist analysis. The point is that the 1917 did not happen because the Bolsheviks were adhering to the principles of historical materialism in their actions. This is impossible. They were revolutionary pragmatists - their goal was not the fulfillment of any kind of doctrine, but the dictatorship of the proletarian class.

Stop trying to explain historical materialism to me for fuck's sake. The point is that historical materialism is valid whether or not people are consciously adhering to it. If, throughout the history of civilization, men and women acted with conscious knowledge of historical materialism, we would be living in Communism.

Furthermore, conscious knowledge of historical materialism has trivial or irrelevant implications for a revolutionary movement on a direct tactical or even strategic level. Historical materialism is either relivent retrospectively, or with regard to the present condition. Revolutions, on a historical level, have unpredictable effects: October 1917 caused a rupture in the ideological universe of all societies - Marx and Engels had not said a word about their condition. Thus, to attempt to conform present conditions to an analysis of previous conditions would be an act of counter-revolution - Menshevism.

So again, I challenge you to name me a single example of a historical phenomena which manifests the unity of Marxism and the worker movement, which deployed any kind of hesitation, or change in their tactics simply because historical materialism compels them so. I think you're confused: Historical materialism is not some force which compels men and women to do things, it is the theory or mechanism of analysis which outlines why men and women do the things that they do, the specific character, and so on. "Historical materialism" is not some kind of ghost, as though we can simply, when posed with historical questions, answer with "historical materialism did it!".

And that's not even what I'm talking about. the Bolsheviks WERE conscious of historical materialism. I'm talking about historical materialism as a THEORY, not as a real force.

[Tim Redd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emancipated Spirit http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2794180#post2794180)
Can someone explain the dialectical opposition to formal logic and metaphysics, in simple terms?
Quote Tim Redd:
Formal logic operates according to the logic that was summarized by Aristotle as:

1) Law of Non-Contradiction – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true.

Regarding #1, when we talk about a person's leadership skills, we can often say that the leader simultaneously has the properties of being patient and impatient. In some circumstances she's patient and in others she is not.

2) Law of the Excluded Middle – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be false. Aristotle wrote, “It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect.”

Regarding #2, when we talk about a person's leadership skills, we can in fact say that a leader has the properties of both patience and impatience in the terms of the same single issue. However as long as a single issue can be broken down further into parts, it means that we can further break down the single issue into 2 so that we can assign either patience or impatience to it. Eventually we run out of parts and then that last part must part must exclusively have one property or another.[End Tim Redd quote]

I'd like to clarify my comment above for #2. When I say:
"...as long as a single issue can be broken down further into parts, it means that we can further break down the single issue into 2 so that we can assign either patience or impatience to it. Eventually we run out of parts and then that last part must part must exclusively have one property or another."

This should be "as long as a single issue/event/thing can be broken down into parts, it means that we assign contradictory aspects to each of those parts. As we subdivide and come to a point where we can no longer subdivide that is the point where we no longer assign contradictory properties to an issue/event/thing that is relevant to our discussion.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2804916)

[RedMaterialist]

And that's not even what I'm talking about. the Bolsheviks WERE conscious of historical materialism. I'm talking about historical materialism as a THEORY, not as a real force.

Marx: "What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class."

Ideas change as production changes. Strategy and tactics are ideas used in war. A change in real productive forces leads to a change in ideas. Obviously it doesnt all happen overnight, but the fact that it does happen is the proof that historical materialism is a real force, just as evolution is a real force, not just a theory.

[Rafiq]

is the proof that historical materialism is a real force, just as evolution is a real force, not just a theory.

My fucking god, you're beyond confused. Hopelessly.

No one is arguing about whether historical materialism is a "real force" or not as such. Does historical materialism correctly understand real phenomena? Yes. But in a way, both HM and evolution are just theories, or scientific paradigms, or whatever, human theories which attempt to consciously conceptualize the history of the biological (or social). It's so ironic that you're actually arguing as though you're defending historical materialism when in reality, you're espousing nothing short of IDEALIST drivel.

Species do not form, or change because they must conform to our present standards of reason. It is the opposite. Our present standards of reason must necessarily conform to reality which exists independently of our minds and consciousness, in other words, a reality which exists independently of our present standards of reason.

You don't know what you're talking about. Historical materialism is not a real force, it DESCRIBES real forces. Your logic is vulgar and violently anti-Marxist. It represents a wider pathology of ideological super-imposition upon science. Somehow, "Marxists" have managed to make historical materialism an idealist dogma. Just stop arguing. I'm so sick of users who don't know what the fuck they're talking about who try to desperately argue for the sake of argument. Literally, all of these niches of "what-if's" and "If I interpret it this way" strike me as nothing more than pathetic ass-covering of a blatantly wrong initial interpretation. Quit it.

So ultimately, what do we have to learn here? Again, historical materialism (AND I'M NOT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT SOME KIND OF HISTORICAL GHOST OR BOOGY-MAN. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE IDENTIFIABLE THEORY OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AS ADOPTED BY MARXISTS) had NOTHING to do with the practical, and rather pragmatic decisions and actions of the Bolsheviks aside from internalizing and recognizing the complexity of the class situation. I already provided examples of how the Mensheviks were different in this regard.

All this means is that the Bolsheviks didn't say "Well, historical materialism sais we can't/should do this, so it shall be/not be" with regard to political strategy. How the FUCK is this hard to understand? How have you not been able to grasp this? No one argues that the Bolsheviks not being "guided" by the theory of historical materialism within the domain of action means that a historical materialist understanding of the situation is impossible, or that historical materialism is rendered invalid because of this, or that the events are inexplicable by historical materialism. That isn't what we're talking about. How many times do I have to repeat this?

And by the way - according to Marxist dialectics, there are only two interpretations. Since Marxists recognize To be aware of our limitations is to already be beyond them, we can either

a) Say that because we are aware of historical materialism, the revolutionary proletariat henceforth can make history as it pleases as a result of not only class consciousness, but worldly consciousness

b) Consciousness of historical materialism only represents a fundamental impossibility of knowing the real historical outcome of a proletarian dictatorship. Theoretical internalization of historical materialism itself only represents a potential historical unknown or projected magnitude of synthesis that looms in the background. Historical materialism as a theory will still be true (subject to further qualification) and not simply a part of a relative wider historical process. Or, in Hegelese, historical materialism as an "absolute" may be relative, but none the less it remains an absolute throughout the process of historical change, even if it is previously looked back upon as relative.

Guess which one is purely ideological, and which one is Marxist? Choice B, of course. As a matter of fact, choice B is not simply relevant for a post-revolution, but for today in retrospect to 20th century Communism. The whole point of Lenin and his re-vitalization of Marxism was an assertion of B.

[RedMaterialist]

Can someone explain the dialectical opposition to formal logic and metaphysics, in simple terms?

Trotsky gave this explanation of why A/=A. (From The ABC of Dialectical Materialism.)

If you look at A=A close enough there will always be a difference. Even on a computer screen if you go down to the last nano-pixel, etc. then no two A's will look the same. All physical things are always changing, they are either growing or dying or coming into existence or decaying. Physics says that you can't even identify whether something is at one place at any single time, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Everything in the universe is in a constant state of motion, there is no such thing as absolute zero. Even a black hole isn't perfect, there is always an impossibly small bit of radiation leaking out (hawking radiation.)

This also applies to the cat on the mat argument. The same cat is never on the same mat at any time. The cat and the mat are always changing. The cat gets older, loses a few cells, the mat decays losing a few atoms. Both the cat and the mat are moving in space in several different places: the surface of the earth, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the Magellanic Structure, etc. Even light affects the mat and cat differently at different times.

It is simply impossible to maintain that there is a logical "identity."

[Tim Redd]

And that's not even what I'm talking about. the Bolsheviks WERE conscious of historical materialism. I'm talking about historical materialism as a THEORY, not as a real force.



Marx: "What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class."

Ideas change as production changes. Strategy and tactics are ideas used in war. A change in real productive forces leads to a change in ideas. Obviously it doesnt all happen overnight, but the fact that it does happen is the proof that historical materialism is a real force, just as evolution is a real force, not just a theory.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2805549)

You are correct to point out that historical materialism is generated by material forces and is subject to material forces in its existence.

[RedMaterialist]

My fucking god, you're beyond confused. Hopelessly.

No one is arguing about whether historical materialism is a "real force" or not as such.

You just spent the last four or five posts arguing that HM is not a real force.

[RedMaterialist]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2805549)

You are correct to point out that historical materialism is generated by material forces and is subject to material forces in its existence.

There's no reason, I think, why a force cannot be generated by a force. Evolution can be generated by the force of atomic particles causing a change in a gene. The force of gravity can cause a water wheel to generate a force to grind wheat.

[RedMaterialist]

a) Say that because we are aware of historical materialism, the revolutionary proletariat henceforth can make history as it pleases as a result of not only class consciousness, but worldly consciousness




That can happen only after the class structure is ended, on a world scale. As Marx said, "Communism is the answer to the riddle of history, and knows itself to be the answer." History will be made consciously and with a specific purpose only by people living in a communist society.

[Rafiq]

That can happen only after the class structure is ended, on a world scale. As Marx said, "Communism is the answer to the riddle of history, and knows itself to be the answer." History will be made consciously and with a specific purpose only by people living in a communist society.

Do you think you're teaching me something, Redmaterialist? What indication, show me, WHAT INDICATION throughout my post infers that I said otherwise?

[Rafiq]

You just spent the last four or five posts arguing that HM is not a real force.


There's no reason, I think, why a force cannot be generated by a force. Evolution can be generated by the force of atomic particles causing a change in a gene. The force of gravity can cause a water wheel to generate a force to grind wheat.

What? What the fuck are you arguing about? Are you trolling? I LITERALLY addressed this! Exactly this!

You don't know what you're talking about. Historical materialism is not a real force, it DESCRIBES real forces. Your logic is vulgar and violently anti-Marxist. It represents a wider pathology of ideological super-imposition upon science. Somehow, "Marxists" have managed to make historical materialism an idealist dogma. Just stop arguing. I'm so sick of users who don't know what the fuck they're talking about who try to desperately argue for the sake of argument. Literally, all of these niches of "what-if's" and "If I interpret it this way" strike me as nothing more than pathetic ass-covering of a blatantly wrong initial interpretation. Quit it.


You don't know what historical materialism means! It's not some kind of conscious actor which was given a name by Marx and Engels. Historical materialism is an understanding of history.

I may as well just let Marx do the talking at this point:


“history” is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.


History does nothing, it “possesses no immense wealth”, it “wages no battles”. It is man, real, living man who does all that, who possesses and fights; “history” is not, as it were, a person apart, using man as a means to achieve its own aims; history is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.

It's disturbingly ironic that you, among other Marxists like "Tim Redd" are trying to replace "history" in this context with "historical materialism". You are attempting to formalize historical materialism and essentially see to its transformation into a form of idealism. You attempt to defend yourself by creating false dichotomies, such as arguing that "forces can effect other force". You simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you're arguing with a straw man.

"Hur dur, you're saying historical materialism isn't a real force". Has this really been the entire content of my last five posts? You're inferring that I am saying historical materialism isn't grounded in reality. When have I even implied this. You're just touting a bunch of confused drivel. What I actually said was that historical materialism is a human, not divine, understanding of history. And historical development, and reality itself exist independently of our consciousness. We must therefore deduce that historical materialism is nothing more than an understanding of the process of historical change, which exists not because "historical materialism", as though it is a conscious historical force willed it. Historical materialism is true, but you don't know what the fuck historical materialism actually entails.

How do you, Redmaterialist, respond to this? You rehash common-sense Marxist phraseology, as though you're teaching me something. As though I was unfamiliar with them. As though this has some kind of relevance. Rather than attempting to demonstrate a fundamental point, you are simply trying desperately to demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. The only point you have ever conveyed is that you do not. Stop posting.

[Rafiq]

You are correct to point out that historical materialism is generated by material forces and is subject to material forces in its existence.

How has he pointed this out? Tell me, what are you talking about when you say historical materialism? Are you talking about the phenomena of historical change itself, or consciousness of this change (theory)?

Both of which are subject to real forces in order to exist. All things are. Explain the fucking relevance here. Explain how you are actually addressing something I have posted. Explain how this has FUCK ALL to do with anything! "A force can be generated by a force"... How is this even applicable? Historical materialism is generated by historical materialism? What utterly schizophrenic nonsense. What I mess. I have explained the relationship between historical materialism and historical materialism as an absolute: Consciousness of historical materialism only represents a fundamental impossibility of knowing the real historical outcome of a proletarian dictatorship. Theoretical internalization of historical materialism itself only represents a potential historical unknown or projected magnitude of synthesis that looms in the background. Historical materialism as a theory will still be true (subject to further qualification) and not simply a part of a relative wider historical process. Or, in Hegelese, historical materialism as an "absolute" may be relative, but none the less it remains an absolute throughout the process of historical change, even if it is previously looked back upon as relative.

[Rafiq]

I'm so sick of this disgusting dismissive attitude people have here. "You just spent the last four or five posts arguing that HM is not a real force." - Are you FUCKING kidding me? Why would I add as such if I wasn't explicitly referring to 'historical materialism' as a phenomena, or the phenomena it describes?

This whole fucking argument has been RedMaterialist, the infantile Marxist, attempting to school me in something I have dedicated the better part of my life to understanding all because his reading comprehension skills are just that... Infantile. Are you so deluded as to be incapable of recognizing that historical materialism is a theory that is consciously held by Marxists? No one argues that the theory is not true, or that it does not reflect reality: All this means is that the Bolsheviks didn't say "Well, historical materialism sais we can't/should do this, so it shall be/not be" with regard to political strategy. How the FUCK is this hard to understand? How have you not been able to grasp this? No one argues that the Bolsheviks not being "guided" by the theory of historical materialism within the domain of action means that a historical materialist understanding of the situation is impossible, or that historical materialism is rendered invalid because of this, or that the events are inexplicable by historical materialism. That isn't what we're talking about. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Yet again, I have to repeat myself, because apparently you can address arguments while knowing fuck all about them.

What an intellectual mess you have made. All over this semantic GARBAGE. Yes, my frustration is clownish: But this is DWARFED by the utterly CLOWNISH nature of your posts. I can't fucking believe what I'm reading on this website sometimes. Are you posting with your ass? How can you sit back and actually respond like this, so lazily - are you trolling?

[Rafiq]

This also applies to the cat on the mat argument. The same cat is never on the same mat at any time. The cat and the mat are always changing. The cat gets older, loses a few cells, the mat decays losing a few atoms. Both the cat and the mat are moving in space in several different places: the surface of the earth, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the Magellanic Structure, etc. Even light affects the mat and cat differently at different times.


What laughable, trivial metaphysical trash. Is this what you want to reduce Dialectical materialism to? A cat is always the same cat, because a cat isn't necessarily defined as a static being. It is an organism which obviously is always subject to change. How does this render its categorization as a cat, or a specific cat invalid? How is this even close to being a semblance of the dialectics as utilized by Marx and Hegel?

I'm a damn fool. I should have never intervened here. I should have let Kronsteen carry on in destroying this kind of drivel - my god, this is why I say I appreciate the anti-dialectic fervor of many Marxists today. Who can blame them?

[Tim Redd]

You don't know what historical materialism means! It's not some kind of conscious actor which was given a name by Marx and Engels. Historical materialism is an understanding of history.

Historical materialism is how the major factors of social history and present day society play out. It is how the forces of production, relations of production, and superstructure of a society interact. Historical materialism shows that the key economic material factors of society determine the superstructure of society. And vice versa it shows how the superstructure reacts upon the economic base of society and determines it secondary to being determined by the base.



It's disturbingly ironic that you, among other Marxists like "Tim Redd" are trying to replace "history" in this context with "historical materialism". You are attempting to formalize historical materialism and essentially see to its transformation into a form of idealism. You attempt to defend yourself by creating false dichotomies, such as arguing that "forces can effect other force". You simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about,

How, as it seems both I and Red Materialist do, arguing that historical materialism allows for forces to affect other forces and that forces can affect social relations mean that we are idealists? In fact it is you, Rafiq who holds that historical materialism is only a theory or idea which doesn't really exist as a material force, who is being idealist.

[Rafiq]

In fact it is you, Rafiq who holds that historical materialism is only a theory or idea which doesn't really exist as a material force, who is being idealist.


"Hur dur, you're saying historical materialism isn't a real force". Has this really been the entire content of my last five posts? You're inferring that I am saying historical materialism isn't grounded in reality. When have I even implied this. You're just touting a bunch of confused drivel. What I actually said was that historical materialism is a human, not divine, understanding of history. And historical development, and reality itself exist independently of our consciousness. We must therefore deduce that historical materialism is nothing more than an understanding of the process of historical change, which exists not because "historical materialism", as though it is a conscious historical force willed it. Historical materialism is true, but you don't know what the fuck historical materialism actually entails.

I can't fucking believe this. My arguments literally fulfill themselves. This isn't an argument. It's Tim Redd fulfilling my caricature of him.

[Rafiq]

For a THEORY TO BE A THEORY it must NECESSARILY have implications for reality! that doesn't mean THEORIES DRIVE HISTORY

[Rafiq]

Historical materialism is how the major factors of social history and present day society play out. It is how the forces of production, relations of production, and superstructure of a society interact. Historical materialism shows that the key economic material factors of society determine the superstructure of society. And vice versa it shows how the superstructure reacts upon the economic base of society and determines it secondary to being determined by the base.



So you're DESCRIBING phenomena, you're DESCRIBING real phenomena and giving it a name. How can you form an analysis of this phenomena, by substituting real analysis for a NAME? You are untrue to the spirit of Marxism - you're nothing short but an intellectual dwarf and coward, a drone only good for regurgitating what everyone already knows. Historical materialism "is" NO FACTORS. Historical Materialism is the theoretical conceptualization of THESE FACTORS scientifically. Evolution and Historical materialism are not on the same boat. The Theory of Evolution and Historical materialism are. Likewise, evolution and historical development (not "historical materialism") are on the same boat. You're abusing the FUCK out of words.

It is PRECISELY Idealism that holds ideas, "theories" as driving forces of history, it is precisely idealism that attempts to mold reality towards our standards of reason, rather than the other way around. You're more of an anti-dialetician than anyone who is proud of it.

[Tim Redd]

To put it shortly, there cannot be a debate between dialectics and formal logic. It is impossible.

According to Hegel, formal logic is a subset of dialectics. Are you saying Hegel was wrong about hegelianism?

So far all you've done so far is say what dialectics isn't, and throw out a few tantalising words like "change" and "cohesive". Say what you think dialectics is, or admit that you have no secret to reveal.

Agreed, why would it not be possible for someone who holds only to formal to debate with someone who holds to dialectical logic? Or vice versa?

[Tim Redd]

Historical materialism is how the major factors of social history and present day society play out. It is how the forces of production, relations of production, and superstructure of a society interact. Historical materialism shows that the key economic material factors of society determine the superstructure of society. And vice versa it shows how the superstructure reacts upon the economic base of society and determines it secondary to being determined by the base.


So you're DESCRIBING phenomena, you're DESCRIBING real phenomena and giving it a name. How can you form an analysis of this phenomena, by substituting real analysis for a NAME?I can rightfully use one name for a concept because humans substitute one word or term for fuller concepts all the time.Kinda part of being a normal human.


It is PRECISELY Idealism that holds ideas, "theories" as driving forces of history, it is precisely idealism that attempts to mold reality towards our standards of reason

Ideas can be drivers of history, they often are. But such ideas have arisen from the material forces of society. Once the material is reflected ideas, ideas can they play powerful role in moving both the material and ideas forward. This can happen to the point that ideas are temporarily the key driver of events. But ultimately the material asserts itself to play an overall dominant role in the relationship between the material and ideas. For instance due to material conditions the masses may come to want revolution, an idea entity. In that case the superstructure becomes predominant over economics and people use the state in the superstructure to carry out transformation of the economy and other material aspects of life. But ultimately in the long run the superstructure is determined by the economic base.

[Rafiq]

What a clown you are. Do you actually think materialism IS the real force, rather than a correct understanding of forces?

That's hilarious. I actually am laughing. You actually think materialism = material forces? Do you not understand logic? Where have Marx, Engels, or any Marxist, when detailing and describing events, say that "historical materialism" is responsible for anything? Where has a real analysis been substituted with a phrase or name?

Marx according to Tim Redd: It is not men who determine their historical Materialism, but historical materialism that determines men.

You're abusing words. F(A)=/= A

[Rafiq]

Agreed, why would it not be possible for someone who holds only to formal to debate with someone who holds to dialectical logic? Or vice versa?

Because I totally didn't expound upon that little snip. I just wrote a sentence and called it a day. Thanks for thoroughly addressing it, the hidden hand of historical materialism made me do say it.

[RedMaterialist]

What an intellectual mess you have made. All over this semantic GARBAGE. Yes, my frustration is clownish: But this is DWARFED by the utterly CLOWNISH nature of your posts. I can't fucking believe what I'm reading on this website sometimes. Are you posting with your ass? How can you sit back and actually respond like this, so lazily - are you trolling?

You post something about historical materialism and expect no one to argue with you or oppose you or contradict you? You really think that posting in 50 pt type is an argument?

[Rafiq]

You post something about historical materialism and expect no one to argue with you or oppose you or contradict you? You really think that posting in 50 pt type is an argument?

I thoroughly and carefully respond to your garbage in great detail, only to be met with a few words of rehashed nonsense I explicitly already addressed. I'll type in 50 pt so you'll realize that big block of text actually convey real ideas, or a real argument. You conduct yourself in a dishonest and cretinous way. if you cannot respond to my posts, and if you do not meet them with even a tiny fraction of care and detail that I meet yours, stop posting.

[RedMaterialist]

Where have Marx, Engels, or any Marxist, when detailing and describing events, say that "historical materialism" is responsible for anything? Where has a real analysis been substituted with a phrase or name?

Marx according to Tim Redd: It is not men who determine their historical Materialism, but historical materialism that determines men.




The handmill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam mill society with the industrial capitalist. Marx from The Poverty of PHilosophy He might have added: the computer gives you society of the finance capitalist.

Marx: It is life which determines consciousness, not consciousness which determines life. It is the forces of material production which determine, in the last analysis, how and what men think and how they act.

Marx according to Marx: It is the forces of historical, material production that determine men. All you do is confuse the term "historical materialism" with the force of material production. You are the exact replication of the philosopher depicted by Marx in the German Ideology:


Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.



Your dogmatic, idealist, philosophical, empty theories about historical materialism are unable to locate any specific, concrete, real connection between productive life and the strategy, tactics or any other consciousness of life. We live in a world of mass commodity production on a scale not even Marx could have imagined. How does that, specifically, affect, create, alter modern consciousness?

For you, historical materialism is only a theory. Even assuming that to be true, that doesn't take you one step closer to explaining how modern production creates modern consciousness.

For you, evolution is only a theory, gravity is only a theory, special relativity is only a theory, quantum mechanics is only a theory, biological transmission of disease is only a theory, flight by an airplane weighing 20 tons is only a theory.

AND, the labor theory of value? Real or only a theory?

[Rafiq]

Marx according to Marx: It is the forces of historical, material production that determine men. All you do is confuse the term "historical materialism"

That's what YOU'RE doing, EXACTLY doing by saying historical Materialism is interchangeable sigh material forces! Fucking troll! This has been THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ARGUMENT FOR THE PAST HUNDRED POSTS! UNBELIEVABLE! un FUCKING believable! Can someone explain this to him? I SAID THE BOLSHEVIKS DIDNT ACT BECAUSE THEY WERE ADHERING TO HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AS A THEORY, NOT MATERIAL FORCES. I CHALLENGED SOMEONE TO GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHERWISE AND YOU responded by saying the BOLSHEVIKS WERE NOT BEYOND MATERIAL FORCES. A COMPLETE AND UTTER STRAW MAN!

HOW THE FUCK AM *I* CONFUSING THESE WHEN YOURE THE ONE MAKING NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AS A THEORY AND THE MATERIAL FORCES WHICH IT DESCRIBES.

You're just MAKING SHIT UP at this point because you're ass covering your initial error! EVEN IF SOMETHING IS A REAL THEORY, OR A DOCTRINE, IT MEANS IT can REFLECT REALITY. You CLEARLY don't know what I'm talking about. I can't believe someone can be making shit up like this and NOT be trolling!

How fucking DARE you conduct yourself in such a dishonest way! If you're even a semblance of being honest, apologize.

[Rafiq]

THEORIES describe REAL things, but the theories themselves are THEORIES. Marx said SOCIAL BEING, not "historical materialism" determines consciousness. So OF COURSE HISTORICAL MATERIALISM IS BEING EXPRESSED, BUT THAT DOESNT FUCKING MEAN YOU ABUSE WORDS AND ATTRIBUTE CONSCIOUSNESS TO "HISTORICAL MATERIALISM" AS THOUGH IT IS A CONSCIOUS GHOST!

Likewise, the BOLSHEVIKS DIDNT FUCKING ACT BY CONSCIOUSLY CONFORMING TO HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AS A "GUIDE". I HAVE MADE MYSELF VERY FUCKING CLEAR.

What the fuck is left at this point?

[Fakeblock]

RedMaterialist and Tim Redd, though their arguments seem absurd, are actually continuing the legacy of a common erroneous tendency in philosophy that would be termed empiricism by Althusser (in its broad sense). The error of this tendency has already been explained by Marx in the famous introduction to the Grundrisse. It leads to bizarre conclusions, all rooted in the erroneous identification of the real and the 'real-in-thought'.


Therefore, to the kind of consciousness – and this is characteristic of the philosophical consciousness – for which conceptual thinking is the real human being, and for which the conceptual world as such is thus the only reality, the movement of the categories appears as the real act of production – which only, unfortunately, receives a jolt from the outside – whose product is the world; and – but this is again a tautology – this is correct in so far as the concrete totality is a totality of thoughts, concrete in thought, in fact a product of thinking and comprehending; but not in any way a product of the concept which thinks and generates itself outside or above observation and conception; a product, rather, of the working-up of observation and conception into concepts. The totality as it appears in the head, as a totality of thoughts, is a product of a thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can, a way different from the artistic, religious, practical and mental appropriation of this world.

EDIT: The error lies in the fact that knowledge is deemed a process of extraction of the essence of the real, i.e. knowledge is the recreation of the real essence in the mind. This conflation has several manifestations in modern times (the seperation of socially constructed categories from 'real' categories, empiricism proper, positivism), but the main example is probably Hegel's conflation of the expansion of Mind/Spirit with the development of world history (the real totality as a reflection of thought).

[Rafiq]

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM IS NOT THE PROCESS, BUT THE CONCEPTION OF THE PROCESS.

Marx and Engels ONLY SPOKE OF the materialist CONCEPTION of history, which was further called HISTORICAL MATERIALISM. I ASKED for an example of where Marx and engels substituted analysis of real phenomena for a name or word, AND YOU MERELY DESCRIBED AN EXAMPLE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM IN MARX'S WRITINGS. BRAVO. That's NOT what I asked for. I asked where Marx and engels EXPLICITLY said "materialism is responsible for X". There is NONE. They could say "Bourgeois political, ideological consciousness began the enlightenment" and you CALL this materialism. Now back to your FIRST POST, do you see your mistake?

History =/= historical materialism. If you can't understand this, fuck off and stop pretending to be a Marxist.

EDIT: let's not forget


First he claims:
History, philosophy, etc. is the observation and interpretation of the force of materialism

Then


All you do is confuse the term "historical materialism" with the force of material production

Discussion over.

[Rafiq]

RedMaterialist and Tim Redd, though their arguments seem absurd, are actually continuing the legacy of a common erroneous tendency in philosophy that would be termed empiricism by Althusser (in its broad sense). The error of this tendency has already been explained by Marx in the famous introduction to the Grundrisse. It leads to bizarre conclusions, all rooted in the erroneous identification of the real and the 'real-in-thought'.

Which is precisely why their "materialism" is thoroughly idealist. And why their dialectics is thoroughly a form of twisted, abused and utterly inconsistent formal logic. For them, historical materialism is a substitution for the real - for them the theory exists independently of reality, while the opposite is true for all theories and consciousness

[Dodo]

Haha, must say I enjoyed the anger there :P

You know, this is why I take an extreme almost post-modernist anti-dogmatist attitude on this forum. Because majority of the members are teenage kids(or people who could not go beyond what they learned earlier) that have absorbed all the RHETORIC rather than the actual philosophical talk. Throwing around concepts without understanding their relational-historical role.
And ultimately, drowning in so much dogma that I feel literally sad for Marxism. So far the only legit up to date stuff I read is in academia....which makes me think, should I take an elitist path or come down to the level of debates from 1890s with people who are more concerned about the existence of their constructed idealist reality, which is their party rhetoric mostly. When they say "dude MARX TURNED HEGEL UPSIDE DOWN", they think they understand the essence of what happened...etc

I'll continue my provocative anti-dogmatism because essentially I use this forum for my own intellectual development, using ideas to test them with forummites here. Its just, sometimes the dogmatic stupidity and lack of updating one-self overwhelms me sometimes.

This Tim Redd dude believes he represents the ultimate form of a Marxism in the 21st century.......and he calls it Reddism....what I picture in my mind is an anti-social dude that doesn't know how the world works. How many people creates their own "ism" when they are alive? And we are talking about a person who is not even respected in his field.......

[Rafiq]

Marxists up until Lenin had a special word for these rampant new isms. Revolutionary phrase-mongering. I know what a clown I look like getting pissed, but I have made it a matter of principle to take everything anyone posts in a serious discussion seriously regardless of who they are, or their apparent knowledge with regard to the discussion.
I therefore am often shocked by some of the things people post... As though they are a living, breathing caricature. Why are people so content being so painfully predictable? So great are their dull regurgitations that they become exceptional and *uniquely* nonsensical. My favorite part is how they try to explain materialism to me. For users that have known me here for a while, this must be hilarious.

[RedMaterialist]

clown...pissed...caricature... painfully predictable... dull regurgitations...nonsensical...hilarious.

That pretty much sums up your posts for the last 24 hrs.

Why not try posting something without caps or bold or italics? What's next? YOU ARE A CLOWN!!!

[RedMaterialist]

What does all this have to do with A not equal to A?

[Rafiq]

Why not try posting something without caps or bold or italics? What's next? YOU ARE A CLOWN!!!

I would like to, but the force of Historical materialism doesn't allow me to. I just got off of the phone with him, and it seems like I'm just limited to bold or italics for now.

[RedMaterialist]

I would like to, but the force of Historical materialism doesn't allow me to. I just got off of the phone with him, and it seems like I'm just limited to bold or italics for now.

On the contrary, the forces of production have developed to the extent that thousands of different fonts, colors, sizes, smilies, icons, whatever, can be used on a computer. Your Historical Materialism is still stuck in the 19th century.

[Tim Redd]

It is PRECISELY Idealism that holds ideas, "theories" as driving forces of history, it is precisely idealism that attempts to mold reality towards our standards of reason

Ideas can be drivers of history, they often are. But such ideas have arisen from the material forces of society. Once the material is reflected in ideas, ideas can then play a powerful role in moving both the material and ideas forward. This can happen such that ideas are temporarily the key driver of events. But ultimately the material asserts itself to play an overall dominant role in the relationship between the material and ideas. For instance due to material conditions the masses may come to want revolution, an idea entity. In that case the superstructure becomes predominant over economics and people use the state in the superstructure to carry out transformation of the economy and other material aspects of life. But ultimately in the long run the superstructure is determined by the economic base.

[RedMaterialist]

Just in time for this "discussion/rant/reformist/true believer thread" there is the 11th Annual Historical Materialism Conference in London November 6-9. It doesnt say whether it will be on Youtube. I hope the organizers are up to date with their material forces of production so that we can watch it live.

[RedMaterialist]

But ultimately in the long run the superstructure is determined by the economic base.

Late in his life Engels said (according to a wiki article) that what he and Marx had failed to do was describe the formal way that ideas developed out of the economic base, that it was not sufficient to establish that economic forces were at the base of society, but that it is necessary to describe how the superstructure of ideas, theory, etc. develop from the economic base.

It seems to me that this is still the problem. How, specifically, does the idea of, say, post-modernism, develop out of the economics of late stage monopoly capitalism? Capitalist economists say that a commodity has only a use-value and that each consumer determines the value of each commodity based on his or her subjective valuation. What is this besides the post-modern view that all ideas, concepts, etc. are of equal value, and that no authority has the right to claim that one idea has more value than another?

And, with machine production replacing human labor, does this not mean that commodities have less and less exchange-value, and ultimately will have so little human labor incorporated in them that the only value that can be placed on them is the subjective value of the consumer?

[Dodo]

Ideas can be drivers of history, they often are. But such ideas have arisen from the material forces of society. Once the material is reflected ideas, ideas can they play powerful role in moving both the material and ideas forward. This can happen to the point that ideas are temporarily the key driver of events. But ultimately the material asserts itself to play an overall dominant role in the relationship between the material and ideas. For instance due to material conditions the masses may come to want revolution, an idea entity. In that case the superstructure becomes predominant over economics and people use the state in the superstructure to carry out transformation of the economy and other material aspects of life. But ultimately in the long run the superstructure is determined by the economic base.

The idea is to bring everything into the exact same wording our ancestors have done. You just had to bring an abstraction as if it is an absolute reality and apply it to the world. They all have to work the way you want them to.
You realize this obsession with something called "dialectical materialism" is a pure product of Engels and not Marx?

Throwing stone in the well here; nowadays academics(I mean Marxist academics) call Marx and Marxist epistemology as NATURALIST, and NOT a materialist.
Just keep that in mind before your obsessions with "scientific socialism", "dialectical materialism" and rhetoric of the second international.

[Tim Redd]

But ultimately in the long run the superstructure is determined by the economic base.


Late in his life Engels said (according to a wiki article) that what he and Marx had failed to do was describe the formal way that ideas developed out of the economic base, that it was not sufficient to establish that economic forces were at the base of society...

Yes, that is a worthy undertaking.


It seems to me that this is still the problem. How, specifically, does the idea of, say, post-modernism, develop out of the economics of late stage monopoly capitalism? Capitalist economists say that a commodity has only a use-value and that each consumer determines the value of each commodity based on his or her subjective valuation. What is this besides the post-modern view that all ideas, concepts, etc. are of equal value, and that no authority has the right to claim that one idea has more value than another?

While some post-modernists may have the view that all social factors are equal, I still maintain based upon my study of anthropolgy, sociology, and geography, that mostly ideas are not equal to the material. I have found that the material is ultimately predominant in the relationship between the material and ideas. Ideas may play a predominant, or play a driving role at times, or temporarily, but overall the material is predominant.

Being a materialist, I believe that material being is ultimately predominant over ideas and thinking.


And, with machine production replacing human labor, does this not mean that commodities have less and less exchange-value, and ultimately will have so little human labor incorporated in them that the only value that can be placed on them is the subjective value of the consumer?

Yes I agree with you that the amount of human labor embodied in commodities shrinks due to increasing automation. I do not think that this undermines the rationale for the 99% to take control of the means of production and run society for their interests.

Despite the declining share of human labor in commodities, there remains the contradiction between the fact that the means of production are an infrastructure which is required to keep people alive and to fulfill their other needs and wishes, on the one hand, and the fact that the capitalists who own the means of production first of all use it to make profits for themselves. Mostly the real needs of the 99% are ignored and trampled upon by the capitalists in their pursuit of profit. Please see Automation Won't Save Capitalism (http://risparty.org/Automation.htm) a political economic work I wrote that specifically analyzes and addresses this question.

[Tim Redd]

I think that laws arise from the interaction of matter. In other words I don't think that matter behaves the way it does because a law called dialectics is orchestrating matter. Rather matter is reacting with matter and with ideas such that a phenomena we call dialectics arises on the basis of how the elements involved interact with one another - given the nature of each element in some context.

[It would seem that ideas can react with other ideas and the material and in so doing they interact with one another in a dialectical way. For instance the principles of Bayesian probability arise in many ways from the way that certain ideas interact with other ideas. Though make no mistake the values of various parameters in the theory are set to reflect, or converge upon values of the things under investigation in the real world.]

[RedMaterialist]

Gravity existed from a few billionths of a second after the big bang. We've only had a theory of gravity for 200 yrs. The speed of light has been the same for the same time. We've only had the theory of special relativity for less than 100 yrs. Evolution has been a force on earth for a couple billion yrs. Yet we've only had a theory of evolution since the 1850s. HM has been a force since humans began reproducing their means of life. We've only known about HM since about 1850.

We use the theories of gravity, light, evolution to understand these forces.

What's the big deal?

[RedWorker]

.

Are you unable to read? I mean, what's your point here? Are you genuinely unable to understand what Rafiq is saying, after he spelled it out, or is it that you just can't admit that you said something mistaken and move on?

What are you even refuting in that post, when Rafiq is saying exactly that what the theory explains has always been around, but that the theory is merely the theory, and that the theory is not responsible for the reality, but rather that it is the theory which is made to explain reality, a reality which, yes, fits the principles set about in the theory, due to this theory having been made in order to explain this reality?

It is not historical materialism (a shortening of its full name, materialist conception of history, which obviously is a name for a theory) which has been the force, just as it is not the theory of evolution which has been the force. Evolution is a force, and the theory of evolution, is a theory made to explain such a force. In the same way, class struggle may always have been a force in class society, and historical materialism is the theory made to explain this force.

[Tim Redd]

Ideas can be drivers of history, they often are. But such ideas have arisen from the material forces of society. Once the material is reflected ideas, ideas can they play powerful role in moving both the material and ideas forward. This can happen to the point that ideas are temporarily the key driver of events. But ultimately the material asserts itself to play an overall dominant role in the relationship between the material and ideas. For instance due to material conditions the masses may come to want revolution, an idea entity. In that case the superstructure becomes predominant over economics and people use the state in the superstructure to carry out transformation of the economy and other material aspects of life. But ultimately in the long run the superstructure is determined by the economic base.


The idea is to bring everything into the exact same wording our ancestors have done. You just had to bring an abstraction as if it is an absolute reality and apply it to the world. They all have to work the way you want them to. You realize this obsession with something called "dialectical materialism" is a pure product of Engels and not Marx?

Not sure why you raise the fact that Marx never wrote the term "dialectical materialism" in conjunction with I wrote above. What if anything in my quote above do you object to as the philosophical stance of late Marx?


Throwing stone in the well here; nowadays academics(I mean Marxist academics) call Marx and Marxist epistemology as NATURALIST, and NOT a materialist. Just keep that in mind before your obsessions with "scientific socialism", "dialectical materialism" and rhetoric of the second international.

My first thought is that those academics who are opposed to using the term "materialism" to describe Marx and Engel's final stance on philosophy are doing so to deny or reject the basic tenet of materialism, which is that ultimately, or primarily being determines thinking and not vice versa.

[RedMaterialist]

In the same way, class struggle may always have been a force in class society, and historical materialism is the theory made to explain this force.

You just moved the goal posts there. Now the force is class struggle and the theory is historical materialism. Why not be consistent and say that the force is class struggle and the explanation is the theory of class struggle.

[RedMaterialist]

What is a concrete, specific example of historical materialism in the 21st century?

[Tim Redd]

The idea is to bring everything into the exact same wording our ancestors have done. You just had to bring an abstraction as if it is an absolute reality and apply it to the world. They all have to work the way you want them to.

As time has passed since I originally adopted dialectics some decades ago, I have extensively studied how it functions as a science for analyzing the motion and development of things.

As a result I have determined both its strengths and weaknesses in my opinion. In the paper The External Nature of Things (http://www.risparty.org/External_Nature_of_Things.htm) I have noted and discussed how various leading Marxists such as Lenin and Mao have errors in their understanding and application of dialectics. In this paper in particular I addressed the errant major tendency in Marxist dialectics influenced by Lenin to overemphasize the role of internal process in the motion and development of things. That is why it's named "The External Nature of Things".

In the paper Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm) I made a further analysis of dialectics and demonstrated how we need to rethink some concepts of dialectics to make it more able to provide us with an analysis of how things move and develop.

And after further study of how things move and develop, I wrote the paper "Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics":
http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html . In this paper I discuss how dialectics is insufficient to fully analyzing the way many things move and develop. In that paper I introduce additional ways beyond dialectics that we can analyze the motion and development of things.

So contrary to what you assert above, I have not simply adopted dialectics as an ossified abstraction from the past. I have identified gaps in dialectics ability to analyze the motion and development of things and I have introduced other concepts which can supplement and complement our understanding of dialectics when analyzing the motion and development of things. Now please step off. :grin:

[Tim Redd]

What is a concrete, specific example of historical materialism in the 21st century?

The simple fact of human societies operating as they do since they originated displays the key theory of historical materialism, which is that the mode of production (which consists of the forces of production+the relations of production) and known as the material base of society is ultimately the primary factor determining the thinking, consciousness, institutions, and socio-cultural relations of society.

Together thinking, consciousness, institutions, and socio-cultural relations constitute the superstructure of society.

Thinking, consciousness and socio-cultural relations can affect the base and can even be primary to the economic base for example during revolutions, but long term and in general, it is the base that predominates.

That's the theory of historical materialism in a nutshell. There are additional concepts in the details, but that is the major outline of the theory of historical materialism.

So whenever and where ever a society exists, then historical materialism is operating, it is in effect. Indeed I see it as operating everywhere else sentient beings exist in the universe/multi-verse.

[Tim Redd]

You just moved the goal posts there. Now the force is class struggle and the theory is historical materialism. Why not be consistent and say that the force is class struggle and the explanation is the theory of class struggle.

Because the forces that historical materialism describes were operating prior to the advent of classes. These forces led to the creation of classes and moves class society toward its ending through communist revolution in the superstructure, which if successful then creates the communist mode of production and communist superstructure which operates to abolish classes hand in hand with necessarily eliminating all exploitation and oppression.

Being for communism means doing what is required to bring these changes about. These changes just won't occur because the forces that bring about historical materialism are operating. The communists by using agitation and propaganda need to educate the masses, the 99%, especially the working class about historical materialism, dialectics and other Marxist theory to awaken them to fight and make communist revolution. Without a revolutionary party doing these things, communist revolution will not occur or at least not be successful even given the existence of other suitable revolutionary conditions. [Chief among those being: 1) the bourgeoisie is split about what do in a crisis and 2) the masses refuse to live in the old way.]

[Dodo]

what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM? It isn't something you can prove that exists. Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature? Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?
How can you be so sure of this in a theoretical context? How can you prove that your reality is the reality that corresponds to reality out there and not mine?

[Kronsteen]

The notion that there is a force pushing the universe forward. That reality has a schedule, moving from a pre-planned origin to a fore-ordained goal. That idea that history has a demiurge, even a will. That there is a masterplan operating behind the scenes, one that guarantees our eventual victory - and only we are wise enough to see it.

We have a word for this: Religion.

[Dodo]

exactly...no matter where your thought stands on the context of "enlightenment", it does not mean necessarily that it is progressive.

Was is the fact that enlightenment science dealt with a more materialist perspective that made them progressive or was it their critical attitude to previous norms?

Didn't bourgeoisie science establish positivism at some point as a dogma too? Wasn't Marxism a critique of political-economy which thought itself to be a science?

Dialectics is about figuring out that ideas have their hegemony time depending on the context and that they simple change....it isn't finding one form of idea and establishing it as the ultimate reality....pretty much all ideas do that....like kronsteen says, that is "religion". Just because it does not talk about a god ad praises "material reality" does not mean it is not religion.
The form of logic involved is exactly the same as the religious reasoning.

[Tim Redd]

I can't fucking believe this. My arguments literally fulfill themselves. This isn't an argument. It's Tim Redd fulfilling my caricature of him.

Glad to be of use Rafiq! :grin:

[Tim Redd]

Just in time for this "discussion/rant/reformist/true believer thread" there is the 11th Annual Historical Materialism Conference in London November 6-9. It doesnt say whether it will be on Youtube. I hope the organizers are up to date with their material forces of production so that we can watch it live.

Thanx for the tip. First time I've heard of this group. Very interesting.

[Tim Redd]

what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM? It isn't something you can prove that exists. Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature? Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?
How can you be so sure of this in a theoretical context? How can you prove that your reality is the reality that corresponds to reality out there and not mine?

Given what I just quoted, I take it that you do not actually consider yourself to a revolutionary communist. It's so clearly anti the theoretical stance of a communist. Here are your anti-communism points:
1) "what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM?"
2) "Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature?"
3) "Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?"

[Tim Redd]

The notion that there is a force pushing the universe forward. That reality has a schedule, moving from a pre-planned origin to a fore-ordained goal. That idea that history has a demiurge, even a will. That there is a masterplan operating behind the scenes, one that guarantees our eventual victory - and only we are wise enough to see it.

We have a word for this: Religion.

This description has nothing to do with historical materialism as outlined by Marx. In German Ideology or Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Marx speaks of various factors in reality interacting in such a way that the material economic base of society in general predominates over ideas and theory. This is nothing like your facile caricature of Marxist theory.

[Tim Redd]

Dialectics is about figuring out that ideas have their hegemony time depending on the context and that they simple change....

Dialectics is about identifying generalized processes of the way things move and develop and then applying knowledge of those identified to analysis of other things in and motion and development.


it isn't finding one form of idea and establishing it as the ultimate reality....pretty much all ideas do that....like kronsteen says, that is "religion".

Who is doing that and how?


Just because it ["it" who/what "it"? -TR] does not talk about a god ad ["ad"? some intellectual privacy? -TR] praises "material reality" does not mean it is not religion. The form of logic involved is exactly the same as the religious reasoning.

The form of logic understanding that the material is predominant to ideas and theory is a religion in your opinion? To me that is called being a materialist which is how Marx defined materialism and what he said was his belief and outlook. And of course Marx said that ideas or superstructure can at times predominate, which I agree with. So why are you in such a huff? To me if you oppose this you are an idealist.

Idealism is so attractive to intellectuals who kind of identify with revolution, but can't accept that their ideas and thinking are ultimately determined by being. What is it about "being" that you, Kronsteen and Rafiq find so unappetizing? Perhaps it's because you all don't think we can have an exciting, dynamic world if you accept that the material/being is overall primary to ideas/thinking. But true Marxists understand as Marx and Mao spoke about that ideas/thinking can be predominant for extended periods of time.

In a paper I'll mention below, I added to the notion that ideas/thinking can be predominant for extended periods of time. I recognized that there are certain processes that nearly always require the mental/ideas to be primary to the material/being.

Things such as how to control the nature of society. That for the most part can only happen by the ruling class (at some time to be the revolutionary proletariat) carrying out various processes in the realm of ideas and the state which are parts if the superstructure not the material base of society. This is expressed in my slogan, "theory leads, practice verifies". This is nearly always in effect.

So the fact that the material is overall primary is recognized by saying whatever/wherever theory leads "practice verifies" (practice, the material must verify). So here we keep the dynamicity of ideas/the mental, but the material ultimately governs what we do in terms of ideas/the mental.

You, Kronsteen and Rafiq should be satisfied. Notice that after much thinking I have resolved the issue in such a way that maintains the material as primary, but gives the leading role in many if not most of the things we do as humans to ideas/thinking/the mental.

So be happy that you all's leading role of ideas is maintained, even while you can still be a materialist because the material ultimately verifies whatever you do in the realm of the mental.

I detail these ideas in "Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm)" in a subsection “THEORY LEADS, PRACTICE VERIFIES” (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm#_T oc164782505) of the chapter "THE LEADING FACTOR AND PARAMETRIC ROLES IN DEVELOPMENT". (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm#_T oc164782502)

[Dodo]

Given what I just quoted, I take it that you do not actually consider yourself to a revolutionary communist. It's so clearly anti the theoretical stance of a communist. Here are your anti-communism points:
1) "what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM?"
2) "Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature?"
3) "Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?"

really? really? Is this the answer you can give to what I asked you? If this is the mentality I am up against why are we even discussing "philosophy"....you are a member of a church preaching here.

One more time, dialectics isn't about pointing out how the nature works.


Idealism is so attractive to intellectuals who kind of identify with revolution, but can't accept that their ideas and thinking are ultimately determined by being. What is it about "being" that you, Kronsteen and Rafiq find so unappetizing? Perhaps it's because you all don't think we can have an exciting, dynamic world if you accept that the material/being is overall primary to ideas/thinking. But true Marxists understand as Marx and Mao spoke about that ideas/thinking can be predominant for extended periods of time.

This isn't about what determines ideas or the world, this is about your handling of what you call to be Marxism. And all you do is again go into 1890s debates regarding "idealism". This is not the 19th century anymore, people don't talk of idealists and materialists the way you talk anymore.

I don't need an imam telling me how and why the world works in absolute certainty and the divine meaning behind it.

[Tim Redd]

Given what I just quoted, I take it that you do not actually consider yourself to a revolutionary communist. It's so clearly anti the theoretical stance of a communist. Here are your anti-communist points:
1) "what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM (Historical Materialism)?"
2) "Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature?"
3) "Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?"


really? really? Is this the answer you can give to what I asked you? If this is the mentality I am up against why are we even discussing "philosophy"....you are a member of a church preaching here.

I hold an overall mentality that you object you. But please concretely explain how someone can believe points 1-3 as you do and still call yourself a Marxist? I'll address them specifically:


1) "what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM [Historical Materialism -TR]?"
2) "Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature?"If historical materialism is false what other theory do you have for how classes arose? How do you explain the relationship between the economic mode(s) of production in a locale and the superstructure of the locale? How do explain class struggle and the tendency toward revolution when moving from one mode of production, to another or when new modes of production arise and try to establish themselves?


3) "Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?"What? Well given that you reject historical materialism and have nothing to replace it, nothing to explain how society is in motion, then I guess you would think that there are no forces or tendencies driving things toward a communist revolution. Of course communist revolution requires a party to lead it along with the historical materialist forces occuring.

You claim that my ideas are unacceptable, but nothing I see from you answers how one can hold the above 3 points and still be a Marxist. In fact to me if you believe the above 3 points you can't but be at least non-Marxist and more likely anti-Marxist.


One more time, dialectics isn't about pointing out how the nature works.

Dialectics describes general principles for how things in nature/reality move and develop. To me describing how things in reality move and develop is explaining how nature works in terms of a highly general approach of that explanation. What else is it? Only someone who refuses to open their eyes would make such a statement.

And remember that in my paper Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm) I explain how Marxists can improve their understanding of dialectics. And I take that further in my paper Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html). The latter paper explains how the science of studying the way nature moves and develops should be enhanced beyond dialectics by applying modern discoveries in how complex phenomena moves and develops. Not dropping dialectics, but using additional modern day methods and tools in conjunction with dialectics.

These additional methods and tools are for instance chaos theory, fractal analysis, general system theory that arose in New Mexico in the '40's, and object-oriented methods of analysis that arose in '60s'. In the paper I explain other methods and tools as well.


This isn't about what determines ideas or the world, this is about your handling of what you call to be Marxism. And all you do is again go into 1890s debates regarding "idealism". This is not the 19th century anymore, people don't talk of idealists and materialists the way you talk anymore.

Well most bourgeois academics and scientists who believe there is an objective reality outside the mind do not use the word "materialism" to describe such a viewpoint. But I'm not analyzing and writing about reality according to the lingo preferences as circumscribed by bourgeois academics and scientists.


I don't need an imam telling me how and why the world works in absolute certainty and the divine meaning behind it.

I have definite beliefs just like you do and put them forward. I invite you to point out where a specific assertion I make is only based upon faith and not science. I've pointed out various of my papers for review and there is plenty here on RevLeft. Please point out specifically how science controverts anyone of my specific propositions. Show how anyone of my propositions is unscientific based upon science that has passed in a refereed science or philosophical journal. Other than assertions, I've seen nothing scientifically concrete from you, Kronsteen, or Rafiq to disprove the validity of the theory of historical materialism which explains the tendency of society to move toward communist revolution.

[Dodo]

Timjan, you are not getting my point. My questions are not objections per say, they are potential questioning points. Also, I believe one can indeed distort historical materialism and be a Marxist. If historical materialism is a rigid method, then why so many different interpretations? If it is rigid, it is already debunked OR not-proven anyways...so there, thats where you lose on the -science- end.

You take my questions as objections and try to explain them to me as if I had not gone through all that stuff so many times before. The problem with you is that you have it all sorted, the reality is at your feet. Thats religion, its neither science nor it is Marxism the way I see it.

Also, I'd like to see where dialectics is "laws of nature" in Marx as in those 3 points that represent absolute reality of EVERYTHING that exists.


I have definite beliefs just like you do and put them forward. I invite you to point out where a specific assertion I make is only based upon faith and not science. I've pointed out various of my papers for review and there is plenty here on RevLeft. Please point out specifically how science controverts anyone of my specific propositions. Show how anyone of my propositions is unscientific based upon science that has passed in a refereed science or philosophical journal. Other than assertions, I've seen nothing scientifically concrete from you, Kronsteen, or Rafiq to disprove the existence of historical materialism which explains the tendency of society to move toward communist revolution.
You haven't done any science so far. You've merely declared your epistemology and our debate mostly revolved around whether that is the epistemology of Marxism or not.
Definitions of science varies and I do not really obsess myself with science. Science is not free of ideology and I have no problems with it.
Marxism's attempt to be a science however had been debunked quiet a bit(SCIENCE OF HISTORY had been smashed quiet a lot for more than half a century, so get your proposition that you are doing science verified from scientific community, your only reference is yourself and obsolete people). The closest you can get is Althusser with structural sociology or Marxian economics which vary a lot greatly in-itself as academic disciplines which you do not even refer to here.


IN ANY CASE, if you are to present what you do as science(which you know, maybe IS), you have to AT LEAST refer to debates over epistemology up to contemporary times. You can't just quote Engels and say you are a scientist. You see, I haven't got a lot of trouble with you trying to fit your science into something and legitimize it, but I'll not take your word for it. I need you to get a background on epistemology and debates over science, what you think of all the major critiques up til now and how you COUNTER them and what you argue to be science. THEN, I'll respect your -science- and I'll be like, "well he seems to be well-versed in the field of science and he makes a case for himself with good references"......instead, you create something called "Reddism"?
All I see then is a wanna-be....

[Fakeblock]

How has the idea that historical materialism is a science been 'debunked'? I honestly don't understand most of your positions, Dodo? You keep ranting and raving about how Marxism is, 'in essence', critical of all established ideology, yet you seem to very easily fall prey to whichever ideas are fashionable in academia ('academics today call Marxism NATURALIST not MATERIALIST', 'academics today don't think Marxism is scientific', 'academics today don't use the categories materialism and idealism', 'if you believe Marxism is scientific, you need references from mainstream, non-'obsolete' academics to prove it', etc.). Who gives a shit what modern academics think about Marxism? They have been trying to discredit or revise Marxism since its birth, because it reveals the utterly illusory and transient nature of their practice. Let us hear, rather, with a credible argument, not just what distinguishes historical materialism from the other established sciences, but also why these differences are significant enough to 'debunk' the view of historical materialism as a science. Then we can, perhaps, make some philosophical progress.

[Dodo]

@Fakeblock;

Here is the point: What defines science today in the hegemon ideology is academia. Academia is science, what science is learned from academia. Therefore the ideolog(ies) present in the academia are highly relevant.

Now, this fella here claims to be doing "science". The authority on science is academia and says, well, this is not science.
I haven't got a problem with him doing his thing(or all those Marxists who "know" the laws of nature), declaring his views or anything...but he claims it is a science while what DEFINES SCIENCE is not in agreement. Science is a bourgeouisie product after-all...and it had been used ideologically to put curtains on reality as Marx pointed to.
Historical materialism is not accepted as a science outside of niche academics since even Marxism took a quiet post-modern turn. And post-structuralist era has critiqued the hell out of the "field of history as science"....this isn't only for Marxian look at history, its about all perspective on history.
Conflict theory originating sociology and Marxian economics still constitute science(arguably), but not historical materialism, or well, at least historical materialism and laws of nature that are based on science of dialectics as Tim Redd here puts it.
(you see, he claims that history is bound to natural laws and thats how everything moves. It isn't something we can put to test, all his tools are naturally subjective and ideological, objectivity is out of question. From the little we can test, that is our life-time showed so far nothing of the sort(such as workers ownership of means of production) that relates to propositions of early predictors, prediction being the whole point of science. Marxism on the other hand isn't really so muc about prediction or interpretation but about actively critizing to change the world- we do not take the world FOR GRANTED. Claiming to be scientific to analyze the world does take the things for granted, at least the "scientific method" of bourgeoisie product )


To sum-up, science is part of the ideology, the ruling class hegemony...Marxism's deal isn't about fitting into how the ruling class views the world. Claiming to be doing science is pathetic if what you say has no place in scientific community. Any can create a set of laws and claim it to be a science....but science has specific requirements. We are in an era where sciences bit in "social sciences" are quiet destroyed(maybe Roy Bhaskar's critical realism could have changed it). And Tim Redd brings a 19th century positivist perspective here of mechanical/metaphysical materialism.....
Now Marxism has critiqued the hell out of science already by pointing to dialectics of ideas. Even the bourgeoisie science has followed...but Tim Redd here is back in the 19th century.

[RedMaterialist]

what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM? It isn't something you can prove that exists. Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature? Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?
How can you be so sure of this in a theoretical context? How can you prove that your reality is the reality that corresponds to reality out there and not mine?

That is a valid question. How to prove scientifically that HM is a real, material, historical force? The first issue is whether HM can be falsified. Can you find a time in the history of human production (I mean since the introduction of agriculture and animal domestication) in which ideas were not produced by the material and social means of production? For instance, the idea of political equality (which is derived from value creation by abstract, equal human labor). In 5,000 BCE, or 200 AD, or 1200 AD, or even as late as 1700, the idea of equality would have been thought ridiculous. There are even right wing reactionaries today who think political equality is not only an illusion but also dangerous.

So, if you could find a society in modern human history, in which political equality, such as women's equality, or the equality of whites, blacks, asians, was one of the dominant ideas of that society, then that would falsify historical materialism.

On the other hand there is no scientific, measurable, quantified proof of historical materialism. But we have only known about it for a 150 yrs or so, and modern capitalist society has done a magnificent job of suppressing any discussion of it. It took more than a hundred years for Newton's theory of gravity to be proved in a laboratory, it took about 50 yrs to prove Einstein's theory of relativity. And neither Newton or Einstein had armies of police agents, spies, or world wars to fight against. In fact Einstein helped bourgeois society prove his theory.

[RedMaterialist]

We are in an era where sciences bit in "social sciences" are quiet destroyed(maybe Roy Bhaskar's critical realism could have changed it).

And why is that? Is it because sociology, economics, political science, demographics cannot be studied scientifically? Or is it because capitalist culture tries so hard to marginalize them? Besides, even bourgeois economists claim they are studying a science. It's junk science, but it's still science.

[Tim Redd]

For instance, the idea of political equality (which is derived from value creation by abstract, equal human labor). In 5,000 BCE, or 200 AD, or 1200 AD, or even as late as 1700, the idea of equality would have been thought ridiculous....So, if you could find a society in modern human history, in which political equality, such as women's equality, or the equality of whites, blacks, asians, was one of the dominant ideas of that society, then that would falsify historical materialism.

? Wouldn't it be the opposite? Given modern means of production set the material basis for the idea of equality, it would be odd if political ideas on equality in modern society did not arise in the ideological and superstructural realms.

[Tim Redd]

...prediction being the whole point of science.

False. Science is also about retrodiction (The explanation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/explanation) or interpretation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/interpretation) of past (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/past) actions or events (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/event) inferred (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/infer) from the laws that are assumed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assume) to have governed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/govern) them - oxforddictionaries.com). Science as well prediction is also about archeology, paleontology, historical anthropology, evolutionary biology and yes human social history. And the core driving explanatory theory of the latter is the theory of historical materialism. Despite what the bourgeois scientists/academics and their not even faux-Marxist apologists may claim.

[Dodo]

That is a valid question. How to prove scientifically that HM is a real, material, historical force? The first issue is whether HM can be falsified. Can you find a time in the history of human production (I mean since the introduction of agriculture and animal domestication) in which ideas were not produced by the material and social means of production?
I could if I tried, believe me. Its all about the perspective. You cannot prove HM as a science by looking at the already occurred phenomena. From a sociological perspective, just as there are conflict based theories, there functionalist or institutionalist theories that perfectly explain how things happened all with their confirm bias.


For instance, the idea of political equality (which is derived from value creation by abstract, equal human labor). In 5,000 BCE, or 200 AD, or 1200 AD, or even as late as 1700, the idea of equality would have been thought ridiculous. There are even right wing reactionaries today who think political equality is not only an illusion but also dangerous.

More and more confirm bias...it becomes even more ridiculous when you get out of Europe since most of the positivist thinking is based on white European male perspective.


So, if you could find a society in modern human history, in which political equality, such as women's equality, or the equality of whites, blacks, asians, was one of the dominant ideas of that society, then that would falsify historical materialism.
Falsification does not go well with looking at the past. Believe me if I found a specific case which contradicts classical euro-centric form of historical materialism, there'll be some complementary explanations coming in to fill the gap. Nothing I say will falsify or finish HM to you here.



On the other hand there is no scientific, measurable, quantified proof of historical materialism. But we have only known about it for a 150 yrs or so, and modern capitalist society has done a magnificent job of suppressing any discussion of it. It took more than a hundred years for Newton's theory of gravity to be proved in a laboratory, it took about 50 yrs to prove Einstein's theory of relativity. And neither Newton or Einstein had armies of police agents, spies, or world wars to fight against. In fact Einstein helped bourgeois society prove his theory.
All the opportunities so far that would confirm historical materialism, major one being the revolutionary transition to socialism and then to communism had not occurred.
In addition, it begs an extra question, IF socialism is achieved, how do we prove that it was an historical driving force and not human will?


In all of this, my point isn't that historical materialism is wrong or inaccurate....my point is that it is not scientific in the way you present it with laws of nature applying to how history moves inevitably towards communism. Thats pure political propaganda to keep spirits high.


False. Science is also about retrodiction (The explanation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/explanation) or interpretation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/interpretation) of past (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/past) actions or events (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/event) inferred (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/infer) from the laws that are assumed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assume) to have governed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/govern) them - oxforddictionaries.com). Science as well prediction is also about archeology, paleontology, historical anthropology, evolutionary biology and yes human social history. And the core driving explanatory theory of the latter is the theory of historical materialism. Despite what the bourgeois scientists/academics and their not even faux-Marxist apologists may claim.
here is the context I used the sentence in

From the little we can test, that is our life-time showed so far nothing of the sort(such as workers ownership of means of production) that relates to propositions of early predictors, prediction being the whole point of science. Marxism on the other hand isn't really so much about prediction or interpretation but about actively criticizing to change the world

[Dodo]

And why is that? Is it because sociology, economics, political science, demographics cannot be studied scientifically? Or is it because capitalist culture tries so hard to marginalize them? Besides, even bourgeois economists claim they are studying a science. It's junk science, but it's still science.

Don't you think you debunk your own argument here?
A bourgeois economist claims and believes what he does is science....he uses the "scientific method"....and how much science is that? It is limited by his ideological structure. Thats exactly why (social)science is an ideological tool and can barely be objective. Which kills the point of "science" bit in it since in its essence science is supposed to be objective.

[Tim Redd]

..Science is a bourgeouisie product after-all...and it had been used ideologically to put curtains on reality as Marx pointed to.
Historical materialism is not accepted as a science outside of niche academics since even Marxism took a quiet post-modern turn. And post-structuralist era has critiqued the hell out of the "field of history as science"....this isn't only for Marxian look at history, its about all perspective on history.

You try to play the Marxist even while you dog Marxism time after time. Here's what you just wrote a few posts back about key corollaries and theories of Marxism:


1) "what if you are wrong and there is no force of HM (Historical Materialism)?"
2) "Maybe your theoretical conceptualization has no representation in nature?"
3) "Maybe communism is simply not meant to be?"

Please don't try not to make it seem like you are upholding Marxism, when you are it's enemy given the 3 points.

[Tim Redd]

And why is that? Is it because sociology, economics, political science, demographics cannot be studied scientifically? Or is it because capitalist culture tries so hard to marginalize them? Besides, even bourgeois economists claim they are studying a science. It's junk science, but it's still science.


Don't you think you debunk your own argument here?
A bourgeois economist claims and believes what he does is science....he uses the "scientific method"....and how much science is that? It is limited by his ideological structure. Thats exactly why (social)science is an ideological tool and can barely be objective. Which kills the point of "science" bit in it since in its essence science is supposed to be objective.

There is a social science in spite of your denial of it. It may not be done well by most bourgeois so called scientists and academics, but Marxists observe and study what is and what was objective reality, sift it according to dialectical methods and other methods of modern day science (such as system and complexity theory) and posit predictions, explanations and *retrodictions* on that basis. We also revisit our analysis and views over time. If that isn't science to you, so much the off base view that you cling to.

[Tim Redd]

here is the context I used the sentence in

Which was:



...prediction being the whole point of science.

False. Science is also about present explanation and retrodiction (The explanation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/explanation) or interpretation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/interpretation) of past (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/past) actions or events (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/event) inferred (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/infer) from the laws that are assumed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assume) to have governed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/govern) them - oxforddictionaries.com). Retrodiction while present in most sciences, it is at the fore of sciences like: archeology, paleontology, historical anthropology, evolutionary biology and yes human social history. And the core driving explanatory theory of social history is the theory of historical materialism. Despite what the bourgeois scientists/academics and their not even faux-Marxist apologists may claim.

[Dodo]

You try to play the Marxist even while you dog Marxism time after time. Here's what you just wrote a few posts back about key corollaries and theories of Marxism:
Please don't try not to make it seem like you are upholding Marxism, when you are it's enemy given the 3 points.

Do you see the question marks there? How does one make a proposition with questions?


There is a social science in spite of your denial of it. It may not be done well by most bourgeois so called scientists and academics, but Marxists observe and study what is and what was objective reality, sift it according to dialectical methods and other methods of modern day science (such as system and complexity theory) and posit predictions, explanations and *retrodictions* on that basis. We also revisit our analysis and views over time. If that isn't science to you, so much the off base view that you cling to.

There is social science, it just does not work the way you claim it to be. You see there are various positions on social science today, many of which pretty much says that social-science is dead. At least the science bit in it is dead. My problem with you is that you are not even there. You are a French positivist of enlightenment living in 19th century with the mechanistic materialism that dominated the ontology of the day which is waaaaaaay waaaaaay obsolete in social-science context and you are not even aware of it.

I'll help you however, if you want to make a case for social-science start reading Roy Bhaskar and critical realism.

Which was:



False. Science is also about present explanation and retrodiction (The explanation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/explanation) or interpretation (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/interpretation) of past (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/past) actions or events (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/event) inferred (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/infer) from the laws that are assumed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/assume) to have governed (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/govern) them - oxforddictionaries.com). Retrodiction while present in most sciences, it is at the fore of sciences like: archeology, paleontology, historical anthropology, evolutionary biology and yes human social history. And the core driving explanatory theory of social history is the theory of historical materialism. Despite what the bourgeois scientists/academics and their not even faux-Marxist apologists may claim.

I am not really at odds with the definition. Science also requires objective tools. Social sciences do not provide objective tools. That history can be a science is a highly, perhaps the most highly disputed social science.
I am not going to go in circles if you do not read the arguments around it.

You should make your case that what you are doing science in an academic context. Honestly, you can make a case for yourself....the problem is, you have to go through the epistemology literature. All I am telling you is that your position is too outdated to be "scientific" in any sense. Any mainstream social scientist will simply tell you to turn your back and leave. They won't even take you seriously. Being a student of economic history that had to write a thesis, I have been through this.
When I went to various academics with the idea that historical materialism is a science, I realized a whole world that I was not even aware of.
So thats the point. Position yourself on that area, in the field of science, in the "dialectics of ideas" and I'll respect your ideas.....I just cannot take your word for it from my involvement with social sciences in an actual scientific institution. And this is a school in Sweden that is rather tolerant, things can take a turn for the worst in more Anglo-Saxon tradition institutions that obsess themselves more with the nature of science. Continentals on the other hand are quiet post-modernized so they don't even take science as an objective phenomena.

[RedMaterialist]

? Wouldn't it be the opposite? Given modern means of production set the material basis for the idea of equality, it would be odd if political ideas on equality in modern society did not arise in the ideological and superstructural realms.

But political ideas are located in the superstructure and ideology, which is based on material conditions of production.

[RedMaterialist]

Don't you think you debunk your own argument here?
A bourgeois economist claims and believes what he does is science....he uses the "scientific method"....and how much science is that? It is limited by his ideological structure. Thats exactly why (social)science is an ideological tool and can barely be objective. Which kills the point of "science" bit in it since in its essence science is supposed to be objective.

A bourgeois economist might claim to study the economy as a science but in reality he or she is only serving the ideological interests of the bourgeoisie. However, that only means that bourgeois economics is not a science. It doesn't mean that all science is ideology. When astronomers study the big bang they don't try to justify it as some kind of free market theory.

[Dodo]

yeah bourgeouisie science is wrong because he has an ideological perspective and you don't.....

Friend, you need to learn what ideology constitutes in dialectics.

And you need to be able to distinguish between natural sciences and the so-called social sciences.

[Tim Redd]

? Wouldn't it be the opposite? Given modern means of production set the material basis for the idea of equality, it would be odd if political ideas on equality in modern society did not arise in the ideological and superstructural realms.


But political ideas are located in the superstructure and ideology, which is based on material conditions of production.

I can see how you might take my phrase "odd if political ideas on equality in modern society did not arise in the ideological and superstructural realms" as running counter to the historical materialist (HM) thesis that ideas are ultimately determined by material conditions. Perhaps I should have worded my remark a little better. I wasn't arguing against HM when I wrote that phrase, I was trying to make the point that indeed ideas do arise ultimately as a result of the base of the superstructure society.

It should be noted that although all ideas and institutions are ultimately determined by the economic base of society, there are ideas that more directly arise from other ideas, or institutions in the superstructure as opposed to arsing first more directly from events in the base.

Further there is also the fact some ideas or systems that while being ultimately determined by the base, nevertheless are the primary levers for controlling various affairs in the base. E.g. most of the time the state plays a leading role in controlling the base, however as materialists we know that in the long run the state is determined by the base. I refer to this as "theory leads, practice verifies". I detail this in the subsection "“THEORY LEADS, PRACTICE VERIFIES” (http://risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm#_T oc164782505) in the paper Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm).

[Fakeblock]

It is simply untrue that there cannot be 'objective tools' in social science. Adequate data collection is already being practiced by statisticians, historians and so on and, in fact, it's much easier to obtain accurate data about, say, economic growth or the year of King James' acendancy to the throne than about the speed of microscopic particles. So the question is actually one of interpretation. In both the social and natural sciences, data is explained via interpretation. What constitutes the difference between the scientist and the ideologue, Dodo, is not in their results, but in their practice. Generally the difference between science and theoretical ideology can be expressed in the simple fact that science is rigorous: it has a rigorously defined and materially existing object, a rigorous method of theoretical formulation and, as a result, a rigorous theory that explains given phenomena. Do we find any of these things in contemporary historical research or economics? Do we find it in Capital, which can righteously be called the work of Marxist theory? In Capital, we find the object (the capitalist mode of production), we find the method of theoretical formulation (the dialectical order of exposition) and the theory, which is essentially the method put to work on the object. Because the social sciences tend to lack rigour in all three aspects, because they mistake appearences for reality, they are governed by ideology by the spontaneous ideological assumptions of the historian, the economist, the sociologist. This is why there is little to distinguish the concepts used in economics from the concepts used in accounting and business. That is why non-Marxists could never have arrived at the concept of the twofold character of labour, the concept of surplus-value, of constant and variable capital etc.

Marx's theory may be discovered to be inadequate. Perhaps some symptomatic problem, some lapse in rigour will lead to the overturning of the entire problematic of historical materialism, as it has existed hitherto, allowing us to situate Marx's discoveries within a wider, more accurate perspective. For what has characterised Marxist thought since Marx is that it has very rarely gone beyond - and most of the time it has stopped short - of its founder. There are of course remarkable exceptions, but they remain exactly that: exceptions to a general rule. Historical materialism is in many respects a science that died in its cradle. The burning question of Marxist philosophy today is "how can we revive historical materialism on a scientific basis"? However, Marxism, like any thought, is bound up with its relation to the class struggle. Just as the natural sciences could only take wings with the rise of the nascent bourgeoisie, so the fate of Marxism is bound up with the fate of the workers' movement, for it can never be accepted by bourgeois ideologues and idealist philosophers. It would quite simply shatter the self-image of bourgeois society. It is interesting to contrast the state of Marxism today with its intellectual heights: in the aftermath of the Paris Commune, in the great workers' movements of the early 20th century, in the early days of Soviet Russia and the USSR, in the years leading up to and the aftermath of May '68 in France. It is easy to see that Marxism is bound to rise and fall with the workers' movement. Does this make historical materialism any less of a scientific discipline? No, for ideas can never progress beyond their times. The scientific paradigm can never entrench itself in the dominant ideology, unless there is a class movement that ensures this. Which is why, Dodo, it is ridiculous for a Marxist to appeal to academic authority on this issue. Is academia any less affected by the class struggle? The academy defines the nature of the sciences, simply because we let it. It is up to Marxist philosophers to practice a philosophy of science that aids the scientist in his own practice, that removes any epistemological obstacles from the scientific mind, a philosophy that will lead to the exposure of bourgeois ideology for what it is, a philosophy of the proletariat. It is thus essential to break with the idealist epistemology and philosophy of science that reigns supreme in academia.

[Tim Redd]

yeah bourgeouisie science is wrong because he has an ideological perspective and you don't.....

Simply because someone has an ideology doesn't mean that person is subjective. We all have ideological perspectives. The question is which one reflects objective reality and which do not. Marx related the same notion in "German Ideology" or "Critique of the "Critique of the Gotha Programme". And regardless of Marx, it makes sense to me that since "ideology" is mostly defined along the lines of "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture" (-Merriam Webster). Nothing in this definitions implies that having such a system is necessarily subjective.

There can be objective systems of ideas determined by, or formed on the basis of applying the scientific method to affairs and events such as those in political economy (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/economic), political (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/political) science, anthropology, sociology and so on.


Friend, you need to learn what ideology constitutes in dialectics.

Well it isn't that ideology is necessarily subjective and not objective. Tell that to most of those who you laud, academics and scientists who work in university "Social Science" departments.


And you need to be able to distinguish between natural sciences and the so-called social sciences.

What is there to distinguish other that other than that the natural sciences is the application of scientific methods to natural/physical phenomena, whereas social science is the application of scientific method to the study of human social society. And yes social society can be studied scientifically.

[Dodo]

It is simply untrue that there cannot be 'objective tools' in social science. Adequate data collection is already being practiced by statisticians, historians and so on and, in fact, it's much easier to obtain accurate data about, say, economic growth or the year of King James' acendancy to the throne than about the speed of microscopic particles. So the question is actually one of interpretation.
In both the social and natural sciences, data is explained via interpretation. What constitutes the difference between the scientist and the ideologue, Dodo, is not in their results, but in their practice. Generally the difference between science and theoretical ideology can be expressed in the simple fact that science is rigorous: it has a rigorously defined and materially existing object, a rigorous method of theoretical formulation and, as a result, a rigorous theory that explains given phenomena.

No problem up to here.



Do we find any of these things in contemporary historical research or economics? Do we find it in Capital, which can righteously be called the work of Marxist theory? In Capital, we find the object (the capitalist mode of production), we find the method of theoretical formulation (the dialectical order of exposition) and the theory, which is essentially the method put to work on the object. Because the social sciences tend to lack rigour in all three aspects, because they mistake appearences for reality, they are governed by ideology by the spontaneous ideological assumptions of the historian, the economist, the sociologist. This is why there is little to distinguish the concepts used in economics from the concepts used in accounting and business. That is why non-Marxists could never have arrived at the concept of the twofold character of labour, the concept of surplus-value, of constant and variable capital etc.

The problem is, abstractions used in a social science are highly subjective. Social -science- requires you to have certain a prioris. We say class or we say surplus value...these are abstractions, they might not exist the way we imagine them. So when we use them to do "science" it is only objective in its own context. It is not universally objective. I am not saying they are wrong or right, I am saying that application of these conceptions are not objective. There is a possibility that they do not exist or don't function the way we think.
This might have had been a more legit argument in 19th century, but the thing is recent changes in social science have changed the perception towards its scientific-ness greatly. Like I told to Tim Redd, one can make a case for science. But he is definitely, definitely, outdated.
What bothers me is more his blindness rather than his claims to be doing science. Its not that cheap anymore to call your work "science" to legitimize yourself. I personally do not bother myself with scientific-ness for I do not need it. I still do believe in a method however to distinguish from outright psuedo-science.


Marx's theory may be discovered to be inadequate. Perhaps some symptomatic problem, some lapse in rigour will lead to the overturning of the entire problematic of historical materialism, as it has existed hitherto, allowing us to situate Marx's discoveries within a wider, more accurate perspective. For what has characterised Marxist thought since Marx is that it has very rarely gone beyond - and most of the time it has stopped short - of its founder. There are of course remarkable exceptions, but they remain exactly that: exceptions to a general rule. Historical materialism is in many respects a science that died in its cradle. The burning question of Marxist philosophy today is "how can we revive historical materialism on a scientific basis"?

I don't have a problem with historical materialism, my problem is with a rigid understanding of it. And that it is "scientific"...it is as scientific as social sciences can get. And it is a disputed area. Furthermore, T.Redd claims to laws of nature that are moving "dialectically" that drives history towards something and say that this is science. You have to distinguish between what I am critiquing here and the existing Marxism in scientific community. I have read a lot of academic works since Marxism established itself in academia and peaked in 1960s-70s.There is the actual attempt to make Marxism scientific and there is outright psuedo-science of an outdated Comtian positivism.


However, Marxism, like any thought, is bound up with its relation to the class struggle. Just as the natural sciences could only take wings with the rise of the nascent bourgeoisie, so the fate of Marxism is bound up with the fate of the workers' movement, for it can never be accepted by bourgeois ideologues and idealist philosophers. It would quite simply shatter the self-image of bourgeois society. It is interesting to contrast the state of Marxism today with its intellectual heights: in the aftermath of the Paris Commune, in the great workers' movements of the early 20th century, in the early days of Soviet Russia and the USSR, in the years leading up to and the aftermath of May '68 in France. It is easy to see that Marxism is bound to rise and fall with the workers' movement. Does this make historical materialism any less of a scientific discipline? No, for ideas can never progress beyond their times. The scientific paradigm can never entrench itself in the dominant ideology, unless there is a class movement that ensures this.
Actually I am in agreement here. But I do not tolerate the psuedo-science and its weird presentation as if it is a solid thing like T.Redd does.
Social science is a sensitive spot. So one has to be careful in presenting a method. One cannot take a 19th century world-view automatically and go around as if he is being scientific. I have given my own thesis based on historical materialist analysis. I have read shittons of work on historical materialism starting from Marx to P.Sweezey-M.Dobb debate, from there to the famous Brenner debate and from there to likes of J.Banaji....etc
There are many variations and interpretations and T.Redd here is talking about a dialectical law of nature that applies to society for sure that we have sorted out reality absolutely.



Which is why, Dodo, it is ridiculous for a Marxist to appeal to academic authority on this issue. Is academia any less affected by the class struggle? The academy defines the nature of the sciences, simply because we let it. It is up to Marxist philosophers to practice a philosophy of science that aids the scientist in his own practice, that removes any epistemological obstacles from the scientific mind, a philosophy that will lead to the exposure of bourgeois ideology for what it is, a philosophy of the proletariat. It is thus essential to break with the idealist epistemology and philosophy of science that reigns supreme in academia.
But that is my point. There is no need to appeal for science. Science is an ideological construction of bourgeoisie. My deal was that IF you are going to claim to be scientific, you have to be in touch with scientific community and how they define science and make a case for your own.

[Tim Redd]

The problem is, abstractions used in a social science are highly subjective. Social -science- requires you to have certain a prioris. We say class or we say surplus value...these are abstractions, they might not exist the way we imagine them. So when we use them to do "science" it is only objective in its own context. It is not universally objective.

The validity of an abstraction is context dependent, which is not the same thing as saying an abstraction is necessarily "highly subjective", as you assert. Practicing real science where one studies what features should be in an abstraction for some context, one can produce valid and objective abstractions for that context. Because something like an abstraction may be only valid for some context doesn't mean it's not objective for that context. It is wrong to claim that is necessarily subjective because it's only true for a particular context. Most science bases itself upon, contextually correct abstractions. And correct, valid abstractions are some form of objective truth for their context.

However there are in fact some things, some abstractions true for all, or most, or a majority of contexts. Such abstractions tend to be patterns, regularities and laws that express the movement and development of things and processes in every, most or a majority of contexts. These are general principles like dialectics and complexity theory.


I personally do not bother myself with scientific-ness for I do not need it.

If you do not bother with "scientific-ness" (i.e do not bother with applying the scientific method) then you have a belief system that is far from what is required to change the world.


I still do believe in a method however to distinguish from outright psuedo-science.

That's nothing compared to what you just said about "scientific-ness".


I don't have a problem with historical materialism, my problem is with a rigid understanding of it. And that it is "scientific"...it is as scientific as social sciences can get.

Social sciences can get as scientific as the physical sciences if one consistently applies the scientific method to what you are studying in the social sciences.


Furthermore, T.Redd claims to laws of nature that are moving "dialectically" that drives history towards something and say that this is science...Actually I am in agreement here. But I do not tolerate the psuedo-science and its weird presentation as if it is a solid thing like T.Redd does.

I don't believe you can find anywhere I suggested that dialectics is "driving" history. What I have said is that the operation of history "expresses" dialectics. But I will say that there is a dynamic back and forth dialectical relationship between the base and superstructure where one impacts the other. I don't see this thing called "laws of dialectics" driving either of them, but rather each has a concrete reciprocal relationship on the other. I see the reciprocal relationship as expressing the characteristics of many dialectical relationships. There are no "spiritual" dialectical laws driving that reciprocal relationship.


There are many variations and interpretations and T.Redd here is talking about a dialectical law of nature that applies to society for sure that we have sorted out reality absolutely.

Why is it those who vacillate and can't say anything is definite except for their own skepticism, blame those who can actually perform concrete analysis and evolve it in a scientific manner by saying the latter are approaching things "absolutely"?




Which is why, Dodo, it is ridiculous for a Marxist to appeal to academic authority on this issue. Is academia any less affected by the class struggle? The academy defines the nature of the sciences, simply because we let it. It is up to Marxist philosophers to practice a philosophy of science that aids the scientist in his own practice, that removes any epistemological obstacles from the scientific mind, a philosophy that will lead to the exposure of bourgeois ideology for what it is, a philosophy of the proletariat. It is thus essential to break with the idealist epistemology and philosophy of science that reigns supreme in academia.



But that is my point. There is no need to appeal for science. Science is an ideological construction of bourgeoisie.

Why wouldn't one appeal to science - the scientific method - for answers to any question, except perhaps affairs of the heart, but even then you should probably mainly be guided by science.

Your ideological emptiness is embodied by the statement, "Science is an ideological construction of bourgeoisie." Science is application of the scientific method. If science is simply, "an ideological construction of bourgeoisie" to you, there's no helping you. You have some nerve to say I'm stuck in the 19th century when you can't even accept the validity of science and the truth it accumulates on a contextual basis. You are really lost in a horrible form of intellectualizing. You pursued truth only to land on base falsehood.

[Dodo]

The validity of an abstraction is context dependent, which is not the same thing as saying an abstraction is necessarily "highly subjective", as you assert. Practicing real science where one studies what features should be in an abstraction for some context, one can produce valid and objective abstractions for that context. Because something like an abstraction may be only valid for some context doesn't mean it's not objective for that context. It is wrong to claim that is necessarily subjective because it's only true for a particular context. Most science bases itself upon, contextually correct abstractions. And correct, valid abstractions are some form of objective truth for their context.

Well, good that we got some common ground there.
Now the next bit is that, my argument is mostly revolving around the problem of "presentation" due to all the skepticism and critique that arose from mainly post-modernity. Even before post-modernity for instance, Marxism faced a problem from lack of culture's involvement or that of ideology in positive analysis. The fact that Marxism had to adapt shows that in every moment of our position, we have to know that there is a high possibility that we miss the whole truth in our abstractions.
My problem with you is your reductionist views and how you present classical Marxism's theories to be absolute realities.

There is a giant amount of work that deals with whether language we use touches the actual existing reality. And no, this is not idealist thinking for it does not necessarily reject that there is an objective reality. The problem however is with our understanding of it. Can you say you have a pure consciousness that connects to reality directly and perceive it, or is our consciousness a product of our language, our environment, our conditions? Funny enough, the latter view is more materialist than a claim to an objective reality that exists, as Lenin identifies it; metaphysical materialism which you fall into.



However there are in fact some things, some abstractions true for all, or most, or a majority of contexts. Such abstractions tend to be patterns, regularities and laws that express the movement and development of things and processes in every, most or a majority of contexts. These are general principles like dialectics and complexity theory.
Saying there are patterns and there are absolute laws of nature in existing reality are not identical.
My whole point had been that our "tools" for science are mere human products to APPROXIMATE reality. Which means that, you should be careful with your theories when doing science or you are involved in an intellectual debate.
Field of politics is a different matter where you do not even necessarily preach about any science anyways.



If you do not bother with "scientific-ness" (i.e do not bother with applying the scientific method) then you have a belief system that is far from what is required to change the world.

I am not the one proposing a standard method that explains reality. The reason I said I do not bother myself with science is not because I am not familiar with a scientific method, but because I am familiar with MANY scientific methods and I know how incompatible they can be.
I have my own views regarding a scientific approach...but when it comes to political organizing, I do not need that. For science is the area of academia in social-sciences.
You have to understand that my problem is with YOUR interpretation of science and how you fit Marxism and HM and dialectics in it.



Social sciences can get as scientific as the physical sciences if one consistently applies the scientific method to what you are studying in the social sciences.
I have told you many times before. You can make your case, you are free to do so. But after having read shittons of competing views in academia regarding the epistemology of social-science, I'll not respect your opinion without you addressing the major arguments in the field atm.
There is a reason references and academia as an institution exists. Science's point is this system of methodical understanding and reference connections.



I don't believe you can find anywhere I suggested that dialectics is "driving" history. What I have said is that the operation of history "expresses" dialectics. But I will say that there is a dynamic back and forth dialectical relationship between the base and superstructure where one impacts the other. I don't see this thing called "laws of dialectics" driving either of them, but rather each has a concrete reciprocal relationship on the other. I see the reciprocal relationship as expressing the characteristics of many dialectical relationships. There are no "spiritual" dialectical laws driving that reciprocal relationship.
Fine.


Why is it those who vacillate and can't say anything is definite except for their own skepticism, blame those who can actually perform concrete analysis and evolve it in a scientific manner by saying the latter are approaching things "absolutely"?
Because we are not talking about something solid. We are discussing pure epistemology-ontology here in case you have not noticed....did you ask me about the modernization process of Ottomans or capitalist development in East Asia or something?
For those, I could use theory to make up arguments and make "solid cases"....but we are in the field of philosophy. Can you not distinguish these? We are dealing with the METHOD.


Why wouldn't one appeal to science - the scientific method - for answers to any question, except perhaps affairs of the heart, but even then you should probably mainly be guided by science.

I am. But I have more up to date view regarding
*how to handle science
*what science is
*where does social science fit in all this, or can there be social science at all

And most importantly, I respect the academic method of writing papers with references.
In addition, to be a scientist, you have to follow scientific community.
A 19th century doctor could say he is using science in his treatment...but his methods by 20th century could be outright wrong and obsolete. Unfortunately, I do not see you being up to date on scientific community to make claims to science, which puts you in psuedo-science category where you have massive confirmation bias and self-confirmation due to your lack of referencing to what exists on the science market.


Your ideological emptiness is embodied by the statement, "Science is an ideological construction of bourgeoisie." Science is application of the scientific method. If science is simply, "an ideological construction of bourgeoisie" to you, there's no helping you. You have some nerve to say I'm stuck in the 19th century when you can't even accept the validity of science and the truth it accumulates on a contextual basis. You are really lost in a horrible form of intellectualizing. You pursued truth only to land on base falsehood.
What I meant was that when it comes to political movements, science is an ideological tool. I distinguish between science in essence and science as a political tool. That is science as a legitimization for an ideology and science as the honest search for truth.

[Tim Redd]

The validity of an abstraction is context dependent, which is not the same thing as saying an abstraction is necessarily "highly subjective", as you assert. Practicing real science where one studies what features should be in an abstraction for some context, one can produce valid and objective abstractions for that context. Because something like an abstraction may be only valid for some context doesn't mean it's not objective for that context. It is wrong to claim that is necessarily subjective because it's only true for a particular context. Most science bases itself upon, contextually correct abstractions. And correct, valid abstractions are some form of objective truth for their context.


Well, good that we got some common ground there.

Given that I was responding to your statement,

"The problem is, abstractions used in a social science are highly subjective." I don't see what you have in common with that. I'm arguing against that position in my quoted remark above.


Now the next bit is that, my argument is mostly revolving around the problem of "presentation" due to all the skepticism and critique that arose from mainly post-modernity.

What arose from "post-modernity? My or others comments here or something from elsewhere? What are the "post-modern" ideas are you dealing with?


Even before post-modernity for instance, Marxism faced a problem from lack of culture's involvement or that of ideology in positive analysis.

Lack of culture's involvement in what? What does "ideology in positive analysis" have to do with anything? What is "ideology in positive analysis"?


The fact that Marxism had to adapt shows that in every moment of our position, we have to know that there is a high possibility that we miss the whole truth in our abstractions.

Marxism had to adapt to what? How does this adapting cause us (Marxists?) to "miss the whole truth in our abstractions."? What is happening concretely to cause Marxists to miss the whole truth of our abstractions?


My problem with you is your reductionist views and how you present classical Marxism's theories to be absolute realities.

Being a reductionist means denying, or overlooking that higher level events occur when for instance adding 1 to 1. Often when 1 is added to 1, rather then simply resulting in 2, a new system arises in which newly emergent and synergistic phenomena occur that are greater than and or different from the simple sum of 2.

I challenge Dodo to explain how my views generally live at the result of 2 when 1 is added to 1. On what issues and how am I missing the synergistic view and only see 2 in cases where new synergistics come into being when 1 is being added to 1?

Subjective idealists and reductionist analytic philosophers like Dodo claim that reality is a matter of local and separated points that link only based upon how one desires to explain connections and regularities in the world. To them objective facts and connections are not the criteria for connecting the separated points of reality. Most subjective idealists and reductionist analytic philosophers oppose having an overarching view of reality that connects events in a holistic manner. It's pretty clear from Dodo's arguments in this thread that in fact he holds a piecemeal, reductionist interpretation of reality.


There is a giant amount of work that deals with whether language we use touches the actual existing reality. And no, this is not idealist thinking for it does not necessarily reject that there is an objective reality.

If one doubts whether or not language touches actual existing reality, you are a subject idealist or an analytic philosopher who opposes seeing the interconnection of events in reality.


Can you say you have a pure consciousness that connects to reality directly and perceive it, or is our consciousness a product of our language, our environment, our conditions.

Of course consciousness is a product of being in a material world that has environment and other conditions. That is one of the essential definitions of what it means to be a materialist. The others being: 1) rejecting that the supernatural - gods, or spirits - created reality and 2) rejecting that gods or spirits are guiding reality.


Funny enough, the latter view [in Dodo's last quote above -TR] is more materialist than a claim to an objective reality that exists, as Lenin identifies it; metaphysical materialism which you fall into.

If you acknowledge that consciousness is a "product of our language, our environment, our conditions" I don't understand why you can't accept that "language, our environment, our conditions" do exist in objective reality. Where else do these things reside?


However there are in fact some things, some abstractions true for all, or most, or a majority of contexts. Such abstractions tend to be patterns, regularities and laws that express the movement and development of things and processes in every, most or a majority of contexts. These are general principles like dialectics and complexity theory.


Saying there are patterns and there are absolute laws of nature in existing reality are not identical.

Where did i mention "absolute" in the above quote. To assert as I did that there are patterns, regularities and laws that exist across contexts - like dialectics and complexity theory - is not saying they are "absolute. That can exist across contexts (domains) even while those "patterns, regularities and laws" evolve and change over time. Thus they are not necessarily absolute.


My whole point had been that our "tools" for science are mere human products to APPROXIMATE reality. Which means that, you should be careful with your theories when doing science or you are involved in an intellectual debate.
Field of politics is a different matter where you do not even necessarily preach about any science anyways.

I don't know what you mean by "preaches", but Marxists should uphold, or make the case for politics being scientific. Note that Engel's titled a book "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". Even your vaunted bourgeois academics [who you wrongly think have a right to be idea "hegemons"] typically have established and work in university departments called "Political Science".

The scientific method can be applied to both bourgeois politics, historical materialist politics and current affairs Marxist politics.




If you do not bother with "scientific-ness" (i.e do not bother with applying the scientific method) then you have a belief system that is far from what is required to change the world.



...The reason I said I do not bother myself with science is not because I am not familiar with a scientific method, but because I am familiar with MANY scientific methods and I know how incompatible they can be.

There are many ways to apply the scientific method, but the method has an essential that is common across all applications of it. Theory testing based upon proving and discarding related hypotheses as a result of real world, empirical testing, which may include observation. This is the core of the scientific method and thus is required when carrying out all forms of the scientific method.


I have my own views regarding a scientific approach...but when it comes to political organizing, I do not need that. For science is the area of academia in social-sciences.

Believe me, given why and how the scientific method came about and its tremendous success for humanity to this point argue mightily against your disdain to applying it to political organizing.


Social sciences can get as scientific as the physical sciences if one consistently applies the scientific method to what you are studying in the social sciences.





Why is it those who vacillate and can't say anything is definite except for their own skepticism, blame those who can actually perform concrete analysis and evolve it in a scientific manner by saying the latter are approaching things "absolutely"?



Because we are not talking about something solid. We are discussing pure epistemology-ontology here in case you have not noticed....

Valid epistemology and ontology are matters of real objective existence of a reality outside of the mind. They are not made up, not make believe. Why is that so hard for non-Marxist intellectuals to accept?


did you ask me about the modernization process of Ottomans or capitalist development in East Asia or something?
For those, I could use theory to make up arguments and make "solid cases"....but we are in the field of philosophy. Can you not distinguish these? We are dealing with the METHOD.

Philosophy is no different than other disciplines of study about reality. Philosophy can and should be approached using the scientific method.
Some people like you insist on reality being their way. They want their view about reality to be true and thus are not willing to study philosophy using the science - the scientific method. That might lock them into views they do not like.

But the hallmark of a mature personality is to understand what exists objectively and if you want to change it, you do what is necessary as given by objective scientific study of the causal relations and necessities in the domain they are concerned with.




And most importantly, I respect the academic method of writing papers with references.

I agree that is why my key papers contain references.


In addition, to be a scientist, you have to follow scientific community.
A 19th century doctor could say he is using science in his treatment...but his methods by 20th century could be outright wrong and obsolete. Unfortunately, I do not see you being up to date on scientific community to make claims to science, which puts you in psuedo-science category where you have massive confirmation bias and self-confirmation due to your lack of referencing to what exists on the science market.

Well if you are really about being a scientist and read my papers at risparty.org you'll find that they grapple with contrary views and have references to other works. I'm not really concerned whether you check them out or not, however there is no other way to disprove your false allegations. If you refuse, or fail to read any of them, you really have no valid basis for disparaging my methods. You have no basis for making your false assertions about my methods.

[Tim Redd]

I do not see you being up to date on scientific community to make claims to science...which puts you in psuedo-science category...due to your lack of referencing to what exists on the science market.

But you don't even accept that science [the scientific method] has a role to play in human endeavor, especially in social studies and politics.

And what's with the "scientific market"? Why would a "revolutionary" be concerned with a "market"?

But hey if you want to give it a whirl, query me on any scientific issue in the proper Revleft forum. Just let me know when and where you've taken up the challenge.

[Dodo]

Ugh, Tim I do not want to go in circles and I can see that you have an honest intention to get to the bottom of this. But lets get try to shorten the quote-cycles;

What arose from "post-modernity? My or others comments here or something from elsewhere? What are the "post-modern" ideas are you dealing with?
There is no organized post-modern ideas. Post-modernity refers to the new dominating word-outlook since the late 70s which had its consequences in academia. You do not have to be a post-modernist...the point is that there is now extra dimensions which needs to be adressed.


Lack of culture's involvement in what? What does "ideology in positive analysis" have to do with anything? What is "ideology in positive analysis"?
What I am referring to is how Marxist theories, the positive theories that takes a shot on how the world works had to expand to absorb new challenges.


Marxism had to adapt to what? How does this adapting cause us (Marxists?) to "miss the whole truth in our abstractions."? What is happening concretely to cause Marxists to miss the whole truth of our abstractions?

It means that your abstractions on how reality works might be wrong. So chill. A set of theories that missed the capture the essence of reality can do that many times over and over again. Marxism has already enlarged its position to find answer to its predictions not occurring in the real world. This is one problem. Second being that the previously constructed positive views becoming a means to an end rather than an honest search for objective truth which is crucial in the essence of science.


Being a reductionist means denying, or overlooking that higher level events occur when for instance adding 1 to 1. Often when 1 is added to 1, rather then simply resulting in 2, a new system arises in which newly emergent and synergistic phenomena occur that are greater than and or different from the simple sum of 2.

I challenge Dodo to explain how my views generally live at the result of 2 when 1 is added to 1. On what issues and how am I missing the synergistic view and only see 2 in cases where new synergistics come into being when 1 is being added to 1?
Your laws of nature that explains perfectly how social "stages" move from one to "next".


Subjective idealists and reductionist analytic philosophers like Dodo claim that reality is a matter of local and separated points that link only based upon how one desires to explain connections and regularities in the world. To them objective facts and connections are not the criteria for connecting the separated points of reality. Most subjective idealists and reductionist analytic philosophers oppose having an overarching view of reality that connects events in a holistic manner. It's pretty clear from Dodo's arguments in this thread that in fact he holds a piecemeal, reductionist interpretation of reality.
Is it because I referred to Wittgenstein I am an analytical type?
Also what is this subjective idealist that apparently defines me?


If one doubts whether or not language touches actual existing reality, you are a subject idealist or an analytic philosopher who opposes seeing the interconnection of events in r
Foremost, its not crime to be an analytical type....your accusations regarding what I am are meaningless. Secondly, the issues of language are an area you must address if you want to deal with epistemology.
That is my whole point. I am not even taking a position here beyond playing devil's advocate.
You have to read everyone and ingrain and take position on these ideas if you do not want to be a self-confirming zealot.
In case you have not noticed, we are not even debating over your view on how reality works...not you are attacking me and accusing me of being this or that for assaulting your sacred. Way to do science.

Okay, I am tired of going in circles so I ll turn the table on you. You have to stop attacking me because I am not the one presenting my position on epistemology. Its YOU! So your answer to this:


Can you say you have a pure consciousness that connects to reality directly and perceive it, or is our consciousness a product of our language, our environment, our conditions.


course consciousness is a product of being in a material world that has environment and other conditions. That is one of the essential definitions of what it means to be a materialist. The others being: 1) rejecting that the supernatural - gods, or spirits - created reality and 2) rejecting that gods or spirits are guiding reality.

is meaningless if we take these things out of the context of what you suggest.
My whole debate with you is based on your presentation of "your so-called science". If you take them out of this than what are we discussing here?


Where did i mention "absolute" in the above quote. To assert as I did that there are patterns, regularities and laws that exist across contexts - like dialectics and complexity theory - is not saying they are "absolute. That can exist across contexts (domains) even while those "patterns, regularities and laws" evolve and change over time. Thus they are not necessarily absolute.
See, this is not compatible with what we discussed in our earlier debates. So our debate here is based on what we know of each from those other debates.


Valid epistemology and ontology are matters of real objective existence of a reality outside of the mind. They are not made up, not make believe. Why is that so hard for non-Marxist intellectuals to accept?
So the theme does come to one thing.


Skipping everything else for the sake of our mental health, I go back to my main concern placed in this question:

Can you say you have a pure consciousness that connects to reality directly and perceive it, or is our consciousness a product of our language, our environment, our conditions.

It'd be lovely also if you tell me how my distinction between object and subject makes me a "subjective idealist"?



Also, I was referring to REFERENCES ON EPISTEMOLOGY DEBATES, not to Engels. Engels is not living. Engels is dead, along with many of his positions. My analogy was right. You are a doctor from 19th century claiming to be scientific...yet you are not up to date on the new developments in the area of science. A scientist ha a responsbility to update him/herself in the face of change OR has to bring counter-arguments to newly arising paradigms.
Your references are all self-confirming people that are within the context of paradigm you present. You are not referring to any argument OUTSIDE the paradigm back in THAT DAY and TODAY.

When one produces a piece of science, writing a paper, the scientist presents the countering arguments in his fields and positions himself accordingly. You are claiming to be a soail scientist without referring to social scientists and what they think, what their arguments are...etc
And just because I make this point, you've called me many names as accusations which only goes to shows the shallowness of your position.
I am not even taking a strict position on reality here.

[Dodo]

But you don't even accept that science [the scientific method] has a role to play in human endeavor, especially in social studies and politics.

And what's with the "scientific market"? Why would a "revolutionary" be concerned with a "market"?

But hey if you want to give it a whirl, query me on any scientific issue in the proper Revleft forum. Just let me know when and where you've taken up the challenge.

are you serious? By scientific market I was referring to the democratic society where individuals freely choose the........GOSH of course I am not talking about liberalism.

By science market I refer to the set of arguments that exists in scientific community to position yourself somewhere before you make "science".
Have you ever written a scientific piece like a thesis or something?
There is a bit where you have to write on your method of knowledge and analysis and legitimize it in the face of existing counter-arguments. You have to take a position to make sense in scientific community. Your only position is fucking Engels and his outdated work where he himself is at conflict with it.

Just because you read one or two Engels pieces you do not become a Marxist.

[Tim Redd]

I have told you many times before. You can make your case, you are free to do so. But after having read shittons of competing views in academia regarding the epistemology of social-science, I'll not respect your opinion without you addressing the major arguments in the field atm.

What is "atm"?


And most importantly, I respect the academic method of writing papers with references.
In addition, to be a scientist, you have to follow scientific community.
A 19th century doctor could say he is using science in his treatment...but his methods by 20th century could be outright wrong and obsolete. Unfortunately, I do not see you being up to date on scientific community to make claims to science, which puts you in psuedo-science category where you have massive confirmation bias and self-confirmation due to your lack of referencing to what exists on the science market.

What, where is this "confirmation bias"? And if you do not read, or at least peruse my papers, there is really no basis for you to say what I do, or don't do in terms of my method of argumentation. Thus you have no basis for making unsubstantiated claims.

If that is where you want to leave things so be it. However I will say that I think your recalcitrance stems from you not being confident that you can refute my detailed viewpoint. And hey, that's just how it is.

[Tim Redd]

Your only position is fucking Engels and his outdated work where he himself is at conflict with it.

Is Engel's "f..king"? In my opinion he was a great revolutionary communist.


Just because you read one or two Engels pieces you do not become a Marxist.I'll tote that statement up to the fact that, to paraphrase you, you don't base yourself upon scientific facts. In fact I've read innumerable works by Marx, Engels, Mao, Gramsci, Dietzgen, CLR James, Alinsky, Luxemburg, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Ollman, Benjamin, Sweezy, Baran, Marcuse, Jabermas, Zizek, Chomsky, Bukharin, Stalin, Althusser, Sartre and so on. Not all of them are Marxists, but close to enough to be read and appraised in the light of the Marxist tradition.

[Lev Ulyanov]

Quite honestly, the dialectical opposition to formal logic comes from ignorance about formal logic.

As to the opposition to metaphysics, dialectical materialism is a form of metaphysics itself. Marx, however, rejected metaphysics (and all of philosophy) on grounds of both historical materialism and an analysis of how philosophers use language.

As to his historical materialist rejection:



Marx does not reject philosophy, his writings are philosophical writings moreso than they are economic ones - the labour theory of value is a metaphysical concept first and foremost, expounded by Locke and Hegel.

When he criticises philosophy, his criticism is of - specifically - speculative philosophy such as that done by Kant and Hegel and the other German Idealists. His critique is summed up in the statement that philosophers have interpreted the world, our job is to change it - his objection to German Idealism is that it offers absolutely no framework for action (especially Hegel, who says that we should sit back and let the dialectic develop) but only one for interpretation. Indeed, many 20th century Marxists tried to bring the philosophical heart of Marx back to the surface - Sartre, Lukacs, Foucault, etc.

[Tim Redd]

Have you ever written a scientific piece like a thesis or something? There is a bit where you have to write on your method of knowledge and analysis and legitimize it in the face of existing counter-arguments. You have to take a position to make sense in scientific community.

I've created such works as I have pointed out in earlier posts in this thread. But I'll review matters. Most of these papers are at www.risparty.org (http://www.risparty.org). Nevertheless I have included URLs that allow the reader to go directly to the mentioned works:


Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://www.risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm)
This treatise builds numerous links between dialectical materialism and the latest in system theory. It explains the exciting and crucial role of the leading factor, deepens the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge, greatly expands our understanding of dialectical contradiction and usefully ties dialectical materialism to the phenomena of polymorphism found in biology, computer programming and elsewhere. In addition the work critiques the extremely harmful mechanical subjectivist philosophy of key leaders in the RCPUSA.

In relation to all these things, the paper lays out an overall high level strategy for making revolution in the U.S and other advanced imperialist countries on the basis of the strategy Lenin elucidates in "What Is To Be Done". The centerpiece of that strategy is creating public opinion in favor of revolution by exposing bourgeois ideas and activities on all fronts. This includes raising the struggle against all exploitation and oppression to be the primary activity to make revolution and to continue the revolution after the seizure of power so that abolition of classes is realized in order to move society to communism.


Internationalism and Philosophy: An Overview of Systems & Revolution (http://www.risparty.org/Int.htm)
This work shows how based upon general system theory, a global capitalist system is what mainly determines the operation of capitalism in every nation, country, or locale. It also shows why on the foregoing basis, the proletarian movement in any one country is and should be subordinate to the global proletarian movement.

Automation Won't Save Capitalism (http://www.risparty.org/Automation.htm)
In this sketch, I make the case that even if all workers are replaced by machines there is still a scientific basis for making communist revolution for the interests of the 99%.

The External Nature of Things (http://www.risparty.org/External_Nature_of_Things.htm)
This paper shows how the version of dialectics promoted by Lenin and Mao incorrectly attributes change in most cases to factors internal to a thing, process or set of events. Whereas in fact external factors often play the predominant role in the motion and development of a thing, process or set of events.

Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html)
Makes the case that rather than solely relying upon dialectics to explain and understand the motion and development of things, processes or events, Marxists should also incorporate modern day theories, such as complexity theory, and object-oriented theory to do so. It makes the case that Marxist explanation and understanding of the motion and development of things, processes or events suffers when we rely only upon dialectics.

Comments of course are welcome.

[Dodo]

-atm means "at the moment"

Tim, I checked your works. You are missing my point. We could debate over your particular works in a different context. However, the point here is "social science" and "epistemology".
Now I am mostly in disagreement with your works(from what I know that I read from you) which is another dimension of things. But the thing here isn't that. We have not been discussing theories here even. Thing here is that your claim to be doing science, a social science without referring to what social scientists have to say about social science.
You have not convinced me that you are doing any form of science. But like I told you, it is possible for you to make a case for it.
I am pretty sure however that by today there are very few people who explain social reality over an abstract definition of how "things work in nature". At the best, making connections to it.

[Tim Redd]

I'm familiar with the academic arguments on epistemology and ontology - topics on the philosophy student's freshman, junior and even graduate bookshelf - but what I want to do is drive straight to the hoop with new stuff. I will probably deal with at least some of the arguments on epistemology and ontology from the academic realm, but that's secondary to me relative to planting the flag by creating whole new pathways that I think will be of use to revolutionary analysis and thus to the revolution. I can show the scientific validity of the new pathways without getting hung up right now in the formalism of traditional philosophical coursework.

[Fakeblock]

The problem is, abstractions used in a social science are highly subjective. Social -science- requires you to have certain a prioris. We say class or we say surplus value...these are abstractions, they might not exist the way we imagine them. So when we use them to do "science" it is only objective in its own context. It is not universally objective. I am not saying they are wrong or right, I am saying that application of these conceptions are not objective. There is a possibility that they do not exist or don't function the way we think.

All concepts are abstractions. This applies to both the social and natural sciences. These abstractions cannot be said to be objective or subjective -they are either adequate or they are not. If they do not designate a reality independent of the subject, they do not designate a reality at all. If they are adequate, they can be applied in the production of knowledge. This goes in both the natural and social sciences.


This might have had been a more legit argument in 19th century, but the thing is recent changes in social science have changed the perception towards its scientific-ness greatly. Like I told to Tim Redd, one can make a case for science. But he is definitely, definitely, outdated.
What bothers me is more his blindness rather than his claims to be doing science. Its not that cheap anymore to call your work "science" to legitimize yourself. I personally do not bother myself with scientific-ness for I do not need it. I still do believe in a method however to distinguish from outright psuedo-science.

I don't have a problem with historical materialism, my problem is with a rigid understanding of it. And that it is "scientific"...it is as scientific as social sciences can get. And it is a disputed area. Furthermore, T.Redd claims to laws of nature that are moving "dialectically" that drives history towards something and say that this is science. You have to distinguish between what I am critiquing here and the existing Marxism in scientific community. I have read a lot of academic works since Marxism established itself in academia and peaked in 1960s-70s.There is the actual attempt to make Marxism scientific and there is outright psuedo-science of an outdated Comtian positivism.

Indeed it is a disputed area! And rightly so, for it concerns the very integrity of historical materialism. If we cannot arrive at a knowledge of the mechanics of society via historical materialism, i.e. if historical materialism is unscientific, it is useless. There is one obvious motivation for philosophers to try to 'debunk' historical materialism as a science - following suit, one inevitably finds oneself propagating a philosophy based on a bourgeois ideological conceptions of the knowledge process.


But that is my point. There is no need to appeal for science. Science is an ideological construction of bourgeoisie. My deal was that IF you are going to claim to be scientific, you have to be in touch with scientific community and how they define science and make a case for your own.

This is self-contradictory. If we reject the very concept of science as an ideological one (as opposed to scientific?), we must also reject the idea of a 'scientific community'? Either way the idea is nonsensical. Why is a physicist, a biologist or a chemist qualified to speak about the scientificity of historical materialism? A physicist is qualified to speak of his own practice - to be taken seriously as a philosopher, he should distinguish himself as such.

The idea of the scientific community presupposes a 'science in general' to which all scientists adhere. There is no such thing. Science does exist, but only in particular modes (just like there can be no 'production in general', only particular modes of production). If a physicist wishes to speak about physics, I will gladly listen. This does not mean he has authority on historical materialism

[Tim Redd]

I'm familiar with the academic arguments on epistemology and ontology - topics on the philosophy student's freshman, junior and even graduate bookshelf - but what I want to do is drive straight to the hoop with new stuff. I will probably deal with at least some of the arguments on epistemology and ontology from the academic realm, but that's secondary to me relative to planting the flag by creating whole new pathways that I think will be of use to revolutionary analysis and thus to the revolution. I can show the scientific validity of the new pathways without getting hung up right now in the formalism of traditional philosophical coursework.


Tim, I checked your works. You are missing my point. We could debate over your particular works in a different context. However, the point here is "social science" and "epistemology"....

On second thought, it's pretty clear that I have addressed many key matters of epistemology and ontology in my writings.

In "Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics" I have chapters that address on the one hand, "absolute and relative truth" and on the other, "objective and relative truth". If that is not dealing with the academic subject of epistemology what is it? In addition in that paper there are multiple places where I delve into the relationship between the subject and object and truth, which deals with both epistemological and ontological issues.

At a straightforward level, in "Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics", I repeatedly address issues from Lenin's "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism". The essence of that work by Lenin has to do with epistemological and ontological questions. Given that it would be safe to assume that I am frequently dealing with such issues in my paper. And that's not just a safe assumption, it happens in actual fact.

In the "The External Nature of Things" I address the ontology and metaphysics of the world with respect to the relationship between external versus internal factors and how they affect the motion and development of things, processes and events. My basic thesis here is that while traditional Marxism makes internal factors primary in terms of the motion and development of things, events and processes, external factors often equal or supercede internal factors in terms of affecting the motion and development of things, events and processes.

In "Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics" I go into ontological issues having to do with how reality is structured and how the elements of reality move and develop.

So while I don't always address things from the traditional academic approach in all cases, I do in fact deal with these matters from new and different perspectives.

(Btw, my larger works like Internationalism and Philosophy: An Overview of Systems & Revolution (http://risparty.org/Int.htm) and Forward With Revolutionary Dialectics (http://risparty.org/FORWARD%20WITH%20REVOLUTIONARY%20DIALECTICS.htm) have extensive footnotes. And even most smaller works have references to other works in Marxism and philosophy in general.)

[Tim Redd]

The idea of the scientific community presupposes a 'science in general' to which all scientists adhere. There is no such thing. Science does exist, but only in particular modes (just like there can be no 'production in general', only particular modes of production). If a physicist wishes to speak about physics, I will gladly listen. This does not mean he has authority on historical materialism

I agree with most of what you state in your last message in this thread. However, I don't think the idea or fact of a scientific community requires scientists to know the detailed particularities of other scientists' domain.

As I understand this question, scientists are frequently members of a community of scientists. The National Academy of Science (NAS), bourgeois as it is, constitutes one of a number of community of scientists that exist or formerly existed. There are significant issues that unite scientists regardless across all domains.

Many of these issues have to do with exchanging information that is aimed at defining and enhancing the scientific method in general, as it applies to many, or possibly most domains of scientific study. Other issues focus upon fruitfully creating interdisciplinary approaches to the study of various issues that span multiple domains.

[Luís Henrique]

That's a half-arsed reading - the point isn't that there is an "ordinary language" (metaphysics much?) that philosophers abstract from, but that language is rooted in social relations. The problem with the language of philosophy - including the absurdities of "logicians"! - is that it is useless from the point of view of practice. In the fetishization of "ordinary language" we simply confront the same problem in different words.

Pretty much.

The quoted text is a devastating criticism of Stirner's ("Sancho's") pseudo-philosophical equivocations, but is of little use against Aristotle or Descartes.


Take this very basic proposition:

The cat is on the mat.


"Look at how words are used!", the epigons of Wittgenstein shout at us; but they will seldom abide by their own positivist slogan.

How are words like "the cat is on the mat" used?

As far as I can see, in three very different contexts:

1. In answering a question such as "where is the cat?"
2. In teaching non-English speakers how to use the words "cat" and "mat" (and perhaps more importantly, "the", "is", and "on").
3. In making philosophical points, be them about catness, matness, or beingdom, or about the use of language.

The two first uses are obviously legitimate; the third one very much depends.

In its first use, one would say that this "very basic proposition" is true if "the" cat under discussion is effectively on a mat, and false otherwise (even if there is another cat on the mat; if we were asked about Felix, and the cat on the mat would be Patapon, the person making the question would deem the answer useless: "that's not the cat I am looking for").

In the second use, no one cares about if there is an actual cat on an actual mat; though the "very basic proposition" can be illustrated by a "very basic" picture such as
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQrzxpLqrv2XTNBSPhBJZU-5EjhMiUZanyFyC5Hlxt641MuD-o
it is quite clear that "the cat is on the mat" is not a proposion here - or, at least, it is not by any means the same kind of proposition than "the cat is on the mat" as an answer to the question "where is the cat".

The same goes for "the cat is on the mat" used as an example of propositions, to discuss the truth conditions of "propositions" in general. The "proposition" "the cat is on the mat" is true if the cat one is being asked about is effectively on the mat, and it is false if that precise cat is elsewhere (including a different mat than the one implied in the conversation). But this requires this precise context, and excludes any other enunciation of the sentence "the cat is on the mat"; if this is written in the context of a book titled something like, "English for foreigners", then the sentence is probably not a proposition, and in any case it isn't true or false in the same manner than in its other use. And so, what most texts on logic fail to realise is that context is central to the understanding of any given "proposition" (and, indeed, even to realise if a give sentence is a proposition, or something quite different). Specifically, texts on the subject of logic generally fail to understand the difference between a sentence used in its common place, "ordinary language" acception, and the "same" sentence, when used out of its "ordinary language" context, in a discussion about "truth", "truth values", etc.

The fulcral point of this equivocation might be exemplified below:


Indeed, in order for me to evaluate the proposition:

Oxford is in Great Britain.

I check to see if Oxford is actually on the other side of the universe.

"Oxford is in Great Britain", however, is a very different kind of "proposition" than "the cat is on the mat". Translating each of them into a more civilised language, such as Castillian or Portuguese, will immediately show the difference:


Oxford fica na Grã-Bretanha.
O gato está no tapete.


which shows us that the verb "to be" has very different meanings in different contexts, that need translation into different words in other languages.

More to the point, "Oxford is in England" is used in very different contexts than "the cat is on the mat"; one would say the latter in responding to some sentence like "I am worried about the cat; I haven't seen her since yesterday evening", while "I am worried about Oxford; I haven't seen it since yesterday evening" is certainly no "ordinary language", and perhaps can only be meaningful in some kind of nonsence (or science fiction) literature, or in metalinguistic context - as, for instance, here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2816080&postcount=143).

Among the possible contexts in which "Oxford is in England" is pragmatically correct, one is to teach to someone else the geographic location of Oxford. If we need cats back into this kind of context, we may want a sentence like "the cat is a mammal with retractile claws" that would show us that not only "is" means something different from its doppelganger in "the cat is on the mat", but also the phrase "the cat" means not the same in each sentence. As a result, or perhaps as a cause, of these differences, "the cat is on the mat" doesn't teach us anything about cats, or even about "the" cat we were asking about.

Which brings into question your description of "the cat is on the mat" as a "very basic proposition": it seems that either there are no such things as "very basic propositions", or that at least there are very different kinds of "very basic propositions" (which would need us to effectively "look at how words are used", as opposed to merely lecturing people about doing it, in order to understand). As it is, the use of the word "proposition" implied in your writing seems abusive, or equivocal, or both; perhaps for a lack of "dissolving [specialised] language into [...] ordinary language".

This confusion messes with the distinction between "philosophical points about the use of language" and "philosophical points about catness, matness, and beingdom": whatever we may think of England or Oxford, as long as each of them is an actual entity in the real world, "Oxford is in England"; maybe there is a different Oxford somewhere in the United States, or Australia, but those would be exactly "different Oxfords"; the original Oxford, after which those different ones were named, is in England. That's not the same relation between any given cat and any given mat: the word "is" in each case doesn't refer to the same relation, and speculation about it cannot be the foundation of any valid knowledge about any abstract quality of "being"; that is to say, it cannot be the foundation of any valid "ontology" in its etymological meaning of "knowledge about being".

That being the reason why if I am told that "the cat is on the mat" I will look to "the" mat (that is given in context), but if I am told that "Oxford is in England" I won't actually travel to England to see if it is actually there, much less check the other side of the universe.

Luís Henrique

[Subversive]

Just curious, but why does it take 8 pages and several months to answer the topic creator's question? Maybe some of you are merely expounding on the issue, but I feel that is unnecessary.
There is no contradiction between Hegelian dialectics and logic (of any kind).

Hegel did not ever argue that A is not A.
Rather, he simply explained that the concept of A can be related to the concept of B by the fact that A transitions into B. Without this transition, A and B do not really exist. (Supposing A and B are opposing forces.)

To make the point clearer, and to summarize Hegelian dialectics:
Day and Night are opposing forces. One is the opposite of the other.
Yet it is the transition from Day to Night, and Night to Day, that makes them two parts of one singular whole. This transition is a constant force upon Day and Night, they are always transitioning from one to the other. This transition is what relates them, unites them, and makes them a whole. Without one, the other does not really exist.

It doesn't require a mind of a large capacity to comprehend this. Hegel was not the first to indicate these types of existence, he was merely one of the first people who was able to properly explain the relationships between A and B in terms of realistic forces and not merely theoretical ideals.

[Tim Redd]

There is no contradiction between Hegelian dialectics and logic (of any kind).

Aristotelian logic (traditional logic) operates according to the following anti-dialectical logic: 1) Law of Non-Contradiction – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true. 2) Law of the Excluded Middle – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be false. Aristotle wrote, “It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect.”

To me that sounds the opposite of dialectical logic if we accept that some statements are about actual things that exist in space-time.

Actual things can have contradictory properties and we can make statements describing the thing's properties. Thus it is possible to make contradictory statements about a thing that are simultaneously true. And if an actual thing is contradictory then the same property can both belong and not belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect.

[Subversive]

Aristotelian logic (traditional logic) operates according to the following anti-dialectical logic: 1) Law of Non-Contradiction – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be true. 2) Law of the Excluded Middle – two contradictory statements cannot simultaneously be false. Aristotle wrote, “It is impossible for the same property to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect.”

To me that sounds the opposite of dialectical logic if we accept that some statements are about actual things that exist in space-time.

Actual things can have contradictory properties and we can make statements describing the thing's properties. Thus it is possible to make contradictory statements about a thing that are simultaneously true. And if an actual thing is contradictory then the same property can both belong and not belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect.
Just as the Sun and Moon, Night and Day, exist in actual reality, are physical and observable things, there are no logical contradictions in dialectics.
It doesn't matter if you're speaking of real things that "exist in space-time" or about things which are purely theoretical. The contradictions that seem to be are merely illusions, illusions that dialectics cast away through proper description.

I do not agree with you that contradictory properties can exist simultaneously - provide one for example. I believe this is, in fact, what dialectics is all about - describing things which appear to contradict so that they no longer seem contradictory. Describing the full nature of a thing, in both abstract and real terms.

Hegel used the terms: Abstract-Negative-Concrete

Day is the abstract.
Night is the negative of Day.
The cycle of day and night, the revolution of the sun, is the concrete.

"Day" is not a real thing - it is an ideal. There is no point in real time where there is more "Day"-ness.
Night is the same - it is the opposing force, but still abstract.
The cycle of change between day and night, the existence of the sun, are concrete facts. The thing which solidifies 'Day' and 'Night' into reality.
Therefore, Day and Night are not contradictions in the universe - they are a cycle.

Likewise, the Proletariat is not a 'real thing'. It is an abstract. If you look at a person you cannot see a Proletariat, the proletariat is a class not a person. An abstract concept, not a 'thing'.
The Proletariat is also the Negation of the Bourgeoisie. The Proletariat only exist because the Bourgeois ruling class oppress and exploit the worker. They only exist as a separate class because they are forced to be a separate class. Without the bourgeoisie, both the bourgeoisie and Proletariat dissolve into nothingness, thus we end with only a Classless society.

This cycle of oppression and eventual transition is the concrete form of the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie relationship. The Bourgeoisie's oppression, through their rule, is what creates the Proletariat. But because the Proletariat desire to no longer be oppressed, just as the Sun forces out the Night and turns it into Day, the Proletariat will strive to overthrow the Bourgeois rule and thus sublimate the existence of both classes.

No logical contradictions in any of this, real or otherwise.

[Tim Redd]

Just as the Sun and Moon, Night and Day, exist in actual reality, are physical and observable things, there are no logical contradictions in dialectics.

It doesn't matter if you're speaking of real things that "exist in space-time" or about things which are purely theoretical. The contradictions that seem to be are merely illusions, illusions that dialectics cast away through proper description.

I do not agree with you that contradictory properties can exist simultaneously - provide one for example.

Defining a Day as 24 hour period does it not have both Dark and Light existing within it? So here is a single thing - a Day - that has 2 contradictory properties in it.


I believe this is, in fact, what dialectics is all about - describing things which appear to contradict so that they no longer seem contradictory. Describing the full nature of a thing, in both abstract and real terms.

The real nature of a thing can exist and be understood even if it has contradictory parts, like a 24 hour Day.

Or for another example, take someone's leadership - that single thing - can have both good and bad contradictory aspects.

[Subversive]

Defining a Day as 24 hour period does it not have both Dark and Light existing within it? So here is a single thing - a Day - that has 2 contradictory properties in it.

The real nature of a thing can exist and be understood even if it has contradictory parts, like a 24 hour Day.

Or for another example, take someone's leadership - that single thing - can have both good and bad contradictory aspects.
There are many issues here.

First, this is not a "logical contradiction". So speaking of it in terms of logic is meaningless, this is merely the general use of the term 'contradiction'.

Logic has it's own specific definition for "contradiction" which this does not fit. For example, the title of the topic: A is not A, or, A = ~A.
The example you provide is merely an instance where A and ~A coexist together but do not necessarily equal each other. There is a significant difference.

To provide a more familiar example for clarification:
The Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat are like A and ~A, they are opposing forces and they coexist. Yet, they coexist together in society. It is the Bourgeoisie who create the Proletariat, the oppressor who creates the oppressed. Without an oppressor, how can someone be oppressed?
Yet, obviously, the Proletariat is not equal to the Bourgeoisie. Those people in the bourgeois ruling class are obviously not ever going to be the same people within the Proletariat. They mutually oppose each other, they are indeed opposites - but they are never equal.

A logical contradiction must include two things being equated which are not equatable.

Second, you are also not using dialectics here. So once again, if you are speaking in terms of dialectics than your example is meaningless.

If you were to evaluate the existence of a "24 hour day" in dialectics you would look at how the 24 hours can be separated into increments of light and dark. Ultimately the union between these two, the distinctions which makes them logically non-contradictory, would be 'time' and its passage, more specifically it could be a minute or an hour, whatever appropriate.

The beginning of the 24 hours being distinctly different than the end only because time had past between them. Light and dark coexist in that 24-hours but they do not exist simultaneously. They do not equal each other. The passage of time allows the distinction. In this case it is light that opposes the darkness and in the existence of light the darkness cannot exist, it disappears, so it can only ever be one or the other.
So in this example there is never the case wherein A = ~A. It is merely that the set of 'Day' contains both A and ~A. This is not a logical contradiction, they are merely just two opposing, generally contradictory, forces.

Perhaps the confusion here is in the semantics?
A logical contradiction is separate from the general term meaning two opposing forces.
Logic has its own laws and rules and therefore its own specific definitions. Logic is also very specific on these rules and definitions.
Formal logic is even more specific, being the formalization of the philosophy of general Logic.

It is possibly very easy to get confused on the semantics, since dialectics refers to general contradictions but does so only to dismiss logical contradictions. It uses both definitions, in a way.

So it should be clear now: There are no logical contradictions in Hegelian dialectics. In fact, dialectics actually explains reasons why things do not logically contradict.
Any apparent contradictions are likely just misunderstandings regarding either Logic or Dialectics.

[Tim Redd]

Defining a Day as 24 hour period does it not have both Dark and Light existing within it? So here is a single thing - a Day - that has 2 contradictory properties in it.

The real nature of a thing can exist and be understood even if it has contradictory parts, like a 24 hour Day.

Or for another example, take someone's leadership - that single thing - can have both good and bad contradictory aspects.


First, this is not a "logical contradiction". So speaking of it in terms of logic is meaningless, this is merely the general use of the term 'contradiction'.

Many if not most things said to be contradictory, exist concretely in the real world. I.e. they are things that have existence in space-time. Further many if not most abstractions are models or reflections of things that exist objectively in space-time.


Logic has it's own specific definition for "contradiction" which this does not fit.

I laid out the definition of contradiction by Aristotle in an earlier post in this thread. Aristotle's definition doesn't make the distinction you assert about their being a difference between the logical and physical concepts of contradiction.


For example, the title of the topic: A is not A, or, A = ~A.
The example you provide is merely an instance where A and ~A coexist together but do not necessarily equal each other. There is a significant difference.The light and dark of a day are not the same, but they can be compared (assessed) in terms of how light relates to some issue versus how dark relates to the same issue. We are determining how equal or unequal light and day relate to some other aspect or area of life in an attempt to measure them equally. [More from me on this shortly.]

[Subversive]

Many if not most things said to be contradictory, exist concretely in the real world. I.e. they are things that have existence in space-time. Further many if not most abstractions are models or reflections of things that exist objectively in space-time.
I don't see how this is relevant to this issue.



I laid out the definition of contradiction by Aristotle in an earlier post in this thread. Aristotle's definition doesn't make the distinction you assert about their being a difference between the logical and physical concepts of contradiction.
You're using the term too generally either way.

The definition you gave stated that two opposing properties cannot exist at the same time, in the same place, and in the same respect. You are ignoring one of these elements.
For example, in a 24 hour day night and day do not exist at the same time. They exist in the same 24 hour period, but that's all.
Therefore it isn't a logical contradiction - but you are suggesting it is. You are also suggesting that Aristotle would have accepted this contradiction - but your own definition suggests otherwise.

[Tim Redd]

You're using the term too generally either way.

The definition you gave stated that two opposing properties cannot exist at the same time, in the same place, and in the same respect. You are ignoring one of these elements.
For example, in a 24 hour day night and day do not exist at the same time. They exist in the same 24 hour period, but that's all.
Therefore it isn't a logical contradiction - but you are suggesting it is. You are also suggesting that Aristotle would have accepted this contradiction - but your own definition suggests otherwise.

I quoted Aristotle making the claim about about two opposing things not being able to exist in the same time, place, or respect. That was not my opinion.

To continue, there's one thing - a day - that you claim can not have contradictory properties. However that one thing - day - in fact does have contradictory properties - light and dark, day and night.

[Subversive]

I quoted Aristotle making the claim about about two opposing things not being able to exist in the same time, place, or respect. That was not my opinion.

To continue, there's one thing - a day - that you claim can not have contradictory properties. However that one thing - day - in fact does have contradictory properties - light and dark, day and night.
You're merely repeating yourself at this point. I have already explained the error in your premises. Repeating a statement does not somehow make it true, nor does it somehow void counter-arguments.

However, I will restate my arguments once again, since you do not seem clear on them.

On the first point, yes, you posted a definition you state is from Aristotle. I used that definition to clarify for you - to explain that in a "24 hour day" there is no such thing as Night-Day existing simultaneously "at the same time". Your own quote contradicts your own arguments. Therefore the quote does not support anything you argue, quite the opposite.

Further, your own example is once again deceiving you simply due to the generalized definition of "contradiction" that you use.
A day may contain "light and dark, day and night" but not simultaneously. It contains either light or dark, day or night. These properties do not exist "at the same time", nor are they in the same place or within the same respect. They exist mutually exclusive to each other within a single entity.
The only exceptions are Dawn and Dusk, the transitional phases. However, that seems irrelevant right now. It is a different topic.

In any case, light/dark and day/night are opposing properties of the "day" but are not in and of themselves contradictory properties which are the same property. They do not exist simultaneously. They do not exist within the same time, nor the same place, nor in the same respect.
Light exists for one part of the day, Dark for the other. Obviously different times.
Light exists for one part of the world at a single time, Dark in another part at the same exact time. Obviously different places.
Light and Dark are not ever misunderstood to be the same thing nor are they properties of a day which occasionally have different meanings. Obviously different respects.

In no way does your example fit into the definition of your own quote.
So why do you insist that it is an example of such a situation when it does not really fit? Again, you have merely generalized the term 'contradiction' and freely ignored the very definition that you gave earlier to define it.

The only contradiction that actually exists in your posts is the contradiction of your arguments. In which case, that is indeed a contradiction - but one entirely irrelevant to Dialectics.

[Tim Redd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subversive http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2818996#post2818996)
You're using the term too generally either way.

The definition you gave stated that two opposing properties cannot exist at the same time, in the same place, and in the same respect. You are ignoring one of these elements.

For example, in a 24 hour day night and day do not exist at the same time. They exist in the same 24 hour period, but that's all.
Therefore it isn't a logical contradiction - but you are suggesting it is. You are also suggesting that Aristotle would have accepted this contradiction - but your own definition suggests otherwise.

I quoted Aristotle making the claim about about two opposing things not being able to exist in the same time, place, or respect. That was not my opinion.

To continue, there's one thing - a day - that you claim can not have contradictory properties. However that one thing - day - in fact does have contradictory properties - light and dark, day and night.


You're merely repeating yourself at this point. I have already explained the error in your premises. Repeating a statement does not somehow make it true, nor does it somehow void counter-arguments.

To this point, I haven't seen any refutation from you of my point that things can have contradictory properties for the same thing (in a serial manner) other than you referencing Aristotle to claim things can't have contradictory properties at the same time or in the same way. Hegelian and Marxist dialectics are precisely opposed to such a metaphysical viewpoint.


However, I will restate my arguments once again, since you do not seem clear on them.

I understand that per Aristotle that you don't accept that a thing can have contradictory properties in the same time, in the same way. That was your point.


On the first point, yes, you posted a definition you state is from Aristotle. I used that definition to clarify for you - to explain that in a "24 hour day" there is no such thing as Night-Day existing simultaneously "at the same time". Your own quote contradicts your own arguments. Therefore the quote does not support anything you argue, quite the opposite.

You may assert but it's false and doesn't grasp my point. I said there is such a single thing as a 24 hour period called a day. I think most would agree. Then I said in that in the same day there is light and dark. I think most would agree. Thus a single thing - a day - has contradictory properties. Honest argument would accept that. Further I said that someone's leadership - a single thing - may exhibit contradictory properties. A sincere analysis of the previous statement would agree with it in my opinion.


Further, your own example is once again deceiving you simply due to the generalized definition of "contradiction" that you use.


A day may contain "light and dark, day and night" but not simultaneously. It contains either light or dark, day or night. These properties do not exist "at the same time", nor are they in the same place or within the same respect. They exist mutually exclusive to each other within a single entity.

Spatial or temporal simultaneity of opposed (or differential) properties is not the basis for saying that something has a contradiction. The existence of a contradiction may exist if at some point a single thing has a property that is contrary to some other property it has had, does have or will have.


The only exceptions are Dawn and Dusk, the transitional phases. However, that seems irrelevant right now. It is a different topic.

Not sure why the Dawn and Dusk dichotomy are a different topic other than that the reference supports my point. Often contradictory transition is of primary importance in the analysis of a thing or process.

To underline, my point is that it is contradictory when opposite properties exist in a single thing like a day or leadership whether the contradictory properties occur at the same time or place in day or leadership. That what's defines contradictory, the fact two or more opposed properties belong to the same thing, regardless of whether or not the contradictory properties happen at the same time. [Google found definition of Contradiction: a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present"]. I emphasize that contradiction exists in a single thing, whether the contradictory properties occur simultaneously, at the same time or in the same place. It only matters that the contradictory properties occur in the same thing.


If they show the case that a
In any case, light/dark and day/night are opposing properties of the "day"...

Not of a day, but rather within a day - single thing.


light/dark and day/night are opposing properties of the "day" but are not in and of themselves contradictory properties which are the same property. They do not exist simultaneously. They do not exist within the same time, nor the same place, nor in the same respect.

Light and dark surely do exist within the sane day as day is defined by most planetary scientists.


Light exists for one part of the day, Dark for the other. Obviously different times.

However the same entity - a day. They are contradictory properties that exist within a day.


Again, you have merely generalized the term 'contradiction' and freely ignored the very definition that you gave earlier to define it.

I've already shown one accepted definition. Here's another: "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." The situation being a single 24 hour day.

Contradiction has many forms of manifestation including contradiction occurring serially in time. It is not only about occurring simultaneously from all that I have read of Hegel, Engels, Ollman and other explainers of dialectics.

[Subversive]

To this point, I haven't seen any refutation from you of my point that things can have contradictory properties for the same thing (in a serial manner) other than you referencing Aristotle to claim things can't have contradictory properties at the same time or in the same way.
You forgot the part where I, repeatedly, pointed out that the definition you use for "contradiction" and "contradictory" is nonsensical and incorrect.
This was the only refutation I needed, since it debunks your entire argument very easily. The rest was merely an expansion on the critical nature of your error.

The error would not have been so profound if not for you had been the one defining "contradiction" in Aristotle's terms. Therefore I used that definition against you because it was a very defining contradiction in your argument.



Hegelian and Marxist dialectics are precisely opposed to such a metaphysical viewpoint.
You are very confused.

First off, Hegel constantly used metaphysics in his dialectics. He personally opposed metaphysics of certain types, but used them generally within his dialectics. This contradiction is one of the defining elements of his legacy. So if you know anything about Hegel, it should be this.
Second, I believe you're confusing dialectics with Marx's 'Historical Materialism'. They are not the same thing, at all. Marx did indeed oppose metaphysics, but on a personal level. It had nothing to do with some supposed quality of dialectics.
Third, I have not referred to metaphysics at all, so I'm not sure why you even bring it up.

Your statement is misleading, incorrect, and irrelevant. Dialectics itself has no inherent quality that opposes metaphysics, nor should this have been brought into the discussion where a mere semantic-error is at fault for the confusion.



I understand that per Aristotle that you don't accept that a thing can have contradictory properties in the same time, in the same way. That was your point.
Let me clarify for you.
Logic, as we know it today, is derived from Aristotle's philosophies. Therefore, Aristotle's rules of Logic are the rules of Logic, no exceptions. He created it, he defined it, and we abide by it.
That isn't to mean Logic has not developed since then, nor that Aristotle wasn't reflecting on some more fundamental rules of reality that anyone could have analyzed and delivered into

In any case, the rules of Logic are not the rules of reality, they are a reflection of reality. Therefore, someone can easily hold contradictory ideas, or believe contradictory things. Someone's argument can be contradictory, like yours for example. The argument itself truly existing in reality and also holding contradictory properties. This simply means that it is a logical contradiction in reasoning: "A is not A".

You argue that Dialectics impose logical contradictions on reality suggesting that they exist in things like "a 24 hour day". However, this is not true. This is not using the definition of a "logical contradiction" but merely expressing a general contradiction, a contradiction which is defined outside the terms of logic and therefore cannot exist as a 'logical contradiction', or in other words, 'a contradiction within the terms of Logic'.

Furthermore, dialectics do not suppose logical contradictions exist in reality. It is usually aimed at explaining away contradictions by understanding processes, transitions, context, and relevance. In other words, dialectics typically drives away the ability to suggest that two opposing properties exist simultaneously in the same time, in the same place, or in the same respect. Dialectics are, essentially, an attempt to discover where the differences lie between a logical contradiction and a general one.

I am not denying that logical contradictions can occur, either. There are plenty of examples of logical contradictions, called 'fallacies'.
If you have read anything I've been saying it should be plainly clear that my point is merely that you are misunderstanding definitions and therefore the contradiction you see between logic and dialectics is only due to your own mistake.



You may assert but it's false and doesn't grasp my point. I said there is such a single thing as a 24 hour period called a day. I think most would agree. Then I said in that in the same day there is light and dark. I think most would agree. Thus a single thing - a day - has contradictory properties. Honest argument would accept that.
An honest person would accept the definition they use is wrong when it is wrong and not attempt to continue a ridiculous argument where they pretend it isn't wrong.

A 24 hour day does indeed possess both light and dark.
This does mean that a 24 hour day possesses generally contradictory (opposing) properties.
This does NOT mean that a 24 hour day contains a "logical contradiction" in any way, shape, or form.

Once again your use of the term "contradictory" is generalized and has absolutely no relationship to logic. You are mistaken.

Dialectics would also not be relevant here, as it would likely explain that the two opposing parts of a 24 hour day exist only as a transitional cycle that depends on time and place, further adding the entire concept of a 24 hour day is meaningless if you lose this context.


Further I said that someone's leadership - a single thing - may exhibit contradictory properties. A sincere analysis of the previous statement would agree with it in my opinion.
Someone's leadership can be logically contradictory, yes.
A person can contradict themselves, which demonstrates their leadership to be faulty in reasoning.

A 24 hour day cannot reason, therefore it cannot possess logic, and therefore also cannot possess a logical contradiction.

It is a very simple concept. I don't really understand your confusion.



Spatial or temporal simultaneity of opposed (or differential) properties is not the basis for saying that something has a contradiction.
You're right!
If you use the general definition.

However, ONCE AGAIN, Logic has it's own definition of "contradiction" which does enforce "spatial or temporal simultaneity", to use your own words. In fact, the definition you gave from Aristotle even states this. "An honest person would accept that."


The existence of a contradiction may exist if at some point a single thing has a property that is contrary to some other property it has had, does have or will have.
But not a "logical contradiction". Why? Because, as I've stated so many times now: Logic has it's own definition for the term "contradiction".



Not sure why the Dawn and Dusk dichotomy are a different topic other than that the reference supports my point.
You didn't bring them up, so I assumed you understood it was a different topic. Now I mention them and it suddenly 'supports your point'? Ridiculous.

There is nothing logically contradictory about Dawn and Dusk. They are separate phases where light is depleting or light is increasing. Both could be considered 'Day' depending on the factor of 'Day-ness', or 'Night' depending on the factor of 'Night-ness'. It would be arbitrary to define, but never once would it be a logical contradiction - again, day and night do not possess reason or logic.

Furthermore, again, dialectics would probably explain that Dawn and Dusk are the transitory phases of a cycle - and therefore only generally contradicting each other by the force and power that light has over darkness, that solid-matter has over light. A "day" only existing in the context of a solar system containing a sun and a planet.
None of this would demonstrate a real-life logical contradiction in any way.


That what's defines contradictory, the fact two or more opposed properties belong to the same thing, regardless of whether or not the contradictory properties happen at the same time.
Just to point out your logical contradiction:
1. You began this argument by providing a definition of 'contradiction' by Aristotle and attempting to explain why you thought dialectics opposed this definition.
2. When a counter-argument addresses your confusion, you change definitions.
3. When forced to face this change in definition - you factually backpedal your argument and then actually provide the new definition(s) you have been using - completely ignoring the original argument that began this whole thing. Never accepting that you were incorrect or openly admitting that you have changed definitions.

I believe I've explained enough now. I've repeated myself far too many times. If you don't understand it yet at this point then continuing to explain the thing is surely not going to help.
It is very clear that you are simply confusing yourself and forgetting things you said before, and generally not accepting corrections. Resolve these errors and you'll be fine.

[Tim Redd]

To this point, I haven't seen any refutation from you of my point that things can have contradictory properties for the same thing (in a serial manner) other than you referencing Aristotle to claim things can't have contradictory properties at the same time or in the same way.


You forgot the part where I, repeatedly, pointed out that the definition you use for "contradiction" and "contradictory" is nonsensical and incorrect. This was the only refutation I needed, since it debunks your entire argument very easily. The rest was merely an expansion on the critical nature of your error.

Please repeat what you said to show that my definition of contradiction and contradictory are nonsensical and incorrect. I've read your last few posts multiple times, but fail to see that. I can't recall giving a definition of either term, other than quoting some dictionaries in my very last post. I see nothing from me prior to that.


The error would not have been so profound if not for you had been the one defining "contradiction" in Aristotle's terms. Therefore I used that definition against you because it was a very defining contradiction in your argument.

I don't get why you would use Aristotle's definition against me, when I clearly made the point when I quoted Aristotle that his position was anti-dialectical and precisely what the dialectical position taken by Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin and myself runs counter to.


You are very confused. First off, Hegel constantly used metaphysics in his dialectics. He personally opposed metaphysics of certain types, but used them generally within his dialectics. This contradiction is one of the defining elements of his legacy. So if you know anything about Hegel, it should be this.

One thing I definitely know about Hegel is that he upheld a position on dialectics contrary to Aristotle's. Do you have a problem with Hegel on this? Somehow it seems that you oppose the acceptance of dialectics on the part of Hegel and Marx. It appears that you accept Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction. I don't.


Second, I believe you're confusing dialectics with Marx's 'Historical Materialism'. They are not the same thing, at all. Marx did indeed oppose metaphysics, but on a personal level. It had nothing to do with some supposed quality of dialectics.

So Marx didn't oppose metaphysics? He didn't publicly in his writings oppose the anti-dialetical aspect of metaphysics? In fact Marx opposed the speculative, metaphysical spiritual system of Hegel and Marx opposed the anti-dialectical stance of mechanical materialism.


Third, I have not referred to metaphysics at all, so I'm not sure why you even bring it up.

Your stance that when opposed tendencies reside in the same thing that it is not an instance of dialectics is metaphysics. That is why I raised it. [Also is someone debating you limited only to the terms and concepts you introduce?]


Your statement is misleading, incorrect, and irrelevant. Dialectics itself has no inherent quality that opposes metaphysics, nor should this have been brought into the discussion where a mere semantic-error is at fault for the confusion.

Well Engels and Lenin disagree with you. They specifically say that dialectics opposes the non or anti dialectical position as metaphysics.


Let me clarify for you.
Logic, as we know it today, is derived from Aristotle's philosophies. Therefore, Aristotle's rules of Logic are the rules of Logic, no exceptions. He created it, he defined it, and we abide by it.

Ah!! So I was right when I stated above that you accept Aristotle's logic which has 3 laws of non-contradiction (3 laws that run counter to the Hegelian and Marxist acceptance and use of contradiction).


That isn't to mean Logic has not developed since then, nor that Aristotle wasn't reflecting on some more fundamental rules of reality that anyone could have analyzed and delivered into.

But despite this I'll note that you just stated, "Therefore, Aristotle's rules of Logic are the rules of Logic, no exceptions." There is no room for dialectics with such a stance. Aristotle opposed contradiction pure and simple, and you accept Aristotle with "no exceptions".


In any case, the rules of Logic are not the rules of reality, they are a reflection of reality. Therefore, someone can easily hold contradictory ideas, or believe contradictory things. Someone's argument can be contradictory, like yours for example.

You have not shown me where my argument is contradictory, however yours argument appears to be illogical. You say Aristotle's 3 laws of contradiction are correct, but then say that it in actual fact contradictory phenomena like my thinking can in fact exist.


The argument itself truly existing in reality and also holding contradictory properties. This simply means that it is a logical contradiction in reasoning: "A is not A".

But just said above there is no such thing as logical contradiction, but rather only physical contradiction. Now you're calling my argument logically contradictory. Please make up your mind.

[Tim Redd]

Someone's leadership can be logically contradictory, yes.
A person can contradict themselves, which demonstrates their leadership to be faulty in reasoning.

A person's leadership can have both positive and negative aspects. A leader can be good in one area and poor in another area. That is what I mean. While the characteristics adhere to different aspects of the leader's leadership, when we speak of the leader's leadership as a whole, we can say that one thing has both good and poor aspects. Do you see what I mean?


It is a very simple concept. I don't really understand your confusion.

Probably, because I'm not confused.


However, ONCE AGAIN, Logic has it's own definition of "contradiction" which does enforce "spatial or temporal simultaneity", to use your own words. In fact, the definition you gave from Aristotle even states this. "An honest person would accept that."

The ABC's of logic, formal logic rejects contradiction. However the dialectical logic of Hegel. Marx and Engels does in fact accept and use the concept of contradiction, as it exists in many places in the real world.

[Tim Redd]

In any case, light/dark and day/night are opposing properties of the "day" but are not in and of themselves contradictory properties which are the same property.

Right they are opposed properties.


They do not exist simultaneously. They do not exist within the same time, nor the same place, nor in the same respect.
Light exists for one part of the day, Dark for the other. Obviously different times.

Nevertheless with respect to what a day consists of, night and day are opposed properties. They exist as opposed elements in a single entity - a day. So in the same respect - a day - night and day exist as contradictories.


Light exists for one part of the world at a single time, Dark in another part at the same exact time. Obviously different places.
Light and Dark are not ever misunderstood to be the same thing nor are they properties of a day which occasionally have different meanings. Obviously different respects.

Right they are not the same thing, but opposed things in the nature of a day.


In no way does your example fit into the definition of your own quote.

My example doesn't fit what definition (which quote)? Do you mean my summary of Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction? In that case, yes my example runs against the 3 laws. That is the point I'm making - that there are phenomena which subvert the 3 laws of non-contradiction. As one who accepts dialectics, I don't intend to adhere to the 3 laws. Obviously however you do adhere to them. Just don't expect me to do so as well.


So why do you insist that it is an example of such a situation when it does not really fit? Again, you have merely generalized the term 'contradiction' and freely ignored the very definition that you gave earlier to define it.

How have I generalized the term contradiction? I'm arguing against the specific definition of contradiction that can be imputed from Aristotle's exposition of his 3 laws of non-contradiction.

[Subversive]

Probably, because I'm not confused.
Not in your own mind, but in reality you are very confused. I will explain more below.



The ABC's of logic, formal logic rejects contradiction. However the dialectical logic of Hegel. Marx and Engels does in fact accept and use the concept of contradiction, as it exists in many places in the real world.
Dialectics utilizes logic and therefore also rejects logical contradiction.
A person's use of dialectics may not be fully logical, but neither is someone's personal use of logic.
Logical contradictions are always to be rejected by reasonable people - that is the point of Logic.

So if someone does not reject logical contradictions, it would not matter if they were using dialectics or something else entirely, they would simply just be unreasonable on that issue.

In your case it is merely the problem of understanding what a "logical contradiction" actually is, rather than the problem of rejecting them or not.


Right they are opposed properties.

Nevertheless with respect to what a day consists of, night and day are opposed properties. They exist as opposed elements in a single entity - a day. So in the same respect - a day - night and day exist as contradictories.

Right they are not the same thing, but opposed things in the nature of a day.
As I have explained so many times prior to this moment:
Two things can oppose each other and not be logically contradictory.
Therefore, all of the above things are entirely irrelevant when discussing of logic.



My example doesn't fit what definition (which quote)? Do you mean my summary of Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction? In that case, yes my example runs against the 3 laws. That is the point I'm making - that there are phenomena which subvert the 3 laws of non-contradiction. As one who accepts dialectics, I don't intend to adhere to the 3 laws. Obviously however you do adhere to them. Just don't expect me to do so as well.
Then that is your entire problem, and the only reason I am even replying to you again: You do not understand Logic at all - you reject it and therefore do not wish to discuss anything in a reasonable or logical manner.

Let me explain:

- First, There is no such thing as "Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction". There is only one "law of non-contradiction".
Obviously this indicates you are not actually informed of Logic, therefore how can you 'honestly' reject it?

- Second, The law of non-contradiction basically just states that two completely opposite things can not be equal to each other. The example is "A is not A". In modal logic it would be identified as P = ~P.

In real terms, it would be like stating a chair is equal to the lack of a chair.
A table is a non-table. A fork is a spoon. Day is night.
These examples are impossibilities, not just in theoretical form but also in reality. The law follows reality, it does not try to enforce itself on reality.

- Third, You argue that a 24-hour-Day contains both Night and Day. But so what?
As I have repeated to you so many times before:This is not a logical contradiction, therefore the Law of Non-Contradiction does not even apply - You are rejecting it only because you do not actually understand what it is.

This is a general contradiction, which simply means two opposing forces.
In terms of modal logic, a 24-hour-Day can be represented like this: P = A + B.
Do you see a ~P in there anywhere? I sure don't!

- Fourth, another way that a 24-hour-Day can be represented is: P = A + ~A.
Despite appearances, this is also not a 'logical contradiction': It is merely a 'thing' which contains opposing forces. Someone could easily mistake this equation as P = ~P, as it seems you do.

This is where dialectics becomes helpful. It points out that this is not a logical contradiction here but that these two opposing forces are to be added together, not equated. In doing so, they eliminate each other.
Day turns to night which turns back to day - It's a cycle of self-elimination.
Furthermore, dialectics would explain the existence of Dawn and Dusk, therefore explain that A is a different set: A = B + ~B, or some other form of A.

Dialectics, unless the author is mistaken, never states that P = ~P in reality. This is where you are mistaken. This is also likely why you accept dialectics, because it is often good at explaining away logical contradictions. The true error here was that you merely misunderstood how formal Logic works. It seems to me that you mistake "A plus not A" for "A is not A".

- Fifth: Logical contradictions CAN exist in someone's mind, in their reasoning, in reality in a way. If someone believes P but also believes ~P, then they possess logically contradicting beliefs in reality, due to faulty reasoning. Their beliefs are not reasonable.
Likewise, someone can argue both P and ~P at the same time.

For example:
You can argue that all illegal immigrants should be exported. You can also then argue that all illegals should be legalized. This is a logical contradiction because you can't do both: export and legalize all immigrants. One would have to come before the other but then that would make the second one entirely meaningless. There is no way to reconcile these thoughts together, P = ~P.



How have I generalized the term contradiction? I'm arguing against the specific definition of contradiction that can be imputed from Aristotle's exposition of his 3 laws of non-contradiction.
Okay, I'll agree now that you did not generalize the term, you merely misunderstood formal logic in general.

My main point being: You do not need to reject logic, nor do you need to reject dialectics if you accept logic, they both work together fluidly. As well, dialectics cannot exist without logic. It is the basis for it.

Look into formal logic a little more and I'm sure it will all become clear.

[Luís Henrique]

You can argue that all illegal immigrants should be exported. You can also then argue that all illegals should be legalized. This is a logical contradiction because you can't do both: export and legalize all immigrants. One would have to come before the other but then that would make the second one entirely meaningless. There is no way to reconcile these thoughts together, P = ~P.

These statements, however, are not propositions; and they do not stand to each other as P and ~P.

Not being propositions, they are not either true or false. They may be commendable or not, "good" or "bad", or whatever other adjectives that may apply to "impositions", but it is not "true" that immigrants should be legalised, nor it is false.

Moreover, if P is "all immigrants should be exported", then ~P would be "all immigrants should not be exported" which is not the same as "all immigrants should be legalised" (it could be also "all immigrants should be allowed to remain as illegals", or "immigrants should be mass murdered", or even "some immigrants should be exported, and some others should not").

Consequently, if those statements are "opposites", then they must opposites within a given system; for instance, in a country where there is a controversy about what to do with "illegal" immigrants, and one party proposes they are legalised, while another party proposes they are expelled. If so, the issue may be what actually holds the system together, and perhaps both parties, in opposing each other on the issue, in fact prevent both legalisation and expulsion (and that would be what is commonly, and confusingly, called "unity of opposites").

Luís Henrique

[Subversive]

These statements, however, are not propositions; and they do not stand to each other as P and ~P.

Not being propositions, they are not either true or false. They may be commendable or not, "good" or "bad", or whatever other adjectives that may apply to "impositions", but it is not "true" that immigrants should be legalised, nor it is false.

Moreover, if P is "all immigrants should be exported", then ~P would be "all immigrants should not be exported" which is not the same as "all immigrants should be legalised" (it could be also "all immigrants should be allowed to remain as illegals", or "immigrants should be mass murdered", or even "some immigrants should be exported, and some others should not").

Consequently, if those statements are "opposites", then they must opposites within a given system; for instance, in a country where there is a controversy about what to do with "illegal" immigrants, and one party proposes they are legalised, while another party proposes they are expelled. If so, the issue may be what actually holds the system together, and perhaps both parties, in opposing each other on the issue, in fact prevent both legalisation and expulsion (and that would be what is commonly, and confusingly, called "unity of opposites").

Luís Henrique
Well yes, technically you're right.
I was indeed leaving out all of the formal logic behind the premises and the conclusion and just cutting directly to the point.

The example I was giving was more along the lines of a politician stating this:
1. Immigrants should be deported.
2. Immigrants should not be deported.
Therefore the logical contradiction exists in his propositions.

(And yes, I said "exported", excuse my error. I meant "deported".)

Except I was trying to put this in a somewhat more realistic way than a politician factually contradicting himself on an issue where he literally states one thing and then literally states the exact opposite. Logical contradictions in reality very rarely show themselves in such a literal sense. The legalization part was merely an addition to string the contradiction together, realistically, since you can't deport people who are no longer illegal (since they are all legalized), and you can't legalize people who are no longer there (since you deported them).

If each proposition was held by different parties, then yes, of course, there would be no more logical contradiction. That wasn't the point, though.

[Tim Redd]

First, There is no such thing as "Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction". There is only one "law of non-contradiction".
Obviously this indicates you are not actually informed of Logic, therefore how can you 'honestly' reject it?

For Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction please see:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/#11

and

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

These disprove your assertion that there are no such things as Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction. You're welcome.

[Tim Redd]

Dialectics utilizes logic and therefore also rejects logical contradiction.

That's just plain wrong as even anyone who's honest about what dialectics is about will tell you.

Dialectics (dialectical logic) bases it self upon and uses formal logic (the ABC of logic) while significantly *also rejecting* formal logics claim that there can be no contradictions.

Dude come on, you aren't even in ballpark with your super false assertion.

The key point that even beginning students of dialectics first learn is that the science of dialectics posits that there can be contradictory properties in the same thing simultaneously.

It's one thing to disagree with the notion that a single thing may have contradictory properties, but it's another when you can't accept a central point of dialectics which is that simultaneously a single thing may have contradictory properties.

If you deny that a central tenet of dialectics is that a single thing may have contradictory properties there really is no point in me continuing to discuss the issue with you. Continuing may be fruitful, but ya gotta acknowledge that.

[Subversive]

For Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction please see:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/#11

and

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

These disprove your assertion that there are no such things as Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction. You're welcome.
No. No they do not.

You're referring to the "Three Classic Laws of Thought". It is even cited there in your second link in the first sentence. No where in those links do they refer to any such thing as the "3 laws of non-contradiction".
You are mistaken yet again.

Did you even read the links you provided? You may want to try that someday instead of proving your own ignorance.
Though this should be a clear message to you, piercing that stubbornness, that you are wrong and unwilling to admit any errors.

And: You're welcome.

In any case, we're done here.
I've explained all I can explain to you and you just plain aren't listening.
You can remain close-minded, stubborn, and ignorant if you choose, because it seems there is nothing I can do about that, but never will you be right on this subject until you accept both the truth and reality: You are wrong.

Good day, Mr. Redd.

[Tim Redd]

For Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction please see:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ar...tradiction/#11 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/#11)

and

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

These disprove your assertion that there are no such things as Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction. You're welcome.


No. No they do not.

You're referring to the "Three Classic Laws of Thought". It is even cited there in your second link in the first sentence. No where in those links do they refer to any such thing as the "3 laws of non-contradiction".
You are mistaken yet again.

Not sure what links you're clicking, but if anyone clicks the first link they will see:
"1. Three Versions of the Principle of Non-Contradiction"

The second major title on the page is:
"Aristotle on Non-contradiction"

And if you click the second link, you'll first see:
"Law of noncontradiction"

So either Subversive is an inveterate dishonest philistine, or he's blind. I'm guessing the former.

And this time Subversive, you're *not* welcome.

[Tim Redd]

Finally, Subversive never makes a coherent argument that simultaneously a single thing can't have contradictory, or opposed properties. He has not put forward any basis for contraverting that notion in any way.

[Subversive]

Not sure what links you're clicking, but if anyone clicks the first link they will see:
"1. Three Versions of the Principle of Non-Contradiction"

The second major title on the page is:
"Aristotle on Non-contradiction"

And if you click the second link, you'll first see:
"Law of noncontradiction"

So either Subversive is an inveterate dishonest philistine, or he's blind. I'm guessing the former.
1. "Three Versions" do not equate to "Three Laws", as you stated. Still wrong.
2. I am not arguing that there is not a law of non-contradiction: This supports only my own argument, not yours.
3. Again, same as above.

You failed to support your point. Therefore, you are either "an inveterate dishonest philistine" or you are "blind".
Or in my own words, you're just plain ignorant.


Finally, Subversive never makes a coherent argument that simultaneously a single thing can't have contradictory, or opposed properties. He has not put forward any basis for contraverting that notion in any way.
Yep, ignorant it is then.

You're very Welcome for my insight into your pitiful arguments, Mr. Redd.
I have gotten tired of being nice to you. You should have understood the points I made by now. Any and all rejection of my arguments at this point is due only to willful ignorance and apathy towards the truth and reality.
You are therefore delusional. Goodbye.

Oh, and have a Good Day.

[Tim Redd]

1. "Three Versions" do not equate to "Three Laws", as you stated. Still wrong.

You say tomata, I say tomatoe. Come si, comme ca. To me it's valid to call each principle a law being that each principle applies to a specific context. Again the refereed article at the first link refers to: "1. Three Versions of the Principle of Non-Contradiction" by Aristotle.


You failed to support your point.

Besides your silliness about what term to use above, a key point of our discussion involved whether or not a central concept of dialectics is that a single thing can have contradictory properties.

I answered that it certainly is a central concept of dialectics that a single thing can contradictory properties. You objected to that notion.

On this you don't a have a leg to stand on. Your insistent, idiocy on this makes its ridiculous "Emperor With No Clothes" presence apparent to anyone who has done an honest, cursory investigation of what constitutes the key ideas of dialectics.

[Ilstar]

First, Kudos to the OP for starting this engaging discussion! Now let's plunge into the details of it!


Marx, however, rejected metaphysics (and all of philosophy) on grounds of both historical materialism
Materialism is a philosophy. Idealism is another philosophy. To reject philosophy is to prove that you exist in vacuum. Here is a quote in support of my point (italic format deleted):

Marx does not reject philosophy, his writings are philosophical writings moreso than they are economic ones - the labour theory of value is a metaphysical concept first and foremost, expounded by Locke and Hegel.

When he criticises philosophy, his criticism is of - specifically - speculative philosophy such as that done by Kant and Hegel and the other German Idealists. His critique is summed up in the statement that philosophers have interpreted the world, our job is to change it - his objection to German Idealism is that it offers absolutely no framework for action (especially Hegel, who says that we should sit back and let the dialectic develop) but only one for interpretation. Indeed, many 20th century Marxists tried to bring the philosophical heart of Marx back to the surface - Sartre, Lukacs, Foucault, etc.


"relations" are real
Would you say that relations are not real? Say, electromagnetic interactions between matter and energy?


There is no dialectical opposition to formal logic. All dialecticians understand that formal logic is the ABC, the elementary, the foundation, the fundamentals, the starting point for dialectical logic. They know that dialectical logic when relevant subsumes formal logic.
Why not have formal logic as the ending rather than the starting point to dialectics?


We ought to form a cohesive understanding of change based on the necessity of forming a cohesive understanding of change, and the active processes, relations of change - whether this can in the end be called dialectical or not must be irrelevant.
I really like what you wrote. What do you think of my proposed Law of Becoming: non-A is A? It's like when you define an indefinite or actualize a potential. It's about change, but I oppose it be stated as A is non-A, and therefore it is not the same as Kantian/Hegelian dialectics. It is the integration of dialectics and metaphysics as methods to attain (or actualize) the truth.

Here is an illustration of the Law of Becoming:
Only if Marxism -> Transmaterialism
Only if Capitalism -> Communism
Only if egoism -> altruism
Only if non-A -> A

It's for you to decide whether you want to achieve A. And please don't swear at me, regardless of whether you think I deserve your wrath or not.


If one doubts whether or not language touches actual existing reality, you are a subject idealist or an analytic philosopher who opposes seeing the interconnection of events in reality.
So physical events interconnect linguistically? I think subjective idealists are guided exactly by that. Here is an example: "Everything is energy."


I don't understand why you can't accept that "language, our environment, our conditions" do exist in objective reality. Where else do these things reside?
Language 'resides' in human consciousness.


Likewise, the Proletariat is not a 'real thing'. It is an abstract. If you look at a person you cannot see a Proletariat, the proletariat is a class not a person. An abstract concept, not a 'thing'.
The Proletariat is also the Negation of the Bourgeoisie. The Proletariat only exist because the Bourgeois ruling class oppress and exploit the worker. They only exist as a separate class because they are forced to be a separate class. Without the bourgeoisie, both the bourgeoisie and Proletariat dissolve into nothingness, thus we end with only a Classless society.
That's really interesting.


This cycle of oppression and eventual transition is the concrete form of the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie relationship. The Bourgeoisie's oppression, through their rule, is what creates the Proletariat. But because the Proletariat desire to no longer be oppressed, just as the Sun forces out the Night and turns it into Day, the Proletariat will strive to overthrow the Bourgeois rule and thus sublimate the existence of both classes.
A nice use of analogy for a rhetorical effect.


Light and dark coexist in that 24-hours but they do not exist simultaneously.

in a "24 hour day" there is no such thing as Night-Day existing simultaneously "at the same time" . . . A day may contain "light and dark, day and night" but not simultaneously. It contains either light or dark, day or night. These properties do not exist "at the same time", nor are they in the same place or within the same respect. They exist mutually exclusive to each other within a single entity.
The only exceptions are Dawn and Dusk, the transitional phases. However, that seems irrelevant right now. It is a different topic.
What about twilight? It is not irrelevant, and it is not a different topic. We are talking exactly about light and dark as they are seen together. I wish you elaborated on integrative dialectics rather than the transcendental one you seem to be using. Remember also that you are mostly arguing about concepts. And that Tim Redd believes in contradictions (since he is apparently a subjective idealist) and you seem not to (which is encouraging). So you write:

There is nothing logically contradictory about Dawn and Dusk. They are separate phases where light is depleting or light is increasing. Both could be considered 'Day' depending on the factor of 'Day-ness', or 'Night' depending on the factor of 'Night-ness'. It would be arbitrary to define, but never once would it be a logical contradiction - again, day and night do not possess reason or logic.
There is nothing logically contradictory in twilight, but as you correctly stated, now there are degrees of light and darkness, and these degrees are continuous, not two-valued anymore. How does two-valued logic accurately reflect these transitionary periods? Would you even apply two-valued logic to divide the factors of 'Day-ness' or 'Night-ness'? And would you be correct in doing so, if we are looking for an accurate reflection of reality conceptually? A contradiction, you say?


Furthermore, again, dialectics would probably explain that Dawn and Dusk are the transitory phases of a cycle - and therefore only generally contradicting each other by the force and power that light has over darkness, that solid-matter has over light. A "day" only existing in the context of a solar system containing a sun and a planet.
None of this would demonstrate a real-life logical contradiction in any way.
I might not be understanding your term 'generally contradicting.' Would you elaborate on it? What kind of 'force' and 'power' does 'light' have over 'darkness' exactly? Is this even real? What solid-matter are you referring to here? To bosons? They are not the same as fermions, you know. And how could they be 'over light'? I missed you point here completely. A 'day' is a measurement of time, and--ah!--a solar system is solid matter. Indeed, stellar objects contain plenty of matter and also energy. They are not the same as 'day', although you could surmise that solid matter comes from time. That would be technically incorrect, though. Yet I like your contextual thinking in general, so you might be on the right path of resolving this conundrum. I don't think a two-valued 'contradiction' term would apply here.


dialectics would explain the existence of Dawn and Dusk, therefore explain that A is a different set: A = B + ~B, or some other form of A.
That's interesting.


Aristotle's definition doesn't make the distinction you assert about their being a difference between the logical and physical concepts of contradiction.
Except logic exists in language alone, an actualization of a potential. Subversive is hereby correct:

the rules of Logic are not the rules of reality, they are a reflection of reality


my point that things can have contradictory properties for the same thing (in a serial manner) . . . Hegelian and Marxist dialectics are precisely opposed to such a metaphysical viewpoint [of things not having contradictory properties]
Contradictions are death and destruction. I hope you know that. I just wanted to point this out to you before you get into trouble with reality.


I said in that in the same day there is light and dark. I think most would agree. Thus a single thing - a day - has contradictory properties. Honest argument would accept that.
Note that a day, in your definition, is a measurement of time, and light/dark is a sensation of an electromagnetic radiation. They are not the same.


I said that someone's leadership - a single thing - may exhibit contradictory properties.
Humans such as yourself may indeed behave contradictorily due to contradictions in consciousness. Listen to Subversive:

A person can contradict themselves, which demonstrates their leadership to be faulty in reasoning.
A 24 hour day cannot reason, therefore it cannot possess logic, and therefore also cannot possess a logical contradiction.


One thing I definitely know about Hegel is that he upheld a position on dialectics contrary to Aristotle's. Do you have a problem with Hegel on this? Somehow it seems that you oppose the acceptance of dialectics on the part of Hegel and Marx. It appears that you accept Aristotle's 3 laws of non-contradiction. I don't.
You are correct. And I was right about you. I would even take it further and tell you that it was Kant who accepted both 'non-A is A' and 'A is non-A,' whereas Hegel only claimed the latter. Of course, the latter is the formal definition of annihilation. The 20th century is an account of plenty of examples for you--on a massive, significant scale too.


The example is "A is not A". In modal logic it would be identified as P = ~P.
I would say that 'is not' is dealing more with predication and 'non-' with an entity, so technically it should be 'A is non-A' that is equivalent to 'A = ~A'. This only applies logically (i.e., linguistically), but will not make a difference ontologically, or generally, as you seem to refer to it.


I was indeed leaving out all of the formal logic behind the premises and the conclusion and just cutting directly to the point.
If this is so, then okay.

Luís Henrique wrote:

Not being propositions, they are not either true or false.
I know I am branching off the argument, but can't they be so if they are ontological? We can evaluate them as either being true or false.

Luís Henrique wrote:

They may be commendable or not, "good" or "bad", or whatever other adjectives that may apply to "impositions", but it is not "true" that immigrants should be legalised, nor it is false.
Yes, in this example, a proposition is in a modal form, so it does not work then. Yet we could say that it is true or false whether such propositions were uttered.


Finally, Subversive never makes a coherent argument that simultaneously a single thing can't have contradictory, or opposed properties. He has not put forward any basis for contraverting that notion in any way.
Do you know the differences between contradictions, contraries, and subalterns? Contradiction is a kind of opposition, but contraries are also oppositions. Contraries can be of two varieties: supercontraries and subcontraries. I suggest you familiarize yourself with them through the square of opposition. Contradictions and contraries are not the same.

[Subversive]

What about twilight? It is not irrelevant, and it is not a different topic. We are talking exactly about light and dark as they are seen together. I wish you elaborated on integrative dialectics rather than the transcendental one you seem to be using. Remember also that you are mostly arguing about concepts. And that Tim Redd believes in contradictions (since he is apparently a subjective idealist) and you seem not to (which is encouraging).

There is nothing logically contradictory in twilight, but as you correctly stated, now there are degrees of light and darkness, and these degrees are continuous, not two-valued anymore. How does two-valued logic accurately reflect these transitionary periods? Would you even apply two-valued logic to divide the factors of 'Day-ness' or 'Night-ness'? And would you be correct in doing so, if we are looking for an accurate reflection of reality conceptually? A contradiction, you say?
I would never focus on idealizing two-forms in regards to reality. Even though two forms may oppose and annihilate each other they are still not all that exists. Dusk ("Twilight") and Dawn are elements of this fact. They are the transitory phases, the 'processes', which eliminate Night and Day.
During these periods they contain different amounts of 'Day-ness' and 'Night-ness', but in themselves are neither Day or Night; they are the third, and fourth, values. In terms of 'Day-ness' and 'Night-ness', these are merely qualities of the entity, like 'Time' in a Day. We can speak of them on a conceptual level but their true existence is only relevant on a temporary, localized level. Each moment of Dawn or Dusk will exist differently. So we can never speak of them on the whole, but only momentarily. As in, you cannot speak of an hour within a 24-hour day without eliminating every other hour within that day - you only speak of the one. Likewise, if you speak of the full day, as a whole, the concept of 'hour' becomes totally meaningless.

Another way to put it would be to say that a 24 hour day is composed of Day, Night, Dawn, and Dusk, or 24 hours, or 1440 minutes, or whatever other elements. And each section of day, each hour, or each minute, would have it's own set of qualities that we could refer to within that reference frame. Qualities that eliminate themselves upon leaving that reference frame, but can be valuable for comparisons on the same level and such.

In terms of logic there are absolutely never any contradictions. There is never a single instance where P = ~P. Only instances where P = A + ~A. Dialectics allows us to see this by labeling things as they are: Within reference frames and on-the-whole as only processes. So dialectics essentially takes two idealized contradictory forces and matches them to a 'process' which is described in reality, and therefore defines and categorizes its internal elements as being conceptual elements of that singular process as a complete whole.

The reason this is done is because there is nothing in the universe that does not change in the totality of time. Therefore everything in reality is a process, a transition between existence and non-existence (or vice versa). To understand reality we must therefore not internalize things as mere hard, rigid concepts but as the processes that they truly are. Ultimately, we must simply accept the change. Dialectics, utilizing logic, therefore is a tool to accept that change.



I might not be understanding your term 'generally contradicting.' Would you elaborate on it?
I just mean the general definition from any dictionary, because Tim Redd refused to understand the difference between the dictionary definition and the one that logic dictates and requires. To elaborate further: It is simply just two mutually opposing forces.


What kind of 'force' and 'power' does 'light' have over 'darkness' exactly? Is this even real? What solid-matter are you referring to here? To bosons? They are not the same as fermions, you know. And how could they be 'over light'? I missed you point here completely.
You're looking too deep, too far within the process. I was merely describing the process itself: How light takes over the night and turns it into Day. The 'force' and 'power' it has is a conceptual one, it is the existence of 'light' (day) as opposed to 'no-light' (night). This force is realistically represented by the process of atomic energy, if you wish to look that deep. How light, and matter which produces light, passes through space and eliminates 'emptiness'. If you care to look far enough perhaps you'll find the process of entropy, but that has less to do with day and night and is a topic about higher processes.



A 'day' is a measurement of time, and--ah!--a solar system is solid matter. Indeed, stellar objects contain plenty of matter and also energy. They are not the same as 'day', although you could surmise that solid matter comes from time. That would be technically incorrect, though. Yet I like your contextual thinking in general, so you might be on the right path of resolving this conundrum. I don't think a two-valued 'contradiction' term would apply here.

Obviously you need the reference frame for 'Day' to exist: A Sun and a revolving planet, and a position on that planet. 'Day' dissolves itself outside of this scope, just like the qualities of a 'minute' dissolve when you speak of a full day or even a full year.
On the topic of 'matter', 'time', and dialectics: it would be more appropriate to state that 'time' is the same as the existence of 'matter': As in, matter cannot exist without space-time. The contradiction of this is non-existence of matter, emptiness, and permanence.
Therefore, the true process of existence is the expansion of space-time: The elimination of both emptiness and permanence.

[Ilstar]

Subversive,

This transitory phase is when light and dark are in degrees. Twilight also applies to Dawn (it applies to both Dawn and Dusk), and it etymologically means 'half-light' or a light 'junction' (from etymonline). An elimination of Night and Day is figuratively put. Rather than eliminating, they are transitioning there and back; it's a two-way dynamic.

Indeed, in themselves they are neither Day nor Night during Twilight. My argument is that Twilight is the synthesis of Day and Night and not the solar system you mentioned before. To say that the solar system or sun is the synthesis of Day and Night is to mix incommensurable categories of thought. (I've changed my position; see below.)

In terms of your argument that Twilight is merely a fragment of a Day, time-wise, I think that has to do with the unique position and rotation of Earth relative to the Sun. However, on a different, possible world, a world that does not rotate around its axis, Twilight can be constant, if you are located in a area under a proper angle relative to a star. But then so would Day and Night. No, I was probably wrong to say that Twilight is the synthesis of Day and Night. Twilight is their annihilation or 'elimination', as you put it, so I think this better applies under your dialectics. Your formula, I think, works best:
P = A + ~A, where P is Twilight, A is light, ~A is non-light, interpreted as darkness relative to the reference frame we are using. Of course, the formula only reflects qualities but not quantities of said phenomena.

Matter only produces light when it 'evaporates' (say, if it's an unstable isotope) or annihilates with anti-matter. It may or may not be a natural process. How about light producing matter? Also, Einstein defined light as spacetime. Light is a form of (massless) energy. Also, light is its own anti-light (looking from the perspective of photons). Would you say that it 'eliminates' itself while 'being'?

"A Sun and a revolving planet, and a position on that planet"
I think I am starting to understand what you are doing here. Yes, you are taking a much greater context of Day and Night upon which Day and Night depend. This way, it makes better sense. But then anything can be explained by the order of the Universe. It's not specific enough.

"the true process of existence is the expansion of space-time: The elimination of both emptiness and permanence"
Very cool. How did you come to this knowledge? I mean, how did you figure this out dialectically? Who inspired you exactly, or did you come to this on your own?

[Subversive]

Subversive,

This transitory phase is when light and dark are in degrees. Twilight also applies to Dawn (it applies to both Dawn and Dusk), and it etymologically means 'half-light' or a light 'junction' (from etymonline). An elimination of Night and Day is figuratively put. Rather than eliminating, they are transitioning there and back; it's a two-way dynamic.
Sorry, I thought Twilight only referred to Dusk, not both Dawn and Dusk. I guess I'd never heard it refer to Dawn before. In that sense, yes you are correct.
Twilight is the elimination of the two ideals, it is the transition between the two; the realization of the process between the two ideals.



Indeed, in themselves they are neither Day nor Night during Twilight. My argument is that Twilight is the synthesis of Day and Night and not the solar system you mentioned before. To say that the solar system or sun is the synthesis of Day and Night is to mix incommensurable categories of thought. (I've changed my position; see below.)
I guess it totally depends on 'how' you're speaking of a day. There are probably many ways to go about this, and I was somewhat generalizing a few different perspectives to try to cover them all.



In terms of your argument that Twilight is merely a fragment of a Day, time-wise, I think that has to do with the unique position and rotation of Earth relative to the Sun. However, on a different, possible world, a world that does not rotate around its axis, Twilight can be constant, if you are located in a area under a proper angle relative to a star. But then so would Day and Night. No, I was probably wrong to say that Twilight is the synthesis of Day and Night. Twilight is their annihilation or 'elimination', as you put it, so I think this better applies under your dialectics. Your formula, I think, works best:
P = A + ~A, where P is Twilight, A is light, ~A is non-light, interpreted as darkness relative to the reference frame we are using. Of course, the formula only reflects qualities but not quantities of said phenomena.
As I said above, I think context probably matters most here. There are numerous ways to go about explaining this and dialectics certainly has no rules regarding interpretation.

Also, I actually phrased is as P = a '24 hour day', not as Twilight.
The reason being for mainly two reasons:
1. Twilight is not necessarily the result of both Day and Night. That is the totality of the transition.
2. P = A + ~A is self-eliminating, wherein P would equal the process of that elimination rather than the elimination itself. So in this context, P is the totality of the self-eliminating process of day to night, rather than there ever being a result where twilight remains.
Therefore P can't be Twilight, because that would assume that our idealized 24-hour-day is realized as Twilight. But that's certainly now how we conceptualize it.

In the case where Twilight is all that exists on a planet (for any reason), there would be no transition and P = A, Where P is the hours of the totality and A is the Twilight. Therefore it is the totality of Twilight which never ends: There is no '24 hours', nor 'Day', nor 'Night'. It is always, permanently, twilight.
Since there are no eliminating forces in this planet's sky its not represented as a process but as a fact: 'Our day is Twilight'.



Matter only produces light when it 'evaporates' (say, if it's an unstable isotope) or annihilates with anti-matter. It may or may not be a natural process. How about light producing matter? Also, Einstein defined light as spacetime. Light is a form of (massless) energy. Also, light is its own anti-light (looking from the perspective of photons). Would you say that it 'eliminates' itself while 'being'?
I don't see it that way at all.
Science knows this: All matter is energy. Therefore, energy is the idealized form of matter. So the process of matter into energy (entropy) is the decay of our universe.
In this regard, energy is the destruction of matter, therefore the process of entropy is successfully explained as two opposing-forces: Matter and energy.

Conceptually we would not normally think of them as opposed forces, but energy certainly effects matter. The more energy that is put into a piece of matter the more easily that piece of matter will be destroyed and release its own energy. It is merely a different means of describing kinetic and potential energy.

Though, like I said, it could be seen in many ways.

'Light' is merely just one form of energy, so it's rather irrelevant unless you want to speak strictly of light. However, it is a particularly interesting point since it has so many various perspectives.
For instance, light was the first thing to demonstrate the wave-particle duality. How matter is energy. So the wave and particle forms of light are eliminating forces, or perhaps we should call them 'qualities' rather than forces. This is demonstrated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You attempt to measure position and you see only a particle. You attempt to measure movement and you see only a wave.
Therefore, Light is (one-part of) the elimination of the earlier process: Matter-Energy destruction. Light, along with all other radiation and such things, is the 'Twilight' of Space-Time. That momentary transition between Matter and Energy. Without this transition, without radiation, matter remains as matter.



"A Sun and a revolving planet, and a position on that planet"
I think I am starting to understand what you are doing here. Yes, you are taking a much greater context of Day and Night upon which Day and Night depend. This way, it makes better sense. But then anything can be explained by the order of the Universe. It's not specific enough.
Yes, I am doing exactly that. I would disagree it's not specific enough. Though, it may depend what you're looking for. However, what is being done is the generalization of a process, and making that process the truth. Defining how reality is realized from two ideals.

If you look at two minutes in the day, do you see a whole day? Certainly not.
If you look at exactly one specific 24-hour period, not knowing anything else, do you see the fluctuation between day and night? No, you'd think that after nighttime it's the end of the world, or something equally sinister.
Only by looking at a totality of a single thing can we understand its processes, its 'completeness', its "concrete" form.

This is why Marx looks at society and determined the existence of the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. It's not like these two entities had an actualized and apparent form. He conceptualized them and therefore created them as ideals. To everyone else they are all just 'people'. To some they might have been the upper and lower classes. But to Marx they were genuinely and distinctly the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. Why? Because he looked at social relationships - and realized that this was the transition. That relationships are the realization between the two ideals. In this specific case, that the relationship to the 'Mode of Production' is the 'twilight' between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat - how one oppresses the other, using the Mode of Production. Marx also determined that, ultimately and according to deep analysis of history, the Proletariat would inevitably fight back to conquer the Bourgeoisie and destroy that relationship, inevitably destroying both classes and turning humanity into the individualized person - relationships becoming only on the individual level, as that is the most basic and fundamental level.

It is all about the 'totality' of things. To never look at things specifically, but generally, as to determine truths from processes, rather than just see one thing as an idealization; to conceptualize it as a realistic force. Therefore to determine something's true nature of existence.



"the true process of existence is the expansion of space-time: The elimination of both emptiness and permanence"
Very cool. How did you come to this knowledge? I mean, how did you figure this out dialectically? Who inspired you exactly, or did you come to this on your own?
Haha, well you flatter me...
I don't think it's a huge achievement to say something like that, but I came up with it when I stated it just last post and merely used dialectics and my general knowledge of the subject. I've studied a lot in my years over many different subjects, so I can't say I can take full credit for it. Society has some large part in that, and all the great people who have contributed to it.
Most particularly I guess I'd have to credit Einstein since he's the one who figured out that whole 'expansion of the universe' and 'space-time' thing for me. Thanks Einstein!

[Tim Redd]

There is no dialectical opposition to formal logic. All dialecticians understand that formal logic is the ABC, the elementary, the foundation, the fundamentals, the starting point for dialectical logic. They know that dialectical logic when relevant subsumes formal logic.


Why not have formal logic as the ending rather than the starting point to dialectics?

Why not have purple unicorns fly in a wing formation at the Super Bowl?

I guess we can chalk up your question to your low level, or insufficient level of scientific research. Lenin and Engels among others have defined what formal logic is about. And then they have defined how dialectical logic is an extension of the formal logic. If one understands what formal logic is really about and what dialectical logic is really about, then you would understand how dialectical logic can only arise from formal logic and not vice versa.

Please complete your fundamental studies of dialectics before opining and trying to come off in such a way that those who are naive would think that you actually have a competent and valid understanding of formal and dialectical logic and the relationship between formal and dialectical logic.

[Tim Redd]

Why not have purple unicorns fly in a wing formation at the Super Bowl?

I guess we can chalk up your question to your low level, or insufficient level of scientific research. Lenin and Engels among others have defined what formal logic is about. And then they have defined how dialectical logic is an extension of the formal logic. If one understands what formal logic is really about and what dialectical logic is really about, then you would understand how dialectical logic can only arise from formal logic and not vice versa.

[On a rethink.] OK, it may be the case that a dialectical understanding and practice based on a dialectical understanding may have taken place prior to the formulation of formal logic, or activity based upon formal logic.

Still the distinction between formal and dialectical logic should be kept in mind. The key difference between the two being that whereas formal logic rejects the existence of contradictory properties in a single thing, dialectical logic accepts and builds upon the existence of contradictory properties within a single thing.

[Ilstar]

Subversive,

Energy referred to here is the undifferentiated vacuum zero-point energy state. It is a pure interaction that is inaccessible to observation. What we see are the end products--particles. Energy first forms into a whole spin with an impulse (a photon) and then differentiates into charge and mass (other particles). In other words, light has a spin and impulse out of energy, but it is not simply energy. Particles are localizations of energy, whether they are localizations of form of interaction (called bosons, such as a photon) or of matter (called fermions, such as an electron). Observed particles are also not waves per se. If the particle (half-wave) is at rest, its interaction (wave) is only with the energy of vacuum.

All matter is composed of particles, but saying that Particles Are Energy is analogous to saying that Body Is Environment or Society Is Nature. These are metaphors; they are not actually literal. To literalize them is to say that Object(part) is Context(whole). This is destruction, annihilation, elimination, but what is creation, integration, synthesis? What whole do you find in this process through dialectics?

Science doesn't know it all. Don't idealize matter like quantum physicists do. If you do that, you become a subjective idealist/materialist hiding materialism in your idealism. Instead of integrating the concepts of matter and energy, you are dividing them. A similar division was perpetuated by Descartes when he accepted the breach between mind and body and made the former primary.

Entropy is chaos, and we are humans who create order because we are organized matter and energy. Matter and energy do not need to oppose each other. In fact, they naturally don't. We are a great example.

Instead of what you said, it is correct to state that matter can be energy but is not necessarily energy. Energy may escape from matter in form, i.e., interaction, such as through evaporation, fission, or collision. This is a destructive interaction that we can find in nuclear power plants, nuclear explosions, and particle colliders. I am proposing that we need to think more creatively. How about creating matter out of energy rather than manipulating matter in such a way as to destroy it? We need to shift our minds from 'A is non-A' to 'non-A is A'. Light should be viewed as a creation, not destruction. Instead of thinking that "energy is the destruction of matter", think that energy is the creation of matter. Don't be persuaded by scientific rhetoric of incommensurability.

So, returning to your example, Day is light (a creation), Night is darkness (destruction), and Twilight is energy (undifferentiated spacetime). That is, twilight cannot be divided into light because, if you do, it is not the same as twilight anymore. Twilight, in this case, would be a particular instance of light-anti-light interaction as integration. This would mean that integration as a physical whole on the same conceptual level as light is not absolute in all respects but particular and differentiated just as any other integration that keeps to reality.

Thus, the integration of Particle and Energy is Light; the integration of Body and Environment is Relationship; the integration of Society and Nature is Culture. Light, Relationship, and Culture should not be ignored as they are.


That momentary transition between Matter and Energy. Without this transition, without radiation, matter remains as matter.
Yes, the transition, when it shows through like a gap in a continuum (e.g., cosmic voids), can actually be found to signify the context between the two. And matter is indeed perceived the same when it's stable and not radioactive. Your body, for example, is seen as matter, but it is actually also in a constant interaction with the environment. We don't want to ignore that interaction, yet the interaction is not the same as between particles; the context now is the human environment.

Twilight during the 24 hour day more generally reflects reality from outer space, in which both stellar light and vacuum darkness are present. Similarly, if you are looking for time, two minutes can be generalized into time without having to cover the entire day to realize this. That's from the reference frame on the surface of earth. From outer space you won't see day or night. They are both there in the way rotation of a planet affects the change of area receiving sunlight. From the sending-end perspective on the surface of the sun, the rotation of its orbiting planet is meaningless, since light simply spreads in all directions trying to 'eliminate' darkness of vacuum (which is also matter/energy called 'dark').


relationships are the realization between the two ideals . . . relationships becoming only on the individual level, as that is the most basic and fundamental level
That's exactly what I believe.


Society has some large part in that, and all the great people who have contributed to it.
That's a breath of fresh air for me after all the stuffy discussions with Objectivists. Society is very important, extremely important really, and we as individuals with our individual relationships must strive to build the greatest society we can and not destroy what we do not completely understand.

Tim Redd,

Lenin's weakest point was logic, and logic was defined by Aristotle. Dialectical 'logic' is an extension of the formal logic backwards unless destruction, annihilation, violence, and elimination are more important for you than logic.

In my proposed Law of Becoming, formal logic arises from dialectical logic. Here is my reasoning for you to decide whether I understand dialectical and formal logics. Reality is inherently dialectical, that is, it constantly changes. Reason is inherently formal, that is, the best method for reason is formal logic. Before Aristotle defined the law of identity, he had to derive it from reality. Before the law of identity there was no law of identity. Thus, ~(law of identity) is (law of identity), or non-identity is identity, or non-A is A. That's how the law of identity became from dialectics. Once you have A you have a choice to either keep it as an A (as metaphysicians do) or change it by following the law of becoming. The second is inherently dialectical, yet it does not oppose Aristotelian metaphysics. At least I haven't found anyone to contend my 'logic'. Of course, dialectical and formal are not the same, but they can be integrated as I've shown.

[Tim Redd]

Subversive,

Energy referred to here is the undifferentiated vacuum zero-point energy state. It is a pure interaction that is inaccessible to observation...

Tim Redd,

Lenin's weakest point was logic, and logic was defined by Aristotle. Dialectical 'logic' is an extension of the formal logic backwards unless destruction, annihilation, violence, and elimination are more important for you than logic....

Dude, I have not quoted most of what you just wrote in the prior message. It would be too much and I think you have taken on too much in your posts.

In order to give us parts of your thinking that we can easily understand, you need to take your ambitions down a notch and provide us with individual posts that focus on a single idea. A single idea may involve responses made by multiple individuals, but at least it's a single idea that we can all focus upon without difficulty.

Heretofore, the way you have been posting, tends to become incoherent and extremely difficult for those of us reading your posts to have a real understanding of what you are attempting to communicate.

Why not post on one topic at time? You will still be able to put your ideas forward, but then we will be able to better grasp your point in each post/message. I'm just saying.

I would want to know your ideas better, but give us a real chance to do so, by putting forward your ideas in bite sized nuggets.

[Tim Redd]

"the true process of existence is the expansion of space-time: The elimination of both emptiness and permanence"

Please give us details on what this means. What does it mean to say that the true process of existence is expansion of space-time? Is "expansion of space-time" the only, or one aspect among many of what the process of existence embodies?

What do you mean by "expansion of space-time"?

How does this expansion of space-time lead to "the elimination of both emptiness and permanence"? Was there an emptiness and realm of impermanence that the process of the expansion of space-time led to the elimination of? If so how did this occur?

[Tim Redd]

Lenin's weakest point was logic, and logic was defined by Aristotle.

Who told you that "Lenin's weakest point was logic"? Specifically how was that true? And how did that have an impact on his life activities?


Dialectical 'logic' is an extension of the formal logic backwards unless destruction, annihilation, violence, and elimination are more important for you than logic.

Huh? Are you implying that dialogic (dialectical logic) is a valid extension of formal logic "unless destruction, annihilation, violence, and elimination are more important for you than logic"? What does that mean?

Why would dialectic logic be a valid extension, but not if "destruction, annihilation, violence, and elimination are more important for you than logic." I've never heard of logic being valid given ones belief on these topics. This sounds suspect to me.

Further, against what is/are the targets being destroyed, annihilated, the subject of violence, and the subject of elimination that would make formal logic more important to you that dialectical logic? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this line of reasoning seems to be off kilter and flawed.


In my proposed Law of Becoming, formal logic arises from dialectical logic. Here is my reasoning for you to decide whether I understand dialectical and formal logics. Reality is inherently dialectical, that is, it constantly changes.

I accept that dialectics is a valid science for understanding many, possibly most, though not all aspects of the motion and development of a thing, things and processes.

Nevertheless, because reality changes doesn't mean that dialectics is the required or only means for reality to change. Dialectics may be a major way that many things change, however dialectics is not the only or necessarily the primary way for other things to change. Please see my paper on how things change and how dialectics is one among other methods for the way in which things change: Beyond Dialectics to Dynamics (http://www.revleft.com/vb/beyond-dialectics-dynamics-t190438/index.html)


Reason is inherently formal, that is, the best method for reason is formal logic.

I disagree. I do not concur that "the best method for reason is formal logic". Why wouldn't it be more beneficial for youth at an early age to see and understand how things can have contradictory properties?

[Tim Redd]

Why not have formal logic as the ending rather than the starting point to dialectics?

Rethinking my earlier position, where I stated that it was naive to think that simpler formal logic would necessarily come after more complex dialectical logic, sometimes it's true that a simpler aspect of something comes after a more complex aspect of it. That could possibly be what happened in this regard.

Anyone up to research ancient studies to determine which came first or if they appeared at the same time?

[Tim Redd]

"the true process of existence is the expansion of space-time: The elimination of both emptiness and permanence"

Please give us details on what this means. What does it mean to say that the true process of existence is expansion of space-time? Is "expansion of space-time" the only, or one aspect among many of what the process of existence embodies?

What do you mean by "expansion of space-time"? [Edit- I stated this last sentence earlier, but I ignored that the inflation of our universe is about an expansion of space-time within it. It's also possible our universe while not only expanding its own space-time is also expanding into the space-time of some already existing realm (universe, or multi-verse framework beyond it.]

I think it's still valid to ask you: How does this expansion of space-time lead to "the elimination of both emptiness and permanence"? Was there an emptiness and realm of impermanence that the process of the expansion of space-time led to the elimination of? If so how did this occur?

[Luís Henrique]

Which brings into question your description of "the cat is on the mat" as a "very basic proposition": it seems that either there are no such things as "very basic propositions", or that at least there are very different kinds of "very basic propositions" (which would need us to effectively "look at how words are used", as opposed to merely lecturing people about doing it, in order to understand). As it is, the use of the word "proposition" implied in your writing seems abusive, or equivocal, or both; perhaps for a lack of "dissolving [specialised] language into [...] ordinary language".

Curiously enough, it would seem that this quite much resembles Austin's reasoning about "performative" utterances...

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

Curiously enough, it would seem that this quite much resembles Austin's reasoning about "performative" utterances...

Luís Henrique

Aristotelian logic would say, "The cat is either on the mat or the cat is not on the mat, " i.e., A = A or A =\= A, A is either A or not A.

Dialectic says that the same cat is never on the same mat at the same time or, the cat is always on the mat and not on the mat at the same time. Thus, A is never equal to A.

Doesn't it seem that modern physics supports dialects? The Heisenberg uncertainty principal and Shroedinger's Cat (the cat is either alive or dead at all times and at the same.)

And, all statements change the reality they describe (Austin.) In physics, the act of measuring something changes either its position or its speed (at least at the quantum level.) But, did Marx's capital change capital?

Any comments?

[Luís Henrique]

Aristotelian logic would say, "The cat is either on the mat or the cat is not on the mat, " i.e., A = A or A =\= A, A is either A or not A.

That would be a quite simplistic description of Aristotelian logic. A more precise one would be, "either the cat is on the mat at a precise time t, or the cat is not on the mat at the same precise time t, considering that 'cat' and 'mat' (and also 'is' and 'on') refer to the same things and relations in both propositions.

Or, in modern symbolism, A = A v A =\= A. Given the same time, place, and relation, of course.

One problem with this, of course, is that "instant t" is an abstraction; any proposition takes time to be enunciated, so it is quite possible that when you start "the cat is..." the proposition that you are intending to make is true, but when you end it, "... on the mat", the entity refered to by the subject of the sentence has decided to go hunt a bug elsewhere, making the proposition false...; but the underlying problem is whether there are "atoms" of time that may actually be called "instants", or whether time is a continuum, in which case "instant t" would be not only an abstraction, but a wrong one.


Dialectic says that the same cat is never on the same mat at the same time or, the cat is always on the mat and not on the mat at the same time. Thus, A is never equal to A.

I am not sure that there is "the" dialectics that says this, though it seems reasonable to believe that there are versions of "dialectics" that revolve around this.

The problem with an ontological "dialectics" is that it posits itself outside of its own reach (if the same cat is never on the same mat at the same time, how comes that dialectics is always the same at all times, regarding all subjects?), and as such is transcendental, denying itself.


Doesn't it seem that modern physics supports dialects? The Heisenberg uncertainty principal and Shroedinger's Cat (the cat is either alive or dead at all times and at the same.)

It seems pretty obvious that modern physics shows us that the universe, at least at some levels, ignores Aristotelian principles of identity and non-contradiction. It also seems pretty obvious that quantic phenomena are an instance of "observation changes reality". As such, quantic phenomena imply recursivity and self-reference. And these aspects that have been dealt with, philosophically, as "dialectics"; what is not so obvious is whether that is the same kind of recursivity and self-reference that we are acquainted with in social sciences, and whether both phenomena can be theoretically treated by a unified theory.


And, all statements change the reality they describe (Austin.)

Yes, that's funny. Austin as a dialectician, who would have guessed? But apparently the guy took the "look at how words are used" shibboleth in serious, with results that must be insatisfactory to the faithful, because it so happens that words are not actually used as the dogma requires (ie, to either make true-or-false statements about the world or mumble "non-sense", further reinterpreted as "nonsense").


In physics, the act of measuring something changes either its position or its speed (at least at the quantum level.) But, did Marx's [I]capital change capital?

I would say so. We previously had a capitalist society without a proper, specifical, non-transcendental, theory of its own workings. Now we have a capitalist society with a proper, specifical, non-transcendental, theory of its own workings. Plus the necessary impacts of theory on practice.

So, as of now, when capital starts choking in its own inability to extort more surplus value, we can understand what is happening, perhaps to the point of seeing that the problem is not that capital cannot extort more surplus value, but that it is increasingly incapable to produce value sans phrase anymore.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Or, in modern symbolism, A = A v A =\= A. Given the same time, place, and relation, of course.

Rather, ∀A: (A v ~A): a proposition cannot be both true and untrue, neither both not true and not untrue - given the same time, place, and relation.

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

Rather, ∀A: (A v ~A): a proposition cannot be both true and untrue, neither both not true and not untrue - given the same time, place, and relation.

Luís Henrique

But quantum mechanics says that an atom can be in two places at the same time, a proposition both true and untrue at the same time and place. You would have to qualify the statement as, "A is either A or not A, at the macro-level."

The problem, dialectically, is that "true" and "untrue" are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[Luís Henrique]

But quantum mechanics says that an atom can be in two places at the same time, a proposition both true and untrue at the same time and place.


It seems pretty obvious that modern physics shows us that the universe, at least at some levels, ignores Aristotelian principles of identity and non-contradiction.


You would have to qualify the statement as, "A is either A or not A, at the macro-level."

That, if thermodynamics didn't also pose problems in this front. And, oh, the social sciences in general - History, Sociology, Economics, Politology - all of them quite "macro" after all.


The problem, dialectically, is that "true" and "untrue" are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I am not sure that this is a problem.

On the other hand, I am increasingly sure that an all-encompassing "dialectics" is an ontological principle, and, as such, very much anti-dialectical in itself.

Luís Henrique

[blake 3:17]

What if there's two cats? And one is on the mat and one is hardly on the mat, but touching it? What if one of the cats died? And some weird dude slipped on one of the cats! And then the scene was left undisturbed for many hours, (though of course the temperature would vary, and there'd be sounds). And it was on a boat travelling 7 kilometres per hour...

[Luís Henrique]

a proposition cannot be both true and untrue, neither both not true and not untrue - given the same time, place, and relation.

So, if it seems that A and not A are both true, we must be speaking of different times (which is trivial), different places (which is even more trivial), or different relations (which in turn gets interesting, especially if we are talking about simultaneous relations between the same things or concepts).

Luís Henrique

[RedMaterialist]

So, if it seems that A and not A are both true, we must be speaking of different times (which is trivial), different places (which is even more trivial), or different relations (which in turn gets interesting, especially if we are talking about simultaneous relations between the same things or concepts).

Luís Henrique

Why are different times and places trivial? Since there are no two same things you can't have a relation between same things.

[Luís Henrique]

Why are different times and places trivial? Since there are no two same things you can't have a relation between same things.

Different times and places are trivial because they refer to merely factual propositions. The cat is on the mat now, the cat wasn't on the mat a few minutes ago, the cat won't be on the mat tonight. There is nothing very interesting here; we already knew that there are different times, and that "now" is different from "then".

Conversely, take for instance this example (suggested by a different discussion by Moishe Postone):

A: Value is directly proportional to wealth.
~A: Value is not directly proportional to wealth.

It is easy to see that A is true: two coats are worth the double value, as well as the double wealth as one single coat. However, ~A is also true: when a society is wealthier, it may produce two coats with the same labour as it formerly produced one - but in this case the value of two coats is the same as the value of one coat used to be. And so, from the fact that both A and ~A are true, we see that there are two different relations at play between value and wealth, which was perhaps not obvious from the start.

Plus, this "contradiction" has an important practical effect: capitalists seek more value, and because A (value is directly proportional to wealth) is true, they will produce more coats to obtain more value - which will put into action the relation within which ~A is true.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

And so, from the fact that both A and ~A are true, we see that there are two different relations at play between value and wealth, which was perhaps not obvious from the start.

And so, tentatively, that value is the form of wealth in a capitalist society, but that the "substance" of wealth is not value at all - though it apparently is.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Redd]

Quote from Luís Henrique
Rather, ∀A: (A v ~A): a proposition cannot be both true and untrue, neither both not true and not untrue - given the same time, place, and relation.

If I make the statement that Ron is both a good and bad leader, taking that as true proposition, it must be possible to break Ron's leadership qualities into at least 2 parts, that is into at least 2 different categories.

For someone to assert at one level that a single entity has a contradictory nature as with Ron's leadership, that entity must be capable of being broken down into at least 2 other parts, or entities. There exists at least one aspect/entity of Ron's leadership that is good and there exists another aspect/entity of Ron's leadership that is bad.

If a single thing/entity has contradictory (or multiple) properties which is quite common about many things, that thing/entity can be divided into at least 2 and possibly more things/entities.