Dialectical Materialism

[LSD]

Since the last thread collapsed into a flame-war, I'm starting a new one.

Proponents of dialectical materialism are invited to present their arguments, as are opponent. A lively discussion is encouraged, but flaming, spamming, class-baiting, personal insults, and ad hominem attacks are not.

This is an important philosophical question, expecially for Marxists, which should and can be addressed in an adult and mature way.

[Hopes_Guevara]

But what precisely do you want us to debate on?

[LSD]

see: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42399

[Red Powers]

I was following the now-locked thread and watched it degenerate into name-calling. But I've been thinking about the example of ice-water-steam as an illustration of quantity into quality. It occurs to me that that is not what is happening at all. The element that changes in quantity, the heat, does not change quality at all. It remains the same as it melts ice, heats up water, and produces steam. And the element that changes quality, the water, remains constant as far as its quantity is concerned. Further, on a molecular level the H2O is experiencing no qualitative change.

Given that this is a prime example of how one of the laws of dialectics works I find it not so useful.

[redstar2000]

There is actually a very large amount of substantive discussion in the closed thread on this topic.

But if it is felt useful to have a "fresh start", I am happy to oblige.

"Dialectics" purports to be a "different" and "better" way of "thinking" (conceptualizing?) about reality.

Can this be demonstrated to be true?

Not just in words...but in actual revolutionary practice?

Do all (or even any) of the 20th century "masters of the dialectic" have anything useful to say to us?

About anything?

No one denies their skill in manipulating obscure Hegelian terminology or intimidating the uninitiated.

But as I have done repeatedly on this board, I am calling their bluff!

I am saying bluntly: where is the evidence to support your claims?

The responses to my challenge have varied somewhat...but I think it entirely fair to characterize their general tone as theological.

It's true because we say it's true!

For a century or more, that was "good enough". Especially since the ghosts of Marx and Engels and later Lenin and Mao could be summoned up to offer the same assurances.

It's not good enough any more. The scientific skepticism that was so rare in 1850 or even 1950 is now becoming more wide-spread. The internet has accelerated this process to an unprecedented degree.

People on this board are very familiar with my attitude towards superstition of all kinds. I am extremely "intolerant"...and proud of it. :P

"Dialectics" makes no appeal to the "gods". But it does claim a kind of "order" in the universe that cannot be empirically demonstrated except in words.

They take natural (and sometimes social) phenomena and simply substitute "dialectical" terminology for the ordinary materialist language that we use to describe those phenomena.

This, they claim, gives them "greater insight" than that of ordinary people using ordinary language.

But I've seen no evidence that their "insight" exceeds that of ordinary people...and considerable evidence to suggest that they usually fall well short of the standards set by ordinary people using ordinary language.

Consequently, I've recently taken to describing "dialectics" as a superstition...that is, a paradigm that's completely divorced from material reality as it really exists.

At best, it reminds me of Ptolemaic cosmology...undoubtedly "clever" but factually wrong. Perhaps Engels was up to that level.

It's gone downhill since then...and no small distance, either.

In the 20th century Leninist parties, it was used as a tool to "justify" whatever the party leadership decided to do at a particular moment. It could be readily used for that purpose because of its inherent lack of precision.

You can "use dialectics" to prove anything...all that's required is familiarity with a few "laws" and some skill at verbally manipulating the terminology.

It was mostly used, in fact, to "justify" one form or another of capitulation to the bourgeoisie.

Those who now wish to rescue "dialectics" from its accelerating descent into historical obscurity sound a note of desperation in their responses...ranging from "we can really do it right, honest" to "the 20th century Leninists were actually pretty good at it and we need to learn from them".

The former is just another unsubstantiated claim while the latter simply provokes mirth and derision.

Perhaps the question should be rephrased.

Should young revolutionaries pay any attention to "dialectics" at all?

Or should they shitcan their "dialectical" texts as they have the "holy books" that they were given as children by their pious relations?

I vehemently endorse the latter option. Every hour spent "studying dialectics" would better be spent in sleep. There is no more to be gained from "dialectics" than from a close inspection of the collected speeches of any randomly chosen bourgeois politician.

It's all crap.

In the closed thread, it was asserted that the sharpness of my attacks on "dialectics" somehow "called into question" the personal motives of those who were defending that folly.

In fact, I did not intend to do so nor do I have that intention now. There are still people around who grew to political maturity in a period when "everyone believed" that "communists are dialecticians". This is an unfortunate accident of history and not a sign of personal perfidy.

People still "believe" in "dialectics"...it's part of their "political heritage" and "tradition".

What I wish they could do is stand back and subject "dialectics" to the same critical examination that they easily apply, for example, to capitalism as a system.

But I am not particularly hopeful in that regard. If one has been taught that one holds "the magic key" to "understanding everything", then giving that up is rather difficult...to say the least.

But...we'll see.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Amusing Scrotum]

I read the last thread with great interest. I myself am, more or less neutral on the subject. I possess neither the intelligence or the knowledge to make a strong argument in favour of either side and I will never be advanced enough intellectually to call myself the defender of "proper" science or the master of the dialect.

However what even I noticed, was that in the last debate both sides shied away from providing specific examples of what is or isn't dialectal.

Therefore I'd like to "turn my hand" to this.

It occurred to me that something like estimating loads on a building could be considered a dialectal process. Maths of course is used to do this, but couldn't the mathematical process in this case be considered dialectal?

After all, there are opposing forces acting on the structure of a building and therefore before the maths are calculated, there needs to be a recognition of these opposing forces.

In this sense couldn't it be said that dialectics compliments the mathematical process and therefore dialectics is a useful philosophy on which to base further scientific exploits.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, you are a lot of wimps if you call that a 'flame war'.

I do not think I have anything to add to what I have already said.

Anything else, I will post on my site for Miles to ignore.

Companero, apologies for misjudging you, but after over twenty years of reading practically the same sort of stuff that you and Miles posted, etc. it is very easy to get pissed off, and to misunderstand it.

I note however that all you ‘progressive’ men cannot stand to be bettered by a working-class woman.

And you especially can't stand it if she fights back.

No wonder modern feminism began in the USA, as women grew sick of such treatment from 'lefty' men.

[Martin Blank]

I see it's still the same old bile from RedStar and Rosa -- with the added twist that Rosa wants to play this as some kind of sexist vendetta against a "working-class woman" (read: trade union bureaucrat and petty-bourgeois academic). Amusing! Amazing! Little does she know....

Well, I'm going to refrain from posting anything else on this thread until these two actually bother to engage the issue.

Miles

[Amusing Scrotum]

Oh dear, isn't everyone being a bit dramatic today. How incredibly childish. :angry:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
After all, there are opposing forces acting on the structure of a building and therefore before the maths are calculated, there needs to be a recognition of these opposing forces.

In this sense couldn't it be said that dialectics compliments the mathematical process and therefore dialectics is a useful philosophy on which to base further scientific exploits.

Of course there are "opposing forces" that affect the structural integrity of any building.

But this is something that ancient engineers learned through practice...the math came considerably later (and is still "a little shaky in spots").

To simply re-phrase this understanding in "dialectical terminology" serves no purpose.

We already know that there are many material causes of what exists and what will exist...and that their effects on one another are complicated.

Not only does it not help to rephrase this understanding "dialectically", it can actually interfere with our understanding.

Most things involve more than two causes.

When you try to "cram" the complexity of real world phenomena into a model that "demands" that everything must be reduced to "two opposing forces", you can't help but end up generating grossly over-simplified and inadequate hypotheses.

For example, if you try to speak intelligently about modern class struggle as simply a struggle between "the proletariat" and "the bourgeoisie", you will end up with vague and essentially useless platitudes.

In reality, it would be far more accurate to speak of proletariats and capitalist classes.

Because it is those "sub-divisions" that actually explain what actually happens.

To be sure, that's a lot more work. You'd actually have to know something about different sections of the working class or the ruling class and what they perceived was in their direct material interests.

You'd have to empirically investigate the real world...you couldn't just "theorize" your way into an understanding.

Rosa Lichtenstein has pointed out in one of the essays on her site that there's a kind of "general characteristic" of all forms of philosophic reasoning: that truth can be attained simply from the correct handling of words.

I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether what she says is "true in general"...but I do think it applies to "dialectics" with special forcefulness. By simply naming this or that the "primary contradiction", you can "logically" continue to any destination you please.

It's that flexible!

And, consequently, as useful as a ruler made of very soft rubber.

What's the distance between two points? It's whatever you please.

How can something like that be considered useful in any reasonable sense of the word?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeRed]

I still would like to see a dialectician do a geometry proof dialectically. Something where we can see the merit of both the "metaphysical" formal logic and the "superlogic" of dialectics side by side.

[Guest1]

I don't think we're going to get anywhere at all.

But I'll give it a try.

Let's start with a definition of philosophy, then and now. Seeing as this is so confusing to some opponents of Dialectical Materialism.

Philosophy, just as religion, began as a way of exploring the world and finding explanations for objective processes when we had none. This role has gradually been replaced by science, and today we are left with a crisis in philosophy.

I say a crisis, because I'm sure all of us have run across the metaphysical crap that passes for philosophy these days, all of which has been thoroughly ruled out by a scientific understanding of reality.

What passes for philosophy now seems to be spirituality, or new age bull.

So, obviously, that's a dead end. Where then is philosophy still useful? In the realm of logic, organizing thoughts and having a consistent critical approach to the categories we form.

Forget everything the bureaucrats said, everyone thinks in some form of logic, this is not difficult. You don't need to know obscure terms, you don't need to be a magician.

It is simply a matter of ease to have a "shorthand" method to ensure consistency in our approach to organizing thoughts.

Now, formal logic's laws are as follows:


1. Law of identity.
2. Law of contradiction.
3. Law of the excluded middle.
The law of identity states that A=A.

The law of contradiction states that A cannot equal not A. Which is just a restatement of the law of identity really.

By extension, the law of the excluded middle also restates a different element of the first two, as it just asserts the identity of statements by refusing the idea of middle ground between opposites.

This is a very basic rundown, just to put us firmly on a philosophical footing and kill the attempts to debate philosophy through politics, so anyone who wants to add to that or correct it, feel free.

This is an approach based entirely on the form, hence, formal logic. It does not draw its categories from the objective world, and this is its failure.

Regardless, this is a logical approach that has its uses when it comes to many discussions. Sometimes considering the middle ground, or the fact that A is never A (as in no two things are identical, even to themselves), is just not practical. It is an abstraction that is useful for simple ideas, and many mathematical considerations.

Dialectical Materialism attempts to create not a logical system, but guidelines which are drawn from the objective world.

The laws of dialectics are as follows:


1. Law of interpenetration of opposites.
2. Law of quantitative into qualitative.
3. Law of the negation of the negation.
The law of the interpenetration of opposites basically states that in every process, the most important aspect is that of the unity and conflict of opposing elements and forces.

The law of quantitative into qualitative states that from those conflicts comes gradual changes of a quantitative character which modify the balance of forces until they reach a certain tipping point where that balance is broken in a major way.

The law of the negation of the negation states that a new balance of forces then follows, on a higher level, and so a return to the same situation can never be. Even if the process is reversed, a circular development is not possible, and an entirely new situation with elements of the new and the old arises.

[ComradeRed]

What about Constructivist logic? It rejects the law of the excluded middle, arguing that everything has to be proven (or else it is unjustified or undetermined).

As you might expect, it originates from mathematics, where one would prove theorems. This conflicts with classical logic, being if you can prove the opposite of proposition A false then proposition A is true (if I'm not wet, then I'm dry).

Constructivist logic points out you could be covered with snow, or mud, or dirt, or something else. Thus if you aren't wet that doesn't make you dry. Or, in other words, you cannot equate a double negative with a positive...curiously a positive can be extended to imply a double negative (e.g. if I am dry then I am not wet).


Originally posted by Che y Marijuana
This is an approach based entirely on the form, hence, formal logic. It does not draw its categories from the objective world, and this is its failure. Actually, modern mathematical logic has provided a fascinating new template originating from category theory: topos.

Used in mathematical logic, topos (plural is "topoi") can categorize "the objective world" according to a set of axioms of what you are looking for.

The objection, however, that symbolic (mathematical) logic isn't philosophical logic and thus should be disregarded seems rather short sighted. This, however, falls to the philosophical question as to why you are using logic; are you making a new theory with it, or are you trying to do the laundry?

If it is the former, then math has it taken care of! Systems Analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_analysis) is a fascinating field, mathematics at its prime.

The easiest system to explain is a programming system (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-4.html#%_toc_start) [1] (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-25.html#%_chap_4). Of course, if you don't know programming, then this does not good!

Not only is this all straightforward, but there is nothing confusing about it. Examples can easily be cited in any field of math, viz. mathematical logic and topoi.

Dialectics sound consistent and as if they actually do something. However, they are only intellectual tools; and like any tool when it's worn dull, it's time to upgrade for the sake of precision.

Why bother with a fountain pen when we have computers?

[Guest1]

We're not talking computer logic or programming.

We're talking everyday logic that anyone can use.

There's no need to obscure the philosophical discussion with mathematical constructs that are not useful as a way of thinking, but rather find their use in computers and the like.

Philosophical logic is the shorthand basis for our thoughts, not something for people to make advanced calculations with. From that philosophical basis, you can examine things more deeply with complex mathematical equations, but it is useful to have a conscious philosophical logic that is conducive to a good basic understanding from which to proceed.

[ComradeRed]

We're not talking computer logic or programming.

We're talking everyday logic that anyone can use.Please, present a geometric proof with dialectical logic. Or even create a "dialectical proof theory", presenting something that would give an equal comparison to logic.

What good is dialectics if it cannot prove something? This is not too unreasonable a request.

Dialectics, it has been asserted, can easily be deduced from observing systems. In the mathematical field of systems analysis, there should logically be some dialectical superstructure in existence.

And with what luck! Systems analysis is entirely mathematically explained! Dialectics should thus be in the equations! Of course, not defending dialectics, I expect that if it were real and not manhandled onto systems it could easily be presented by even an elementary dialectician.


There's no need to obscure the philosophical discussion with mathematical constructs that are not useful as a way of thinking, but rather find their use in computers and the like. Neither topoi nor categories are part of computer science. And systems analysis is more mathematically inclined, as it is a mathematical tool to describe systems (hence the name systems analysis).

Even by wikipedia's definition: "Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field with origins in engineering, physics and applied mathematics but has been extended into many areas of natural sciences and humanities such as biology, economics and psychology."

Unlike dialectics, math can be used to do something. Why isn't dialectics used "in computers and the like"?

Could it be that math, groups, categories, and topoi present an easier and superior form of reasoning that anyone can understand?

Or is it that the only way to defend dialectics against mathematical logic is to dismiss it as "mathematical constructs that are not useful as a way of thinking"?


Philosophical logic is the shorthand basis for our thoughts, not something for people to make advanced calculations with. Indeed, it cannot even present an elementary geometry problem, much less these abstract thoughts.


From that philosophical basis, you can examine things more deeply with complex mathematical equations, but it is useful to have a conscious philosophical logic that is conducive to a good basic understanding from which to proceed. Will you provide a dialectical analysis of tensor calculus? I am very interested in seeing a deeper understanding of this complex mathematical field.

Or maybe that is too elementary. What about operator theory? Or even Riemannian geometry?

This does raise a large number of issues with metamathematics, though; how can we say philosophy does a better job describing (or intuitively investigating, or "a priori apprehension" or whatever you wish to call it) mathematics than math itself does?

And what use, if it could do so, would philosophy be if it couldn't even present an example of its application through an elementary geometry proof? Can it then be used for something even more complex like describing mathematics?

But "clearly" the "common folk" are "too stupid" to understand math, as if they'd understand dialectics better somehow; how could we say that math is thus the better form of reasoning?

Could it be due to the fact that math is a useful intellectual tool? :o

[Quota 76 denial]

But "clearly" the "common folk" are "too stupid" to understand math, as if they'd understand dialectics better somehow; how could we say that math is thus the better form of reasoning?

Could it be due to the fact that math is a useful intellectual tool?
why does it matter if math is better reasoning than a philosophic concept? That is begging the question of what we are trying to understand, dialectical materialism. (You should note that everytime you respond to my questions you give just as much an answer, you play the game as if i was reducing you so you attempt to negate "the other's" positon only to force that sort of reduction. In every instance ComradeRed you challenge philosopher's to answer a question that you believe has no answer. So you readily negate the answer before it is given, this is only to cause the disscussion to collapse around your pointless challenge. You're interpretation and usage of mathematics is alienating, this is something I disagree with.) ComradeRed you still do not realize that in your chioce of words you stray yourself from any possibility of truth. I mean you present the challenge for the dialectic to prove something, but in every instance you avoid truth. I mean it seems as if your realization of truth is only objectified or valued on the premises that hold value i.e. mathematics. Understood as a descriptive part of the system of objects which math through proof has dedicated to answer. the closest interpretation of dialectical logic your seeking might reside in Godel's theorem. But that is still insufficient it might be more readily advanced through modal logic.

To continue on in the discussion,
I am interested in the following quote given from Che y Marijuana

The law of quantitative into qualitative states that from those conflicts comes gradual changes of a quantitative character which modify the balance of forces until they reach a certain tipping point where that balance is broken in a major way.
I'm interested in the conflict part, maybe you could elaborate on that issue. And i'm curious what type of balance is necessary in quantities and qualities?

[ComradeRed]

You should note that everytime you respond to my questions you give just as much an answer, [as much as?] you play the game as if i was reducing you so you attempt to negate "the other's" positon only to force that sort of reduction. In every instance ComradeRed you challenge philosopher's to answer a question that you believe has no answer. So you readily negate the answer before it is given, this is only to cause the disscussion to collapse around your pointless challenge. I'm simply asking the dialecticians to present mathematical proof (or, better, a mathematical formulation) of dialectics.

Anyone can word anything to sound authentic or real, but this is the exact reason why you can prove anything with statistics. Dialectics can be worded to sound as if they can do something, despite not doing anything in reality.


You're interpretation and usage of mathematics is alienating, this is something I disagree with. I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree, the extent to which math is mystified compared to how much is known is considerably greater. It's all most as though arguing in Latin, with the exception that math is a tool rather than a language.


ComradeRed you still do not realize that in your chioce of words you stray yourself from any possibility of truth. I mean you present the challenge for the dialectic to prove something, but in every instance you avoid truth. I mean it seems as if your realization of truth is only objectified or valued on the premises that hold value i.e. mathematics. No, this is not my intent at all. My intent is that with the tool of mathematics, logic has already been "mathematized". If we could also "mathematize" dialectics, we have a fair and unbiased way to compare the two.

I am not trying to use math as a tool of truth. I am using it as a medium of communication (ironically enough).

Any form of logic can be formulated with topoi, and curiously enough mathematics can be formulated with topoi that can ignore certain rules. In a sense topoi are the tools I am asking the dialecticians to use to use.

If they can encode dialectics successfully with it, not only can we learn more about the dialectic through this neutral medium of communication but we can also compare it in relation to formal logic.

I do assert that math, on its own, is a superior form of reason...just as any structured thinking applied to something with defined rules yields superior skills in reasoning(e.g. geometry, programming, etc.).

And I do assert that unless and until a practical example of dialectics in simple English (or better math) can be presented, it can only be concluded that the dialecticians do not want to be understood. If anything can be said, it can be said clearly and simply.

And, as the Church-Turing Thesis points out, if anything can be formulated it can be formulated mathematically. Is it then too much to ask for dialectics to be formulated mathematically? If so, what is there to hide?

[shadows]

Iconoclasm can't replace the analysis, and loading up on references to math or any other 'hard' (i.e., less ambiguous overall) tool to evaluate dialectics misses the point, and paradoxically places excessive importance on dialectics. Truth value, utility, historical line of demarcation, none of it is important IMO. Yet, those who have adopted pragmatism, empiricism, et al. have generally strayed from 'far left' to the right - James Burnham, Schactman, Sidney Hook, and likely many others. So, maybe, it is rejection of dialectics that indicates something - like the greater or lesser likelihood of removing oneself from Marxism or the Marxist worldview. Whether or not dialectics has 'value' of some sort, who knows. I like Althusser on this question, but I also recall Lucio Coletti case in which he went from rejecting Hegelian dialectics as mystical, embracing Kant, and then serving in Berlusconi's (sic?) government (of course, not a trajectory).

[Guest1]

I have explained to you, quite clearly, what dialectics is.

I'm afraid it is you who is attempting to obscure this debate, once again. I will not lie, I have absolutely no fucking idea what the hell "topoi" are. Perhaps you can start a thread about how workers should all learn to think in calculus.

Secondly, you are asking me to describe a philosophy which is pretty opposed to your obscurantist method (thoughts are not mathematical formulae), in your own obscurantist terms. I'm not sure how that works. I'm assuming this "topoi" stuff is a pseudo-philosophical construct, in which case you are asking for an opposing philosophy to adopt, accept and use your philosophical method to demonstrate its method. That doesn't make much sense to me, as this debate is about different logics.

The point of dialectics is that anyone can use them, I'm not about to engage in a pointless exercise which even I cannot understand. At the end of it, what use would the philosophy have in everyday life if you need a calculator to express it?

As for being sued to "prove" things, you are again leaving the realm of philosophy. Please reread my definition of what philosophy is. Science proves things. Philsophy helps us have shorthand understandings, categorize our thoughts, and approach our persuits of knowledge in a consistent manner (looking at process and contradiction rather than snapshot and absolute definition in the case of dialectic vs. formal logic).

Nothing more.


I'm interested in the conflict part, maybe you could elaborate on that issue. And i'm curious what type of balance is necessary in quantities and qualities?
Well, proceeding from the reality that everything is really a process of change rather than a dead object, change is the result of contradictory and opposing elements. Clearly there can be many elements all intertwining and interacting in different ways and degrees, some supporting and some opposing, rather than just two. Yet several tendencies develop out of those interactions.

A certain order emerges, as in society, often with two (for sake of simplicity as I explain we will limit it to two) very strong tendencies in a kind of equilibrium within their struggle. That does not mean however, that that opposition has reached an absolute equilibrium, it is a tenuous one, which actually contains within it a huge amount of small changes.

In the case of water for example, which I will re-explain since someone completely misunderstood, you have the tendency towards settling and dissipating energy within the water. In otherwords, a tendency towards passing the heat from the water to the surrounding environment. Then you have the tendency towards a state of high energy. These, for a time, are in a kind of equilibrium, the heat is resisted by the loss of heat. (I know this is idiotically simplistic, bare with me). Slowly however, more and more molecules reach a state of agitation and high energy until enough has happened to break the equilibrium decisively. The water moves from a state of fluidity to a turbulent, chaotic body which boils and passes to gas. This does not happen all gradually, the buildup does. However, the boiling is very much sudden, at 100 degrees celsius at sea level.

This is a very bad example, I know, but I'll give a better one if you want.

I hope that gives a bit of an insight however.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:07 PM
Of course there are "opposing forces" that affect the structural integrity of any building.

But this is something that ancient engineers learned through practice...the math came considerably later (and is still "a little shaky in spots").

To simply re-phrase this understanding in "dialectical terminology" serves no purpose.

We already know that there are many material causes of what exists and what will exist...and that their effects on one another are complicated.

Not only does it not help to rephrase this understanding "dialectically", it can actually interfere with our understanding.
I didn't respond to this earlier because I wanted to place us on a serious footing before dealing with misunderstandings or mischaracterizations.

What you are saying here is simply "yes, dialectics describes the world, but is too obvious to be useful". Dialectics is not about terminology, it's about method. You don't have to "rephrase" anything, just know that the important part of that process is the interaction of opposing forces. That is all. It's unfortunate that the bureaucrats made such a big deal of words, and dumped the method, but we all know their interpretations of Marxism were designed to be confusing and useful only to them.


Most things involve more than two causes.

When you try to "cram" the complexity of real world phenomena into a model that "demands" that everything must be reduced to "two opposing forces", you can't help but end up generating grossly over-simplified and inadequate hypotheses.
Dialectics does not attempt to reduce things to two causes. Often however, a small number of strong tendencies emerge in a process, sometimes two, sometimes three, whatever. This is where "summarizing" can often be useful to understand (but not to calculate).

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana) I have explained to you, quite clearly, what dialectics is.[/b] Yes, I do not contest this.

What I would like to see is dialectics applied to something in common language. Or better yet perform a geometric proof dialectically.

Something where we can see dialectics at work in something that can be compared to logic without bias.


I'm afraid it is you who is attempting to obscure this debate, once again. I will not lie, I have absolutely no fucking idea what the hell "topoi" are. It is more or less a mathematical construction to describe systems, metasystems, logic, forms of reason, and thus dialectics.

It would make it infinitely easier to see the use of dialectics and how easily it supposedly is "deduced from" systems in general.

Or we can leave the supposed superiority of dialectics a mystery and just assert it is better. Whichever.


Perhaps you can start a thread about how workers should all learn to think in calculus. Hey, I got a better idea! Lets teach them dialectics! That ought to help things out a bit!

Better, we can have a vanguard of "Super" men and women to mythically induce the revolution from thin air! And the magicians of the future could join in!

Metaphysicists of the world, unite!


Secondly, you are asking me to describe a philosophy which is pretty opposed to your obscurantist method (thoughts are not mathematical formulae), in your own obscurantist terms. I'm not sure how that works. I'm assuming this "topoi" stuff is a pseudo-philosophical construct, in which case you are asking for an opposing philosophy to adopt, accept and use your philosophical method to demonstrate its method. That doesn't make much sense to me, as this debate is about different logics. How convenient! A dialectician is complaining about terminology!

This "pseudo-philosophical construct" was made about a century and a half ago by mathematicians. About a century ago it was used for a different purpose: to build and analyze different systems, and evaluate different rules.

What better use than to settle this debate?

Now, not being a dialectical wizard, I cannot simply mash dialectics into the language of topoi. Yet English really doesn't do a dialectician justice, since the explanations of even the most elementary phenomena is overly bombastic.

Thus the need for middle ground. What is better than the math that describes different logic?

Then again this could be the very reason why dialecticians oppose it so vehemently.


The point of dialectics is that anyone can use them, I'm not about to engage in a pointless exercise which even I cannot understand. At the end of it, what use would the philosophy have in everyday life if you need a calculator to express it? Good point, reasoning should be done by anyone.

How can we say that dialectics is then a good form of reasoning when it requires an esoteric lexicon, nonsensical methods which can't be demonstrated without incoherent explanations?

All I am asking is to present dialectics being used to do a geometric proof, or better to reformulate dialectics with topoi. Since the former is such an "outlandish" demand (as it is apparently too much to ask for reason to be put in a reasonable form), why not present dialectics doing a geometric proof?


As for being sued to "prove" things, you are again leaving the realm of philosophy. Please reread my definition of what philosophy is. Science proves things. Philsophy helps us have shorthand understandings, categorize our thoughts, and approach our persuits of knowledge in a consistent manner (looking at process and contradiction rather than snapshot and absolute definition in the case of dialectic vs. formal logic). What good is dialectics if it can't do a damn thing in the real world?

I know, it's shocking to demand something that works in the evil a postereori. But reasoning is the ability to prove, not categorize, things.

Further the narrow definition of science as it "proves things" excludes physics, biology, and chemistry from being a science. Nothing is proven, rather it is proposed until a better paradigm comes along and explains it better. Take for example classical and quantum mechanics; the former couldn't explain the electron's seemingly random motion, yet the latter could. Thus the latter reigned (and still reigns) supreme.

It isn't that classical mechanics couldn't prove the electron moves in bizarre ways; it was that quantum mechanics had a better (not the) explanation of the electron.

Or in biology, it wasn't that Lamarck's evolution couldn't explain evolution correctly, it was Darwin who explained it better. And so on.

So these are all philosophy?

Perhaps, since these all describe processes (viz. physics, biology, and chemistry). Yet why then would anyone bother with something like dialectics?


shadows
Iconoclasm can't replace the analysis, and loading up on references to math or any other 'hard' (i.e., less ambiguous overall) tool to evaluate dialectics misses the point, and paradoxically places excessive importance on dialectics. I beg to differ. Mathematics, the "dreaded iconoclasm", has a fantastic track record of analysis. Why there is even a field entirely of analysis.

Even the sort of analysis you speak of! It's called mathematical abstraction (in math, if we have a function f(x) the "f( )" part is called the abstractor; hence abstractions).

Math is limitless in what it can do, which is why I ask for dialectics formulated in it. Maybe that does miss the point of dialectics though; I mean, it's not as though dialecticians are trying to be understood.


Truth value, utility, historical line of demarcation, none of it is important IMO. Yet, those who have adopted pragmatism, empiricism, et al. have generally strayed from 'far left' to the right - James Burnham, Schactman, Sidney Hook, and likely many others. The use of logic is not a litmus test of political view! There is this little thing called "Class consciousness" that plays a minor role as well.

To say that some people on the left have become rightists "because of logic" is quite simply an absurd conjecture; there is no reason why it occurs.

"It just does!"


So, maybe, it is rejection of dialectics that indicates something - like the greater or lesser likelihood of removing oneself from Marxism or the Marxist worldview. Whether or not dialectics has 'value' of some sort, who knows. This is more or less pure dogmatism. The myth "dialectics=Marxism" is no better than saying "wealth=intelligence".

If Marxism is about one thing, it is criticism. How can one therefore be a dogmatic critic? Much less a dialectical Marxist (Leninism, of course, is a mystified and distorted interpretation based on crude misunderstandings of Marxism, thus disqualifying itself from this criticism; and Maoism, in relation to Leninism, is what Leninism is in relation to Marxism).

Until dialectics are shown useful, there is no point in using them. This is the edge that Logic has: it can prove useful things!

And who wants that?

[shadows]

Well, the avoidance of pragmatism/Deweyesque style, which is how others have gone out of the movement is not unrelated to the rejection of dialectics, or even making dialectics into an issue. (Here I am reminded of Novacks' Polemics in Marxist Philosophy, which has some interesting stuff on dialectics; but, again, I don't consider dialectics an issue, unless one chooses to make an issue of it, and historically this happens prior to renunciation of Marxism, or at least its semblance.) I'm not arguing against mathematics, only substituting math for dialectics isn't really a solution. Then again, what on earth is the problem?

[shadows]

Let me clarify my last post: avoidance of pragmatism by those who reject the political trajectory of renegades from Marxism but seek to replace dialectics with something more precise, perhaps a little less dialectical or Hegelian and more 'logical.'

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:08 PM
What I would like to see is dialectics applied to something in common language. Or better yet perform a geometric proof dialectically.

Something where we can see dialectics at work in something that can be compared to logic without bias.
You're still avoiding treating dialectics as a philosophy.


It is more or less a mathematical construction to describe systems, metasystems, logic, forms of reason, and thus dialectics.
Good for topois. Unfortunately, I don't see any real gain in describing forms of human thought in mathematical terms.


It would make it infinitely easier to see the use of dialectics and how easily it supposedly is "deduced from" systems in general.
Or it could ensure no one would have any idea what the fuck we are talking about except mathematicians train in topois.

Why don't we stick to describing philosophy in understandable language instead?


Or we can leave the supposed superiority of dialectics a mystery and just assert it is better. Whichever.
There are other ways to debate philosophy than to convert it into algebra. In fact, this is the first time I've ever encountered anyone arrogant enough to demand that all philosophy be expressed mathematically.

Even if I believed this method made any sense and wanted to pursue it, which I certainly don't, I wouldn't know where to begin!


Hey, I got a better idea! Lets teach them dialectics! That ought to help things out a bit!

Better, we can have a vanguard of "Super" men and women to mythically induce the revolution from thin air! And the magicians of the future could join in!

Metaphysicists of the world, unite!
No one has to be "taught" dialectics. It's not so complicated, and does not require 19th century language. It's about the content, not the terminology. It's very simple, as I showed above. Everything changes, change comes from contradiction, etc... That's not so complicated, is it? Or is change and contradiction terminology you can't understand? Or worse yet, you think workers can't understand?


How convenient! A dialectician is complaining about terminology!

This "pseudo-philosophical construct" was made about a century and a half ago by mathematicians. About a century ago it was used for a different purpose: to build and analyze different systems, and evaluate different rules.
Good for topois.


What better use than to settle this debate?
Except that it doesn't work if no one but you understands what the hell topois are! This is like asking me to debate dialectics in spanish, a language which I cannot use, and then accusing me of avoiding the debate when I explain that's impossible!


Now, not being a dialectical wizard, I cannot simply mash dialectics into the language of topoi. Yet English really doesn't do a dialectician justice, since the explanations of even the most elementary phenomena is overly bombastic.

Thus the need for middle ground. What is better than the math that describes different logic?

Then again this could be the very reason why dialecticians oppose it so vehemently.
I'm not a topoi shaman either, so I guess we're stuck, aren't we? To be fair however, I will point you in the direction of a science that was literally born from dialectics in the USSR, the science of chaos and complexity. It holds plenty of mathematical proofs of the dialectical nature of the universe. You can peruse through that at your own pace.


How can we say that dialectics is then a good form of reasoning when it requires an esoteric lexicon, nonsensical methods which can't be demonstrated without incoherent explanations?
It does not require 19th century terminology, again. Even with that terminology however, the words "quantitative change" and "qualitative change" are not at all difficult to understand. The rules above are what dialectics is, not too complicated, you can use any words you want to describe them, the rules are what matters.


All I am asking is to present dialectics being used to do a geometric proof, or better to reformulate dialectics with topoi. Since the former is such an "outlandish" demand (as it is apparently too much to ask for reason to be put in a reasonable form), why not present dialectics doing a geometric proof?
Please relearn what philosophy is, and what the difference between a philosophy and a mathematical equation is.


What good is dialectics if it can't do a damn thing in the real world?

I know, it's shocking to demand something that works in the evil a postereori. But reasoning is the ability to prove, not categorize, things.
Reasoning can be used to describe, to theorize, to debate, to categorize, but at the final analysis, it is science and mathematics that must be used to prove (in the practical, not absolute sense).


Further the narrow definition of science as it "proves things" excludes physics, biology, and chemistry from being a science. Nothing is proven, rather it is proposed until a better paradigm comes along and explains it better. Take for example classical and quantum mechanics; the former couldn't explain the electron's seemingly random motion, yet the latter could. Thus the latter reigned (and still reigns) supreme.
Or we could be reasonable and understand what prove means in practical terms, rather than take it to the absolute extreme.


It isn't that classical mechanics couldn't prove the electron moves in bizarre ways; it was that quantum mechanics had a better (not the) explanation of the electron.

Or in biology, it wasn't that Lamarck's evolution couldn't explain evolution correctly, it was Darwin who explained it better. And so on.

So these are all philosophy?
No, they are giraffes.

I think it's pretty clear to anyone what the difference between philosophy and science is.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by shadows+--> (shadows)Yet, those who have adopted pragmatism, empiricism, et.al., have generally strayed from 'far left' to the right - James Burnham, [Max] Schactman, Sidney Hook, and likely many others. So, maybe, it is rejection of dialectics that indicates something - like the greater or lesser likelihood of removing oneself from Marxism or the Marxist worldview.[/b]

Since the three gentlemen that you mentioned were Leninist-Trotskyists, I question your implication that "rejecting 'dialectics' = rejecting Marxism"...since I consider Leninism an idealist distortion of Marxism to begin with.

Those middle-class academics realized, I think, that the despotism of capital paid higher wages than the despotism of the party...and acted accordingly.

That's not particularly remarkable...and is certainly irrelevant to the "merits" of "dialectics".


Comrade Red
It's almost as though arguing in Latin, with the exception that math is a tool rather than a language.

I tend to think of mathematics as "both" a tool and a language.

You can actually say things in math that simply cannot be expressed accurately in the words of any other language.

Of course, there may be many things that cannot (yet) be expressed in mathematical "words"...but it seems, like all living languages, to be remarkably "flexible" and able to "express new ideas" with considerable agility.

It's a very difficult language to learn, of course...and has something of the kind of "super status" that Latin had in the medieval period.

People have even told lies in the language of mathematics...and can impress the mathematically "illiterate" until such time as another mathematician translates the lie into the words of our common language and exposes the mathematical lie for what it is.

What is most astonishing about the language of mathematics it that it seems to be able to describe the real universe with unprecedented and unequaled precision.

"Dialecticians" claim that "reality is dialectical".

Theologians claim that "reality is spiritual".

Mathematicians claim that reality is mathematical.

The "math geeks" can back up their claim with an astoundingly successful track record.

Neither "dialecticians" nor theologians are even "in the race".

Doesn't that "count for something"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[shadows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:13 AM


That's not particularly remarkable...and is certainly irrelevant to the "merits" of "dialectics"
The point is that once one who identifies as Marxist dumps dialectics, at least in theory (for her/his practice might or might not have conformed to 'dialectical logic'), the stage is set for abandoning Marxism. This doesn't mean that everyone critical of dialectics' supposed value as at least a heuristic is on this road to renegade status, but there is ample precedent.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Redstar2000+--> (Redstar2000)I tend to think of mathematics as "both" a tool and a language.

You can actually say things in math that simply cannot be expressed accurately in the words of any other language.[/b]Agreed. That is one of the things that I respect with regards to math: its varsatility. It is not only the best intellectual tool, but the best medium for communication of intellectual systems.


The point is that once one who identifies as Marxist dumps dialectics, at least in theory (for her/his practice might or might not have conformed to 'dialectical logic'), the stage is set for abandoning Marxism. Just as those Trotskyites obviously held onto those core Marxist values, right? I mean staying faithful to the holy dialectic and all.


Che y Marijuana
You're still avoiding treating dialectics as a philosophy. Yeah, I'm treating it as tool, since most of the Leninists and the "orthodoxy" claim it to be.

Even in philosophy tools are created. As Redstar2000 pointed out, whether it's the "Allmighty" dialectic or "God" it's crap!

Here's why: philosophy permits nothing to be proven. Not only is this unscientific (not in the vulgar Popperian sense but the Kuhnian sense) but it is useless.

It is a farce of real tools.



Good for topois. Unfortunately, I don't see any real gain in describing forms of human thought in mathematical terms. No? Maybe it can compare the various methods of formulation of human thought? Since dialectics "obviously" are "the" superior tool, why is it so hard to describe anything that is dialectical (viz. dialectics itself) in mathematics?

Hell, if dialectics were this super logic Lenin, inc. claims it to be, we have only to gain by formulating it in topoi.

Of course, now it seems like a good idea to stop. Why? What do dialecticians have to hide? Perhaps the "greatest" epoch of human history?

No, it's the math. "Clearly" nothing so vulgar can be used by "real" crackpots. Only dialectics is good enough!



Or it could ensure no one would have any idea what the fuck we are talking about except mathematicians train in topois.

Why don't we stick to describing philosophy in understandable language instead? How "the fuck" do you intend to prove that dialectics aren't some crackpot theory manhandled onto nature?

Why don't we use a medium that can prove it one way or the other?

Or better yet, we could use the medium itself! Try writting an article for a physics (or any science) journal in dialectics!

No, physics is obviously too metaphysical. Why didn't I think of that?

It seems dialectics "could ensure no one would have any idea what the fuck we are talking about" with no exception.


There are other ways to debate philosophy than to convert it into algebra. In fact, this is the first time I've ever encountered anyone arrogant enough to demand that all philosophy be expressed mathematically. Yes, my "fucking" "arrogance" is obviously out of place. Who in their right mind who ask to see a method reformulated into common sense?

Oh right, scientists. Not to mention anyone who wants to gain anything from the method itself!

But again, who wants that?


Even if I believed this method made any sense and wanted to pursue it, which I certainly don't, I wouldn't know where to begin!Regardless of your beliefs, this would be the most scientific presentation of dialectics for a sane comparison to logic (as opposed to brandishing the "m" word again and again in place of arguments).

But, luckily for you, I've met a dialectician willing to learn the math.


No one has to be "taught" dialectics. It's not so complicated, and does not require 19th century language. What is so terribly ironic about this statement is that Hegel's books preach dialectics; and they are written in a 19th century dialect of German.

Or we could go back to the writtings describing Heraclitus' philosophy, written in Ancient Greek.

But 19th century German is common sense...why question what it means? Just take it on faith of the holy trinity: the thesis, the antithesis, and the "Allmighty" synthesis.

Cue hymn...

:lol:


It's very simple, as I showed above. Everything changes, change comes from contradiction, etc... That's not so complicated, is it? Or is change and contradiction terminology you can't understand? Or worse yet, you think workers can't understand? I think the workers can pretend to understand, just as they can pretend to understand "God". But lets be real, no one can understand bullshit.

Especially when it is forced upon nature. The holy trinity is responsible for everything.

Contradiction, change, etc. "Ahmen!"

Hey, we can go with my "fucking" crazy idea of teaching stuff that fucking works!

But where does the vanguard come in? If we abolish the holy trinity, there can be no clergy!

I'm willing to pay that "hefty" price.



Except that it doesn't work if no one but you understands what the hell topois are! This is like asking me to debate dialectics in spanish, a language which I cannot use, and then accusing me of avoiding the debate when I explain that's impossible! No, its more like you refusing to debate in spanish not because you cannot speak it but because you are unwilling to!

That only makes me suspicious. If something is correct, and there is a far superior medium to explain it in, why the hell won't you explain it in the better medium?

What do dialecticians have to hide?



I'm not a topoi shaman either, so I guess we're stuck, aren't we? To be fair however, I will point you in the direction of a science that was literally born from dialectics in the USSR, the science of chaos and complexity. It holds plenty of mathematical proofs of the dialectical nature of the universe. You can peruse through that at your own pace. I presume you are referring to the Chaos theory which gained popularity in the last 20 or 30 years, no?

I have actually looked at some of it. I've briefly studied at "the Mecca" of Chaos theory, that's right, the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Guess what: not only has chaos theory been the biggest blunder since ether, but it has absolutely no application to reality.

Huzzah for dialectical chaos theory! Sine application, cum magnum failure! (My broken latin)


Please relearn what philosophy is, and what the difference between a philosophy and a mathematical equation is. Please learn some logic, for you obviously cannot understand its application.

If we were to apply logic and dialectics to the same problem, we can deduce the consequences therein.

For example solving a geometric proof. We can see step-by-step "dialectics in action". Then we can compare it to formal logic. Then from the comparison it will be simple to tell which tool is superior.

Or better yet, I'll make it easier for every dialectician again. Do a math proof dialectically. It shouldn't matter what medium is used, e.g. an algebra or geometry (or tensor, or calculus, or...) proof, if dialectics are worth a damn, they can be used in this superior manner!


Reasoning can be used to describe, to theorize, to debate, to categorize, but at the final analysis, it is science and mathematics that must be used to prove (in the practical, not absolute sense). Ah, but apparently there is no distinguishing features from "metaphysical" logic to the "superior dialectics". Reasoning gets the job done.

Why bother with dialectics? Math teaches superior reasoning; hell, even geometry alone teaches better reasoning.

Therefore it is only sane, let alone reasonable, to make the trade of dialectics for geometry (or we can even go the whole nine yards for math! But hey, its not as though Marxism is science, right?).



I think it's pretty clear to anyone what the difference between philosophy and science is. I reiterate this fact: it's pretty to anyone what the difference between bullshit and science is.

[Comrade Martin]

ComradeRed, you're here too? I still don't agree with you on religious theories. I think they are just as applicable as any other when there is no evidence to the contrary. This is to be seperated from the possibility of a metaphysical realm, which I also defended the possibility of against ComradeRed previously elseware when he claimed that it isn't possible, because he's a physics major, and that makes him an authority on realms beyond the physical realm. :rolleyes: Anyway, this post is off topic...

Just to actually say something in regards to the topic, I will say that Dialectical Materialism is the logic upon which we base our Marxist understandings, and the three laws of dialectics are eternally applicable. Hell, here's a simple example by Trotsky of the first law: "A housewife knows that a certain amount of salt flavours soup agreeably, but that added salt makes the soup unpalatable. Consequently, an illiterate peasant woman guides herself in cooking soup by the Hegelian law of the transformation of quantity into quality." -Trotsky

[ComradeRed]

ComradeRed, you're here too? I still don't agree with you on religious theories. I think they are just as applicable as any other when there is no evidence to the contrary. This is to be seperated from the possibility of a metaphysical realm, which I also defended the possibility of against ComradeRed previously elseware when he claimed that it isn't possible, because he's a physics major, and that makes him an authority on realms beyond the physical realm. rolleyes.gif Anyway, this post is off topic... As I recall it, you insisted we needn't refer to physical reality for facts. Hey, who needs materialism right? "God" is all you need.

Science is "beyond reality", right God-boy?

This isn't the right thread for the past; anywhoo...


Just to actually say something in regards to the topic, I will say that Dialectical Materialism is the logic upon which we base our Marxist understandings, and the three laws of dialectics are eternally applicable. Hell, here's a simple example by Trotsky of the first law: "A housewife knows that a certain amount of salt flavours soup agreeably, but that added salt makes the soup unpalatable. Consequently, an illiterate peasant woman guides herself in cooking soup by the Hegelian law of the transformation of quantity into quality." -Trotsky Why Trotsky uses dialectics? Then it clearly must be Marxist! If there was one man who knew more about Marxism than Marx, it clearly was that genius Trotsky(ust ignore my remarks on Leninism).

What a great argument! I'll consider it when I am omnipotently recollecting my vast knowledge of physics over soup in the dining hall, being the master of the universe that I am. :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2005, 08:20 PM
ComradeRed, you're here too? I still don't agree with you on religious theories. I think they are just as applicable as any other when there is no evidence to the contrary. This is to be seperated from the possibility of a metaphysical realm, which I also defended the possibility of against ComradeRed previously elseware when he claimed that it isn't possible, because he's a physics major, and that makes him an authority on realms beyond the physical realm. :rolleyes: Anyway, this post is off topic...

Just to actually say something in regards to the topic, I will say that Dialectical Materialism is the logic upon which we base our Marxist understandings, and the three laws of dialectics are eternally applicable. Hell, here's a simple example by Trotsky of the first law: "A housewife knows that a certain amount of salt flavours soup agreeably, but that added salt makes the soup unpalatable. Consequently, an illiterate peasant woman guides herself in cooking soup by the Hegelian law of the transformation of quantity into quality." -Trotsky
Now we have something new...a "Marxist dialectician" who openly embraces "religious theories" and the "possibility of metaphysical realms".

Is "God" "dialectical"? :lol:

I offer the existence of folks like "Comrade Martin" as an indication of where a preoccupation with "dialectics" leads.

As soon as someone takes one metaphysical concept "really seriously", the fortress of reason is breached and "the marching morons" conquer.

That's very sad. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[shadows]

Hegelian dialectics lend themselves to religious belief, dialectical materialism doesn't. To attack dialectics as idealism, and to substitute math for dialectics, is to fall into Kantian error: knowledge and the thing known separate. Marx believed cognition conformed to its object, and that objects were not static but evolving, always in 'motion' or becoming other than what they currently appear to be. While dialectics is not to be fetishized, it has been and is paramount to the Marxist materialist who tries to understand the motion of events and of things. The 'knower' and the 'known' remain forever separate in idealism, not so in dialectical materialism.

[RevolverNo9]

Just to actually say something in regards to the topic, I will say that Dialectical Materialism is the logic upon which we base our Marxist understandings, and the three laws of dialectics are eternally applicable.

Um, Dialectical Materialism is an entirely Engelsite construct. After Marx died, European intellectual culture held in great fashion totalising and absolute theories of the world. Darwinian evolution was applied to everything, and so Engels, whose reaction to Hegel was essentially different to Marx's, developed Marxism in this manner. The first-generation of Marxists, Plekhanov et al, all arrived at Marxism through Engels (I think it was Plekhanov who said that his peers may have been inspired by Das Kapital, but that it was thanks to Engels that they could do so).

Engels' Dialectical Materialism (his term, nobody else's) was, as we know, assumed by those charming Leninists, who were most successful at attempting to supercede material-reality and reconstruct society by sheer power of ideas and uber-mencshe-ism.

It was a profound embarrasment to the Leninsts and others when, finally, Marx's 'early' works (as they immediately became know with the subtle use of a caeasura between them and his later writings) were published in the 1920s. These comprise, save Marx's These on Feuerbach, the sole written philosophical basis of Marx's thought... and to their shock, dialectical materialism was sadly absent.

The response? Label the young Marx as immature and unsophisticated, still toying with semi-idealist humanism before he 'grew up' and (apparently) explained everything in the human world with a few crude schemata (yeah right). The reality of course , if one cares to compare, is extremely strong continuity. Any so-called epistemological break is sheer fantasy, and the development of his ideas never wrecked what he first wrote. Indeed some of the most crucial concepts, such as Alienation are to be found in the early canon.

We can trace the rot in the difference between Marx and Engel's reply to Hegel. Hegel, like the other Young Hegelians, maintained that the great philosopher's ideas were themselves radical, but constrained by a conservative model. Convesely, Marx said that the philosophy itself was reactionary, and merely an accurate observation of contemporary society. As a result, it was imperitive to ground any explanation of history in a purely material understanding. Hence... historical materialism!

I myself do maintain that there is a dialectic that drives change in history. However history must always be constructed with the empirical observation of sources and never have an arteficial system imposed upon it. Moreover, to then say that all natural laws are dialectical seems absurd! That water evaporating argument is so ridiculous. How is the fact that the process is not 'gradual' relevant? When a bond between particles is given a certain amount of energy they break... simple. Nothing's 'negating the negation' of water or whatever bollocks. I've never heard a clear explanation of how dialectics work in controlling the whole bloody world.

So, lets be rational, yeah?

[Monty Cantsin]

I would never deafened dialectical Materialism as a scientific theory which Engles sets out to create. I would say that theirs a “dialectic” element in historical Materialism, Which is removed from a Platonist or Hegelian dialectic.

(I know I’ve been absent throughout this debate and my littlie comment here is by way of introduction.)

[RevolverNo9]

I would never deafened dialectical Materialism as a scientific theory which Engles sets out to create. I would say that theirs a “dialectic” element in historical Materialism, Which is removed from a Platonist or Hegelian dialectic.

Exactly! Who knows... reason might descend upon the members of RevLeft...

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Shadows
Hegelian dialectics lend themselves to religious belief, dialectical materialism doesn't. To attack dialectics as idealism, and to substitute math for dialectics, is to fall into Kantian error: knowledge and the thing known separate. If you read Marx's analysis of empiricism and rationalism, he criticizes one for lacking the other.

What I am thinking is to combine the two of them, a "rational empricism" or scientific logic, that we can use for scientific achievement.

The rationalists, "on the one hand", who predominantly pioneered math (e.g. Descartes, Leibniz). And the empiricists, "on the other", who pioneered objective study of reality (e.g. Hume, Berkeley, Locke).

Combine these two and you'd be able to apprehend reality, the goal Hegel intended for his dialectics to do. Something that math and science easily do.


Marx believed cognition conformed to its object, and that objects were not static but evolving, always in 'motion' or becoming other than what they currently appear to be. Curiously, the comparisons of the "Marxist" dialectic to the Hegelian dialectic that I have read emphasize one big difference: Marx focused on change with time (when will quantitative changes "become" qualitative?). This is what made him scientific.

I could sum up dialectics as such: sometime, somewhere something will change somehow for some reason. The fear I have is that dialecticians aren't expressing themselves well enough, and that there may be something they aren't telling us.

But damn! How could anyone be so blind as to reject that?! It obviously contributes everything to human activity!

Now say ten "hail Hegels" and a blessing to the dialectical trinity. :lol:


While dialectics is not to be fetishized, it has been and is paramount to the Marxist materialist who tries to understand the motion of events and of things. The 'knower' and the 'known' remain forever separate in idealism, not so in dialectical materialism.Not necessarily. There are many other ways without using dialectics to convey the same message with better wording.

Look at Kuhnian paradigms. Tweak those to be based on materialism and derive from there class struggle. Huzzah! Historical materialism without the crap!

But who really wants that?

[Guest1]

Alright, we've reached the same point again.

Your arguments are brilliant I must say:

"Dialectics is just religion!"

"You don't know what topois are, but we all know you're just refusing to use them because you're evil and hiding something!"

Grow up kiddo <_<

[ComradeRed]

Your arguments are brilliant I must say:

"Dialectics is just religion&#33;"

"You don&#39;t know what topois are, but we all know you&#39;re just refusing to use them because you&#39;re evil and hiding something&#33;"

Grow up kiddo <_< "Kiddo"? :lol: Ok, geezer.

Let&#39;s asses the situation: Dialectics are asserted to be deduced from reality, but haven&#39;t been proven so.
Dialectics are asserted as a sort of superlogic, but hasn&#39;t been proven so.
Dialectics has been asserted to be beyond the comprehension of "mere mortals", but that has not been proven so.
Dialectics have been asserted to be the basis of Marxism, but that has been proven otherwise.
Chaos theory has been asserted to embody the dialectic, but if it were so dialectics are utterly useless.
Dialectics cannot prove a thing, as opposed to math.
Dialectics cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon without resorting to jargon.

So, in order to defend dialectics it must prove something, or be formulated in math. Those are the only two options I see.

Of course, not having the infinite wisdom of being an old fart I don&#39;t know whether your omnipotence of the inner dialectical workings of the universe is capable of seeing another option.

If you have another that can prove dialectics&#39; usefulness I&#39;m eager to see. However, to dismiss the baselessness of dialectical materialism on the grounds of "Well, I say you are too young" or "You obviously don&#39;t understand the inner workings of the holy dialectical trinity" is asinine.

Show how dialectics work beyond my formulation of them. Please, go ahead. All I did was reiterate your initial post; perhaps there is something the dialecticians are hiding.

Or maybe it was my method of formulation? It is too insulting to see such "superlogic" discarded as philistinism?

You have no real argument beyond "Well, you&#39;re wrong." What I am arguing is that dialectics need to be demonstrated to do something useful, and the best way to do this is to either put dialectics in a mathematical algorithm, or topoi, OR to solve a geometric proof so the step by step use of dialectics are exposed.

Apparently even this simple task the "metaphysical" logician can do with ease is too challenging a task for the all mighty dialectician. Which leads me to conclude that dialecticians are hiding something, and that last post confirms my paranoia a fortoriori.

[RevolverNo9]

The fact remains that no empirical evidence has been offered to support this totalising-dialectic, aside from weird explanations about water which choose to ignore physics.

[shadows]

As the mind confronts aspects of reality, as &#39;other than&#39; mind, there is a tendency to adapt reality to mind. In this way, the noumenal retains its unknowability while the phenomenal develops reason imposed on (over and against) this inert &#39;in-itself&#39; or external reality. Dialectics is different from this Kantian dualism. Dialectics posits the interplay of mind and matter. Change, the evolving nature of matter, issues from this interplay of &#39;being&#39; and &#39;nonbeing.&#39; Anything less is less than materialism, for it would revert to Kant and would substitute dualism for contradiction. Here, in the contradiction, thought conforms to the substance of things, thereby escaping the formalism of reason. The dialectic captures the "general forms of motion in a comprehensive and conscious manner" (Marx, Afterword to Capital).

[ComradeRed]

This all sounds fine and dandy, but where do you apply it to anything useful?

Logic can do that. Math can do that. Dialectics claim to, but cannot present any scenario where it has done so.

That is what I have been asking for since the beginning&#33;

What would be even better, which I stressed several times, is to formulate dialectics such that it can be easy to use and understand.

Apparently that is dialectical blasphemy. :lol: Asking to see something work, what science&#33;

How could anyone accept it on these grounds?

"We&#39;ve got something superior to logic, but we can&#39;t show you how it works. Take it on faith."

:lol: The most comprehensive thing on dialectics I&#39;ve found is nothing (in common English) beyond "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". Then I must be wrong since I don&#39;t understand the magical dialectic.

I assert that no one understands dialectics, but instead understand how to parrot the incomprehensible psychobabble of Hegel. No one has proven otherwise, and my suggestion to accomplish the opposite is heresy.

You dialecticians have the burden of proof, OK? When anyone asserts a positive proposition, they have the burden of proof. Sorry.

Kantian dualism, cognition of reality through Idea, yaddah yaddah yaddah. All of this is bullshit and avoiding my questions.

My point is simple: present the evidence that dialectics is superior in an unbiased medium.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:54 PM
"Kiddo"? :lol: Ok, geezer.
I don&#39;t know why I&#39;m responding to you. I have no idea why you seem surprised that now I am giving you the same respect you are giving me, from the beginning you have been doing nothing but use personal attacks and mischaractarizations. If you want to discuss this seriously, cut them out.


Dialectics are asserted to be deduced from reality, but haven&#39;t been proven so.
Then Marx arrived at his conception of history and nature from pure magic. Obviously he did no observations whatsoever, and his and Engels&#39; body of work only proves they just arrived at it all because they felt like it, and not because of the evidence they looked at.


Dialectics are asserted as a sort of superlogic, but hasn&#39;t been proven so.
That can be addressed, but that&#39;s not the debate you&#39;re having. (Although, "superlogic"?)


Dialectics has been asserted to be beyond the comprehension of "mere mortals", but that has not been proven so.
That&#39;s because you are the only one asserting that. I have been asserting the opposite. Then again, how would you be able to defend your position if you didn&#39;t resort to strawmen and outright lies?


Dialectics have been asserted to be the basis of Marxism, but that has been proven otherwise.
Actually, the "proof" otherwise has been limited to asserting that dialectical materialism is only applicable and useful in the form of historical materialism. Again, that can be debated if you want, but no one has actually been debating it in any meaningful way.


Chaos theory has been asserted to embody the dialectic, but if it were so dialectics are utterly useless.
It does, but I see no reason to dismiss chaos theory as useless. Within chaos science there is also a whole system of chaos mathematics which is what you&#39;re looking for I suppose, dialectical mathematics.


Dialectics cannot prove a thing, as opposed to math.
Good for you. Are you talking to yourself, or would you like to have a debate? Because I see no one here who asks that dialectics replace mathematics or science. However, see above for what role dialectics is meant to have. A science and mathematics inspired by dialectics, with practical uses and providing insight into the workings of the universe. Dialectics doesn&#39;t do that, dialectics only provided the basis.


Dialectics cannot explain even the simplest phenomenon without resorting to jargon.
Jargon? I gave a pretty clear and simple explanation of what dialectics is.


So, in order to defend dialectics it must prove something, or be formulated in math. Those are the only two options I see.
Well, I&#39;m afraid I can&#39;t really help you with the math, I&#39;m not good with that, plus I have no idea how to work with topois. I will look it up and if I feel comfortable I&#39;ll give it a try, but no guarantees.


Of course, not having the infinite wisdom of being an old fart I don&#39;t know whether your omnipotence of the inner dialectical workings of the universe is capable of seeing another option.
I&#39;m sorry I called you kiddo, but I have been pretty restrained and you&#39;ve been pretty over the top in your treatment of me. I did not mean to imply you&#39;re too young (I&#39;m your age I think) or anything like that. I&#39;ve just had some pretty shitty weeks and you&#39;ve been pretty unreasonable I feel.


If you have another that can prove dialectics&#39; usefulness I&#39;m eager to see. However, to dismiss the baselessness of dialectical materialism on the grounds of "Well, I say you are too young" or "You obviously don&#39;t understand the inner workings of the holy dialectical trinity" is asinine.
The only thing I can point you in terms of science is chaos theory, and the book I suggested.

But we can debate this, and I can look to provide you with real-world evidence, etc... But I will need to know you are going to be debating this as one comrade to another, and truthfully, rather than with personal attacks and mischaracterizations and questioning of my motives.

[Guest1]

Sorry if the last post seemed bipolar :P

[ComradeRed]

Then Marx arrived at his conception of history and nature from pure magic. Obviously he did no observations whatsoever, and his and Engels&#39; body of work only proves they just arrived at it all because they felt like it, and not because of the evidence they looked at. No, I see your point. Historical materialism is an a priori construct that has no basis in reality. It was all based on what "they felt like" and not because of the evidence which they didn&#39;t have.

Actually, from some accounts I have read, they did extensive studying of history (Marx at least) in the gymnasium (Prussian secondary school of the time); the reason why the came up with historical materialism was so that no one would have to study history&#33;



That&#39;s because you are the only one asserting that. I have been asserting the opposite. Then again, how would you be able to defend your position if you didn&#39;t resort to strawmen and outright lies? "Strawmen and outright lies?" Powerful words from a dialectician.

Again, there is no proof that what dialecticians pull this stuff from the air. I suspect that they are translating stuff that has all ready been done into dialectic-speak. Look at Engels&#39; The Dialectics of Nature, or even the work of Shpenkov.

That is why I would like to see a comparison of dialectics and logic at work. Hence geometry comes in, we can see how a dialectician reasons and how a logician reasons. "Obviously" we can tell which one can do better by the proofs.

What I think would be better is to present an algorithm or topoi of dialectics. This puts dialectics in a clear medium as opposed to resorting to incoherent jargon. However, as I pointed out, dialecticians refuse to do this.

As you demonstrate, you attack me for suggesting it as strawmanning and lying. If demanding dialectics be put in a better form is strawmanning and lying, then so be it. I maintain that dialectics won&#39;t be of any real use until it is presented in an understandable manner in an unbiased medium; but who would really want that?



Actually, the "proof" otherwise has been limited to asserting that dialectical materialism is only applicable and useful in the form of historical materialism. Again, that can be debated if you want, but no one has actually been debating it in any meaningful way. I have a question: we can agree (I hope) that historical materialism is the important thing in Marxism; then why bother with dialectics at all?

Marxism is a science based on historical materialism, why would dialectics be needed whatsoever?

"Because Marx used them"? He also used a chamber pot, should we therefore use chamber pots?



It does, but I see no reason to dismiss chaos theory as useless. Within chaos science there is also a whole system of chaos mathematics which is what you&#39;re looking for I suppose, dialectical mathematics. I am afraid I may have left the wrong impression. I wasn&#39;t looking for dialectical mathematics, but the mathematics of dialectics. Just as mathematical logic is the mathematics of logic.

However, this point (of chaos science) is moot. The biggest hopeful application was with "quantum chaos" and it relatively failed completely.

If you have any applicable "chaos science" I would be delighted to see it. The only place I have seen chaos math of any use is in pure math. And this places dialectics back to working only in the a priori, and thus useless.


A science and mathematics inspired by dialectics, with practical uses and providing insight into the workings of the universe. Dialectics doesn&#39;t do that, dialectics only provided the basis.
This hasn&#39;t been proven satisfactorily.

But if dialectics are deduced from science, and serve as the basis of science; how can this be? It&#39;s inconsistent.

Further, dialectics haven&#39;t been proven to do either of these. I emphasize this the most.



Jargon? I gave a pretty clear and simple explanation of what dialectics is. Really? Can you explain something clearly with dialectics?

I mean without resorting to "Well, the Being of...decouples itself abstracting into Idea...thus Being for Self is obviously the yaddah yaddah yaddah Essence of Self yaddah...".

And if that is not hard, why is using dialectics to do a geometric proof so hard?


Well, I&#39;m afraid I can&#39;t really help you with the math, I&#39;m not good with that, plus I have no idea how to work with topois. I will look it up and if I feel comfortable I&#39;ll give it a try, but no guarantees. I&#39;m working on a pdf explaining it, if you would be so kind as to wait a few more days I will be done. I combine a large number of texts together into one, and it is presented in a completely diagrammatic manner.



I&#39;m sorry I called you kiddo, but I have been pretty restrained and you&#39;ve been pretty over the top in your treatment of me. I did not mean to imply you&#39;re too young (I&#39;m your age I think) or anything like that. I&#39;ve just had some pretty shitty weeks and you&#39;ve been pretty unreasonable I feel. It&#39;s okay, I think I may have come off badly too. (I have also had a few hard days lately) No hard feelings? ;)



The only thing I can point you in terms of science is chaos theory, and the book I suggested. Um...book? I looked over your post, and I think you may have omitted it. However, I think you may be referring to Exploring Chaos perhaps?



But we can debate this, and I can look to provide you with real-world evidence, etc... But I will need to know you are going to be debating this as one comrade to another, and truthfully, rather than with personal attacks and mischaracterizations and questioning of my motives. All I am simply asking is for a step by step demonstration of dialectics. Of course, in my preferred medium (a geometric proof) or (better) a complete translation of dialectics into math.

I realize that math is rather, well, totally unpopular with everyone (why do you think there are only 5 mathematicians left in the world? :lol: ). I do not intend on bragging about my "mathematical genius" or whatever.

I am sorry if I came off as such. However, my point remains unanswered: will any dialectician provide a step-by-step application of dialectics in proving something (e.g. a geometric proof)? Or, better, will dialecticians reformulate dialectics in math?

I think rejecting the former is to admit that no one really can prove anything with dialectics. I also think that rejecting the latter is to say that dialectics can be presented only in one medium, which is inconsistent with Church-Turing thesis (anything that can be stated can be stated in a precise algorithm, regardless of language).

Thus it only simplifies matters infinitely if dialectics are reformulated; is this not desirable? If not, I suspect that there is a reason why...

[Guest1]

The third possibility is that I haven&#39;t taken any math since the first year of college, 5 years ago :P

But if you explain topois clearly, I will give it a shot, though I still think it&#39;s not necessary, but if it will help I&#39;ll try.


No, I see your point. Historical materialism is an a priori construct that has no basis in reality. It was all based on what "they felt like" and not because of the evidence which they didn&#39;t have.

Actually, from some accounts I have read, they did extensive studying of history (Marx at least) in the gymnasium (Prussian secondary school of the time); the reason why the came up with historical materialism was so that no one would have to study history&#33;
I was being incredibly sarcastic, historical materialism, an application of dialectics to history, was drawn from observation obviously.


I have a question: we can agree (I hope) that historical materialism is the important thing in Marxism; then why bother with dialectics at all?

Marxism is a science based on historical materialism, why would dialectics be needed whatsoever?

"Because Marx used them"? He also used a chamber pot, should we therefore use chamber pots?
Because historical materialism is just dialectical materialism applied to the study of history. So the philosophical basis is dialectics, and from that flows the Marxist conception of history, social change, etc...


Really? Can you explain something clearly with dialectics?

I mean without resorting to "Well, the Being of...decouples itself abstracting into Idea...thus Being for Self is obviously the yaddah yaddah yaddah Essence of Self yaddah...".

And if that is not hard, why is using dialectics to do a geometric proof so hard?
I have never used terms like that, as for geometry, see my lack of math skills, this has been a misunderstanding mostly :P


It&#39;s okay, I think I may have come off badly too. (I have also had a few hard days lately) No hard feelings?
No problem, I haven&#39;t been very clear anyways, so I don&#39;t blame you :)


Um...book? I looked over your post, and I think you may have omitted it. However, I think you may be referring to Exploring Chaos perhaps?
It was in the other thread I guess, here:

Reason in Revolt: Marxist Philosophy and Modern Science (http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp)


I am sorry if I came off as such. However, my point remains unanswered: will any dialectician provide a step-by-step application of dialectics in proving something (e.g. a geometric proof)? Or, better, will dialecticians reformulate dialectics in math?
I have less of an idea of how to approach the first than the second, which I can at least conceptualize a bit, so I will try the topois if you teach me how. No guarantee it will be in any way correct, but I&#39;ll try.

[More Fire for the People]

Dialectics are asserted to be deduced from reality, but haven&#39;t been proven so.
Tell that to gauge bosons (thesis), Higgs bosons (antithesis), and fermions (synthesis).


Dialectics has been asserted to be beyond the comprehension of "mere mortals", but that has not been proven so.
Dialectics are not only beyond "mere mortals" but they even have a pragmatic value. If I see a bird I instantly know that this bird is held up by left and down by gravity (unity and conflict of opposites) and that without either flight (synthesis) is impossible and that the reason a bird is moving father away is because of increased velocity (passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But considering that we discovered bosons and fermions and how birds fly without using dialectics, isn&#39;t dialectics extraneous?

[ComradeRed]

I am working on a pdf file that explains topos to the layperson with only knowledge of simple algebra (because my proofreader is a layperson with only knowledge of high school algebr :P ) so that should be done monday (maybe?).


Originally posted by Diego Armando

Tell that to gauge bosons (thesis), Higgs bosons (antithesis), and fermions (synthesis).
Why in that order? It makes no sense.

My flawed understanding of dialectics is that it is supposed to contrast two resulting in one. For example, there are the fermions ("thesis") with half-integer spins, then the gauge bosons ("antithesis") as the communicator between fermions (e.g. photons in Quantum Electrodynamics, etc.), and this results in the fundamental conception and principles of particles: the mythical Higgs Bosons (synthesis) which embodies both the thesis and antithesis, and makes them what they are (supposedly).

Regardless, it adds no knowledge to anything. It is another method of categorizing things. Where is that inner Essence of Pure Reason, and whatnot? This is just a priori fiddle-faddle; worse, it&#39;s useless a priori fiddle-faddle.



Dialectics are not only beyond "mere mortals" but they even have a pragmatic value. If I see a bird I instantly know that this bird is held up by left and down by gravity (unity and conflict of opposites) and that without either flight (synthesis) is impossible and that the reason a bird is moving father away is because of increased velocity (passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes). Speaking strictly from my training as a physicist, I have absolutely no clue what was just said here (this is what I mean by dialectical jargon).

Based on this, er, "analysis" of the mystery of the bird&#39;s flight, I must say that there are better explanations that are clearer and more succinct.



I was being incredibly sarcastic, historical materialism, an application of dialectics to history, was drawn from observation obviously. This is one problem I have with dialectics. It was originally designated as this a priori conception to "apprehend" reality from "pure thought".

However, as Hume pointed out, suppose we think of a gold mountain. How do we know a priori what gold is? Or a mountain? These require empiricism.

But here dialectics become inconsistent, an empirical a priori method?

Of course, one may say this is "limited" to "Hegelian" dialectics. This may very well be true. However, the benefit of dialectics is a dynamic "model" of whatever subject you&#39;d like.

Why not use thermodynamics? It is the simplest use of change, it is the simplest method of dynamics. Better, it provides the best mathematical templates to be exploited. In theory someone could base Marxism entirely on thermodynamics and Kuhnian paradigms.

This preserves the dynamic nature of Marxism, and provides a stronger basis and method. What is there to lose?



Because historical materialism is just dialectical materialism applied to the study of history. So the philosophical basis is dialectics, and from that flows the Marxist conception of history, social change, etc... Sometimes I wonder: could the same conclusion be derived based with logic and observation alone?

It would be no problem with thermodynamics, simply the changes of society, entropy and information as class struggle, etc.

If we had a finished system of superior tools, would there be any need for the inferior ones? Of course not.

Why then are dialectics around?



I have less of an idea of how to approach the first than the second, which I can at least conceptualize a bit, so I will try the topois if you teach me how. No guarantee it will be in any way correct, but I&#39;ll try. I do not mean to be rude, but is it safe to assume that you know basic algebra? Because topoi are part of abstract (I mean, uber abstract) algebra...along with sets, groups, categories, etc.

I am having some technical difficulties with LaTeX and images, so it may take a few more days than previously thought.

[ComradeRed]

I got no sleep last night, so the good news is that I finished the paper ahead of schedule. The rough draft is a pdf downloadable here (http://www.nrg.to/crr/LaTeXn.pdf). I warn you that it is a rough draft, and that I will revise it and create a final draft. But this is pretty good and understandable to most who understand high school algebra.

[edit] In theory, all that is needed is to explain the dialectical process once. Then to make a system is simply a topoi whose objects are the process, which form an object of another topoi (ad infinitum). Recursion and dialectics :lol:

[Quota 76 denial]

Dialectics cannot prove a thing, as opposed to math.
math really does not prove anything but its theoretical concepts. Math only proves fact for mathematicians. dialectically speaking in all of its clarity, if you respond comradered you will be comitted to a dialogue. Ahh this might give you something to chew on so what is next what would you say that would prove our conversation is happening. If i said hello would you say hello back, this is the most basic one could put dialectical terminology into. would i say the next consequential words of the dialogue how are you doing today? probably yes, and it should be noted that all these responses are probablity a concept that math adores for mathematical theorems. but to continue on with our little dialogue you should respond, "fine how are you? then i would respond fine.
of course this is just a simply dialogue but we could deconstruct the whole conversation to understand why the conversation started. 1 I acknowledge your presence. 2 you acknowledged my presence. 3 I spoke to you 4 you responded 5 then i responded. this dialogue that you participate in on an everyday basis shows that you have the ability to be conscious of the world around you and allows you to rationalize past skepticism. but what this conversation does to you is something more than that it has a deep meaning. the converstation shows how you have been accepted through a greeting (that is why greeting cards have become commercialized at the extent that they are) By saying hello to you i allowed you to participate in my daily affairs, even though there are set answers for the dialogue, the structure of the dialogue is to seem inviting. That is where dialectical materialism critique comes in, it says well you invited me to be a historical aspect of your reality then you should accept whatever answer i give as my answer to your invitation. This is where oppression begins and ends if you said something like my day was shitty then i would feel uncomfortable participating in the convesation with you. The structure is key, for the structure is the guidelines for the extent of the invitation, and this is what capitalism does with logic of mathematics and logic of civilization, it makes it rational to participate due to the invitation of wages but if the wages exceed the performative function of the system then the system uses oppression to maintian the status quo. All answers of our turing machine functional logic therefore have to fit the reasons behind not presence but our idealization of the structure. if this is not clear dialectical thinking then there is no hope for any of our conversations meaning anything.

[ComradeRed]

I half expected this: no language is "good enough" to explain the "dialectic". Which leads me to conclude that dialectics cannot be formulated in a coherent language, if this group of dialecticians are right. In which case, they are also wrong because dialectics are utterly useless (what is to be lost by translating dialectics into math?).


math really does not prove anything but its theoretical concepts. Math only proves fact for mathematicians. Math doesn&#39;t "prove facts".

I can give you a list of everything math can do:
It explains structure and quantity

It investigates spatial relationships.

It investigates the concepts of limits and convergence.

It can study study space, structure, and change.

It can investigate rates of change


This is a signature not only of a really great tool, but a really great language as well.

I maintain that if anything can be said, it can be said clearly and concisely in any language. Therefore, I demand that you explain dialectics in the language of math.


Ahh this might give you something to chew on so what is next what would you say that would prove our conversation is happening. If i said hello would you say hello back, this is the most basic one could put dialectical terminology into. would i say the next consequential words of the dialogue how are you doing today? probably yes, and it should be noted that all these responses are probablity a concept that math adores for mathematical theorems. but to continue on with our little dialogue you should respond, "fine how are you? then i would respond fine.
of course this is just a simply dialogue but we could deconstruct the whole conversation to understand why the conversation started. 1 I acknowledge your presence. 2 you acknowledged my presence. 3 I spoke to you 4 you responded 5 then i responded. this dialogue that you participate in on an everyday basis shows that you have the ability to be conscious of the world around you and allows you to rationalize past skepticism. but what this conversation does to you is something more than that it has a deep meaning. the converstation shows how you have been accepted through a greeting (that is why greeting cards have become commercialized at the extent that they are) By saying hello to you i allowed you to participate in my daily affairs, even though there are set answers for the dialogue, the structure of the dialogue is to seem inviting. That is where dialectical materialism critique comes in, it says well you invited me to be a historical aspect of your reality then you should accept whatever answer i give as my answer to your invitation. This is where oppression begins and ends if you said something like my day was shitty then i would feel uncomfortable participating in the convesation with you. The structure is key, for the structure is the guidelines for the extent of the invitation, and this is what capitalism does with logic of mathematics and logic of civilization, it makes it rational to participate due to the invitation of wages but if the wages exceed the performative function of the system then the system uses oppression to maintian the status quo. All answers of our turing machine functional logic therefore have to fit the reasons behind not presence but our idealization of the structure. if this is not clear dialectical thinking then there is no hope for any of our conversations meaning anything.
What the hell are you talking about?

On second thought, some dialecticians are exempt from my demand...one language appears as too much to handle.

Not only is this longwinded, and goes around the world before reaching the point, but its also boring.

A conversation is dialectical? That&#39;s fine and dandy, but dialectics are utterly useless in their present (rather incoherent) form. That&#39;s why I would like to see a mathematical version of dialectics.

"Clear dialectical thinking"? Why it&#39;s barely "thinking" at all&#33;

But that&#39;s just me. I can&#39;t understand anything that isn&#39;t shown to be useful. That is why I would have preferred to see a geometric proof done step by step dialectically. I could have understood the algorithmic dialectical process then.

Redstar said had an enlightening thing to say:

Critics are always greeted in lofty tones: "You&#39;ve failed to grasp the dialectic, Comrade."

Cynic that I undoubtedly am (Marxism-Pragmatism-Cynicism or MPC for short), I suspect the real purpose of "dialectics" since the death of Engels has been to create an "aura" of "intellectual profundity" with which to intimidate critics and often to cloak a real ignorance of material reality.

Until I had cracked open a calculus book I thought he was just plain wrong. Then a "miracle" happened: I learned math&#33; And you know what, the argument presented to me just hasn&#39;t proven the dialectic is worth its salt.

Hell, I&#39;ll assume that chaos math is "dialectical math". It does an infinite more than dialectics could ever do.

Hey&#33; All we need to do know is combine it with mathematical logic. "Chaos logic", the mathematical formulation of a dialectical logic. Pretty good, eh?

[Guest1]

I will be going over the PDF with my friend (who has a little better understanding of mathematics than I), and give it a try, thanks :)

[ComradeRed]

I am working on elaborating the section on topoi and categories, so please do not be too surprised if it is the most incomprehensible part of the pdf.

It should be done soon, maybe later tonight.

[edit] Revised paper on topoi (http://www.nrg.to/crr/LaTeXn2.pdf) it expands some more on categories, though I am told a rather confusing explanation of morphisms and functors by a man who had rushed and read it.

[ComradeRed]

I have been reviewing some math, and have come upon some stuff that may help the dialecticians.

I assume that the site "Dialectics for Kids" is an accurrate depiction of dialectics (it is the source which I am quoting).


Originally posted by Dialectics for Kids
A - Snow builds up and up and up on a mountain . . . until there&#39;s an Avalanche The tipping point, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point) of course?

The "Circles or Spirals" section corresponds to the Phase Transition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition).

And interestingly Catastrophe Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory).

Dynamical System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical+System) may help along with Nonequilibrium THermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics).

These may help some what. ;)

[Floyce White]

I&#39;m getting a good laugh out of this thread.

"Formal logic?" Ha ha ha&#33; Is dialectics "informal" (has no rules)? No? Then dialectics is just as "formal" as any other "form" of logic. If you mean "induction and deduction," say "induction and deduction." If you mean "statistics," say "statistics."

"Topoi?" What a strange starting point&#33; Why not just say "symbolic logic?" Mathematics is just a subset of symbolic logic. Any idea can be written in symbolic logic. I believe the special characters are all in the Arial Unicode font.

[ComradeRed]

With this post, I don&#39;t know whether to laugh or cry.


"Topoi?" What a strange starting point&#33; Why not just say "symbolic logic?" Because there is a difference between symbolic logic and topoi. An elementary student of either could tell you that.

Hey language? What a strange concept&#33; Why bother communicating?...


Mathematics is just a subset of symbolic logic. Any idea can be written in symbolic logic. You have it reversed, Grothendieck. Symbolic logic is a subset of math.

This makes sense too, a language is not part of the alphabet. The alphabet is part of the language.

A side note: Those who are reading my pdf and trying to make sense of it, think of topoi as categories whose elements are sets (if you are too lazy to try and understand the category section) with a powerset classifier (returns a 1 if something is within the subset of a given set X, otherwise it returns 0). The objects of topoi could also be mathematical structures (e.g. graphs (which have a set), categories (also have a set), groups, etc.). That (I hope) should clarify some things.

[Floyce White]

ComradeRed: "Because there is a difference between symbolic logic and topoi. An elementary student of either could tell you that."

I disagree. Various "new" and "different" forms of math and physics and logic are always presented when the bourgeoisie cannot prove theories they wish to be true. Students are often aware of this. A topological "proof" is like "proof" by modeling--it is not a proof.

As I understand the debate, the challenge is to restate dialectics in terms of propositional logic. If you could have restated dialectics as "topoi," you could then have restated the topology as propositional logic.

I don&#39;t "have it reversed." I am not "too lazy to try." I understand quite clearly. You do not because you cannot.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Floyce White

I disagree. Various "new" and "different" forms of math and physics and logic are always presented when the bourgeoisie cannot prove theories they wish to be true. Students are often aware of this. A topological "proof" is like "proof" by modeling--it is not a proof. :lol: It&#39;s obvious you don&#39;t understand constructivist logic, or categories. I assume you were trained in applied mathematics then?

Is math really a bourgeois method? Marx himself was not against the use of mathematical methods. This is presented by the works of Smolinski, who pointed out in many of Marx&#39;s economic unpublished works there are a large collection of math.

Further, if we are to make a science of socialism, we must put it on a mathematical basis.

"Dialectics" have been a "useful" parlor game, when nothing matters. But when it comes to science, it hasn&#39;t been proven useful.

Worse, it muddies up the understanding of scientific concepts in order to claim it is "deduced from nature". The attrocity it has done on quantum theory is only one such account (for the "Black Book" of dialectics, look up Engels&#39; Dialectics of Nature).

"Bourgeois methods cannot prove theories they wish to be true."

I suppose this is why Marx used the most reactionary method of his time: Hegelian dialectics.

The "bourgeois method" have proven the labor theory of value correct and disproved vulgar Marginalism. What great reasoning we have here: a "reactionary" method is used to concretely prove revolutionary ideas.


As I understand the debate, the challenge is to restate dialectics in terms of propositional logic. If you could have restated dialectics as "topoi," you could then have restated the topology as propositional logic. There is a difference between topology and topoi.

Topoi, from the trained applied mathematician&#39;s perspective, is a pseudo-topology. No argument here.

From the pure mathematician&#39;s perspective, which I have argued from, it is a language which methods can be presented (even math can be formulated in topoi).

I presented topoi from the pure mathematical perspective (or tried to). Is there something wrong with using category theory to explain the dialectical method?

Or is it that dialectics is a special thing that can only be explained in natural language? In such a case, it is utterly useless, since it cannot be presented in a manner that is useful to anyone. If it could be presented as an algorithm or as a category or as anything that is useful, then it could be used.

If dialectics are even a method, it can be useful to formulate them in math. What do you have to lose?

I repeat myself what do dialecticians have to hide? What is this fear of math?

What is this fear of useful things?



I don&#39;t "have it reversed." I am not "too lazy to try." I understand quite clearly. You do not because you cannot. Ooh, a challange&#33;

No, I quite readily agree with your reasoning. Alphabets are not part of the language. No, they are completely seperate from language; just as the clouds are defined and used, witnessed, and admired independent of the sky, or birds independent of flight or song.

Just as symbols are completely independent of math.

No, that doesn&#39;t work for me. We have math because we have the symbols. That is "good dialectics". :lol:

[Floyce White]

ComradeRed: "It&#39;s obvious you don&#39;t understand constructivist logic, or categories. I assume you were trained in applied mathematics then?"

You assume correctly.

ComradeRed: "I presented topoi from the pure mathematical perspective (or tried to). Is there something wrong with using category theory to explain the dialectical method?"

Not if you point out the limitations.

ComradeRed: "We have math because we have the symbols."

I suppose that some people solve problems at the chalkboard. I can&#39;t recall ever doing it that way. For me, figuring out how to put the solution into symbols always comes later or never. Doesn&#39;t mean the math didn&#39;t happen.

[ComradeRed]

Not if you point out the limitations. All languages have limitations. Thus only one can be used? (Worse, only English can be ised?&#33;?)

Why? Is it impossible to present dialectics in a useful manner? Or is it the language barrier, in which case how can anyone genuinely understand them?

This doesn&#39;t make any sense&#33;

If anything can be said, it can be said in any language. As old Wittgenstein points out, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must pass over in silence." Unless and until dialectics are translated in math, we must pass ober them in silence.



I suppose that some people solve problems at the chalkboard. I can&#39;t recall ever doing it that way. For me, figuring out how to put the solution into symbols always comes later or never. Doesn&#39;t mean the math didn&#39;t happen. This was an allusion to Voltaire&#39;s mockery of Leibniz&#39;s philosophy. "We have legs for [pre-existing] leggings, and carts for [pre-existing] roads." And so on.

We don&#39;t really have any of those things in such an order. Nor do we have math because we have symbols. We have symbols because we have math.

Just as we have an alphabet because we have a language. Not the other way round.

[Faceless]

Why? Is it impossible to present dialectics in a useful manner? Or is it the language barrier, in which case how can anyone genuinely understand them?
and

If dialectics are even a method, it can be useful to formulate them in math. What do you have to lose?

I repeat myself what do dialecticians have to hide? What is this fear of math?

I havent really followed this recent ruck on dialectics so forgive me if my interjection is misplaced but are we talking about the inability to express dialectics mathematically?

Whilst I could discuss dialectics philosophically and my mathematical abilities are limited, using I believe it is complexity theory, apparently dialectics can be mathematically expressed. It has been described as the prevalence of the "power-law" in all sorts of phenomena. I might have that wrong lol. I&#39;ll readily admit I don&#39;t have a clue what that is. I personally would be intriuged to express something I can describe philosophically in a mathematical manner.

Now I&#39;ll back off lol until I know what tapoi and topology are...

[Hegemonicretribution]

Comradered I will read that paper with interest, I remember this being an stopping point in one of our previous discussions.

I only just tried reading this thread, and skimmed som of it in part. However, and this is only one little thing really, did you claim that dialectics can only exist as a priori, and is therefore useless? If so I question your "knowledge" arriving from maths.

[Floyce White]

ComradeRed: "This was an allusion to Voltaire&#39;s mockery of Leibniz&#39;s philosophy."

Hmm. No subtlety around you. I&#39;m willing to concede that the brain&#39;s problem-solving process does not need to be called "math."

How&#39;s that Java-based calculator going? You know, the one where you type in a pair of contradictory claims and it spits out the dialectical result?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Faceless+--> (Faceless)I havent really followed this recent ruck on dialectics so forgive me if my interjection is misplaced but are we talking about the inability to express dialectics mathematically?[/b] No, the inability to present dialectics effectively.

The problem as I see it is that the dialecticians simply do not "deduce" dialectics from nature, but they instead force dialectics onto it.

Which means, unless dialectics are formulated in a superior manner, it does nothing.


Whilst I could discuss dialectics philosophically and my mathematical abilities are limited, using I believe it is complexity theory, apparently dialectics can be mathematically expressed. Ah, not quite so. You see, complexity theory (or cybernetics theory, or chaos theory, or...) are not the mathematical expression of dialectics but rather the dialectical expression of mathematics.

Just as mathematical logic is not the logic of mathematics; it is the mathematics of logic. I would be interested in seeing dialecticians prove their claims. If they cannot, dialectics are useless by elimination.


I personally would be intriuged to express something I can describe philosophically in a mathematical manner.
I have toyed with that idea myself. I&#39;ve been discussing with the philosophy students around town why most of what they learn (e.g. classical "Aristotlean" logic, metaphysics, et al.) is useless through math.

It is a very interesting thing. You may want to look into metamathematics.

But as interesting as it is, to me it is a waste of time; there are better things to do with such a powerful tool like math and Marxism.


Now I&#39;ll back off lol until I know what tapoi and topology are... This applies to everyone: as far as topoi are concerned, they are simply a category that is finite, whose objects are either (usually) sets, groups, graphs, or categories (sometimes topological spaces, sheaves, etc. IF you are in applied math, which we aren&#39;t); and it has a "subobject classifier", i.e. a "morphism" that returns 1 if an object (say A) is a subobject of another one (say B, e.g. X: A->B returns 1 iff A is a subobject of B).

They seem like something else, but it&#39;s really quite simple.

Topology, in this sense of topoi, is not too (if at all) involved.

Curiously, another way of thinking of the subobject classifier (usually denoted as capital omega) is an object that returns true (1) or not true (0).


Originally posted by [email protected]
I only just tried reading this thread, and skimmed som of it in part. However, and this is only one little thing really, did you claim that dialectics can only exist as a priori, and is therefore useless? If so I question your "knowledge" arriving from maths. My problem is (with "Hegelian" dialectics) that knowledge of the a posteriori can be arrived through means of the a priori, which is nonsense.

Math is nothing of this sort, it is a precise tool to model phenomenon...not predict it&#33;

It can deduce the consequences of what has been done to eery precision. For example, General Relativity and all of its predictions and implications based off of Newtonian Gravity and Special Relativity.

Math didn&#39;t simply make up General Relativity from thin air. It had to explain gravity in terms of as a vector field, then a tensor field, then the curvature of spacetime, and finally present a more effecient picture of what is going on. This was simply use of a tool of precision.

The dialecticians claim they did it simply by deducing General Relativity "from" dialectics; that is what I am arguing against.

Of course, it could be argued that this is "vulgar Hegelian" dialectics...as if there were some sort of difference from any other sort.

But the argument doesn&#39;t change: dialectics haven&#39;t been proven to do a thing, and thus I would like to see one of two things happen.
Have a dialectician do a mathematical proof dialectically, or

Present dialectics formulated in math.


There is nothing to lose from this. As a matter of fact, there is only more to be gained by making dialectics (if they are indeed worth its salt) mathematically precise.


Floyce White
No subtlety around you. I&#39;m willing to concede that the brain&#39;s problem-solving process does not need to be called "math." What a brilliant argument&#33; A dialectical flame, woe is me&#33; "Where arguments fail, put in their place flames&#33;" :lol:

The "Science" of Logic, by Hegel, provides nothing of use besides a template on how to make stuff up that sounds "deep" (a great asset for either a philosopher or writer&#33;). There is nothing in there about how "profoundly" "deep" the "brain processes" are that is legitemate.

If there is, why is it so hard to translate it into another language? Is it because it doesn&#39;t exist? I suspect that is why dialecticians such as yourself so violently and vehemently oppose a "Mathematical dialectics" (as it were).


How&#39;s that Java-based calculator going? You know, the one where you type in a pair of contradictory claims and it spits out the dialectical result? Such a logically correlated point&#33; Desperately making up nonsense to slander my name, bravo&#33; What a dialectical genus of genius. What innovation&#33;

[JC1]

Such a logically correlated point&#33; Desperately making up nonsense to slander my name, bravo&#33; What a dialectical genus of genius. What innovation&#33;

Youre denying you mentioned the project on the now defunt "Marxism-Leninism.com" message board ?

By the way, I truly despise youre use of language. Just get straight to you point.

[ComradeRed]

The "project" on Marxism-Leninism&#39;s board failed because no one bothered to learn the damn math.

Look, there is a problem with dialectics. If you think that dialectics are "pivotal" to Marxism, then it has to be proven through math.

Frankly, it looks like people are just pulling stuff from thin air and calling it a dialectical "masterpiece" "deduced" from nature.

Quantum mechanics has been manhandled this way by the dialecticians. And frankly, it was in poor shape to begin with thanks to the Copenhagen interpretation.

Look no further than Reason in Revolt for the dialectical abstractions of science.

As far as the curious attempts that the Soviet mathematicians did to formulate a mathematical dialectics, either they don&#39;t understand tensors or they are using them in a new way. Either way, they failed miserably.

So, if dialectics is worth anything, as I repeat myself for the n-th time, it is then paramount to present them formulated in math.

Is that too much to ask for?

The result of Marxism-Leninism&#39;s board was nothing more than Soviet pseudo-math; I hope that this board will result in a better manner.

My fucking point is elementary: present dialectics in a damn mathematical manner. Apparently that is too longwinded for some people.

[Floyce White]

Floyce White: "I&#39;m willing to concede that the brain&#39;s problem-solving process does not need to be called &#39;math.&#39;"

ComradeRed: "What a brilliant argument&#33; A dialectical flame, woe is me&#33; &#39;Where arguments fail, put in their place flames&#33;&#39;"

It&#39;s a "flame" to say that the forming of neuron connections does not have to be called "math?" Well then, let&#39;s drop that particular line of discussion.

ComradeRed: "My point is elementary: present dialectics in a mathematical manner."

I do not have the obligation to prove anything about dialectics because I do not assert that dialectics is valid or not valid. You are the one who asserts that dialectics is not valid. You are the one with the obligation to prove that dialectics cannot be used to solve any problem.

The question is: how are you going to do this?

I would be very interested in reading and discussing a refutation of dialectics. I am not at all interested in signing up for a couple of semesters of set theory. Didn&#39;t it ever occur to you that the best way to defeat someone&#39;s false claims of being so complex that "you don&#39;t understand"--is with simplicity? Didn&#39;t it ever occur to you that the only way you&#39;re going to get tens of millions of working-class activists to understand what you mean is by phrasing it in the language that workers use? Otherwise, dishonest defenders of dialectics will know that only a few thousand people understand your out-complex refutation, and they&#39;ll just lie and say that "you don&#39;t understand."

ComradeRed: "Desperately making up nonsense to slander my name, bravo&#33;"

I don&#39;t know your name. On the other hand, I&#39;m a public communist. You&#39;re saying that I am mistaken. Fine. You&#39;ve corrected the mistake.

[ArgueEverything]

"So, if dialectics is worth anything, as I repeat myself for the n-th time, it is then paramount to present them formulated in math."

Why? Dialectics is a conceptual way of organising reality and analysing systems, especially systems that are constantly changing. Namely, it insists on characterising the elements of such systems by their relationships with other elements, and on focusing on the changes in these relationships (as well as changes in the system as a whole).

There are also the other features of dialectics which others have mentioned (identity/difference, interpenetration of opposites, quantity to quality, contradiction).

I fail to see why upholding dialectics as a useful way of looking at the world, means that it is "paramount" that we present it mathematically.

No one (except perhaps the most crude Stalinist philistines) is suggesting that we look at EVERYTHING around us dialectically. For most things, formal logic works just fine. But when analysing something as complex as an economic system, like capitalism, where surface appearances often distort reality, the dialectical method is a handy demystifying tool. Without it, Marx wouldn&#39;t have been able to write Das Kapital in the way he did.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by ArgueEverything+--> (ArgueEverything)Why? Dialectics is a conceptual way of organising reality and analysing systems, especially systems that are constantly changing. Namely, it insists on characterising the elements of such systems by their relationships with other elements, and on focusing on the changes in these relationships (as well as changes in the system as a whole). [/b] The problem I have with this is that it presents things in the most incomprehensible manner. This implies that since it was presented in such an esoteric manner, it actually has nothing to present.

If something can be said, it can be said well. Dialecticians cannot say anything well and dialectically.



There are also the other features of dialectics which others have mentioned (identity/difference, interpenetration of opposites, quantity to quality, contradiction).

I fail to see why upholding dialectics as a useful way of looking at the world, means that it is "paramount" that we present it mathematically.

No one (except perhaps the most crude Stalinist philistines) is suggesting that we look at EVERYTHING around us dialectically. For most things, formal logic works just fine. But when analysing something as complex as an economic system, like capitalism, where surface appearances often distort reality, the dialectical method is a handy demystifying tool. Without it, Marx wouldn&#39;t have been able to write Das Kapital in the way he did. What&#39;s disappointing about the "features" of dialectics is that it doesn&#39;t state anything precisely.

Something somewhere will change sometime for some reason&#33; This is good, but so what?

Math can present the same features, with precision. So, why would you keep dialectics? There is a better, more precise tool available; use it&#33;

From the dialectical presentation of, well, anything, it looks as though it&#39;s complete bullshit. Thus to end the reign of terror of the dialectical method, we need to observe the formulation of dialectics through some medium. Then we can finally say "Ah, it&#39;s bullshit, as you can see here..." or "Ah, it&#39;s genius, as you see there...".

What is really interesting is that Das Kapital is of scientific merit. However, in its current state, it looks incomprehensible. Thanks to dialectics, of course.

Mathematics is such a powerful tool that it really can explain complex systems&#33; Complex systems theory explains that which dialectics attempts to with the "horrible metaphysical flaw" that it successfully explains systems with words anyone can explain&#33;

I really don&#39;t see any reason to keep dialectics, since everything dialecticians claim it to do is superceded by mathematics. When a tool is obsolete, upgrade.


Floyce White

I do not have the obligation to prove anything about dialectics because I do not assert that dialectics is valid or not valid. You are the one who asserts that dialectics is not valid. You are the one with the obligation to prove that dialectics cannot be used to solve any problem. My reasoning is actually quite elementary: 1. Dialectics claim to do x, y, and z.
2. Math can actually do x, y and z and prove it better.
Conclusion: Math is a better tool than dialectics.

Anything a dialectician can do, a mathematician could do it better.


I would be very interested in reading and discussing a refutation of dialectics. I am not at all interested in signing up for a couple of semesters of set theory. Didn&#39;t it ever occur to you that the best way to defeat someone&#39;s false claims of being so complex that "you don&#39;t understand"--is with simplicity? Didn&#39;t it ever occur to you that the only way you&#39;re going to get tens of millions of working-class activists to understand what you mean is by phrasing it in the language that workers use? Otherwise, dishonest defenders of dialectics will know that only a few thousand people understand your out-complex refutation, and they&#39;ll just lie and say that "you don&#39;t understand." Frankly, the best refutation of dialectics I can think of is that the dialecticians really don&#39;t know what they are talking about.

Mathematics embodies everything dialectics supposedly does, and expands much further. Thus we can reject dialectics on the grounds of it being dated.

Mathematics may be "hard"...but I expect that it is largely due to the poorly written texts out there on it. That is my "quixotic vision": to present math in a way that is simple and applicable...though this is neither here nor there.

However, there is nothing more simple to the refutation of dialectics than proving math precisely does the same thing and much more&#33; It&#39;s like having a model T Ford or a solar powered car: sometimes it&#39;s just time to upgrade&#33;

Is that too reactionary a point for the dialecticians to take? Well, since you admitted to not being one of the dialectical orthodoxy, I don&#39;t expect you to answer for them.

But it&#39;s my "metaphysical" reasoning that if there is a tool A, and a tool B, where one does a certain number of things and the other does more, it only makes sense you go with the one that does more better&#33;

[ArgueEverything]

ComradeRed;

" What&#39;s disappointing about the "features" of dialectics is that it doesn&#39;t state anything precisely."

Well when discussing a social science, like Marx&#39;s historical materialism, it is, of course, impossible to state things "precisely", i.e. with the precision of the natural sciences like Physics or Chemistry. Or mathematics.

Nevertheless, it is possible, in a similar way that biologists classify living things into categories, to arrange the subject-of-study of social science (i.e. society) into categories. Dialectics insists that these categories not exist as abstract, isolated units, but should be defined by their relationship with other categories, AND that they should be seen as part of a system which is not static, but constantly changing.

It seems from what you&#39;ve written that you don&#39;t necessarily disagree with what I&#39;ve written above; you merely dispute its usefulness, or think it can be said more usefully by maths. I disagree with both these objections. Most bourgeois social sciences, which rely on formal logic, like neoclassical economics, employ a fundamentally undialectical approach to their subject matter, leading to all sorts of mystifications.

A good example that Ollman provides in his book (Dance of the Dialectic): conventional economic textbooks will give definitions of the terms profit, rent, and interest, and note the obvious differences between them. However, Marx, because of his dialectical method (which insists on seeing such categories not merely in isolation, but IN RELATION TO ONE ANOTHER), was able to grasp that these 3 things, for all their differences, are actually all forms of surplus value extracted, in the final analysis, from labour.

Now sure, you may turn around and say, you don&#39;t need dialectical logic to come to realise that. That&#39;s certainly true. But putting oneself in a dialectical frame of mind would, I think, definitely help. And it certainly helped Marx.

"Something somewhere will change sometime for some reason&#33; This is good, but so what?"

Again, you seem to be asking for an impossible level of precision from social science. Marxism has never claimed to be able to tell the future - if you want that, see an astrologer&#33; However, dialectics provides a FRAMEWORK that puts ones mind in the right gear for making educated guesses about what might happen in the future, not least because it insists that we recognise that change is inherent in systems like capitalism. By analysing the dialectical &#39;categories&#39; that one has established in the system (that i spoke about above), one can make educated hypotheses about the future course of capitalism.

"Math can present the same features, with precision. So, why would you keep dialectics? There is a better, more precise tool available; use it&#33;"

I don&#39;t really know what you mean when you say "math can present the same features, with precision". For me, dialectics is practical useful only in fields like social science, philosophy etc. How would any mathematical formulation apply here? We approach such disciplines with "frameworks" and "theories" in mind, not formulae.

"What is really interesting is that Das Kapital is of scientific merit. However, in its current state, it looks incomprehensible. Thanks to dialectics, of course."

Well generations of political economists would dispute your contention that Das Kapital is incomprehensible. Long, at times tortuously boring, maybe, but incomprehensible - that is a big call. There are many interpretations of it, that&#39;s true, but there are many interpretations of The Wealth of Nations, The Bible, and myriad other texts that have a devoted following (and these didn&#39;t employ dialectical logic, that&#39;s for sure).

Even if I accept your claim that Das Kapital is incomprehensible, I would say it&#39;s because of disputes over the handling of technical economic problems like the transformation problem and the labour theory of value, not so much the dialectical method per se.

"Mathematics is such a powerful tool that it really can explain complex systems&#33; Complex systems theory explains that which dialectics attempts to with the "horrible metaphysical flaw" that it successfully explains systems with words anyone can explain&#33;"

Could complex systems theory have come up with Das Kapital, or the Theory of Historical Materialism? Because these were both the fruits of Marx applying the dialectical method to his intellectual pursuits.

Complex systems theory is even less helpful when looking at specifics. Could it explain, for instance, using the example i gave above, that profit, rent, and interest are all forms of surplus value? Of course not...

[ArgueEverything]

double post, sorry

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by ArgueEverything

Well when discussing a social science, like Marx&#39;s historical materialism, it is, of course, impossible to state things "precisely", i.e. with the precision of the natural sciences like Physics or Chemistry. Or mathematics. How so? Is it "impossible" to state what a class is with precision? Is it impossible to point out who is in what class with precision? Is it impossible to point out the changes in the superstructure due to technology?

This seems pretty reactionary. Marxism&#39;s a science, but it just can&#39;t be put scientifically.

As I pointed out earlier, mathematics is extremely varsatile and precise. If there is anything that can be stated dealing with quantity, change, etc., it can be said mathematically.

Marxism can be put mathematically...a sort of "Mathematical Marxism", a parallel to "Mathematical Physics" or "Mathematical Biology". Is this bad?


Nevertheless, it is possible, in a similar way that biologists classify living things into categories, to arrange the subject-of-study of social science (i.e. society) into categories. Dialectics insists that these categories not exist as abstract, isolated units, but should be defined by their relationship with other categories, AND that they should be seen as part of a system which is not static, but constantly changing. Yes, dialecticians claim this to be true. And frankly, since there is no coherent way to present anything dialectically, there is no way I can check this.

But IF they&#39;re claims are correct, that they can investigate the magic of systems, they still lack precision.

This is where math goes much further than dialectics. Not only can math categorize, but it can demonstrate the interplay of the parts (and the evolution of the system) precisely. Further, it can do this with clarity, rigor, and precision.

Dialecticians have neither.

Take for example, Engels&#39; first "law": Quantitative changes become qualitative and vice-versa. Mathematics can do this easily, it&#39;s elementary calculus taught to High School students: it&#39;s called the "inflection point" or "point of inflection". Better, mathematics demonstrates the precise point and rate the "quantitative changes" become "qualitative".


It seems from what you&#39;ve written that you don&#39;t necessarily disagree with what I&#39;ve written above; you merely dispute its usefulness, or think it can be said more usefully by maths. I disagree with both these objections. Most bourgeois social sciences, which rely on formal logic, like neoclassical economics, employ a fundamentally undialectical approach to their subject matter, leading to all sorts of mystifications. What I am contesting is that dialectics, if it really can do all it claims, is ineffective and unclear.

This makes it a really poor tool.

Mathematics can do everything dialectics claim to, and much much more&#33; It can even prove it step by step. Dialectics lack this rigor.

Now, I will not contest that bourgeois economics uses math. However, it uses math extremely poorly. I contest that bourgeois economics&#39; use of math should be the measure of the usefulness of math.

For example, if we consider one of their theorems: MU(X)/P(X) = MU(Y)/P(Y); that is the marginal utility of commodity X over the price of X is equal to the marginal utility of Y over the price of Y. Now, what sticks out to mind is that this can be manipulated to state that the price of X over the price of Y is equal to the marginal utility of X over the marginal utility of Y.

This means, in laypeople&#39;s terms, the ratio of utility is equal to the ratio of price for two commodities. Thus price is directly proportional to marginal utility.

The problem is that bourgeois economists claim that marginal utility will "eventually" be zero. If have plug that in for the marginal utility of Y, we have the ratio be infinity. This is a big "no-no" in mathematics. From this perspective alone, marginalism is in "deep shit".

The misuse of mathematics is only one of the reasons why "modern" economics is so grossly unscientific.

Ricardo, for example, used formal logic. So he is wrong? Of course with things like rent, he is wrong. But we can refer to Sraffa&#39;s criticism of this (the land&#39;s fertility determined by the ratio of output to labor, which then affects the price and rent, etc.).

If he is wrong, Marx is wrong too. Marx based his theories, afterall, on Ricardo&#39;s works. But since Ricardo&#39;s work is wrong, Marx must be wrong as well.

Not even dialectics could save him from a wrong basis.

Though, to answer the first part of your statement, I don&#39;t really know if dialectics can do what dialecticians claim it to. I do know, based on the claims of the dialecticians and my knowledge of math, that mathematics seems to embody and extend much further that which dialectics aims to.

This makes math a better tool...this in addition to the rigor, et al.


Now sure, you may turn around and say, you don&#39;t need dialectical logic to come to realise that. That&#39;s certainly true. But putting oneself in a dialectical frame of mind would, I think, definitely help. And it certainly helped Marx. I can see your point, but math has the same thing. It is called "diffeomorphism invariance".

Since I don&#39;t know what level you know math, I&#39;ll give my best shot to explain diffeomorphism invariance. In relativity, the "background independence" of objects causes the motion of bodies to be relative. As the old internet gag goes, when one asks "Did the chicken cross the road?" Einstein&#39;s reply is "Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road cross the chicken? It&#39;s all relative to your inertial frame point."

That is a diffeomorphism invariance. Did the chicken cross the road or did the road cross the chicken?

And I completely agree, diffeomorphism invariance when looking at things such as economics is extremely useful. Personally, the bourgeois economists are would be scientists; they write mathematical formulae and call it science (regardless of the validity of the formulae). If economists actually learn as much math as a (theoretical) physics major, they might learn something useful.

However, the dialectical framework is -- from what I can grasp of its description -- best described as part of finite category theory.

Not being a dialectician, I can&#39;t say one way or the other. But by judging the effectiveness of math compared to dialectics in this matter, I must confess that math has the edge with it&#39;s precision. If dialectics could be formulated in math, specifically category theory (more specifically topoi), there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

We could even end the debate on "formal logic v. dialectics". What is there to lose?


Again, you seem to be asking for an impossible level of precision from social science. Marxism has never claimed to be able to tell the future - if you want that, see an astrologer&#33; However, dialectics provides a FRAMEWORK that puts ones mind in the right gear for making educated guesses about what might happen in the future, not least because it insists that we recognise that change is inherent in systems like capitalism. By analysing the dialectical &#39;categories&#39; that one has established in the system (that i spoke about above), one can make educated hypotheses about the future course of capitalism. Curious, a dialectician refers me to an astrologer :P

The social sciences can be presented in a more precise manner provided the aid of correct mathematics is used. Not this Neoclassical nonsense.

The most effective framework method is presented by math called topoi. It is so effective that it can actually be a medium to explain dialectics in it, if a dialectician would be so kind as to do such a thing.

Category theory can demonstrate the interplay of components, its evolution over time, and much more. It does it with clarity, precision, and mathematical rigor.

Dialectics claims to do it, but at the cost of clarity, precision, and any rigor.

Strictly from this perspective, what is there to lose to ditch dialectics for math?


I don&#39;t really know what you mean when you say "math can present the same features, with precision". For me, dialectics is practical useful only in fields like social science, philosophy etc. How would any mathematical formulation apply here? We approach such disciplines with "frameworks" and "theories" in mind, not formulae. What I mean is that with the "mathematical foundations of math" (or sometimes called "metamath") and "discrete math", math accomplishes the same thing dialectics claims to.

Engels&#39; "Three Laws of Dialectics" is utterly useless. What the hell exactly is the "interpenetration of the negation of the negation"? It sounds neat, but it hasn&#39;t been described clearly.

Now, if we were to, say, reformulate this in math, it could actually be useful.

As I pointed out above, take Engels&#39; first "law" for example. It seems "useful", but when described mathematically it actually has use and precision. The best thing is that it&#39;s varsatile&#33;

From my extremely crude understanding of something like the "negation of the negation", if we take something (say A). Then we take the negation of the negation of A (that is, in math, ~~A; "~" to be read as "not-") it is not the same as A.

I really don&#39;t know if that is the proper dialectical explanation, so please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Math, though, had all ready said the same thing with clarity. With A, we can derive ~~A which is not A, but with ~~A we cannot derive A. This is more useful than merely shouting "Negation of the negation&#33;"


Well generations of political economists would dispute your contention that Das Kapital is incomprehensible. Long, at times tortuously boring, maybe, but incomprehensible - that is a big call. There are many interpretations of it, that&#39;s true, but there are many interpretations of The Wealth of Nations, The Bible, and myriad other texts that have a devoted following (and these didn&#39;t employ dialectical logic, that&#39;s for sure). The only incomprehensible part, I might add, is the first part of the first chapter. The dialectical analysis of exchange and use-value.

Afterwards, it is pretty straightforward.

That is what prevents more people from reading it.

The dialectical analysis of commodities&#39; usevalue and exchange value only muddies things up terribly&#33; It is the only part of the book that is incomprehensible.



Even if I accept your claim that Das Kapital is incomprehensible, I would say it&#39;s because of disputes over the handling of technical economic problems like the transformation problem and the labour theory of value, not so much the dialectical method per se. -- emphasis added

I agree completely&#33; And how are these things handled? Dialectically, of course&#33;

It&#39;s time that Das Kapital is clarified.



Could complex systems theory have come up with Das Kapital, or the Theory of Historical Materialism? Because these were both the fruits of Marx applying the dialectical method to his intellectual pursuits. Yes, actually it really can.

The bulk of Das Kapital requires a little more than complex systems theory alone, e.g. matrices, et al. But the important parts of the tome could be put in terms of complex systems theory with some additional math where needed.

Historical materialism is an interesting one. It could actually be described with nonlinear game theory. That, I confess, cannot be described with complex systems. Classes as permeable teams being defined by their relation to one specific team (the "laboring" team) and the means of production, class struggle and consciousness being part of the game, the rules of the game evolving over time, etc. That does require rather complex math though.

In a sense historical materialism could be described by complex systems theory if you really wanted it to...but it would also be coupled with game theory and other mathematics.



Complex systems theory is even less helpful when looking at specifics. Could it explain, for instance, using the example i gave above, that profit, rent, and interest are all forms of surplus value? Of course not... No? I&#39;ll assume your correct temporarily.

Such "specifics" could be described mathematically, albeit not in terms of complex systems. We can explain the profit, rent, and interest as forms of surplus value if we take something (e.g. Neo-Ricardian economics) and deduce where the surplus products go.

We can even demonstrate it mathematically in Neo-Ricardian economics (albeit in Neo-Ricardian economics).

(Proof: There is a unique r iff there is a surplus by definition, which is then allocated via the determined ways through r. The codomain of the surplus is interest, profit, and rent. The set of these three elements is defined as surplus value on the basis that it is affecting the standard commodity, and reduced to dated labor; thus surplus value is defined to be a set consisting of profit, rent, and interest. QED)

Now if we were to take production coupled with circulation of commodities, and looked at it dynamically, complex systems would be very handy.

This would tell us a great deal of the social climate, and provide a great deal of new information on class society.

What is there to be lost besides ignorance?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 07:50 PM

that knowledge of the a posteriori can be arrived through means of the a priori, which is nonsense.

Math is nothing of this sort, it is a precise tool to model phenomenon...not predict it&#33;

I disagree, I would say that maths is a method to achieve "knowledge" (not getting into this) of the a posteriori through that which can be known a priori. If 2+2=4 is not a priori then nothing is.

Maths is our understanding of what exists, a piece of wood is a piece of wood, but we apply dimensions to it so that we understand it, but more importantly understand other dimensions of other pieces of wood.

Pi was something that existed, we applied symbols to it so we could express this in language form. We may have arived at this conclusion via other symbols, but essentially nothing was created new, it was just our understanding of what was already there was increased, because we found new ways of using the symbols to express this.


The dialecticians claim they did it simply by deducing General Relativity "from" dialectics; that is what I am arguing against.

This is fair enough, but perhaps a mathmatical refutation of dialectics would better suit this.

[ComradeRed]

I disagree, I would say that maths is a method to achieve "knowledge" (not getting into this) of the a posteriori through that which can be known a priori. If 2+2=4 is not a priori then nothing is. Not necessarily; true math "is" a priori, but where does this come from?

As Hume pointed out, if I think of the a priori concept of a "gold mountain" it is based on my a postereori knowledge of gold and mountains. Likewise, if I begin discussing a gravity in terms of math, we know through a postereori means what gravity is.

Math does not try to apprehend things sans experience. On the contrary, it is but a representation of that experience.

Why not argue that language does the same thing, and thus is useless? It is, afterall, an a priori tool to describe the a postereori.

What I contrast this with is dialectics, which claims to intuitively grasp everything by mere deduction from the dialectic, etc. This is the sort of a priori which I am arguing against, an artificial pseudo-synthetic a priori.



Pi was something that existed, we applied symbols to it so we could express this in language form. We may have arived at this conclusion via other symbols, but essentially nothing was created new, it was just our understanding of what was already there was increased, because we found new ways of using the symbols to express this. Where does the circle come from?

Pi is the relation of the circumference to the diameter of a circle, yet if the circle were truly a priori (which hasn&#39;t been shown) then you would be correct.

The circle was seen first a postereori and then deductions were drawn from it, e.g. pi.

Math is posited in empiricism, then deduces the consequences of a problem through "a priori" means. Some, like algebra, are a giant tautology. Others, like geometry, are merely means of deduction. However there is still mathematical induction; and if we combine all of these things together, we get an extremely effective tool.


This is fair enough, but perhaps a mathmatical refutation of dialectics would better suit this. The problem is that dialectics is really quite incoherent, and no two dialecticians agree with the same definition of dialectics.

Take, for example, the previous thread on dialectical materialism. "Engels&#39; three laws could be used," says one. "Nonsense&#33;" says another.

So is it supposed to be used or not?&#33;? :huh:

Let&#39;s then go to the source: Hegel...as if that would help. The longwinded philistine couldn&#39;t say anything coherently, much less explain dialectics such that it could be used effectively.

This leads me to suspect that either he doesn&#39;t want it to be used or that he doesn&#39;t have anything to be used.

It makes a mathematical criticism of dialectics very hard...if not impossible.

Thus it makes sense to ask the dialecticians to present a coherent formulation of dialectics in math, making it infinitely easier to understand and criticize.

So in the grand scheme of things, a mathematical criticism of dialectics requires a mathematical formulation of dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Che y M, I am sorry I did not read your earlier comments on logic (back on page one), but now I have.

I have entered your thoughts in my hall of fame, as yet another dialectics fan who cannot get the basics even of Aristotelian Logic right.

The problem is, as I see it, that you lot just copy the &#39;three laws&#39; of logic off one another without so much as bothering to check, either against what Aristotle actually wrote or against what has been written on the subject since.

There aren&#39;t three laws in logic, and even if there were, the &#39;definitions&#39; you give wouldn&#39;t be them (yours are a joke&#33;). I challenge you to find a single modern logic text with your &#39;laws&#39; in it.

In fact, I double-dog dare you....

[You would be most upset if anti-Maxists did this with Marx&#39;s work.]

You check out your immortalised words, Che y M; they are exactly (almost word for word) what dozens of dialecticas fans before you have said -- which proves you all copy off one another -- here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm

A link to your prize words is about 3/4&#39;s of the way down the page.

You will also find there a brief account of what Aristotle himself said, and a dissection of the sorts of fabrication dialectics fans come out with.


Oh, and have the decency to learn some logic before you pontificate about it.

My Webpage (http://www.anti-dialectics.org)