Ymir
6th December 2005, 03:40
I do not claim to be an expert philosopher, nor even well versed in Dialectical Materialism. That being said, my defense of Dialectical Materialism will mostly consist of pointing out formal logical flaws in arguments given in the Philosophy forum, or explaining basic ideas.
Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)"Dialectics" purports to be a "different" and "better" way of "thinking" (conceptualizing?) about reality.
Can this be demonstrated to be true?[/b]
As far as anything can be demonstrated to be true. Empirical evidence supports dialectical materialism. For instance, the commonly used idea that "quantity is commensurable with quality" is empirically shown in Chemistry, wherein an atom's characteristics are directly related to its number of protons and neutrons. Thus the numbers and quantity of a thing create the quality of a thing. The quality being measured in certain characteristics such as electronegativity and formation of chemical compounds. In biology, the much debated topic of evolution is another instance of dialectics at work. Species evolve and change due to forces, called contradictions by Hegel. Someone also brought up Trotsky's example in which a cook prepares a soup, and by adding a specific quantity of salt, it becomes flavored, but with another quantity of salt it becomes disgusting. Thus a real world application of the dialectical thought.
Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Not just in words...but in actual revolutionary practice?[/b]
In regards to revolutionary practice, Dialectical Materialism shows that the inevitable class struggle is unwinnable for the capitalists. The central thought of dialectics is that everything changes and develops. If everthing changes, and the capitalist is in control today, who will be in control tomorrow? The worker. That is the great revolutionary contribution of dialectical materialism. That is why capitalism, while it exists today, ultimately will become something else. What will it become? Socialism. Communism. Worker power.
Has this been shown to be true? Yes, it has. Either they slowly give away their wealth to workers to broker peace, or they become super-authoritarian and a massive and violent revolution destroys them. And yes, this has been shown to be happening. Whenever an authoritarian capitalist society, such as Cuba under Batista or Russia under the Czars*, attempts to clamp down on the workers, it undoes itself. When a more liberal capitalist society decides to avoid revolution by "paying off the workers" with labor regulations, increased wages, and better standards of living, it has also admitted defeat, although the capitalists are still in control, their power continues to ebb away as the workers, with newly acquired wealth, demand more. Eventually these societies too must continue down the road to socialism or risk a revolution by undoing the workers' gains. A good example of this is the United States under the New Deal. By giving workers better wages, higher standards of living, and some amenities, they safeguarded North America from an otherwise imminent revolution.
Originally posted by redstar2000
Do all (or even any) of the 20th century "masters of the dialectic" have anything useful to say to us?
About anything?
Yes! Dialectical Materialism helps us better understand history, science, and logic. The dialectics created by Hegel extended logic to not merely "Is something true? Does something exist?" into If something exists today, how will it exist tomorrow?" These ideas have been confirmed by Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and history.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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?
What claims are being disputed?
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
Actually, scientific theories, evidence, and facts have done nothing but support the dialectical theories, as I have shown above.
Originally posted by redstar2000
"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.
Um, no. Dialectics is at work all around us, it is more than linguistical. I reference my paragraphs above regarding historical, physical, and chemical evidence of dialectics.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
I'd like to see what evidence or facts you have to back up your claim that dialectics are mere superstition and not based on reality. Refute any of the principles of dialectical materialism with material evidence, then your words will mean something.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
Dialectical Materialism is far from the justification of capitulation to the bourgeoisie, in fact it is the sole proof that the proletarian revolution can not fail, as I gave a basic explanation of above. Who has used dialectical materialism to capitulate? I want names, movements, facts. You demand facts and evidence of dialectical theorists yet supply none yourself.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
Nice way to smuggle your own opinions into a philosophical debate.
Originally posted by 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.
You have missed the point of dialectics competely. Dialectics explains motion, change, and creative forces. "Geometric proofs" deal with dimensional existence, that is, the transitory form of something. One doesn't and indeed can not use a theory of motion to prove a geometrical theory. That would be like trying to explain the color "red" in terms of smell. It's not possible as the two aren't directly related.
[email protected]
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"?
Mathematics is built upon axioms, suppositions, and assumptions. Its system is self-explanatory to the point of tautologicality. Whereas mathematics has been divised according to principle axioms, such as 1=1, Dialectal Materialism actually goes beyond the mind, as there are things in the real world which confirm it. I'm not trying to disprove mathematics, I'm just saying that your claim that "math is true because there is math to back it up" is absurd.
ComradeRed
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.
Science is philosophy! When one gets a degree in science, it is called Natural Philosophy, as science is merely the philosophy of the natural world! Many times philosophical theories deal with things that are not empirically relatable such as love, power, morality, but it would be illogical to say that science [a type of philosophy] is any more provable than philosophy in general!
I will write more tomorrow, when I have more time.
Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)"Dialectics" purports to be a "different" and "better" way of "thinking" (conceptualizing?) about reality.
Can this be demonstrated to be true?[/b]
As far as anything can be demonstrated to be true. Empirical evidence supports dialectical materialism. For instance, the commonly used idea that "quantity is commensurable with quality" is empirically shown in Chemistry, wherein an atom's characteristics are directly related to its number of protons and neutrons. Thus the numbers and quantity of a thing create the quality of a thing. The quality being measured in certain characteristics such as electronegativity and formation of chemical compounds. In biology, the much debated topic of evolution is another instance of dialectics at work. Species evolve and change due to forces, called contradictions by Hegel. Someone also brought up Trotsky's example in which a cook prepares a soup, and by adding a specific quantity of salt, it becomes flavored, but with another quantity of salt it becomes disgusting. Thus a real world application of the dialectical thought.
Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Not just in words...but in actual revolutionary practice?[/b]
In regards to revolutionary practice, Dialectical Materialism shows that the inevitable class struggle is unwinnable for the capitalists. The central thought of dialectics is that everything changes and develops. If everthing changes, and the capitalist is in control today, who will be in control tomorrow? The worker. That is the great revolutionary contribution of dialectical materialism. That is why capitalism, while it exists today, ultimately will become something else. What will it become? Socialism. Communism. Worker power.
Has this been shown to be true? Yes, it has. Either they slowly give away their wealth to workers to broker peace, or they become super-authoritarian and a massive and violent revolution destroys them. And yes, this has been shown to be happening. Whenever an authoritarian capitalist society, such as Cuba under Batista or Russia under the Czars*, attempts to clamp down on the workers, it undoes itself. When a more liberal capitalist society decides to avoid revolution by "paying off the workers" with labor regulations, increased wages, and better standards of living, it has also admitted defeat, although the capitalists are still in control, their power continues to ebb away as the workers, with newly acquired wealth, demand more. Eventually these societies too must continue down the road to socialism or risk a revolution by undoing the workers' gains. A good example of this is the United States under the New Deal. By giving workers better wages, higher standards of living, and some amenities, they safeguarded North America from an otherwise imminent revolution.
Originally posted by redstar2000
Do all (or even any) of the 20th century "masters of the dialectic" have anything useful to say to us?
About anything?
Yes! Dialectical Materialism helps us better understand history, science, and logic. The dialectics created by Hegel extended logic to not merely "Is something true? Does something exist?" into If something exists today, how will it exist tomorrow?" These ideas have been confirmed by Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and history.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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?
What claims are being disputed?
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
Actually, scientific theories, evidence, and facts have done nothing but support the dialectical theories, as I have shown above.
Originally posted by redstar2000
"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.
Um, no. Dialectics is at work all around us, it is more than linguistical. I reference my paragraphs above regarding historical, physical, and chemical evidence of dialectics.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
I'd like to see what evidence or facts you have to back up your claim that dialectics are mere superstition and not based on reality. Refute any of the principles of dialectical materialism with material evidence, then your words will mean something.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
Dialectical Materialism is far from the justification of capitulation to the bourgeoisie, in fact it is the sole proof that the proletarian revolution can not fail, as I gave a basic explanation of above. Who has used dialectical materialism to capitulate? I want names, movements, facts. You demand facts and evidence of dialectical theorists yet supply none yourself.
Originally posted by redstar2000
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.
Nice way to smuggle your own opinions into a philosophical debate.
Originally posted by 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.
You have missed the point of dialectics competely. Dialectics explains motion, change, and creative forces. "Geometric proofs" deal with dimensional existence, that is, the transitory form of something. One doesn't and indeed can not use a theory of motion to prove a geometrical theory. That would be like trying to explain the color "red" in terms of smell. It's not possible as the two aren't directly related.
[email protected]
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"?
Mathematics is built upon axioms, suppositions, and assumptions. Its system is self-explanatory to the point of tautologicality. Whereas mathematics has been divised according to principle axioms, such as 1=1, Dialectal Materialism actually goes beyond the mind, as there are things in the real world which confirm it. I'm not trying to disprove mathematics, I'm just saying that your claim that "math is true because there is math to back it up" is absurd.
ComradeRed
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.
Science is philosophy! When one gets a degree in science, it is called Natural Philosophy, as science is merely the philosophy of the natural world! Many times philosophical theories deal with things that are not empirically relatable such as love, power, morality, but it would be illogical to say that science [a type of philosophy] is any more provable than philosophy in general!
I will write more tomorrow, when I have more time.