Modern Hegelians

[bezdomni]

It seems that the main remnants of Hegelian philosophy are present mostly in the Marxist movement. I just got back from a bookstore and I saw a ton of books on Hegel, so people are obviously still reading him, yet I have never heard of a person declare themself a "hegelian". Obviously, I don't hang out with philosophy professors, so I would be very removed from Hegelians, but I do read a bit of philosophy and haven't seen this.

I also read a book on Logic, and it had a chapter on the "critiques of logic". There were about two paragraphs on Dialectheism, and it said that there are some logicians that are trying to unite dialectics with logic. The author of this book (more in love with Formal Logic than Rosa) even thinks that this is possible.

I'll have to find the quote, because I don't want to butcher what he said. The next time I go to the library, I'll have to find it.

So, are there any pure "Hegelians" today? And do you think that a unity of dialectics and formal logic is possible?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CP:

Yep, and they have been making a strong come-back over the last 20 years (particularly in the USA). Check this out:

http://www.hegel.org/

Their journal is called 'The Owl of Minerva' (hence the by-line at my site).

You can see how far this infestation has spread here:

http://www.hegel.org/links.html

They have even spread over here (in the UK):

http://www.hsgb.group.shef.ac.uk/index.html

And Germany (but they never left):

http://www.hegel-gesellschaft.de/

Mysticism, therefore, does not just haunt Dialectical Marxism.

[bezdomni]

Dues are $35 U.S. for regular membership and $17 U.S. for student membership.

:blink:

Who would pay $35 dollars for that?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, if you are an Idealist, you can just imagine it anyway....

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

hehe, no prole is gona pay that, at least only academics will bother...the bunch of good for nothings.

But in an another thread in the learning section, ive been trying to get a clear answer on whether normal dialectics comes under the same critiicisms as DM gets.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCS:

"But in an another thread in the learning section, ive been trying to get a clear answer on whether normal dialectics comes under the same critiicisms as DM gets."

I am sorry, I missed that thread.

It depends on what you mean by 'dialectics'.

"Systematic Dialectics" (SD) is an academic pastime, which has had, thankfully, no discernible affect on the class struggle (even if its presence goes to show that that section of the borgeoisie who run universities do not, according to their predicted response, find it an "abomination"), although it apparently looks good on the CV. [Check out the work of Bertell Ollman, Tony Smith and Chris Arthur, among others, for this up-market form of philosophical consolation.]

Materialist Dialectics (MD -- a bargain basement form of the above practiced by the vast majority of Marxists (who know about it) is in some respects no different from DM, but in others totally different (for example, where, under the influence of, say, Lukacs it is only applied to the development of class society, and not nature). [This mutant strain can be found in various forms in the work of Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Gerry Healy, and of late, John Rees (whose book prompted me to begin my 'project') and of course, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Plekhanov, etc.]

The criticism of any and all forms of this Hermetic Virus must proceed differently in each case; at my site I mainly concentrate on DM, but in one Essay I expose the ruling-class origin of all philosophical thought (which, in view of that other thread here, also includes Buddhist Philosophy, which encourages, among other things, 'acceptance', thus giving the ruling-class a free hand to continue to oppress etc. (no wonder they like it!)), and not just the mystical hybrid found in DM, MD and SD.

That Essay has not be published yet, but it is summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[LoneRed]

once again it gets turned into an anti-dialectic thread. I think you and redstar should be open about your position, that of Vulgar Marxism, where technological change is where it all starts than branches up to the economy, ideologies, political power, than superstructure. This view is a failure, it will never bring about socialism. They believe this because they are against dialectics, so they have to make up some way that it still looks good, without retaining what they dont like

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone Red:

"I think you and redstar should be open about your position..."

Could we be any clearer than we already have been?

You DM-fans have a cheek; you are not exactly the non-existent deity's gift to clarity. In your case it's the cooking pot calling the sterilising dish sooty. [Most of your last post was incoherent.]

"This view is a failure, it will never bring about socialism."

And the world is teeming with workers' states thanks to you DM-mystics, is it?

If you [i]can, you need to try to grapple with what I say, not with what you feel you can make me say.

But, if you are a DM-fan, your logically-challenged state will probably stand in your way, here.

Tough.

[LoneRed]

the failure of bringing socialism to china and russia had nothing to do with dialectics, it actually has shown that dialectics works as it does. the antangonisms specific to the USSR have been in such a way that failed to bring socialism. capitalist pressure on all sides, feudalism, as well as the deeply held belief of authority in that country. saying that USSR and China failed doesnt disprove dialectics, you have not shown so.

[which doctor]

http://www.hegel.org/roster.html

Check out their members. Notice where thier from. Over half are from universities.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone:

"the failure of bringing socialism to china and russia had nothing to do with dialectics, it actually has shown that dialectics works as it does. the antangonisms specific to the USSR have been in such a way that failed to bring socialism."

Well, this can only mean that dialectics can never fail, for you can always invent a reason and call it an 'antagonism', to save your 'theory' from refutation.

But, if you do that, which you are perfectly at liberty to do, you cannot also cling onto the idea that truth is tested in practice, since nothing can be tested if it cannot fail.

Either way, dialectics take a body blow.

I can live with that.

"saying that USSR and China failed doesnt disprove dialectics, you have not shown so"

Well, given the way you DM-fans argue, nothing could count as a disproof (and, it is perfectly plain that your (collective) estrangement from logic makes you the last people on the planet capable of deciding). So, once again, you are in no position to sit in judgement.

However, the failure of socialism in China, as a practical test of the truth of dialectical Marxism, certainly encourages a prima facie suspicion that not all is right with your 'theory'. This accounts for your desperate search for 'antagonisms' to rescue it.

So let us examine it more closely (this is done in considerably more detail at my site).

Because DM allowed the 'Marxist' forces involved in the Chinese revolution to think they could substitute themselves for the working class and bring socialism to their country throught the back door, as it were, no wonder it failed. This was eminently predicatable (and was predicted, and on the basis of just such a substitution).

Now, this is why I directly link the failure of socialism in China to the crazy theory Mao and his aides swallowed. I accuse DM of being the ideology of substitutionist elements in Marxism (i.e., of those social forces, almost exclusively non-proletarian (Mao, Castro, the tattered remnants of the Russian Bolshevik Party, etc., etc.), who wish to by-pass, for whatever reason, the only force capable of building a socialist society, and thus who end-up substituting themselves for the working-class).

Class society thus does not come to an end (how can it if without a workers' revolution?), we just get more exploitation and oppression of the working-class, which then ends up hating Marxism. This is why, as the working class increases in size, the influence of Dialectical Marxsim diminshes year on year.

Made the connection yet?

Because DM is a contradictory theory (its adherents expect contradictions at every turn), it allows its acolytes to use any old idea to justify anything they like (even to the extent of contradicting the fundamental idea that socialism can only be acheived by the proletariat -- scratch a DM-fan, and you will like as not find someone who looks to Russian Tanks, Third-world guerilla armies, left-leaning reformists (like Chavez), or anything at all, to bring about the revolution).

But, when everything goes belly-up (as it always does) they then turn round and accuse any who disagree (or who, like me. point out where the fault partly lies -- in this wacko theory) of 'not understanding dialectics', which is a safe accusation to make since no one understands this mystical theory, hence its usefulness.

Indeed, DM works rather like certain doctrines of the Church (such as the Trinity), which no one understands, but which can be used by 'experts' to brand anyone a heretic who fails to toe the party-line. [That helps account for the the sectarianism, in the Church and in Marxism.]

Or, like you, they invent a few more 'antagonisms' (in the way that Ptolemaic astronomers used to invent a few more 'epicycles' when their theory failed to work).

Now, coupled with the sustained drubbing DM is receiving at my site (and having already come under suspicion for delivering humanity 130 years of almost continual failure -- courtesy of its tendency to encourage splits and expulsions, and its inherent disposition to justify substitutionism), I think we can safely say that dialectics is looking about as healthy as Ptolemaic astronomy did 450 years ago -- in fact worse: at least Ptolemaic astronomy was fairly accurate for a few hundred years or so.

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

DM: provably wrong, but mercifully in terminal decline as a result.

It is indeed its own grave-digger.

Find out why at:

http:www.anti-dialectics.org

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist, you are right. Hegelians tend to be academics or religious nuts (aka theologians).

[Janus]

Because DM allowed the 'Marxist' forces involved in the Chinese revolution to think they could substitute themselves for the working class
Well, you can't really blame them. The Communists' infrastructure in the cities was destroyed. Therefore, this spurred the rise of leaders like Mao who made the observation that the peasants could become a powerful force if organized. Not necessarily dialectics but Mao's analysis was kind of cloaked in dialectic words.

[LoneRed]

thats a nice long response rosa, but it really didnt address anything. how does dialectics make it possible for substitutive elements? as you said, I agree with you 1. That Lenin,Mao etc.. used dialectics to say that they could transfer different elements with the proletariat as the situations were different in their countries, I completely see where your getting at. but the problem is, is that your using the petty-bourgeois ideologies, of stalin, and especially mao to refute Marxian dialectics, I agree those in USSR and china have painted dialectics,(to those that look deep into things) as something that can justify a lot of things, albeit anti-marxist actions. Their "dialectics" is nothing but petty-bourgeois tom foolerly

Im glad i understand more where your coming from, but disagree that it refutes marxian dialectics

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus:

"Well, you can't really blame them. The Communists' infrastructure in the cities was destroyed."

And we know who was responsible for that, the great DM-guru himself, Stalin (who personally helped destroy the Chinese Revolution of 1926).

But even if Stalin (and Co) weren't to blame, the substitutionist theory Mao adopted merely helped propel him in the direction he went, and to abject failure.

DM: tested in practice; known to fail.

As to whether this refutes DM -- as I noted it should put DM-fans on the defensive (but does not, since their theory is not scientific, but metaphysical), since it shows that when tested, it always screws up. So anyone who thinks truth is tested in practice, well they either have to abandon that very idea, or admit DM has been refuted by practice.

Fortunately, I have 1001 arguments (at my site) that do refute DM (which arguments merely confirm DM's ruling-class pedigree, and thus why it cannot help but fail).

[Janus]

And we know who was responsible for that, the great DM-guru himself, Stalin (who personally helped destroy the Chinese Revolution of 1926).
Pretty much. However, that was the official Comintern line back then: sponsorship of an urban proletarian revolution rather than a peasant based one. 1926? You mean the revolts in 1927? Anyways, Stalin continued to support an alliance between the Communists and Nationalists after the April 12 purges. Isn't that something. I'm going to stop now 'cause this is going too much into history.

Rosa, what do you recommend on combating this Hegelian Idealist tendency? And what exactly do you propose instead of DM?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone:

"thats a nice long response rosa, but it really didnt address anything."

Now, that a bit unfair; to this day the DM-fans who post here have not responded to the vast majority of points I have raised, and not just at my site, but at this forum. And most of what I posted was aimed at setting-up the claims I made (in what I honestly thought was an answer to you).

"how does dialectics make it possible for substitutive elements?"

It allows for contradictions, so whenever anyone points out that Marxism is about the self-emancipation of the working-class, and that Russian tanks cannot act for that class, the response is that the objector does not 'undersatnd dialectics' and is wedded to 'abstract formulae', and has not examined the 'concrete' situation, and cannot appreciate the contradictory forces ('antagonisms') there are in the world, blah blah.

Indeed, Mao invented his crazy theory of primary and secondary contradictions to allow him to ally the CP with the Koumintang. Fatal mistake.

Trotsky argued for the 'revolutionary' defence of the USSR, and supported Stalins' murderous invasion of Finland on eminently dialectical grounds. In my own experience, I have argued with comrades who think that the Red Army brought socialism to E Europe in the 1940's, and that I could not see this because i did not appreciate the contradictory forces ('antagonisms') at work, and was super-glued to an abstract formula, etc etc.

It even allows you to ignore the substitutionism in your own position, and prevents you from seeing that your 'theory' refuted. can refute it.]

In that case, DM is standing in the way of the scientific advance of Marxism, because it is preventing comrades from taking a hard look at their own history and seeing the failures for what they are (or even from seeing the failures -- like you, and your appeal to 'antagonisms').

So, since your response is quite common among DM-fans, we can look forward to another 130 years of the same failure -- except, now very few workers listen to the DM-gospel, since they have learnt what it means (gulags, anti-revolutionary posturing, oppression, explotation -- all 'justified' by contradictory logic).

Workers are far too materialistic to fall for this Idealist theory (as the evidence indicates, we are now further away from a 'workers' state' set-up by DM-fans than we were 80 years ago).

It is the one ray of light at the end of this DM-tunnel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus:

"Rosa, what do you recommend on combating this Hegelian Idealist tendency? And what exactly do you propose instead of DM?"

As to combatting Hegelian ideas in Marxism, I suspect they have penetrated too far for it to be reversed.

If I am honest, I think our movement is doomed; DM-adepts are psychologically wedded to their precious dialectics, and would rather die than abandon it. It provides them with consolation that even if what they can see with their material eyes (i.e., long-term failure) contradicts what their theory tells them (that DM is the bees knees), that's OK since reality contradicts appearances anyway (according to DM again), and so can be ignored -- or various 'antagonisms' can be dreamt-up to bail it out.

The universal dialectic (their God) will make sure everything is OK in the end.

So we can see that the original DM-classicists turned to DM when the movement went into reverse: Hegel after the French revolution failed; Engels when the Chartists went into decline; Lenin after 1905; Trotsky after 1926; Orthodox Trotskyists all the time (since they are the most numinous tendency) -- they see the 'last crisis of capital' everywhere, and are constantly disappointed, so they need their Dialectical Methadone all the time.

You can see how far into the sand comrades heads have been inserted by examining the responses of DM-fans at this site, and the latter, even if they are largely ill-informed (I suspect this is because the ones arguing with me, for example, are very young, and know shit all about logic or philosophy, or both, but I could be wrong), is typical. DM-fans enjoy a high silicate diet. The Sahara is their second home.

However, on a positive note, I think the class war will kill DM-off; since DM encourages its acolytes into bypassing the real gravediggers of Capitalism (i.e., the proletariat -- in the way I indicated), they end up ignoring DM; hence DM becomes its own gravedigger. A nice dialectical inversion.

If all change is the result of internal contradictions (which I deny, but DM-fans do not), then the theory that ignores the ones I point out, cannot help but kill itself off.

That is why it is in terminal decline, and the faster it declines the more you will see the need to deny it (an ironic unity of opposites this!).

So when the very last DM-fan (probably isolated in, say, Tierra Del Fuego) finds him or herself alone, I think it will be a pretty safe bet that (like the Black Knight in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail') they will see this as a major victory for the international proletariat. You can see the headlines now (in the Workers Van Driver):

"Lack of Quantity leads to better Quality."

With a first paragraph:

"Things may appear to be bad, but in reality, they are the opposite. The party may have been negated, but the negation of this negation is just around the corner. An amazing and world-historic zero workers (and other human beings) responded to the fliers for our last rally; so the only way now is up! Forward to the world revolution...."

Sure, it's an exggeration, but not by much. We could probably both of us name the comrades capable of almost that level of self-deception. Why, some of them post here!

What do I propose in its place?

Well, I do not think Marxism needs any Philosophy at all, just good science -- and we have that in Historical Materialism.

So, that is what I propose (so long as the Hegelian rubbish it now contains is thrown into the trash can of non-dialectical history).

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[Janus]

Indeed, Mao invented his crazy theory of primary and secondary contradictions to allow him to ally the CP with the Koumintang. Fatal mistake.
Are you talking about the Second United Front? It was justified by pragmatism rather than dialectics. You don't need dialectics to prove that a ceasefire is necessary in order to focus on the bigger issue of Japanese imperialism. Or do you :lol: ?


If all change is the result of internal contradictions (which I deny, but DM-fans do not), then the theory that ignores the ones I point out, cannot help but kill itself off.
I have never heard any dialecticians state this. Though I suppose that the window-brick analogy which you once used could be refuted if it was analyzed from a larger picture. That the window breaks because of the contradiction between it and the brick. But with that, then it would all be a matter of semantics.


and we have that in Historical Materialism.
But some say that historical materialism is simply the application of dialectical materialism to society and history. I suppose that it could be a decent substitute especially since much of it is based on fact and empirical observations.

[Idola Mentis]

While Hegel himself is rather inaccessible, he does have an immense legacy, and not just in Marxism or among academics.

Various distortions of dialectics penetrates the modern way of thinking. In some cases, he described and thus partly redefined existing social and mental structures in ways which still persist. In the world of philosophy, wouldn't Habermas represent the closest thing to a modern hegelianism?

[CombatLiberalism]

In the world of philosophy, wouldn't Habermas represent the closest thing to a modern hegelianism?

Habermas has written on many topics. So, no doubt he has been influenced by Hegel. Many of his ideas could be described as neo-Kantian. For example, his idea of the role of philosophy and stand in and interpreter for science. Or, his conception of the ideal speech situation and its relation to democracy.

[CombatLiberalism]

There are various philosophers influenced by Hegel and various scholars who write on Hegel. Charles Taylor wrote a book on Hegel in the 70s. Alasdair MacIntyre and other "communitarians" are also influenced by Hegel. There are plenty of anglo-amerikan writers who have been influenced by Hegel in a broad sense. There are plently of French and German philosophers also who have been influenced. One of the more famous popular contemporary writers who identifies Hegel is Slavoj Zizek (who also identifies falsely as some kind of Marxist and "back to Lenin"ist).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am away from home at present, so I cannot spend any time responding to these posts.

I get back Monday, so I will reply then.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus:

"I have never heard any dialecticians state this."

Here are a few, beginning with Lenin:

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).

"In the first conception of motion, self-movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external -- God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of 'self-movement'.

"The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the 'self-movement' of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to the 'leaps,' to the 'break in continuity,' to the 'transformation into the opposite,' to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.

"The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute." [Lenin Collected Works, Volume 38, pp.357-58. Bold emphases added.]

"Nowadays, the ideas of development…as formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of Hegel…[encompass a process] that seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis ('negation of negation'), a development, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line; -- a development by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions; -- 'breaks in continuity'; the transformation of quantity into quality; -- the inner impulses to development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; -- the interdependence and the closest, indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon…, a connection that provides a uniform, law-governed, universal process of motion -– such are some of the features of dialectics as a richer (than the ordinary) doctrine of development." [Lenin 'Karl Marx' reprinted in 'Karl Marx' (Foreign Languages Publications (1970), pp.12-13. Bold emphasis added.]

"Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. [It] requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin 'Once Again On The Trade Unions', in 'On The Question of Dialectics' (Progress Publishers, 1980), p.90. Bold emphasis added.]

Here is Bukharin:

"The basis of all things is therefore the law of change, the law of constant motion. Two philosophers particularly (the ancient Heraclitus and the modern Hegel…) formulated this law of change, but they did not stop there. They also set up the question of the manner in which the process operates. The answer they discovered was that changes are produced by constant internal contradictions, internal struggle. Thus, Heraclitus declared: 'Conflict is the mother of all happenings,' while Hegel said: 'Contradiction is the power that moves things.'"

Here is Plekhanov:

"'All is flux, nothing is stationary,' said the ancient thinker from Ephesus. The combinations we call objects are in a state of constant and more or less rapid change…. In as much as they change and cease to exist as such, we must address ourselves to the logic of contradiction….

"…[M]otion does not only make objects…, it is constantly changing them. It is for this reason that the logic of motion (the 'logic of contradiction') never relinquishes its rights over the objects created by motion….

"With Hegel, thinking progresses in consequence of the uncovering and resolution of the contradictions inclosed (sic) in concepts. According to our doctrine…the contradictions embodied in concepts are merely reflections, translations into the language of thought, of those [b]contradictions that are embodied in phenomena owing to the contradictory nature of their common basis, i.e., motion….

"…[T]he overwhelming majority of phenomena that come within the compass of the natural and the social sciences are among 'objects' of this kind…[:ones in which there is a coincidence of opposites]. Diametrically opposite phenomena are united in the simplest globule of protoplasm, and the life of the most undeveloped society…."[Plekhanov 'Fundamental Problems of Marxism' (1908), pp.92-96. Bold emphases added.]

Here are some lesser dialectical luminaries, all saying the same sort of thing; first David Hayden-Guest:

"The second dialectical law, that of the 'unity, interpenetration or identity of opposites'…asserts the essentially contradictory character of reality -– at the same time asserts that these 'opposites' which are everywhere to be found do not remain in stark, metaphysical opposition, but also exist in unity. This law was known to the early Greeks. It was classically expressed by Hegel over a hundred years ago….

"The importance of understanding this contradictory character of things, is that it gives the clue to the inner process of their development which takes place through the conflict of the opposites

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite....

"Development is always the result of internal conflict.... It can only be explained and rationally grasped to the extent that the internal contradictions of the thing have been investigated…." [Guest ‘Lectures on Marxist Philosophy (Lawrence and Wishart, 1963), pp.40-45. Bold emphases added.]

And August Thalheimer:

"The most general and the most inclusive fundamental law of dialectics from which all others are deduced is the law of permeation of opposites. This law has a two-fold meaning: first, that all things, all processes, all concepts merge in the last analysis into an absolute unity, or, in other words, that there are no opposites, no differences which cannot ultimately be comprehended into a unity. Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality....

"...[I]t is more difficult with such opposites as true and false and still more difficult with the concepts of being and non-being, which are the most general of all, the most inclusive, and, at the same time the poorest in content. The average person will say: how can one unite such absolute opposites as being and non-being? Either a thing is or it is not. There can be no bridge or common ground between them. In the treatment of Heraclitus I have already shown how the concepts of being and non-being actually permeate each other in everything that changes, how they are contained in changing things at the same time and in the same way; for a thing which is developing is something and at the same time it is not that something. For example: a child which is developing into a man is a child and at the same time not a child (sic). So far as it is becoming a man it ceases to be a child. But it is not yet a man, because it has not yet developed into a man. The concept of becoming contains the concepts of being and non-being. In this concept they permeate each other....

"We shall now take up the second main proposition of dialectics...the law of development through opposites.... Not until Hegel was this law completely developed.

"This law applies to all motion and change of things, to real things as well as to their images in our minds....

"...[This law] states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing.

"...The negation of a thing from which the change proceeds, however, is in turn subject to law of the transformation of things into their opposites...." [Thalheimer 'Introduction to Dialectical Materialism' (Covici Friede Publishers, 1936), pp.161, 165-66, 170-71. Bold emphases added.]

And now, Trotskyist Novack:

"Each phase of the plant's manifestation appears as a reality and then is transformed in the course of development into an unreality or an appearance. This movement, triadic in this particular case, from unreality to reality and then back again to unreality, constitutes the essence, the inner movement behind all appearance....

"In this dialectical movement, in this passage out of and into opposition, resides the secret to the movement of all real things.... Dialectics is the logic of matter in motion and thereby the logic of contradictions, because development is inherently self-contradictory. Everything generates within itself that force which lads to its negation, its passing away into some other and higher form of being....

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escape from its unremitting and relentless embrace...." [Novack 'An Introduction to the Logic of Marxism (Pathfinder Press, 1971), pp.87, 94. Bold emphasis added.]

And Cornforth:

"...'[S]truggle' is not external and accidental. It is not adequately understood if we suppose that it is a question of forces or tendencies arising quite independently the one of the other, which happen to meet, to bump up against each other and come into conflict.

"No. The struggle is internal and necessary; for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other. but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole.

"Movement and change result from causes inherent in things and processes, from internal contradictions.

"Thus, for example, the old mechanist conception of movement was that it only happened when one body bumped into another: there were no internal causes of movement, that is, no 'self-movement', but only external causes. But on the contrary, the opposed tendencies which operate in the course of the change of state of a body operate on the basis of the contradictory unity of attractive and repulsive forces inherent in all physical phenomena....

"Why should we say that contradiction is the driving force of change? It is because it is only the presence of contradictions in a process which provides the internal conditions making change necessary.... It is the presence of contradictions, that is of contradictory tendencies of movement, or of a unity and struggle of opposites, which brings about changes of movement in the course of a process. [Cornforth 'Materialism and the Dialectical Method' (Lawrence and Wishart, 1976, pp.90, 94. Bold emphases added.]

I could go on, there are countless examples (I will be publishing more at my site, in a new Essay on this very topic in the next week or so); one last one will suffice (from our old friends, Woods and Grant):

"Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions.... Dialectics is the logic of contradiction....

"So fundamental is this idea to dialectics that Marx and Engels considered motion to be the most basic characteristic of matter.... [Referring to a quote from Aristotle] [t]his is not the mechanical conception of motion as something imparted to an inert mass by an external 'force' but an entirely different notion of matter as self-moving....

"The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based on contradiction.... Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the unity and interpenetration of opposites....

"The universal phenomena of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change -- the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"...Matter is self-moving and self-organising." [Woods and Grant 'Reason In Revolt', (Wellred Publications, 1995), pp.43-45, 47, 68, 72. Bold emphases added.]

I think that is pretty clear.

Dialecticians are thus committed to a theory that implies that light-bulbs can change themselves.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus, as far as the other things you say are concerned, I will be publishing a long Essay on this in a month or so; you can read a summary of it at my site (link below).

post hoc by an appeal to the contradictory nature of 'marxist' tactics.]

"But some say that historical materialism is simply the application of dialectical materialism to society and history..."

And some people belive in the Tooth Fairy.

[Sorry to be flippant, but I cannot take this suggestion of theirs seriously.]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm

[Janus]

Rosa, so dialecticians believe that change is caused only by internal contradictions?

I thought that dialecticians believed that change occured through many different ways. Kind of like what is stated here:

...[This law] states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing..

Thanks for the link, I'll try to read your summary sometime in the next few days.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Janus, as those passages reveal, that is indeed what dialecticians believe (I could have easily doubled the quotations to the same effect).

Check out the Woods and Grant quote, which is reasonably typical:

"Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions.... Dialectics is the logic of contradiction...."

As is Novack:

"In this dialectical movement, in this passage out of and into opposition, resides the secret to the movement of all real things.... Dialectics is the logic of matter in motion and thereby the logic of contradictions, because development is inherently self-contradictory. Everything generates within itself that force which lads to its negation, its passing away into some other and higher form of being.... " (Pathfinder Press, 1971), p.87. Bold emphasis added.]

So is Cornforth (quoted in my last post).

That is what all that 'self-movement stuff is about:

"Dialectical logic demands that we go further…. requires that an object should be taken in development, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it)…." [Lenin 'Once Again On The Trade Unions', in 'On The Question of Dialectics' (Progress Publishers, 1980), p.90. Bold emphasis added.]

But, as you note:

"This law] states, in the first place, that all motion, development, or change, takes place through opposites or contradictions, or through the negation of a thing."

DM-fans are decidedly confused on this issue; that is, whether things change because of their own internal opposites ('in struggle'), or as a result of tensions between an object and its opposite (an opposite that is [i]already confronting it, externally -- e.g., positive and negative electric potentials, for example, or in society, capitalist and worker), or whether they change into these opposites.

[But do capitalists actually change into workers?? Do males really turn into females? Fathers into sons? Forces of production into relations of production....???]

And yet, if things change into their opposites, those opposites cannot yet exist, so how they figure in change is anyone's guess. How can anything 'contradict' anything else, if it does not yet exist?



So, although they are adamant that things [i]only change because of their own internal contradictions (and that they are thus 'self-moving'), they also claim that this is not necessarily so (!!).

DM is a thoroughly confused 'theory' -- but, in truth, it is not fit to be called a 'theory', it's more like a series of contradictory ideas loosely connected together (which if the DM-theory of change is correct, should lead to its own negation -- perhaps that is down to me!?!).

But, for all their love of contradiction, their belief that change results from it, and their commitment to Lenin's idea that no science is complete, all are only partially true, you'd think they'd welcome the ones I point out in their theory.

Do bears sh*t in the Vatican?

DM-fans do not even believe their own theory, otherwise they'd thank me for helping their theory develop through its own internal contradictions (namely all the many I have uncovered).

Or, they think their theory is not a science, or that Lenin was wrong about science.

Take your pick....

I analyse this confusion in detail here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

[Axel1917]

I find it odd that there are still such remnants around. Marx and Engels already made dialectics scientific and freed it from Idealism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel:

"I find it odd that there are still such remnants around. Marx and Engels already made dialectics scientific and freed it from Idealism."

I am sure this means something, but suspect it has been posted in the wrong thread.

Anyway, now you are here, Axey baby, what do you think about your two sub-gurus, W and G, believing that light-bulbs can change themselves?

"Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions.... Dialectics is the logic of contradiction....

"So fundamental is this idea to dialectics that Marx and Engels considered motion to be the most basic characteristic of matter.... [Referring to a quote from Aristotle] [t]his is not the mechanical conception of motion as something imparted to an inert mass by an external 'force' but an entirely different notion of matter as self-moving....

"The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based on contradiction.... Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the unity and interpenetration of opposites....

"The universal phenomena of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change -- the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"...Matter is self-moving and self-organising." [Woods and Grant 'Reason In Revolt', (Wellred Publications, 1995), pp.43-45, 47, 68, 72. Bold emphases added.]

There is no need to look for external causes, so they tell us; matter moves itself.

Pretty clear, n'est ce pas?

This must mean that, say, if a cat gets run over by two drunken dialecticians in a Honda, the cat actually kills itself and spreads its own carcass across the road -- and the Honda and the drunken DM-fans had nothing to do with it.

This is incredibly innovative science, so important, we should re-name the book these two jokers wrote: 'Reason in Remission', as a result.

Whaddya think?

[Anyway, all is not lost: That quote also means that that god-awful book ('Reason in Reverse') wrote itself. That should get W and G off the hook, since it helps explain why it contains so many serious errors. They were self-made. No need to look for an external cause.

Pretty useful this diabolical logic or yours, Axey.]

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

Find out why DM is not scientific (and why 'Reason in Retreat' is such a joke) at:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org

[redstar2000]

To return to an earlier post in this thread which I just read...


Originally posted by LoneRed
I think you and redstar should be open about your position, that of Vulgar Marxism, where technological change is where it all starts than branches up to the economy, ideologies, political power, than superstructure. This view is a failure, it will never bring about socialism.

I can't speak for Rosa, of course, but I have indeed been labeled a "vulgar Marxist" from time to time...and have yet to lose any sleep over it.

Indeed, I find it puzzling why this is considered such a "damning" epithet...as if I were seen spitting in public or chewing with my mouth open. :lol:

What you call "vulgar Marxism" explains a lot of stuff that no other coherent theory of human history has managed to do.

Of course, it is a "poor tool" for applying a gloss of "revolutionary" paint to ideas and practices that are quite obviously not revolutionary at all.

And "vulgar Marxism" is completely useless for predicting the future in useful detail.

If you want to do those kinds of things, "dialectics" is the right choice. You won't get the right answer, of course, or even an "answer" that makes any sense at all...but you will sound erudite and profound as hell! Clothe your casual nonsense in an abundance of "dialectical" terminology and nearly everyone will be intellectually intimidated.

Hegel made a career out of this...so you can too. :o

Meanwhile, it's quite true that "vulgar Marxism" will "never bring about socialism"...that's not its purpose.

It just tells us what's going on and why; it cannot "act in our place" in some mystical fashion...like "the word made flesh". :lol:

To paraphrase Karl: it is when we understand the world that we can begin to effectively change it!

Isn't that the real point? :)

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

[piet11111]

piet11111
the undeniable ability of dialectics to confuse poeple to the core seems to imply that its a tool for bullshitting and if some dialectician gets caught he/she can put forth the bulletproof defense that the person who states the emperor has no clothes simply failed to "grasp the dialectic"

untill someone can provide (understandable !!!!) evidence of dialectics as a usefull tool for whatever anything but bullshitting then im ofcourse ready to withdraw my accusation of dialectics being gibberish.

from the learning section about dialectical materialism i hope to get an aswer that provides evidence of dialectics as a usefull tool for whatever.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red, you are aware that the word 'vulgar' used to be applied to the 'common folk', i.e., the working-class.

In which case, I for one prefer to be a Marxist of 'the common people' rather than a 'Marxist' of the ruling-class -- which I would be if I were to accept the Hermetic Theory our DM-friends have swallowed.

I suspect that goes for you too....


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


And Piet, I wouldn't hold your breath, if I were you.

I have been waiting for nigh on 25 years for such a response.

[piet11111]

And Piet, I wouldn't hold your breath, if I were you.

I have been waiting for nigh on 25 years for such a response.

:D im certain another 25 years are highly likely.
my post is just throwing a bone to the dogs to chew on.

if they cant deliver an answer to such a simple qestion then anyone should take it as a confession that dialectics is just a fancy word for bullshitting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Piet, I think you are right, but as Marxists we should try to find a materialist theory that explains why comrades should want to bullshit, etc.

And I think I have found one.

I precis it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-9.htm

This is just an outline of a longer essay I intend to post later this year.

[piet11111]

thank you rosa it was a very good read.
and it also gives me a better picture on why the dialecticians are so inclined to be so vitriolic against redstar2000 and you.
sawing away on the fundaments of their "holy" construct is definitly a horrible "sin"

im beginning to consider dialectics as a tremendous obstacle to overcome instead of a "secret code" for a particular group of communists.
fortunatly for me im convinced that the revolution will be done by the working class themselves instead of self proclaimed leaders.
any organisation today is pointless because the poeple will form their own organisations during the revolution.
the only thing we as communist can do is stockpile weapons and munitions and learn important skills like making our own munitions and becoming proficient in weapons maintenance and useage and ofcourse the invaluable first aid training.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I am 100% with you on the working-class having to create their own society, and by their own means (in their own way), but the ruling-class is extremely well-organised, and can be relied on the outflank workers who are not as well-organised.

Hence, on this I am a Leninist (would you believe!).

However, I rather think that Leninism has been totally ruined by the theory it has adopted (DM), and is now probably irredeemably substitutionist.

I hope I am wrong; hence my attempt to rid it of this Hermetic virus.

[piet11111]

well organisation wont do the capitalists much good if their soldiers are turning to our side and their cops are greeted with machinegun fire.

im waiting for capitalism to make the situation unbearable for the proletarians that they are forced to start a revolution or starve on the streets.
revolutions are impossible to take control of and in my opinion should not even be attempted to be taken over.

when the revolution happens i will just go pick up friends and explain why i am going to occupy building x and facility y.
i expect the poeple will be looking for things to do and with informed advice they can do things just aswell but probably better as any "vanguard" that needs to take control over everything before doing something "revolutionary"

the entire notion of a vanguard is that the poeple need to be led like a flock of sheep and i find that idea horribly offensive to the real workingclass.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Piet:

"well organisation wont do the capitalists much good if their soldiers are turning to our side and their cops are greeted with machinegun fire."

Marx did say that the class war could lead to the mutual destruction of the contending classes, so I think we should avoid assuming things will go as well as you seem to think.

Now, if popular revolutions were guaranteed to be as straightforward as you suppose, in every major country around the world, at the same time, then I suppose we might not need organisation so much (even though workers already have such things -- unions, and they already look to bourgeois parties for a lead, who, when the time comes you can guarantee will assume a superficial radical veneer and attempt to diffuse or quash the revolt -- as we saw in Russia in mid-1917), but I do not think we can count on things being so simple.

"im waiting for capitalism to make the situation unbearable for the proletarians that they are forced to start a revolution or starve on the streets."

People who are facing starvation are probably too weak to be of any use to anyone (and certainly cannot be guaranteed to work together), and desperate people could just as easily turn to the fascists, especially if the latter are promoted by the state (as they were in Europe in the 1930's) and more especially if they (the fascists) do not make the profound mistake of not being organised, like you suggest for our side.

"the entire notion of a vanguard is that the poeple need to be led like a flock of sheep and i find that idea horribly offensive to the real workingclass."

Well the Leninist vanguard that I would support would be made of the working class, and not be above it (the class would be led by the class, as it were) -- sure we haven't seen very much of that of late, but then we haven't seen pre-revolutionary situations much in the west either, recently.

[Axel1917]

Rosa, none of us maintain that lightbulbs change themselves. The last time one needed to be changed, I had to change it myself. This alone shows that your entire site is built upon a foundation of misunderstandings. CYM had pointed some of these out to you, and you ignored them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axey Baby:

"Rosa, none of us maintain that lightbulbs change themselves."

Then you must diagree with Lenin and Woods and Grant:

"Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions.... Dialectics is the logic of contradiction....

"So fundamental is this idea to dialectics that Marx and Engels considered motion to be the most basic characteristic of matter.... [Referring to a quote from Aristotle] [t]his is not the mechanical conception of motion as something imparted to an inert mass by an external 'force' but an entirely different notion of matter as self-moving....

"The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based on contradiction.... Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the unity and interpenetration of opposites....

"The universal phenomena of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change -- the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"...Matter is self-moving and self-organising." [Woods and Grant 'Reason In Revolt', (Wellred Publications, 1995), pp.43-45, 47, 68, 72. Emphases added.]

In that case, there is no need to look for external causes -- so they tell us --; matter just moves itself.

And are you still relying on others to do you thinking for you:

"CYM had pointed some of these out to you, and you ignored them."

I respond to every challenge, as you know only too well, unlike you.

[bezdomni]

How can the working class organize if it can't organize itself? Rely on a despotic bourgeois "vanguard" to organize it externally? You make good criticisms of dialectics, but fail to apply them to class struggle. Your argument might hold weight with Hegelians, but not Marxists. We're interested in class struggle, not dialectics.

It seems that we either fall into the dialectical camp of Marxism (dialectically analyzing class struggle in order to determine proletariat insurrection) or the RedStar camp (where you arbitrarily guess that revolutions will occur in 2100).

Furthermore, using too many "..."s make it seem as if you are trying to cover something up. Post whole quotes once in a while.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA:

"How can the working class organize if it can't organize itself?"

Where do I deny this?

I just reject our need for a mystical theory (of everything) to guide our scientific understanding of history and how to change it.

"Your argument might hold weight with Hegelians, but not Marxists."

Wrong, and for at least two reasons:

1) Marxists are already being infleunced by my ideas, since they represent the biggest change in Marxist Philosophy for 130 years. Many have been waiting for this material 'for years' (their words).

2) Destroying the Hegelian influence on Marxism will allow us to examine our past more honestly (since I claim that DM is clouding the minds of far too many comrades -- you only have to read, say, Axel's posts to see this for yourself), in order for us to confront some of the reasons why our movement is to success what Blair is to honesty -- and thus help stop this continuing for another 'glorious' century.

No Marxist can be uninterested in that, surely?

Even if you disagree, it is a serious question I am posing.

"It seems that we either fall into the dialectical camp of Marxism (dialectically analyzing class struggle in order to determine proletariat insurrection) or the RedStar camp (where you arbitrarily guess that revolutions will occur in 2100)."

CPA, this is your undialectical use of the 'either...or' of commonsense, not mine. :)

"Furthermore, using too many "..."s makes it seem as if you are trying to cover something up. Post whole quotes once in a while." [CPA's dots!]

I do, and quite often.

You need new glasses. :D

[bezdomni]

Where do I deny this?
You don't deny it, but you never affirm it (at least that I've seen).


1) Marxists are already being infleunced by my ideas, since they represent the biggest change in Marxist Philosophy for 130 years. Many have been waiting for this material 'for years' (their words).

2) Destroying the Hegelian influence on Marxism will allow us to examine our past more honestly (since I claim that DM is clouding the minds of far too many comrades -- you only have to read, say, Axel's posts to see this for yourself), in order for us to confront some of the reasons why our movement is to success what Blair is to honesty -- and thus help stop this continuing for another 'glorious' century.

No Marxist can be uninterested in that, surely?

Even if you disagree, it is a serious question I am posing.
The anti-dialectic approach is not particularly new or unique. I can easily trace it back to Kant...even then I'm sure it goes back much further.

I don't deny that there could be some problems with dialectical materialism, but I have yet to see a better system of analyzing history and social change. As far as I'm concerned, dialectics needs something of a "reality check"...not a complete dismissal into a chaotic world of unpredictability and waiting.

Historical Materialism is effectively useless without DM. I see a the relationship of Formal Logic and dialectics as being similiar to algorithms and heuristics. Neither of them can be used 100% all of the time with complete accuracy. Formal logic is algorithmic. It can always be used, but in many instances it is simply ineffective. For example, if you are looking for soup at the supermarket and you know it has to be there somewhere - you can look down every aisle for it (it logically will eventually come up) but this method is time consuming and wasteful. If you use a heuristic approach, you will find the soup aisle, and then you will be able to search algorithmically for the exact soup that you want. Again, there are obvious problems with heuristics (ie, availibility heuristic fallacies and problems with representative heuristics). I am not saying that FL = algorithm and DM = heuristc....but the relationship between FL and DM is similar to that of Algorithms and heuristics. They supplement one another through their respective weaknesses.


CPA, this is your undialectical use of the 'either...or' of commonsense, not mine. smile.gif
Cute.

I still have severe problems with the "undialectical" approach to Historical Materialism. Specifically, RedStar's (as I am unfamiliar with yours).


I do, and quite often.

You need new glasses. biggrin.gif
Eh...

I'll stop being lazy and look up the rest of the Grant quotes on my own time then. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA:

"You don't deny it, but you never affirm it (at least that I've seen)."

I have, many times, you must have missed it.

"The anti-dialectic approach is not particularly new or unique. I can easily trace it back to Kant...even then I'm sure it goes back much further."

Not the way I am doing it.

"but I have yet to see a better system of analyzing history and social change..."

That is what they used to say about the Ptolemaic system (in reaation to the universe, of course), but that was no reason for hanging onto it once its limitations were pointed out.

And we have a better system: historical materialism (minus the Hegelian mysticism).

"Historical Materialism is effectively useless without DM..."

I deny this, and fail to see how a mystical system can be anything to either boast about, or cling on to -- especially given the fact that it has been tested in practice, and refuted by history.

"I see a the relationship of Formal Logic and dialectics as being similiar to algorithms and heuristics..."

We've been here already, and you did not manage to establish your case then (mainly becaue it was not clear what you were advancing).

Anyway, I read your supermarket example, very carefully, but could see no Formal Logic there, nor any DM.

So, once again, I wasn't sure what point you were making.

"I still have severe problems with the "undialectical" approach to Historical Materialism. Specifically, RedStar's (as I am unfamiliar with yours)."

Well, I haven't said much about it yet; when this project is finished (in about five or six years time), I will attempt to reconstruct HM.

But, I can revolutionise only one thing at a time.

;)

[bezdomni]

I'll have to make my complete opinions on what you're doing when you're finished with it then. Right now, all I'm seeing is random Historical Materialism with no reason for means of production to change nor ownership(ie, no class struggle).

The supermarket example wasn't FL and DM, but the relationship between algorithmic and heuristic analysis. They supplement one another, like DM and FL. I forget the title of the book I read, but it was about Logic. It had a picture of a street on the cover or something. Maybe you know it. Anyway, the guy says that "dialecticians do not necessarily reject all aspects of formal logic" and then he talks about howso. I don't want to pretend to remember the rest of the quote, so I'll find the rest of the goddam book and post it once I do so.

There's no "mysticism" or hatred for logic from me. It seems like a strawman, in many aspects...but I can see where the anti-dialectic people get the stereotype, since many dialecticians are kinda dogmatic.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16 2006, 10:02 PM
Axey Baby:

"Rosa, none of us maintain that lightbulbs change themselves."

Then you must diagree with Lenin and Woods and Grant:

"Dialectics explains that change and motion involve contradiction and can only take place through contradictions.... Dialectics is the logic of contradiction....

"So fundamental is this idea to dialectics that Marx and Engels considered motion to be the most basic characteristic of matter.... [Referring to a quote from Aristotle] [t]his is not the mechanical conception of motion as something imparted to an inert mass by an external 'force' but an entirely different notion of matter as self-moving....

"The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based on contradiction.... Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the unity and interpenetration of opposites....

"The universal phenomena of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change -- the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"...Matter is self-moving and self-organising." [Woods and Grant 'Reason In Revolt', (Wellred Publications, 1995), pp.43-45, 47, 68, 72. Emphases added.]

In that case, there is no need to look for external causes -- so they tell us --; matter just moves itself.

And are you still relying on others to do you thinking for you:

"CYM had pointed some of these out to you, and you ignored them."

I respond to every challenge, as you know only too well, unlike you.
Ugh! Did you read any of those explanaitons CYM gave in response to your criticisms based on misconceptions? Obviously not. You anti-dialecticians really know how to fill up pages with posting nonsense and not even reading the proof that is against you. If one's philosophical views were also considered if one was to be on OI or not, the anti-dialecticans (those supporting Bourgeois philosophy!) would be in OI!

[piet11111]

well redstar will always have 1 major advantage over any dialectician and thats his ability to use words anyone can understand
something dialectics so far never has been able to produce.

i always take the ideas that i can use instead of clinging to something hopelessly complicated and non-sensical to the avarage individual.
if that makes someone a redstar-ist then im afraid you will be drowning in them when revolution comes closer.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:42 AM




well redstar will always have 1 major advantage over any dialectician and thats his ability to use words anyone can understand
something dialectics so far never has been able to produce.

I will admit that dialectics does use terms that differ from ordinary use. Dialectics itself is also very confusing at first to understand, given how it differs from "ordinary common sense." I do not think that these problems should stop people from reading up on it, though. Marx himself said that there is no royal road to science.


i always take the ideas that i can use instead of clinging to something hopelessly complicated and non-sensical to the avarage individual.
if that makes someone a redstar-ist then im afraid you will be drowning in them when revolution comes closer.

Well, history has shown that so far, only dialectical tendencies have managed to overthrow Bourgeois rule, understand the processes that are happening, etc. I will try to post something here and there in the Dialectical Materialism section in learning. I can't make a guarantee of how much I post due to time constraints, though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA:

"all I'm seeing is random Historical Materialism with no reason for means of production to change nor ownership(ie, no class struggle)."

Well, I have repeatedly said here, and in Essays at my site, that I accept classical HM, along with the class struggle as the motor of history.

What more do you want? A telegram from the Queen? :)

No offense, but if the book you mention is as confused as this seems to be, I cannot see it raising anything substantive I need to worry about:

"The supermarket example wasn't FL and DM, but the relationship between algorithmic and heuristic analysis. They supplement one another, like DM and FL. I forget the title of the book I read, but it was about Logic. It had a picture of a street on the cover or something. Maybe you know it. Anyway, the guy says that "dialecticians do not necessarily reject all aspects of formal logic" and then he talks about howso. I don't want to pretend to remember the rest of the quote, so I'll find the rest of the goddam book and post it once I do so."

"There's no "mysticism" or hatred for logic from me."

I never said the latter was true of you, but I am afraid you have accepted, it seems, categories invented by mystics, for mystical reasons, applied mystically to obtain mystical results, whether you are aware or it or not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axey Baby: as someone who takes considerable pride in not reading my Essays (or much pf what I post), this is a bit rich:

"Did you read any of those explanaitons CYM gave in response to your criticisms based on misconceptions?"

Yes, very carefully, as I read what you post, too -- since, even if I disagree with you, and emphatically at times, I try not to pass comment on things I have not read, unlike you.

And, I note, yet again, that you are still relying on others to think for you.

Do you do anything for yourself, or does your mummy stilll aave to wipe your bum?

I note also that you still cannot answer whether you agree with Lenin, or W&G, that light bulbs can, it seems, change themsleves.

"Well, history has shown that so far, only dialectical tendencies have managed to overthrow Bourgeois rule....."

And then promptly screw up.

DM: tested in practice -- refuted by history.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 06:24 AM

What more do you want? A telegram from the Queen? :)

No offense, but if the book you mention is as confused as this seems to be, I cannot see it raising anything substantive I need to worry about:

That would be cool. I have never gotten a telegram from the queen before...

That book is about 99% all formal logic (laws, truth tables...et cetera), it has a few pages towards the end about dialectics. I'll try and go to the library some day this week after my test and copy those few pages. It isn't a bad book, reallly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA, much as I hate to bring you down, but what you posted earlier suggests it's not a path-breaking book.

Nevertheless, I am committed to reading every book and article on DM that I can lay may hands on (well over 400 up to press) -- most of which read almost exactly the same --, so I would be interested in the exact details so I can obtain a copy.

Please post them.... :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy
Right now, all I'm seeing is random Historical Materialism with no reason for means of production to change nor ownership (i.e., no class struggle).

Historical materialism is not "random"...though it certainly allows for "random events" to take place.

Changes in the means of production are inevitable simply because humans seem to be genetically predisposed to innovate...in fact, this seems to be a characteristic of primates generally.

Even in the most "traditional" societies, people still show a marked tendency to attempt to think of "better ways" to make their livings. If some innovation "works", then it spreads rapidly, gets borrowed by neighboring cultures, etc.

Granted, in pre-modern times, the "pace" of innovation was very slow...it took a long time to demonstrate an innovation's usefulness and an even longer time for it to spread.

And innovations could be lost...and wait for many centuries to be re-invented.

Looking back, we somewhat arbitrarily divide class societies into periods of what could be called "innovative packages".

When humans domesticated their prey instead of hunting it, that gave us nomadism and private property.

When humans planted their food instead of gathering it, that reinforced private property and gave us slavery and classical despotism.

When humans in Europe invented stirrups and a horse collar that didn't choke the horse, that gave us mounted knights and feudalism.

Banking as we know it was invented during the "high" Middle Ages...and so were the first efforts at industrial production of clothe using water-power, windmills, and free labor (neither slave nor serf).

The steam-engine was the crucial innovation that brought modern capitalism into existence.

You could, if you wished, argue that the precise timing of all those various innovations was "random"...to some extent I would agree with that.

But I think they logically "follow" from one another...they seem to involve a "quest for complexity" in human societies.

It seems contrary to our "nature" to "leave well enough alone" and just "do what our fathers did" forever and ever.

It's boring. :lol:

I don't have to add, of course, that the changes in the means of production "naturally" generate different classes with opposing interests that struggle with each other. This was observed even before Marx.

Even Adam Smith noticed it. :lol:

As, of course, did the old Greeks and Romans. :)

Marx just "randomly" happened to be the first guy to figure out why.

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

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 09:11 PM
CPA, much as I hate to bring you down, but what you posted earlier suggests it's not a path-breaking book.

Nevertheless, I am committed to reading every book and article on DM that I can lay may hands on (well over 400 up to press) -- most of which read almost exactly the same --, so I would be interested in the exact details so I can obtain a copy.

Please post them.... :rolleyes:
Yeah, it was only one paragraph that would be of any interest to you. The rest of it was mostly a book on formal and symbolic logic for people who want to know the basics. I don't expect you to read the whole bloody book, just the part that I'll copy down when I get around to the library. ;)


Historical materialism is not "random"...though it certainly allows for "random events" to take place.

Changes in the means of production are inevitable simply because humans seem to be genetically predisposed to innovate...in fact, this seems to be a characteristic of primates generally.

Even in the most "traditional" societies, people still show a marked tendency to attempt to think of "better ways" to make their livings. If some innovation "works", then it spreads rapidly, gets borrowed by neighboring cultures, etc.

Granted, in pre-modern times, the "pace" of innovation was very slow...it took a long time to demonstrate an innovation's usefulness and an even longer time for it to spread.

And innovations could be lost...and wait for many centuries to be re-invented.

Looking back, we somewhat arbitrarily divide class societies into periods of what could be called "innovative packages".

When humans domesticated their prey instead of hunting it, that gave us nomadism and private property.

When humans planted their food instead of gathering it, that reinforced private property and gave us slavery and classical despotism.

When humans in Europe invented stirrups and a horse collar that didn't choke the horse, that gave us mounted knights and feudalism.

Banking as we know it was invented during the "high" Middle Ages...and so were the first efforts at industrial production of clothe using water-power, windmills, and free labor (neither slave nor serf).

The steam-engine was the crucial innovation that brought modern capitalism into existence.

You could, if you wished, argue that the precise timing of all those various innovations was "random"...to some extent I would agree with that.

But I think they logically "follow" from one another...they seem to involve a "quest for complexity" in human societies.

It seems contrary to our "nature" to "leave well enough alone" and just "do what our fathers did" forever and ever.

It's boring. laugh.gif

I don't have to add, of course, that the changes in the means of production "naturally" generate different classes with opposing interests that struggle with each other. This was observed even before Marx.

Even Adam Smith noticed it. laugh.gif

As, of course, did the old Greeks and Romans. smile.gif

Marx just "randomly" happened to be the first guy to figure out why.

But without DM, how can we expect capitalism to "fall" to communism? To say that the antagonisms can't sustain themselves and will innately result in a classless society is the premise of DM.

I agree that human society is constantly improving itself, but these improvements don't necessarily lead to communism. I am not disputing your view of Historical Materialism, because there is nothing really to dispite. However, without DM, how do we know the next "improvement" won't be Social Democracy? How do we know the class system won't go on forever?

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17 2006, 06:31 AM
Axey Baby: as someone who takes considerable pride in not reading my Essays (or much pf what I post), this is a bit rich:

"Did you read any of those explanaitons CYM gave in response to your criticisms based on misconceptions?"

Yes, very carefully, as I read what you post, too -- since, even if I disagree with you, and emphatically at times, I try not to pass comment on things I have not read, unlike you.

And, I note, yet again, that you are still relying on others to think for you.

Do you do anything for yourself, or does your mummy stilll aave to wipe your bum?

I note also that you still cannot answer whether you agree with Lenin, or W&G, that light bulbs can, it seems, change themsleves.

"Well, history has shown that so far, only dialectical tendencies have managed to overthrow Bourgeois rule....."

And then promptly screw up.

DM: tested in practice -- refuted by history.
Uh, Rosa, if you have read them, then why do you still harbor all of these misconceptions? Who in their right mind would claim that light bulb changes itself? None of us have ever done that!

Actually, isolation in a backward nation that changed class forces, of which allowed the Stalinists to come to power, caused the revolution to fail. The Stalinists were completely willing to sell out to capitalism to increase their positions of privelege. It was not becasue of dialectics.

Historical materialism is the application of dialectics to history and society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy
I agree that human society is constantly improving itself, but these improvements don't necessarily lead to communism. I am not disputing your view of Historical Materialism, because there is nothing really to dispute. However, without DM, how do we know the next "improvement" won't be Social Democracy? How do we know the class system won't go on forever?

Strictly speaking, we don't "know" yet. Communism is a hypothesis that has yet to be empirically confirmed.

There is fragmentary evidence in its favor; the Paris Commune and syndicalist Barcelona, for example.

And there is the marked decrease in the servility of the working class that's been obviously taking place over the last century.

I know it's hard for us to imagine, but there was a time -- Marx's time as a matter of fact -- when most workers actually believed that their bosses were "superior human beings". :o

Can you imagine that now? :lol:

Further evidence: the ruling class in the "old" capitalist countries seems to be becoming "senile"...increasingly unable to perceive and act on their own class interests. This is something characteristic of classes that are approaching "the end of the line".

None of this "guarantees" the "triumph of communism"...but, at least in my opinion, it points in that direction.

And that's good enough for me. I don't need and I don't see why anyone needs "a sacred bargain" with "History". To the "dialecticians", communism seems to have the same character as "The Rapture" to Christians. Jesus "promised it" and therefore "it will happen".

"Dialectics" says that communism is "inevitable" and "therefore" it really "is inevitable".

Many people who are not communists have "smelled" the stink of mysticism in such claims...and concluded that Marxism "is a religion!" :o

No, in fact 99% of the time, Marx was as "hard-core" an empirical scientist as anyone ever was...without the least taint of mysticism. Except, mostly in his youth, when he got entangled with Hegel and his followers.

It's almost as if you can't write about "dialectics" as a paradigm that "might be true in some sense" without slipping over the edge into mysticism. As Rosa has pointed out, Hegelian thought comes from the mystical tradition and there does not seem to be a "rational kernel" to be found anywhere in it.

Marx tried to make it "rational"...but of all his projects, in this he indisputably failed.

In my opinion, Marx was one of history's "great thinkers"...right up there with Newton and Einstein. We do him no disservice to reject his mistakes.

It is, on the contrary, the "dialecticians" who degrade Marx to the level of "prophet" with the "magical key to history"...as if he were some kind of 19th century version of Nostradamus or something. :angry:

There's just no excuse for that any longer!

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

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Further evidence: the ruling class in the "old" capitalist countries seems to be becoming "senile"...increasingly unable to perceive and act on their own class interests. This is something characteristic of classes that are approaching "the end of the line".


What examples can you give of this?

I was trying to explain it to a RL comrade, but i didnt have any examples that i could think of ruling classes acting against there own interest?

I imagine maybe vietnam, and the current Iraq war.

Thanks mate

[redstar2000]

I think there are actually a lot of examples...and the Iraqi war certainly would be prominent.

The potential "profit" from the long-term "successful" occupation of Iraq may be less than what the war has already cost. Further projected adventures in the area (Iran, Syria, etc.) can only serve to make matters even worse.

Domestically, the inability of the ruling class to formulate and implement a coherent immigration policy is likewise evidence of "senility" -- compare it to how well the "young" ruling class in America handled the matter in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They had an "assimilationist" policy that really worked...especially after the 1860s.

Then consider the "security industry"; it's one of the fastest growing "industries" in the U.S. and completely unproductive. I read one guy who suggested that this parasitic "industry" could become so burdensome that it could actually be the factor that brings down the whole system!

And don't forget the flirtation (or more!) with Christian Fascism...a paradigm that is, of necessity, hopelessly inadequate when it comes to competing with the "young" and "energetic" capitalist countries.

To put the matter crudely, China invests in more science while the U.S. invests in morality...guess who wins? :lol:

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

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axey:

"Uh, Rosa, if you have read them, then why do you still harbor all of these misconceptions? Who in their right mind would claim that light bulb changes itself? None of us have ever done that!"

Well, it seems to me that you (and all these other DM-fans I have read) have not thought through the loopy consequences of your theory.

But I have.

You cannot read what lenin said, and W&G, and fail to be struck by the fact that things do not move themselves (unless they are agents of some sort -- such as animals, etc.).

So unless you think the universe is full of animals, very few things in reality move themselves.

Hence, I posed this objection in a striking manner: if you read what Lenin said, then you must either believe that light-bulbs can change themselves, or you have to disagree with Lenin.

You choose.

"Actually, isolation in a backward nation that changed class forces, of which allowed the Stalinists to come to power, caused the revolution to fail. The Stalinists were completely willing to sell out to capitalism to increase their positions of privelege. It was not becasue of dialectics."

They say differently, and they use dialectics to defend their view.

Either way, DM has been shown to fail.

Tested in practice; refuted by history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA:

Thanks for that, but what is the book called?

And:

"But without DM, how can we expect capitalism to "fall" to communism?"

The class war has been going on for thousands of years. Whatever we do, it will continue.

DM is a theory that has no evoidence to support it, loopy arguments to substantiate it, and a mysticl heritage Marxists should not want to touch with Axel's barge pole.

We do not need DM; HM has enough resources to explain the class war, and show how we can organise to change society.

[Brownfist]

As usual I disagree with RedStar2000. If one reads Capital Vol. 1 especially Part 1, the hegelian dialectic is quite evident. I dont think that the break that is ascribed to the young Marx and the older Marx is as clear cut as some would argue. Rather, I think Marx continued to believe in dialectics except he was more interested in utilizing it to explain the phenomenon of capital relations. Furthermore, the method of a dialectics, if properly used does not assume communism is the final result. What RedStar2000 is referring to is the Hegelian notion of 'geist'. It can be roughly (and I mean very roughly) translated to 'spirit'. Hegel posited that there was a geist of history which could be understood through the dialeticial method. Marx, as a left Hegelian, argued that the end of history would be communism through a process of dialectics. However, in his later works Marx's lets go of this notion (although he still believed communism would be the final result) and applied dialectics to his notion of historical materialism. Furthermore, the very notion of class war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is predicated on a hegelian dialectic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BF:

"If one reads Capital Vol. 1 especially Part 1, the hegelian dialectic is quite evident."

And Marx's classic would have been all the more scientific had he left all that mysticism out.

"Furthermore, the very notion of class war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is predicated on a hegelian dialectic."

I hope you do not mean that if Hegel had have been run over and killed by a horse and cart when 3 years old, there would be no class war?

[Brownfist]

RL: I think that without the dialectical model Marx would have been unable to adequately theorize and explain the C-M-C' and M-C-M' models. It is impossible to know whether Marx would have arrived to the notion of class struggle without the Hegelian dialectic. However, Marx's polarization, struggle and result in communism is directly based on Hegel's thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis. Could Marx have possibly theorized class struggle I am sure he could have, but he did utilize the hegelian model. However, at the risk of sounding like an asshole, you are also presuming that Marx was preordained to conceptualize class struggle. Dont get me wrong, I am not fully invested in the dialectical model, however, I think my disagreements with it are not akin to yours or RS2000.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BF: I do not entirely disagree with you, but I think the scientific aspects underlying Marx's Historical Materialism arose form two main sources: Scottish Historical materialism (of Fergusson, Millar, Smith and Hume), and French socialism (as I am sure you know).

Hegelianism just clouded his vision.

The C-M-C' (etc) transit looks Hegelian, but I do not think it necessarily is, no more than other things people attribute to Hegel, but are clearer in other thinkers.

[Brownfist]

RL I visited your website and it looks like you have really looked at this question of dialectics. Did you finish your PhD on Heidegger? I was wondering whether I could get a physical copy of the manuscript to read because I dont think I can read that much online, and I would like to take notes in the columns (bad academic habit). Also, I looked through your footnotes and saw that you havent taken into account the entire move away from dialectics by scholars utilizing the works of Spinoza, is this because of your focus on historical materialism. And if so, are you proposing a non-dialectical historical materialism, and how do you extended your analysis to a discussion of the base-superstructure.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BF, my PhD was on Wittgenstein (I would not touch Heidegger with someone else's barge pole), but was unfinished -- since I ran out of money. I will try to re-submit parts of this as my PhD one day.

Unfortunately, it is not in print, but it will be one day (by then it will be over 1,000,000 words long -- at present it is nearly 750,000).

By all means copy it, paste it into Word, and print it out if you can.

It will take me another 5 or 6 years at least to finish this demolition job (but even then, I will be continually improving it for decades); then, and only then, will I tackle Historical Materialism (but not in a destructive way!).

I hardly touch on Spinoza since I can make no sense of anything he says.

And I deny anyone else can.

I much prefer Leibniz; at least his work contained important-looking nonsense.

I also try to avoid academic dialecticians (for the reasons I explain on the opening page and in Essay One).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Brownfist
If one reads Capital Vol. 1, especially Part 1, the Hegelian dialectic is quite evident.

It certainly is...as an artifact. There's a letter of Marx extant where he admits that he deliberately wrote "Part 1" in dialectical terminology because he was pissed off that Hegel's reputation had declined so sharply from the days of Marx's youth. Marx referred to Hegel as "that mighty thinker" and complained that everyone was "kicking him around like a dead dog".

He was "a dead dog" and it's only Marx's reputation as a genuine "mighty thinker" that preserves any serious interest in Hegel.


Furthermore, the very notion of class war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is predicated on a Hegelian dialectic.

Most unlikely. Chances are the notion of "class struggle" first impacted Marx when he studied Roman history; why else would he have selected such an inappropriate name as "proletariat" to designate the modern working class?

The modern working class is really nothing like the ancient Roman proletariat.

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

[bezdomni]

The modern working class is really nothing like the ancient Roman proletariat.
Looks like you won't be invited to my toga party. :P



He was "a dead dog" and it's only Marx's reputation as a genuine "mighty thinker" that preserves any serious interest in Hegel.
I'm actually going to agree with you somewhat, and extend upon what you said.

Hegel was hardly popular in his day. He didn't even get an actual job as a full professor until he was over 30. He spent most of his younger years teaching young people because nobody liked him enough to hire him at a gymnasium.

He eventually published some things that were "intelligible" (to avoid further argument, I will use this term loosely) and got kinda famous.

Also, his sister had a very strange attraction to him.

[LoneRed]

If you understood Marx you would clearly know that marx was more concerned with figuring out the process of life,society, social structures, then the inevitbility of communism. i think on monty python a couple people were talking and was like We need to fight for capitalism(as he started saying how it works), which he, as a serf would never know, marx just thought that was the most accurate form society would take.

[bezdomni]

Thanks for that, but what is the book called?
I think it is called "Logic". :lol: It has a picture of a street on the cover, that's what I remember. There were trees next to the street, I think. It looked very modern.

But I will have to go back to the library...I really will.

Sorry for replying a few days late, I didn't see that you asked this until just now.

Like I said, the book is uninteresting (basically logic 101) until what it says about dialectics. I've been having state testing all week, so I'm pretty lazy right now.

I'll go on Friday (when I finish reading for school) and look at the book again. I don't feel like driving to the library for a single paragraph right now. Plus, I think I have a fine. :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA:

Thanks; no rush.

[bezdomni]

Alright, I just got back from the library and I have the quote.


Within classical logic, it is not possible for its statement and its contradiction to be true at the same time. However, [dialecticians] deny this, and claim that some contradictions can indeed be true. This is certainly not a popular position in logic and philosophy, but it has been suggested that dialectics can be independently motivated, and that it provides the solution to a variety of paradoxies, including the liar paradox...

Although it might be difficult to accept that there are true contradictions, it is important to point out that endorsing dialectics is not the same as rejecting logic or rational argumentation. First, dialecticians need not think that all [emphasis mine] contradictions are true, only some are. Second, while dialecticians reject classical logic, they are still free to develop alternative systems of logic to encapsulate dialectic reasoning in a rigorous manner, and this is in fact an active research project that some logicians are persuing."
[Logic - Key Concepts in Philosophy by Laurence Goldstein, Andrew Brennan, Max Deutsch and Joe Y. Lau. Continuum Books]

The author then goes on to discuss how the "pros and cons of dialectics are beyond the scope of [his] book" and that if dialectics were used as the only means of logic (ie, exclusively without classical logic) then everything could be proven to be true...with serious practical consequences.

I certainly agree with the author in this subject, and I think that dialectics and formal logic must be used together when analyzing history from a materialist perspective. Formal Logic and Dialectical Materialism are not in "contradiction".

[JimFar]

clown quoted from Logic - Key Concepts in Philosophy :



Within classical logic, it is not possible for its statement and its contradiction to be true at the same time. However, [dialecticians] deny this, and claim that some contradictions can indeed be true. This is certainly not a popular position in logic and philosophy, but it has been suggested that dialectics can be independently motivated, and that it provides the solution to a variety of paradoxies, including the liar paradox...

Although it might be difficult to accept that there are true contradictions, it is important to point out that endorsing dialectics is not the same as rejecting logic or rational argumentation. First, dialecticians need not think that all [emphasis mine] contradictions are true, only some are. Second, while dialecticians reject classical logic, they are still free to develop alternative systems of logic to encapsulate dialectic reasoning in a rigorous manner, and this is in fact an active research project that some logicians are persuing."

It looks to me that the author was referring to, what Graham Priest calls paraconsistent logics, which indeed would be systems of logic in which it would be possible to have certain kinds of formal contraditions without implying (as in classical logic) that all propositions are true. And yes, Priest and other advocates of paraconsistent logic, do see such systems as offering useful solutions to paradoxes like the Liar's Paradox and Russell's Paradox.

BTW I believe that Rosa Lichtenstein is supposed to be providing this board a discussion, sometime, of Graham Priest's dialetheism and his claim that this can vindicate Hegel and Marxs' dialectics. In the mean time, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism) on dialetheism. Also, see the Wikidpedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism) on the same subject, plus the Wikipedia discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialetheism) by, you guess it, Rosa Lichtenstein, where she critiques Priest.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA, thanks for that.

I had seen this book before (in fact I have a copy of it -- it goes on to say one or two other things I think you have left out).

In fact Goldstein has also published some of the best articles available on this topic, ones that actually refute this position (or better, they defuse it); this is from the bibliography to my thesis:

Goldstein, L. (1983), ‘Wittgenstein And the Logico-Semantical Paradoxes’, Ratio 25, pp.137-53.
--------, (1986), ‘The Development Of Wittgenstein’s Views On Contradiction’, HPL 7, pp.43-56.
--------, (1988), ‘Wittgenstein’s Late Views On Belief, Paradox And Contradiction’, PI 11, pp.49-73.
--------, (1989), ‘Wittgenstein And Paraconsistency’, in Priest, et al. (1989a), pp.540-62.
--------, (1992), ‘Smooth And Rough Logic’, PI 15, pp.93-110.
--------, (1999), Clear And Queer Thinking (Duckworth).
--------, (2001), ‘Truth-Bearers And The Liar – A Reply To Alan Weir’, Analysis 61, 2, pp.115-26.
Goldstein, L., Brennan, A., Deutsch, M., and Lau, J. (2005), Logic (Continuum).

I use some of his ideas in my thesis, but, as usual, I push them much further.

Now you can set up any formal system you like, and the logicians referred to in your post do in fact do that (by among other things, rejecting the disjunctive syllogism).

But in order to make their system work, they have to alter the rules of classical logic; in which case the two cannot live together as you assert.

And one rule they tinker with is the use of negation, and they do this in order to 'solve' the paradoxes (among other things). But in doing so they divorce their use of negation from ordinary discourse and from Formal Logic.

In short, they 'solve' the paradoxes (but I deny they do even that) by fiddling with the meaning of a few symbols.

Divorcing their use of negation from ordinary language also means it cannot be used to account for anything in the material world.

Now that is a controversial claim, but it so only because some have thought to controvert it.

However, in a way you are right here:


Formal Logic and Dialectical Materialism are not in "contradiction".

Dialectical materialism (which is not the same as Paraconsistent, or or even Dialetheic, Logic) would have to make sense first in order for it to be in 'contradiction' to Formal Logic, and since it does not, it isn't.

So, we can agree at least here.

[bezdomni]

Yeah, it was Graham Preist.

The problem I have with dialtheism is the theism part...but if it were interpreted materialistically - then the system would work.

RL: Cool. I guess this is the closest we'll come to an agreement.

It's also good that it is not theistic. I really plan on learning more on this, so we can possibly have further discussion in the future.

Do you recommend any other books on Dialethism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks for that; the SIEP article by Priest is very fair, but it contains a few logical howlers, which you would not expect Priest to have made.

More about this later.

[As you can see from the previous post, the line I will take will be a Wittgensteinian one -- and in contradiction (!!) to Priest's claim that W had anticipated his own views -- he retails this idea in, among other places, his book 'Beyond the Limits of Thought' (1st and 2nd editions).]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CPA: do not be misled by the 'theism' suffix; Priest is not, I believe, a theist. Other dialetheic logicians spell the word 'dialethism', without that offending 'e'.

[JimFar]

BTW it is interesting to note that long before anybody knew about Graham Priest, A.J. Ayer made, in passing, a proposal somewhat similar to Priest's dialetheism, in his The Central Questions of Philosophy, while pulling back from the sorts of radical conclusions that Priest draws. There he wrote:


It may even be maintained that what we take to be the laws of logic are not sacrosanct, on the ground that there could be alternative systems of logic, just as there alternative systems of geometry. Even so, it would at least seem necessary that any such system should contain, or at any rate be governed by, some principle of consistency. We might have a system in which truth and falsehood were not treated as exhaustive alternatves: we might even choose in certain cases to speak of a proposition as being both true and false. This might be one way of representing processes of change: there are suggestions of it in what is called Hegelian logic.

I have no idea, how knowledgeable Ayer might have been concerning Soviet philosophy. I do know that during the thaw under Khruschshev, he was one of the first Western, non-Marxist, philosophers to be invited to write for one of leading Soviet philosophy journals. I think that he might have lectured there too. So whether he might have been exposed to some of the thinking of what Rosa calls "logical dialectical materialists," who knows?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, I had missed that allusion in Ayer (recall he was a crude conventionalist, even by Vienna Circle standards -- hence his tolerance of 'other' logics; but people like Łukasiewicz had already beaten him to it), but given his healthy dislike of metaphysics, I rather think he would have given Soviet metaphysicians even shorter shrift than I would have!

And he would have been right to do so.