Phenomenology

[hoopla]

What does anyone make of phenomenology? I've been reading a bit.

[hoopla]

Well, I'm reading one dimensional man at the moment, and marcuse brings up dialectics - as an emancipatory force!

He says that dialectical thought is critical thought, that its negative thinking allows us to, negate existing forms of thought and reality. It also prevents us from reconciling irreconcilible concpets - like peace and on the brink of war, or safe-bomb. Dialectical concepts allow us to develop contradictions in a whole, and the historical charcter of these contradictions - allowing potential historical possibilities.

So it helps with critical thinking, and prevents discourse (an organizational force for submission and domination that can justify actions) from being one-dimensional.

What do any anti-dialecticians think? IMHO there is probably a case for dialectics being a good thing, outside its form under Stalin as a mechanical tool.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


IMHO there is probably a case for dialectics being a good thing

Well, in the face of the comprehensive trashing it has received here, you would probably be on firmer ground defending the idea that we are all shape-shifting lizards....

As for Phenomenolgy, mercifully I have avoided it up to now -- please do not inflict any on us.

[bayano]

i have a relative who used to lead the national phenomenology group in the usa, i think its called spep (society for phenomenology and existential philosophy?). its been explained to me, but my skulls too thick. ill see if i can get them to register as a user here, hahaha. i remember liking what i read- and then quickly forgetting it.

[More Fire for the People]

Well, in the face of the comprehensive trashing it has received here, you would probably be on firmer ground defending the idea that we are all shape-shifting lizards....
I believe the only person around here to believe dialectics 'trashed' is you.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 24 2006, 12:36 PM

Well, in the face of the comprehensive trashing it has received here, you would probably be on firmer ground defending the idea that we are all shape-shifting lizards....
I believe the only person around here to believe dialectics 'trashed' is you.
I've yet to see an adequete response, as an observer, to be honest.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hop:


I believe the only person around here to believe dialectics 'trashed' is you.

Care to defend it then....?

No, thought not.

[hoopla]

Defend it against what? What do you consider the most important argument against dialectics? If you decide to reply pease include an argument, and not just a statement of a point of view. Thanks

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Defend it against what?

Well, you expressed the opinion that I was the only one around here who thought certain things, and I challenged you to defend dialectics against the trashing it has received here.


If you cannot be bothered to check what has been argued here before passing an opinion on what we have or haven't done to dialectics, I'm blowed if I am going to help you.


What do you consider the most important argument against dialectics? If you decide to reply pease include an argument, and not just a statement of a point of view. Thanks

And have you repeat yourself till the cows evolve, like last time?

You may not, but I learn....

[hoopla]

Jeez Rosa, if you spent a bit more time repaeting your arguments, and not your insults, then perhaps you could encourage debate.

And to be fair to me, I did ask you to repeat the most important arguemnt against dialectics.


My analysis sees all Philosophy as a ruling-class form of thought, and based on an attempt to derive a priori truths from the alleged meaning of a few carefully-selected words.You've operationalized philosophy, so that you ignore context.

It would be immensley authoritarian to kill contemplation. Especially contemplation that could be a critique.

Can you link to the bit of Marx that influences you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Jeez Rosa, if you spent a bit more time repaeting your arguments, and not your insults, then perhaps you could encourage debate.

Well, according to you a few hours ago:


If you decide to reply pease include an argument, and not just a statement of a point of view.

You need to make your mind up.

And may I remind you that (quite unprovoked) you were the one who accused me of lying. So, you have no room to talk.


And to be fair to me, I did ask you to repeat the most important arguemnt against dialectics.

I can't, since you will accuse me of repeating myself again.

Once more, you need to make your mind up.


You've operationalized philosophy, so that you ignore context.

Eh?


It would be immensley authoritarian to kill contemplation. Especially contemplation that could be a critique.

Where do I say I want to do that (even if I could)?


Can you link to the bit of Marx that influences you?

Too huge a corpus.

Try the online Marx library.

[I am reluctant to answer any of your questions, since you seem to have the knack of reading onto what I say, things that aren't there. So the less I say, the better....]

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by anthill
I believe the only person around here to believe dialectics 'trashed' is you.


You believed wrong.

[hoopla]

Hey Bill.

Why not explain why dialectics is trashed, in your opinion?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:35 AM
Hey Bill.

Why not explain why dialectics is trashed, in your opinion?
It simply amazes me that "intellectual" people actually require an explanation!

Not shocking at all considering that modern young adults still sit around discussing Wagner and Nietszche like it's actually something more than archaic nonsense.

In any case son, if you would like to actually read some anti-dialectic debate, I suggest you do a little search in this very forum.

Not that you will be "dialectically satisfied" with what you find.

[hoopla]

Son :rolleyes:

:lol:

Well, I stick to the idea that dialectics can be emancipatory, for the reasons above I guess. The anti-dialeticians, who complain that philosophy is unapproachable for normal people, don't make much of an effort to eduacte! Seeing as DM is contrasted with metaphysical materialism (Not logic, appartently), I don't see how metaphysical materialism is any more proletarian.

"(Stalinism) easily obscures the important fact at the basic aims and principles of DM remain very much in the fundamental spirit of progressive, rational scientific thought.. (aiming) to address the scientific challenges posed by the failure of 17th and 18th century mechanistic programme" Allen Wood. He suggests that the alternative to DM has been refuted!

Its true that dialectics is about intuition - but I don't see that that makes it mystical. Its about the way things determine one another isn't it? :unsure: I think you have the wrong enemy here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


The anti-dialeticians, who complain that philosophy is unapproachable for normal people, don't make much of an effort to eduacte! Seeing as DM is contrasted with metaphysical materialism (Not logic, appartently), I don't see how metaphysical materialism is any more proletarian.

Once again, if you were seriously interested, you would take a few minutes to look at a few of the (many) threads where DM has been taken apart here.

Or read the summaries at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm)

Links to this board:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46148

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50889

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46970

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47163

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47104

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46840

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46027

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45761

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46633

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=44759&st=75 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44759&st=75)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46087

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49004

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48214

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49913

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50075

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44445

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=48119&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48119&st=0)

Or try here:

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?board=2.0

[hoopla]

Thanks. I've skimmed a couple and don't know what to make of it really. I guess that at the least you have dispelled some illusions or false ideology. Like: logic can't hande change. Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but the idea that Aristotle somehow explodes in contact with "9.6m/s2" is, somehow, a bit rediculous.

:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla, please post a dictionary for the non-earthling language you speak so I can figure out what this means:


but the idea that Aristotle somehow explodes in contact with "9.6m/s2" is, somehow, a bit rediculous.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa - I mean no disrespect, and this isn't me joining the argument, but the tone of your posts really do discourage any reply. Do you think you might consider being a little less... Forceful? Overwhelming? Tweak the language as you will. Just a thought. :)

-Alex

[hoopla]

9.6m/s2 is the gravity constant.

Its fair enough to point out to people that AFL can explain change on some kind of level, but only n00bs like me, surely, would think any different.

Perhaps you could find out what people actually mean, when they say AFL can't explain change?? Perhaps that it does so too mechanistically, or not qualitatively? - And thats just not how thought, in people's experience, works. Dialectics is a law of thought isn't it, not a law of any other kind of reality? Would appreciate an answer to this question.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I know what 'g' is, I just do not know what it is doing here.


Perhaps you could find out what people actually mean, when they say AFL can't explain change??

Well, I have been reading dialectical gobbledygook now for 25 or more years (literally hundreds of books and articles -- I must have been a pretty gruesome sinner in a previous existence; perhaps I invented 'West Life'?), I have 'debated' with DM-fans till the cows evolved, asked, pleaded and cajoled; they just repeat the same old formulae, and will say no more.

So, not only do I suspect they mean zippo by this, I can show they mean nothing by it -- as I do in the full Essay that some of those passges were excerpted from, at my site.


Dialectics is a law of thought isn't it, not a law of any other kind of reality?

It's not a law of anything -- it is too confused even to be a mumbled saying a drunk would utter.

[hoopla]

Claims to be a law of thought.


I have been reading dialectical gobbledygook now for 25 or more years

:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop: now you say 'claims' to be such, when originally you said:


Dialectics is a law of thought isn't it

Ok, I acknowledge the change but it alters nothing: since there are no 'laws of thought' it can claim all it likes, or otherwise.

And isn't g = 9.8 m/s^2???

[hoopla]

Could be, my memory isn't very good.


since there are no 'laws of thought'
How do thoughts change then?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


How do thoughts change then?

No idea; ask a psychologist.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 06:55 PM
i have a relative who used to lead the national phenomenology group in the usa, i think its called spep (society for phenomenology and existential philosophy?). its been explained to me, but my skulls too thick. ill see if i can get them to register as a user here, hahaha. i remember liking what i read- and then quickly forgetting it.
Thats mad. Get them to register here, that would be 8)

I would annoy them with raelly badly informed questions ha ha ha

[hoopla]

Anyone got anything to say on Merleua-Ponty. His philosophy has something to say on dualism, but it still sounds like dualism. Whats his Marxism like? He was a humanist, I am led to believe.

I would add some notes, but they would probably be wrong :rolleyes:

[hoopla]

I'm reading Phenomenological Dialectical Materialismat the mo. Has anyone else read it? Must of what I have read so far is just a critique of Husserl/Descartes/Kant. Husserl brought himself to the edge of dialectical materialism, apparently.

[jaycee]

[QUOTE]How do thoughts change then?



No idea; ask a psychologist.


This is the worst answer you could possibly have given. The idea that ideas change due to the material basis of society and the historical circumstances. This is THE fundamental dialectic.

As we know Hegel argued that ideas evolved due to the conflict between ideas, whereas Marx saw that is was the conflict (contradictions) between classes which gives rise to new ideas.

I don't know why the argument gets derailed so much towards some idea that dialectics isn't the same as logic. It is simply a more deeply thought out logic which allows people to view things in both a materialist way as well as seeing things from more than one side.