Idealism Vs Materialism

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I hope this is the right forum.

I am a little sketchy on materialism, and although i could probably describe it in a very basic sense i still do not have a very strong understanding.

As far as i understand it, its basically that things in the material world are the most important factors when trying to understand the world. Things happen, at the first instance, because of material causes.

Now the opposite view, i believe, is the idealist postion. That things essentially happen because of ideas.

Obviously most people at this site will be materialist, but i was wondering how far we take materialism as true. How important is idealist approach for revolutionaries? and most importantly, why, do we use the materialism over idealism?

Hope i made sense.

Thanks all

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCS: the problem with all materialsts (up to now, and of which I am aware) is that they depict matter in abstract terms, making their materialism an odd sort of Idealism (in this way, perhaps, trying unwittingly to generate their own 'internal contradiction').

We don't need a philosophical theory to 'define' materialism; all we need are the countless thousands of words in ordinary language (ones that we use every day to describe, handle and alter) the material world around us -- coupled with the concepts we have in Historical Materialism, to give them a scientific edge.

So, I think it is a mistake to try to define materialism in any one way -- it is in fact a family of notions, drawn from the language I mentioned above.

Sure, this is a controversial thing to say, but only becaue we have forgotten and thus neglected our greatest resource here: the language working people have invented and used for thousands of years -- ordinary language.

[Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons why most philosophers depreciate the vernacular, and attack it -- its working-class associations, and because it lends itself to a ready materialist, scientific theory.]

[Lamanov]

Ever read this text? It's great. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm) ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ-TC, yes many times, the first time nearly 30 years ago.

But, these are half-formed musings, now nearly 160 years old, about a philosophical tradition that was mired in Idealism.

Marx did the best he could; we can do better.

He did not have the material counterweight provided by the working class; we do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ-TC, yes many times, the first time nearly 30 years ago.

But, these are half-formed musings, now nearly 160 years old, about a philosophical tradition that was mired in Idealism.

Marx did the best he could; we can do better.

He did not have the material counterweight provided by the working class; we do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DJ-TC, yes many times, the first time nearly 30 years ago.

But, these are half-formed musings, now nearly 160 years old, about a philosophical tradition that was mired in Idealism.

Marx did the best he could; we can do better.

He did not have the material counterweight provided by the working class; we do.

[EusebioScrib]

Idealism and Materialism by themselves are both wrong. But when they are combined: Dialectical Materialism, then we have it!

It's fairly easy: Being determines consciousness (your environment determines what you think and how you act) but conscioussness also determines being (how you think and act determines your environement). This is what we call in dialectics the "unity of opposites." It's quite the paradox! It's kinda like the whole chicken and the egg deal.

[EusebioScrib]

Idealism and Materialism by themselves are both wrong. But when they are combined: Dialectical Materialism, then we have it!

It's fairly easy: Being determines consciousness (your environment determines what you think and how you act) but conscioussness also determines being (how you think and act determines your environement). This is what we call in dialectics the "unity of opposites." It's quite the paradox! It's kinda like the whole chicken and the egg deal.

[EusebioScrib]

Idealism and Materialism by themselves are both wrong. But when they are combined: Dialectical Materialism, then we have it!

It's fairly easy: Being determines consciousness (your environment determines what you think and how you act) but conscioussness also determines being (how you think and act determines your environement). This is what we call in dialectics the "unity of opposites." It's quite the paradox! It's kinda like the whole chicken and the egg deal.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio, thanks for that, but I see you have only recently joined, so you will not know that dialectical materialism has been systematically trashed here (in earlier threads), and even more so at my site.

Check out the link below.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio, thanks for that, but I see you have only recently joined, so you will not know that dialectical materialism has been systematically trashed here (in earlier threads), and even more so at my site.

Check out the link below.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio, thanks for that, but I see you have only recently joined, so you will not know that dialectical materialism has been systematically trashed here (in earlier threads), and even more so at my site.

Check out the link below.

[EusebioScrib]

Yes, I've been dying to read your site, but it's very long and I haven't had the time on my hands as of yet.

Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

I think the above description I gave is just the way it is.

[EusebioScrib]

Yes, I've been dying to read your site, but it's very long and I haven't had the time on my hands as of yet.

Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

I think the above description I gave is just the way it is.

[EusebioScrib]

Yes, I've been dying to read your site, but it's very long and I haven't had the time on my hands as of yet.

Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

I think the above description I gave is just the way it is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio:


Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

The beef is that dialectical materialism is a throw back to mystical Hermeticism, an idealist theory invented by religious nuts 2000 years ago.

Independently of that, it does not work (as I have shown at my site, and in several posts here); it is based on a defective understanding of ancient and modern logic, a highly selective use of science, the anthropomorphisation of nature (with 'contradictions' everywhere, as nature seems to argue with itself), lamentably poor reasoning and the projection onto nature of a priori forms of thought.

It is in fact based on a ruling-class view of reality. [Why I say that, you can find in several posts at this site, and in the summary to essay twelve at my site:

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

I recognise that the material at my site is over-long, but I try to say why I have gone into such detail in the opening page.

I have posted summaries of my ideas (link below), and will be publishing 'absolute beginners' guides over the summer.

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

As to whether it is useful, I agree -- useful for the ruling-class, since dialectics has presided over 130 years of the failure of Marxism (recall, truth is tested in practice -- practice has refuted dialectics).

Recall, I fully accept historical materialism – once the mystical influence of Hegel has been removed.

By the way, if you want me to direct you to the threads here that discuss this topic, please let me know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio:


Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

The beef is that dialectical materialism is a throw back to mystical Hermeticism, an idealist theory invented by religious nuts 2000 years ago.

Independently of that, it does not work (as I have shown at my site, and in several posts here); it is based on a defective understanding of ancient and modern logic, a highly selective use of science, the anthropomorphisation of nature (with 'contradictions' everywhere, as nature seems to argue with itself), lamentably poor reasoning and the projection onto nature of a priori forms of thought.

It is in fact based on a ruling-class view of reality. [Why I say that, you can find in several posts at this site, and in the summary to essay twelve at my site:

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

I recognise that the material at my site is over-long, but I try to say why I have gone into such detail in the opening page.

I have posted summaries of my ideas (link below), and will be publishing 'absolute beginners' guides over the summer.

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

As to whether it is useful, I agree -- useful for the ruling-class, since dialectics has presided over 130 years of the failure of Marxism (recall, truth is tested in practice -- practice has refuted dialectics).

Recall, I fully accept historical materialism – once the mystical influence of Hegel has been removed.

By the way, if you want me to direct you to the threads here that discuss this topic, please let me know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Eusebio:


Dialectics is a very useful tool to describe certain human relationships. I don't entirely understand the "beef" with Dialectics as promoted by RS2K and others.

The beef is that dialectical materialism is a throw back to mystical Hermeticism, an idealist theory invented by religious nuts 2000 years ago.

Independently of that, it does not work (as I have shown at my site, and in several posts here); it is based on a defective understanding of ancient and modern logic, a highly selective use of science, the anthropomorphisation of nature (with 'contradictions' everywhere, as nature seems to argue with itself), lamentably poor reasoning and the projection onto nature of a priori forms of thought.

It is in fact based on a ruling-class view of reality. [Why I say that, you can find in several posts at this site, and in the summary to essay twelve at my site:

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

I recognise that the material at my site is over-long, but I try to say why I have gone into such detail in the opening page.

I have posted summaries of my ideas (link below), and will be publishing 'absolute beginners' guides over the summer.

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

As to whether it is useful, I agree -- useful for the ruling-class, since dialectics has presided over 130 years of the failure of Marxism (recall, truth is tested in practice -- practice has refuted dialectics).

Recall, I fully accept historical materialism – once the mystical influence of Hegel has been removed.

By the way, if you want me to direct you to the threads here that discuss this topic, please let me know.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 21 2006, 08:39 PM
Ever read this text? It's great. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm) ;)
Thats the first time I've read thar. Rather good. ;)
There's an easier translation here http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach...engels-appendix (http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach-end-classical-german-philosophy-engels-appendix)

[hoopla]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 21 2006, 08:39 PM
Ever read this text? It's great. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm) ;)
Thats the first time I've read thar. Rather good. ;)
There's an easier translation here http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach...engels-appendix (http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach-end-classical-german-philosophy-engels-appendix)

[hoopla]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 21 2006, 08:39 PM
Ever read this text? It's great. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm) ;)
Thats the first time I've read thar. Rather good. ;)
There's an easier translation here http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach...engels-appendix (http://libcom.org/library/ludwig-feuerbach-end-classical-german-philosophy-engels-appendix)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Mmm, "Dialectic materialism" is possibly the way forward. However, I consider idealism to be vastly more important, since physical actions are merely spasms of the moment, whereas ideas cannot be killed, and can last for ever.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Mmm, "Dialectic materialism" is possibly the way forward. However, I consider idealism to be vastly more important, since physical actions are merely spasms of the moment, whereas ideas cannot be killed, and can last for ever.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Mmm, "Dialectic materialism" is possibly the way forward. However, I consider idealism to be vastly more important, since physical actions are merely spasms of the moment, whereas ideas cannot be killed, and can last for ever.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn: that is a mere opinion; do you have anything (evidence/argument) to support it.

The vast majority of us here are materialists, and because of that, anti-Idealists.


since physical actions are merely spasms of the moment, whereas ideas cannot be killed, and can last for ever.

How do you know; have you lived forever?

And, how do you know these 'ideas' do not change from moment to moment?

Moreover, material things have a permanence that 'ideas' lack -- after all, even Plato's ideas now exist only on paper.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn: that is a mere opinion; do you have anything (evidence/argument) to support it.

The vast majority of us here are materialists, and because of that, anti-Idealists.


since physical actions are merely spasms of the moment, whereas ideas cannot be killed, and can last for ever.

How do you know; have you lived forever?

And, how do you know these 'ideas' do not change from moment to moment?

Moreover, material things have a permanence that 'ideas' lack -- after all, even Plato's ideas now exist only on paper.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn: that is a mere opinion; do you have anything (evidence/argument) to support it.

The vast majority of us here are materialists, and because of that, anti-Idealists.


since physical actions are merely spasms of the moment, whereas ideas cannot be killed, and can last for ever.

How do you know; have you lived forever?

And, how do you know these 'ideas' do not change from moment to moment?

Moreover, material things have a permanence that 'ideas' lack -- after all, even Plato's ideas now exist only on paper.

[Hit The North]

I do find the dialectic useful in thinking about a number of levels of social reality.

(a) Revolutionary change: bourgeosie (thesis) --- proletariat (antithesis) --- socialism (synthesis).

(b) The relationship between base and superstructure, in terms of understanding the cross-threads of determination.

© The relationship between structure and agency: changed circumstances produce changes in ideas which in turn produce changed practices which then feed back into the objective circumstances.

Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

[Hit The North]

I do find the dialectic useful in thinking about a number of levels of social reality.

(a) Revolutionary change: bourgeosie (thesis) --- proletariat (antithesis) --- socialism (synthesis).

(b) The relationship between base and superstructure, in terms of understanding the cross-threads of determination.

© The relationship between structure and agency: changed circumstances produce changes in ideas which in turn produce changed practices which then feed back into the objective circumstances.

Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

[Hit The North]

I do find the dialectic useful in thinking about a number of levels of social reality.

(a) Revolutionary change: bourgeosie (thesis) --- proletariat (antithesis) --- socialism (synthesis).

(b) The relationship between base and superstructure, in terms of understanding the cross-threads of determination.

© The relationship between structure and agency: changed circumstances produce changes in ideas which in turn produce changed practices which then feed back into the objective circumstances.

Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa Lichenstein - Hello. :)

In response to your comment about anti idealism:

First off, yes it is an opinion, I did not mean to state it as the gospel truth. As far as evidence, I would class my suggestion that an idea cannot be killed as self evident. There is no way you can kill an idea, unless you count murdering every person who has that idea as killing it. The idea itself is not a material object, it is a ghost if you like, and therefore you cannot kill it.

Secondly, I do not need to have lived forever to know that an idea can last forever. It is once again self evident, in my opinion. This is because however unlikely, if it is even possible that an idea can last forever, my statement holds up. An idea CAN last forever. Theoretically speaking, it could just keep going and going, for example if a secret is passed down from generation to generation, it can continue Ad Infinitum. Yes, this is unlikely, but once again, if it's logically possible, my statements hold up.

I hope that my thoughts are a little clearer now.

I was thinking about this last night when I went to bed, another thought I had was this:

Most agree that you need both ideas and actions, I think this is what the "Dialectic Materialism" idea is saying. (Correct me if i'm wrong.) If you took either one out of the equation, the entire thing collapses. You're either left with people who have the right ideas but do nothing at all, or idiots thrashing around with dumb strength. And since it is better for nothing to happen than for outright negative things to happen, ideas are more important.

Hmm, just reading that again, and I can't quite tell if i'm talking bollocks or if i'm on the money. Here's hoping the latter. lol.

-Alex

EDIT: Your comment about Plato isn't quite right, his ideas also exist in people's minds, surely? :P

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa Lichenstein - Hello. :)

In response to your comment about anti idealism:

First off, yes it is an opinion, I did not mean to state it as the gospel truth. As far as evidence, I would class my suggestion that an idea cannot be killed as self evident. There is no way you can kill an idea, unless you count murdering every person who has that idea as killing it. The idea itself is not a material object, it is a ghost if you like, and therefore you cannot kill it.

Secondly, I do not need to have lived forever to know that an idea can last forever. It is once again self evident, in my opinion. This is because however unlikely, if it is even possible that an idea can last forever, my statement holds up. An idea CAN last forever. Theoretically speaking, it could just keep going and going, for example if a secret is passed down from generation to generation, it can continue Ad Infinitum. Yes, this is unlikely, but once again, if it's logically possible, my statements hold up.

I hope that my thoughts are a little clearer now.

I was thinking about this last night when I went to bed, another thought I had was this:

Most agree that you need both ideas and actions, I think this is what the "Dialectic Materialism" idea is saying. (Correct me if i'm wrong.) If you took either one out of the equation, the entire thing collapses. You're either left with people who have the right ideas but do nothing at all, or idiots thrashing around with dumb strength. And since it is better for nothing to happen than for outright negative things to happen, ideas are more important.

Hmm, just reading that again, and I can't quite tell if i'm talking bollocks or if i'm on the money. Here's hoping the latter. lol.

-Alex

EDIT: Your comment about Plato isn't quite right, his ideas also exist in people's minds, surely? :P

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa Lichenstein - Hello. :)

In response to your comment about anti idealism:

First off, yes it is an opinion, I did not mean to state it as the gospel truth. As far as evidence, I would class my suggestion that an idea cannot be killed as self evident. There is no way you can kill an idea, unless you count murdering every person who has that idea as killing it. The idea itself is not a material object, it is a ghost if you like, and therefore you cannot kill it.

Secondly, I do not need to have lived forever to know that an idea can last forever. It is once again self evident, in my opinion. This is because however unlikely, if it is even possible that an idea can last forever, my statement holds up. An idea CAN last forever. Theoretically speaking, it could just keep going and going, for example if a secret is passed down from generation to generation, it can continue Ad Infinitum. Yes, this is unlikely, but once again, if it's logically possible, my statements hold up.

I hope that my thoughts are a little clearer now.

I was thinking about this last night when I went to bed, another thought I had was this:

Most agree that you need both ideas and actions, I think this is what the "Dialectic Materialism" idea is saying. (Correct me if i'm wrong.) If you took either one out of the equation, the entire thing collapses. You're either left with people who have the right ideas but do nothing at all, or idiots thrashing around with dumb strength. And since it is better for nothing to happen than for outright negative things to happen, ideas are more important.

Hmm, just reading that again, and I can't quite tell if i'm talking bollocks or if i'm on the money. Here's hoping the latter. lol.

-Alex

EDIT: Your comment about Plato isn't quite right, his ideas also exist in people's minds, surely? :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


There is no way you can kill an idea,

Well, I am not sure what you mean; since neither ideas nor, say, shoes are alive, you might as well say you can't kill a pair of shoes.

Because shoes are material objects, your 'cannot kill' criterion does not distingusih the material from the ideal, but it does confuse the issues.


Secondly, I do not need to have lived forever to know that an idea can last forever.

Perhaps not, but you have lived long enough (I hope!) to know that, without material means to transmit and preserve them, ideas are dead ducks.

They depend on the material world, so are secondary to it. This is not the other way round.


It is once again self evident, in my opinion.

Well it would be self-evident if it could attest for itself, but you had to do that for it.

So, it may be evident, but not self-evident, or it would not need you to try to sell it to the rest of us.

[i]evident[/b], for the reasons I stated earlier.]


An idea CAN last forever.

Well, forgive me for saying this, but capital letters cannot create immortal ideas.

They die with their originators, and are only preserved with the goodwill of the rest of us material beings.


I hope that my thoughts are a little clearer now.

If anything, they are less clear I'm afraid.


Your comment about Plato isn't quite right, his ideas also exist in people's minds, surely?

Well, how do you know they are his ideas without the material medium to convey them to you/us?

Ideas are secondary; even your own examples confirm this.

As to dialetical materialism: this terminally vague doctrine will, if anything, sink your theory even quicker.

I'd not chain your thoughts to it if I were you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


There is no way you can kill an idea,

Well, I am not sure what you mean; since neither ideas nor, say, shoes are alive, you might as well say you can't kill a pair of shoes.

Because shoes are material objects, your 'cannot kill' criterion does not distingusih the material from the ideal, but it does confuse the issues.


Secondly, I do not need to have lived forever to know that an idea can last forever.

Perhaps not, but you have lived long enough (I hope!) to know that, without material means to transmit and preserve them, ideas are dead ducks.

They depend on the material world, so are secondary to it. This is not the other way round.


It is once again self evident, in my opinion.

Well it would be self-evident if it could attest for itself, but you had to do that for it.

So, it may be evident, but not self-evident, or it would not need you to try to sell it to the rest of us.

[i]evident[/b], for the reasons I stated earlier.]


An idea CAN last forever.

Well, forgive me for saying this, but capital letters cannot create immortal ideas.

They die with their originators, and are only preserved with the goodwill of the rest of us material beings.


I hope that my thoughts are a little clearer now.

If anything, they are less clear I'm afraid.


Your comment about Plato isn't quite right, his ideas also exist in people's minds, surely?

Well, how do you know they are his ideas without the material medium to convey them to you/us?

Ideas are secondary; even your own examples confirm this.

As to dialetical materialism: this terminally vague doctrine will, if anything, sink your theory even quicker.

I'd not chain your thoughts to it if I were you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


There is no way you can kill an idea,

Well, I am not sure what you mean; since neither ideas nor, say, shoes are alive, you might as well say you can't kill a pair of shoes.

Because shoes are material objects, your 'cannot kill' criterion does not distingusih the material from the ideal, but it does confuse the issues.


Secondly, I do not need to have lived forever to know that an idea can last forever.

Perhaps not, but you have lived long enough (I hope!) to know that, without material means to transmit and preserve them, ideas are dead ducks.

They depend on the material world, so are secondary to it. This is not the other way round.


It is once again self evident, in my opinion.

Well it would be self-evident if it could attest for itself, but you had to do that for it.

So, it may be evident, but not self-evident, or it would not need you to try to sell it to the rest of us.

[i]evident[/b], for the reasons I stated earlier.]


An idea CAN last forever.

Well, forgive me for saying this, but capital letters cannot create immortal ideas.

They die with their originators, and are only preserved with the goodwill of the rest of us material beings.


I hope that my thoughts are a little clearer now.

If anything, they are less clear I'm afraid.


Your comment about Plato isn't quite right, his ideas also exist in people's minds, surely?

Well, how do you know they are his ideas without the material medium to convey them to you/us?

Ideas are secondary; even your own examples confirm this.

As to dialetical materialism: this terminally vague doctrine will, if anything, sink your theory even quicker.

I'd not chain your thoughts to it if I were you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Citizen Zero:


I do find the dialectic useful in thinking about a number of levels of social reality.

(a) Revolutionary change: bourgeosie (thesis) --- proletariat (antithesis) --- socialism (synthesis).

This idealist formula is Fichte's, not Hegel's.

And the bourgeoisie cannot be a thesis; a thesis is an argument, or a written document. I hope you do not think this of the capitalists (!!).

So, it is not even a sensible Idealist formula.

(
(b) The relationship between base and superstructure, in terms of understanding the cross-threads of determination.

Dialectics actually mystifies this connection, so it would be all to the good if we ditched it (dialectics, that is).


© The relationship between structure and agency: changed circumstances produce changes in ideas which in turn produce changed practices which then feed back into the objective circumstances.

Same comment. We have literally thousands of words in everyday language which can be used to depict these complex relations far better than the terminally obscure jargon we were saddled with by Hegel.


Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

See previous comment.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Citizen Zero:


I do find the dialectic useful in thinking about a number of levels of social reality.

(a) Revolutionary change: bourgeosie (thesis) --- proletariat (antithesis) --- socialism (synthesis).

This idealist formula is Fichte's, not Hegel's.

And the bourgeoisie cannot be a thesis; a thesis is an argument, or a written document. I hope you do not think this of the capitalists (!!).

So, it is not even a sensible Idealist formula.

(
(b) The relationship between base and superstructure, in terms of understanding the cross-threads of determination.

Dialectics actually mystifies this connection, so it would be all to the good if we ditched it (dialectics, that is).


© The relationship between structure and agency: changed circumstances produce changes in ideas which in turn produce changed practices which then feed back into the objective circumstances.

Same comment. We have literally thousands of words in everyday language which can be used to depict these complex relations far better than the terminally obscure jargon we were saddled with by Hegel.


Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

See previous comment.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Citizen Zero:


I do find the dialectic useful in thinking about a number of levels of social reality.

(a) Revolutionary change: bourgeosie (thesis) --- proletariat (antithesis) --- socialism (synthesis).

This idealist formula is Fichte's, not Hegel's.

And the bourgeoisie cannot be a thesis; a thesis is an argument, or a written document. I hope you do not think this of the capitalists (!!).

So, it is not even a sensible Idealist formula.

(
(b) The relationship between base and superstructure, in terms of understanding the cross-threads of determination.

Dialectics actually mystifies this connection, so it would be all to the good if we ditched it (dialectics, that is).


© The relationship between structure and agency: changed circumstances produce changes in ideas which in turn produce changed practices which then feed back into the objective circumstances.

Same comment. We have literally thousands of words in everyday language which can be used to depict these complex relations far better than the terminally obscure jargon we were saddled with by Hegel.


Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

See previous comment.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 11:37 PM

Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

See previous comment.
The previous comments don't tell me how you concieve of these interactions, only how you don't.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 11:37 PM

Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

See previous comment.
The previous comments don't tell me how you concieve of these interactions, only how you don't.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 11:37 PM

Rosa, how would you conceive of these different modes of interaction if not dialectically?

See previous comment.
The previous comments don't tell me how you concieve of these interactions, only how you don't.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CitizenZero:


The previous comments don't tell me how you concieve of these interactions, only how you don't.


Well I could make a smart remark about appearances being contradicted by reality, so that my words only appear to fail to do what you say, but in reality they do the opposite, achieving that goal quite nicley -- but experience has taught me that dialecticians do not like dialectical logic used against them, so I won't.

In fact, I did what I said: ordinary language can picture the complex and changing relations you mention (read any revolutionary paper that has to sell to workers: they do this all the time), and far better than the mystical language Hegel invented to fix something that was not broken.

I am in fact advocating classical historical materialism, minus the Hegelian gobbledygook.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CitizenZero:


The previous comments don't tell me how you concieve of these interactions, only how you don't.


Well I could make a smart remark about appearances being contradicted by reality, so that my words only appear to fail to do what you say, but in reality they do the opposite, achieving that goal quite nicley -- but experience has taught me that dialecticians do not like dialectical logic used against them, so I won't.

In fact, I did what I said: ordinary language can picture the complex and changing relations you mention (read any revolutionary paper that has to sell to workers: they do this all the time), and far better than the mystical language Hegel invented to fix something that was not broken.

I am in fact advocating classical historical materialism, minus the Hegelian gobbledygook.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CitizenZero:


The previous comments don't tell me how you concieve of these interactions, only how you don't.


Well I could make a smart remark about appearances being contradicted by reality, so that my words only appear to fail to do what you say, but in reality they do the opposite, achieving that goal quite nicley -- but experience has taught me that dialecticians do not like dialectical logic used against them, so I won't.

In fact, I did what I said: ordinary language can picture the complex and changing relations you mention (read any revolutionary paper that has to sell to workers: they do this all the time), and far better than the mystical language Hegel invented to fix something that was not broken.

I am in fact advocating classical historical materialism, minus the Hegelian gobbledygook.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Incidentally, on the Fichte thing, I have just come across this (it is an interview with Hegel expert, Terry Pinkard):


"Britannica: One of the things most associated with Hegel's thought is the thesis/antithesis/synthesis scheme, the process by which reality unfolds and history progresses. But you claim this never appears in Hegel's work.

"Pinkard: This myth was started by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus. It appears in a history he wrote of recent German philosophy (published in the 1840s), in which he said, roughly, that Fichte's philosophy followed the model of thesis/antithesis/synthesis, but Hegel went further and cosmologized that notion, extending it to the entire universe. The book was widely read (apparently the young Marx was one of its readers), and the idea stuck. It's still touted in a lot of short encyclopedia entries about Hegel. Like many little encapsulations of thought, it has the virtue of being easy to understand and easy to summarize. It's just not very helpful in understanding Hegel's thought. It has also contributed to the lack of appreciation of Hegel in Anglophone philosophy. It's not too hard to point out all the places where it doesn't apply, dismiss it as a kind of dialectical trick, and then just go on to conclude that Hegel isn't worth reading at all."

http://www.postelservice.com/archives/000008.html

See also:

http://www.hegel.net/en/faq.htm#6.4

which has this to say:


Some say Hegel used the method of: thesis-antithesis-synthesis, and others deny this. Who is correct?

The most vexing and devastating Hegel legend is that everything is thought in "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." [...] The actual texts of Hegel not only occasionally deviate from "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis," but show nothing of the sort. "Dialectic" does not for Hegel mean "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." Dialectic means that any "ism" - which has a polar opposite, or is a special viewpoint leaving "the rest" to itself - must be criticized by the logic of philosophical thought, whose problem is reality as such, the "World-itself."

Hermann Glockner's reliable Hegel Lexikon (4 volumes, Stuttgart, 1935) does not list the Fichtean terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" together. In all the twenty volumes of Hegel's "complete works" he does not use this "triad" once; nor does it occur in the eight volumes of Hegel texts, published for the first time in the twentieth Century. He refers to "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" in the Preface of the Phenomenology of Mind, where he considers the possibility of this "triplicity " as a method or logic of philosophy. According to the Hegel-legend one would expect Hegel to recommend this "triplicity." But, after saying that it was derived from Kant, he calls it a "lifeless schema," "mere shadow" and concludes: "The trick of wisdom of that sort is as quickly acquired as it is easy to practice. Its repetition, when once it is familiar, becomes as boring as the repetition of any bit of sleigh-of-hand once we see through it. The instrument for producing this monotonous formalism is no more difficult to handle than the palette of a painter, on which lie only two colours ..." (Preface, Werke, II, 48-49).

In the student notes, edited and published as History of Philosophy, Hegel mentions in the Kant chapter, the "spiritless scheme of the triplicity of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" (geistloses Schema) by which the rhythm and movement of philosophic knowledge is artificially pre-scribed (vorgezeichnet).

In the first important book about Hegel by his student, intimate friend and first biographer, Karl Rosenkranz (Hegels Leben, 1844), "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" are conspicuous by their absence. It seems Hegel was quite successful in hiding his alleged "method" from one of his best students.

The very important new Hegel literature of this century has altogether abandoned the legend. Theodor Haering's Hegels Wollen und Werk (2 vol., Teubner, 1929 and 1938) makes a careful study of Hegel's terminology and language and finds not a trace of "thesis, antithesis, synthesis." In the second volume there are a few lines (pp. 118, 126) in which he repeats what Hegel in the above quotation had said himself, i.e., that this "conventional slogan" is particularly unfortunate because it impedes the understanding of Hegelian texts. As long as readers think that they have to find "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" in Hegel they must find him obscure - but what is obscure is not Hegel but their colored glasses. Iwan Iljin's Hegel's Philosophie als kontemplative Gotteslehre (Bern, 1946) dismisses the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" legend in the Preface as a childish game (Spielerei), which does not even reach the front-porch of Hegel's philosophy.

Other significant works, like Hermann Glockner, Hegel (2 vols., Stuttgart, 1929), Theodor Steinbüchel, Das Grundproblem der Hegelschen Philosophie (Bonn, 1933), and Theodor Litt, Hegel: Eine Kritische Erneuerung (Heidelberg, 1953), Emerich Coreth, S.J., Das Dialektische Sein in Hegels Logik (Wien, 1952), and many others have simply disregarded the legend. In my own monographs on Hegel über Offenbarung, Kirche und Philosophie (Munich, 1939) and Hegel über Sittlichkeit und Geschichte (Reinhardt, 1940), I never found any "thesis, antithesis, synthesis." Richard Kroner, in his introduction to the English edition of selections from Hegel's Early Theological Writings, puts it mildly when he says: "This new Logic is of necessity as dialectical as the movement of thinking itself. ... But it is by no means the mere application of a monotonous trick that could be learned and repeated. It is not the mere imposition of an ever recurring pattern. It may appear so in the mind of some historians who catalogue the living trend of thought, but in reality it is ever changing, ever growing development; Hegel is nowhere pedantic in pressing concepts into a ready-made mold. The theme of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, like the motif of a musical composition, has many modulations and modifications. It is never 'applied'; it is itself only a poor and not even helpful abstraction of what is really going on in Hegel's Logic."

Well, shall we keep this "poor and not helpful abstraction" in our attic because "some historians" have used it as their rocking-horse? We rather agree with the conclusion of Johannes Flügge: "Dialectic is not the scheme of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis imputed to Hegel."

In an essay by Nicolai Hartmann on Aristoteles und Hegel, I find the following additional confirmation of all the other witnesses to the misinterpretation of Hegel's dialectic: "It is a basically perverse opinion (grundverkehrte Ansicht) which sees the essence of dialectic in the triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." The legend was spread by Karl Marx whose interpretation of Hegel is distorted. It is Marxism superimposed on Hegel. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, Marx says in Das Elend der Philosophie, is Hegel's purely logical formula for the movement of pure reason, and the whole system is engendered by this dialectical movement of thesis, antithesis, synthesis of all categories. This pure reason, he continues, is Mr. Hegel's own reason, and history becomes the history of his own philosophy, whereas in reality, thesis, antithesis, synthesis are the categories of economic movements. (Summary of Chapter II, Paragraph 1.) The few passages in Marx' writings that resemble philosophy are not his own. He practices the communistic habit of expropriation without compensation. Knowing this in general, I was also convinced that there must be a source for this "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis," and I finally discovered it.

In the winter of 1835-36, a group of Kantians in Dresden called on Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus, professor of philosophy at the University of Kiel, to lecture to them on the new philosophical movement after Kant. They were older, professional men who in their youth had been Kantians, and now wanted an orientation in a development which they distrusted; but they also wanted a confirmation of their own Kantianism. Professor Chalybäus did just those two things. His lectures appeared in 1837 under the title Historische Entwicklung der speculativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel, Zu näherer Verständigung des wissenschaftlichen Publikums mit der neuesten Schule. The book was very popular and appeared in three editions. In my copy of the third edition of 1843, Professor Chalybäus says (p. 354): "This is the first trilogy: the unity of Being, Nothing and Becoming ... we have in this first methodical thesis, antithesis, and synthesis ... an example or schema for all that follows." This was for Chalybäus a brilliant hunch which he had not used previously and did not pursue afterwards in any way at all. But Karl Marx was at, that time a student at the university of Berlin and a member of the Hegel Club where the famous book was discussed. He took the hunch and spread into a deadly, abstract machinery. Other left Hegelians, such as Arnold Ruge, Ludwig Feuerbach, Max Stirner use "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" just as little as Hegel

(quote from the article of Gustav E. Mueller: The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis", in "Journal of the History of Ideas", Volume XIX, June 1958, Number 3, Page 411. The article is still as valid today as it was in 1958)

Lets hope that helps to kill this legend off, but I somehow doubt it.

It also suggests that Marx and all subsequent Marxists (who use this 'schema') are not reliable interpreters of Hegel. If so, then according to Lenin, that must mean that Marx could not have understood Das Kapital!:


“It is impossible to understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!” [Lenin (1961), p.180. Emphases added.]

Which further suggests that understanding Hegel (even if that were possible) is not integral to Marxism, or we would be faced with the ridiculous conclusion that Marx did not understand Marxism!!

Let's see the dialecticians try to wriggle out of that one....

[Mueller's full essay can be found in J Stewart (ed) (1996) 'Hegel Myths and Legends' (Northwestern University Press), pp.301-305.]

[Epoche]

Dreams and coincidence.

Primitive man experienced dreams which he would then interpret as "access to another world," and without any science and neurology to provide a more convincing explaination, he accepted the reality of this other world. The notion of the "spirit" was probably attributed to "interacting with the dead" in a dream. As all individuals dreamed, the subject became a collective psuedo-science, and metaphysics was born.

Coincidence, or, events that are thought to be unlikely and ordered without significance, happened to be timed precisely with expectations; every time the tribe commited an "immoral" act, a thunder storm would occur, or, every time they did something good, their crops did well, etc. They began to associate their successes and failures to some intelligence that was monitoring them.

These situations remained until scientific technology was invented to offer a better explaination, only the problem remained concerning the final explaination for science itself; dreams might be certain types of neurological activity...but now we ask, why is that activity the way it is and is their something more behind it?

The scientific paradigm will always be scrutinized, so in itself it is no solution to the questions of causality...it only affords temporary solutions. All idealism is based from the standpoint of assuming an intelligent organization of reality by something other than the experienced forces; idealism is an anthropological conception of plot and scheme. "God" and "spirit" are projections of human likeness, much like Feuerbach and Freud contend.

The originations for idealism seem pretty simple to me. The problem is that the momentum of such nonsense has remained well into modern civilization. Idealism is now a pragmatic tool for "psychological subterfuge." That is the emphasis marxists are making when they claim that such philosophy is a means to subordinate, by ruling classes.

Now, the shit has gotten so out of hand, the ruling class themselves aren't even aware they are doing it; they themselves believe the shit is real.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Epoche, this is an idealist account of the origin of Metaphysics:


Primitive man experienced dreams which he would then interpret as "access to another world," and without any science and neurology to provide a more convincing explaination, he accepted the reality of this other world. The notion of the "spirit" was probably attributed to "interacting with the dead" in a dream. As all individuals dreamed, the subject became a collective psuedo-science, and metaphysics was born.

A materialist account can be found at my site, in Essay Twelve, which will be published later this year (until then I have posted a summary here:

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

Much else that you say I cannot disgree with, indeed it forms the bulk of one part of the above Essay.