Strawmen

[peaccenicked]

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." from wiki

any suggestions?

Example:(you call yourselves 'dialectical materialists', but a ruse by any other name is still a ruse) who look to Hegel.


This is tantamount to philosophical defamation.

I oppose dialectical materialism, it is staid and useless, but that is not the same as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I 'read' at Hegel, to borrow Althusser phrase 'Pour Marx.' He was a different sort of dialectician, he was a materialist, but there is no compelling reason to combine he two.

Polarities are within the primacy of matter over thought. Polarities are more universal than materialist thought.


I am here to be lied to and misrepresented by someone who regard as an enemy of thought itself.

I am not here

[Raúl Duke]

Aren't those examples from Rosa Lichtenstien herself???

Isn't that what they call "flame-bait"?

The only problem I might have with her is that she has/had a tendency to direct you to her website's essays when she is arguing against dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PN, since you are the godfather of strawmen, this thread is a bit like the devil asking for help over the concept of evil.

[peaccenicked]

Is that meant to be an explanation.

It reminds me of arguments I had with some of old friends who defended their selves by accusing me of the exact same charge, I gave to them.

Hey I know that trick. It was crap then and it is crap now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

If the cap fits, and it fits you, who cares what you think?

And you dialectical mystics are expert builders of strawmen yourselves.

For example, you lot regularly misrepresent formal logic.

You just do not like being pulled up for it.

Hence, you moan, but you never answer the accusations.

For instance, you cannot respond to this post of mine from another thread:


As is easy to confirm, dialecticians have been hopelessly unclear as to whether things change because of:

(1) Their internal contradictions (and/or opposites), or

(2) Whether they change into these opposites, or, indeed,

(3) Whether they create such opposites when they change.

Of course, if the third option were the case, the alleged opposites could not cause change, since they would be produced by it, not the other way round. Moreover, they could scarcely be 'internal opposites' if they were produced by change.

If the second alternative were correct, then we would see things like males naturally turning into females, the capitalist class into the working class, electrons into protons, left hands into right hands, and vice versa, and a host of other oddities.

And as far as the first option is concerned, it is worth making the following points:

[A] If objects/processes change because of already existing internal opposites, and they change into these opposites, then plainly they cannot change, since those opposites must already exist.

So, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of A and not-A, and it 'changes' into not-A, where then is the change? All that would seem to happen here is that A disappears. [And do not ask where it disappears to!]

At the very least, this account of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-A itself came about. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

[It cannot have come from A, since A can only change because of the operation of not-A, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past will merely reduplicate this problem.]

[B] Exactly how an (internal) opposite is capable of making anything change is somewhat unclear, too. Given the above, not-A does not actually alter A, it merely replaces it!

Now the above points are not difficult to grasp, but why has no dialectician ever considered these obvious points?

The answer is plain: just as Christian mystics never see the obvious errors in their whacko beliefs (since they give them consolation), you DM-fans do likewise.

Finally, since we have already established here that Marx abandoned all this Hegelian boll*cks, I think we need an apology from you for besmirching his great name.

In the other thread I linked to (and in my Essays) there are plenty of quotations taken from dialectical classicists to show that the above is not a misrepresentation of their views.

If you think otherwise then perhaps you can explain clearly the DM-account of change (and you'd be the first in nearly 200 years to do so if you succeed).

However, in your case, you are also seriously confused.

Exhibit A:


I am here to be lied to and misrepresented (sic) by someone who regard as an enemy of thought itself.

I am not here (sic)

Ooops!

Another example of diabolical, er sorry, dialectical 'logic', by any chance?

[blackstone]

I think as members of the Commie Club you could argue your points in the anti-dialectic and other dialectic threads and not resorting to flame bait and trolling.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackstone, are you referring to me??

[blackstone]

No, i'm referring to peacenikked.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, you need to know that PN and me had a huge set to last year, and we ended up rather miffed with each other.

This is just a faint echo of that.

I think he is still sulking...

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50075&st=0

By the way, if you follow that link, you will soon see how he had to make stuff up and put words in my mouth to 'tackle' my arguments -- as all DFM-fans do.

[Raúl Duke]

Why so much defense for dialectics or even philosophy?

Science seems better at explaining "our world" than philosophy in general and dialectics specifically.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well it's like a religion to them.

If you belong to a movement that has known little other than failure, and you have been subjected to a petty-bourgeois education (which most DM-fans have), and which teaches you that there is a hidden world underneath appearances that thought alone can access (by means of a bogus ruling-class subject called 'philosophy', or even, in some cases, 'theology'), or if you are used to taking your own random thoughts about reality (about time, space, morality) as in any way significant (and which can tell you things that science has not told us, and all in the comfort of your armchair), then you are going to look for some form of consolation.

And a priori mysticism (aka 'materialist dialectics') is going to look just the ticket.

This is not mere speculation: Lenin told us this will happen in periods of defeat; that is why he wrote Materialism and Empiriocriticism (but he failed to note it affected him too, for after the defeat of 1905, he turned to Hegel's Logic).

It is no accident that dialectics was invented by non-workers, and is sustained mainly by non-workers in Marxism.

It tells them that, despite appearances to the contrary (and since appearances contradict underlying essence, anyway) Marxism is a ringing success, or it will be one day.

Axel1917 here is an excellent example of this sort of inane dialectical optimism.

So, they defend it with all the bile at their command, because my stuff threatens their only source of quasi-religious consolation.

DM should therefore stand not for 'Dialectical Materialism', but 'Depressed Marxists'.

[Raúl Duke]

or if you are used to taking your own random thoughts about reality (about time, space, morality) as in any way significant (and which can tell you things that science has not told us, and all in the comfort of your armchair),

a priori mysticism (aka 'materialist dialectics') is going to look just the ticket.

So making things up from you mind is all that is needed to be a philosopher???

:wacko:

[Hit The North]

Well it's like a religion to them.

No, it's more like a set of meta-theoretical assumptions and methodological guidelines.


If you belong to a movement that has known little other than failure, and you have been subjected to a petty-bourgeois education

What on Earth is a petty-bourgeois education?


and which teaches you that there is a hidden world underneath appearances that thought alone can access

No, not a hidden world but a hidden (i.e. not accessible to experiential observation) aspect of reality, or "the world". Marx famously argues that if appearance and reality coincided there would be no need for science.


And a priori mysticism (aka 'materialist dialectics') is going to look just the ticket.


Well, all dialectical Marxists would deny that.


This is not mere speculation: Lenin told us this will happen in periods of defeat; that is why he wrote Materialism and Empiriocriticism (but he failed to note it affected him too, for after the defeat of 1905, he turned to Hegel's Logic).

I think it's Korsch who points out that Materialism and Empiriocriticism utilises (along with Plekhanov) a Feuerbachian materialism as opposed to the "return to Hegel" which marks the Philosophical Notebooks.

Also, although it is true that in times of retreat, Marxists might turn to questions of theory, this doesn't necessarily mean a turn to dialectics. It could equally mean an excursion into Wittgenstein.


It is no accident that dialectics was invented by non-workers, and is sustained mainly by non-workers in Marxism.


Well, Marxism itself was invented by non workers. What's your point?

.....

Still knocking down your straw men, then, Rosa?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

From our religious correspondent:


No, it's more like a set of meta-theoretical assumptions and methodological guidelines.

We established months ago that it works as a form of consolation even for you (on your own admission).

And given that the logic on which it is based, dialectics makes no more sense than belief in 'god'.

In that case, you might as well have said:


No, deism is more like a set of meta-theoretical assumptions and methodological guidelines.

Which, of course, is true for some benighted souls.


What on Earth is a petty-bourgeois education?

At a guess, probably the sort you received.


No, not a hidden world but a hidden (i.e. not accessible to experiential observation) aspect of reality, or "the world". Marx famously argues that if appearance and reality coincided there would be no need for science.

But all science relies on appearances -- otherwise how would scientists read meters, runs tests, write reports, consult technical papers, attend conferences?

So, despite the fact that you tend to believe everything you read, and devote a few seconds of superficial thought to it (if that), Marx was wrong.

All science depends on appearances. Scientific theories do not depend on hidden 'essences' (a bogus concept invented by ancient Greek idealists).

But, you deny this world you have a naive sort of faith in is "hidden", preferring to call it an "aspect" -- just as some theists claim to be able to see god in certain 'aspects' of nature (they call it 'design').

Different word, perhaps, same import -- you believe in hidden "aspects".

As I said (and it looks like the more you post, the more you confirm the accusation) this 'theory' acts as a form of consolation for you.


Well, all dialectical Marxists would deny that.

Well they would wouldn't they? I am sure Bogdanov denied the things Lenin said of him. Does that prove Lenin was wrong?


I think it's Korsch who points out that Materialism and Empiriocriticism utilises (along with Plekhanov) a Feuerbachian materialism as opposed to the "return to Hegel" which marks the Philosophical Notebooks.

Once more, the point is lost on our theology professor. 1905 turned Lenin to philosophy as a form of consolation (just as it did Bogdanov and the rest), and as the mood of gloom deepened, even Lenin sank further, and studied Hegel (something you have yet to do).

But perhaps all is not lost -- a few more years of failure, and no doubt you too will find Hegel a consolation, either that or the Bible.

The downturn of the 1860s turned Engels to dialectical materialism, the failure of the Chinese and Spanish revolutions (and his political isolation) did the same for Trotsky (he had hardly mentioned this 'theory' before, so 'important' was it), and the downturn of the 1970's and the defeat of the miners (in 1985) turned the UK SWP to dialectical mysticism (as, in 1988, Chris Harman published an article in Socialist Review on Engels's whacky ideas, when he had been silent about them and this 'theory' before -- even Tony Cliff mentioned this 'theory' in print only a handful of times in the previous 40 years; Duncan Hallas only once --, culminating in a series of papers in IS in the 1990s, and then John's execrable book -- The Algebra of Revolution -- in 1998).

Even the failure of the French revolution turned Hegel to objective idealism.

Nice to see you are also an opiate-lover.


Also, although it is true that in times of retreat, Marxists might turn to questions of theory, this doesn't necessarily mean a turn to dialectics. It could equally mean an excursion into Wittgenstein.

Some hope -- but what does the above trend tell us?

Your weak explanation is false. Lenin was ritght -- downturn turns you lot into 'God-builders'.


Well, Marxism itself was invented by non workers. What's your point?

This (links removed):


All of this is not unconnected with the way that such comrades find their way into revolutionary socialism.

Unlike most worker revolutionaries, these comrades have joined, or have been recruited to the socialist movement (by-and-large) as a result of their own personal commitment, as an expression of their rebellious personality, because of individual alienation from the system, or for other contingent psychological reasons --, but not as a direct result of the class war (i.e., not through collective action, in strikes, etc.).

This means that from the beginning (again, by-and-large), such comrades act and think like individuals. This colours all they do inside the movement, and it affects the relationships they form with other revolutionaries.

These comrades are committed to the revolution as an idea, as an expression of their own personal integrity and aims in life. They are not revolutionaries for materialist reasons, that is, as a result of their direct experience of working-class action, or as a consequence of a collective response to exploitation.

So, when these comrades encounter MAD, it is 'natural' for them to latch on to its a priori theses. Because they have already been atomised by capitalist society (in view of their class-origin, and education), and have already had their heads filled with ambient "ruing ideas", they appropriate the dogmatic theses they encounter in MAD with ease, because the thought-forms this theory encapsulates look at once traditional (i.e., a priori, and thus self-certifying), and radical (because they have arisen from within what looks like radical political movement -- here they are quite happy to accept appearances).

[MAD = Materialist Dialectics.]

Manifestly, MAD-ideas could only have come from a traditional source (workers do not dream up such nostrums), but this source had already been knobbled by the incorporation of centuries of ruling-class theory. This is because, not only is traditional thought the only source of developed high 'theory' (as it was the only one on offer in Marx and Engels's day), it contains the sort of ideas to which this layer is most susceptible.

Their background and education means that ruling-class ideas already dominate their minds. This new batch, therefore, hardly raises an eyebrow.

It thus alights on ready soil.

[FL = Formal Logic.]

Initially, very little specialist knowledge is needed to 'comprehend' this theory (and certainly no FL whatsoever); indeed, no expensive equipment or time-consuming experiments are required. And yet, within hours this 'scientific theory' can be grasped by most novices (since it seems to 'follow' from thought alone, and it appears to be 'self-evident'). Literally, in an afternoon, an initiate can learn a few theses that allegedly explain all of reality for all of time. [Try learning Quantum (or even Newtonian) Mechanics that quickly!]

One only has to look at certain revolutionary internet sites, for example, to see how they claim to be able to reveal nature's deepest secrets (which are true for all of reality, for all of time) in page or two of loose phraseology, homespun 'logic' and Mickey Mouse Science --, for instance, here, or here.

[Contrast that with the months, or years, of hard work it takes to grasp the genuine science of Marxist economics, for example. Contrast it too with the detailed knowledge one needs to understand, say, the class basis of the ancient world, and how that affected the way it developed. No 'self-evident' truths there!]

Moreover, because this 'theory' is connected with wider historic or even romantic aims (explored briefly below), such comrades soon become wedded to this doctrine.

Indeed, for all the world, they seem to fall in love with it!

This subjective response to such an easily won key to the 'doors of perception' now connects dialectics with the revolutionary ego, for it is this theory that guarantees (for such comrades) that their existence, their anger at injustice, and all their hard work, are not in vain.

On the contrary, this theory guarantees that their lives are capable of assuming cosmic significance; dialectics places the militant mind at the very core of the meaning universe -- for it gives such souls a universal meaning in life, and an eternal set of truths to back this up.

The heady romance of being a "Revolutionary" now takes over.

But, the revolutionary ego can only ascend to the next blessed level if it becomes the willing vehicle for the tide of history, a slave to the dialectic.

The dialectic now expresses (in its earthly form) cosmic forces that have governed the universe from the beginning of time (and which are thus written into the fabric of matter). A veritable de-personalised 'divine' force.

Or, at least, that is how the Faithful depict it to themselves (on that, see here).

The dialectic governs the nature of everything in existence, including even the thoughts of these, the 'least' of its servants (aka, "subjective dialectics").

By becoming slaves to the mysterious 'mediations' that emanate forth from the "Totality" (which, just like 'God', cannot be defined), through revolutionary 'good works' ("activity") and pure thoughts ("non-Revisionism"), by joining in a movement that cannot fail to alter fundamentally the course of human history ("follow me and I will make you fishers" of cadres), the petty-bourgeois ego is 'born again' to a higher purpose, and with a cosmic mandate. He or she now emerges as a professional revolutionary --, sometimes even with a shiny new name to prove it.

But, certainly with a new persona.

The scales now drop from its eyes.

The Hermetic virus has found another victim.

As Max Eastman noted:

"Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it."

This now provides such comrades with well-known social psychological motivations, inducements and reinforcements. These in turn help convince these Hermetic victims that:

(1) Their personal existence is not meaningless or for nought.

(2) They as individuals can become key figures in history, helping to determine the direction social evolution should take next, and,

(3) Whatever it was that caused their alienation from bourgeois society, it can be rectified, reversed or redeemed through the right sort of acts, thoughts and deeds -- somewhat reminiscent of the way that Pelagian forms of 'muscular Christianity' taught that salvation can be had through pure thoughts, good works, and severe treatment of the body.

Dialectics now takes on the role that religion often occupies in the minds of the masses, giving cosmic significance to these its very own petty-bourgeois victims.

Same cause, similar drug.

However, social atoms like these need an internally-generated unifying force -- one provided by a set of self-certifying ideas -- to wed them to the international workers' movement. As social atoms, they need a Whole to make sense of their fragmentation. Hence, we have the mysterious "Totality" -- but, so mysterious is this 'Being' that not a single one of its slaves can tell you of its nature, even though they all bend the knee to its contradictory will.

Workers do not.

Thus, in stark contrast, well-known material forces impose unity on those involved in collective labour; these compel workers to combine, they do not persuade them to do so as a result of some ruling-class theory or other. Workers are thus forced to unite out of material necessity, and this is unity externally-imposed on them.

In contrast once more, in the case of petty-bourgeois revolutionaries, dialectics replaces material struggle as a unifying force; without it the rationale behind the romantic idea that such comrades stand at the philosophical centre of the dialectical universe would vanish.

Moreover, because dialectics provides them with a seemingly coherent, but eminently traditional picture of reality (i.e., as an a priori idea), it supplies each one with unique motivation, which, because it is represented individualistically inside each brain, only serves to help divide each 'dialectical disciple', one from the next (for reasons spelled-out below).

Militant Martinets

Dialectics, the theory of universal opposites, goes to work on militant minds and helps turn each into an inveterate sectarian and dedicated faction fiend.

This is because collective discipline is paramount inside Bolshevik-style parties. But, the petty-bourgeois militant is not used to this form of externally-imposed discipline (recall, these comrades are attracted by internally-processed and self-certifying ideas), and fights quickly break out, often over personal issues.14

Because these comrades think like social atoms, but have to act like social molecules (which is a psychological feat that lies way above their class position, their social pay grade, as it were), these disputes are easy to re-configure as political differences (once more, over ideas), which require, and are soon given, theoretical justification.

But, these individuals are socially-conditioned egocentrics, who, in their own eyes, have a hot-line to dialectical truth (hard-wired into each brain by those self-certifying Hegelian ideas, once more) -- and they mean to exploit that fact.

In such an idea-driven environment, the DM-classics, just like the Bible and other assorted Holy Books, soon come into their own.15

Again, for social atoms like these, the desire to impose one's own views on others becomes irresistible; doctrinal control (i.e., the control of all those inner, privatised ideas in every other atomised party skull) now acts as a surrogate for external control by material forces.

But, just as traditional religionists discovered, mind-control of this sort is more easy to secure if appeal is made to impenetrably mysterious doctrines that no one understands, but which must be repeated constantly to dull the critical faculties.

Hence, because the Party cannot reproduce the class struggle inside itself, and thus force unity on its cadres externally, and materially, it can only control political thought internally (in each head) by turning it into a mind-numbing mantra, insisting on doctrinal purity, and accusing all those who do not conform of not "understanding" dialectics.

This naturally leads to more disputes and more splits.

An authoritarian personality-form thus emerges to enforce orthodoxy (disguised as an endeavour to keep faith with "tradition", which is, un-coincidentally, a noxious characteristic of all known religions). This now becomes the watch-word to test the doctrinal purity of all -- especially of those who might stray too far from the narrow path which alone leads the select few toward revolutionary salvation.17

This further explains why, to each DM-acolyte, the dialectic is so personal, and so intimately their own possession, and why you can almost feel their hurt when it is comprehensively trashed, as it has been here.

Hence, any attack on this 'precious jewel' is an attack on the revolutionary ego itself, and must be resisted with all the bile at its command.

And that explains all the abuse you will get if you think to challenge the MAD-ideas of a single one of these Hermetic victims.

More details here (with links, references, and data):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

[The title of that Essay is: 'How Dialectics has helped ruin Marxism'.]


Still knocking down your straw men, then, Rosa?

No, just straw comrades like you.

[Raúl Duke]

No, not a hidden world but a hidden (i.e. not accessible to experiential observation) aspect of reality, or "the world". Marx famously argues that if appearance and reality coincided there would be no need for science.

That sounds incredibly "mystical". Can anyone prove scientifically (or with materialism alone) this "world" (or "hidden aspect") exists?

If it's not accessable by experiential observation...than how can we look into it?
What methods are used to see into this "aspect" of the world?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:11 pm

No, not a hidden world but a hidden (i.e. not accessible to experiential observation) aspect of reality, or "the world". Marx famously argues that if appearance and reality coincided there would be no need for science.

That sounds incredibly "mystical". Can anyone prove scientifically (or with materialism alone) this "world" (or "hidden aspect") exists?


It's not mystical to assert that the appearance of this table I sit at is not identical to it's real constitution at the atomic level. If we penetrate beneath the surface appearance we discover that it is not a solid object at all, but is composed mainly of space. Likewise, there will be many other things to discover which are not immediately observable to our experience and all of these things increase our understanding of the table and its relation to other phenomena in the world. In fact, this process of cognition makes the table more real, rather than less real (or, as you put it, 'mystical').

Likewise, in the social lives of men and women. We need to move beyond the ideological surfaces of daily life in order to better explain it. It's the basis of historical materialism and lies at the heart of Marx's method in Capital. It is not enough to examine the surface manifestations of capitalism (such as prices), we also need to understand how these are determined by the (more or less hidden) laws of motion which capitalism is dependent upon (in this instance, movements of value which underlie prices).


If it's not accessable by experiential observation...than how can we look into it?
What methods are used to see into this "aspect" of the world?

The method employed by Marx in Capital.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


It's not mystical to assert that the appearance of this table I sit at is not identical to it's real constitution at the atomic level.

And what would it be for these to be identical (we need to know this so that we know what exactly you are ruling out; unless you can say, your denial will lack content).

But, anyway, where did I say it was 'mystical' to say this?

It is just meaningless (unless you fulfil the criteria I mentioned above).


If we penetrate beneath the surface appearance we discover that it is not a solid object at all,

So, what then do you mean by 'solid'?

And what is this metaphor doing here: 'penetrate'?




Likewise, in the social lives of men and women. We need to move beyond the ideological surfaces of daily life in order to better explain it. It's the basis of historical materialism and lies at the heart of Marx's method in Capital. It is not enough to examine the surface manifestations of capitalism (such as prices), we also need to understand how these are determined by the (more or less hidden) laws of motion which capitalism is dependent upon (in this instance, movements of value which underlie prices).

Yes, I understand Marx's economics, I just reject the tired old ancient metaphysics you superimpose on it.

You will note also that you have to use yet another metaphor to make this fairy tale work; does capitalism really have a 'surface'?

Perhaps you can polish it too? Or paint it? Off you go...


The method employed by Marx in Capital.

JD, comrade Z here meant to add: "minus the Hegelian boll*cks, which I still haven't read".

Translated, this means: we can give MAD the boot.

[MAD = Materialist Dialectics.]

You will also, no doubt, note that Z here never responds to my detailed comments, but he requires of me things all the time.

He has been burying his head in the sand like this for over a year.

We should perhaps rename him [i]Citizen Silicate.

[Raúl Duke]

solid object at all, but is composed mainly of space.

I thought it was a bunch of atoms bonded together?

if you say only space...I'm only be thinking of "empty space" (btw...is there anything in empty space?)...so if there's only empty space than the table "disappears".

What you are using to look at the table's atomic configuration is chemistry, etc (Science)


which are not immediately observable to our experience...its relation to other phenomena in the world.

What about Black Matter? (or whatever it's called)

I heard that they theorized it based on its interactions with other things "we do know/see"

They still used experiments/scientific method to learn about black matter, right?

The other stuff mention in between these 2 phrases: exactly how do you go about in discovering them? by thought alone?


The method employed by Marx in Capital.

Dialectical Materialism is a method?

Than explain the "steps" needed to do it?

Even the scientific method has easily explained steps that appear in most grade level science textbooks.

[Hit The North]

JD


Than explain the "steps" needed to do it?

I think there are a number of fundamental assumptions which underlie the dialectic method:

1. The scientific realist position that the appearance of a thing does not always disclose its content and that it is the job of science to reveal this and demonstrate the relationship between form and content.
2. That phenomena do not exist in isolation but within a particular constellation of relations to other phenomena.
3. That these relations are dialectical – i.e. dynamic and mutually reproducing.
4. That explanation of phenomena is at its fullest when a thing is understood in-itself and in its relations to other phenomena – or a stronger version
4.a. that a thing can only be understood as a determination of its relations.

The method Marx appeals to in order apply his dialectic is the power of abstraction and he outlines it HERE (http://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/marx-engels/grundisse.htm)

Bertell Ollman provides a good discussion of how the materialist dialectic can be employed. You can find extracts HERE (http://http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/dd_ch00.php)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, now resorting to a priori articles of faith (just like every other DM-fan, even though they say they never do this):


I think there are a number of fundamental assumptions which underlie the dialectic method:

1. The scientific realist position that the appearance of a thing does not always disclose its content and that it is the job of science to reveal this and demonstrate the relationship between form and content.
2. That phenomena do not exist in isolation but within a particular constellation of relations to other phenomena.
3. That these relations are dialectical – i.e. dynamic and mutually reproducing.
4. That explanation of phenomena is at its fullest when a thing is understood in-itself and in its relations to other phenomena – or a stronger version
4.a. that a thing can only be understood as a determination of its relations.

The proof of all this will no doubt be posted soon.

In fact, I think I can here Z's boney fingers typing it up as we speak.

We wait with baited traps...

Interested comrades can also read another arch-dialectician impose an a priori schema on reality.

"Where?" I hear you ask.

Well, ZZZZ-ed has very kindly helped us out here:


Bertell Ollman provides a good discussion of how the materialist dialectic can be employed. You can find extracts HERE

How very sporting of Z to sink his own case for us!

I am beginning to like him...

[peaccenicked]

This technique of overkill is really over defensive cant you stick to one point.

Lets stick to say this one.


All science depends on appearances. Scientific theories do not depend on hidden 'essences' (a bogus concept invented by ancient Greek idealists).




"All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. ... I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived! It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing. You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before. (Heraclitus, 500 B.C.)

Yes What Stupid bastard....Heraclitus was. Ha ha,
Imagine believing that a river is not static and that the formal name for something
impresses a static picture.

What idiotic idealist he must have been? Ho ho.

[Raúl Duke]

???

:huh:


All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. ... I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived! It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing. You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before. (Heraclitus, 500 B.C.)


Sounds like something religious...like buddhism and taoism. :blink:

:huh:

who is this One?

Is he god? like a pantheist kind of god?


but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before

Why not? Does it have to do with the fact that the water is in movement? (streaming along the river)


It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing.

Where is this ocean? Is it visible or invisible like god ( <_< ) ? Where/What is/are these "Becoming" and "Passing"?


What idiotic idealist he must have been?

In my honest opinion, he seems like he&#39;s delusional.

[peaccenicked]

Heraclitis simply said, this if you stand in the same river twice, it will be different. He did not say it would anything else but a river. He just saying the river would be different, and one ought to take that into ones calculation.

Call this inane, but still if you take things by their names only you tend to think of them as static entities.

What is so delusion about that.


When talking of the One, it could be read as this.
Everything is the sum of all things. All things make up everything

Commutative law of addition: m + n = n + m . A sum isn’t changed at rearrangement of its addends.


&#39;&#39;I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived&#33; It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing.&#39;&#39;


I ll translate this as If you come across a thing that looks like it does not appear to change at all, then you are deceiving yourself.
I cannot see nothing wrong with that proposition


I believe you are the one who is delusional seeing and looking for things that are not there.

Also you like Rosa,you refuse to understand what the text actually means. And if possible read the worst into it.

This is the method of a charlatan- I d not intend to flame but standards of the ordinary usage of thought ought to be in operation.

[Raúl Duke]

Heraclitis simply said, this if you stand in the same river twice, it will be different. He did not say it would anything else but a river. He just saying the river would be different, and one ought to take that into ones calculation.


The river may become different in some way...but it is still a river (until it dries up).

Currently,I don&#39;t see a need to take it into calculation; but if there was a situation in which I needed to know these differences I would try my best to be aware of it.


Call this inane, but still if you take things by their names only you tend to think of them as static entities.

Never called this river by any special name.


When talking of the One, it could be read as this.
Everything is the sum of all things. All things make up everything

of course everything is the sum of all things...however

One doesn&#39;t seem the same as saying everything. If Heraclitus wanted to say Everything he shoulda use a word that conveyed that idea better.

This one sounds like a "single source" in which everything comes out of.


ll translate this as If you come across a thing that looks like it does not appear to change at all, then you are deceiving yourself.
I cannot see nothing wrong with that proposition
I believe you are the one who is delusional seeing and looking for things that are not there.
Also you like Rosa,you refuse to understand what the text actually means. And if possible read the worst into it.

Sorry, it&#39;s just that Heraclitus&#39;s quote is written in...how should I say? a complicated manner. (it even took you to have to translate it)


standards of the ordinary usage of thought ought to be in operation.

Exactly what are these standards? Thinking in opposites and in their unity?
Everyone has different standards and sometimes change between standards.

[peaccenicked]

QUOTE
Heraclitis simply said, this if you stand in the same river twice, it will be different. He did not say it would anything else but a river. He just saying the river would be different, and one ought to take that into ones calculation.




The river may become different in some way...but it is still a river (until it dries up).

Currently,I don&#39;t see a need to take it into calculation; but if there was a situation in which I needed to know these differences I would try my best to be aware of it.

You seem to be more dialectical than me&#33; No firm rules, no rigidity.
I especially like your conditional "Currently". Most dialectical.

Dialectics at the Heraclitian level is exactly this type of movement in thought.



A standard in ordinary communication is at least the attempt at comprehension,
not to take something and scramble into the terms of a pre-ordained mind set, that some how sees dialectics as a rigid set of rules, or absolute laws, and when this established is then claimed to be useless for not being such. It is a circular fallacy.

I can establish and recognise that opposites, and contradictions , exist all over nature.
The idea that this idea is ancient, and mystical, is just crap, the struggle for Marx was to drop the mysticism not drop dialectics. Thinkers influenced by Marx have seen no need to drop dialectics, since it is no more than a tool.

To create a diatribe about a tool is pathetic.

If you are unable to use the tool then dont use it.

To claim the tool is unscientific. Is to say the tool does not exist&#33;

Marx, Lenin, Caudwell, Guevara all used this non existent tool.
I imagine they least thought they did but then hell that wont be taken a evidence that the tool exists.

It has to be examined under a philologists microscope.

Marx says this of Lassalle.

One can see what an amazing swell the fellow himself thinks he is in this philological finery, and how he moves with all the grace of a man wearing fashionable dress for the first time in his life. Since most philologists are not possessed of the speculative thinking dominant in Heraclitus, every Hegelian has the incontestable advantage of understanding what the philologist does not. (It would, by the by, be strange indeed if, by learning Greek, a fellow were to become a philosopher in Greek without being one in German.) Instead of simply taking this for granted, Mr Lassalle proceeds to lecture us in a quasi-Lessingian manner. In longwinded, lawyer’s style he vindicates the Hegelian interpretation as opposed to the erroneous exegeses of the philologists — erroneous for want of specialised knowledge. Thus we are accorded the twofold gratification, first, of having dialectical matters which we had all but forgotten expounded to us at considerable length and, secondly, of seeing this ‘speculative heritage’ vindicated (qua special province of Mr Lassalle’s philological-jurisprudential astuteness and erudition) vis-à-vis the unspeculative philologists. Despite the fellow’s claim, by the way, that hitherto Heraclitus has been a book with 7 seals, he has to all intents and purposes added nothing whatever that is new to what Hegel says in the History of Philosophy."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...rs/58_02_01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1858/letters/58_02_01.htm)
I see nothing in Anti-dialectics, that tells me I arguing with a philologist rather than a Scientist who has the advantage of speculative thinking over the petty accountants of mechanical proofs, that is only part of the process of science. The dullest part at that.

Marx understood that without speculation there can be no creative thought. In fact there could be no new thought. To visualise a new thought, one has to take an old thought and add or subtract from it or both. There is no two ways about the process of thinking is therefore Dialectical. To argue otherwise is to deny reality full stop.
Hence while science appears to be all proofs, predictions, and falsifiable propositions, quite often it is not, it is hypothesis, conjecture, ideas that need to be developed, further research, ideas for new methods, new ways of using old methods, it is a vast array of tools. Every single new thing is born out of past experience. It is a dialogue between the old and the new.
The scientific mind looks at the thing and can not go forward in thinking without coming across opposites and processing these opposites.
Opposites exist at every point in thinking. This I dont claim. I know. Every single statement can be attacked from many,many different angles, usually the ones most relevant at the time.
If you don&#39;t know this then you have not been using your brain very much. Only appearing to do do so. Not essentially.

This is where I agree that there is no hidden essences.


The philologist simply states definitions and fights contradictions, and the result is to
legislate against the use of one&#39;s imagination in science. It is to become a scientific Pol Pot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PN:


This technique of overkill is really over defensive cant you stick to one point.

According to Lenin:


[I]f we are to have true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and &#39;mediacies&#39;. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity….

"[D]ialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in &#39;self-movement&#39; (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world." [Lenin (1921), p.93.]

If you are now telling me Diabolocial Logic is not good, I am happy to be corrected.



"All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. ... I see nothing but Becoming. Be not deceived&#33; It is the fault of your limited outlook and not the fault of the essence of things if you believe that you see firm land anywhere in the ocean of Becoming and Passing. You need names for things, just as if they had a rigid permanence, but the very river in which you bathe a second time is no longer the same one which you entered before. (Heraclitus, 500 B.C.)

Yes What Stupid bastard....Heraclitus was. Ha ha,

This Idealist mystic was happy to impose these views on the whole of nature (living at a time when very little was known about anything), which, so we are told, is something you modern mystics are not supposed to do:


"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels (1976), p.13. Bold emphasis added.]

So, he wasn&#39;t stupid, but I am surprised you have the stupidity to quote him.


Imagine believing that a river is not static and that the formal name for something

impresses a static picture.

What idiotic idealist he must have been? Ho ho

Well, he got that wrong too, didn&#39;t he?

And your Father Christmas impressions really help your case along, I have to say.

At least, more than your incapacity to think straight does.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD:


Sounds like something religious...like buddhism and taoism.

Sure it does, Heraclitus was a religious nut, who on the basis of a few observations about rivers was quiote happy to tell us everything in the entire universe changes&#33;

He got that wrong, too.

Protons do not change.

PN, who says he is a Physicist, should have known not to trust such Idealists.

And it is quite easy to step into the same river twice, contrary to what Heraclitus said:

Step into the Nile one day, and then step into it the next day.

Not so, I hear modern day mystics say -- the water has changed, so have the banks of the river (slightly).

But, that means we cannot step into the same localised body of water twice, or the same localised but liquid-filled river bed.

We have different criteria for sameness of rivers than we do for sameness of bodies of water, or river banks.

Otherwise, Heraclitus might as well have stepped into the Nile one day, and then the Danube the next, to make his point.

No, even he would have had to have chosen the same river to try to make his bogus point.

However, JD, here is one mystical text that confirms your guess:


"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates." - The Kybalion.

The great Third Hermetic Principle-the Principle of Vibration-embodies the truth that Motion is manifest in everything in the Universe-that nothing is at rest-that everything moves, vibrates, and circles. This Hermetic Principle was recognized by some of the early Greek philosophers who embodied it in their systems. But, then, for centuries it was lost sight of by the thinkers outside of the Hermetic ranks. But in the Nineteenth Century physical science re-discovered the truth and the Twentieth Century scientific discoveries have added additional proof of the correctness and truth of this centuries-old Hermetic doctrine.

The Hermetic Teachings are that not only is everything in constant movement and vibration, but that the "differences" between the various manifestations of the universal power are due entirely to the varying rate and mode of vibrations. Not only this, but that even THE ALL, in itself, manifests a constant vibration of such an infinite degree of intensity and rapid motion that it may be practically considered as at rest, the teachers directing the attention of the students to the fact that even on the physical plane a rapidly moving object (such as a revolving wheel) seems to be at rest. The Teachings are to the effect that Spirit is at one end of the Pole of Vibration, the other Pole being certain extremely gross forms of Matter. Between these two poles are millions upon millions of different rates and modes of vibration.

Modern Science has proven that all that we call Matter and Energy are but "modes of vibratory motion," and some of the more advanced scientists are rapidly moving toward the positions of the occultists who hold that the phenomena of Mind are likewise modes of vibration or motion. Let us see what science has to say regarding the question of vibrations in matter and energy.

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion9.htm

The Kybalion is, so we are told, one of the most sacred texts of Hermeticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kybalion

Hegel was a Hermeticist:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...ks/en/magee.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/magee.htm)

And that is where PN gets his ideas from&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

PN:


Also you like Rosa,you refuse to understand what the text actually means. And if possible read the worst into it.

Yes, you are all so badly misunderstood, you mytsics. :(

No wonder the working class ignores you lot completely.

But, have you noticed that fact?

Not with your heads in the sand you haven&#39;t.


You seem to be more dialectical than me&#33; No firm rules, no rigidity.

You seem to be quite rigid on at least this point, PN.

But, please tell us: why has this rule not changed?

Is it the only thing in the entire universe to miss out on the &#39;universal Heraclitean flux&#39;?

Tut, tut -- shame on you.

The gods of dialectics will curse your fig tree to the tenth generation.


I can establish and recognise that opposites, and contradictions , exist all over nature.

But, you have yet to establish they exist right here on earth, so this is rather brave of you.


Opposites exist at every point in thinking. This I dont claim. I know. Every single statement can be attacked from many,many different angles, usually the ones most relevant at the time.

Here&#39;s one opposite that I think even you might balk at accepting:

Dialectics is completely and hopelessly incorrect from beginning to end.

[Which is the opposite of: &#39;Dialectics is not completely and hopelessly incorrect from beginning to end&#39;.]


The philologist simply states definitions and fights contradictions, and the result is to legislate against the use of one&#39;s imagination in science. It is to become a scientific Pol Pot.

You do this all the time with your unchanging &#39;everything changes&#39; mantra.

You might be no Pol Pot, but you are certainly an inconsistent bumbler.

[Raúl Duke]

"You seem to be more dialectical than me&#33; No firm rules, no rigidity.
I especially like your conditional "Currently". Most dialectical.

Dialectics at the Heraclitian level is exactly this type of movement in thought."

Well, I suppose sometimes a blind squirrel can find an acorn.

If Dialecitcs is a form of thinking...one that might be done unconsciously...

than why make a distinction? Why not just be content in letting it be considered a part of (umbrella term) thinking?



"If you are unable to use the tool then dont use it."

Sounds like sound advice; If I can&#39;t understand it I shouldn&#39;t be wasting my time.


"that tells me I arguing with a philologist rather than a Scientist who has the advantage of speculative thinking over the petty accountants of mechanical proofs, that is only part of the process of science. The dullest part at that."

I&#39;m not a scientist by trade..and if I claimed to be/mislead you than I&#39;m sorry..and I don&#39;t even know what a philogist is...


"Marx understood that without speculation there can be no creative thought."

I speculate sometimes the time....
Would that mean I&#39;m using dialectics?


"There is no two ways about the process of thinking is therefore Dialectical. To argue otherwise is to deny reality full stop."

So thinking is dialectical (I could be wrong)? Than if we use dialectics subconsciouly when we think than wouldn&#39;t it just be part of everyday thinking processes and need no special distinctions?

See, the problem is is that I donnot know what exactly IS dialectics, what are the steps to performing this "method" (thats what comrade Z called it, so if its wrong fight him, also he also gave me some steps...but they looked complicated. Why can&#39;t anyone every simplify anything in philosophy?)