Do all things have an opposite?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I was having a discussion with a hyper-articulate taoist just now, who was saying that everything had an opposite, it was how the universe balanced out and all that jazz. Reminded me of dialectics, actually. Anyway, he's giving all these examples, Up+Down, Cold+Hot, etc. I aksed what the opposite of a banana was, and he replied "not-banana". Is this right? Does it make sense? I suggested that "not banana" was not a "thing" and that you couldn't just invent an abstract concept that didn't even exist to to keep opposites going.

What are your thoughts on this?

-Alex

[RedAnarchist]

How can cold be an opposite of heat, when it is just the absence of heat?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Some things have many opposites (like the sides of irregular polygons), and some none, for example, a kettle.

Now, if he says 'not kettle' , then that makes the rest of the universe its 'opposite', and the word 'opposite' loses all meaning'.

[And how does the rest of the universe 'balance' a kettle?]

[You will have the same problem with dialecticians, who hold exaclty the same beliefs, except they deny they are mystics. Ha!]

Your next tactic should be to ask 'him' how he knows this to be so. Simply gluing a 'not' onto a word does not guarantee that that alleged opposite exists. For example, "an extinct Do Do"; "something which exists".

If that fails, start screwing around with 'him', for 'he' is not a serious thinker -- try "The eigth person to think of a correct answer to your puzzle'; "The word 'not'"; "The end of this sente...'; "anything which can be thought about"; "the next number I am not going to mention"; "something with no opposite"; "not something with an opposite"; "not something not balanced"; "a dismantled see-saw that used to have a pile of bricks at one end and nothing at the other"; "not everything which can be put next to most things that have been in Paris on a Thursday, not partially painted green by no one with a left hand, and dumped half cerimoniously into a skip not placed between two chinese restaurants...".

Then poke 'him' in the eye and ask 'him' what the opposite if that is...

[The thing with dialectical Marxists, however, is that they at least pretend to be scientific, and say they do not impose their ideas on nature, so you can get them on that (but then they sulk, or refuse to listen). Taoists, like Buddhists, are quite happy to play words games, and imagine that this means something.]

[MarxSchmarx]

Rosa we can quibble with your examples.



Now, if he says 'not kettle' , then that makes the rest of the universe its 'opposite', and the word 'opposite' loses all meaning'.


"Everything which exists which is not a kettle"... why is this a meaningless phrase (apart from the definition of "exists")?


Simply gluing a 'not' onto a word does not guarantee that that alleged opposite exists. For example, "an extinct Do Do"; "something which exists".

"Something which exists" is a subset of something which is not an extinct dodo.

As for the word not, isn't it a quirk of English to prohibit double negatives? These are perfectly OK in some languages so that a "not a not-bicycle" must of necessity be a bicycle.

The more prudent course seems to me to accept that for every X one can conjure up a "non-X", and concede to the Daoist that our understanding of the world consists of opposites by definition of X and not-X.

More generally, what is the harm in doing that?

[mikelepore]

I wouldn't say that the Taoist is "wrong", but restricted in application. If his intention is to do something charming, like write poetry or drama, he is vindicated. But his kind of thinking is not useful for any practical task, such as building a house, or improving society.

[Forward Union]

I was having a discussion with a hyper-articulate taoist just now, who was saying that everything had an opposite, it was how the universe balanced out and all that jazz. Reminded me of dialectics, actually. Anyway, he's giving all these examples, Up+Down, Cold+Hot, etc. I aksed what the opposite of a banana was, and he replied "not-banana". Is this right? Does it make sense? I suggested that "not banana" was not a "thing" and that you couldn't just invent an abstract concept that didn't even exist to to keep opposites going.

What are your thoughts on this?

-Alex

Yes because there is anti-matter.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

MarksSchmarx:



why is this a meaningless phrase (apart from the definition of "exists")?



Read what I said:


Now, if he says 'not kettle' , then that makes the rest of the universe its 'opposite', and the word 'opposite' loses all meaning.


Which it does.


"Something which exists" is a subset of something which is not an extinct dodo.


"Something which exists" does not define a set, nor yet a sub-set.

And, neither does "something which is not an extinct dodo".


As for the word not, isn't it a quirk of English to prohibit double negatives?

"not not" is not the opposite of "not", for if it were, then so would "not not not not" (and so on), and the definite article would be misplaced.


These are perfectly OK in some languages so that a "not a not-bicycle" must of necessity be a bicycle.

Not my example; it's yours, and you can get on it.


The more prudent course seems to me to accept that for every X one can conjure up a "non-X", and concede to the Daoist that our understanding of the world consists of opposites by definition of X and not-X.


"non-X" and "not X" are not the same, as even Aristotle recognised.

And negation is not an opposite forming operator.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Wat:


Yes because there is anti-matter.

Which may be the opposte of matter, but not of banana.

Now if you had said "anti-banana", you might have been on to something, but, as far as I am aware, the world of anti-matter is not that well organised.

[RebelDog]

Wat:



Which may be the opposte of matter, but not of banana.

Now if you had said "anti-banana", you might have been on to something, but, as far as I am aware, the world of anti-matter is not that well organised.

I don't see any reason why an anti-matter banana couldn't be grown/constructed or an anti-matter kettle constructed either. It might be safer to say that not everything has an opposite, but the capability exists for everything to have an opposite.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rebel dog:


I don't see any reason why an anti-matter banana couldn't be grown/constructed or an anti-matter kettle constructed either. It might be safer to say that not everything has an opposite, but the capability exists for everything to have an opposite.

Are there any anti-matter bananas out there?

If there are, let me know (and also post the evidence).

[But which is 'the' opposite of any one ordinary banana? If you cannot say, then there might be billions of such 'opposites', and the definite article is once more misplaced.]

And no Taoist worth her salt will be happy with a 'capability'.

[But what about 'something with no capability to have an opposite'?]

By the way, were you once 'Dissenter'?

[Forward Union]

Which may be the opposte of matter, but not of banana

Urm. Physically speaking, a Banana made up of anti-matter (an anti-banana) would be the opposite.

Conseptually though, they're not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Wat, but which 'anti-banana' is the opposite?

If you cannot say, and if there are billions of these, it cannot be the opposite.

The definite article rules out competitors, here.

And are there any anti-bananas out there?

Just because we have a word for something does not imply it exists -- otherwise we'd all have to believe in 'god'.

We need an anti-greengrocer to sell you an anti-banana before your example can even be considered viable.

And even if it did exist, why is it an or the 'opposite' as opposed to its 'nemesis', or 'enemy', or 'competitor', or potential destroyer?

And even then, while we might choose to call it an/the 'opposite', nature still pays no heed to our linguistic foibles.

[RebelDog]

The positron is the anti matter partner of the electron, there is an antiproton an antineutron and so on. It could theoretically be possible to build things which could be considered the anti-matter counterpart of anything made of conventional matter and vice-versa. Whether you or I would call the anti-matter equivalent the 'opposite' of the matter object is, as usual, a question of semantics. But it looks to me like the anti-matter counterpart of any object is as good an example as anything I've heard of something having an opposite, if indeed something can. I would reaffirm my previous point that one could construct an anti-matter 'opposite' for any conventional matter entity, and thus everything tangible, material can have an anti-matter opposite at the very least. The argument should be not; can we have an anti-matter banana? It should be; is an anti-matter banana the opposite of of a conventional matter banana?


By the way, were you once 'Dissenter'?I was.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter-as-was:



The positron is the anti matter partner of the electron, there is an antiproton an antineutron and so on. It could theoretically be possible to build things which could be considered the anti-matter counterpart of anything made of conventional matter and vice-versa. Whether you or I would call the anti-matter equivalent the 'opposite' of the matter object is, as usual, a question of semantics. But it looks to me like the anti-matter counterpart of any object is as good an example as anything I've heard of something having an opposite, if indeed something can. I would reaffirm my previous point that one could construct an anti-matter 'opposite' for any conventional matter entity, and thus everything tangible, material can have an anti-matter opposite at the very least. The argument should be not; can we have an anti-matter banana? It should be; is an anti-matter banana the opposite of of a conventional matter banana?



I thought the proton was the 'opposite' of the electron.

Anyway, as even Hegel realised, unless you can show there is one and only one 'opposite' (he called it the 'other'), then you have no theory of change (or stability). Unfortunately, he failed in this task too, and so will anyone who just sticks a negative particle (i.e., a 'not' or even an 'anti-') in front of a chosen word.

For, if the opposite of A is not-A, then everything in the universe that is not A is its opposite. And so we would not in that case have 'the' opposite of A. Same with electrons.

Anyway, I digress; has anyone constructed an anti-matter banana yet?

So, your post is mostly empty words, then.

And, you will need to deal with the objections I posted to Wat Tyler too.

[Luís Henrique]

Evidently, "not-banana" is not the "opposite" of banana in the same sence that "up" is the opposite of down.

If we don't define the terms, we are talking about meaningless generalities. And I somehow doubt that the word "opposite" makes sence when applied to physical objects.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Which may be the opposte of matter, but not of banana.

But is the opposite of matter anti-matter, or vacuum?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Up+Down,

But is the opposite of "up" "down"?

When I say "up", I mean the "opposite" of what a Japanese means when s/he says "up".


Cold+Hot

This pair is "opposite" in a very different sence; for there is no such thing as "cold" (except in our sensibility): what we perceive as "cold" is in fact less heath.

Luís Henrique

[RebelDog]

I thought the proton was the 'opposite' of the electron.So you do think things have 'opposites'. They have opposite charges of course.


Anyway, I digress; has anyone constructed an anti-matter banana yet?How would I know? I never claimed anyone has. All I claimed was is that it is possible.


So, your post is mostly empty words, then.You've never speculated in your life then?


And, you will need to deal with the objections I posted to Wat Tyler too.Well I don't have to do anything actually, but being a generous soul I will anyway.


Wat, but which 'anti-banana' is the opposite?It would be possible to make many anti matter bananas which are identical in every way possible, just like it could be for normal bananas. What could definitely comprise the 'opposite' banana might be the one that annihilates the conventional banana.


Just because we have a word for something does not imply it exists -- otherwise we'd all have to believe in 'god'.Agreed.


We need an anti-greengrocer to sell you an anti-banana before your example can even be considered viable.Any normal matter physical construct can be recreated in anti-matter form. My point is its possible, not that such complex things already exist.


And even if it did exist, why is it an or the 'opposite' as opposed to its 'nemesis', or 'enemy', or 'competitor', or potential destroyer?

And even then, while we might choose to call it an/the 'opposite', nature still pays no heed to our linguistic foibles.Again agreed. All I'm saying that if there is such a concept in nature as opposites then particles and their anti-matter partners could be opposites in nature.

Its starting to worry me that my friends and family might find out I sit up at night talking about anti-matter bananas.


Dissenter-as-was:Is that an attempt at minor insolence?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



But is the opposite of matter anti-matter, or vacuum?



I don't think our linguistic intuitions are very good here, and it does not matter what we say, nature takes no heed of our fancies.

The opposite of matter could even be 'spirit', or 'mind'.

Who can say?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter-as-was:



Is that an attempt at minor insolence?


No, I call many others here by the same sort of name (for example I call Red Anarchist, 'TAKN-as-was').

I only do it to those who I respect. So, please do not take offence.:)


So you do think things have 'opposites'.

No, I was arguing ad hominem (in the correct meaning of that phrase -- i.e., seeking to reveal inconsistencies in another's argument, without committing myself either way).


All I claimed was is that it is possible.

Based on what theory?


You've never speculated in your life then?

In Philosophy, I did once upon a time, and then realised it was a total waste of time, or worse.

And I leave science to the scientists.


It would be possible to make many anti matter bananas which are identical in every way possible, just like it could be for normal bananas. What could definitely comprise the 'opposite' banana might be the one that annihilates the conventional banana.

Once more, based on what theory (and by that I do not mean 'vague gestures at a half-assed guess at a theory')?


All I'm saying that if there is such a concept in nature as opposites then particles and their anti-matter partners could be opposites in nature.

Well, there are no concepts in nature, and the word "opposite" does not come with a licence attached that allows anyone who feels like it to glue it onto anything they like, and then imagine they have made a scientific advance.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think our linguistic intuitions are very good here, and it does not matter what we say, nature takes no heed of our fancies.

The opposite of matter could even be 'spirit', or 'mind'.

Who can say?

So it seems that we don't know, in fact, what "opposite" means, and my best guess is that if Burn the Olive Tree challenges his Taoist friend on that, we shall see that Taoists also don't know that.

Burn the Olive Tree, if "not-banana" is the opposite of banana, then the "opposite" of up should be "not-up", instead of "down". And, evidently, "left", "right", "south", "pink", and "salami", are "not up". Thence we conclude that "salami" (or "bootlegger" if you prefer) is the "opposite" (or one of many "opposites") of up. If not, then the "opposite" of banana isn't "not-banana"...

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

Opposites exist for our stupid little brains to conveniently organize pretend binaries. These binaries exist due to human preferences, not real world facts. Up in Minnesota is down in New Zealand.

Banana's are a fruit, a food, a yellow phallic object. We haven't constructed fruit as binaries because there is not one convenient complementary object to associate with any fruit in particular.

The only things that could possible said to have opposite are things that operate on some sort of physical wave or spectrum: color for example. But even color as we know it is only a portion the larger electromagnetic spectrum, so it really is still reliant on human physiology -- not physical reality.

[Luís Henrique]

Opposites exist for our stupid little brains to conveniently organize pretend binaries. These binaries exist due to human preferences, not real world facts. Up in Minnesota is down in New Zealand.

Banana's are a fruit, a food, a yellow phallic object. We haven't constructed fruit as binaries because there is not one convenient complementary object to associate with any fruit in particular.

Yup, that's pretty much it. The "opposite" of banana is lettuce, because we eat lettuce before lunch, and banana after it...

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

I found the opposite. If a banana is a yellow phallic fruit, than here is its logical opposite:

http://homepage.mac.com/tagadagat999/Eileen/vagina_lemon.jpg

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


So it seems that we don't know, in fact, what "opposite" means, and my best guess is that if Burn the Olive Tree challenges his Taoist friend on that, we shall see that Taoists also don't know that.

Naughty, naughty -- I actually said 'our' intuitions are not too secure here, and that is nothing new. This phenomenon crops up in the sciences all the time, when scientists have to decide how they are going to use words like 'mass', or 'energy', or 'heat' in totally new circumstances. After many years of deliberation and negotiation, during which time they are not sure how to proceed with the old word, they make up their minds.

[There is an excellent discussion of this process in Imre Lakatos's book 'Conjectures and Refutations', but in this case, applied to the word 'Polygon'.]

Now we can stipulate, if we so choose, what this word is to mean in these rather odd and novel contexts -- no problem.

But then 1) this will just be a new convention; and 2) nature will carry on as before, paying no heed to our new use of words.

In short, we will not have conjured into existence any new opposites here, for this new word will no longer mean what 'opposite' now means.

All we will have in that case is a typographically identical, new word 'opposite', applied in novel ways. The old word will carry on as before -- as will nature.

I just wonder if this typographical segue is worth all the hassle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for those comments, Chimx, and the pic -- looks like a guy I once dated!

Or, was it his opposite...?

[chimx]

looks like a guy I once dated!

But it was supposed to be a fruit that resembled a vagina. Oh well.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Burn the Olive Tree, if "not-banana" is the opposite of banana, then the "opposite" of up should be "not-up", instead of "down". And, evidently, "left", "right", "south", "pink", and "salami", are "not up". Thence we conclude that "salami" (or "bootlegger" if you prefer) is the "opposite" (or one of many "opposites") of up. If not, then the "opposite" of banana isn't "not-banana"...


I see what you're saying here. So like if a banana is the number 1, it's "opposite" would be minus 1. But "not banana" is effectively 0...

Rosa, why did you keep putting "he" in quotes earlier?

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Chimx -- precisely...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, I put "he" in quotations when I am not sure the person in question is male. If you indicated he/she/it was male, then I must have missed it.

By the way, I devote one third of my Essay Seven to the questions of 'opposites' (i.e, approximately 25,000 words); so you can see, it is a rather complex issue.

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

[chimx]

Chimx -- precisely...


Ooooohhh! :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You said it...

[gilhyle]

Yes opposites are contrived by the viewer, but its a fallacy to think that because someone 'sees' something a certain way that it isnt that way. (Not saying that because someone sees something a certain way it IS that way.)

The observer who contrives is herself a material being, rarely perceiving arbitrarily. To say that something is the opposite of something else from a certain perspective is not to allow that 'in reality' it is not the opposite.

The concept of 'in reality' here is redundant in this sense: you cant claim that 'in reality' it is NOT the opposite all you can claim is that from another perspective it is not the opposite.

That is not to say that truth is purely subjective, it is to say that the relationship of opposition cannot be adjudicated on independently of perspective. What can be done is to contextualise one's understanding of perspective to give it a situational (structural) and historical location, thus placing it within the range of perspectives from which the given relationship may or may not be one of opposition. Then what matters is what is SIGNIFICANT.

Thus you can ask whether it is significant to the relevant observers to describe a relationship as one of opposition ?

(God ! all this philosophy is SO boring. Im tired now.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



God ! all this philosophy is SO boring.


Why do you bother then?


That is not to say that truth is purely subjective, it is to say that the relationship of opposition cannot be adjudicated on independently of perspective. What can be done is to contextualise one's understanding of perspective to give it a situational (structural) and historical location, thus placing it within the range of perspectives from which the given relationship may or may not be one of opposition. Then what matters is what is SIGNIFICANT.

But, 'adjudication' here (as in the sciences) sets up new criteria for the use of certain words -- and then all you will have achieved is the establishing of a new convention.

Nature will continue in its own sweet way as before, unaffected by such moves.

Why you then fail to call all this 'subjective', or 'inter-subjective' (but not 'objective'), beats me.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Rosa, but what about:
"Every action has an opposite but equal reaction" ?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

El K:


"Every action has an opposite but equal reaction" ?

1) This is impossible to prove.

2) 'Opposite' in mechanics is a well-defined term, and does not mean the same as it does in ordinary language or in philosophy (where it seems to mean 'anything with a "not" glued on to it').

[gilhyle]

Gil:



Why do you bother then?........

Why you then fail to call all this 'subjective', or 'inter-subjective' (but not 'objective'), beats me.

I dont bother.....the reason why they are not subjective is because it would be an error to think that the criteria for assent were the determinants of the whether the statements were objective or not; that is determined by whether they have an objective reference or not. Claims continue to be about objective reality, that we assent to them by agreement doesnt obliterate that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



that is determined by whether they have an objective reference or not.


This seems to treat 'statements' as if they were proper names -- which, if they were, they could not be 'statements'.

Ooops!

I did say you knew no logic...

[Volderbeek]

Indeed they do. Up/down and hot/cold are good examples. You see, pure Being is equal to pure Nothing; everything existing is somewhere between (Becoming). Opposites must exist to give any given thing context and meaning.

Not-banana might sound weird, but a good answer it is. Look at it this way: a not-banana may not be defined (indeterminate being), but neither is a banana. A banana requires some defining characteristics (determinate being) to mean something; things like color, shape, and taste, all of which have clear opposites. So chow down on your not-banana!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Indeed they do. Up/down and hot/cold are good examples. You see, pure Being is equal to pure Nothing; everything existing is somewhere between (Becoming). Opposites must exist to give any given thing context and meaning.

Not-banana might sound weird, but a good answer it is. Look at it this way: a not-banana may not be defined (indeterminate being), but neither is a banana. A banana requires some defining characteristics (determinate being) to mean something; things like color, shape, and taste, all of which have clear opposites. So chow down on your not-banana!


Ah, another comment from someone incompetent at logic -- and who has not read the comments above.

[Lynx]

What would set theory say - that all things have a complement?
Lynx ~ 'Lynx

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It says that all sets have a compliment; it says nothing about 'things'.

But, even if it did, that would have ontological implications only for Platonists.

[Lynx]

Most sets include things, except for the empty set, {} which includes nothing.
Thus the set of all things, U, would have a complement, U' ?

I find that peanut butter complements a banana nicely.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:



Most sets include things, except for the empty set, {} which includes nothing.



Sets include elements, which are well-defined mathematically; the word 'thing' is no use at all here.


Thus the set of all things, U, would have a complement, U' ?


Maybe so, but this has nothing to do with 'things', still less with the material world.

[Lynx]

Lynx:
Sets include elements, which are well-defined mathematically; the word 'thing' is no use at all here.
Sets can include anything, including fuzzy stuff.


Maybe so, but this has nothing to do with 'things', still less with the material world.Yes, but I believe Venn diagrams are a better tool for understanding certain relationships than words or numbers alone. For example, if I drew two circles with one intersection and labeled the circle on the left Communism, the one on the right Capitalism and the intersection Socialism, would that be an accurate enough representation for the average apolitical person?

Set theory and geometry were about the only times I had fun in math class:drool:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:



Sets can include anything, including fuzzy stuff.



Now, this is where we enter controversial territory; this is a hotly contested subject in the philosophy of mathematics:

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

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

I personally think that mathematics went astray in the late 19th century when certain influential theorists accepted an extensional definition of a set (which would allow sets to contain anything you like; this transformed mathematics into a poor copy of empirical science, and led, among other things, to Godel's ridiculous theorem).

But, even if you (or this approach) were right, it must be possible to say which items are elements of a particular set and which are not.

In that case, it will have to be well-defined, as I said.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The background to my way of viewing mathematics and set theory can be found here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/

[gilhyle]

Gil:



This seems to treat 'statements' as if they were proper names

No it doesnt...try that line of argument on science and see where it gets you,....probably Lakatos. Your taking short cuts Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:



try that line of argument on science and see where it gets you


I like the way you settle things in logic -- ask a scientist!

[INDK]

Look at it this way: a not-banana may not be defined (indeterminate being), but neither is a banana. A banana requires some defining characteristics (determinate being) to mean something; things like color, shape, and taste, all of which have clear opposites. So chow down on your not-banana!

But wouldn't "not-banana" imply all things that are not bananas? Opposites should be, as you say, "clear opposites". Thus, hot-cold are opposites, but hot and not-hot cannot be opposites as that would imply banana is the opposite of hot, as well as me and you, every poster in this thread, the computer you type on, and all other things that are not the entity we call "hot". "not-" is too vague to imply an opposite.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Escape Artist, you are right in much of what you say, but those who are lost in this mystical way of viewing things long ago gave up on good sense, and are quite happy to derive fundamental cosmic principles from a brief consideration of a few words (most notoriously, the word 'not').

Science on the cheap, or what?

[Lynx]

Lynx:



Now, this is where we enter controversial territory; this is a hotly contested subject in the philosophy of mathematics:

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

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

I personally think that mathematics went astray in the late 19th century when certain influential theorists accepted an extensional definition of a set (which would allow sets to contain anything you like; this transformed mathematics into a poor copy of empirical science, and led, among other things, to Godel's ridiculous theorem).

But, even if you (or this approach) were right, it must be possible to say which items are elements of a particular set and which are not.

In that case, it will have to be well-defined, as I said.
One controversy is with regard to infinite sets and the other with rough sets?
'Communism' as a set would be finite and rough.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lynx:



One controversy is with regard to infinite sets and the other with rough sets?



No, it's over how we define a set and its allowed elements.

There are no useful links I could find other than these; there are loads of books and articles if you are interested...

[Lynx]

The background to my way of viewing mathematics and set theory can be found here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-mathematics/

This is largely incomprehensible for me. Wittgenstein has a problem with infinite sets and set theory, that much I can tell. Why? If infinite sets don't exist in the practical sense then the sets we use are merely subsets or samplings. The purpose of using Venn diagrams in high school was to aid in understanding certain relationships, not to be comprehensive.

[Lynx]

Lynx:
No, it's over how we define a set and its allowed elements.
A finite set can be enumerated, so that ought to end the extensional controversy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not so. All that does is re-iterate the extensional point of view.

Intensionalists criticise this since it is unclear from this 'definition' what counts as a legitimate element of a set, and what does not. That cannot be left to chance in mathematics.

This book makes things a little clearer:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=02ASV8VB4gYC&dq=philosophy+of+set+theory&pg=PP1&ots=G5Y8xN5pDC&sig=iZzWQUxtQ_5_l1eR3xBrcWBr_O8&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=philosophy+of+set+theory&btnG=Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP7,M1

[ComradeRed]

I would love to see a dialectician provide a coherent explanation of what the opposite of an "angry man" is.

Is it a "happy man", an "angry woman", or a "happy woman"? :huh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, and what is the opposite of Chomsky's example: pretty little girls school?

[INDK]

Science on the cheap, or what?

You said it. Some contemporary philosophical concepts discussed (especially here on RL) entail extremely vague, rather mysticist posters.

[Volderbeek]

But wouldn't "not-banana" imply all things that are not bananas? Opposites should be, as you say, "clear opposites". Thus, hot-cold are opposites, but hot and not-hot cannot be opposites as that would imply banana is the opposite of hot, as well as me and you, every poster in this thread, the computer you type on, and all other things that are not the entity we call "hot". "not-" is too vague to imply an opposite.

That's an interesting thought, but I believe you're just confusing what is meant here by "not". I'm referring to the logical operator NOT, not the algebraic operator not-equal.

[Volderbeek]

I would love to see a dialectician provide a coherent explanation of what the opposite of an "angry man" is.

Is it a "happy man", an "angry woman", or a "happy woman"? :huh:

It depends on whether you mean emotional state, gender, or both. One can only answer vagueness with more of the same.

[ComradeRed]

My point boils down to this:
P1: Assume everything has an opposite.
P2: Here is a thing with two components, component A and component B. (Existence premise)
Q: What is the opposite of our object of investigation: (!A,B),(A,!B), or (!A,!B)?

You'll note the mathematical similarity between the opposite of a single thing with a single characteristic being like a rotation in one dimension, but with a thing with several characteristics is like a rotation in several dimensions. The question is which axis to rotate about?

There are several...so how do you determine which one?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


I'm referring to the logical operator NOT, not the algebraic operator not-equal.

The one that maps truths onto faslehods?

In which case, it operates on propositions or clauses, not objects or names.

If you are thinking of the predicate term operator (as in non-hot), then this does not produce an opposite (as even Aristotle recognised).

Either way, your 'theory' is screwed.

[Volderbeek]

My point boils down to this:
P1: Assume everything has an opposite.
P2: Here is a thing with two components, component A and component B. (Existence premise)
Q: What is the opposite of our object of investigation: (!A,B),(A,!B), or (!A,!B)?

You'll note the mathematical similarity between the opposite of a single thing with a single characteristic being like a rotation in one dimension, but with a thing with several characteristics is like a rotation in several dimensions. The question is which axis to rotate about?

There are several...so how do you determine which one?

Whichever one you want. The important part is that both components have an opposite; a complex thing has multiple opposites each based on the particular component or components it is opposed to.

[ComradeRed]

Whichever one you want. The important part is that both components have an opposite; a complex thing has multiple opposites each based on the particular component or components it is opposed to. That kind of leads to problems with e.g. applying dialectics to reality...as all important things have more than one characteristic.

So how is dialectics supposed to be reproducible?

[Volderbeek]

The one that maps truths onto faslehods?

In which case, it operates on propositions or clauses, not objects or names.

Right; according to dialectics (and Taoism), all existence is in terms of propositions. Objects and names as such are indeterminate beings which are equal to pure nothing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Right; according to dialectics (and Taoism), all existence is in terms of propositions. Objects and names as such are indeterminate beings which are equal to pure nothing.

Prove it.

[Luís Henrique]

That's an interesting thought, but I believe you're just confusing what is meant here by "not". I'm referring to the logical operator NOT, not the algebraic operator not-equal.

Sorry, but this does make no sence at all. The operator NOT, when used in the way implied in the OP, defines complements, not "opposites". "Not banana" is still not the "opposite of banana"; it is the name of the elements of the set of all things (and non-things) that are not bananas.

Things don't have "opposites"; and, in fact, the only non-absurd examples of "opposites" given here (up/down, hot/cold (not that they are really convincing)), do not consist of pairs of things. "Up" is not a "thing", it is a relative direction in space (relative, usually to the Earth, or, less usually, to the orientation of animal bodies or other objecs); and "heath" is also not a "thing", but the level of movement of molecules.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Right; according to dialectics (and Taoism), all existence is in terms of propositions. Objects and names as such are indeterminate beings which are equal to pure nothing.

Well, this may be the case of Hegelian dialectics, which is idealist. But no materialism can be based upon the idea that "all existence is in terms of propositions", which implies the precedence of ideas.

And, in any case, it is also obvious that "not going from Liverpool to Tokyo" is not the "opposite" of "going from Liverpool to Tokyo" in the same sence that "coming from Tokyo to Liverpool" is.

Luís Henrique

[INDK]

That's an interesting thought, but I believe you're just confusing what is meant here by "not". I'm referring to the logical operator NOT, not the algebraic operator not-equal.

Because Luis Henrique already took the words from my mouth in more excellent terms, I will simply add no matter the operator or "philosophical" implications you explain, "not" will be "not" and no matter the context it is not a precise term. I mean, we can delve right into the linguistics of the term:

NOT-BANANA

"Not-banana" implies only that the object being referred to is, indeed, not a banana. Furthermore, check this out:

ANTI-BANANA

This would imply a much more precise object, as "anti-" expresses "at direct odds to". We can even look into science and see, as I think the poster Wat Tyler mentioned earlier in this thread, that an "Anti-Banana" would be a banana of anti-matter. It would be everything the banana is not. Anti-matter the exact opposite of all material. "Anti" expresses an opposite much more precisely.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, Volderbeek is an idealist.

So, your comments will go right over his immaterial head.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Objects and names as such are indeterminate beings which are equal to pure nothing.


This is total fucking gobbledegook. Talk normally for goodness sake, we aren't all geniuses.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You mean: 'we aren't all drunk', Burn, surely?

[Volderbeek]

Because Luis Henrique already took the words from my mouth in more excellent terms, I will simply add no matter the operator or "philosophical" implications you explain, "not" will be "not" and no matter the context it is not a precise term. I mean, we can delve right into the linguistics of the term:

NOT-BANANA

"Not-banana" implies only that the object being referred to is, indeed, not a banana. Furthermore, check this out:

ANTI-BANANA

This would imply a much more precise object, as "anti-" expresses "at direct odds to". We can even look into science and see, as I think the poster Wat Tyler mentioned earlier in this thread, that an "Anti-Banana" would be a banana of anti-matter. It would be everything the banana is not. Anti-matter the exact opposite of all material. "Anti" expresses an opposite much more precisely.

Personally, I think this is being a bit anal, but you're right, that would express the meaning more clearly.

[Volderbeek]

Sorry, but this does make no sence at all. The operator NOT, when used in the way implied in the OP, defines complements, not "opposites". "Not banana" is still not the "opposite of banana"; it is the name of the elements of the set of all things (and non-things) that are not bananas.

Did the OP really imply anything...?

Anyways, what I refer to is logical NOT or negation, not the concept of complement from set theory.


Things don't have "opposites"; and, in fact, the only non-absurd examples of "opposites" given here (up/down, hot/cold (not that they are really convincing)), do not consist of pairs of things. "Up" is not a "thing", it is a relative direction in space (relative, usually to the Earth, or, less usually, to the orientation of animal bodies or other objecs); and "heath" is also not a "thing", but the level of movement of molecules.Things do have an opposite: nothing. They're indeterminate beings. Up/down and hot/cold are "non-absurd" because they represent the only real and determinate thing: motion and its relative levels.

[Volderbeek]

Well, this may be the case of Hegelian dialectics, which is idealist. But no materialism can be based upon the idea that "all existence is in terms of propositions", which implies the precedence of ideas.

Perhaps I should qualify it with "our concept of existence" or "existence in abstract condition". Here's Marx on this:


My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.
And, in any case, it is also obvious that "not going from Liverpool to Tokyo" is not the "opposite" of "going from Liverpool to Tokyo" in the same sence that "coming from Tokyo to Liverpool" is.Semantics, man, semantics. :glare:

[Volderbeek]

That kind of leads to problems with e.g. applying dialectics to reality...as all important things have more than one characteristic.

So how is dialectics supposed to be reproducible?

I think perhaps you're getting the wrong idea here because of how Marx refers to his "dialectical method". It's a method of understanding not of experimentation. If you mean experiments to prove dialectics as a theory, then I would say dialectics is too abstract to prove directly, but you can see many examples of it in natural science.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


his "dialectical method".

Fortunately for us, Marx told us what 'his method was', and not a single Hegelian or indeed Taoist term appears anywhere in it:



"After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

"Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976), pp.101-02. Bold emphases added; quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted here.]


No 'unity of opposites', no 'contradictions', no 'totality', no 'negation of the negation'.

So, we can cut out all the speculation; Marx's 'dialectic method' has totally abandoned Hegel, and Hegelian jargon (except the few examples with which he wanted to 'coquette', of course).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Things do have an opposite: nothing.

'Nothing' is a quantifiier, and not the opposite of 'thing'.

The logical contradictory of 'nothing is F' is 'something is F', but the mere existence of these words has no ontological implications, except for idealists, who derive fundamental truths about reality from mere words.


what I refer to is logical NOT or negation

As I argued, you understand these words (in logic) far worse than the ancient Greeks.

[DJFreiheit]

About the Banana/anti banana.

If a banana falls off a tree it will lie on the ground and after time it will rot.
The rotting will cause a fundamental change in the banana and under conditions which favour fermentation, the sugar in the banana will turn to alcohol.
(BTW, A mate of mine works at a Butterfly farm and he tells me that when the butterflies eat the rotten bananas they act drunk!!!They dont act drunk with unripe or ripe bananas. Dont ask me how he knows this!)

Im just asking, is this banana changing into its opposite or not?

[ComradeRed]

I think perhaps you're getting the wrong idea here because of how Marx refers to his "dialectical method". It's a method of understanding not of experimentation. If you mean experiments to prove dialectics as a theory, then I would say dialectics is too abstract to prove directly, but you can see many examples of it in natural science. Basically you're saying dialectics is useless for anything dealing with reality.

Well, thank goodness it's such a key concept to grasp :laugh:

[Hit The North]

I can't be bothered to wade through all the pages here so forgive me if I'm repeating something I've overlooked, but I want to take up Rosa's exhortation to think like a worker and not a philosopher - in other words, to think practically, not abstractly.

Now when we speak about the world with each other we use lots of binary opposites which make sense to us. Such as:

black white
male female
good evil
life death
dirt cleanliness
strong weak

Besides these fairly static binaries, there are also the opposites in space and context. I sit opposite my pc screen. When I play footie, I have an opposite number in the other team. In the pub after the match, he's no longer my opposite (unless, he happens to be sitting opposite me at the table).

So there's the meaning of opposite in the sense of opposition - in contest or battle.

So there is (or has been):

RAF vs Luftwaffe
East vs West
Blues vs Reds
Boss vs Worker

If I arrange a row of eight different vegetables and then alongside that row, a row of eight different fruit, then the opposite of banana is cauliflower. :ohmy:

[Hit The North]

Basically you're saying dialectics is useless for anything dealing with reality.

Well, thank goodness it's such a key concept to grasp :laugh:

No he's saying that dialectics isn't a thing out there which can be proved through experimentation.

It is a method of understanding the evidence of what is out there. In Capital Marx relies on the secondary data of the blue books etc. But he argues that he presents this empirical data dialectically. This is Marx's claim. And by that he just means he shows the dynamic relations between the different aspects of capitalism.

As far as many of us (Marxists) are concerned, Marxism is dialectical in two key ways:

1. Theoretically, the social world must be understood in its various concrete relations and determinations. The material and ideological moments should be seen as existing in a relationship, not as mutually exclusive opposites.

2. Practically, the unity of theory and practice must be emphasised. Theory bears a similar relationship to practice as capital does to labour - theory is just the distillation of former struggle.

And society is dialectical in one important way:

3. At the heart of capitalism there is opposition. My interests and my bosses interests cannot be resolved within the current order of things. To pursue his interests he must increase my exploitation. To pursue my interests I must prevent him and take away his means of doing so.

All the rest is just coquetting with a dead German idealist.

[ComradeRed]

No he's saying that dialectics isn't a thing out there which can be proved through experimentation. Didn't say it was, all I said was that "dialectics" is useless when dealing with reality.


It is a method of understanding the evidence of what is out there. In Capital Marx relies on the secondary data of the blue books etc. But he argues that he presents this empirical data dialectically. This is Marx's claim. And by that he just means he shows the dynamic relations between the different aspects of capitalism. Marx's claim is that "here and there" in the chapter on value he "coquetted" it with Hegelian vocabulary.

And out of the entire first volume, it is by far the weakest portion of the book.

As for "deriving the dynamics of capitalism from the dialectic", this is beyond Marx's claims. Perhaps you would like to prove that it is only through dialectics that Marx could have derived them?

It would be trivial...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear Z, because of your refusal to read anything that will upset your cosy/mystical view of reality, you make all the familiar old mistakes.

That is the price you pay for inserting your head in that sand dune.

I hope it stays there...

[Hit The North]

Comrade Red:
As for "deriving the dynamics of capitalism from the dialectic", this is beyond Marx's claims.

It's beyond my claim, too. Or perhaps you'd like to point out where I write the sentence you quote.

You need to learn to read, son.:rolleyes:

[Hit The North]

ComradeRed:
Marx's claim is that "here and there" in the chapter on value he "coquetted" it with Hegelian vocabulary.

Oh my God, you're right! Five generations of Marxists have been debunked because Marx admitted that he coquetted with a few Hegelian phrases.

How could we all be so stupid not to notice??? Engels! Lenin! Luxemburg! Trotsky! They should all bow down before the God-like genius of ComradeRed. :lol:

You're not even original. Anti-Marxists have been trotting out the same line before even Engels kicked the bucket.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Five generations of Marxists have been debunked because Marx admitted that he coquetted with a few Hegelian phrases.


They like you, saw what they wanted to in Marx, and ignored what he actually said.



Engels! Lenin! Luxemburg! Trotsky!


Ah, the weakest argument in the book: an appeal to tradition.

On that basis, we'd all believe the earth to be statioanry and at the centre of the universe.

How stupid of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Aquinas not to have noticed...

Marxism is clearly a religion to you, to be followed blindly because of what the sages have told you.

[Luís Henrique]

LH, Volderbeek is an idealist.

So, your comments will go right over his immaterial head.

Ah.

But, in your opinion, so am I. Or am I not? :confused:

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps I should qualify it with "our concept of existence" or "existence in abstract condition".
Here's Marx on this:My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

Which, as you see, is not the same as "all existence is in terms of propositions".



And, in any case, it is also obvious that "not going from Liverpool to Tokyo" is not the "opposite" of "going from Liverpool to Tokyo" in the same sence that "coming from Tokyo to Liverpool" is.Semantics, man, semantics. :glare:

"Semantics" is far from being an unimportant thing.

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

So, what is the "opposite" of going from Liverpool to Tokyo?

[Luís Henrique]

About the Banana/anti banana.

If a banana falls off a tree it will lie on the ground and after time it will rot.
The rotting will cause a fundamental change in the banana and under conditions which favour fermentation, the sugar in the banana will turn to alcohol.
(BTW, A mate of mine works at a Butterfly farm and he tells me that when the butterflies eat the rotten bananas they act drunk!!!They dont act drunk with unripe or ripe bananas. Dont ask me how he knows this!)

Im just asking, is this banana changing into its opposite or not?

That would be what Hegel would say, according to his misinterpreters.

Making two huge assumptions, just for the sake of the argument, namely,

1. that Hegel's philosophy is worth considering; and
2. that banana is a "normal" fruit (which it isn't, it has been to much modified by human action);

the "correct" answer to "what is the opposite of a banana" would be:

The banana "tree".

Why? Because, even to Hegel, "opposites" do not matter except in determinate conditions. The banana is a stage in the Musa species life cycle, which consists in the alternation between bananas (which grow up into banana "trees") and banana "trees" (which produce bananas in order to reproduce). So, what is a banana "when it is not a banana"? It is a banana tree.

Now, evidently, such analysis is quite flawed - starting with its evident teleology, and continuing with the fact that bananas don't reproduce like that. But it would at least be Hegelian, even if false.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



But, in your opinion, so am I. Or am I not?


Ah, the 'either-or' of commonsense. So nice to see you idealists rely on it too.

To answer your question: yes you are, but you are not an unreasonable idealist.

V is way beyond redemption, however.

As my old logic professor used to say (of such): 'Their heads are so full of noise, nothing gets through.'

[Luís Henrique]

Ah, the 'either-or' of commonsense. So nice to see you idealists rely on it too.

To answer your question: yes you are, but you are not an unreasonable idealist.

V is way beyond redemption, however.

Well, thank you. I'm flattered.

In this case, instead of pointing me that Volderbeek is an idealist, though, perhaps it would be more effective to tell me that he is unreasonable, or irredeemable?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



In this case, instead of pointing me that Volderbeek is an idealist, though, perhaps it would be more effective to tell me that he is unreasonable, or irredeemable?



No, I chose my words carefully.

[Luís Henrique]

No, I chose my words carefully.

I see... but it seems that now we have two different kinds of idealists, the unreasonable and the reasonable (or at least the not unreasonable - is there a difference?) ones, and it seems Volderbeek is part of the former set. And as he is beyond redemption, it wouldn't be a stretch of words to say that he might be, erm, irredeemable...

But you piqued my curiosity: what is the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable idealist?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



But you piqued my curiosity: what is the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable idealist?



The one needs therapy, the other just a slap.

You work out which applies to which...

[Luís Henrique]

The one needs therapy, the other just a slap.

You work out which applies to which...

Very funny, but how do you diagnose each?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



Very funny, but how do you diagnose each?



With great care...

[Luís Henrique]

With great care...

I take that you don't know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable idealists. :crying:

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I take that you don't know the difference between reasonable and unreasonable idealists

Sure do -- you are the first sort, and Volderbeek is the second.

Is your memory beginning to go?

[Luís Henrique]

Sure do -- you are the first sort, and Volderbeek is the second.

And you are a pintokleidist rufum, while Volderbeek is a risticlist sumberhown.:lol:


Is your memory beginning to go?

Sure. Or do you believe memory is eternal?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:



And you are a pintokleidist rufum, while Volderbeek is a risticlist sumberhown.


Oh dear; it looks like more than just your memory is deteriorating.:scared:


Or do you believe memory is eternal?


I used to know the answer to this, but I seem to have forgotten it.:(

[Volderbeek]

Basically you're saying dialectics is useless for anything dealing with reality.

Well, thank goodness it's such a key concept to grasp :laugh:

Depends on what you mean by "dealing with." Can it accurately predict future events? Course not. In philosophy, however, it is extremely useful. Just one example is how it can justify strong atheism by leaving no room for transcendent beings like God.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I note you ignore whatever you cannot answer.

How convenient.

So, 'philosophy' is not so 'useful', after all -- except when you use it to ignore stuff...

[Volderbeek]

'Nothing' is a quantifiier, and not the opposite of 'thing'.

From Dictionary.com:


noth·ing http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fnothing)/ˈnʌθhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation [nuhth-ing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing. 2.no part, share, or trace (usually fol. by of): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence. 3.something that is nonexistent. 4.nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing. 5.something or someone of no importance or significance: Money is nothing when you're without health. 6.a trivial action, matter, circumstance, thing, or remark: to exchange a few nothings when being introduced. 7.a person of little or no importance; a nobody. 8.something that is without quantity or magnitude.Your definition is eighth on the list.


The logical contradictory of 'nothing is F' is 'something is F', but the mere existence of these words has no ontological implications, except for idealists, who derive fundamental truths about reality from mere words.Despite what your cynical rhetoric might suggest, there is no reason one cannot do that. Fundamental truths, by their nature of being fundamental, would find their expression everywhere, especially in language.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:



From Dictionary.com:



Dictionaries have no normative role to play, they merely summarise usage, and that includes the use of terms by confused philosophers -- like you.


Despite what your cynical rhetoric might suggest, there is no reason one cannot do that. Fundamental truths, by their nature of being fundamental, would find their expression everywhere, especially in language.

How do you know there are any 'fundamental truths'?

[Zurdito]

look at it like this, for every truth you could tell, there is an equivalent lie. to use the first page example: "is there a banana on the table" can only have two answers, yes and no, which are...opposites. :) We can reduce anything to the fundamental yes/no-true/not true forumula. This means that any situation is unstable, because when answer to a question is "yes", it must always by definition be possible for the answer to become "no", otherwise, the question itself could never be asked, in other words, there could be no concept of the existence of the situation described.

To relate to our politics then, it's only recognisable as "capitalism" because something other than capitalism can exist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: the opposite of "truth" is not "lie", but "falsehood", which illustrates the unremarkable fact that all indicative sentences in every known language are pairable with their negations.

This mundane fact has ontological implications only for idealists.



To relate to our politics then, it's only recognisable as "capitalism" because something other than capitalism can exist.


Sure, but this 'other' could be feudalism, slave society, primitve communism, barbarism or oblivion. Which is 'the' opposite? Are any of these 'opposites'?

However, whichever one our society finally turns into (if it does), dialectics cannot explain it...

[Zurdito]

Rosa, it may be a mundane fact when stated like that, however, the implication is that everything which we can conceive to exist is constantly threatened with no longer existing. which may be obvious but is hardly universally accepted or mundane.:cool:


Sure, but this 'other' could be feudalism, slave society, primitve communism, barbarism or oblivion. Which is 'the' opposite? Are any of these 'opposites'?

they are not opposites, no, however their differences with capitalism must be explained by which particular aspects of them are opposite to particular aspects of capitalism.

Of course, only socialism - genuine freedom - is the true opposite to any of these, which are all forms of opression.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Rosa, it may be a mundane fact when stated like that, however, the implication is that everything which we can conceive to exist is constantly threatened with no longer existing. which may be obvious but is hardly universally accepted or mundane

You do not know that.



Of course, only socialism - genuine freedom - is the true opposite to any of these, which are all forms of opression.


You are stipulating here, and we can all do that to win an argument.

[Volderbeek]

Dictionaries have no normative role to play, they merely summarise usage, and that includes the use of terms by confused philosophers -- like you.

Um, isn't use where words take their meaning? They're not handed down by God or the pope are they? They also specify in dictionaries whether a particular definition is a specialized philosophical one.


How do you know there are any 'fundamental truths'?

How do you know there aren't?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Um, isn't use where words take their meaning? They're not handed down by God or the pope are they? They also specify in dictionaries whether a particular definition is a specialized philosophical one.


Sure, it is part of the meaning of a word, but the original point concerned whether 'nothing' was the opposite' of 'thing', and I do no see that in your dictionary.



How do you know there aren't?


I asked first. And you asserted there were such things. On the other hand, I asserted nothing (about them).

[Jhé]

why does something that is defined "not banana" have to be everything in existence but a banana?

or if this is the case, and how the universe is balanced we will no need for conventional mathematics. In maths i assume, everything that isnt a banana adds up to more things that actually is a banana and therefore has a greater value numerically?

this is true unles everything has any value at any one time as the object itself if expressed by mathematics?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, of course, you are right, Jhe, but the way this has been posed traditionally, it does mean this.

There are ways around this, however, but I will leave that for another time.

[Apollodorus]

It is my opinion that the only 'things' which have opposites are not things at all: but qualities, or adjectives. Therefore, 'hot' opposes 'cold', 'big' opposes 'small', and so forth. A banana is not a quality, and therefore there is no opposite of a banana. However, being similar to a banana, or 'banana-like', does have an opposite which makes sense: not resembling a banana.

As Wittgenstein said: 'A whole cloud of philosophy condensed into a drop of grammar.'

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well said Appollodorus: much of this 'dispute' has traditionally been about words, and words wrenched from their ordinary use -- as Wittgenstein also pointed out.

[UnkiltedScotsman]

not-banana is right, its like a question in a philosophy class i had: in one sentence prove that chair does not exist. and the answer is: What Chair.
so by saying not-banana the taoist is correct. but to there is one thing that technically has no opposite, but technically it does. and i speak of gravity. it pulls smaller masses to greater masses and holds our universe together, but at the same time our universe is ever expanding due to the initial blast of the big bang which is pulling the universe in on itself as of yet the blast force is far stronger than gravity but that will change once th universe becomes to vast. so yes gravity has an opposite, but nothing that will allow a dropped rock to float to the ceiling.

[crimsonzephyr]

funny that you mention it, i just ate a not-banana.:)

[Coffee Mug]

It's entirely relative and a matter of personal opinion.

That pretty much sums up the otherwise long, drawn out paragraph I was going to write on this.

[Volderbeek]

Sure, it is part of the meaning of a word, but the original point concerned whether 'nothing' was the opposite' of 'thing', and I do no see that in your dictionary.

Did you actually read it?! The first definition was "no thing; not anything".


I asked first.:lol: DAMN! That bastard Old Man Time gets me again!


And you asserted there were such things. On the other hand, I asserted nothing (about them).Asserting something is the same as asserting nothing (Unity of Opposites).

[Volderbeek]

It's entirely relative and a matter of personal opinion.

What is?

[Volderbeek]

:star::star::che::star::star:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What is the opposite of opposite?

[Volderbeek]

What is the opposite of opposite?

Synthesis. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

V:


Synthesis.

Says who?

[Dr Mindbender]

from a newtonian perspective, all forces have an opposite but objects not necessarilly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My posts seem to have been lost.

US, this depends on what you mean by 'opposite'.

Moreover, how can we possibly know this of the entire universe, and for all of time?

What, for example, is the opposite (in terms of Newton's Third Law) of the 'force' from the Sun that keeps the earth in its orbit?

[dirtycommiebastard]

What, for example, is the opposite (in terms of Newton's Third Law) of the 'force' from the Sun that keeps the earth in its orbit?

I'd have to say that it would be the momentum created by the Sun when attracting the Earth. The Earth revolves in an ellipse because of gravitational pull but if the Sun were to disappear suddenly, its momentum would still fling it outwards into space.

The synthesis is the balance between these two forces which creates the elliptical trajectory that the Earth follows.

[Dystisis]

I'd have to say that it would be the momentum created by the Sun when attracting the Earth. The Earth revolves in an ellipse because of gravitational pull but if the Sun were to disappear suddenly, its momentum would still fling it outwards into space.

The synthesis is the balance between these two forces which creates the elliptical trajectory that the Earth follows.
Surely there are countless (gravitational) forces acting in on the relationship between the Sun and the Earth.

This theory sounds like it was made by humans for humans... We see objects here and there yet in reality it's all cohesive. Maybe if all things had an opposite on an atomic level, if there were two prime units for example, then sure; "everything" would have an opposite. However, beyond that, all opposites remain theoretical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DCB:


I'd have to say that it would be the momentum created by the Sun when attracting the Earth. The Earth revolves in an ellipse because of gravitational pull but if the Sun were to disappear suddenly, its momentum would still fling it outwards into space.

So, the 'opposite' of the force coming from the sun, that keeps the earth in its orbit, is the 'momentum' of the sun? [Or have I misread you?]

But, a force cannot be the opposite of a momentum, they are dimensionally inconsistent:

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

[trivas7]

In Marxism, it's processes, not things, that have opposites. Dialectical materialism see things in their interrelation, not as isolated atoms. Just my two-cents.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


In Marxism, it's processes, not things, that have opposites. Dialectical materialism see things in their interrelation, not as isolated atoms. Just my two-cents.

And that's about all it's worth -- for Lenin disagees with you (which you would know if you had read the quotes I listed in those other threads):


[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….*

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing [tone], each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285. The translation in the edition I have consulted reads differently from the one Lenin used; Hegel is referring to "tones" here, not "things", as the reference to "harmony" indicates.]

Bold added.

So Lenin includes 'things' and 'phenomena' as having 'opposites', as well as 'processes'.

And he is not alone; other dialectical mystics say the same thing:


"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]


"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite...." [Mao (1961b), p.340.]

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....[Ibid, p.311.]


"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]


"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]


"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels.]


"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.'" [Rob Sewell, from here.]

Bold emphases added. Links and references can be found here (Note 10b1):

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

So, WJB, looks like you do not even know your own theory very well!

[trivas7]

Lenin disagees with you

This just shows that neither do you know how to read Lenin. E.g., why would any sane person believe that Lenin meant literally that "things turn into their opposites"? What could this possibly mean?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This just shows that neither do you know how to read Lenin. E.g., why would any sane person believe that Lenin meant literally that "things turn into their opposites"? What could this possibly mean?

What it says.

[dirtycommiebastard]

DCB:

So, the 'opposite' of the force coming from the sun, that keeps the earth in its orbit, is the 'momentum' of the sun? [Or have I misread you?]



No,

The opposite of the gravitational pull of the sun creating an elliptical track would be the momentum the Earth has due to the gravitational pull which causes it to move.

My point was that the original force (gravity) created another force (momentum in the Earth) which it synthesizes with to create the gravitational orbit and the elliptical track which the Earth follows.


Surely there are countless (gravitational) forces acting in on the relationship between the Sun and the Earth.


Well there is the gravitational pull that occurs in the centre of the galaxy which causes the entire thing to rotate around the core. But other than that, the only significant force being exerted on the Earth is the Sun's pull.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DCB:


The opposite of the gravitational pull of the sun creating an elliptical track would be the momentum the Earth has due to the gravitational pull which causes it to move.

Momentum is not a force.

Moreover, you probably know that in Relativity theory there is no 'force of gravity' even though there is still momentum.

[dirtycommiebastard]

DCB:

Momentum is not a force.



That is a technicality, because to reduce momentum, you NEED force against it. And this is how gravity and momentum between Sun and Earth have a dialectical relationship.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DCB:


That is a technicality, because to reduce momentum, you NEED force against it. And this is how gravity and momentum between Sun and Earth have a dialectical relationship.

Not so; these two have different dimensionality, and so cannot be opposites. That is not a 'technicality' for physicists.

Moreover, if they were in a 'dialectical relationship', they would turn onto one another:


"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Hegel (1975), p.174.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and. their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., p.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [i]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing [tone], each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285. The translation in the edition I have consulted reads differently from the one Lenin used; Hegel is referring to "tones" here, not "things", as the reference to "harmony" indicates.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature....

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes." [Stalin (1976b), pp.836, 840.]

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end....[Ibid, pp.311-18.]

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

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite.” [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

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

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, expressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.' [Rob Sewell.]

References and links can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...Explain-Change

Does momentum turn into gravity, and vice versa?

[trivas7]

DCB:
Moreover, if they were in a 'dialectical relationship', they would turn onto one another:

This is nonsense, a complete misunderstanding of the dialectical relationship. Forces don't "turn onto one another". The negation of the negation re-establishes the same relationship in a higher synthesis, e.g:


The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property as founded on the labour of the proprietor. But captitalist producton begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisitions of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This is nonsense, a complete misunderstanding of the dialectical relationship. Forces don't "turn onto one another". The negation of the negation re-establishes the same relationship in a higher synthesis, e.g:

I agree it is nonsense, but it is what the Dialectical Holy Men tell us, as the above quotations show.

Why do you think I call this theory of yours 'loopy'?

Now, if you want to say this is a 'higher synthesis', then according to the Dialectical Prophets, they must struggle against this 'higher synthesis', or they cannot change into it -- for the Dialectical Magi tell us that things and processes struggle with their opposites, and they turn into those opposites.

You clearly have either not read your own theory too well, or you have given it little thought.

But, we already know you "do not think about things you don't think about", don't we?

[trivas7]

Now, if you want to say this is a 'higher synthesis', then according to the Dialectical Prophets, they must struggle against this 'higher synthesis', or they cannot change into it -- for the Dialectical Magi tell us that things and processes struggle with their opposites, and they turn into those opposites.

Clearly you haven't a clue if you think this is how dialectics works.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Clearly you haven't a clue if you think this is how dialectics works.

Clearly you haven't read the Dialectical Holy Books, for they tell us these sacred truths, and they do not work.

Of course, you have been invited many times to show the good people here where my argument goes wrong -- or perhaps where the aforementioned Dialectical Gurus screwed up when they said such crazy things -- but your retreat into silence each time suggests that you do not know how this theory works, or you cannot defend it, or both.

But we already know that you "do not think about things that you don't think about".

[trivas7]

Trivas:
Of course, you have been invited many times to show the good people here where my argument goes wrong
But you have no argument, merely a disjointed series of misunderstandings.

Take, e.g., your expectation that dialectics ought to explain change in phenomena scientifically. Here you drop the context that they are the most general laws of cognition and constitute a generalized philosophical theory of the development of science, its general methodology. IOW, dialectics is insufficient for an in-depth and all-round reflection of objects, since any object has its own specifics, quality, properties, etc. Cognitive problems presuppose appropriate ways and methods, which you conveniently ignore.

Aside from this there are generalized scientific methods based on broad scientific principles, laws and theories that express features of scientific -- not philosophical -- cognition.

Now, this doesn't mean that dialectics is a form of timeless ideas that stand outside of the historical process. Marxism, as a theory could have been based on someone else's epistemology; it's just an historical fact that Marx used Hegel's because that what he was exposed to. Compare Mao's understanding of dialectics.

Your reluctance to put dialectics in any kind categorical or personal context speaks volumes re a total lack of critical understanding of the subject and where you place it in any meaningful hierarchy of knowledge. In short, why do you even bother?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas, at last trying to put an 'argument' together:


But you have no argument, merely a disjointed series of misunderstandings.

Not so; I base my inferences on what the Dialectical Seers have to say.


Take, e.g., your expectation that dialectics ought to explain change in phenomena scientifically.

Where have I said that?

I have said it cannot explain anything at all (philosophically, scientifically, or in any which way you choose).


Here you drop the context that they are the most general laws of cognition and constitute a generalized philosophical theory of the development of science, its general methodology. IOW, dialectics is insufficient for an in-depth and all-round reflection of objects, since any object has its own specifics, quality, properties, etc. Cognitive problems presuppose appropriate ways and methods, which you conveniently ignore.

Even so, the dialectical prophets tell us that objects and/or processes change because of a struggle of opposites, and they turn onto those opposites. That means that, say, the forces of production must turn onto the relations of production, and vice versa.

But, I am happy to admit with you that "dialectics is insufficient for an in-depth and all-round reflection of objects" just as I happy to note you disagree with Lenin:


"Dialectical logic demands that we should go further. Firstly, if we are to have a true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and “mediacies”. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity. Secondly, dialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in “self-movement” (as Hegel sometimes puts it)"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jan/25.htm

And:


[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing [tone], each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285. The translation in the edition I have consulted reads differently from the one Lenin used; Hegel is referring to "tones" here, not "things", as the reference to "harmony" indicates.]

So, Lenin has already anticipated your objection to your own theory!

As I said, you appear not to have read the Dialectical Gospels as well as I have.


Aside from this there are generalized scientific methods based on broad scientific principles, laws and theories that express features of scientific -- not philosophical -- cognition.

Who mentioned 'science'; I didn't.


Your reluctance to put dialectics in any kind categorical or personal context speaks volumes re a total lack of critical understanding of the subject and where you place it in any meaningful hierarchy of knowledge.

On the contrary, it shows that you do not even know your own theory.


In short, why do you even bother?

I only came here two-and-a-half years ago to give you mystics a hard time.

Looks like I have succeeded.

Get used to it, or don't...

[Hyacinth]

Perhaps a dialectician can help a comrade out. You see I detest cooked spinach (I’m fine with raw spinach; I rather like it in a salad). Can someone care to enlighten me as to what the opposite of cooked spinach is? After all, if I hate cooked spinach (to the point that it makes me physically ill) I would presumably *LOVE* its opposite. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Obviously "uncooked spinach", which turns into cooked spinach (by struggling with it!), just as cooked spinach turns into uncooked spinach.

So, you do not need to cook spinach. All you have to do is put it next to uncooked spinach and let them slug it out...

Wonderful thing this 'diabolical logic' -- none of us need use gas or electricity ever again!:lol:

[Hyacinth]

Obviously "uncooked spinach", which turns into cooked spinach (by struggling with it!), just as cooked spinach turns into uncooked spinach.

So, you do not need to cook spinach. All you have to do is put it next to uncooked spinach and let them slug it out...

Wonderful thing this 'diabolical logic' -- none of us need use gas or electricity ever again!:lol:
And yet, Rosa, you keep on insisting that dialectics is useless, even though here it has just provided everyone with an excellent way to cut down their energy bill and help the environment. In fact, not only do we not need gas or electricity, we can made do without fire. Back to the stone age I say!:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have to admit, with the energy it will save, it might even stop global warming.:rolleyes:

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

Isn't this debate a little pointless? It's just a definition debate.. As in, what is 'opposite', and what is 'everything'?

People clearly disagree on 'opposite', but what I'm having trouble getting my head around is; what is everything? Does 'everything' include an idea? And, take a basic graph, we have x and y, two number lines. The first quadrant has positive values for x and y, lets say that the hypothetical banana (which was touched upon earlier in this discussion) lies in this first quandrant. Where does the opposite of the banana lie? Is the opposite the exact thing but for negative values instead of positive ones, and positive values instead of negative ones? Or does the opposite of this first queadrant banana lie in the third quadrant? In which case we have negative values for x and y. Maybe the opposite of this banana lies in the first quadrant of a graph with different properties.

So what is everything? Is life everything? If death and birth are polar opposites, then what is the opposite of life? Lack of life? perhaps there exists a place where we have anti-life. Rather than going forward through time, things go backward, they die, they anti-live, and then they are born out of existence. But then again, why should one anti-live but not anti-die or be anti-born? In a plane of opposite can the concept of 'be' even exist? Would it not be more accurate to state 'anti-live but not anti-die or not be anti-born?'

What's the opposite of space? Is it lack of space? If we place matter into that space, could we say that the opposite of space is in fact that matter?

Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? This is a word puzzle, like a good paradox, it tricks you into believing that it defies sense (ie. it makes sense and doesn't make sense), when really, it's just a flaw in communication and or reasoning.

[edit]
I laughed a lot at the idea of uncooked spinach and cooked spinach 'slugging it out'. This dialectics thing sounds pretty interesting. I skimmed through about a quarter of your seventh essay and .. found it pretty interesting. I'm still a little lost as to exactly what dialectics really is. I mean, if it's so clearly illogical why would anyone even pay it any attention?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

All-the-etc.: you are right; much of dialecitics is based on a terminal lack of clarity, and on a refusal by those smitten by this theory to even see this.

[Rood Boi]

Hi BurnTheOliveTree,

First off, I had better say that I do not think the opposite of banana is "not-banana", this may be a misrepresentation or likely misunderstanding of dialectics, or the law of development. Dialectics shows that the continuous process of development of all things, objects, beings, social systems, etc., is based on internal contradictions. There is no opposite of banana, rather, it is the conflict between the decomposition of the banana by natural forces and it's structural framework that gives it its contradictory, or opposing nature, which intern gives rise to its current state of existence. Eventually, the conflict of the decomposition process will win over the structural framework of the banana, resulting in the banana assuming a new form; rot, or some further advanced bacterial process which I am not well versed on.

In the same manner of temperature, it is not banana and "not-banana" that battle out, but the structure of the banana and it's natural decomposition process that gives rise to its current state, so to it is the conflicting properties of the weather system its self that give rise to various levels of temperature. In this sense, "Hot" and "Cold" are not the opposites at work, rather the product of the opposites in the weather system.

Edit: I apologies for my lack of knowledge on geography in the last paragraph!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


First off, I had better say that I do not think the opposite of banana is "not-banana", this may be a misrepresentation or likely misunderstanding of dialectics, or the law of development. Dialectics shows that the continuous process of development of all things, objects, beings, social systems, etc., is based on internal contradictions. There is no opposite of banana, rather, it is the conflict between the decomposition of the banana by natural forces and it's structural framework that gives it its contradictory, or opposing nature, which intern gives rise to its current state of existence. Eventually, the conflict of the decomposition process will win over the structural framework of the banana, resulting in the banana assuming a new form; rot, or some further advanced bacterial process which I am not well versed on.

Thanks for that, but as I have shown here many times, this cannot work:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1177739&postcount=165


In the same manner of temperature, it is not banana and "not-banana" that battle out, but the structure of the banana and it's natural decomposition process that gives rise to its current state, so to it is the conflicting properties of the weather system its self that give rise to various levels of temperature. In this sense, "Hot" and "Cold" are not the opposites at work, rather the product of the opposites in the weather system.

Well, we already understand scientifically why such things happen, so we do not need dialectics. But, the problem is, as the about link will show you, that not only can dialectics not account for change, if dialectics were true, change could not happen.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

What is it that you mean by "conflict"? I mean, forces can't actually physically fight eachother, can they? I'm not entirely clear on what dialecticians mean when they say that things conflict and contradict, et cetera.

-Alex

[trivas7]

What is it that you mean by "conflict"? I mean, forces can't actually physically fight eachother, can they? I'm not entirely clear on what dialecticians mean when they say that things conflict and contradict, et cetera.

It means that things in process have antagonistic forces going on that are in opposition to each other. Life and death, growth and decay, a magnet with opposite poles, etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


It means that things in process have antagonistic forces going on that are in opposition to each other. Life and death, growth and decay, a magnet with opposite poles, etc.

The opposite poles of a magnet attract, so they cannot be 'antagonistic', nor can the 'oppose' one another (once more, since they attract). So, that example you uncritically lifted from Engels (who similarly uncritically lifted it from Hegel) does not work.

Do you not think about the things you believe?

Er.., sorry, we already know you "do not think about things you don't think about".

But, your other examples cannot be antagonistic, either -- unless they were human in some way. [Antagonism is a human trait.]

So, your 'theory' only works if you anthropomorphise nature -- which is not surprising, since that is precisely what Hegel did.

[trivas7]

The opposite poles of a magnet attract, so they cannot be 'antagonistic', nor can the 'oppose' one another (once more, since they attract). So, that example you uncritically lifted from Engels (who similarly uncritically lifted it from Hegel) does not work.

Magnets exhibit magnetic flux which flows from one end of the object to the other. The magnetic force strongly attracts an opposite pole of another magnet and repels a like pole. Opposition need not mean repulsion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Magnets exhibit magnetic flux which flows from one end of the object to the other. The magnetic force strongly attracts an opposite pole of another magnet and repels a like pole. Opposition need not mean repulsion.

But you used the word 'antagonistic'. In what way is the North pole of a magnet 'antagonistic' to a South pole?

[trivas7]

But you used the word 'antagonistic'. In what way is the North pole of a magnet 'antagonistic' to a South pole?
They lay at opposite poles.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


They lay at opposite poles.

Indeed, they do -- but in what way is that 'antagonistic'?

[Luís Henrique]

They lay at opposite poles.

But both are poles, cold, etc. Isn't the Equator the opposite of both poles?

Luís Henrique

[trivas7]

But both are poles, cold, etc. Isn't the Equator the opposite of both poles?

Yes, true. The point is that a unity of opposites exhibit a process.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Yes, true. The point is that a unity of opposites exhibit a process.

1) LH rejects this view of dialectics; he has his own revisionist 'theory'

2) Why are the opposite poles of a magnet 'antagonistic'?

Or, is this one of the things you don't think about?

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, true. The point is that a unity of opposites exhibit a process.

But what is the process ongoing between poles and the Equator?

And since poles and Equator are all geographical positions, aren't they all opposite to "yesterday", which is a chronological position?

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

I've completely lost track of why anyone would want to defend the notion that every thing has an opposite.

[trivas7]

I've completely lost track of why anyone would want to defend the notion that every thing has an opposite.
It's not things as such that have opposites, but rather the processes and interconnections they embody. Antagonistic Interaction is one of the universal features of those connections.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I've completely lost track of why anyone would want to defend the notion that every thing has an opposite.

That's because you do not "understand" dialectics,:lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


It's not things as such that have opposites, but rather the processes and interconnections they embody. Antagonistic Interaction is one of the universal features of those connections.

I have already shown you that this disagrees with what the dialectical prophets tell us; they certainly believed 'things' had opposites, and that it was the 'struggle' between these that changed them into their opposites. [Which 'theory' cannot work, as I have demonstrated.]

Or do you imagine that 'processes' do not involve 'things'?

Anyway, we still await your explanation why the opposite poles of a magnet are 'antagonistic'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, it is little use you asking Trivas awkward questions like this; we already know that he, like William Jennings Bryan, "does not think about things he doesn't think about".

[trivas7]

But what is the process ongoing between poles and the Equator?

The magnetic field that surrounds the earth e.g.


And since poles and Equator are all geographical positions, aren't they all opposite to "yesterday", which is a chronological position?
Luís Henrique
Whether or not time can construed as a process I couldn't say (Einstein's space/time perhaps?).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

As I alleged WJB-Trivas: you really "do not think about things you don't think about".

So, by default, we can now assume you mis-spoke when you asserted that the opposite poles of a magnet are 'antagonistic'.


Whether or not time can construed as a process I couldn't say (Einstein's space/time perhaps?).

You'll be telling us next, like that screwball Volderbeek, that the future 'struggles' with the past.:lol:

[Rood Boi]

Re: BurnTheOliveTree

I see that the main misrepresentation/misunderstanding here is based on where the contradictions exist in an organism. Contradictions exist within the organism in question and when they conflict they can be on a highly physical scale.

War and social polarity are two examples of the conflicts that arise out of modern civilization. These conflicts are based on the internal contradictions within capitalism. The main of which are the dividing up of a highly advanced and international economic system into competing nation states. And also, the contradiction that exists between the most basic and democratic interests of ordinary people which cannot be reconciled to the incessant drive by the wealthy elite for ever greater profits. Marxists consider working class actions such as strikes and in some cases extreme social isolation as resulting from the latter contradiction in society.

As per the dialectical method, or dialectical materialism, you can see this at work in just about any article on the WSWS.org. If you want, we can discuss one specifically so you can see how it is put in practice.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


As per the dialectical method, or dialectical materialism, you can see this at work in just about any article on the WSWS.org. If you want, we can discuss one specifically so you can see how it is put in practice.

Thanks once again for these comments, but this theory has been shown not to work at this site many times, as I said here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1179101&postcount=152

For example, here (second half):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167402&postcount=249

and here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167412&postcount=250

[Rood Boi]

I cannot find in your argument the correlation between what I have presented and the many links that you have provided. I must say that I find most of what is said on your main page to be rather confusing, disjointed and in your general approach to dialectics you seem to miss the mark. Above all this and to again repeat, you have not actually shown how my presentation of dialectics confers with that of Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin etc... who seem to have it all so wrong. If indeed such a correlation exists in my argument, I would, under different circumstances, be flattered.

I am perfectly open to a discussion on this question but will only do so if you have something to say regarding my approach in accordance with that of the great Marxists. Also, it is required that you make at least some direct comments to my examples and theory.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


I cannot find in your argument the correlation between what I have presented and the many links that you have provided. I must say that I find most of what is said on your main page to be rather confusing, disjointed and in your general approach to dialectics you seem to miss the mark. Above all this and to again repeat, you have not actually shown how my presentation of dialectics confers with that of Marx, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin etc... who seem to have it all so wrong. If indeed such a correlation exists in my argument, I would, under different circumstances, be flattered.

Well, the long argument I present here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167412&postcount=250

shows that howsoever it is presented, the classical dialectical theory of change in nature and society cannot work, for if it were true, then change would be impossible.

Hence, it is relevant in the sense that dialectics, at least here, has been refuted. Of course, in my essays, and in other threads here I have also demolished other aspects of this theory. These are listed here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/RevLeft.htm

Now you seem to be saying that your ideas do not confer with those of the 'great Marxists', but they were, as I am sure you will agree, far too brief for that assessment to be made by your readers with any degree of confidence, least of all myself. But, if I have attributed to you ideas consistent with theirs, may I withdraw that here and now -- but in that case, it must mean you have no theory of change, or not one that is apparent from what you have so far said.


I am perfectly open to a discussion on this question but will only do so if you have something to say regarding my approach in accordance with that of the great Marxists. Also, it is required that you make at least some direct comments to my examples and theory.

In view of the fact that I address the ideas of the 'great Marxists' here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167402&postcount=249

and show they cannot work, I am not sure on what your response is based.

However, as far as what you have said is concerned, this is your latest statement:


Contradictions exist within the organism in question and when they conflict they can be on a highly physical scale.

You will no doubt have noticed that I, among others, here have questioned this use of the word 'contradiction', and none of us understands its use in such a context, and we have, all of us, yet to meet/discuss with anyone who does or can say what it means.

It is not that we are denying what you say to be true, just that it is not possible for us to understand what you are saying with such an odd use of this word.

And the same goes for this:


War and social polarity are two examples of the conflicts that arise out of modern civilization. These conflicts are based on the internal contradictions within capitalism. The main of which are the dividing up of a highly advanced and international economic system into competing nation states. And also, the contradiction that exists between the most basic and democratic interests of ordinary people which cannot be reconciled to the incessant drive by the wealthy elite for ever greater profits. Marxists consider working class actions such as strikes and in some cases extreme social isolation as resulting from the latter contradiction in society.

Why you want to call such things 'contradictions' (other than the most obvious reason: that this word was appropriated by Hegel, copied by Marx etc.,) is a mystery.

Hegel derived his idiosyncratic use of this word from his own crass misunderstanding of the 'law of identity' and his attempt to 'negate' it, erroneously imagining this implied the negation of the 'law of non-contradiction', when these two 'laws' are unrelated. This then 'allowed' him to imagine that there were contradictions everywhere, and on the basis of this piece of defective reasoning, the entire 'dialectic' was born.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm

So, my problems here do not revolve around a few superficial worries about the odd use of a word, they derive from a deep suspicion that us Marxists have been sold a bill of goods, and that the 'great Marxists' accepted a doctrine from Hegel, which is based merely on word-juggling and defective logic, since they knew no logic themselves.

Small, wonder then that this 'theory' has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

[Rood Boi]

It must be stated that internet polemics are not without their source of frustrations!

Firstly, I did not say in my previous post that I do not agree with the early Marxists including Engles, Plekhanov, Lenin etc. Instead, let me requote what I said earlier; "I cannot find in your argument the correlation between what I have presented and the many links that you have provided." It was in your argument that I could find no explanation as to how my theory co-relates to all, if any of the people on your page. A link must be made or the substance of your page only serves as further reading on people who simply also employ the word "dialectics".

As what seems to be becoming something of a tradition, I must ask you to refer more specifically to the example of mine that you quoted on war and social polarity for me to understand at what point you find the use of the word "contradiction" to be so troubling. From this point I can only repeat my argument in the hope it addresses some of your questions. The break up of the economy into competing nation states contradicts it's international nature. This contradiction produces the trend to war which is an attempt by nation states to solve this contradiction. It can be safely stated that war is indeed, a conflicting process! When I discuss capitalism I do so with the understanding that it is an organism, a social system with it's own internal contradictions that drive it forward such as the above mentioned. Do you disagree with my discussion on war?

Your argument in general shies away from specifics, for example, in your last sentence, in which you state; "Small, wonder then that this 'theory' has presided over 150 years of almost total failure." Are you referring to the Marxist movement having failed for 150 years, or the dialectical method it has employed? Either way, how such a failure has managed to last for 150 years requires at least some explication!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


As what seems to be becoming something of a tradition, I must ask you to refer more specifically to the example of mine that you quoted on war and social polarity for me to understand at what point you find the use of the word "contradiction" to be so troubling. From this point I can only repeat my argument in the hope it addresses some of your questions. The break up of the economy into competing nation states contradicts it's international nature. This contradiction produces the trend to war which is an attempt by nation states to solve this contradiction. It can be safely stated that war is indeed, a conflicting process! When I discuss capitalism I do so with the understanding that it is an organism, a social system with it's own internal contradictions that drive it forward such as the above mentioned. Do you disagree with my discussion on war?

Of course, this is not an argument, but a repetition of views you have culled from your experience in Trotskyism (I am a Trotskyist, too, by the way) -- but even if it were, you have yet to explain (just as others have yet to explain) what the word 'contradiction' is doing in here.

It's only justification is that this term was lifted from Hegel, who 'derived' it in the bogus way I described.

Now, I can agree that war is a conflict (how could I fail to do so?), but I cannot agree with you that it is a 'contradiction', or the result of 'internal contradictions' unless and until you tell us what you mean by these obscure terms.


Your argument in general shies away from specifics, for example, in your last sentence, in which you state; "Small, wonder then that this 'theory' has presided over 150 years of almost total failure." Are you referring to the Marxist movement having failed for 150 years, or the dialectical method it has employed? Either way, how such a failure has managed to last for 150 years requires at least some explication!

Well, my argument is phrased in general terms so that it can function as a general refutation of this 'theory' (anyway, your argument is rather general too: it's about war under capitalism in general), but it can easily be made more specific.

Take your example: war.


The break up of the economy into competing nation states contradicts it's international nature. This contradiction produces the trend to war which is an attempt by nation states to solve this contradiction

Now, according to the dialectical classicists whom I quoted, these 'contradictions' are the result of a 'conflict' between 'internally-connected' 'opposites, and that as a result of that 'conflict', they "turn into one another".

So, applying this to your theory, that can only mean that "nation states" must turn into their "international stature", and vice versa, for you said that these 'contradicted' one another. [This is a slightly more specific example of the general case I considered.]

Now, it is quite clear that you do not believe this, so the only conclusion possible is that either you mis-stated your own theory or the dialectical classicists were wrong.


"Small, wonder then that this 'theory' has presided over 150 years of almost total failure." Are you referring to the Marxist movement having failed for 150 years, or the dialectical method it has employed? Either way, how such a failure has managed to last for 150 years requires at least some explication

I was referring to Dialectical Marxism, which just about covers the lot.

The reason it has lasted so long is that this theory also teaches that appearances are 'contradicted' by 'underlying essences', which means that even though, to the rest of us, Dialectical Marxism appears to be highly unsuccessful, to the dialectician it is essentially successful! [Which explains your incredulity on being told of its real condition: an almost total and long-term failure.]

This theory then 'allows' comrades to ignore what their senses and what history reveal to us.

So, this theory is at once both a cause and a consequence of failure. It helps cause failure, and as a result it helps explain it away, or hides it. [But note, there are other causes too!]

That is why I call it the opiate of the party.

More details here:

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

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20010_01.htm

[trivas7]

2) Why are the opposite poles of a magnet 'antagonistic'?

I already answered this above. Too bad you didn't like the answer.


I was referring to Dialectical Marxism, which just about covers the lot.

The reason it has lasted so long is that this theory also teaches that appearances are 'contradicted' by 'underlying essences', which means that even though, to the rest of us, Dialectical Marxism appears to be highly unsuccessful, to the dialectician it is essentially successful! [Which explains your incredulity on being told of its real condition: an almost total and long-term failure.]

This theory then 'allows' comrades to ignore what their senses and what history reveal to us.

So, this theory is at once both a cause and a consequence of failure. It helps cause failure, and as a result it helps explain it away, or hides it. [But note, there are other causes too!]


So your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Marxist theory has been unsuccessful. Is that about it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


I already answered this above. Too bad you didn't like the answer.

I asked for an explanation why you think opposite poles are 'antagonistic'; all you did was repeat that assertion with no explanation.


So your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Marxist theory has been unsuccessful. Is that about it?

And that is about as brainless a comment as if someone were to say: 'Ah, I see, Marxism is all about the transition from a slave-owning aristocratic economy to a feudal economy.'

But we already know you do not think...

[Luís Henrique]

The magnetic field that surrounds the earth e.g.

But this is a particularity of Earth; the Moon has a North and a South pole, and no magnetic field. So would Moon's poles not oppose each other in the same sence that the Earth's poles do?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

LH, it is little use you asking Trivas awkward questions like this; we already know that he, like William Jennings Bryan, "does not think about things he doesn't think about".

Yes, it is very similar to asking you about what Marx's views about the existence of a "natural order" are...

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Yes, it is very similar to asking you about what Marx's views about the existence of a "natural order" are...

Ah, but I answered you.

[Rood Boi]

Re: Rosa Lichtenstein

What a fuss has been made here!

I don't think I agree with your definition of dialectics from the start. I do not think that it is one of the contradictions that must assume the new form taken by the organism; this is far to simple a definition to be cover the nature of development. Rather, the form of the conflict that exists between the contradictions will dictate the organism's new nature.

The bourgeoisie must at all times strive to produce ever-greater profits based on its privileged position in the nation state. It's attempts as a class to create great profits is contradicted by the fact that it can only do so as competitors on separate nation states. There is a contradiction here because as a class the bourgeoisie has already conquered the globe, now any attempts by a national bourgeoisie to maintain the normal business of profit and resource accumulation must come into conflict with the interests of other members of the bourgeoisie.

For example, the US bourgeoisie must undermine the privileges of the Iraqi bourgeoisie simply to maintain its position as a super power. As a class, the bourgeoisie is constantly at odds, undermining it’s fellow class and in-tern attempting to bolster its position.

But this undermining goes further that. And this is the second major contradiction, that of the actual process of profit production which requires the participation of the working class. For the bourgeoisie to produce profit it must extract surplus value from the workers at ever decreasing rates, thus undermining the very basis for it (the bourgeoisie's) privileged existence. This contradiction is what produces the revolutionary working class, which holds within it the form of the new, socialist world.

To answer your position, it is not the international economy that wins over the national economy, because as you state, this is incorrect. However, you have misunderstood or misrepresented dialectics entirely. The complex nature of capitalism is driven by (in the main) the two contradictions mentioned above. These contradictions produce a working class, the members of which are have objective interests that are directly opposed to that of the bourgeoisie.

The working class it’s self has it’s own contradictions when it comes to power. By its objective desire to end exploitation, the working class will systematically destroy it’s own position as a class and in the process end all class in human civilization.

I do not think the terms used are “obscure” in the slightest. Contradict means to go against a previous position, which is what the bourgeoisie does; it works against its own position as a class by undermining the source of its wealth and fighting amongst each other for control of the world’s resources. In its attempts to survive it creates the conditions for its own demise.

How many examples can be called up on to further exemplify the use of dialectics throughout the history of the Marxists movement! Trotsky’s explanation of the contradictory nature of the Soviet Union that proved to be the only correct analysis of its class nature, the tactics of transitional demands and how this has provided for Trotskyists for decades after Trotsky’s death, the ability of the ICFI to assimilate the lessons of history and it’s own movement and the development of the WSWS as mighty political weapon for clarification of daily events for the working class are all based on dialectical materialism. Your assertion that Marxism has failed for 150 years merely expresses your own pessimism or ignorance of the history of the Marxist movement.

[trivas7]

But this is a particularity of Earth; the Moon has a North and a South pole, and no magnetic field. So would Moon's poles not oppose each other in the same sence that the Earth's poles do?
Luís Henrique
The moon's poles oppose each other in space, do they not? Opposition is a logical category, not a scientific characteristic of phenomena.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


I don't think I agree with your definition of dialectics from the start. I do not think that it is one of the contradictions that must assume the new form taken by the organism; this is far to simple a definition to be cover the nature of development. Rather, the form of the conflict that exists between the contradictions will dictate the organism's new nature.

But, then that means you must reject the dialectical classics.

And you keep helping yourself to 'contradiction', a term without any clear meaning, or any at all. [But see below.]


The bourgeoisie must at all times strive to produce ever-greater profits based on its privileged position in the nation state. It's attempts as a class to create great profits is contradicted by the fact that it can only do so as competitors on separate nation states. There is a contradiction here because as a class the bourgeoisie has already conquered the globe, now any attempts by a national bourgeoisie to maintain the normal business of profit and resource accumulation must come into conflict with the interests of other members of the bourgeoisie.

For example, the US bourgeoisie must undermine the privileges of the Iraqi bourgeoisie simply to maintain its position as a super power. As a class, the bourgeoisie is constantly at odds, undermining it’s fellow class and in-tern attempting to bolster its position.

But this undermining goes further that. And this is the second major contradiction, that of the actual process of profit production which requires the participation of the working class. For the bourgeoisie to produce profit it must extract surplus value from the workers at ever decreasing rates, thus undermining the very basis for it (the bourgeoisie's) privileged existence. This contradiction is what produces the revolutionary working class, which holds within it the form of the new, socialist world.

Yes, I have heard this sort of stuff a thousand times (I was a revolutionary before many at RevLeft were born) -- I just do not see why these are 'contradictions'.

You keep skipping past that part. [But see below.]


To answer your position, it is not the international economy that wins over the national economy, because as you state, this is incorrect. However, you have misunderstood or misrepresented dialectics entirely. The complex nature of capitalism is driven by (in the main) the two contradictions mentioned above. These contradictions produce a working class, the members of which are have objective interests that are directly opposed to that of the bourgeoisie.

Once more, if I am wrong then the dialectical classics are wrong.

But anyway, if you are correct then the proletariat should change into the capitalists, and the capitalists should change into the proletariat. This shows the theory is useless.

This is not to deny change, only that dialectics cannot explain it.

However you try to repackage this theory, it is impossible to make it work -- unless you ignore the dialectical classicists, that is.

But then, if you do, you will have no theory of change.


Contradict means to go against a previous position, which is what the bourgeoisie does; it works against its own position as a class by undermining the source of its wealth and fighting amongst each other for control of the world’s resources. In its attempts to survive it creates the conditions for its own demise.

But why use this word, which does not mean this.

Answer: it is because Hegel used it.

That is the only reason. And when you factor all the other things he says into the mix, which things the dialectical classicists also accepted, this theory with this word does not work.


How many examples can be called up on to further exemplify the use of dialectics throughout the history of the Marxists movement! Trotsky’s explanation of the contradictory nature of the Soviet Union that proved to be the only correct analysis of its class nature, the tactics of transitional demands and how this has provided for Trotskyists for decades after Trotsky’s death, the ability of the ICFI to assimilate the lessons of history and it’s own movement and the development of the WSWS as mighty political weapon for clarification of daily events for the working class are all based on dialectical materialism. Your assertion that Marxism has failed for 150 years merely expresses your own pessimism or ignorance of the history of the Marxist movement.

Of course, we have all heard USFI, CWI, IST, and IMT comrades say similar things about diametrically opposed ideas.

And we both know that Stalinists, Maoists and Libertarian Marxists also say they use this method to come to different conclusions -- and that one wing of Trotskyism (ICFI) will use 'dialectics' to prove that another (USFI) is wrong, and vice versa. They do this here all the time; IMT comrades use dialectics to prove CWI comrades are using an 'abstract' scheme, or are using 'formal methods' to derive this or that, and vice versa.

And that is because this theory can be used to derive anything you like, and its opposite.

Moreover, because it encourages sectarianism (or rather, it makes it worse) dialectics is one of the reasons why the only thing us Trots do well is split and bicker.

Hence, Trotskyism is among the most unsuccessful wings of Marxism.

And please note that I did not say that Marxism has been unsuccessful, but that Dialectical Marxism has.

All four internationals have failed; nearly all the former 'socialist' states have reverted to market capitalism.

You may want to argue that the Fourth International hasn't failed, but it is deeply divided, and can boast no major successes, and few minor ones in over 60 years.

At least the Stalinists and Maoists can point to some successes (albeit now failed). What can we point to?

Even 1917 has been reversed.

[Rood Boi]

I am not here to convince you that all your years devoted to the Trotskyist movement were worthwhile. All I can and am willing to do is present dialectics to the maximum of my ability and understanding.

Dialectics does not state that the working class will transform into the capitalist class. That is a complete falsification of the very basics of dialectics. The working class is the possessor of a new and unique mode of production that emerges from capitalism and creates a completely new organism. This organism, like all organisms, is based on the contradictions of its predecessor.

You are wrong in your understanding of dialectics, in that you seem to think it has a cyclical rather progressive tendency. What forms is not a part of what was before but as a product of it.

How is my paragraph on the word contradiction incorrect? Like so much of this discussion, I must again persuade and coax you into referring to my actual examples. Capitalism used to be a progressive tendency before WW1. Its contradictions, that the bourgeoisie could have no stationary basis for their income is in direct contradiction to that fact that for the bourgeoisie to maintain its privileges it must maintain the nation state system, and thereby limit the degree of their own advancements.

The soviet union was controlled by workers, and it's bureaucracy stiffened off the majority of the produce of the state, thereby undermining the ability of the SU to remain productive in the face of globalised production, thus providing the major contradiction to which the SU eventually failed. This was predicted by Trotsky decades before based on an understanding of these contradictions.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Dialectical Marxism", as usual I must ask for a far more specific approach to polemics. Who practiced this? Why and when did they fail? Again, how was that such a flawed theory produced such accurate results, especially in regards to Trotsky?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


I am not here to convince you that all your years devoted to the Trotskyist movement were worthwhile.

What? Because I disagree with a theory that not only does not work, but which has presided over 150 years of failure?

In fact, I deserve the Order of Lenin for trying to put things right. No one else has bothered to do so in living memory, or ever.


All I can and am willing to do is present dialectics to the maximum of my ability and understanding.

Well, good luck; I have been studying this theory now for nigh on 30 years, and it still makes no sense to me.


Dialectics does not state that the working class will transform into the capitalist class. That is a complete falsification of the very basics of dialectics. The working class is the possessor of a new and unique mode of production that emerges from capitalism and creates a completely new organism. This organism, like all organisms, is based on the contradictions of its predecessor.

You clearly have not read the classics, for that is what they imply. Here they are again:


"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Hegel (1975), p.174.]

"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature, and which by the continual conflict of the opposites and. their final passage into one another, or into higher forms, determines the life of nature. Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it distributes itself over two or more bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce themselves -- to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation of the living protein material, and from the simple cell -- onwards the theory of evolution demonstrates how each advance up to the most complicated plant on the one side, and up to man on the other, is effected by the continual conflict between heredity and adaptation. In this connection it becomes evident how little applicable to such forms of evolution are categories like 'positive' and 'negative.' One can conceive of heredity as the positive, conservative side, adaptation as the negative side that continually destroys what has been inherited, but one can just as well take adaptation as the creative, active, positive activity, and heredity as the resisting, passive, negative activity." [Ibid., p.211.]

"For a stage in the outlook on nature where all differences become merged in intermediate steps, and all opposites pass into one another through intermediate links, the old metaphysical method of thought no longer suffices. Dialectics, which likewise knows no hard and fast lines, no unconditional, universally valid 'either-or' and which bridges the fixed metaphysical differences, and besides 'either-or' recognises also in the right place 'both this-and that' and reconciles the opposites, is the sole method of thought appropriate in the highest degree to this stage. Of course, for everyday use, for the small change of science, the metaphysical categories retain their validity." [Ibid., p.212-13.]

"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa." [Engels (1976), p.27.]

"Already in Rousseau, therefore, we find not only a line of thought which corresponds exactly to the one developed in Marx's Capital, but also, in details, a whole series of the same dialectical turns of speech as Marx used: processes which in their nature are antagonistic, contain a contradiction; transformation of one extreme into its opposite; and finally, as the kernel of the whole thing, the negation of the negation. [Ibid., p.179.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [i]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]

"Hegel brilliantly divined the dialectics of things (phenomena, the world, nature) in the dialectics of concepts…. This aphorism should be expressed more popularly, without the word dialectics: approximately as follows: In the alternation, reciprocal dependence of all notions, in the identity of their opposites, in the transitions of one notion into another, in the eternal change, movement of notions, Hegel brilliantly divined precisely this relation of things to nature…. [W]hat constitutes dialectics?…. [M]utual dependence of notions all without exception…. Every notion occurs in a certain relation, in a certain connection with all the others." [Lenin (1961), pp.196-97.]

"'This harmony is precisely absolute Becoming change, -- not becoming other, now this and then another. The essential thing is that each different thing [tone], each particular, is different from another, not abstractly so from any other, but from its other. Each particular only is, insofar as its other is implicitly contained in its Notion...' Quite right and important: the 'other' as its other, development into its opposite." [Ibid., p.260. Lenin is here commenting on Hegel (1995), pp.278-98; this particular quotation coming from p.285. The translation in the edition I have consulted reads differently from the one Lenin used; Hegel is referring to "tones" here, not "things", as the reference to "harmony" indicates.]

"Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another, -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another." [Ibid., p.109.]

"Development is the 'struggle' of opposites." [Lenin, Collected Works, Volume XIII, p.301.]

"Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature....

"Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future, something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites, the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative changes." [Stalin (1976b), pp.836, 840.]

"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42.]

"The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics....

"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development....

"The universality or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning to end....[Ibid, pp.311-18.]

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

"[F]rom the standpoint of the developing universe as a whole, what is vital is…motion and change which follows from the conflict of the opposite.” [Guest (1963), pp.31, 32.]

"The negative electrical pole…cannot exist without the simultaneous presence of the positive electrical pole…. This 'unity of opposites' is therefore found in the core of all material things and events." [Conze (1944), pp.35-36.]

"Second, and just as unconditionally valid, that all things are at the same time absolutely different and absolutely or unqualifiedly opposed. The law may also be referred to as the law of the polar unity of opposites. This law applies to every single thing, every phenomenon, and to the world as a whole. Viewing thought and its method alone, it can be put this way: The human mind is capable of infinite condensation of things into unities, even the sharpest contradictions and opposites, and, on the other hand, it is capable of infinite differentiation and analysis of things into opposites. The human mind can establish this unlimited unity and unlimited differentiation because this unlimited unity and differentiation is present in reality." [Thalheimer (1936), p.161.]

"This dialectical activity is universal. There is no escaping from its unremitting and relentless embrace. 'Dialectics gives expression to a law which is felt in all grades of consciousness and in general experience. Everything that surrounds us may be viewed as an instance of dialectic. We are aware that everything finite, instead of being inflexible and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by the dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than it is, is forced to surrender its own immediate or natural being, and to turn suddenly into its opposite.' (Encyclopedia, p.120)." [Novack (1971), 94-95; quoting Hegel (1975), p.118, although in a different translation from the one used here.]

"Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites….

"In dialectics, sooner or later, things change into their opposite. In the words of the Bible, 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first.' We have seen this many times, not least in the history of great revolutions. Formerly backward and inert layers can catch up with a bang. Consciousness develops in sudden leaps. This can be seen in any strike. And in any strike we can see the elements of a revolution in an undeveloped, embryonic form. In such situations, the presence of a conscious and audacious minority can play a role quite similar to that of a catalyst in a chemical reaction. In certain instances, even a single individual can play an absolutely decisive role....

"This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality the motor-force of all motion and development in nature…. Movement which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter....

"Contradictions are found at all levels of nature, and woe betide the logic that denies it. Not only can an electron be in two or more places at the same time, but it can move simultaneously in different directions. We are sadly left with no alternative but to agree with Hegel: they are and are not. Things change into their opposite. Negatively-charged electrons become transformed into positively-charged positrons. An electron that unites with a proton is not destroyed, as one might expect, but produces a new particle, a neutron, with a neutral charge.

"This is an extension of the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites. It is a law which permeates the whole of nature, from the smallest phenomena to the largest...." [Woods and Grant (1995), pp.43-47, 63-71.]

"This struggle is not external and accidental…. The struggle is internal and necessary, for it arises and follows from the nature of the process as a whole. The opposite tendencies are not independent the one of the other, but are inseparably connected as parts or aspects of a single whole. And they operate and come into conflict on the basis of the contradiction inherent in the process as a whole….

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

"Contradiction is a universal feature of all processes….

"The importance of the [developmental] conception of the negation of the negation does not lie in its supposedly expressing the necessary pattern of all development. All development takes place through the working out of contradictions -– that is a necessary universal law…." [Cornforth (1976), pp.14-15, 46-48, 53, 65-66, 72, 77, 82, 86, 90, 95, 117; quoting Hegel (1975), pp.172 and 160, respectively.]

"Opposites in a thing are not only mutually exclusive, polar, repelling, each other; they also attract and interpenetrate each other. They begin and cease to exist together.... These dual aspects of opposites -- conflict and unity -- are like scissor blades in cutting, jaws in mastication, and two legs in walking. Where there is only one, the process as such is impossible: 'all polar opposites are in general determined by the mutual action of two opposite poles on one another, the separation and opposition of these poles exists only within their unity and interconnection, and, conversely, their interconnection exists only in their separation and their unity only in their opposition.' in fact, 'where one no sooner tries to hold on to one side alone then it is transformed unnoticed into the other...'" [Gollobin (1986), p.115; quoting Engels.]

"The unity of opposites and contradiction.... The scientific world-view does not seek causes of the motion of the universe beyond its boundaries. It finds them in the universe itself, in its contradictions. The scientific approach to an object of research involves skill in perceiving a dynamic essence, a combination in one and the same object of mutually incompatible elements, which negate each other and yet at the same time belong to each other.

"It is even more important to remember this point when we are talking about connections between phenomena that are in the process of development. In the whole world there is no developing object in which one cannot find opposite sides, elements or tendencies: stability and change, old and new, and so on. The dialectical principle of contradiction reflects a dualistic relationship within the whole: the unity of opposites and their struggle. Opposites may come into conflict only to the extent that they form a whole in which one element is as necessary as another. This necessity for opposing elements is what constitutes the life of the whole. Moreover, the unity of opposites, expressing the stability of an object, is relative and transient, while the struggle of opposites is absolute, expressing the infinity of the process of development. This is because contradiction is not only a relationship between opposite tendencies in an object or between opposite objects, but also the relationship of the object to itself, that is to say, its constant self-negation. The fabric of all life is woven out of two kinds of thread, positive and negative, new and old, progressive and reactionary. They are constantly in conflict, fighting each other....

"The opposite sides, elements and tendencies of a whole whose interaction forms a contradiction are not given in some eternally ready-made form. At the initial stage, while existing only as a possibility, contradiction appears as a unity containing an inessential difference. The next stage is an essential difference within this unity. Though possessing a common basis, certain essential properties or tendencies in the object do not correspond to each other. The essential difference produces opposites, which in negating each other grow into a contradiction. The extreme case of contradiction is an acute conflict. Opposites do not stand around in dismal inactivity; they are not something static, like two wrestlers in a photograph. They interact and are more like a live wrestling match. Every development produces contradictions, resolves them and at the same time gives birth to new ones. Life is an eternal overcoming of obstacles. Everything is interwoven in a network of contradictions." [Spirkin (1983), pp.143-46.]

"'The contradiction, however, is the source of all movement and life; only in so far as it contains a contradiction can anything have movement, power, and effect.' (Hegel). 'In brief', states Lenin, 'dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics…'

"The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions or a unity of opposites: cold-heat, light-darkness, Capital-Labour, birth-death, riches-poverty, positive-negative, boom-slump, thinking-being, finite-infinite, repulsion-attraction, left-right, above- below, evolution-revolution, chance-necessity, sale-purchase, and so on.

"The fact that two poles of a contradictory antithesis can manage to coexist as a whole is regarded in popular wisdom as a paradox. The paradox is a recognition that two contradictory, or opposite, considerations may both be true. This is a reflection in thought of a unity of opposites in the material world.

"Motion, space and time are nothing else but the mode of existence of matter. Motion, as we have explained is a contradiction, -- being in one place and another at the same time. It is a unity of opposites. 'Movement means to be in this place and not to be in it; this is the continuity of space and time -- and it is this which first makes motion possible.' (Hegel)

"To understand something, its essence, it is necessary to seek out these internal contradictions. Under certain circumstances, the universal is the individual, and the individual is the universal. That things turn into their opposites, -- cause can become effect and effect can become cause -- is because they are merely links in the never-ending chain in the development of matter.

"Lenin explains this self-movement in a note when he says, 'Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they become identical -- under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another -- why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.' [Rob Sewell.]

References and links can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...Explain-Change

It would not be difficult to double or even treble the length of this list of quotations (as anyone who has access to as many books and articles on dialectics as I have will attest), all saying the same thing.

You will notice that these dialecticians tell us that 1) Change is universally the result of a struggle of opposites; that is what is at the heart of 'internal contradictions'. and that 2) Everything sooner or later turns into its opposite.

So, if the working class is the dialectical opposite of the capitalist class, and struggles with it, then according to the above classicists, they must turn onto the capitalist class, and vice versa.

The fact that this does not, nor will it, happen tells us that this theory is useless.

Now, I am well aware of the fact that no Marxist believes this, but then that just means this theory is a dud.

Small wonder then that it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.


You are wrong in your understanding of dialectics, in that you seem to think it has a cyclical rather progressive tendency.

You are wrong in thinking I think this of your theory; I do not think this theory has any tendencies at all except to confuse comrades.

I am sorry, but this does not seem to make much sense:


What forms is not a part of what was before but as a product of it.

But, as far as this is concerned:


How is my paragraph on the word contradiction incorrect? Like so much of this discussion, I must again persuade and coax you into referring to my actual examples. Capitalism used to be a progressive tendency before WW1. Its contradictions, that the bourgeoisie could have no stationary basis for their income is in direct contradiction to that fact that for the bourgeoisie to maintain its privileges it must maintain the nation state system, and thereby limit the degree of their own advancements.

It is not a question of whether your comments were correct or incorrect; since they contain words of indeterminate meaning, they do not make it that far.

Now, you tried to re-define contradiction in the following terms:


Contradict means to go against a previous position, which is what the bourgeoisie does; it works against its own position as a class by undermining the source of its wealth and fighting amongst each other for control of the world’s resources. In its attempts to survive it creates the conditions for its own demise.

In that case, it loses all connection with the word as it is used in language and in logic. 'So what?' you might say. Well, you have no good reason now to choose this word rather than any other.

Or rather, your only reason to use it is tradition, and a tradition based on the classics I quoted above.

So, why did these classicists choose this word? Did they draw it from a hat? Did they win it in a competition? Did they have it sent them in a dream?

No, they found it in Hegel, where it 'means' more than you attribute to it; indeed, it 'means' what Lenin and Engels (and the rest) say of it. [But it is possible to show that in the end, even Hegel's use of this word is devoid of sense.]

And that is why your theory does not work -- it is based on the idealist speculations of a logical incompetent: Hegel. The alleged materialist spin early Marxists are said to have inflicted on Hegel's system cannot alter the fact that Hegel's original derivation is based on a series of crass errors.

Hence it is no wonder that such a useless term (useless in language, logic and in your theory) has emerged at the end.


The soviet union was controlled by workers, and it's bureaucracy stiffened off the majority of the produce of the state, thereby undermining the ability of the SU to remain productive in the face of globalised production, thus providing the major contradiction to which the SU eventually failed. This was predicted by Trotsky decades before based on an understanding of these contradictions.

Yes, as I have said, I have heard this sort of thing a thousand times; but that does not make the term you keep using (i.e., 'contradictions') any the clearer.

And as for Trotsky's alleged predictions, in view of the fact that nothing lasts forever, it is not surprising that they 'came true'. But, that is nothing to write home about. If I predict it will rain in the Gobi desert in the next 100 years, chances are I will be proven right.

I note, however, that not one worker raised his or her hand in defence of 'their workers' state' when they collapsed nearly 20 years ago.

And you must know that there are Stalinist and Maoist arguments of impeccable dialectical soundness that explain all this in a totally different way.

As I say, this theory can be used to explain anything and its opposite.


I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Dialectical Marxism", as usual I must ask for a far more specific approach to polemics. Who practiced this? Why and when did they fail?

Dialectical Marxism is the sort of Marxism the vast majority of comrades have been inducted into in the last 130 years or so -- Marxism largely dominated by dialectics.

You can find the 'specifics' here:

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


Again, how was that such a flawed theory produced such accurate results, especially in regards to Trotsky?

Well, incorrect theories often make successful (practical and theoretical) predictions -- as, for example, Ptolemy's system did for many centuries. In fact, the allegedly superior Copernican system was no more accurate than the older theory had been. Indeed, Ptolemy's system was refined progressively in line with observation for over a thousand years, and it became more accurate as a result. Despite that, it was no nearer to what we might now regard as the 'truth'.

And, correct theories can sometimes fail, and they can do so for many years. For instance, Copernican Astronomy predicted stellar parallax, which was not observed until 1838 with the work of Friedrich Bessel, three hundred years after Copernicus's book was published.

Similarly, Darwin's theory of descent through modification made predictions that were at variance with patently obvious facts: the persistence of inherited variations. The latter were inconsistent with Darwin's own "blending" theory of transmission. Given Darwin's account, new and advantageous variations should be blended out of a breeding population, not preserved or enhanced. It was not until the advent of genetically-based theories of inheritance forty or so years later that Darwin's theory became viable.

Moreover, it is questionable whether or not Trotsky's theory made 'correct predictions'; as I noted above, they were so vague that almost anything could be counted as their successful instantiation -- a bit like the predictions of astrologers.

Had he said that in 1991, this or that will happen in the former USSR, I'd be more impressed -- but he didn't.

[Rood Boi]

The utter hopelessness of your defeatism goes beyond your willful misunderstanding of dialectics. It is quite clear to any objective reader that you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about and in place of any real discussion, you simply replace your own pessimistic view of the working class and vendetta against the Marxist's who have apparently led you so astray.

There are so many pessimistic and defeated positions in your argument that to challenge them would require a polemic on far more than only the past 150 years of the Marxist movement! You sound like nothing more or less than the ex-radical petti-bourgeoisie who is refusing to make a careful study of their own, flawed politics of 30 years ago for fear that it reveal the inadequacies in their own political line. Instead of attempting to understand why your involvement in politics failed to bring about socialism, you like all your group, seeks to bring down Marxism as sole, or overwhelming reason for your demise. This process finds it necessary at times to "discover" that the entire basis of Marxism or Trtoskyism is wrong. But as anyone can see, the basis of your argument is a list (a long list) of ad hoc quotes taken from all sorts of individuals who discuss dialectics some of which happen to represent opposing political tendencies. But this is not forth coming in your argument.

I can see from other posts that this seems to be the norm for how you conduct argument and so I find it impossible to imagine any future worthwhile contribution you could make to dialectics beyond mutely stating how little you understand it.

I do believe my position was made clearly and if any one else thinks so or other wise may they make their position clear but as to this conversation to continue would be a waste of time.


Re: BurnTheOliveTree,

What is your opinion of the positions presented in this thread, has Rosa and my polemics made the issue any clearer in relation to your original question?

[Hyacinth]

The utter hopelessness of your defeatism goes beyond your willful misunderstanding of dialectics. It is quite clear to any objective reader that you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about and in place of any real discussion, you simply replace your own pessimistic view of the working class and vendetta against the Marxist's who have apparently led you so astray.

There are so many pessimistic and defeated positions in your argument that to challenge them would require a polemic on far more than only the past 150 years of the Marxist movement! You sound like nothing more or less than the ex-radical petti-bourgeoisie who is refusing to make a careful study of their own, flawed politics of 30 years ago for fear that it reveal the inadequacies in their own political line. Instead of attempting to understand why your involvement in politics failed to bring about socialism, you like all your group, seeks to bring down Marxism as sole, or overwhelming reason for your demise. This process finds it necessary at times to "discover" that the entire basis of Marxism or Trtoskyism is wrong. But as anyone can see, the basis of your argument is a list (a long list) of ad hoc quotes taken from all sorts of individuals who discuss dialectics some of which happen to represent opposing political tendencies. But this is not forth coming in your argument.

I can see from other posts that this seems to be the norm for how you conduct argument and so I find it impossible to imagine any future worthwhile contribution you could make to dialectics beyond mutely stating how little you understand it.

I do believe my position was made clearly and if any one else thinks so or other wise may they make their position clear but as to this conversation to continue would be a waste of time.
I don’t wish to begin to enumerate the fallacies committed in what you’ve just said. But let’s just point out the ad hominem. Nothing you’ve said pertains to Rosa’s arguments (apart from your assertion that they misrepresent dialectics, which you haven’t backed up), but are personal attacks against Rosa. To the credit of others they have at least attempted to respond and given accounts of dialectics, which I have yet to see you do in this thread (or anywhere else for that matter).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rood Boi:


The utter hopelessness of your defeatism goes beyond your willful misunderstanding of dialectics. It is quite clear to any objective reader that you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about and in place of any real discussion, you simply replace your own pessimistic view of the working class and vendetta against the Marxist's who have apparently led you so astray.

I suppose you'd have said the same to someone on, say, The Titanic who pointed out to the captain that the ship was sinking: "What defeatism!"

And, if you had survived, you would then have advised other captains of other ships not to heed anyone who tried to warn them of approaching icebergs: "Do not listen to those whose seamanship has failed before..."!

Look if you want to continue with a theory that does not work, and has been shown not to work, and which history has already refuted, that's your look out, sonny.


I can see from other posts that this seems to be the norm for how you conduct argument and so I find it impossible to imagine any future worthwhile contribution you could make to dialectics beyond mutely stating how little you understand it.

I do believe my position was made clearly and if any one else thinks so or other wise may they make their position clear but as to this conversation to continue would be a waste of time.

In other words, you can't defend your 'theory' or your idiosyncratic use of the word 'contradiction'.

Fine -- but please do not saddle Marx or Marxism with such whacky ideas.

And as far as not "understanding" dialectics is concerend, I am happy to be in good company -- since no one understands it, or can explain it -- not Engels, not Plekhanov, not Lenin, not Trotsky, not David North..., nor you --, no one.

Or, if they do "understand" it, they have kept that secret well hidden for 150 years.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Hyacinth, but I have faced this sort of head-in-the-sand ignorance countless times here at RevLeft since I joined in November 2005 --, and elsewhere for 25 years.

The odd thing is that it is worse from fellow Trots!

The phrase 'water off a duck's back' oddly springs to mind here...

[OI OI OI]

Here are 10 ways that you and your body become their opposites--before you even get out the door in the morning. (Of course, not everybody has the same routine, or even has a house to live in (!), but you get the idea.)

TIME TO GET UP!
1. You go from asleep to awake

2. You go from in bed to out of bed

3. You go from unwashed to washed (plus some more opposites here):
You go from out of the shower to in the shower
The water goes from off to on to off
You go from unsoapy to soapy and then to rinsed
You go from wet to dry

4. Your bladder goes from full to empty

5. Your bowels go from full to empty

6. Your teeth go from unbrushed to brushed

7. Your hair goes from messy to combed

8. You go from undressed to dressed (lots of opposites here):
Your clothes go from off to on
Your shoes go from untied to tied
Your zippers go from unzipped to zipped
Your shirt goes from unbuttoned to buttoned

9. You go from hungry to fed (lots of opposites here too):
The refrigerator goes from closed to opened to closed
Your food goes from uncooked to cooked
Eggs go from soft to hard
Oatmeal goes from runny to ready
Your food goes from uneaten to eatened (even more opposites here):
Your food goes from out of your mouth to in your mouth
Your food goes from unchewed to chewed
Your food goes from unswallowed to swallowed
Your stomach goes from empty to full
Your milk goes from unpoured to poured/undrunk to drunk
Vitamins go from untaken to taken

10. Your coat goes from off to on; your door goes from closed to opened; and you go from in the house to out of the house!

So our bodies and the world around us are always changing into opposites. Remember that we, like everything else, have many opposing sides--at first one side is in control, but eventually the other side becomes stronger and--all at once--we go from asleep to awake, undressed to dressed, . . .

[OI OI OI]

On a more serious note, everything has its opossite. The reference and the opossite are in a constant battle with eachother at any given moment. Macroscopicaly or microscopicaly.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rood boi - If anything, your debate has made me even more confused about the issue than I was previously. :(

This makes me tend to Rosa's view, frankly. I have never understood dialectics, and I'm fast thinking that I never will...

Ah, never mind, eh? C'est la vie.

-Alex

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here are 10 ways that you and your body become their opposites--before you even get out the door in the morning. (Of course, not everybody has the same routine, or even has a house to live in (!), but you get the idea.)



Most of those are processes, which are not binary, but rather have an indefinate amount of states in between two extremes.

Nature is analogue, not digital.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oi Oi Oi, this looks like you have lifted your post from 'Dialectics for kids', a brainless site if ever there was one:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-kids-t60024/index.html?t=60024&highlight=Dialectics

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectics-kids-t80721/index.html

And of course, a few humbrum sentences does not prove everything has an opposite, but it does show that dialecitcs is indeed Mickey Mouse Science.

You might like to think about this: in mathematics there are structures called Matrices, some of which have zero determinants. Such matrices have no inverses (they cannot be undone). These are called 'Singular Matrices'. So, any matrix from the set singular matrices has no opposite.

And since such matirices allow is to depict changes in nature and society mathematically, the processes they depict have no opposites either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(mathematics)

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/explore/emmaspages/option1.html

http://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m116/matrices/inverses.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SingularMatrix.html

There are plenty of other examples (some have been listed in earlier posts in this thread).

[trivas7]

Rood boi - If anything, your debate has made me even more confused about the issue than I was previously. :(

This makes me tend to Rosa's view, frankly. I have never understood dialectics, and I'm fast thinking that I never will...

Ah, never mind, eh? C'est la vie.

-Alex
Read Engel's Anti-Duhring, see it is does anything for you. If no, meh...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Read Engel's Anti-Duhring, see it is does anything for you.

All that a priori dogamtism will probably make him feel sick...

[Luís Henrique]

Nature is analogue, not digital.

Nature is most probably digital, ie, quantic, rather than "analogue". But we aren't able to sence it as digital, for its "digits" are much smaller than we are actually able to perceive. And at the point in which the amount of "digits" become statistical, there is no difference between "digital" and "analogic".

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Digitalisation is a human invention, so unless nature is human, it is probably not 'digital'.

[Luís Henrique]

Digitalisation is a human invention, so unless nature is human, it is probably not 'digital'.

In the context Noxion used it, the term "digital" does not imply "digitalisation".

He meant that nature is continuous, not "atomic". For what we know, matter, space, and time, seem all to be discontinuous.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Every hundred or so years, scientists change their minds; one century nature is fundamentally discrete/atomic, the next it is continuous/non-atomic.

I'd not put too much faith in the latest fad; history suggests you would be unwise to do so.

[Luís Henrique]

Every hundred or so years, scientists change their minds; one century nature is fundamentally discrete/atomic, the next it is continuous/non-atomic.

I'd not put too much faith in the latest fad; history suggests you would be unwise to do so.

Oh yes. There is no scientific progress, just a cyclical alternation of scientific "fads". I forgot that.

Luís Henrique

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I'd not put too much faith in the latest fad; history suggests you would be unwise to do so.

:blink:

So, is all science just a "fad" to you? At what point would you accept a scientific paradigm? Does historical unreliability mean more than immediate physical evidence?

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTOT:


So, is all science just a "fad" to you? At what point would you accept a scientific paradigm? Does historical unreliability mean more than immediate physical evidence?

When scientists change their minds so often, what other word describes it?

'Fashion'?

Ok, I can live with that.

And, at every stage, both sides in this long running feud have claimed they have 'evidence' on their side.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, hit another dogmatic nerve. Naughty Rosa!:rolleyes:

LH:


There is no scientific progress, just a cyclical alternation of scientific "fads". I forgot that.

Of course there is scientific progress, but not, unfortunately, everywhere. And this is as good an example as any of a long-term stalemate.

And, as we both know, a recourse to sarcasm is a sure sign you have no effective response.

[Luís Henrique]

:blink:

So, is all science just a "fad" to you? At what point would you accept a scientific paradigm? Does historical unreliability mean more than immediate physical evidence?

Does that conclusion surprise you?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

And, as we both know, a recourse to sarcasm is a sure sign you have no effective response.

Are you being sarcastic?!

Luís Henrique

[BurnTheOliveTree]

When scientists change their minds so often, what other word describes it?


Well yeah, but you must concede that science does get it permanently right every now and then too. Our computers wouldn't work, otherwise. If some 'fashion' in computer science changes, will my laptop stop working?

-Alex

[trivas7]

Well yeah, but you must concede that science does get it permanently right every now and then too. Our computers wouldn't work, otherwise. If some 'fashion' in computer science changes, will my laptop stop working?

My laptop stopped working when I first used wifi. Technology sometimes gets it right, science by definition doesn't have the final word on anything.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Are you being sarcastic?!

No, deadly serious -- unlike you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTOT:


Well yeah, but you must concede that science does get it permanently right every now and then too. Our computers wouldn't work, otherwise. If some 'fashion' in computer science changes, will my laptop stop working?

No, but the explanation of why it works will change, and many times.

[Rood Boi]

Re: BurnTheOliveTree

I would also recommend reading The Jewish Question by Abram Leon, who mastered the dialectical method and wrote on the history of the Jews. More recently however, the latest speeches given by Nick Beams on the current economic crisis is one of the best examples of how Marxists seek to understand current events.

Also, Toward a reconsideration of Trotsky’s legacy and his place in the history of the 20th century by David North is an excellent introduction to Trtoskyism.

Sorry, it seems I can't post links yet! Strange web site... Any way, just Google it if you are interested.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB:


I would also recommend reading The Jewish Question by Abram Leon, who mastered the dialectical method and wrote on the history of the Jews. More recently however, the latest speeches given by Nick Beams on the current economic crisis is one of the best examples of how Marxists seek to understand current events.

An excellent book, but that is because there is no dialectics in it.

[Rood Boi]

This is just absurd! Explain, clearly, how Abram Leon does not employ the dialectical method in his book.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB:


how Abram Leon does not employ the dialectical method in his book.

He does not mention this theory, nor use any of its concepts.

Unless, of course, you know differently.

[Rood Boi]

Prove it. Prove that Abram Leon, one of the most famous Marxists to live during the Second World War was in no way a Marxists, had no scientific conception of history and disposed of dialectics in his book.

"The Jewish Question - A Marxist Interpretation", the title should be enough to show that this is something of the opposite to what you are saying, but all one has to do is enter the brilliant pages to find this "The scientific study of Jewish history is yet to transcend the stage of idealist improvisation" And further on he goes into the various theories being presented at the time in order to delineate himself from them:

"The preservation of the Jews is explained by all historians as the product of their devotion through the centuries to their religion or their nationality. Differences among these historians begin to appear only when it comes to defining the “goal” for which the Jews preserved themselves, the reason for their resistance to assimilation. Some, taking the religious point of view, speak of the “sacred trust of their faith”; others, like Dubnow, defend the theory of “attachment to the national idea.” “We must seek the causes for the historical phenomenon of the preservation of the Jewish people in their national spiritual strength, in their ethical basis, and in the monotheistic principle,” says the General Encyclopedia which contrives in this way to reconcile the various viewpoints among the idealist historians."

Then, a paragraph down, this excellent paragraph is found:

"To study the evolution of this question is not exclusively of academic interest. Without a thorough study of Jewish history, it is difficult to understand the Jewish question in modern times. The plight of the Jews in the twentieth century is intimately bound up with their historical past. Every social formation represents a stage in the social process. Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."

I find it hard not to quote the entire work but we can clearly see that Leon is entering into a study completely in line with that of dialectical materialism, especially as noted in the emphasis. However, I will end the quotations with one last paragraph

"In the sphere of Jewish history, as in the sphere of universal history, Karl Marx’s brilliant thought points the road to follow “We will not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but we will look for the secret of the religion in the real Jew.” Marx thus puts the Jewish question back on its feet. We must not start with religion in order to explain Jewish history; on the contrary; the preservation of the Jewish religion or nationality can be explained only by the “real Jew,” that is to say, by the Jew in his economic and social role. The preservation of the Jews contains nothing of the miraculous. “Judaism has survived not in spite of history, but by virtue of history.”"

I believe your chosen task, Rosa is quite simply falsification and confusion. It is beholden on you now to show how dialectics does not enter Leon's work when it is so clearly evident in the above extracts. All of which can be found at the lovely Marxists Internet Archive, just Google it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB, as I said, plenty of Historical Materialism in this excellent book (which I first read probably before you were born), precious little dialectics -- which is why it is so good.

I think you are the fabricator here.

Nice try, only it wasn't.

[Rood Boi]

I see very large amounts of dialectics in my quote, tell me, old one, how this sentence does not contain dialectics; "Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."

You actually have to refer to my posts Rosa. It's pathetic having to actually ask you to rebut me with evidence.

All things are in the process of becoming, in continual motion and therefore, the only way to understand anything is to place it in it's historical development, this is the core of dialectics and this is what Leon is referring to in the above quote.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB:


I see very large amounts of dialectics in my quote, tell me, old one, how this sentence does not contain dialectics; "Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."

As I said, very little dialectics in the entire book, despite your propensity to exaggerate.

[I did a search of the Marxist internet site, and there are a few dialectical terms in the book, but they can be counted on the fingers of two hands, and Leon does very little with them.]


You actually have to refer to my posts Rosa. It's pathetic having to actually ask you to rebut me with evidence.

Is this the same person who ignored all my arguments and then proceeded to insult me?

I think it is...


All things are in the process of becoming, in continual motion and therefore, the only way to understand anything is to place it in it's historical development, this is the core of dialectics and this is what Leon is referring to in the above quote.

This is just a statement of faith, but even if it were correct it would not show that dialectics was the best theory to explain change -- in fact, as far as theories go, this fourth rate example of mystical metaphysics does not even make the bottom of the reserve list, so poor is it.

Here is why:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167402&postcount=249

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1167412&postcount=250

The full argument can be found here:

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

[Rood Boi]

I'm not going to read your links which are just diversions. Tell me clearly, how Leon constructs his argument and how this is in no way in relation to dialectics.

You say "As I said, very little dialectics in the entire book, despite your propensity to exaggerate." so what is in this book? You cannot just state things, you have to provide evidence and quotations from the book as I did to prove my point. You have not done so.

You also say "This is just a statement of faith, but even if it were correct it would not show that dialectics was the best theory to explain change -- in fact, as far as theories go, this fourth rate example of mystical metaphysics does not even make the bottom of the reserve list, so poor is it." So how is my "fourth rate" description of dialectics, describing " All things are in the process of becoming, in continual motion and therefore, the only way to understand anything is to place it in it's historical development" different from Leon', who says "Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."?

It would make for a nice change if you actually answered my questions and referred directly to my quotes and examples and stopped shooting out links instead.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RB:


I'm not going to read your links which are just diversions.

Diversions from mysticism, in fact.


Tell me clearly, how Leon constructs his argument and how this is in no way in relation to dialectics.

He uses historical materialism and ordinary language -- which is why it is an excellent book.


You say "As I said, very little dialectics in the entire book, despite your propensity to exaggerate." so what is in this book?

Can't you read? I said in my earlier posts that it was full of historical materialism. How many more times do you need telling?


You cannot just state things, you have to provide evidence and quotations from the book as I did to prove my point. You have not done so.

You produced one quotation that had a bit of half-baked philosophy in it, and made exaggerated claims for the entire book. Now, unless I reproduce the whole book here, to suppoprt my claim that it mainly contains historical materialism, not dialectics, you are not going to be satisfied.

Well, tough -- I have played this game with you before. You ask me something and then ignore whatever I say (and then insult me for good measure).

If you want to go on believing this is a book of dialectics, fine -- do so. Live in a dream world for all I care.

No wonder Dialectical Marxism is such a long-term failure with comrades like you.


You also say "This is just a statement of faith, but even if it were correct it would not show that dialectics was the best theory to explain change -- in fact, as far as theories go, this fourth rate example of mystical metaphysics does not even make the bottom of the reserve list, so poor is it." So how is my "fourth rate" description of dialectics, describing " All things are in the process of becoming, in continual motion and therefore, the only way to understand anything is to place it in it's historical development" different from Leon', who says "Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."?

I did not characterise your description as fourth rate; if you open you eyes for a change, you will see that I actually described the theory you accept as fourth rate.

To cap it all, you just repeat it! Now, you can say it a thousand times, and it will still only ever be a declaration of faith in a fourth rate theory.

In those 'diversions' above I have shown why this theory is so poor. But, you prefer to keep your head in the sand. Fine, it is probably best left there. Would not want to wake you from your dogmatic slumber.


It would make for a nice change if you actually answered my questions and referred directly to my quotes and examples and stopped shooting out links instead.

Once again: Is this the person who ignored my earlier arguments?

I think it is...

[I see you do not like some of your own medicine.]

[Decolonize The Left]

I apologize in advance, for I have not read the 12 pages of responses and many internal discussions, following the original question. So if I should be re-iterating someone else's words, please let me know and direct me to the subsequent discussion.


I was having a discussion with a hyper-articulate taoist just now, who was saying that everything had an opposite, it was how the universe balanced out and all that jazz. Reminded me of dialectics, actually. Anyway, he's giving all these examples, Up+Down, Cold+Hot, etc. I aksed what the opposite of a banana was, and he replied "not-banana". Is this right? Does it make sense? I suggested that "not banana" was not a "thing" and that you couldn't just invent an abstract concept that didn't even exist to to keep opposites going.

What are your thoughts on this?

-Alex


Of course everything has an opposite, though this is not a very articulate term. A better term would be "binary pair." The reason for my answer is simple: we communicate in concepts, all concepts exist in binary pairs. This is what your friend meant by everything have a "not-". Given that we use concepts to delineate our perception/perspective/understanding of the world, we must confront the fact that all concepts exist in binary pairs. Even the concept to define all concepts: "Everything," "One," etc... has it's pair: "Nothing," "None," etc...

For concepts are a constructed representation of an actual thing. Therefore there must exist the binary pair to explicate that which is not that thing.

Now, if we are speaking literally - which it now occurs to me we probably are, then things become more complicated. I would then be forced to adopt the position that while all things may not have their opposite (or binary pair) available to our understanding/perception, there most certainly exists the possibility of it existing - or the possible reality of this 'opposite' already existing but unavailable to our three dimensional perception.

- August

[progressive_lefty]

Yes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW:


Of course everything has an opposite, though this is not a very articulate term. A better term would be "binary pair." The reason for my answer is simple: we communicate in concepts, all concepts exist in binary pairs. This is what your friend meant by everything have a "not-". Given that we use concepts to delineate our perception/perspective/understanding of the world, we must confront the fact that all concepts exist in binary pairs. Even the concept to define all concepts: "Everything," "One," etc... has it's pair: "Nothing," "None," etc...

Well, you should have read some of the earlier posts, for we have been able to show that not everything has an opposite. Not everyhting appears in binary pairs; for example, speed, distance and time do not, neither do the defining conditions of simple trigonometrical functions. And some relations have n members, and not just three. For example, the vertices of n-faced polyhedra.

And singular matrices do not have opposites. Neither does the gravtational force holding the earth in orbit around the Sun. Neither does the centre of mass of our galaxy. There are many more examples.

And one is not paired with 'none', but with minus one (i.e., -1+0i) , 1+i, and -1-i, if the domain is the complex numbers. In fact, it is possibe to pair one with any number in the complex plane.

[Luís Henrique]

No, deadly serious -- unlike you.

Hegelianly serious, I would say.

***********************

To the extent of what we know today, nature (meaning matter, energy, time, and space) seems to be discontinuous. It is possible that in some years we will come to the opposite conclusion, but to state, as Noxion did, that "nature is analogue, not digital" is wrong in the light of our present knowledge. Arguing that this will change in the future is merely wishful thinking, and probably based on the kind of metaphysical "dialectics" you like to denounce. "Things" don't "turn" into their "opposites", and abstract reasoning about abstract patterns in the past is not a substitute for actual historical understanding of science as a historic process.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

In fact, it is possibe to pair one with any number in the complex plane.

Provided that you give the function that "pairs" it, yes.

And that is the kernel of this discussion about "opposites": there is no sence in talking about "opposites" of "things" if we don't situate those "things" into specific, concrete, relations. As I have said, in showing that the "opposite" of the Northern pole is not the Southern pole, but the Equator, you change the relation, and you have Hegel's epygons agreeing that any random thing is the opposite of any given thing. And I don't mean the expressions, "any random thing" and "any given thing"...

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


To the extent of what we know today, nature (meaning matter, energy, time, and space) seems to be discontinuous. It is possible that in some years we will come to the opposite conclusion, but to state, as Noxion did, that "nature is analogue, not digital" is wrong in the light of our present knowledge. Arguing that this will change in the future is merely wishful thinking, and probably based on the kind of metaphysical "dialectics" you like to denounce. "Things" don't "turn" into their "opposites", and abstract reasoning about abstract patterns in the past is not a substitute for actual historical understanding of science as a historic process.

They will appear to be so until scientists change their minds again, and then again, and then again...


Provided that you give the function that "pairs" it, yes.

There are, however, many multivariate functions. And, of course, I might not have been speaking about functions, but mappings, or operations...

[Luís Henrique]

They will appear to be so until scientists change their minds again, and then again, and then again...

Only, scientists do not change their minds in a random way as you seem to imply.


There are, however, many multivariate functions. And, of course, I might not have been speaking about functions, but mappings, or operations...Whatever. I am not a mathematician. But to say that "x is opposite to y" is only meaningful if there is an identifiable relation between x and y (this is the reason why hegelian and pseudo-hegelian idealists speak of "unity of opposites", btw ["opposites" are "united" by the relation that places them in "opposition" to each other] - and no, this doesn't mean I am defending the notion, just explaining why it comes into existence, and why it seems to be intellectually appealing).

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Only, scientists do not change their minds in a random way as you seem to imply.

Where do I 'imply' this?

There are social and ideological reasons why they change their minds.


Whatever. I am not a mathematician. But to say that "x is opposite to y" is only meaningful if there is an identifiable relation between x and y (this is the reason why hegelian and pseudo-hegelian idealists speak of "unity of opposites", btw ["opposites" are "united" by the relation that places them in "opposition" to each other] - and no, this doesn't mean I am defending the notion, just explaining why it comes into existence, and why it seems to be intellectually appealing).

And thank you for that incoherent 'explanation' if incomprehensible idealist mumbo jumbo.

But, we do know who to turn to from now on if we want the obscure 'explained' by means of the vague.

[Luís Henrique]

Where do I 'imply' this?

There are social and ideological reasons why they change their minds.

In which case, you would point to the social and ideological reasons that they might, in the future, return to the point of view that nature is continuous... because, if nobody can, then it is not really different from "random".

Oh, and also: there are social and ideological reasons that scientist "change their minds"... but there are also reasons intrinsic to their subject of study. Lavoisier did not replace Priestley because he was more bourgeois, but because oxygen is a better explanation of combustion than flogistic was.

Or would you argue that it is possible that scientists in the future go back to flogistic?


And thank you for that incoherent 'explanation' if incomprehensible idealist mumbo jumbo.

But, we do know who to turn to from now on if we want the obscure 'explained' by means of the vague.

"Vague" in this context meaning "not thought by Rosa Liechtenstein".

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


In which case, you would point to the social and ideological reasons that they might, in the future, return to the point of view that nature is continuous... because, if nobody can, then it is not really different from "random".

I haven't a clue, since my crystal ball isn't working.


Oh, and also: there are social and ideological reasons that scientist "change their minds"... but there are also reasons intrinsic to their subject of study. Lavoisier did not replace Priestley because he was more bourgeois, but because oxygen is a better explanation of combustion than flogistic was.

So we have been told; and I accept this theory until, one day, we are told differently by scientists.


Or would you argue that it is possible that scientists in the future go back to flogistic?

They are already going back to ideas about the 'ether', so I wouldn't put even this beyond them.


"Vague" in this context meaning "not thought by Rosa Liechtenstein".

Yes, I have eradicated confused thoughts from my mind -- you should try it some day.

[Luís Henrique]

I haven't a clue, since my crystal ball isn't working.

On the contrary, it seems to be working quite well, as it enables you to predict the future movements of science... what seems to be misworking is the part that would allow you to tell why such predicted movements would happen.

But that, you and I know quite well, is not the crystal ball.

Luís Henrique

[trivas7]

Of course everything has an opposite, though this is not a very articulate term. A better term would be "binary pair." The reason for my answer is simple: we communicate in concepts, all concepts exist in binary pairs. This is what your friend meant by everything have a "not-". Given that we use concepts to delineate our perception/perspective/understanding of the world, we must confront the fact that all concepts exist in binary pairs. Even the concept to define all concepts: "Everything," "One," etc... has it's pair: "Nothing," "None," etc...

Perhaps I go off the deep end here, but since concepts are purely negative, their universality, their stability and their inherence are explained as being mental, logical and dialectical. There is no contradiction for a universal to be at once completely and continually present in multitude of things if it is only a negative mark of distinction from other things. Since all concepts and names are negative, Hegel was right in proclaiming that Negativity is the soul of the world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


On the contrary, it seems to be working quite well, as it enables you to predict the future movements of science... what seems to be misworking is the part that would allow you to tell why such predicted movements would happen.

Not so; all I have done is observe the fact that scientists have changed their minds many times in the past, doing so as a result of social change. From that, the evidence suggests they will continue to do so, and for social and ideological reasons. The exact content and social reasons for such changes cannot be determined from the past.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


but since concepts are purely negative, their universality, their stability and their inherence are explained as being mental, logical and dialectical. There is no contradiction for a universal to be at once completely and continually present in multitude of things if it is only a negative mark of distinction from other things. Since all concepts and names are negative, Hegel was right in proclaiming that Negativity is the soul of the world.

Can we have the missing proof that all concepts and names are 'negative' please. If you do not have such a proof (but have merely copied his from Hegel), can you explain why you aserted this as a fact.

[trivas7]

Can we have the missing proof that all concepts and names are 'negative' please. If you do not have such a proof (but have merely copied his from Hegel), can you explain why you aserted this as a fact.
I could explain it but I doubt it would be more than wind between your ears. You don't give a shit what I say, remember?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


I could explain it but I doubt it would be more than wind between your ears. You don't give a shit what I say, remember?

I don't use scatological language, unlike you.

But, looks like you do not give a **** about what you think either.

[Decolonize The Left]

Perhaps I go off the deep end here, but since concepts are purely negative, their universality, their stability and their inherence are explained as being mental, logical and dialectical. There is no contradiction for a universal to be at once completely and continually present in multitude of things if it is only a negative mark of distinction from other things. Since all concepts and names are negative, Hegel was right in proclaiming that Negativity is the soul of the world.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by concepts being "purely negative." As far as I understand, a concept is an idea, or general notion - I was not aware that it had a charge what-so-ever....

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AW, Trivas was referring to that bogus notion Hegel pinched from Spinoza: every determination is also negation.

Unfortunately, both Spinoza and Hegel forgot the proof, but just left it as a dogmatic assertion.

Of course, if it were true then it would be false, since it would contain, or imply, its own negation.

Wonderful stiff, diabolical logic...

[ifeelyou]

I apologize in advance, for I have not read the 12 pages of responses and many internal discussions, following the original question. So if I should be re-iterating someone else's words, please let me know and direct me to the subsequent discussion.




Of course everything has an opposite, though this is not a very articulate term. A better term would be "binary pair." The reason for my answer is simple: we communicate in concepts, all concepts exist in binary pairs. This is what your friend meant by everything have a "not-". Given that we use concepts to delineate our perception/perspective/understanding of the world, we must confront the fact that all concepts exist in binary pairs. Even the concept to define all concepts: "Everything," "One," etc... has it's pair: "Nothing," "None," etc...

For concepts are a constructed representation of an actual thing. Therefore there must exist the binary pair to explicate that which is not that thing.

Now, if we are speaking literally - which it now occurs to me we probably are, then things become more complicated. I would then be forced to adopt the position that while all things may not have their opposite (or binary pair) available to our understanding/perception, there most certainly exists the possibility of it existing - or the possible reality of this 'opposite' already existing but unavailable to our three dimensional perception.

- August

so, would u argue that something like gender is always structured in terms of a binary opposition? for example, man-woman.

i cant help but think of 3rd genders, which challenge dichotomous representations and understandings of gender, such as the Native American Two-Spirit, the Hijras of India, arguably, the Travestis and Jotas of Latin America, many other transgendered people of North America, etc.

if 3rd genders have been recognized and valued throughout history in numerous societies and cultures, then clearly not everything has to inevitably have a simple opposite. most importantly, we dont have to buy into the idea that things secretly do--that the 2nd part of a pair is hidden from view, waiting to be discovered. in my opinion, to believe that everything in this highly complicated world comes in binary pairs, whether "unavailable to our three dimensional perception" or not, is reductive and actually quite dangerous. to understand this we only have to look at how the West, in many ways, treats individuals and groups of people who do not easily fit into categorical binaries.

in reference to the idea of "not-," discussed above, it may be useful to realize that when describing how gender operates, in many instances, such could be explained as a complex system of interrelated parts, rather than something built on the simple, and perhaps insufficient, notion of "what is" and "what is not." american anthropologist Margaret Mead, in 1933, wrote of a particular culture and society: "the Arapesh speak a language that contains [not a binary or even three, but] thirteen noun classes or genders, each one of which is distinguished by a separate set of pronominal and adjectival suffixes and prefixes. there is a masculine gender, a feminine gender, a gender that contains objects of indeterminate or mixed gender, and in ten other clauses whose content cannot be so accurately described" (Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, p. 7). it seems to me that dimorphic reasoning would not be enough to explain this particular gender system.

consequently, its fair to wonder just how much the idea of binary pairs--used by descartes to levi-strauss, etc. and challenged by derrida, anzaldua, foucault, etc.--is a Western construct, and not universal to everyone and everything.

[trivas7]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by concepts being "purely negative." As far as I understand, a concept is an idea, or general notion - I was not aware that it had a charge what-so-ever....

By concepts as purely negative I mean that they are ideal or mental images of a sensual entity or logical realtionship. In this sense they are the negation or dialectical opposite of their referent.

[Decolonize The Left]

By concepts as purely negative I mean that they are ideal or mental images of a sensual entity or logical realtionship. In this sense they are the negation or dialectical opposite of their referent.

Ah, I understand what you are saying now. Yet I would like to propose that concepts (while they are mental images) need not necessarily be the 'negation or dialectical opposite of their referent.' Could it not be that they are merely another form of said referent? Furthermore, what happens if there are numerous concepts which relate to the same referent? Are all these concepts the negation of that single referent? In this case that would mean more than one negation for one single referent - which seems out of balance...?

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


By concepts as purely negative I mean that they are ideal or mental images of a sensual entity or logical realtionship. In this sense they are the negation or dialectical opposite of their referent.

If concepts had 'referents' they'd be singular designating expressions, and thus not concepts.

You can find the details at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm

Or here (but this is not an easy article):

http://www.ul.ie/%7Ephilos/vol4/index.html

And you are also confusing 'mental images' with linguistic expressions, -- or, rather, you equate the two without any proof.

Finally, you are confusing, too, concepts with relational expressions.

As I said, the gobbledygood found in Hegel is only 'acceptable' to sloppy 'thinkers' and logical know-nothings.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ifeelyou: interesting comments. Thanks!

However, we have the capacity in western languages to express multivariate relations -- I gave a few examples earlier. So, we in the 'west' are not superglued to binary 'oppositions'. Indeed, we have many terms that express other sorts of relations male-female-hermaphrodite. Above, below, in the middle. Yes', 'No', 'Maybe'. And so on.

[trivas7]

Ah, I understand what you are saying now. Yet I would like to propose that concepts (while they are mental images) need not necessarily be the 'negation or dialectical opposite of their referent.' Could it not be that they are merely another form of said referent? Furthermore, what happens if there are numerous concepts which relate to the same referent? Are all these concepts the negation of that single referent? In this case that would mean more than one negation for one single referent - which seems out of balance...?

Yes, they are the mental form of their referent, but they aren't a property or intrinsic to them. They just name them, no? So yes, you find all kinds of name for the same thing.

[ifeelyou]

Ifeelyou: interesting comments. Thanks!

However, we have the capacity in western languages to express multivariate relations -- I gave a few examples earlier. So, we in the 'west' are not superglued to binary 'oppositions'. Indeed, we have many terms that express other sorts of relations male-female-hermaphrodite. Above, below, in the middle. Yes', 'No', 'Maybe'. And so on.

agreed :) human sexuality studies professor gilbert herdt (in Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History) even argued that the united states has, in the past, gone beyond the man-woman dichotomy; that we, in a very explicit and public way, recognized a third gender and have even had only one gender.

despite such, i still think that a great deal of western society views gender, and life at large, in either-or terms. for example, staying with gender, we as kids are raised as "boy" or "girl," and even if a child is born intersexed, parents must often face the decision to raise the kid as one or the other. furthermore, as mentioned above, look at how people that test the boundaries of binaries, such as man-woman, are treated. transgressing traditional gender comes at a big cost: marginalization, physical violence, verbal violence, familial disownment, difficulty finding employment, etc.

so, yes, i certainly agree with u that we have terms for other kinds of relations and ways of life, but i think its important we dont obscure the practical reality that using some of those terms, such as intersexed, and transgressing binaries comes at a big cost, with many risks that even put lives in danger.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ifeelyou, once agaon, thankyou for that. I agree with what you have to say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Yes, they are the mental form of their referent, but they aren't a property or intrinsci to them. They just name them, no? So yes, you find all kinds of name for the same thing.

Thank you for once again confirming the suspicion of those here who think you are indeed the George W Bush of logic.