http://anti-dialectics.org/

[nvm]

I found this link through Redstar2000's site.
Is it worth reading it?
Has anyone read it? I ve read some parts and it makes sense and it's pretty good actualy.

http://anti-dialectics.org/

Also has anyone read it all or at least the summary?
What do youthink about it if you've read it all.

[Holden Caulfield]

i thought Rosa was the onl dialectics hater on here?
it looks far simpler to understand than Rosas for starts, ill check it out when i can motivate myself to plunge into dialectical matters,
lol

[Hit The North]

It is Rosa's site.

[Holden Caulfield]

really? she directed me to a different one?
or has it had a revamp?!

[Kronos]

If I may speak on Rosa's behalf, [taps microphone]....I would explain her work as more or less a logical positivist's analysis of the metaphysical speculations and theories of Hegel.

For comrades to really understand why she does this, they would have to "go through" philosophy, from the beginnings of Platonism to the rear-end of post-structuralism, so that they can see for themselves why and how positivists assert that philosophy is nonsense- that metaphysical and theological propositions are meaningless. I believe that Rosa thinks that a contributing factor to the lack of success of communism has resulted from Marxists dividing themselves due to policy and theory differences, which are directly caused from the mediation of Hegel's nonsensical ideas. In this sense us comrades are a bit ironic; it is not capitalism that has won because it "makes sense", but that we have lost because we cannot agree on what sense is.

:laugh:

[Hit The North]

It looks like it used to before the revamp - much easier on the eye.

Don't ask me why, though - I don't have a clue how this internet thingy works.

[Hit The North]

Kronos,

"the rear end of post-structuralism". Isn't post-structuralism all rear end?

Btw, she would vehemently deny your characterization of her work as logical positivist.


I believe that Rosa thinks that a contributing factor to the lack of success of communism has resulted from Marxists dividing themselves due to policy and theory differences, which are directly caused from the mediation of Hegel's nonsensical ideas. [bold added]

When challenged on this she denies that characterization too.

[Kronos]

she would vehemently deny your characterization of her work as logical positivist.

Deny as she might, she appears to me to use verificationism and heuristics at every turn in every "philosophical" conversation. Philosophy to Rosa is language analysis. It is as if she hasn't yet said anything but "this and that cannot be said".

Anyway she blows my mind, that's for sure.

[Janus]

Is it worth reading it?
Just do a search of some of the most recent dialectics threads in the Philosophy forum.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HeWhoControlsetcetc: there are two web address for my site.

The first is the one posted above, but I rarely use it since it is hosted by a company whose software is hopeless. So, I set up my main site at the link you see in my signature.

Hope that clears things up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kronos, thanks for that, but VZ is right, my work has absolutely nothing to do with Logical Positivism (LP).


Deny as she might, she appears to me to use verificationism and heuristics at every turn in every "philosophical" conversation. Philosophy to Rosa is language analysis. It is as if she hasn't yet said anything but "this and that cannot be said".

Verification is only linked to LP if it becomes a criterion of meaning, which it isn't for me (indeed, I deny there is any such thing as a 'criterion of meaning'). So my request to have certain things verified is merely a request for proof (and this need not always be 'empirical proof').

And it is not so much "this and that cannot be said" as "what on earth does this piece of philosophical jargon mean"?