Marx and contradiction

[trivas7]

Gary Tedman in this article argues that Marx's materialist dialectics harkens back at least to the Ionians and is an important component of Marxist theory.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7070/1/341/

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Trivas: I'll read it and let you know what I think.

But, I can predict now that it will make all the usual mistakes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yep, I was right. There is nothing new in this article. Just the same old errors that have been exposed time and again!

1) The author seem to believe that Marx's views are somehow not 'western' in view of the fact that his work is based on a rejection/criticism of the so-called 'law of non-contradiction', but in fact that principle has been rejected/questioned by Hermeticists in the west (along with other western mystics and philosophers) for millennia.

The details can be found here:

Priest, G. (2002), Beyond The Limits Of Thought (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed.)

Priest, G., Routley, R., and Norman, J. (1989) (eds.), Paraconsistent Logic. Essays On The Inconsistent (Philospohia Verlag).

And in one of my Essays:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Sure, it appears in the 'East' too, but that just shows it is part of the ruling ideas that have always ruled.

2) The author appeals to the same old hoary chestnuts as Hegel does (Zeno's paradoxes, particularly that of motion) to motivate a belief that reality is fundamentally contradictory.

But, Zeno's paradox of motion is no paradox, since it is based on an unequal convention that whereas space may be indefinitely divisible, time is not. If both are indefinitely divisible, then we may always specify an interval (in time and/or space) in which a moving object is in that space at that time.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2005.htm

Zeno's other 'paradoxes' (which are not really relevant to Marxism anyway), can similarly be defused.

This is in fact the dialectical version of the 'god of the gaps' argument we find in Christian Fundamentalism -- that is, just because we do not yet have a scientific answer to some puzzle, this means it must be the work of 'god'.

In like manner, Hegel co-opted these ancient ideas, and argued along similar lines: we have no answer to these paradoxes yet, so this must mean that it is the work of the dialectic, not the deity (or in Hegel's case, both).

But, we now have an answer to these paradoxes, which this author seems not to know about.

3) The author follows Lenin in claiming that it is impossible to understand Das Kapital unless the one attempting to do so has thoroughly studied and fully understood the whole of Hegel's 'Logic'.

But not even Marx claimed that of his own work. Moreover, Lenin admitted that there were parts of Hegel's 'Logic' he did not understand (references can be supplied on request) -- which must mean even he did not understand Das Kapital!

Furthermore, it is impossible to decide if anyone has ever fully understood Hegel's Logic. That would mean that no one would be able to decide if anyone has understood Das Kapital, including Marx! Moreover, Hegel was in the process of fundamentally revising his 'Logic' just before he died; his revisions were not published until long after Lenin also died. Does this mean that no Marxist has ever understood Das Kapital?

Finally, this author ignores Marx's own repudiation of the dialectic (as it is generally understood) in Das Kapital

The rest of what this author says in no way tells us anything new, or relevant, and certainly it fails to illuminate the obscure notion of a 'dialectical contradiction'.

Nor does it even show why the 'law of non-contradiction' is defective.

In other words: yet another dialectical waste of paper/space.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have sent the above reply to the editor of the on-line journal in which this rather poor article appeared.

Let's see if they publish it.

[trivas7]

Rosa --

You make broad general remarks that probably few would agree with. The point of the article as I see it is that Marx's philosophy uses a distinctly "Eastern" approach that isn't associated with the Western philosophic tradition.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You make broad general remarks that probably few would agree with. The point of the article as I see it is that Marx's philosophy uses a distinctly "Eastern" approach that isn't associated with the Western philosophic tradition.

And the point of my reply is to question this odd claim.

The fact is that Marx does not do what this author says, and even if he did, the mystical view he attributes to Marx can be found the world over, at all times in the last 3000 years.

So, it is indeed one of the 'ruling ideas'.

And, I can imagine someone saying this to Galileo 400 years ago:


You make broad general remarks that probably few would agree with.

Someone has to innovate, or humanity would not progress; too bad for you mystics, it's me...

[trivas7]

Hegel was well aware that he did not use "contradiction" and "negation" in the sense given to them in formal logic. Following a tradition that goes back to Plato, he asserts that these are logical operators for ordering his categories systematically, as opposed to logical operators for making formal inferences.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Hegel was well aware that he did not use "contradiction" and "negation" in the sense given to them in formal logic. Following a tradition that goes back to Plato, he asserts that these are logical operators for ordering his categories systematically, as opposed to logical operators for making formal inferences.

I am aware that this is how Hegelians usually special-plead for their 'hero' each time. Only I do not buy it. This ruling-class hack was being dogmatic, just like philosophers before him had been. Small wonder then that Marx told us that the ideas of the ruling class always rule, and that:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970), The German Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

From 'distorted' language, nothing follows.

At the very least, Hegel should have introduced a series of stipulative definitions, so that his argument could at least have been sound. As things stands, you/we have no way of knowing if his conclusions follow.

No, what he does instead is play around with a few words lifted from traditional logic and metaphysics, uses them in odd ways, rather like Anselm did in his famous 'proof' of the existence of 'god', and you lot fall for his half-baked 'conclusions', since any string of words in Hegel is an 'argument' to you logical incompetents

Anyway, he certainly thought he could 'negate' the 'law of identity' to obtain a contradiction, and in doing this he was using these terms as he imagined they were used in logic. The only trouble is that a contradiction cannot be obtained from the alleged 'negation' of the 'law of identity'.

The details can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_03.htm

This is summarised here:

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

Or, if you prefer not to go to my site, you can find a much earlier version of the above here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1035997&postcount=2

[trivas7]

At the very least, Hegel should have introduced a series of stipulative definitions, so that his argument could at least have been sound. As things stands, you/we have no way of knowing if his conclusions follow.

My, you do want your philosophy spoon-fed to you.


No, what he does instead is play around with a few words lifted from traditional logic and metaphysics, uses them in odd ways, rather like Anselm did in his famous 'proof' of the existence of 'god', and you lot fall for his half-baked 'conclusions', since any string of words in Hegel is an 'argument' to you logical incompetents

Anyway, he certainly thought he could 'negate' the 'law of identity' to obtain a contradiction, and in doing this he was using these terms as he imagined they were used in logic. The only trouble is that a contradiction cannot be obtained from the alleged 'negation' of the 'law of identity'.
You've proved none of this. Indeed, your open remark:


Readers need to make note of the fact that this Essay does not represent my final view on any of the issues raised. It is merely 'work in progress'.
confirms Hegel's approach exactly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


My, you do want your philosophy spoon-fed to you.

Alas, only by those who actually know any -- which, unfortunately, rules you out.

Of course, that explains why you always shy away from explaining anything.


You've proved none of this. Indeed, your open remark:

Oh yes I have; but, since you refuse to read my Essays, you will never know.

It is to be hoped you remain that way.





Readers need to make note of the fact that this Essay does not represent my final view on any of the issues raised. It is merely 'work in progress'.

confirms Hegel's approach exactly.

In what way?

[Ha! As if you'll answer that.]

[trivas7]

confirms Hegel's approach exactly.

alludes to the fact that for Hegel there are no final truths.


Alas, only by those who actually know any -- which, unfortunately, rules you out.

As if anyone would assume you as a guide.


No, what he does instead is play around with a few words lifted from traditional logic and metaphysics, uses them in odd ways, rather like Anselm did in his famous 'proof' of the existence of 'god', and you lot fall for his half-baked 'conclusions', since any string of words in Hegel is an 'argument' to you logical incompetents

Anyway, he certainly thought he could 'negate' the 'law of identity' to obtain a contradiction, and in doing this he was using these terms as he imagined they were used in logic. The only trouble is that a contradiction cannot be obtained from the alleged 'negation' of the 'law of identity'.

Can you be any more specific than:


The details can be found here:
that proves any of this? Why should I have to trawl through your pretentious scribblings?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


alludes to the fact that for Hegel there are no final truths.

Except for that final truth. In which case, Hegel was wrong, and we can ignore him.

I already do...


As if anyone would assume you as a guide.

They already do.


Can you be any more specific than:


The details can be found here:

that proves any of this? Why should I have to trawl through your pretentious scribblings?

Nope.

Stick to the mystical ramblings in Hegel, for all I care.

After all, Dialectical Marxism is so unbelievably successful, and has not in the least been refuted by history.:rolleyes:

[trivas7]

Nope.

Thanks for proving nothing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Thanks for proving nothing.

You missed this comment on the openibng page of my site:


Great care has been taken with these Essays; they have been distilled from work I have been doing for ten years, but I have been mulling over the ideas they contain for twenty-five or more. Literally thousands of hours have gone into writing, re-writing and re-thinking this material. In addition, I have spent more money than I care to mention obtaining literally thousands of obscure books, theses and papers on a whole range of topics directly and indirectly connected with DM.

In that case, anyone who cannot bring to this discussion the seriousness it deserves is encouraged to go and waste their time elsewhere. I am not interested in communicating with clowns.

So, buzz off Bozo; I have no desire to disabuse you of your self-imposed ignorance.

[trivas7]

So, buzz off Bozo; I have no desire to disabuse you of your self-imposed ignorance.
If you're unwilling to support what you post here stop trolling to direct traffic to your pretentious pap. Nobody's interested.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


If you're unwilling to support what you post here stop trolling to direct traffic to your pretentious pap.

Not only do I support 90% of the things I say here (as most of my 7600 odd posts confirm), you consitently refuse to do the same.

So, if anyone is the troll here, it is you my clownish friend.


Nobody's interested

Not so; many comrades are.

[trivas7]

Not only do I support 90% of the things I say here (as most of my 7600 odd posts confirm), you consitently refuse to do the same.

So, if anyone is the troll here, it is you my clownish friend.

At least I lay my philosophic cards on the table that allows you to see what a poor hand I have been dealt. Other than the Wittgensteinian programme to de-Hegelize Marx I have no idea what your core beliefs might be.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


At least I lay my philosophic cards on the table that allows you to see what a poor hand I have been dealt. Other than the Wittgensteinian programme to de-Hegelize Marx I have no idea what your core beliefs might be.

You have been told several times, but your clownish memory cells seem to be letting you down (again). With respect to Marxism, my core belief is in historical materialism.

Have you got that, or do you need telling again?

And it is true that you have laid 'philosophical cards on the table', but alas they are those developed by others (and which reflect a ruling-class view of reality), onto which you cling like the dogmatist you are.

So, your confession of faith here is more akin to the confession of a crime.

[trivas7]

You have been told several times, but your clownish memory cells seem to be letting you down (again). With respect to Marxism, my core belief is in historical materialism.

You can tell me all you like, you mean nothing by it AFAIK.


And it is true that you have laid 'philosophical cards on the table', but alas they are those developed by others (and which reflect a ruling-class view of reality), onto which you cling like the dogmatist you are.
So what? Look around you, the world is full of people who reflect a ruling-class view of reality. Are Wittgensteinians alone thus immune?

[Rawthentic]

Rosa:

in formal logic, what is an object?

Also, citing Heraclitus, can one step on the same river twice?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You can tell me all you like, you mean nothing by it AFAIK.

Well, since you know nothing, I can ignore that pretentious 'AFAIK'.


Look around you, the world is full of people who reflect a ruling-class view of reality.

That's like saying: "Look everyone is scabbing, so what's the problem?"


Are Wittgensteinians alone thus immune?

Some are, some aren't.

Too bad for you that I am in the former category.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rawthentic:


Rosa:

in formal logic, what is an object?

Depends on which branch of formal logic you are speaking about.

In Fregean logic, it's whatever is designated by a proper name or other singular designating expression (such as a definite description, like "The President of the USA...").

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/frege.htm


Also, citing Heraclitus, can one step on the same river twice?

Easy: on Friday, step into the Mississippi, and then do the same on Saturday.

You might say that the river has changed, but no, it's still the Mississippi.

What might have changed is the water in it, and the banks (slightly), along with one or two other things (e.g., the animals and plants in and alongside it), but it is still the same river (it hasn't changed into the Nile or the Vistula).

Heraclitus was a rather confused mystric, who, among other things, mixed up the criteria we have for the identity of items in the world picked out by count nouns and by mass nouns.

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

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

As Bertrand Russell said, the worse a man's logic, the more 'interesting' is his metaphysics. [I paraphrase.]

[Hyacinth]

As Bertrand Russell said, the worse a man's logic, the more 'interesting' is his metaphysics. [I paraphrase.]
:lol: I’ve heard that one before, but do you by any chance know where it was from (the man wrote so much it’s difficult to keep track of)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, it's from his History of Western Philosophy.

The actual quote is:


"This illustrates an important truth, namely, that the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise." [Russell (1961), p.715.]

Russell, B. (1961), History Of Western Philosophy (George Allen & Unwin).

He was, in fact discussing Hegel when he wrote this. But, I bet you could guess that!

[Hit The North]

So what's wrong with being interesting? At least it's a charge which cannot be leveled at analytic philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Russell was being ironic. If you read the chapter from which this was lifted, he meant by this word 'ridiculous'.

And, you might not find analytic philosophy interesting, but many do, including me. At least one can trust its results more, since they are not based on crap reasoning, as is the case wih 'Continental Philosophy'.

[trivas7]

Well, since you know nothing, I can ignore that pretentious 'AFAIK'.

That's like saying: "Look everyone is scabbing, so what's the problem?"

Too bad for you that I am in the former category.
The paucity of content in your replies merely highlights the paucity of your arguments. Why not just admit your understanding of historical materialism is nil?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


The paucity of content in your replies merely highlights the paucity of your arguments.

I admit it; you are right. I have clearly learnt far too much from you, the undisputed master here. How could I have been so naive as to think I could compete with your level of vacuity?


Why not just admit your understanding of historical materialism is nil?

Even if it were, it would be stratospheric next to yours.

[Rawthentic]

Depends on which branch of formal logic you are speaking about.

In Fregean logic, it's whatever is designated by a proper name or other singular designating expression (such as a definite description, like "The President of the USA...").So an object is just a single entity? Or is it a collection of things, states, appearances, etc?

When I say 'Rosa', am I referring to just a name? Or is it a single thing?


Easy: on Friday, step into the Mississippi, and then do the same on Saturday.

You might say that the river has changed, but no, it's still the Mississippi.

What might have changed is the water in it, and the banks (slightly), along with one or two other things (e.g., the animals and plants in and alongside it), but it is still the same river (it hasn't changed into the Nile or the Vistula).

Heraclitus was a rather confused mystric, who, among other things, mixed up the criteria we have for the identity of items in the world picked out by count nouns and by mass nouns.So, what is a river? Is there not a relationship between the parts and the whole? The whole needs all of its part to be a whole, or else, it would cease to be.

Isn't the opposing force of a river, gravity? Doesn't this show that material things have opposites that contradict yet need each other?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

So what's wrong with being interesting? At least it's a charge which cannot be leveled at analytic philosophy.

Indeed, analytic philosophy has single handedly destroyed enthusiasm for philosophy in the United states. Continentals were wiped out during mcarthy and replaced with horrid analytic departments.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rawthentic:


So an object is just a single entity? Or is it a collection of things, states, appearances, etc?

Well, that is up to science to find out; logic is merely the study of inference, not of what exists. So, as far as Fregean logic is concerned, whatever it is that a name names, so long as it functions as a name in a proposition, it stands for an object.


When I say 'Rosa', am I referring to just a name? Or is it a single thing?

In English, a Proper Name like 'Rosa' generally names an individual, so when you use it you are not referring to my name, but to me. If you want to refer to my name you'd say something like "'Rosa' is Rosa's name."

But, that is a convention of the English language, and logic cannot legislate here.


So, what is a river?

Well, again, in all the languages of which I am aware, a river is a flowing body of water that has locally been assigned to the category 'river', and which has a certain identifiable geographical location and course. So, when you step into it, you are stepping into a changing object, but which object has certain criteria of identity associated with the use of the general term "river".

In that case, an explorer, for example, might think that he or she has located two different rivers, but later find out that it is the same river. According to Heraclitus, that could never happen.


Is there not a relationship between the parts and the whole? The whole needs all of its part to be a whole, or else, it would cease to be.

You have hit upon a complex topic, here, called 'Mereology'. The relation between parts and wholes is highly involved, and we'd be rash to make sweeping statements here.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

But, as complex as it is, that does not affect our use of the word "river", nor does it affect how we identify or distinguish them.


Isn't the opposing force of a river, gravity? Doesn't this show that material things have opposites that contradict yet need each other?

Since only human beings using language can contradict one another, I do not see why you need to introduce that word here.

Only someone who thought nature was human -- that is, who anthropomorphised nature -- would want to argue that a river could contradict anything.

Scientists can tell us all we need to know about rivers without ever having to use such language, and without ever having to personify the material world.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Joe Hill:


Indeed, analytic philosophy has single handedly destroyed enthusiasm for philosophy in the United states. Continentals were wiped out during mcarthy and replaced with horrid analytic departments.

Just like weed killer destroys weeds, that is excellent news, JHG!

Meanwhile in other countries (notoriously France), any old rubbish can be spouted, just so long as it sounds 'profound'.

An apposite quotation from Larry Laudan (aimed at French Philosophers) springs to mind:


"Foucault has benefited from that curious Anglo-American view that if a Frenchman talks nonsense it must rest on a profundity which is too deep for a speaker of English to comprehend." [Laudan (1977), p.241]

Laudan, L. (1977), Progress And Its Problems (University of California Press).

The French need to spread some weed killer, too.

[trivas7]

Even if it were, it would be stratospheric next to yours.
Let me give you a clue: HM is the application of dialectics to the history of human societies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


HM is the application of dialectics to the history of human societies.

Ah, good! That puts you at odds with Marx, then.:)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Joe Hill:



Just like weed killer destroys weeds, that is excellent news, JHG!

Meanwhile in other countries (notoriously France), any old rubbish can be spouted, just so long as it sounds 'profound'.

An apposite quotation from Larry Laudan (aimed at French Philosophers) springs to mind:



Laudan, L. (1977), Progress And Its Problems (University of California Press).

The French need to spread some weed killer, too.

Eh? Ever since the mass firings philosophy has lost students year after year. More like spraying weed killer and poisoning the garden.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JHG:


Ever since the mass firings philosophy has lost students year after year. More like spraying weed killer and poisoning the garden.

But that is not down to analytic philosophy. So, what's your point?

[Rawthentic]

It just seems to me like we need DM to understand certain things. For example, since everything is matter in motion (right?) then everything has its opposite and internal contradictions.

Like trivas said, is not HM grounded in DM?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rawthentic:


For example, since everything is matter in motion (right?) then everything has its opposite and internal contradictions.

Why do you persist in wanting to anthropomorphise reality?

People contradict (= "gainsay") one another, things do not.

And if we needed a theory of change, DM would not be it.

Here is why:

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

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

[The quotations relevant to the first link can be found a third of the way down the second.]


is not HM grounded in DM?

Traditionally, since Engels's day, it has been, but that does not mean that it should be, especfially since dialectics prevents HM from working. [See the above links.]

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

JHG:



But that is not down to analytic philosophy. So, what's your point?

My point is that people like departments that are mixed, they have higher retention rates. Camus, Sartre, Foucault, Zizek, Frankfurt School, they're not just silly nonsense, they often have important contributions and students like reading about those contributions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JHG:


Camus, Sartre, Foucault, Zizek, Frankfurt School, they're not just silly nonsense, they often have important contributions and students like reading about those contributions.

Sure, they have important contibutions to make toward filling books and articles with useless verbiage, but what has that got to do with the aforementioned sackings?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

JHG:



Sure, they have important contibutions to make toward filling books and articles with useless verbiage, but what has that got to do with the aforementioned sackings?

Rosa, just becuase you say its all nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense. There are some good things in all of these philosophers. In the case of camus and sartre, there's very little that is nonsense, its all rather well argued. Is it well written? Eh it depends. What about absurdism is so damn worthless? Foucault even, has his uses. There's some wanky nihilism, but also a lot of good analysis of disciplinary institution and disciplinary power. Its not just nonsense you can throw away.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JHG:


Rosa, just becuase you say its all nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense

Sure, but in the 30 odd years I have been studying philosophy, no one has been able to show me where this verbal spaghetti makes a blind bit of sense.


There are some good things in all of these philosophers. In the case of camus and sartre, there's very little that is nonsense, its all rather well argued.

I beg to differ, at least with Sartre, which strikes me as a systematic excercise in the misuse of language.


Foucault even, has his uses.

Sure, to give those with little sense several books to waste their time on.


What about absurdism is so damn worthless?

What isn't?

Look, no one is trying to stop you wasting your time on the woolly stuff, but it will take a loaded shot-gun, pointed at my head, to make me delve into it again. Having to study it as an undergraduate was bad enough.

You are welcome to it.

[And we still haven't been told what this has to do with those sackings.]

[trivas7]

Rosa, just becuase you say its all nonsense, doesn't make it nonsense. There are some good things in all of these philosophers. In the case of camus and sartre, there's very little that is nonsense, its all rather well argued. Is it well written? Eh it depends. What about absurdism is so damn worthless? Foucault even, has his uses. There's some wanky nihilism, but also a lot of good analysis of disciplinary institution and disciplinary power. Its not just nonsense you can throw away.
Indeed. Part of what Hegel was attempting to do was to demonstrate that all philosophical ideas reflect the social development of that society, and that this was a constant in human history. I might take exception to the fact that Hegel localizes this development in a supramundane thingie he calls Spirit, but it's an odd kind of thingie that shares all the historical and personal limitation of anyone's personal consciousness. It is this process of historical development which yields up universal meaning or a unifying pattern that constitutes Hegel's -- and Marx's -- dialectical method.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Part of what Hegel was attempting to do was to demonstrate that all philosophical ideas reflect the social development of that society, and that this was a constant in human history. I might take exception to the fact that Hegel localizes this development in a supramundane thingie he calls Spirit, but it's an odd kind of thingie that shares all the historical and personal limitation of anyone's personal consciousness. It is this process of historical development which yields up universal meaning or a unifying pattern that constitutes Hegel's -- and Marx's -- dialectical method.

Very interesting, except you forget to mention two minor factors (hardly worth noting really):

1) Hegel was talking complete b*llocks.

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

2) Marx had rejected Hegel in his entirety in Das Kapital.

[trivas7]

1) Hegel was talking complete b*llocks.

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

2) Marx had rejected Hegel in his entirety in Das Kapital.
Unless you can demonstrate Marx understood something else by historical materialism Hegel's method stands. Too bad no other Marxist theoretician agrees with you -- also perhaps hardly worth noting.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Unless you can demonstrate Marx understood something else by historical materialism Hegel's method stands.

Bo need to; Marx did it himself. He very kindly included a summary of "his method" in Das Kapital, written by a reviewer, in which no trace of Hegel is to be found.

I am surprised no one has told you this before.


Too bad no other Marxist theoretician agrees with you -- also perhaps hardly worth noting.

Not so, there are several who do. You can find them listed at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_01.htm

More importantly, Marx himself does, and that trumps the views of you and the other mystical dupes who think like you.

[trivas7]

Bo need to; Marx did it himself. He very kindly included a summary of "his method" in Das Kapital, written by a reviewer, in which no trace of Hegel is to be found.

You are wrong to think this summarizes a method.


Not so, there are several who do. You can find them listed at my site:

I'm not going to comment on anything you don't post here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You are wrong to think this summarizes a method.

Marx disagrees with you. He calls it 'his method'. And since it is a summary, it is, ipso facto, a summary of his method.


I'm not going to comment on anything you don't post here.

Fine, stay ignorant.

And, can we ignore all the links you post?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

JHG:



Sure, but in the 30 odd years I have been studying philosophy, no one has been able to show me where this verbal spaghetti makes a blind bit of sense.



I beg to differ, at least with Sartre, which strikes me as a systematic excercise in the misuse of language.



Sure, to give those with little sense several books to waste their time on.



What isn't?

Look, no one is trying to stop you wasting your time on the woolly stuff, but it will take a loaded shot-gun, pointed at my head, to make me delve into it again. Having to study it as an undergraduate was bad enough.

You are welcome to it.

[And we still haven't been told what this has to do with those sackings.]

*shrugs* I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one.

The sackings were the result of the red scare in the 1950s. Academics of a leftist bent were blacklisted and fired en mass. In philosophy departments this often meant the elimination of continentals, who tended to be more left wing and were active in politics. Analytics replaced them, becuase american analytics didn't deal with social or political issues, and relegated themselves to formal logic and philosophy of language.

[trivas7]

Marx disagrees with you. He calls it 'his method'. And since it is a summary, it is, ipso facto, a summary of his method.

What he calls "his method" he explicitly says is the dialectical method:


What else is he picturing but the dialectical method?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What he calls "his method" he explicitly says is the dialectical method:

Indeed, but what he calls the 'dialectical method' is not what you call it; for Marx, the 'dialectical method' has had Hegel completely removed. No 'negation of the negation', no 'unity of opposites', no 'contradictions', no 'interconnected totality', no 'quantity passing over into quality'.

You have been told this several times; so you need to focus a little more (if you can).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JHG:


The sackings were the result of the red scare in the 1950s. Academics of a leftist bent were blacklisted and fired en mass. In philosophy departments this often meant the elimination of continentals, who tended to be more left wing and were active in politics. Analytics replaced them, becuase american analytics didn't deal with social or political issues, and relegated themselves to formal logic and philosophy of language.

Not so; there were plenty of analytic philosophers who were political, and who wrote on social issues. The difference being that they did not write aimless, incomprehensible tracts full of nonsensical jargon, as the 'Continentals' did.

Anyway, the deposition of the 'continentals', even according to you, had nothing to do with analytic philosophy (as you earlier seemed to allege) but was politically-motivated.

[Hit The North]

And yet he still calls it 'the dialectical method'. Why?

[trivas7]

Trivas:
Indeed, but what he calls the 'dialectical method' is not what you call it; for Marx, the 'dialectical method' has had Hegel completely removed. No 'negation of the negation', no 'unity of opposites', no 'contradictions', no 'interconnected totality', no 'quantity passing over into quality'.

What I call it is irrelevant. The dialectical method with Hegel "completely removed" is a figment of your imagination.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


The dialectical method with Hegel "completely removed" is a figment of your imagination.

Then I am happy to share this 'figmnent of the imagination' with Marx himself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


And yet he still calls it 'the dialectical method'. Why?

With Hegel removed, his method is more like traditional dialectics, invented by the Greeks.

I do not like this term, since it misleads bumblers like Trivas, but I can live with it.

[Hit The North]

Could you describe this ancient Greek method of dialectics for we philosophy ignoramuses? Or a link would do.

Does this method, going back to the Greeks, make the term 'material dialectic' more sensible to you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:

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

Marx indeed transformed this method by introducing concepts derived from historical materialism and French socialism.

However, I do not like the term 'material dialectic' since it now has far too many untoward connotations.

[trivas7]

BTB:
Marx indeed transformed this method by introducing concepts derived from historical materialism and French socialism.

There was no historical materialism before Marx. He didn't derive it, he discovered it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


There was no historical materialism before Marx. He didn't derive it, he discovered it.

Well, here again you show your ignorance, for both Hegel and Marx derived historical materialism from the Scottish Historical Materialists, Ferguson, Millar, Smith and Hume (among others).

But you'd know that if you had read my Essays instead of burying your head ever deeper in that rather fetching sand dune.

Meek, R. (1967a), Economics And Ideology And Other Essays (Chapman Hall).

--------, (1967b), 'The Scottish Contribution To Marxist Sociology', in Meek (1967a), pp.34-50.

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/Hill.pdf

http://jcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/339?etoc

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/ferguson.htm

[trivas7]

Well, here again you show your ignorance, for both Hegel and Marx derived historical materialism from the Scottish Historical Materialists, Ferguson, Millar, Smith and Hume (among others).

Nope, sorry; no one before Marx applied dialectics to the history of human society:


Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history: he discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, religion, art, etc., and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the art and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore must be explained, instead of vice versa as had hitherto been the case.

-- Engels "Speech at the Gravesite of Karl Marx" (1883)

This is basic Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


no one before Marx applied dialectics to the history of human society:

But, you didn't claim this; you said:


There was no historical materialism before Marx. He didn't derive it, he discovered it.

Which, as I have shown, is incorrect.

Now, I am quite happy to agree with you that he applied this theory in a totally new way, but, in order to do that, he had to strip it of every last vestige of Hegel, as I have also shown.


Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history: he discovered the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, religion, art, etc., and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the art and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore must be explained, instead of vice versa as had hitherto been the case.

You see, no Hegel anywhere in sight.

And I agree, this is basic Marxism: no Hegel.

[trivas7]

But, you didn't claim this; you said:


There was no historical materialism before Marx. He didn't derive it, he discovered it.

Which, as I have shown, is incorrect.

Now, I am quite happy to agree with you that he applied this theory in a totally new way, but, in order to do that, he had to strip it of every last vestige of Hegel, as I have also shown.

Are you dense? This "totally new way" is HM, there was no other before Marx.

This is basic Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This "totally new way" is HM, there was no other before Marx.

You are clearly living in your own little dream world. Nevertheless, I am sorry to have to tell you (well, not really), the facts are tell another story -- Marx did not invent this theory; indeed he even praised Adam Ferguson for his insight.


Are you dense?

Yes, I think your stupidity is beginning to rub off on me.:(

Can't hope to emulate your level of expertise though, much as I try to lose higher mental functions by the hour in my bid to copy you.

Do you give lessons by any chance?

[trivas7]

You are clearly living in your own little dream world. Nevertheless, I am sorry to have to tell you (well, not really), the facts are tell another story -- Marx did not invent this theory; indeed he even praised Adam Ferguson for his insight.

I see, Marx was really a follower of Ferguson who discovered HM -- is this what you would have me believe?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


I see, Marx was really a follower of Ferguson who discovered HM -- is this what you would have me believe?

You used the word 'follower', not me.

And, you can believe what you like, the facts speak for themselves: Marx no more dicovered historical materialism than he discovered the labour theory of value. [Adam Smith was in fact one of the Scottish Historical Materialists.]


Adam Smith (1723—90) and Adam Ferguson (1723—1816) shared a keen interest in the social, economic and individual effects of specialization. Though this mutual interest led to a protracted priority dispute between them, nevertheless their approaches differed significantly. Ferguson was generally more negative in his attitude and was also less interested in the economic effects of specialization, focusing instead on its adverse social ramifications. In fact, his work on the subject probably constitutes the first fully developed sociological account of the topic. Karl Marx quoted Ferguson approvingly and declared that he had been inspired by the latter's insights. But Smith too made some extremely negative and apparently pessimistic observations about the division of labour, giving rise to suggestions that his comments also 'constitute a major source of inspiration for the socialist critique' of commercialism....

http://jcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/339?etoc