Dialectics..?

[Dystisis]

Can someone summarize in a few words what exactly dialectics means? I have searched for this on the net yet I haven't quite managed to find a comprehensible definition. Please do not (yet) critique it, Rosa, I am merely asking what the common understanding is of this word.

So far, this is what I understand:
Thesis + antithesis = synthesis

And the whole world is, according to dialectics, defined by this rule? Or at least society? Or am I wrong in this assumption of what dialectics means?

Perhaps there is more to dialectics than this as well?

Thanks in advance.

[Pirate Utopian]

I think that's about it, but these dialectians will put loads of other theory behind it to make it terribly complicated.

I think it's too damn confusing and I dont really see the purpose of it.
When does this stuff come in handy?, maybe we can bore the bourgeoise during the revolution with it and kill them in their sleep.
Dialectics arent worth the time.

[ajs2007]

My shorthand of what dialectics is: change through the development of contradictions.

The Greeks used it to describe the sort of dialogues Plato wrote whereby people take someone's initial view, which others disagree with, and, through reasoned debate, end up in agreement. Hegel, and others, used this to describe how ideas develop and change.

The triad, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, based on the Ancient Greeks' idea, is another shorthand. Some see this as an oversimplification which it is, although it is a useful simplification IMO.

There's an awful lot of it though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

ajs2007:


The triad, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, based on the Ancient Greeks' idea, is another shorthand. Some see this as an oversimplification which it is, although it is a useful simplification IMO.

This is in fact Kant and Fichte's schema. Hegel turned his nose up at it.

Details here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

[Dystisis]

I have also heard people equating this "triad" with the form of a spiral. Saying the history of society moves like a spiral, or something to that extent. Can anyone describe why this form, exactly?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dystisis:


I have also heard people equating this "triad" with the form of a spiral. Saying the history of society moves like a spiral, or something to that extent. Can anyone describe why this form, exactly?

This is Engels and Lenin's attempt to explain the alleged 'dialectical' progression of knowledge. They conceive the convergence on 'truth' not as a simple linear process (with humanity pregressing steadily 'toward the light'), but as a sort of faltering backward and forward movement -- three steps forward, two steps backward sort of thing.

For example, the ancient atomists were 'closer to the truth' than earlier theorists were who believed in the four forms of matter (air, water, fire and earth). Even so, the four forms theory dominated science until early modern times. But, that theory was not fully wrong, since it was better than what went before it (namely mystical, theo-centric ideas about nature). Nevertheless, it too was replaced in modern times by atomism, which was not itself fully true, and this was in turn replaced by quantum mechanics, which is 'closer to the truth', and so on.

So, we are told that the path to truth is a backward and forward movement. We do not move in on the truth so much as spiral toward it.

The problem with this idea is that if it were true itself then it would refute the idea that we never quite attain truth. This is because, if this view of final truth (i.e., about truth never being final) is true, then it itself cannot be true!

If it were, it would be a final truth, which this theory denies we ever have access to (except, that is, at the end of an infinite meander through epistemological space).

So, we could only ever say this 'spiral theory' itself is true at the end of time!

On the other hand, if we now declare the 'spiral theory 'true', then it cannot be true, for we would, on this basis, already have attained truth in the here-and-now, not at the end of the spiral!

In short, this idea is no less confused than every other idea in dialectics!

[ComradeRed]

Dialectics are a tool that lets you speak without saying anything at all.

It provides a "recipe" to insert "catch phrases" into a subject.

Some example catch phrases:

"By the negation of the negation..."

"...the interpenetration of opposites..."

"...contradiction..."

"...dialectical unity..."

And so on and so forth. The net result is that you sound pretentious and you have a way to get out of an argument for free by uttering "It is evident that you just don't understand the dialectic...".

[OI OI OI]

Dialectics are a tool that lets you speak without saying anything at all.

It provides a "recipe" to insert "catch phrases" into a subject.

Some example catch phrases:

"By the negation of the negation..."

"...the interpenetration of opposites..."

"...contradiction..."

"...dialectical unity..."

And so on and so forth. The net result is that you sound pretentious and you have a way to get out of an argument for free by uttering "It is evident that you just don't understand the dialectic...".


Hahahahahahah
I used to do that when I didn't quite understand dialectics.
Now that I do I think dialectics is a useful tool of analyzing history, politics,economy and even literature!


To the OP:
Dialectics is hard to understand but one you do that will create a qualitative leap in your conciousness,

Therefore I will apply dialectics and I ll tell you that the quantity of reading transforms into quality of your conciousnes :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OIOIOI:


Dialectics is hard to understand but one you do that will create a qualitative leap in your conciousness,

1) Dialectics is impossible to understand -- I'd like to see you prove otherwise. [To be fair, I have proved my side of this challenge, at my site.] Witness the difficulties dialectical comrades are having explaining, for example, what a 'dialectical contradiction' is, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/contradictions-society-t87742/index.html

2) Your comment makes it sound like the eager novitiate has to be 'born again', and have the 'scales drop fron his/her eyes' before the sacred mystreries of this Hermetic creed can illuminate her/her soul.

Small wonder we call you lot mystics!

3) Max Eastman was right: Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it.

[OI OI OI]

1) Dialectics is impossible to understand -- I'd like to see you prove otherwise. [To be fair, I have proved my side of this challenge, at my site.]

I wish I had the time and patience that you have explaining your ideas.
Unfortunately I don't :(




2) This sounds like the eager novitiate has to be 'born again', and have the 'scales drop fron his/her eyes' before the sacred mystreries of the Hermetic creed can illuminate her/her soul. Small wonder we call you lot msytics!
:lol::lol:haha
Although this sounds funny it is also exagerated.
It wasn't mystic it was a way of saying that he will open up his brain to new horizons or wtv.
It is like when you teach a kid the ABC .That creates a qualitative leap on his/her conciousnes .


3) Max Eastman was right: Hegelism is like a mental disease -- you cannot know what it is until you get it, and then you can't know because you have got it.

Nah I think OI OI OI was right when he said " Dialectics is kewl and whoever doesn't understand dialectics is a newb lawl. "

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

OIOIOI:


Although this sounds funny it is also exagerated.
It wasn't mystic it was a way of saying that he will open up his brain to new horizons or wtv.
It is like when you teach a kid the ABC .That creates a qualitative leap on his/her conciousnes .

1) It's not exaggerated. In well over 25 years of debating and studying this mystical creed, I have yet to encounter a single dialectician who can explain it. It is quite apparent to me that it is based on faith and dogma. [Trivas is an excellent example of this mallady.]

2) This 'leap' (of faith!) you keep referring to is, I presume, the one that is covered by Engels's first 'law'. Unfortunatley, that 'law' is far too vague and defective for anyone to base any opinions upon. Check these threads out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-quality-t66709/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-materialism-t66588/index.html

3) All this is no surprise, since this theory in fact derives from an ancient mystical tradition in which only those whom 'God' illuminated could 'understand' its sacred mysteries.

Check these out:

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion1.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion2.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion3.htm

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

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion10.htm

If you read these, you will soon see what the real source of 'dialectics' is.

And Hegel was a Hermeticist, too:

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

[Dystisis]

I know a bit about hermeticism, as well as pythagoreanism. There is definitely something similar with the concept of the "triad" of thesis, and some elements of numeration and sacred geometry. To be honest, so far dialectics seems more vague. Plus, a weird thing that it relies on opposition (duality) being the only possible result of division of unity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, if you examine the links I have posted above, you will see that there is far more than just similarity between dialectics and Hermeticism (so much so, that we should consider banishing the dialecticians to the Religion section!).

For example:


CHAPTER X

POLARITY

"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

The great Fourth Hermetic Principle-the Principle of Polarity-embodies the truth that all manifested things have "two sides"; "two aspects"; "two poles"; a "pair of opposites," with manifold degrees between the two extremes. The old paradoxes, which have ever perplexed the mind of men, are explained by an understanding of this Principle. Man has always recognized something akin to this Principle, and has endeavored to express it by such sayings, maxims and aphorisms as the following: "Everything is and isn't, at the same time"; "all truths are but half-truths"; "every truth is half-false"; "there are two sides to everything"; "there is a reverse side to every shield," etc., etc.

The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that the difference between things seemingly diametrically opposed to each is merely a matter of degree. It teaches that "the pairs of opposites may be reconciled," and that "thesis and antithesis are identical in nature, but different in degree''; and that the ''universal reconciliation of opposites" is effected by a recognition of this Principle of Polarity. The teachers claim that illustrations of this Principle may be had on every hand, and from an examination into the real nature of anything. They begin by showing that Spirit and Matter are but the two poles of the same thing, the intermediate planes being merely degrees of vibration....

CHAPTER IX

VIBRATION

"Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates."

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

The Hermetic Teachings are that not only is everything in constant movement and vibration, but that the "differences" between the various manifestations of the universal power are due entirely to the varying rate and mode of vibrations....

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion10.htm

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

[Hit The North]

Can someone summarize in a few words what exactly dialectics means?

What is dialectics?

At its most general level it is the ‘science’* of movement and connection, and is the method employed by Marx to understand the complex manifestations and relations of social life. The general content of the dialectic (what Marx refers to as the ‘rational kernel’ of the Hegelian dialectic) is an emphasis on interaction, development, qualitative ‘leaps’, and contradiction in our understanding of history.

Hegel argued that history proceeded dialectically. Marx agreed, but whereas Hegel saw this process located in the world of ideas (or Spirit), Marx argued that it was the dialectical relationship between the forces and relations of production, made manifest through class struggle, which drove history forward. Lenin puts it like this:


What Marx and Engels called the dialectical method – as against the metaphysical – is nothing else than the scientific method in sociology, which consists in regarding society as a living organism in a state of constant development (What ‘The Friends of the People’ Are, p. 65).
I think we can break it down like this:


View of Reality: In a state of development, or movement, within a complex of interconnected relations.

Method of Analysis: A many-sided and relational appreciation of the concrete. For instance, social classes can only be understood in relation to each other because (according to "View of Reality" above) they only exist as a relation to each other.

Relationship to natural science: It was Marx and Engels view that progress in the scientific understanding of the natural world (Darwin, for example) was revealing a similar process of development and movement as that which their studies were uncovering in the understanding of history. This does not mean that society and nature operate according to the same laws - merely that both are in a state of development and therefore have a history.


* 'Science' in the German sense of the word, ‘wissen’.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


At its most general level it is the ‘science’* of movement and connection, and is the method employed by Marx to understand the complex manifestations and relations of social life. The general content of the dialectic (what Marx refers to as the ‘rational kernel’ of the Hegelian dialectic) is an emphasis on interaction, development, qualitative ‘leaps’, and contradiction in our understanding of history.

1) This is not quite right; 'movement' here is supposed to be the result of the action of 'internal contradictions', the nature of which has resisted all attempts at explanation.

2) Despite being asked many times, dialecticians still refuse to tell us how long these 'leaps' are supposed to last, which means that this idea can be applied subjectively in a 'science' that is supposed to be objective.

3) Again, despite being asked many times, dialecticians also refuse to tell us what these 'qualities' are supposed to be. This means that dialectics is more accurately to be described as 'Mickey Mouse Science'.

4) According to Marx's own description of 'his method', this 'rational kernel' is in fact empty, since it contains no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'unity and identity of opposites', no 'interconnected totality', no 'universal change'...


Hegel argued that history proceeded dialectically. Marx agreed, but whereas Hegel saw this process located in the world of ideas (or Spirit), Marx argued that it was the dialectical relationship between the forces and relations of production, made manifest through class struggle, which drove history forward. Lenin puts it like this:

Unfortunately, Hegel, Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov, and Mao all declared that dialectical opposites will sooner or later inevitably turn into one another. That means that the forces of production and the relations of production will one day turn into one another. So, according to this 'scientific' theory, things like factories, railway systems, airports and coal mines will one day turn into the class relations of ownership and control, etc.!


A many-sided and relational appreciation of the concrete. For instance, social classes can only be understood in relation to each other because (according to "View of Reality" above) they only exist as a relation to each other.

1) This confuses objects with relations.

2) We have yet to be told (once again!) what the word 'concrete ' means when it is used by dialecticians.

In short, this theory is a mass of confusions, vagueness and mysticism.

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

[trivas7]

BTB:
1) This is not quite right; 'movement' here is supposed to be the result of the action of 'internal contradictions', the nature of which has resisted all attempts at explanation.

This is entirely an idealist understanding of movement in the science of dialectics. Movement isn't the effect of something else. Movement is matter in motion.


2) Despite being asked many times, dialecticians still refuse to tell us how long these 'leaps' are supposed to last, which means that this idea can be applied subjectively in a 'science' that is supposed to be objective.
Leaps are the observed effect of quantitative changes turn into qualitative ones. There is nothing re dialectics that preclude a subjective dimension to science.


4) According to Marx's own description of 'his method', this 'rational kernel' is in fact empty, since it contains no 'contradictions', no 'negation of the negation', no 'quantity passing over into quality', no 'unity and identity of opposites', no 'interconnected totality', no 'universal change'...
Marx is embued with a tendency of seeing contradiction, relationships between disparate processes. His scientific socialism is entirely predicated on the development of historically mediated contradictions.


Unfortunately, Hegel, Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov, and Mao all declared that dialectical opposites will sooner or later inevitably turn into one another. That means that the forces of production and the relations of production will one day turn into one another. So, according to this 'scientific' theory, things like factories, railway systems, airports and coal mines will one day turn into the class relations of ownership and control, etc.!
Hegel, Engels, Lenin Plekhanov and Mao believed no such nonsense.


Small wonder then that it has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.Only an idealist metaphysician believes that dialectics are the determining revolutionary force in history.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


This is entirely an idealist understanding of movement in the science of dialectics. Movement isn't the effect of something else. Movement is matter in motion.

Ok, smarty pants, my reference to 'movement' was in relation to what BTB alleged of it, so pick a fight with him, not me.

And, it is worth pointing out too that you have passed up another golden opportunity to tell us what these mysterious 'dialectical contradictions' are.


Leaps are the observed effect of quantitative changes turn into qualitative ones. There is nothing re dialectics that preclude a subjective dimension to science.

And yet they are supposed to be objective features of reality. In no other branch of science would a key idea like this go undefined. But, let us remember, this is Mickey Mouse Dialectics, not science, so it's all OK.

Moreover, there are countless qualitative changes in nature and society that do not go through a 'leap'. For example, melting metal, glass, plastic, butter and toffee.

And even the hackneyed example of boiling water refutes this 'law'; the addition of energy at the alleged 'nodal point', when water turns into steam, produces nothing new. Either side of the alleged change, the substance is still H20. No new 'quality' has emerged.


Marx is imbued with a tendency of seeing contradiction, relationships between disparate processes. His scientific socialism is entirely predicated on the development of historically mediated contradictions.

Not in Das Kapital it isn't, as I have shown here many times.

And for all the sense this quoted passage of yours makes, you might as well have posted:


Marx is imbued with a tendency of seeing slithy tove, relationships between disparate processes. His scientific socialism is entirely predicated on the development of historically mediated slithy toves.

This is because we know no more nor no less about these mysterious 'contradictions' you keep referring to than we do about slithy toves.

And you lot keep refusing to tell us -- or when you do, what you say makes no sense at all.


Hegel, Engels, Lenin Plekhanov and Mao believed no such thing.

Oh yes they did (and so do many other dialecticians), and here are the quotes:


"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.]

"If, for instance, the Sophists claimed to be teachers, Socrates by a series of questions forced the Sophist Protagoras to confess that all learning is only recollection. In his more strictly scientific dialogues, Plato employs the dialectical method to show the finitude of all hard and fast terms of understanding. Thus in the Parmenides he deduces the many from the one. In this grand style did Plato treat Dialectic. In modern times it was, more than any other, Kant who resuscitated the name of Dialectic, and restored it to its post of honour. He did it, as we have seen, by working out the Antinomies of the reason. The problem of these Antinomies is no mere subjective piece of work oscillating between one set of grounds and another; it really serves to show that every abstract proposition of understanding, taken precisely as it is given, naturally veers round to its opposite.

"However reluctant Understanding may be to admit the action of Dialectic, we must not suppose that the recognition of its existence is peculiarly confined to the philosopher. It would be truer to say that Dialectic gives expression to a law which is felt in all other 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 stable and ultimate, is rather changeable and transient; and this is exactly what we mean by that Dialectic of the finite, by which the finite, as implicitly other than what it is, is forced beyond its own immediate or natural being to turn suddenly into its opposite." [Hegel (1975), pp.117-18.]

"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., pp.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, 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.]

"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, ex pressing 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, from here (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html).]

References can be found at my site, here:

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

So, if all things change into their opposites, or into that with which they 'struggle' and 'contradict', as the dialectical gospels tell us, then the forces of production should change into the relations of production, and the proletariat should change into the bourgeoisie!

The fact that this does not happen suggests that dialectics is about as useful as a chocolate fire door.:lol:

[Random Precision]

Basically it's a philosophical tool that Marx and Engels used throughout their lives to reach their groundbreaking theories of class society and its inevitable destruction. It has been of great use to subsequent thinkers: Lenin used it in his work on the relationship between the vanguard party and the working class, Luxemburg in her attack on the reformism of Bernstein and Kautsky, Trotsky in his study of history, etc. etc.

If you look at the history of Marxism, you will find that most renegades who turned reformist or even entirely anti-Marxist began by rejecting the materialist dialectic. On this website there seem to be many people who do the same, yet still consider themselves Marxists, for example Rosa and Redstar2000. I'm not sure why they object so strenuously to the dialectic, nor am I terribly interested, but I think it would be quite beneficial for people on this site learning about Marxism to investigate dialectics on their own before taking either Rosa or Redstar at their word.

The best book I can recommend on the subject is The Algebra of Revolution by John Rees, an excellent study which I am currently wrapping up.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oddly enough, RP, I began my anti-dailectics project in earnest just over ten years ago when John's book came out, and my Essays were originally aimed at pulling it apart.

However, this is not correct:


If you look at the history of Marxism, you will find that most renegades who turned reformist or even entirely anti-Marxist began by rejecting the materialist dialectic. On this website there seem to be many people who do the same, yet still consider themselves Marxists, for example Rosa and Redstar2000. I'm not sure why they object so strenuously to the dialectic, nor am I terribly interested, but I think it would be quite beneficial for people on this site learning about Marxism to investigate dialectics on their own before taking either Rosa or Redstar at their word.

Now, you come from the IS tradition, like me, so from that perspective there are far more anti- and counter-revolutionaries who are dialecticians than there are revolutionaries who are, namely the Maoists and the Stalinists. So, if anything, this proves that adherence to the dialectic creates more "renegades" than the opposite tactic.

Of course, if that is not so, then your claim that abandoning the dialectic creates "renegades" cannot itself be correct. You can't have it both ways.

Moreover, I have been a revolutionary for over 25 years, and I am more convinced today of the need for a revolutionary transformation of society -- led by a vanguard party of workers (on the Leninist model) -- than I was 25 years ago.

So, the story you tell is not at all correct.

And the theory you advocate is even less correct, as my Essays and posts here show.

Finally, all this is academic; but if truth is tested in practice, then the last 150 years of almost total failure of Dialectical Marxism shows that there must be something wrong with our core theory.

If it doesn't, then it is false that truth is tested in practice.

-----------------------

Incidentally, John was told at Marxism 1990 that his view of logic was woefully inaccurate, but he has ignored that and reproduced those serious errors in his book. My advice is, ignore everything he says about logic, and especially everything he reports Trotsky saying about the 'Law of Identity' (a law Trostky confuses with the Principle of Equality, as does John and most other dialecticians).

Proof here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2006.htm

[trivas7]

And yet they are supposed to be objective features of reality.

Not so; there's nothing in the German understanding of 'wissen' that precludes it from being a subjective feature of reality.


Moreover, there are countless qualitative changes in nature and society that do not go through a 'leap'. For example, melting metal, glass, plastic, butter and toffee.

But this is why I said 'leaps' are subjective observations. They are not laws of the chemical composite of matter.


Not in Das Kapital it isn't, as I have shown here many times.

I suggest you reread Capital with an open mind.


Oh yes they did (and so do many other dialecticians), and here are the quotes:

Nonsense; none of these quotes state that the means of production turn into the relations of production, which would be an absurd proposition.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Not so; there's nothing in the German understanding of 'wissen' that precludes it from being a subjective feature of reality.

Not according to Lenin.


But this is why I said 'leaps' are subjective observations. They are not laws of the chemical composite of matter.

Not according to Engels.




I suggest you reread Capital with an open mind.

Done it, that's why Marx and I see eye to eye on this, and you do not.


Nonsense; none of these quotes state that the means of production turn into the relations of production, which would be an absurd proposition.

They tell us that 'dialectical opposites' that 'contradict' each other -- and that everything and every process in reality (which includes the forces and relations of production) -- sooner or later turn into one another. This is even called an 'absolute'.

[I]I agree this is absurd, but it is a consequence of the loopy theory you hold.

Once again: small wonder then that dialectics has presided over 150 of almost total failure.

Tested in practice -- refuted by history.

[Random Precision]

Rosa, just one or two things- obviously you know much more about this than me, as I am just beginning my study of dialectics. Also, time and energy permitting, I plan to read some of your work on the subject once I'm satisfied with my own understanding of it.


Now, you come from the IS tradition, like me, so from that perspective there are far more anti- and counter-revolutionaries who are dialecticians than there are revolutionaries who are, namely the Maoists and the Stalinists. So, if anything, this proves that adherence to the dialectic creates more "renegades" than the opposite tactic.

Of course, if that is not so, then your claim that abandoning the dialectic creates "renegades" cannot itself be correct. You can't have it both ways.

Well, I didn't intend to say that abandoning dialectics automatically makes one a renegade from Marxism, although I'm sorry for not making that distinction clearer. All I was saying was that MANY people begin abandoning revolutionary Marxism by rejection of the dialectic, Eduard Bernstein being the classical case and moving on to people like Max Eastman, the guy in your signature.

As for Maoists and Stalinists, I don't think it's quite fair to dialectical Marxism to make them its representatives. For example, Mao put WAY too much emphasis on contradiction, going so far as to argue that the three laws were not relevant or even existent. Similarly the Stalin regime made all kinds of errors when it claimed dialectical justification for its actions.


Finally, all this is academic; but if truth is tested in practice, then the last 150 years of almost total failure of Dialectical Marxism shows that there must be something wrong with our core theory.

If it doesn't, then it is false that truth is tested in practice.

Correlation but not causation. I would think that it's much more reasonable to blame the failures of Marxism these past 150 years on the betrayals of reformism and Stalinism's horrible misdirection of the workers' movement.

[trivas7]

Not according to Lenin.
Not according to Engels.

But they were both patent mystics only a few post ago. Citations?


Done it, that's why Marx and I see eye to eye on this, and you do not.


Behind all your bluster in defence of so-called causal analysis, you dont define it either, or explain how it works or exclude the possibility of oher types of explanation. Its absurdly reductionist to think of all explanation as causal. Of course some is not [that] controversial. But the idea that all explanation is about describing the material preconditions of a defined event is patently inadequate to what Capital does.

Again, only a metaphysician believes that social revolution is determined by philosophical analysis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


But they were both patent mystics only a few post ago.

Myystics are allowed to have opinions -- even of they are wrong.


Citations?

You ignore them anyway; find them yourself. [Most of them can be found in the Anti-Duhring thread.]


Again, only a metaphysician believes that social revolution is determined by philosophical analysis.

Can I suggest you stop doing it then?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RP:


Well, I didn't intend to say that abandoning dialectics automatically makes one a renegade from Marxism, although I'm sorry for not making that distinction clearer. All I was saying was that MANY people begin abandoning revolutionary Marxism by rejection of the dialectic, Eduard Bernstein being the classical case and moving on to people like Max Eastman, the guy in your signature.

Many are also driven away by the emotive, irrational response they faced and the abuse they received after asking quite reasonable questions. I have had over 25 years of this. Fortunately, I am made of stronger stuff than Max Eastman and James Burnham.


As for Maoists and Stalinists, I don't think it's quite fair to dialectical Marxism to make them its representatives. For example, Mao put WAY too much emphasis on contradiction, going so far as to argue that the three laws were not relevant or even existent. Similarly the Stalin regime made all kinds of errors when it claimed dialectical justification for its actions.

Maybe so, but there is no objective way to decide what is the correct way to apply this theory. In fact, it can be and has been used to justify anything you like and its opposite, and many times over.

You will find the evidence for that here:

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

Use the 'Quick Links' to go to the 'Case Studies' section. I'd post a direct link, but the anonymiser we use at RevLeft ignores sub-links.

Or paste this directly into your browser's address bar:

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


Correlation but not causation. I would think that it's much more reasonable to blame the failures of Marxism these past 150 years on the betrayals of reformism and Stalinism's horrible misdirection of the workers' movement.

Quite right, but it can suggest causation. Indeed, we'd be foolish to ignore it.

Now, the idea that our core theory has absolutley nothing to do with our abysmal record (especially when dialecticians tell us that this theory is at the heart of all they do and say) is, to my mind, quite ludicrous.

Sure, there are objective factors behind our failure, but we must consider the subjective side, too. If we believe that truth is tested in practice, then practice suggests our theory is not true.

If we ignore the results of practice, what is the point of saying that that is how we test truth?

[Please note that I am not questioning Historical Materialism; in fact I accept it 100%.]

You will find my reasons for saying all this set out in detail, here:

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

[Hit The North]

Moreover, I have been a revolutionary for over 25 years, and I am more convinced today of the need for a revolutionary transformation of society -- led by a vanguard party of workers (on the Leninist model) -- than I was 25 years ago.


But to be strictly accurate you were a revolutionary for five years or more when you were a member of the SWP. Since then you've been a sectarian who let a philosophical disagreement stand in the way of being active in a revolutionary socialist organisation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


But to be strictly accurate you were a revolutionary for five years or more when you were a member of the SWP. Since then you've been a sectarian who let a philosophical disagreement stand in the way of being active in a revolutionary socialist organisation.

Not so (someone has been giving you duff information on me); I was a left labour supporter until in the early 80s I read a pamphlet by Paul Foot on Tony Benn. I joined the SWP soon after. I was highly active in it for three years, then loosely associated with it for another one (but not as a member).


Since then you've been a sectarian who let a philosophical disagreement stand in the way of being active in a revolutionary socialist organisation

I dropped out for other (personal) reasons. Philosophy had nothing to do with it. I will rejoin (if they will have me back!) when my project is finished,

As far as sectarianism is concerened I am no more, but a lot less, sectarian than the SWP is for putting a mystical 'theory' ahead of the interests of the class -- and even then the SWP only 'discovered' this 'theory' in 1988, when Chris Harman saw the light one day. One of the reasons I joined the SWP was because this 'theory' never appeared in its literature. So, it has only been a 'vitally' important SWP dogma for about 20 years. Duncan Hallas never mentioned it, and Tony Cliff almost totally ignored it. Harman said nothing about it until 1988. Callinicos opposed it for much of the time, relenting a little only in the last ten years or so.

And as far as activism is concerned, us Trots haven't really got much to crow about. Despite nearly 70 years devoted to 'buliding' the party, few of us can boast membership rolls that rise much above the risible. And, what have we succeeded in doing in all that time? Splitting more times than a schizophrenic amoeba on speed.

And you know why I think this is so. I refer you back to my post in the Sectarianism thread.



So, one of the best things I can do for you 'headeless chickens', you mad activists busy going nowhere fast, is to break you from the theory that tells you everything is OK, and Marxism cannot fail, blah blah...

Now, had, say, us Trots, and the IST in particular ([I]the IST does not even have a franchise in the USA, for goodness sake! now that we expelled the IS (for flimsy reasons) a few years ago -- that's how 'successful' we are --, and Respect has just split -- remind me, how did Lindsey do in the London elections in May?), had we been a ringing success then you would have had a point.

But, since the opposite is the case, you don't.

Now, unless you have something substantive to say in reponse to my objections to this failed 'theory' you cling onto as if it were the exact opposite itself, may I respectfully suggest that you return to perfecting your headless chicken impressions?

Have a nice sqwark...

[Hit The North]

Dystisis

I have also heard people equating this "triad" with the form of a spiral. Saying the history of society moves like a spiral, or something to that extent. Can anyone describe why this form, exactly?


Dystisis:

This is Engels and Lenin's attempt to explain the alleged 'dialectical' progression of knowledge.

Alternatively, it can be seen as a metaphor which captures in its general form both the movement of world history and the circuit of capital accumulation.

There are two dominant ways of 'tracing' out the movement of history, as either a circle, where human events repeat themselves (as represented in the work of Ibn Khaldoun, a 14th Century Islamic writer and arguably the inventor of social science) or as a linear process (Enlightenment and evolutionary ideas of progress; or, the opposite, the Medieval Christian notion of a steady decline as history winds down towards the "end days".)

The spiral illustrates that rather than endless repetition or an uninterrupted forward march to the future, the world historical process is characterised by reversals and disasters, as well as an accumulation of human mastery over nature.

Meanwhile, in capitalism, the circuit of capital is also similar to a spiral in that a process of expansion is achieved at the completion of the cycle and beginnig of. In the same sense, and linked to the expanded reproduction of capital, Marx's theory of crisis also takes the form of a spiral, with each major crisis forcast to be deeper and more prolonged than the last.

So rather than being a self-negating theory of knowledge, as Rosa suggests, the spiral can be viewed as a useful heuristic device in understanding the often contradictory and ambiguous unfolding of history and capitalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Alternatively, it can be seen as a metaphor which captures in its general form both the movement of world history and the circuit of capital accumulation.

But, how are we to understand this meatphor?

Engels pictured this as an asymptotoc approach:


"The identity of thinking and being, to use Hegelian language, everywhere coincides with your example of the circle and the polygon. Or the two of them, the concept of a thing and its reality, run side by side like two asymptotes, always approaching each other but never meeting. This difference between the two is the very difference which prevents the concept from being directly and immediately reality and reality from being immediately its own concept. Because a concept has the essential nature of the concept and does not therefore prima facie directly coincide with reality, from which it had to be abstracted in the first place, it is nevertheless more than a fiction, unless you declare that all the results of thought are fictions because reality corresponds to them only very circuitously, and even then approaching it only asymptotically." [Engels to Schmidt (12/3/1895), in Marx and Engels (1975), p.457. Bold emphasis added.]

Reading between the lines here, it is quite clear that Engels himself sort of half understood the implications of what he was saying: this approach to knowledge in fact undermines itself since human beings will forever remain infinitely ignorant of everything, and thus of anything, including the truth of Engels's own claims (recorded above). This is because, the difference between any large finite body and an infinite body of knowledge is itself infinite

In the face of this, as elsewhere, Engels's reaction is instructive: he just ignored the problem (as do other dialecticians, including BTB) -- even though, on this view, no matter how much human beings might think they knew, it would in fact advance them not one nanometre closer to the Holy Grail of Absolute knowledge.

Nevertheless, even this way of depicting things is misleading; so this is not even a good metaphor. The idea of an asymptotic approach in mathematics is connected with the concept of a limit -- if the limit concerned can be shown to exist. But, if a series has no limit, a set of its partial sums cannot in fact "approach" anything at all. Such a series is therefore said to be divergent -- not convergent. Engels's argument depends on knowledge converging on a limit, which he manifestly neglected to show exists.

The same problem afflicts the 'spiral metaphor', for it too approaches is 'limit' asymptotically. But, once again, this limit has not been shown to exist.

Moreover, and as far as can be ascertained, not a single dialectician (even those familiar with mathematics and logic) has noticed this major flaw in Engels's 'theory', let alone attempted to address it.

Naturally, this means that the asymptotic approach metaphor is completely inappropriate. Either that, or Engels knew there was a limit, constructed it, but forgot to write down the proof (a bit like Pierre Fermat, perhaps) in the margin of the above letter.

However, before anyone tries to locate 'Engels's Last Theorem', it would be much wiser to conclude that this claim was obviously motivated by yet another piece of DM-a priori legislation -- ultimately derived from Hegel -- and one that has been dutifully copied by generations of the DM-faithful ever since.


So rather than being a self-negating theory of knowledge, as Rosa suggests, the spiral can be viewed as a useful heuristic device in understanding the often contradictory and ambiguous unfolding of history and capitalism.

Even though this implies humanity will always be infiniterly ignortant of everything and anything?

This means that BTB's analysis is likewise infinitely far from the truth. In that case, it stands an infinite probabilty of being false.

In that case, it is the exact opposite of being "a useful heuristic device".

[trivas7]

BTB:
But, how are we to understand this meatphor?

Engels pictured this as an asymptotoc approach:

There is no reason to understand the metaphor of the dialectical progression of knowledge mathematically. It merely captures the idea that truth is both absolute and relative at the same time. Truth is relative, it changes inevitably in line with the advance of social cognition, with changing reality and conditions of existence. At the same time truth is absolute because it correctly reflects certain aspects of reality and relations within it.

What you are really objecting to is the fact that all language is metaphorical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


There is no reason to understand the metaphor of the dialectical progression of knowledge mathematically. It merely captures the idea that truth is both absolute and relative at the same time. Truth is relative, it changes inevitably in line with the advance of social cognition, with changing reality and conditions of existence. At the same time truth is absolute because it correctly reflects certain aspects of reality and relations within it.

1) Engels and Lenin both understood that metaphor this way.

2) How do you know this: "truth is absolute because it correctly reflects certain aspects of reality and relations within it"?

Or is it another of the dogmas you have accepted on faith.


What you are really objecting to is the fact that all language is metaphorical.

Then the above sentence is metaphorical --, in which case it is not literally true.

In which case, it is not literally true that all language is metaphorical.

In that case, not all language is metaphorical.

You are just miffed because you know no logic.

[trivas7]

Then the above sentence is metaphorical --, in which case it is not literally true.

In which case, it is not literally true that all language is metaphorical.

In that case, not all language is metaphorical.

Now you make the mistake of equating metaphoircal with falsity -- which isn't very logical at all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Now you make the mistake of equating metaphorical with falsity -- which isn't very logical at all.

So, we can now add to the long list of things you can't do very well, the following: a serious incapacity to follow an argument.

Read it again, wally: nowhere do I equate falsity with metaphor.

[trivas7]

Read it again, wally: nowhere do I equate falsity with metaphor.
Then what are you arguing here?


Then the above sentence is metaphorical --, in which case it is not literally true.

In which case, it is not literally true that all language is metaphorical.

In that case, not all language is metaphorical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Then what are you arguing here?

Let me walk you through this again more slowly:

1) You claimed that all language is metaphorical.

2) Assume therefore this:- T1: All language is metaphorical.

3) But, is T1 metaphorical itself?

4) If what T1 says is true, then T1 is indeed metaphorical.

5) But, no metaphor is literally true (that is why we call it 'metaphor').

6) Hence, T1 is not literally true.

[This is not the same as literally false. T1 could be neither true nor false.]

7) If T1 is not literally true, then what it says is not literally true, and so it is not literally true that all language is metaphorical.

8) Hence, some language is not metaphorical.

9) In that case, not all language is metaphorical.

You see, you need T1 to be literally true.

And if it is, then not all language is metaphorical (since at least T1 is literally true, and thus not metaphorical).

On the other hand, if T1 is not literally true, then what it says is not literally true. In that case, not all language is metaphorical.

Either way, not all language is metaphorical. [Vel elimination.]

So, you in fact refute yourself.

Now --, do -- you -- want -- this -- explaining -- again --, even -- more -- s -- l -- o -- w -- l -- y --?

[trivas7]

7) If T1 is not literally true, then what it says is not literally true, and so it is not literally true that all language is metaphorical.

8) Hence, some language is not metaphorical.

No, it doesn't follow that if T1 is not literally true, then what it says is not literally true, and so it is not literally true that all language is metaphorical. It means that T1 is itself a metaphor.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


No, it doesn't follow that if T1 is not literally true, then what it says is not literally true, and so it is not literally true that all language is metaphorical. It means that T1 is itself a metaphor.

T1: All language is metaphorical.

If this is not literally true, then what it says cannot be literally true, since it is metaphorical.

Now, if this is not so, then you must mean by 'metaphorical' something different from the rest of us. Perhaps you should say what you do mean by 'metaphorical', or by a 'metaphor'.

Anyway:

T2: It means that T1 is itself a metaphor.

T3: T1 is a metaphor

Unfortunately, the same constraints apply to these, too.

So, if T2 is a metaphor, then what it says is not literally true. In which case T3 cannot be a metaphor.

On the other hand, if T3 [I]is a metaphor, then what T2 says is indeed literally true. In which case T2 is not metaphorical, and so not all language is metaphorical.

So, in asserting that T1 is a metaphor, you state what you believe to be the literal truth, once again refuting yourself.

Finally, can we have your proof that all langauge is metaphorical?

[trivas7]

T1: All language is metaphorical.

If this is not literally true, then what it says cannot be literally true, since it is metaphorical.

But you've already conceded that what is metaphorical can indeed be true. So it is the case that T1 is a metaphor and what it says can be literally true.

[Trystan]

This is how I understand it, but I could be very, very wrong:

Thesis - coke (which contains caffeine - a stimulant)
Anti-theis - Jack Daniels (which contains alcohol - a depressive)
Synthesis - Jack and coke!

Cheers!




:):confused:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


But you've already conceded that what is metaphorical can indeed be true. So it is the case that T1 is a metaphor and what it says can be literally true.

I conceded no such thing. I am arguing hypothetically, based on what I perceive to be your assumptions, and arguing toward a reductio.

And we are still waiting for your proof that all language is metaphorical.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trystan, the schema you are using, even non-seriously, is not even Hegel's -- it's Kant's and Fichte's.

On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

But, what a waste of Mr Daniels!

[trivas7]

I conceded no such thing.
Then what is the following if not a concession that what is metaphorical can indeed be true?


nowhere do I equate falsity with metaphor.

I don't try to prove the unprovable, that would be something you logicians attempt.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Then what is the following if not a concession that what is metaphorical can indeed be true?

Well, we do not know what follows from your idiosyncratic understanding of 'metaphorical' (which cannot distinguish between the literal use of language and the metaphorical), but it is reasonably clear what follows from the usual meaning of the use of this word.

And, what follows is that not all language can be metaphorical.


I don't try to prove the unprovable, that would be something you logicians attempt.

Ok, so how do you know that all language is metaphorical?

[trivas7]

Well, we do not know what follows from your idiosyncratic understanding of 'metaphorical' (which cannot distinguish between the literal use of language and the metaphorical), but it is reasonably clear what follows from the usual meaning of the use of this word.

No, I never mentioned the use of language; I said language itself is metaphorical.

Why don't you pay attention?

[Hiero]

Unfortunately, Hegel, Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov, and Mao all declared that dialectical opposites will sooner or later inevitably turn into one another. That means that the forces of production and the relations of production will one day turn into one another. So, according to this 'scientific' theory, things like factories, railway systems, airports and coal mines will one day turn into the class relations of ownership and control, etc.!

To thoose who aren't as daft as Rosa, what this means is the the relations of production turn into socialist relations. The productive forces are socialised yet the relations of production are private. Through revolution the relations of production become socialised. It is not just opposites turning into one another, here only relations of production can turn socialised. Productive forces can not become privatised, as this would mean turning back to early capitalism where small time labourers owned and used the means of production, and this can not exist on a large scale, it would be idealist to say it could.

So we see why Rosa is confused, because to her dialectics is anything it wants to be. No dialectical materialist (or idealist) ever thought that literally the productive forces change into relations of production. Where the primary aspect of the contradiction (see On Contadiction by Mao (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm) ) turns into it's opposite, proleteriat become class dictators, relations of production become socialised etc, this is a social change and so the description is of a social change. To think that anyone meant this litarally as one pyhsicaly thing turning into another is really..wierd.

But this is how Rosa works. Where she wants dialectics to appear confusing and mystical she approaches with a ridiculously literally interpretation or mystical depending on how she wants to confuse people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


I said language itself is metaphorical.

Ok, how do you know that 'language itself is metaphorical'?


Why don't you pay attention?

I am sorry; I seem to have learnt that from you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


To those who aren't as daft as Rosa, what this means is the relations of production turn into socialist relations. The productive forces are socialised yet the relations of production are private. Through revolution the relations of production become socialised. It is not just opposites turning into one another, here only relations of production can turn socialised. Productive forces can not become privatised, as this would mean turning back to early capitalism where small time labourers owned and used the means of production, and this can not exist on a large scale, it would be idealist to say it could.

Unfortunately for Hiero, as he has had it explained to him before, Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao all spoke of the opposite of an object or process as that with which it struggled, that with which it was in 'dialectical contradiction', and that which it will change into sooner or later.

Now, unless Hiero thinks that the relations of production which are private actually struggle in the here and now with what they become (that is, they struggle with the relations of production which are socialised) then the former is not the 'dialectical opposite' of the latter, and so it cannot turn into it! [We will return to this later.]

However, if there is a 'contradiction' between the forces and relations of production in the here and now, then, according to the Dialectical Holy Men, they must turn into one another.

This means that despite Hiero's desperate and futile attempt to save his precious 'theory' from descending into absurdity, the Dialectical Gospels tell us that the forces of production should change into the relations of production, since there is a 'contradiction' between them in the here and now.

The fact that they do not, and will not, shows this 'theory' is useless.

But, let us assume Hiero is correct. Let us assume that he is right when he says:


The productive forces are socialised yet the relations of production are private. Through revolution the relations of production become socialised. It is not just opposites turning into one another, here only relations of production can turn socialised.

Even then there are still several serious difficulties with this desperate attempt to bale this 'theory' out.

1) According to the Dialectical Magi, quoted earlier in this thread, everything (not just most things), everything turns into its 'opposite'. This must mean then that the socialised forces of production must become private. Even though Hiero says this cannot happen, the Dialectical Prophets tell us that this will indeed take place.

2) Even worse, however is the following:

If things change because of the struggle between their 'internal opposites', and because of their 'internal contradictions', then it must mean that in the here and now the relations of production which are private must struggle with their opposite, the relations of production which are socialised.

This has the further consequence that the relations of production which are socialised must already exist in the here and now for that to happen!

If so, then Hiero and his Maoist friends do not need to fight to win the revolution since, according to his 'new theory', the relations of production which are socialised already exist in the here and now!

If, on the other hand, the relations of production which are socialised do not exist in the here and now to struggle with the relations of production which are private, then the relations of production which are private cannot change -- if, that is, we are to believe the Holy Dialectical Word, conveyed to us by the Dialectical Worthies I quoted earlier in this thread.

So, whichever way this 'theory' is interpreted, it descends into absurdity.


So we see why Rosa is confused, because to her dialectics is anything it wants to be. No dialectical materialist (or idealist) ever thought that literally the productive forces change into relations of production. Where the primary aspect of the contradiction (see On Contradiction by Mao ) turns into it's opposite, proletariat become class dictators, relations of production become socialised etc, this is a social change and so the description is of a social change. To think that anyone meant this literally as one physically thing turning into another is really..weird.

Once more, according to the Dialectical Gospels, that must mean that the proletariat as they now are must struggle with what they change into, that is, that the proletariat as they are now must struggle with the proletariat as class dictators.

In that case, the proletariat as class dictators must already exist!

So the proletariat as they are now can forget about struggling with anything, since their future selves are now in existence, having popped into being because the Dialectical Apostles are never wrong.

On the other hand, if the proletariat as class dictators does not exist in the here and now, then the proletariat as they now are cannot change, for there is no opposite for them to struggle against.

Should anyone argue that there is something for the proletariat as they now are to struggle against namely the capitalist class, then these problems do not go away. This is because the Dialectical Gurus tell us that things turn into that with which they struggle, their 'dialectical opposites'. Unfortunately, that must mean that the proletariat as they now are must one day turn into the capitalist class!

Once more, however this 'theory' is interpreted, it turns into irredeemable confusion.

And, it is no use arguing that no dialectician thinks this, since dialecticians are famous for not thinking through the implications of their 'theory', which I have made plain.

If now we try to salvage something from the wreckage by saying the we must not read the Dialectical Gospels too literally, then two other serious problem arise:

1) Who is to decide which parts of the Holy Books are literally true and which are merely 'poetic'? And on what basis? This cannot be that the way I interpret the Holy Books is wrong since my way descends into contradiction, for contradictions are welcome on this theory!

2) If things do not struggle in the here an now with what they become (that is, if the relations of production that are private do not struggle with the relations of production which are socialised, and the proletariat as they are now does not struggle with the proletariat as class dictators, and so on), then the dialectical faithful have no theory of change with which they can interpret the class war. Now, the Dialectical Holy Men I quoted at least had a theory -- one that had been worked out in detail by Hegel; they simply rotated it to reveal its alleged 'rational kernel'.

Now, if their words are to be interpreted non-literally, as Hiero seems to be arguing, then those who join him in this will have no theory of change (and will be accused of being, shock, horror, Revisionists!).

In that case, such comrades cannot tell us why what happens has to happen --, it just does. But in that case, if we do not know why things have to happen the way they do, then anything at all could happen. The class war might not lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat!

Hegel in fact developed his 'theory' so that he could explain exactly why things happened the way they do, and could not possibly happen any other way. And that is why the Dialectical Apostles liked his 'theory', accepted it as a 'law of cognition' (to quote Lenin), and an 'absolute' (to quote Lenin and Mao), and repeated it many times.

So, they at least had a 'theory'; too bad it descends into absurdity, but they at least tried to explain why the class war led inevitably to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, Hiero's attempt to salvage something from the wreckage leaves him with no theory at all.

On the other hand, all this could mean that this 'theory' is wrong from beginning to end.

I rather think I'll go with the latter option.


But this is how Rosa works. Where she wants dialectics to appear confusing and mystical she approaches with a ridiculously literally interpretation or mystical depending on how she wants to confuse people.

In other words, Hiero is telling us not to believe what we read in the Dialectical Holy Books, and that he has no theory of change to offer oppressed humanity.

I can live with that too.:)

[Hiero]

Are you stoned? Because everything you said is really...out there.

It is not even worth going through, because it contains no real substance to critique. Again Rosa shows that dialectics is what every she wants it to be.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


Are you stoned? Because everything you said is really...out there.

It is not even worth going through, because it contains no real substance to critique. Again Rosa shows that dialectics is what every she wants it to be.

Yes, I am totally crazy actually taking the Dialectical Holy Men at their word, and working out their absurd consequences.

Even better, my arguments are so powerful that not even the Apostle Hiero can answer them!:lol:

[trivas7]

Can someone summarize in a few words what exactly dialectics means? I have searched for this on the net yet I haven't quite managed to find a comprehensible definition. Please do not (yet) critique it, Rosa, I am merely asking what the common understanding is of this word.

Thanks in advance.
brendancooney has a nice set of intros to the dialectical method on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8X7lAQyUY&feature=related

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Don't bother; it's just the same old blah, blah, blaadee blah we've heard a thousand times already.

And it's no better in quality, no matter how much the quantity of the repeats is increased.

And, Trivas, we are still waiting to hear how you know that all language is metaphorical.

[Hiero]

Hiero:



Yes, I am totally crazy actually taking the Dialectical Holy Men at their word, and working out their absurd consequences.

Even better, my arguments are so powerful that not even the Apostle Hiero can answer them!:lol:
What you said had no relation to the topic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


What you said had no relation to the topic.

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you?

[trivas7]

What you said had no relation to the topic.
Indeed, Rosa's thinking re the subject is clouded by Wittgenstein's analytic philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Indeed, Rosa's thinking re the subject is clouded by Wittgenstein's analytic philosophy.

Just as yours is crippled by Hegelian mysticism.

Even so, none of you can show where my arguments go wrong.

And we are still waiting to hear how you know that all language is metaphorical.

[Trystan]

Trystan, the schema you are using, even non-seriously, is not even Hegel's -- it's Kant's and Fichte's.

On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7

But, what a waste of Mr Daniels!

I am always serious when Mr. Daniels is involved.

[trivas7]

Even so, none of you can show where my arguments go wrong.

And we are still waiting to hear how you know that all language is metaphorical.
But you've yet to construct an argument, AFAIK.

Ask a neurologist how people know what they know. What possible difference does it make?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


But you've yet to construct an argument, AFAIK.

Given the fact that too much 'dialectical logic' has nuked your brain, you would not know an argument if it bit you in the head.


Ask a neurologist how people know what they know. What possible difference does it make?

In other words, you just made it up.

Why does that not surprise me?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trystan:


I am always serious when Mr. Daniels is involved.

Is that before, or after a couple of shots?:)

[trivas7]

Given the fact that too much 'dialectical logic' has nuked your brain, you would not know an argument if it bit you in the head.

Yes, sarcasm is all your argument amounts to. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Yes, sarcasm is all your argument amounts to.

Maybe so, maybe not. I'll let comrades less logically-challenged that you or Hiero are decide whether the arguments I have posted are sound or not.

In contrast, all you have on your side is make-believe. You certainly can't defend a single one of the mystical dogmas that has colonised what is left of that dormant organ between your ears.

So: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical, and you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect.

[trivas7]

Maybe so, maybe not. I'll let comrades less logically-challenged that you or Hiero are decide whether the arguments I have posted are sound or not.

You can't even articulate what is it you think you are arguing. What is the value of a non-existence argument?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


You can't even articulate what is it you think you are arguing.

As I noted earlier, anyone who expects a logically-challenged bozo like you to comprehend even a simple argument is living in their own little dream world.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/_paperbag_125.gif


What is the value of a non-existence argument?

One can just imagine a brain dead idiot from a hundred years ago saying the same thing of the proof that the Ether does not exist.

Or even a rabid defender of US aggression saying the same of the alleged WMD in Iraq.


What is the value of a non-existence argument?

But, you are probably too logically-challenged to understand even this simple point.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/1087.gif

Even so: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical, and you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect.

[Hiero]

Maybe so, maybe not. I'll let comrades less logically-challenged that you or Hiero are decide whether the arguments I have posted are sound or not.

No one really cares. A few pick it up through their ignorance of dialectical materialism because they simply have not read anything substantial. And you are proud of this, which is sad.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


No one really cares.

So?


A few pick it up through their ignorance of dialectical materialism because they simply have not read anything substantial.

And you call Mao's incoherent ramblings 'substantial'?


And you are proud of this,

I am proud of the fact that I have, and will continue to expose dialectics as the fraud that it is.


which is sad.

What is sad is that numpties like you swallow this guff, and then, when it is exposed as twaddle, you can't defend your ideas.

[trivas7]

Dialectics restructures our thinking about reality by replacing the common sense notion of "thing" (as something that has a history and has external connections with other things) with notions of "process" (which contains its history and possible futures) and "relation" (which contains as part of what it is its ties with other relations). Nothing that didn't already exist has been added here. Rather, it is a matter of where and how one draws boundaries and establishes units (the dialectical term is "abstracts") in which to think about the world. The assumption is that while the qualities we perceive with our five senses actually exist as parts of nature, the conceptual distinctions that tell us where one thing ends and the next one begins both in space and across time are social and mental constructs. However great the influence of what the world is on how we draw these boundaries, it is ultimately we who draw the boundaries, and people coming from different cultures and from different philosophical traditions can and do draw them differently.

A simple but profound essay on the dialectical method:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/dd_ch01.php

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


A simple but profound essay on the dialectical method:

A crass piece of hack Hegel worship, which makes all the usual mistakes, taken apart here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_02.htm

And: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect.

[trivas7]

A crass piece of hack Hegel worship, which makes all the usual mistakes, taken apart here:

What Marx does in Capital is apply Hegel's dialectical method to the capitalist mode of production and social change. Your dislike of Hegel -- justified or not -- is irrelevant.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


What Marx does in Capital is apply Hegel's dialectical method to the capitalist mode of production and social change. Your dislike of Hegel -- justified or not -- is irrelevant.

Too bad for you, Marx saw things the way I did, and abandoned the 'dialectic' in Das Kapital, as you lot undersatnd it, and as I have shown here many times.

Moreover: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect.

[trivas7]

Trivas:
Too bad for you, Marx saw things the way I did, and abandoned the 'dialectic' in Das Kapital, as you lot undersatnd it, and as I have shown here many times.

Marx "abandoned the dialectic"? For what exactly? What methodology would you call it Marx uses to analyze capitalism in Capital?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas:


Marx "abandoned the dialectic"? For what exactly? What methodology would you call Marx uses to analyze capitalism in Capital?

As you have been told dozens of times, and no doubt will have to be told several hundred more times before it sinks in: Historical Materialism.

[trivas7]

Trivas:
As you have been told dozens of times, and no doubt will have to be told several hundred more times before it sinks in: Historical Materialism.
HM is the application of the dialectical method to history and social change. You make my point for me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (and this is attempt number 21 to pentrate that concrete skull of his):


HM is the application of the dialectical method to history and social change.

Not according to Marx, who rejected this way of viewing capitalism -- as you have had proven to you many times.


You make my point for me.

Ok, but only if your point is: I agree with Rosa that Marx abandoned the 'dialectic' as I have hitherto understood it.

Sorted.

[trivas7]

Not according to Marx, who rejected this way of viewing capitalism -- as you have had proven to you many times.

Then what was the meaning of HM for Marx, if not the application of the dialectic to capitalism and social change? What else was Marx's methodology?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (and this is attempt #22):


Then what was the meaning of HM for Marx, if not the application of the dialectic to capitalism and social change? What else was Marx's methodology?

We need not speculate, for Marx himself told us what 'his method' was:


"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.]

In the passage that Marx quotes not a single Hegelian concept is to be found (no "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality"), and yet Marx calls this the "dialectic Method", and says of it that it is "my method". So, Marx's "method" has had Hegel completely excised --, except for the odd phrase or two here and there with which he merely "coquetted". In that case, Marx's 'dialectic method' more closely resembles that of Aristotle and Kant.

Looking forward to attempt #23...

[trivas7]

We need not speculate, for Marx himself told us what 'his method' was:

In your single-minded obsession you again make my case: Marx calls it "my dialectical method". I deny that his method is "more like Aristotle and Kant" than Hegel's, I assume.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (and this is attempt #23):


In your single-minded obsession you again make my case: Marx calls it "my dialectical method". I deny that his method is "more like Aristotle and Kant" than Hegel's, I assume.

Well, once more we need not speculate, for Marx himself (no me) told us. In the long paasge I quoted above, there is no Hegelian jargon at all, and no Hegelian concepts whatsoever:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

So, Marx's 'dialectical method' has had Hegel completely excised. The 'rational kernel' contains no Hegel at all.

In that case, 'his method' is indeed more like that of Aristotle and Kant.

You deny this. But can you prove that -- contrary to what Marx himself tells us -- 'his method' was Hegelian (or indeed, 'upside-down' Hegelian)?

Silly question, really, for you accept such things by faith alone, whereas the rest of us stupidly require evidence.

Will we never learn...!?:rolleyes:

So, looking forward to attempt #24.

Hence the list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

[Hit The North]

R:
Well, once more we need not speculate, for Marx himself (no me) told us. In the long paasge I quoted above, there is no Hegelian jargon at all, and no Hegelian concepts whatsoever: Well there are no concepts at all in that passage, Hegelian or otherwise. Is Marx's method completely devoid of conceptual underpinnings?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Well there are no concepts at all in that passage, Hegelian or otherwise. Is Marx's method completely devoid of conceptual underpinnings?

On the contrary, there are plenty of concepts in that passage; for example: "Marx only troubles himself about one thing...".

The concept here is "x only troubles himself about one thing". This concept (or linguistic function) can be used to generate true or false sentences when completed with a proper name: so it generates a true sentence for 'Marx', but a false one for 'George W Bush'.

If, however, by 'concept' you mean those vague and imprecise ideas drawn from traditional philosophy (that is, that concepts are 'mental entities', etc.), then I agree. There are none of those in that passage (since there are none of them anywhere).

But then again, Marx does not need those obscure terms either -- and neither does he use them.

So, there are no Hegalian concepts, or vague and imprecise notions drawn from traditional ruling-class thought, in Marx's work.

[trivas7]

So, Marx's 'dialectical method' has had Hegel completely excised. The 'rational kernel' contains no Hegel at all.

In that case, 'his method' is indeed more like that of Aristotle and Kant.

Nonsense; Marx's dialectical method has nothing to do with faith, his use of it is not that of Aristotle's or Kant's.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (attempt #24, at least 74 still to go):


Nonsense; Marx's dialectical method has nothing to do with faith, his use of it is not that of Aristotle's or Kant's.

Seems you can't read, either.

Let me recap, in a larger font, to help your failing eyesight:

Unless you provide evidence -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you rely on faith alone.

Of course, this has been clear since you arrived here several months ago -- that you are a dogmatist who relies on faith, not evidence, still less on argument.

Looking forward to attempt #25...

Hence the list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

[trivas7]

Unless you provide evidence -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you rely on faith alone.

Nonsense; reading Capital takes no faith, on which I base the proposition that Marx uses the dialectical method he learned from Hegel to analyze capitalism and social change. The burden is on you to show that Marx used the dialectic as did Aristotle and Kant, both for whom it was a a minor, non-scientific consideration. For Marx, OTOH, it is central to his preoccupation with societal change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (and it's now attempt #25):


Nonsense; reading Capital takes no faith, on which I base the proposition that Marx uses the dialectical method he learned from Hegel to analyze capitalism and social change. The burden is on you to show that Marx used the dialectic as did Aristotle and Kant, both for whom it was a a minor, non-scientific consideration. For Marx, OTOH, it is central to his preoccupation with societal change.

And yet, as Marx explains his method, it contains no Hegel at all:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

So, the burden is not on me, for Marx saved me the job.

In that case, this still stands (here it is again, nice and large; you seem not to be able to see it):

Unless you provide evidence -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you do indeed rely on faith alone.

Moreover: the list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

Looking forward to attempt #26...

[trivas7]

And yet, as Marx explains his method [...]

No, Marx doesn't explain his method. He just names "my dialectical method" the one he learned from Hegel and uses throughout Capital. Neither does he use Aristotle's or Kant's considerations re the dialectics.


Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerts my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectical method?

-- afterword to the 2nd German edition of Capital

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (and yes, it's attempt #26):


No, Marx doesn't explain his method. He just names "my dialectical method" the one he learned from Hegel and uses throughout Capital. Neither does he use Aristotle's or Kant's considerations re the dialectics.

Once more, we need not speculate, for Marx (not me) very kindly summarised 'his method' for us, quoted earlier in this thread.

In that summary, you will no doubt notice that there are:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

In short, Marx's 'dialectic method' has had every trace of Hegel removed.

Now, you keep telling us, despite the evidence going against you, that:


He just names "my dialectical method" the one he learned from Hegel and uses throughout Capital.

Unforttunatley for you, Marx holed this 'argument' well below the water-line by adding the aforementioned summary of 'his method', in which there not one atom of Hegel is to be found.

So, if you have any evidence to show that Marx was wrong when he called this de-Hegelianised summary 'his method', then let's see it.

If you have none, then this still stands (in larger font, since your poor eyes seem not to be able to see it yet):

Unless you provide evidence -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you do indeed rely on faith alone.

Trivas (quoting Marx):



Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerts my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectical method?

afterword to the 2nd German edition of Capital

Well spotted; see you can use your eyes! I am impressed.:rolleyes:

Now, all you have to do is look a little harder (can you do that?). If you do manage it, you will see that what Marx calls 'the dialectic method' contains:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

In other words, Marx's 'dialectic method' owes nothing at all to Hegel.

Unless, that is, you can show otherwise...

[Some hope...!]

So, looking forward to attempt #27...

Until then:

The list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

[trivas7]

Once more, we need not speculate, for Marx (not me) very kindly summarised 'his method' for us, quoted earlier in this thread.

No, neither did Marx "summarise" his method in the passage quoted, he alludes to "the materialist basis of my method".

If you need a summary of Marx's method, the likeliest candidate is as follows:


My dialectical 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.

-- afterword to the 2nd German edition of Capital

Repeating yourself is pointless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trivas (you guessed it, it's attempt #27):


No, neither did Marx "summarise" his method in the passage quoted, he alludes to "the materialist basis of my method".

In fact, he does more than 'allude':


"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.]

And, in the summary of 'his method' that Marx himself (not me) endorses, there is not one ounce of Hegel:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

So, unless (again, this is in a larger font, for your poor eyes' sake):

you provide evidence to the contrary -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you do indeed rely on faith alone.


Repeating yourself is pointless.

Not so, the point is to keep on repeating this simple message until it sinks in. Only another 73 attempts to go.

Until then:

The list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

Already looking forward to #28...