Do dialectics contradict my beliefs?

[Presty7]

I have been reading up on Dialectics, and one of the concepts I have obviously been studying is the "negation of the negation."

If I am correct, it basically states that things change in spirals, not in cycles.

However, I do believe that cycles exist in nature, and believe that the universe itself moves in cycles.

Does then negation of the negation merely refer to change within human systems and social structure and the like?

Or does it refer to all things in the physical world, thus contradicting my beliefs about the universe?

I am eager to learn, thanks in advance for any help I may get with this. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

That depends on which dialectician you ask. If he or she is a card-carrying believer in the dialectics of nature, they would tell you that this process applies right across the entire universe (even though there is no way of proving this). On the other hand, if he or she believes that the 'dialectic' only operates on human development, they will tell you that the negation of the negation [NON] applies solely to human history (even though there is no way of proving this either!).

Alternatively, if he or she is like me, and thinks that the 'dialectic' is a load of hog-wash, they will tell you that the NON is a carry-over from mystical Hegelianism. Hegel, as an idealist, naturally thought that human linguistic categories (such as negation) applied to the real world. Materialists should treat this idea with the same contempt that they regard all such fairy tales.

You can find a refutation of this mystical 'law' at my site:

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

[gilhyle]

No I wouldnt get hung up on the idea of spirals or circles. The concept of the negation of the negation is a very simple idea, which is really just a further comment on the idea of change as a process of 'negation' through contradiction. If a certain situation involves a contradiction, that situation is brought to an end, but it being brought to an end does not mean that the characteristics of that situation are gone forever. this is because the second situation also involves contradiction and this can lead to a third situation which may reintroduce elements of the first situation.

Look for example at the example Marx gives in Chapter 32 of Volume One of Capital. Initially you have individual property, then the contradictions of that lead to the emergence of capitalism which separates the individual from his/her property. Then capitalism is overthrown and replaced by collective property which creates a new space for the indivual to own or at least control what she/he uses to create.

That is really all there is to the negation of the negation. It is a very simple idea. Never use it to draw a conclusion. It is always a pattern to be noticed in retrospect rather than a law of a type that you can used to save yourself from studying the particular situation - because not all change identifiably conforms to it.

[Presty7]

That depends on which dialectician you ask. If he or she is a card-carrying believer in the dialectics of nature, they would tell you that this process applies right across the entire universe (even though there is no way of proving this). On the other hand, if he or she believes that the 'dialectic' only operates on human development, they will tell you that the negation of the negation [NON] applies solely to human history (even though there is no way of proving this either!).

Alternatively, if he or she is like me, and thinks that the 'dialectic' is a load of hog-wash, they will tell you that the NON is a carry-over from mystical Hegelianism. Hegel, as an idealist, naturally thought that human linguistic categories (such as negation) applied to the real world. Materialists should treat this idea with the same contempt that they regard all such fairy tales.

You can find a refutation of this mystical 'law' at my site:



Ah yes I have seen many of your posts on dialectics. Your website is very impressive! I have yet to create a solid opinion on the role dialectics have played in Marxist theory. I wish to acquire a better understanding of dialectics before I begin reading works that refute them. But you can be sure that when it comes time to begin reading anti-dialectic work, your website will be the first place I go to!

Thank you so much for your help!

[Presty7]

No I wouldnt get hung up on the idea of spirals or circles. The concept of the negation of the negation is a very simple idea, which is really just a further comment on the idea of change as a process of 'negation' through contradiction. If a certain situation involves a contradiction, that situation is brought to an end, but it being brought to an end does not mean that the characteristics of that situation are gone forever. this is because the second situation also involves contradiction and this can lead to a third situation which may reintroduce elements of the first situation.

Look for example at the example Marx gives in Chapter 32 of Volume One of Capital. Initially you have individual property, then the contradictions of that lead to the emergence of capitalism which separates the individual from his/her property. Then capitalism is overthrown and replaced by collective property which creates a new space for the indivual to own or at least control what she/he uses to create.

That is really all there is to the negation of the negation. It is a very simple idea. Never use it to draw a conclusion. It is always a pattern to be noticed in retrospect rather than a law of a type that you can used to save yourself from studying the particular situation - because not all change identifiably conforms to it.

I see, it is meant to serve as a patter of change rather than a total law reality abides by. Interesting.

Thank you for your help! :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


No I wouldnt get hung up on the idea of spirals or circles. The concept of the negation of the negation is a very simple idea, which is really just a further comment on the idea of change as a process of 'negation' through contradiction. If a certain situation involves a contradiction, that situation is brought to an end, but it being brought to an end does not mean that the characteristics of that situation are gone forever. this is because the second situation also involves contradiction and this can lead to a third situation which may reintroduce elements of the first situation.

But this is an empty claim, since we have yet to be told what a 'dialectical contradiction' is.


Look for example at the example Marx gives in Chapter 32 of Volume One of Capital. Initially you have individual property, then the contradictions of that lead to the emergence of capitalism which separates the individual from his/her property. Then capitalism is overthrown and replaced by collective property which creates a new space for the indivual to own or at least control what she/he uses to create.

That is really all there is to the negation of the negation. It is a very simple idea. Never use it to draw a conclusion. It is always a pattern to be noticed in retrospect rather than a law of a type that you can used to save yourself from studying the particular situation - because not all change identifiably conforms to it.

You should know, because you have been told enough times, Marx was merely 'coquetting' with these obscure Hegelian terms in Das Kapital -- in fact, as I have shown, he had abandoned 'the dialectic' as you mystics understand it by the time he wrote that book.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Presty:


Ah yes I have seen many of your posts on dialectics. Your website is very impressive! I have yet to create a solid opinion on the role dialectics have played in Marxist theory. I wish to acquire a better understanding of dialectics before I begin reading works that refute them. But you can be sure that when it comes time to begin reading anti-dialectic work, your website will be the first place I go to!

Thank you so much for your help!

And good luck trying to comprehend this incomprehensible theory!

[gilhyle]

....we have yet to be told......

There is no 'we' Rosa, unless its the royal 'we'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


There is no 'we' Rosa, unless its the royal 'we'

Unfortunately for you, humanity (i.e., 'we') have yet to be told.

Of course, odd balls like you from planet Hermes can remain in your dogmatic slumber for as long as your few remaining brain cells hold out.

[Yehuda Stern]

To answer the original question, dialectics are a method of analysis - it doesn't impose schemes on reality but states that one should learn from it. Dialectics does hold, from the study of science and nature, that development is never cyclical but is spiral - things are always developing, so if history repeats itself, it never does so on the same level.

It must be noted that "higher level" does not necessarily mean better, just more developed. For example, Trotsky said that the social base of fascism is the sans culottes as they came to be under imperialist capitalism. However, the sans culottes of the past were revolutionaries, while fascism was of course a reactionary movement.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


To answer the original question, dialectics are a method of analysis - it doesn't impose schemes on reality but states that one should learn from it. Dialectics does hold, from the study of science and nature, that development is never cyclical but is spiral - things are always developing, so if history repeats itself, it never does so on the same level.

Unfortunately for you, the facts state otherwise: every single dialectician imposes and has imposed this theory on nature. Proof here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2002.htm

Even you do that here, as we can see this from your own statement:


that development is never cyclical but is spiral - things are always developing, so if history repeats itself, it never does so on the same level.

How can you possibly know this for sure -- unless you had imposed it on the facts.

There are plenty of cyclical processes in nature -- want a few examples?

[Grunt]

There is no 'we' Rosa, unless its the royal 'we'.
That's a negative. I also belong to the 'we' that have yet to be
told...

...although: I am not sure whether I am so interested in some
mystical mumbo-jumbo explanation...

Me - I am just glad that I am not the only one who finds
the merging of an idealistic philosophy with materialism
very strange (even absurd).

That's an incredible load off my chest - you have no idea!! :)

Yes, yes - I am a newbie and dunno nothing. But I am a hardcore
materialist. (Don't worry: I may be a newbie to Marxism/Leninism
but I done my homework in Philosophy)

When it comes to idealistic philosophy: Hegel was IMHO the
biggest charlatan of them all! (to quote another idealistic
-although much better- philosopher...) :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grunt, you will soon discover that dialecticians ignore questions they cannot answer, or have not thought about very clearly, or at all.

They remind me of the Christian Fundamentalist in the Scopes Monkey Trial in the USA in the 1920s, William Jennings Bryan. When put on the stand, and asked questions about the contradictions in the Bible, he just clammed up:


But there is also an embarrassing side to Bryan: the ‘great commoner’ was a Bible-banging fundamentalist. When officials in Dayton, Tennessee decided to roast John Scopes for teaching evolution in 1925, they called in the ageing Bryan to prosecute. The week-long trial became a national sensation and reached its climax when the defence attorney, Clarence Darrow, called Bryan to the stand and eviscerated his Biblical verities. ‘Do you believe Joshua made the sun stand still?’ Darrow asked sarcastically. ‘Do you believe a whale swallowed Jonah? Will you tell us the exact date of the great flood?’ Bryan tried to swat away the swarm of contradictions. ‘I do not think about things I don’t think about,’ he said. The New York Times called it an ‘absurdly pathetic performance’, reducing a famous American to the ‘butt of a crowd’s rude laughter’. This paunchy, sweaty figure went down as an icon of the cranky right. Today, most Americans encounter the Scopes trial and Bryan himself in a play called Inherit the Wind. I once played the role of Bryan and the director kept saying: ‘More pompous. Make him more pompous.’

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n04/moro01_.html

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

They, too, "do not think about things they don't think about."

[Yehuda Stern]

It's not that dialecticians can't answer you, Rosa - it's just that they have, and you have used such crude distortions to defend yourself that it's pretty clear that your interest is not in debate but in assuring yourself that you are correct. Which is exactly why I have directed my words to the OP and not to you - no one has the patience to debate with a wall.

[Grunt]

Grunt, you will soon discover that dialecticians
ignore questions they cannot answer, or have not thought about very clearly,
or at all.
They remind me of the Christian Fundamentalist in the Scopes Monkey Trial in the
USA in the 1920s, William Jennings Bryan.[...]

Is that the trial upon which the play (and movie)
'Inherit the Wind' is based upon?

[Grunt]

[...] - no one has the patience
to debate with a wall.
Begging your pardon but: Who is the 'wall' here?

The ones who have adopted a stringent, consistent and
coherrent and above all scientific and logical understanding
of reality -

or

- the ones who claim that a real Marxist must 'believe' in
dialectics and the 'great' Hegel just because Marx happened
to be influenced by him and his mystical bullshit in his youth ?

:hammersickle:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YS:


It's not that dialecticians can't answer you, Rosa - it's just that they have, and you have used such crude distortions to defend yourself that it's pretty clear that your interest is not in debate but in assuring yourself that you are correct. Which is exactly why I have directed my words to the OP and not to you - no one has the patience to debate with a wall.

In fact I have been debating this now with dialectical comrades for longer than most RevLefters have been alive, and while not all of them make the same cowardly excuses you do, one and all cannot answer the many criticisms I have made of this 'theory'.

And now, we can see that you too must be added to the list of dialectical fundamentalists who 'do not think about things they don't think about.'

With your sort of attitude, Engels would never have written 'Anti-Duhring'. At least he had the courage of his convictions...

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

Grunt, yes, the play you mentioned was based on this incident.

Maybe we should have one that exposes the cowardly attitide of our fundamentalist dialectical bretheren here -- perhaps we can call it "Inherit the Windbags"?

[Grunt]

Maybe we should have one that exposes the cowardly attitide of our fundamentalist dialectical bretheren here -- perhaps we can call it "Inherit the Windbags"?
:lol: - :thumbup1:

[Grunt]

The original question:


I have been reading up on Dialectics, and one of
the concepts I have obviously been studying is the "negation of the
negation."
(Highlighting by me)

Well the answer, I'm afraid - is trivial.

In classical formal logic: ¬(¬p) ⇔ p

(where p is any proposition)

That's all there is to it. Sorry.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Indeed, but dialecticians deny that the above rule always captures the full complexity of development.

However, even if they were right, we have yet to see a clear exposition of the 'negation of the negation' that does not a) consist of a series of crass logical errors, or b) mean that change is in fact impossible.

On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2

This is in fact on Mao on contradictions, etc., but it is quite easy to generalise it, as I have done here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm#Dialectics-Cannot-Explain-Change

However, to access this page, you will need to copy it directly into your address bar -- the anonymiser RevLeft uses will ignore the '#' sub-link it contains if you just click on it.

[Grunt]

^^^Indeed, but dialecticians deny that the above rule always captures the full complexity of development.

Meaning? Implying? Are they just unable to break down a complex
system in simple propositions - or are we talking Chaos Theory?

The latter would be intriguing, the first would indicate laziness.

Anyway - I just learned that in intuitionistic logic:

¬¬p is a 'weaker' statement than p

but that ¬¬¬p ⇔ ¬p , firm and solid!
Very strange! But then - I dunno much about intuitionistic logic.

Will ask a friend of mine who has a Ph.D. in Math.

___


On a sidenote:

¬p can of course be defined in a simpler way as : p → F
with F representing absolute falsehood.

F can conversely be defined as p & ¬p

The 'negation of the negation' we were originally talking about
can be defined as ¬p & ¬p.

The result according to formal logic:

p → T

with T representing absolute truth.

[Presty7]

To answer the original question, dialectics are a method of analysis - it doesn't impose schemes on reality but states that one should learn from it. Dialectics does hold, from the study of science and nature, that development is never cyclical but is spiral - things are always developing, so if history repeats itself, it never does so on the same level.

It must be noted that "higher level" does not necessarily mean better, just more developed. For example, Trotsky said that the social base of fascism is the sans culottes as they came to be under imperialist capitalism. However, the sans culottes of the past were revolutionaries, while fascism was of course a reactionary movement.

So that applies to nature as well?

So under dialectic thought ideas such as eternal recurrence are impossible?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Grunt:


Meaning? Implying?

Well, they (following Hegel) think that there is more to negation in the real world than is captured formal logic.

Now, for Hegel, who believed everything was all mind, or an expression of developing mind, it made some sort of crazy sense to suppose that an item of language (negation) featured in the development of the world, or that it made sense to run mind, language and world together. But no materialist can go along with this.

But, even then, Hegel made some pretty simple errors in deriving the 'negation of the negation', ones which every single dialectician and Hegel fan has missed. I have summarised them here:

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

But in much more detail, using modern logic, here:

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

[Grunt]

Finished 'browsing' through:

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

This is worse than I thought - much worse...:(

---

I really dunno whence you get the energy/dilligence/
determination to deal with this crap - and read all
this as well as analyze it...

It's as you said: No wonder the working man/woman
can not easily be won (understatement of the
century!) for an obvious and good cause - with
all this garbage 'lurking' in the closet...

I dunno whether I ever will have the time/energy/
money/brains for that...:(

It's depressing, utterly depressing. :crying:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, you need to recall that I have been studying this 'theory' for over 25 years, and writing my essays for the last ten.

I generate the necessary energy because I care about Marxism and the future of humanity (not that I am suggesting that others do not).

If we continue as we are, both humanity and the planet are screwed.

We need to change, and one place to start is with the 'theory' that has presided over 150 years of almost total failure.

But, as you can see, the dialectical mystics would rather die than do that.:(

So, it looks like we really are screwed -- unless a sufficiently powerful workers' movement can provide a materialist counter-weight to their idealism.

[gilhyle]

That's a negative. I also belong to the 'we' that have yet to be
told...


Well good for you. Now off you go and read those threads that Rosa provided you with links to and then come back and tell me why you dont accept the responses to Rosa's various arguments, as presented on this board.

I know Rosa's answers and invariably they end up in substituting avoidance and abuse whenever she is boxed into a corner because Rosa....as Rosa admits...will do/say whatever wins her arguments on this site. So debating with Rosa is pointlessly endless because her only ultimate weapon - and her proof of her own success - is posting the last post. What are your answers ?

Your one argument here so far relates to formal logic. All you have to do now is go off and PROVE that those who use the concept of the negation of the negation, as I set it out above, MUST believe that it is a concept within formal logic. Then you will have made a point worth making .

I will be interested (and surprised) if you come up with a proof of that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, with yet more unsubstantiated allegations, as I have predicted several times already:


I know Rosa's answers and invariably they end up in substituting avoidance and abuse whenever she is boxed into a corner because Rosa....as Rosa admits...will do/say whatever wins her arguments on this site.

On the few occasions I avoid your 'challenges' that is only because you regularely do the same. I don't see why I should respond to you if you consitently fail to do so to me.

And in the vast majority of cases, I am abusive only where comrades have already been so to me -- apparently you think I should be all sweetness and light, and take it lying down.


Your one argument here so far relates to formal logic. All you have to do now is go off and PROVE that those who use the concept of the negation of the negation, as I set it out above, MUST believe that it is a concept within formal logic. Then you will have made a point worth making.

No need for him to; I have refuted the whole idea:

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

And I have shown how and why it arose from a class-motivated misconstrual of predication, and a similarly motivated attempt to 'show' that the 'law of identity' stated negatively results in a contradiction:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm

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

You have yet to demonstrate where the argument goes wrong -- if you know enough logic to cope, that is.

[gilhyle]

Sure, you've dealt with everything somewhere, somehow on your website, which, strangely, doesn't stop me wanting to hear why Grunt thinks formal logic has got anything to do with negation of the negation

Oh, and sweetness and light would be just great, if you could kindly arrange that:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Sure, you've dealt with everything somewhere, somehow on your website,

You wouldn't know anyway -- since your tender eyes will not read all my work.


which, strangely, doesn't stop me wanting to hear why Grunt thinks formal logic has got anything to do with negation of the negation

He seems to know more logic than 99% of dialecticians I have encountered, but assumes (as I pointed out in an earlier thread, if you bothered to read stuff before sticking your size fourteens in) that by 'negation' you mystics mean the same as us logicians. I told him we do not.

Case closed.


Oh, and sweetness and light would be just great, if you could kindly arrange that

I have tried, honey bun, but you mystics don't want to know. Here is a recent example of how even when I am nice, you mystics are abusive, emotive, and irrational:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3044#comment-101408

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3057#comment-101949

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3102

[Grunt]

Sorry, I am late. My apologies.

Problem is that (like you fine comrades) I have to sell myself
everyday to a greedy capitalist like a whore, so its sometimes
hard, real hard to 'force' myself to study and respond to
intelectual challenges when I finally come home...

That's not an excuse, I know that. Still...

___________________________________



That is really all there is to the negation of the negation. It is a very simple idea. Never use it to draw a conclusion. It is always a pattern to be noticed in retrospect rather than a law of a type that you can used to save yourself from studying the particular situation - because not all change identifiably conforms to it.

'Never use it to draw a conclusion'??? Begging your pardon -
but then it's utterly useless isn't it?

Enlighten me! What is it's use?


___________________________________



Well good for you. Now off you go and read those threads that Rosa provided you with links to and then come back and tell me why you dont accept the responses to Rosa's various arguments, as presented on this board.

Cheap shot! Boooo! (goes the audience...). I will not only read
Rosa's essays - I will read the originals as well - and get to know
both sides (if possible).


___________________________________




Your one argument here so far relates to formal logic. All you have to do now is go off and PROVE that those who use the concept of the negation of the negation, as I set it out above, MUST believe that it is a concept within formal logic.

Then you will have made a point worth making .

I will be interested (and surprised) if you come up with a proof of that.
It does not 'relate' to classical formal logic - it is classical formal logic
and hence: Absolute Truth.

But: Absolute Truth within the framework of a formal system.
Outside formal systems there is no Absolute Truth.

Having read your vague and hardly stringent comments about
the negation of the negation I can say:

Classical formal logic has nothing to do with whatever you
are talking about.

My contribution? I just pointed out the logical formal
equivalence of the logical negation of a negation.

Trivial - I know. But unlike your 'definition' (or whatever)
one can use it to draw coclusions...


___________________________________



Sure, you've dealt with everything somewhere, somehow on your website, which, strangely, doesn't stop me wanting to hear why Grunt thinks formal logic has got anything to do with negation of the negation

Cheap shot againt! What is it? 'Lets bully the ignorant newbie' - day?
Formal logic provides a foundation. I agree that real life cannot be
completely expressed within formal systems. Thats right.
But it's a start and a brilliant weapon to defeat idealistic mystics
wo belive in the dialectical Santa Claus...:lol:

___________________________________



Oh, and sweetness and light would be just great, if you could kindly arrange that

No! Not for you. Only hard cold stringent logic for you!

[Grunt]

He seems to know more logic than 99% of dialecticians I have encountered,[...]
You are too kind - but I believe and trust that
the other comrades are well educated!


Just in case, someone feels the need to
brush up on the subject -

may I be so bold and recommend (in that order):


• Schaum's Easy Outline of Logic, by John Nolt


• Schaum's Outlines: Logic, by John Nolt et.al.
(covers even non-classical logic and probability
calculus as well as the philosophy of Logic)

• Schaum's Outlines of Boolean Algebra and
Switching Circuits, by Elliott Mendelson.

• ABC i Symbolisk Logik, av Dag Prawitz
(in Swedish - but an excellent book)


...those should get you started! :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice try, Grunt, but they have been ignoring this sort of advice from me for over 25 years (and for the three years have been here) -- but that does not stop them all pontificating about formal logic (just like Trotsky).

Trust me, it will go right over Gilhyle's head.



There are plenty of introductions to logic sites on the internet too -- but they ignore them just as studiously.

I always recommend E J Lemmon's [I]Beginning Logic.

[Grunt]

[...] -- but that does not stop
them all pontificating about formal logic
Well - then I will not respect what 'they' have to say about
logic - that is - if 'they' are not familiar with the basics as
well have a basic understanding of the 'philosophy' behind it.



(just like Trotsky).
Aw No! Him too? BUMMER! Can you point out a significant
passage/chapter? I have many of his works - but haven't
read them all...:blushing:



There are plenty of introductions to logic sites on the internet
too -- but they ignore them just as studiously.
True - many good sites for all levels! :)



I always recommend E J Lemmon's Beginning Logic.
Lemmon is good - but expensive as hell!
So the comrades should go either to the library or
buy the cheap introductory books I listed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Trotsky -- try the 'ABC of Materialist Dialectics' (scroll down this page):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/09-pbopp.htm

This is in "In Defence of Marxism", pp.61-69.

And this exchange between him and Burnham:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/14-burnham.htm

http://www.marxistsfr.org/history/etol/writers/burnham/1940/02/style.htm

Same book, pp.91-119, and pp.232-56.

Dire stuff for a great revolutionary like Lev D!!

And Lemmon is available from here for just over £5 ($8):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0915144506/ref=sr_1_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228788691&sr=1-1