On Jul 7, 5:26 am, rab <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:



On 2 Jul, 03:13, "Jim F." <m... at (no spam) privacy.net> wrote:

"rab" <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:bb577966-1dc9-4b1c-8769-d4c149d0077a at (no spam) d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused. It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction. Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

So what's peoples opinion here concerning Rosa Lichtenstein's
Anti-dialectics website at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm
She argues that dialectics is unnecessary to Marxism and indeed has
been harmful to it. She rejects dialectics whether in the form of
orthodox materialism or in the more heterodox varieties of
Western Marxism (i.e. Gramsci, Lukacs, Sartre, Horkheimer etc.)

Jim F.

Lots of people have been 'opposed to dialectics' since the time of
Marx and Engels. However, Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all saw
dialectical materialism as central to their world outlook. So why is
just another anti-dialectician worth reading?

To attack it. How often is there an entry point to arguing dialectics
within the Anglo-American left?

srd

Yeah, while we're at it, isn't a lot of this "dialectics" so much
mumbo-jumbo or bunkum
espoused by theologians, most of whom don't know what they're talking
about except to say that things
can get reaallly complicated or that there is this mechanical process
of conflict between opposites, but if things
don't really turn out the way we thought or we can't explain something
then it's "dialectical", see, like so much mysticism like the Holy
Trinity or Transubstantiation or some other obscure doctrine we common
folk need priests to safeguard and explain to us.

What is this doctrine anyway and where do you see it recognized in any
sphere outside the realm of a certain milieu of the Marxist Left.
Surely, if one is to say that formal logic has its limits to
the point of ossification one is to speak an aphorism, as would the
observation that all phenomena
need to be looked at their full context, in all their aspects,
particularly temporarily.

A Workers League guy once told me years ago that dialectics is summed
by the critique of formal logic's "A=A"  OK, but A does equal A-at any
particular point in time.  When I see this doctrine generally accepted
in the scientific community or a significant section thereof, then
maybe I'll take it seriously.   It was refreshing after listening to
all this tedium from Wohlforth and the like to peruse Maurice
Cornforth's (of the British CP) 1940s philosophy pamphlet which is
sociologically oriented with the first sentence talking about classes
and class struggle.  OK maybe he was a Stalinist, but hey if Stalin
said the world wasn't flat would he be wrong just because he's Stalin.

A Workers League guy once told me years ago that dialectics is summed
by the critique of formal logic's "A=A"  OK, but A does equal A-at any
particular point in time.

The question for me is what background do any of these characters have
that makes them experts on physics and the philosophy of science?
advanced degrees in physics, chemistry or biology?  peer reviewed
articles?  etc. etc.  It just seems that they are spouting forth their
own lay, albiet somewhat educated opinions in the manner of creation
science experts.  As far as "In Defense of Marxism", I recall that
excellent work which to my recollection dealt with the nature of the
Soviet Union, not vulgar expositions of philosophy.   It seems to me
that as is sometimes said about the law, these individuals "know just
enough to be dangerous" meaning to give a scientific rationalization
to their views that can sound somewhat convincing-and mystical-to the
uninitiated.

Engels and Trotsky were great political leaders, not scientists,
although they, particularly the latter, were influenced by Darwin and
developments in science which they sought to popularize and defend,
drawing certain inferences to social history from these conclusons.

The question for me is what background do any of these characters have
that makes them experts on physics and the philosophy of science?
advanced degrees in physics, chemistry or biology?  peer reviewed
articles?  etc. etc.  It just seems that they are spouting forth their
own lay, albiet somewhat educated opinions in the manner of creation
science experts.  

The question for me is what background do any of these characters have
that makes them experts on physics and the philosophy of science?
advanced degrees in physics, chemistry or biology? peer reviewed
articles? etc. etc. It just seems that they are spouting forth their
own lay, albiet somewhat educated opinions in the manner of creation
science experts. As far as "In Defense of Marxism", I recall that
excellent work which to my recollection dealt with the nature of the
Soviet Union, not vulgar expositions of philosophy. It seems to me
that as is sometimes said about the law, these individuals "know just
enough to be dangerous" meaning to give a scientific rationalization
to their views that can sound somewhat convincing-and mystical-to the
uninitiated.

Engels and Trotsky were great political leaders, not scientists,
although they, particularly the latter, were influenced by Darwin and
developments in science which they sought to popularize and defend,
drawing certain inferences to social history from these conclusons.

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused.  It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction.  Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

Yes, educated lay critics don't need to know science in order to postulate
certain conclusions, but only up to the point of the extent of our
knowledge of this material, otherwise we come across like pretentious
ignoramuses, not to the same extent as the creationists obviously. The
error I see, that is basic to the creationists is a form of logic-"starting
from the universal" which basically argues back from a conclusion which is
completely backward and Ptolemaic. We first look at the facts and then see
where they lead etc and of course intuition can play a role.

I know its politically incorrect around here, but as someone who has
no particular interest
in philosophy (and why should I v. myriad other topics?), the
empiricism and pragmatism of James ("a new word for an old way of
thinking") and Bergson (whom I stumbled onto on Wikipedia) is what I
feel an affinity with, the ranting of political ideologues against
them for years, only having reinforced that view.  It also seems
congruent with the methodology of the scientific method which doesn't
start from preconcieved conclusions.  The hazards of these type of
"marxist" incursions into philosophy by semi-scientifically literate
ideologues was most dramatically illustrated by the career of TD
Lysenko and "marxist" botany. Obviously the emperor with no clothes is
going to feel threatened by empiricism.

I would certainly flatter myself if I were to compare myself to
a critic of Lenin's view of some obscure topic. To me the gravamen
of Lenin as an historical figure were his views on war and revolution,
not
those on party organization-harped on by bureacratic rightists
constantly-
and certainly not whatever philosphical musings or crypto-religious
views
he may have had. In fact, Lenin in "Socialism and Religion"
specifically
cautioned on not taking a dogmatic view on issues of this kind.

Thus Lenin focused not on Kant, Hegel or other obscure religico-
philosophical
figures as role models, but individuals like Luxemburg, Liebknecht and
Debs
(the latter whom he cited against Kautsky on the imperialist "Great
War").
Scientists are still steeped in the middle ages? no the cretinist
critics of science
are, a classic example of how the capitalist class had advanced
humanity
in battling feudal ideas, but now in its period of decadence must seek
to
shore them up as an ideological corollory of maintaining its rule by
seeking
to keep the masses as dupe like as possible, but with the means of
production
becoming ever more technically complex that is a daunting task, a
contradiction
the liberal capitalists see as the US sinks into imperial decadence
and illiteracy while its
rivals crank out techinically savvy workers and specialists.

Yes, educated lay critics don't need to know science in order to
postulate certain
conclusions, but only up to the point of the extent of our knowledge
of this material,
otherwise we come across like pretentious ignoramuses, not to the
same
extent as the creationists obviously. The error I see, that is basic
to the creationists
is a form of logic-"starting from the universal" which basically
argues back from a conclusion
which is completely backward and Ptolemaic. We first look at the
facts and then
see where they lead etc and of course intuition can play a role.

I know its politically incorrect around here, but as someone who has
no particular interest
in philosophy (and why should I v. myriad other topics?), the
empiricism and pragmatism of James ("a new word for an old way of
thinking") and Bergson (whom I stumbled onto on Wikipedia) is what I
feel an affinity with, the ranting of political ideologues against
them for years, only having reinforced that view. It also seems
congruent with the methodology of the scientific method which doesn't
start from preconcieved conclusions. The hazards of these type of
"marxist" incursions into philosophy by semi-scientifically literate
ideologues was most dramatically illustrated by the career of TD
Lysenko and "marxist" botany. Obviously the emperor with no clothes is
going to feel threatened by empiricism.

On Jun 30, 9:31 am, rab <rogeralanblackw... at (no spam) yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused. It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction. Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

I think I may see your point now. In my terms, the "laws" of
dialectics are permissive rather than prohibitive. A equals A, by
contrast--like scientific laws--is prohibitive, in that a cannot be
anything other than A. But is not calling dialectical principles
"laws," then, somewhat misleading? Human laws may be permissive, an
application that furnished the idea for this distinction. Natural laws
are not. Dialectics may be said to be abstracted from nature, but they
don't describe lawful natural patterns, since such description is
necessarily prohibitive.

srd