ALB: “I think you need to

ALB:
“I think you need to re-read Dietzgen The Nature of Human Brain Work (1869). He didn’t pinch his basic idea from Hegel (there is no evidence that he had read any Hegel by then, Hegel being a “dead dog” by 1869). He got it from Kant. In fact, one way of seeing his theory is that it is Kant’s without the idea that behind what we experience there is a thing-in-itself that can’t know anything about. So all that exists is the ever-changing world of phenomena which humans try to understand by naming, describing and classifying its parts (Dietzgen’s theory of knowledge and of science). This doesn’t imply the existence of “cosmic energies” (in fact it denies this) or anything mystical like that (which I agree Hegel was).”
Well, his son tells us (in Some of the Philosophical Essays, p., that in his adolescence (i.e., in the early to mid-1840s) his father “assiduously studied…philosophy”, and since Hegel was still all the rage in Germany at that time, it is highly likely that his reading included Hegel. Given the additional fact that he hit upon ‘dialectics’ (another Hegelian invention), and the idea that everything is interconnected (an idea he either got from Hegel or other German philosophers who were peddling that very idea at the time, having pinched it from earlier mystics like Oetinger and Boehme), the conclusion is pretty safe that Dietzgen lifted this idea from  these mystical German Idealists.
Sure, Kant had a hand in all this, since Kant was heavily influential on all of German philosophy at that time, and Hegel was the leading figure in the criticism of Kant’s noumena. So, your point merely serves to substantiate my allegations.
Furthermore, I agree that Dietzgen had stripped much of this mysticism away, but his core idea (that all things are interconnected) is no less mysterious, and was plainly  lifted from Hermetic mystics.
“Actually, it would be interesting to discuss it. Do you mean that you don’t think that Leninism was an ideology for the state-capitalist development of economically backward countries?”
Well, I am a Leninist; I just reject Lenin’s version (and all versions) of Dialectical Materialism. But, we can discuss this another time.
“Yes you do, actually. It seems to be that (as in the quote from Glenn Magee) “the cosmos is … a loosely connected set of particulars”, ie that the “particulars” have an independent existence and are not parts of a greater whole (which inevitably means that there are inter-related if only for that reason). I don’t think this theory is non-sensical, just a different, less adequate one.”
Again, I do not have a philosophical theory, nor do I want one, and nor do we need one; you have yet to show otherwise.
And, I’m not sure you have quite grasped what I mean by ‘non-sensical’ — I explain what I do mean, and why all philosophical theories are non-sensical, at the link I posted earlier.
Here it is again:
http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?788-Why-all-Philosophical-Theories-are-Non-Sensical
I go into this in extensive, almost PhD length detail here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm