[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Quote:

My proof?You are a human.The only disproof is to admit you're a Turing Test!

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is a proof that I have a philosophical theory.

Sounds a bit like 'Does not compute', Rosa!Perhaps only humans intersperse serious discussion with humour?More seriously, I'll leave this point alone now.I have my beliefs/opinions/theories, and you have yours.Or, you hold to the theory that you don't!

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

LB:

Quote:

Well, in my opinion, Rosa, you do have an apriori theory!

Well, I'd like t see your proof — bald assertion doesn't quite cut it.

---

My proof?You are a human.The only disproof is to admit you're a Turing Test!

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

In fact it's an interpretative rule,…

But… 'rules' come from humans, not the planet Rule.I'm afraid you've lost me, at least, Rosa.I'm with you all the way on 'dialectics', but I'm afraid I part company with your ideas outside of that.

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

(4) It is worth adding, that I am using "philosophy"/"philosopher" above (in points (2) and (3)) in Wittgenstein's new sense of that word.

But Wittgenstein's sense is apriori to this is discussion.And what if the rest of us are "using "philosophy"/"philosopher" above (in all our posts) in humanity's old sense of that word"?You'll eventually isolate yourself from comrades if you insist on using an apriori theory that separates you from them, in terms of understanding.Understanding is always social, not individual [more apriori theory from me, I'm afraid!]

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

As I have pointed out several times, when it comes to deciding what an author believes, published sources take precedence over unpublished material, …

Isn't this apriori theory, the belief that 'published trumps unpublished'?It's an assertion, not the revealed truth, Rosa!

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

LB:

Quote:

If you read again my criticism of Engels, which employs critical realist concepts, perhaps we could then discuss our respective 'a priori' theories?

Well, I don't have, nor do I want an a priori theory.I have refrained from discussing Critical Realism since it is off topic to this thread, and it interests me not in the slightest.I have pulled apart one strand of it (at the end of this essay), though:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htmHere is a direct link:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm#Critical-Realism%5BThe page takes a few secods to load, as this essay is over 180,000 words long! Also, if you are using Internet Explorer 10, this link won't work properly unless you swithch to 'Compatibilty View', in the Tools Menu.]

---

Well, in my opinion, Rosa, you do have an apriori theory!But, I take your point that you don't want to discuss it, and that's fine by me.If you just ignore my posts on this thread which deal with criticism of dialectics from a critical realist perspective, I'll discuss it with DJP, ALB and any other comrades who are 'interested even slightly'!Thanks for the link; I'll try to have a look, but I think that it'll probably be too long and detailed for my purposes on this thread, which is discussion. I do enough isolated reading from books! My understanding is often helped more by my answering questions that comrades pose of my knowledge, which forces me to re-phrase and explain my current views.

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

I'm afraid, Critical Realism is just a different version of the same old a priori dogmatic approach to theory I referred to earlier…

Yeah, and told you I disagree with you, and we started to discuss it, but you didn't seem keen to take it any further.See posts 241, 242, 243.

R L wrote:

Is this supposed to be an application of Engels's 'Law'?

No, it's a comparison with and criticism of Engels' 'Law'.So, your 'taking apart' link is misplaced.If you read again my criticism of Engels, which employs critical realist concepts, perhaps we could then discuss our respective 'a priori' theories?

[LBird]

DJP, further to our discussion of Ollman, some considerations upon dialectics and critical realism.One of the main principles of Critical Realism is that when components are combined in a certain way they might form a new ‘structure’, and this structure might then produce ‘emergent properties’.Of fundamental importance for our understanding is to realise that these ‘emergent properties’ are not located in the components themselves. The ‘emergent properties’ do not exist prior to the building of the structure, so they are by definition historical properties. If the structure collapses, the ‘emergent properties’ are lost, and they now do not exist. They are not present in the wreckage of the structure, within the components, even if all the individual components of the structure remain intact. ‘Emergent properties’ are not parcelled out at a lower level: without the specific relationships, of which the structure consists, they are not in existence. They are relational properties. I will give some examples of this later, if any comrades require them, for understanding. Please ask.My purpose of outlining Critical Realism is to allow us to compare it with a part of Engels’ version of ‘dialectics’.If we look closely at one of Engels’ examples of ‘the transformation of quantity into quality’, we find it is nothing of the sort.

Engels, Anti-Duhring, wrote:

In conclusion we shall call one more witness for the transformation of quantity into quality, namely — Napoleon. He describes the combat between the French cavalry, who were bad riders but disciplined, and the Mamelukes, who were undoubtedly the best horsemen of their time for single combat, but lacked discipline, as follows:“Two Mamelukes were undoubtedly more than a match for three Frenchmen; 100 Mamelukes were equal to 100 Frenchmen; 300 Frenchmen could generally beat 300 Mamelukes, and 1,000 Frenchmen invariably defeated 1,500 Mamelukes.”Just as with Marx a definite, though varying, minimum sum of exchange-values was necessary to make possible its transformation into capital, so with Napoleon a detachment of cavalry had to be of a definite minimum number in order to make it possible for the force of discipline, embodied in closed order and planned utilisation, to manifest itself and rise superior even to greater numbers of irregular cavalry, in spite of the latter being better mounted, more dexterous horsemen and fighters, and at least as brave as the former.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch10.htmIn fact, what Engels is describing here is not a ‘dialectical transformation of quantity into quality’, but ‘emergence of properties from a new structure’.The mere quantitative addition of ‘Frenchmen’ would not achieve the ‘transformations’ which are described. It is quite clear that even 10,000 Frenchmen, stood as individuals and not in any specific structural relationships, would be defeated by only 1,000 Mamelukes.It is not mere quantitative accretion that produces qualitative change, but the specific structuring of more Frenchmen into an Army. An army is not mere numbers, but specialisation of roles, co-ordination, equipment, training, sub-structures, etc., a structuring which produces properties that don’t exist at the individual level, abilities, efficiencies, ideas, morale, esprit d’corps, a unit that acts as one under a commander. The French Revolutionary armies under Napoleon won battle after battle because their new structures were better than those of the armies opposing them. This was nothing to do with merely increased numbers, as ‘dialectics’ would suggest, but the emergence of new structural properties, as ‘critical realism’ would suggest.Engels’ essentially passive ‘transformation of quantity into quality’ leaves out the human, creative element, which Marx stressed in his Theses On Feuerbach:

Marx wrote:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmCritical Realism depends upon active humans, whereas Engels’ Dialectics ignores the active restructuring by humans of nature and consciousness, in favour of passive contemplation of natural development.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

This lends some credence, I think, to my suggestion that 'dialectics' would best be seen as Marx's early attempt to employ what we now would call 'critical realism'.

In the book isn't Ollman at least partially in agreement with this?

Well, he devotes chapter 10 to it, but I have my differences with him about 'dialectics' and 'critical realism'.Plus, more worringly,

Bertell Ollman, p. 158, wrote:

Socialism's sudden loss of credibility as a viable alternative to capitalism, however, a loss largely due to the collapse of the Sovier Union…

Anyone who thinks that the Soviet Union was any sort of 'socialism' casts doubt on their own philosophical method. If his version of 'dialectics' can't tell him that workers were exploited by the S.U., what use is it?

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

So, when scientists misconstrue the rules they use to understand the world as fundamental truths about it, they are indulging in metaphysics. And this isn't surprising, since they too had been educated to believe that this is what they should be doing.Hence, it isn't just Marxists who have been bamboozled in this way.

[my bold]But… have all 'Marxists been bamboozled in this way'?

Anton Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htmIsn't Pannekoek here contrasting supposed "scientists' fundamental truths" with Historical Materialism?That is, he wasn't 'bamboozled'. Isn't this method (HM) the one we should encourage Communist scientists to adopt?

[LBird]

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

Well, naturally, I don't think that Leninism is the problem. But, we are just going to have to disgree over that one, since, as I have said, I haven't come here to discuss Leninism with anti-Leninists.

I find this a very odd standpoint for you to take, Rosa, since you are actively strengthening us anti-Leninists! We can but thank you, anyway!More fundamentally, though, I disagree with your idea that thought can't be applied 'aprioristically'. I think that this is exactly what science does, when humans employ an aprioristic theory to select (what they consider relevant, according to the theory) from the 'object'. This selection from the object (an 'abstraction') is then used to build a hypothesis which clearly then must be tested empirically: ie. the unity of theory and practice.Since I think that this method covers both Marx and the latest (and later!) bourgeois philosophers of science, I would think that discussing just where these 'aprioristic theories of science' originate would be of great value for workers. I suspect that we'll soon uncover the bullshitters.Can't we tempt you to indulge us?

[LBird]

Just been having another look at Bertell Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method, and on page 60 he has a sub-heading named The Solution Lies in the Process of Abstraction, and on reading this once more it seems clear that another (and indeed now better) term for Marx's 'abstraction' would be 'selection'. This places the 'active' human at the heart of the scientific process, as Marx tried to do in his Theses on Feuerbach.Then, we only need to ask ourselves 'what are the parameters of 'abstraction/selection' from the 'real concrete'. These parameters are given, of course, by the theory that we employ, as modern philosophers of science (and Einstein) argue.This lends some credence, I think, to my suggestion that 'dialectics' would best be seen as Marx's early attempt to employ what we now would call 'critical realism'. That is, every time Marx then wrote 'dialectic', that we now read 'critical realism'. This would place Marx 150 years ahead of the development of bourgeois thinking on science, an advance that was unfortunately (and disastrously) thrown away by Engels' muddled and amateurish 'philosophical' work.To stress again, this focus on an active humanity is all a world away from Engels' 'dialectic in nature' and Lenin's 'dialectical materialism'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Where exactly is it that dialectics has been "so influential"? I'd love to know, everyone I try to start discussing it with at the bus-stop just looks at me funny and runs away!

Well, DJP, it's 'been so influential' enough that SPGB posters here keep mentioning it!

LOL.Who bought this up anyway?But seriously my interest is because I think Marx has something useful to say about the present moment, and in various postfaces, prefaces and footnotes he describes the method he used to construct this work as "dialectical". Now what Marx meant by this, and how this is different from what other people have meant by it is, to me at least, a useful and practical question since I hope the answer will help me in my own work.It is also interesting to compare Marx to others who would not have described their methods as "dialectical". So for example; Do you think it would have been possible to write Capital using the methods based on linguistic analysis that Wittenstien used? What use are the methods of analytic philosophy for creating a critical social theory like the one constructed in Capital?

I'll have to come back to your important points later, DJP, time permitting.This is precisely the area that I've tried to raise discussion. I think that it's possible to regard Marx as a 'critical realist', and to argue that his use of the term 'dialectic' was an early attempt to describe 'critical realism'.Of course, we'd have to discuss, compare and contrast all these methods: Marx's dialectical, linguistic analysis, analytical philosophy, and critical realism. I think we'd need Rosa for 2 and 3, because I for one know nothing about Wittgenstein.

DJP wrote:

This is where my interests in "dialectic" lie, not in trying to uncover some mystic driving force that controls the universe.

Ditto, comrade.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whilst any comrades think that there is anything to dialectics, we have to confront and discuss it, because it has been so influential and damaging for the proletariat.

Where exactly is it that dialectics has been "so influential"? I'd love to know, everyone I try to start discussing it with at the bus-stop just looks at me funny and runs away!

Well, DJP, it's 'been so influential' enough that SPGB posters here keep mentioning it!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Dialecticians' pretend to have access to an unmediated 'structure'. That is why Leninists favour 'dialectics'. They can claim to have access to a special method, which is not accessible to the class, so they have a more profound consciousness.

Yes but we are not Leninists (except for RL) or "dialecticians" either. Now Marx did have a method that he refered to as "dialectic" if we want to we could discuss what he meant by this and how his method is different from others e.g Wittgenstein.But I don't think the outcome of the world revolution depends on what we come up with!

Once again, why would any Communist then stress 'dialectical method'?Perhaps 'dialectics' is a mystification intended to prevent proletarian revolution?There's one thesis that has some evidential basis!

[Author]

Posts