Dialectical Materialism

[pk]

pk said he/they was/were irish?

No - I said Burke was Irish - the origins of Communism were British and being lived out decades before Marxist thought was known about...

Anyone?

 

[belboid]

No I don't see. If you in all earnestness suggests that a car is not a car I think you should be stripped of your licence if you've got one, or be denied one if you don't and want one.

But even 'a car' is something different to 'A chassis + a wheel + another wheel ......'

 

[TruXta]

nooo - Burke was irish!

No - I said Burke was Irish - the origins of Communism were British and being lived out decades before Marxist thought was known about...

Gotcha, my bad.

 

[TruXta]

You make a provisional agreement that 2 comes next.

But 2 isn't 2. Right, from now on I'll simply choose to believe that when you say you, you actually mean earwax. Cuz, you know, identity - who needs it?

 

[belboid]

Just cos it can't really be spelt out in bourgeois aristotelian formal logic, doesn't mean it's unnecesary. It simply reflects the limits of the usefulness of one particular method of representing it.

And isn't that part of the great beauty of that individuality?

 

[butchersapron]

But 2 isn't 2. Right, from now on I'll simply choose to believe that when you say you, you actually mean earwax. Cuz, you know, identity - who needs it?

Of course 2 is 2. What else could it be?

 

[TruXta]

3?

 

[TruXta]

Just cos it can't really be spelt out in bourgeois aristotelian formal logic, doesn't mean it's unnecesary. It simply reflects the limits of the usefulness of one particular method of representing it.

And isn't that part of the great beauty of that individuality?

B, every time you use the word "be" or any of its tenses, you are implicitly assuming that the law of identity holds. You're being wilfully obtuse and its rather awkward to see.

BTW, pk, are you thinking of Levellers or Diggers?

 

[butchersapron]

Is it? Or do we say it's 2?

 

[TruXta]

And LOL at "bourgeois aristotelian formal logic".

 

[TremulousTetra]

Could they have used a different compass and achieved the same results or even better results? It's not obvious.

Is there a different compass to>

I didn't say they were unoriginal. I think a lot of there best bits of their philosophy is not very dramatic or dazzling. It's just good sense.
[Becuase coming back to the original post, I think it's fair to say the works of Engels and Marx failed to make this foolproofly obvious, that this was their belief too.

" just good sense" = truth?
Philosophy, if anything, is the search for, good sense, eternal immutable truths about the nature of our existence. Truths that have always been true, and will always be true. What better to act as a compass?

2000 years of philosophy can be summed up with the simple debate taking place from Socrates through to Hegel, "is the true nature of our existence, a product of the mind, or our senses?" 'Marx' melded the theses of materialism, and the anti-theses of dialectics, the theses of our senses, and the anti-theses of our mind, into one indivisible whole. And in that he revolutionised our conception of the nature of our existence.

Now, on the other hand, Darwin had no such compass. And yet I would say, at the heart of the theory of evolution, is dialectical materialism. Why? Because Marx, like Darwin, didn't create or need to understand dialectical materialism, it was there in the nature of our existence to observe. Marx did not invent dialectical materialism, dialectical materialism is the algebra of social and natural evolution.

I don't think Marx's methodology is seperable from his work. What is interesting is to see how Marx reasoned. We don't need dialectical formulae to do that. In fact I think it is best approached without preconceptions about what dialectics are etc. Now I've no problem with Marx's methodology and I've no problem with you calling it dialectical materialism if you like, but don't see the formulae as a substitute for reading carefully.

I don't have disagree with any of that. That is exactly how I had to approach the reading of Marx, because I had no education, let alone understanding of Hegel. However, I could sense as I was learning about imperialism, racism, economics, etc there was a rhyme and reason that held this all separate strands of the together. At first I thought it was economics that held altogether. And then in the autumn of 1989 I read the international socialist journal, commemorating the 200th anniversary of the French revolution, and in a Eureka moment it became blindingly obvious, what held altogether was a philosophical truth, dialectical materialism.

Engels materialist dialetics (as he called it) I'm mostly fine with as well. I think it's best seen as rules of thumb and I find it can be helpful. It's only really the laws of dialectics in Dialectics of Nature that I think lead to a lot of nonsense.

well as you can see from above, that's where we disagree. In my opinion, the theory of dialectical materialism, is an observation of the natural laws of existence.

I would have to see Marx's non-existant pamphlet in order to translate it!

I wasn't being sarcastic. I would dearly love you to

I can translate its terms into more precise language if I need to.

Bcuase AGAIN, coming back to the original post, I think it's fair to say the works of Engels and Marx failed to make this foolproofly obvious, that this was their belief too.

 

[TruXta]

Is it? Or do we say it's 2?

Hey, I say, 2? How about the square root of pi follows 1? You know, it broadens our horizon beyond these wretchedly bourgeois vistas.

 

[belboid]

B, every time you use the word "be" or any of its tenses, you are implicitly assuming that the law of identity holds. You're being wilfully obtuse and its rather awkward to see.

yes, because both words and logic are similarly useful but incomplete systems for represnting the world. But they are both pretty useful, and we accept those limitations most of the time, because of that usefulness. But that doesn't mean there aren't times when those meanings become frayed. Those are the times when those things go through a revolutionary change and become something else.

 

[belboid]

And LOL at "bourgeois aristotelian formal logic".

I thought that covered all the bases

 

[butchersapron]

Hey, I say, 2? How about the square root of pi follows 1? You know, it broadens our horizon beyond these wretchedly bourgeois vistas.

See how many people follow you.

 

[belboid]

Philosophy, if anything, is the search for, good sense, eternal immutable truths about the nature of our existence. Truths that have always been true, and will always be true.

Oh, philosophy is anti-marxist then.

 

[butchersapron]

Gor blimey

Philosophy, if anything, is the search for, good sense, eternal immutable truths about the nature of our existence. Truths that have always been true, and will always be true

 

[pk]

BTW, pk, are you thinking of Levellers or Diggers?

Nope, nowt to do with either... they were more informed by the Bible side of things i think - no I mean equal share of profit/stock, no bosses, communal living, Marxism in it's most pure form.

A British construct, would you believe.

 

[TruXta]

yes, because both words and logic are similarly useful but incomplete systems for represnting the world. But they are both pretty useful, and we accept those limitations most of the time, because of that usefulness. But that doesn't mean there aren't times when those meanings become frayed. Those are the times when those things go through a revolutionary change and become something else.

What things? Do away with the law of identity and everything can "logically" be anything else. You can fly without an aircraft cuz you're a bird, or some other hippy shit like that.

 

[TruXta]

See how many people follow you.

So the validity of logic should be decided by a popularity contest?

 

[TruXta]

Nope, nowt to do with either... they were more informed by the Bible side of things i think - no I mean equal share of profit/stock, no bosses, communal living, Marxism in it's most pure form.

A British construct, would you believe.

I give up. Speak now or die, trot bastard.

 

[butchersapron]

So the validity of logic should be decided by a popularity contest?

If it's 2 it's 2.

Why are you struggling with this form of tautological thinking?

 

[pk]

I give up. Speak now or die, trot bastard.

Trot LOL, no...

I might start a thread to maximise the surprise. Seems nobody here knows the real and very British history of communism!

(I didn't until recently I will admit!!)

 

[TruXta]

If it's 2 it's 2.

Why are you struggling with this form of tautological thinking?

I'm struggling? I'm not me, so how can I struggle? You aren't even you, so who the fuck are you to talk?

 

[TruXta]

So start the thread then pk and stop being so bloody coy about it.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm struggling? I'm not me, so how can I struggle? You aren't even you, so who the fuck are you to talk?

I am me and so are you.

 

[belboid]

What things? Do away with the law of identity and everything can "logically" be anything else. You can fly without an aircraft cuz you're a bird, or some other hippy shit like that.

The frayed meanings things. Unless meanings can be frayed, they can never change, but we all know they do! All that is solid melts into air.

As to the latter point, well yeah. Anything can flow from a contradiction. Thats the point!

 

[TruXta]

I am me and so are you.

I've got enough with being just me, thanks all the same.

 

[TruXta]

The frayed meanings things. Unless meanings can be frayed, they can never change, but we all know they do! All that is solid melts into air.

As to the latter point, well yeah. Anything can flow from a contradiction. Thats the point!

You're talking like a nominalist, which I would think should be far from marxist ideas. Meanings change, but things are not meanings. Unless you're a nominalist that is.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm a nominalist. A pragmatic one.