Do We Need the Dialectic?
- This topic has 438 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
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?
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 switch to 'Compatibilty View', in the Tools Menu.]
I suggest we take Uncle Charlie at face value:
Chucky wrote:He knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06.htmWhich suggests to anyone who dabbles in English that whilst Chaz was certainly not Hegelian, he clearly understood his method to contain something dialectic.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Well, I don't have, nor do I want an a priori theory.Well you may think that but hasn't it been shown that every theory has to rest on a certain set of unquestionable a priori assumptions?Hence why the "linguistic turn" has been in somewhat of a retreat in recent decades..
ALB:
Quote:Fair enough, but I'd say that Dietzgen's "dialectical materialism" is another example of non-Hegelian dialectics and he never was a Hegelian in his younger days. It has nothing to do with Plekhanov/Lenin version as explained by Anton Pannekoek in Lenin As Philosopher.Well, I reject all of philosophy as non-sense — not 99.99%, but 100% — and that inlcudes Dietzgen and Pannekoek's versions of it.And here is why:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_all_philosophical_theories_are_non-sensical.htm
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Well, I reject all of philosophy as non-sense — not 99.99%, but 100% — and that inlcudes Dietzgen and Pannekoek's versions of it.Well that's all well and good but the evidence suggests that if you're going to be consistent you're going to have to add Marx to the list too.
YMS. quoting a letter of Marx's:
Quote:He knows full well that my method of exposition is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist, and Hegel an idealist. Hegel’s dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after being stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.As I have pointed out several times, when it comes to deciding what an author believes, published sources take precedence over unpublished material, especially if the latter were written before the former.So, thanks for the quoted letter, YMS, but as you can see it was written in 1868, over four years before the Postface to the second edition of Das Kapital — where Marx took care to include the only summary of 'the dialectic method' he published and endorsed in his entire life. In this summary, there is no trace of Hegel whatsoever, and yet he still calls it 'my method' and 'the dialectic method'.So, this published source takes precendence over that unpublished letter you quoted.Das Kapital is still a Hegel-free zone.Look, to save comrades keep dredging up various letters Marx wrote: I am aware of all of them, but none of them can countermand the above published source. So, you can stop quoting them.
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.
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!
DJP:
Quote:Well that's all well and good but the evidence suggests that if you're going to be consistent you're going to have to add Marx to the list to.If it can be shown, as opposed to it merely being asserted, that he had a philosophy, sure — but I deny he had one, and I'd like to see the proof to the contrary.
Quote:Well you may think that but hasn't it been shown that every theory has to rest on a certain set of unquestionable a priori assumptions?I don't have a philosophical theory, though — however, if it can be shown, as opposed to it being merely asserted again, that I do, I will disown it immediately, and apologise profusely.
Quote:Hence why the "linguistic turn" has been in somewhat of a retreat in recent decades.(1) You mustn't assume that my work has anything to do with much that was part of 'the lingusitic turn'.(2) Moreover, the version of 'linguistic philosophy' that forms the core of my work depends on no a priori assumptions, and I defy you to show otherwise.(3) There are/were political and ideological reasons why linguistic philosophers retreated from their earlier anti-metaphysical stance, and the genre went into steep decline about 35 years ago.(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.More on that here:http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10792
LB:
Quote:Isn't this apriori theory, the belief that 'published trumps unpublished'?It's an assertion, not the revealed truth, Rosa!In fact it's an interpretative rule, not an assumption, an assertion, or even a theory — and so it can't be true or false, since rules can only be useful or useless, practical or impractical, obeyed or disobeyed.Recall, I am not against scientific theory, just philosophical theory — you can find a brief explanation why, here:http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=52413&sid=abc212ee470cdda86d744246d944014f&start=40But, I did go through this in an earlier post (and in reply to you).
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!]
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.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:So, this published source takes precendence over that unpublished letter you quoted.All this stuff about published and unpublished letters and dismissing what you don't agree with as Marx joking is worthy of the best Leninist dialectians.In any event, the famous 1873 Postface to the Second German edition of Capital you keep relying on shows a certain respect for Hegel (describing him as a "that mighty thinker" and "the first to present its [the dialectic's] general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner". Of course Marx didn't agree with Hegel's "Idealism" and Capital is indeed a Hegelian-Idealism-free zone. But whoever said it wasn't?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.