Do We Need the Dialectic?
- This topic has 438 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The discoveries made by Lewis Morgan forced Marx and Engels to redefine their definition about class and ideology, therefore it was not in every epoch, they exist only in class society
YMS:"I could do Quantum mechanics in one minute. Probably."Go on then…"I note, though, that you don't provide any refutation for the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on experience reconciling their knowledge through discussion."Theories or propositions can be refuted (since they are both capable of being true), but a method can't (since methods can't be true or false, only useful or useless, practical or impractical).I'd have thought that a genius like you would know this."I'm sorry if you feel you've wasted thirty years of your life."No, just the few minutes here 'debating' with you.
mcolome1:"The discoveries made by Lewis Morgan forced Marx and Engels to redefine their definition about class and ideology, therefore it was not in every epoch, they exist only in class society"That is, of course, implied by the phrase: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas…." If there is no ruling-class, then their ideas can't rule — and there was no ruling-class in pre-class society.So, they didn't have to revise their ideas on this score — but, if you think differently, let's see the passage where one or other of them say what you allege of them.
ALB:"I still say, RL, that you are on to a loser in trying to argue that Wittgenstein meant something different by "philosophy" than the Logical Positivists and the Ordinary Language Philosophers. All of them were concerned with analysing the meaning of everyday language and eliminating most of what traditional philosophy had studied as "metaphysics". Anyway, you have conceded that Wittgenstein did philosophy and was a philosopher, even if a sort of anti-philosophy philosopher."Sure, he might have meant it the same way, but there is no evidence that he did (at least you present none), and plenty that suggests he didn't. Check out the long version of my article:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/was_wittgenstein_a_leftist.htmBut, let us suppose you are right, I certainly mean this word differently. Where Wittgenstein might have trod softy, I use hobnail boots."Anyway, you have conceded that Wittgenstein did philosophy and was a philosopher, even if a sort of anti-philosophy philosopher."Well, would you accept the following from, say, a critic of your politics?"Anyway, you are a capitalist, even if a sort of anti-capitalist capitalist."I rather think you'd reject that description of your politics. Same with Wittgenstein (and me) about philosophy.ALB:"You are on to a loser too is trying to argue that by "the philosophers" Marx meant more than the German "critical critics" that he'd once been associated with himself and that the quotes you have given about him saying they were quasi-religious, ought to come down to earth, were only concerned with discussing and changing ideas, etc, etc don't refer to them. Engels actually says so in his preface to his Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy. Referring to what was later to be published (after his death) as The German Ideology, he wrote:!"Well, Engels had his own axe to grind, so what he had to say many years later is hardly relevant to what Marx meant in the 1840s — and this is especially so since there aren't any (nor can you find any) positive comments made by Marx about philosophy after the late 1840s — you can check, I did.Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, Marx said this in the German Ideology:"The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch…."[Bold added.]Once more, you will no doubt notice that Marx tells us that the ruling-class "rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age", which means that what he had to say about philosophy didn't just apply to German Philosophers, but to all philosophers.Or, do you think that when he said:"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it…,"[Bold added.]he didn't actually mean "in every epoch" but only in the Germany of the 18th and 19th centuries?Now, Marx could be wrong (but see my reply to L Bird on this), but if we want to know what he meant by "philosophy" the above comments are surely relevant.So, of course, much of what he had to say about philosophy did apply to the German conditions, but, as I asked you in an earlier post: Do you think that the theories of, say, Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Boethius, John Scotus Eriugena, Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Ockham, Buridan, Suarez, Cusanus, Berkeley, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Wolfe (and countless others), weren't part of speculative metaphysics?So, even if you are right about Marx, his comments in the German Ideology must also apply to theorists like the above — and, I'd argue, since the 'British Materialists' also engaged in speculative metaphysics, they apply to them, too.ALB:"But this discussion about the meaning of philosophy is a bit of a side-show. More important are the differences over Leninism and its political tactics and practice, as an ideology of state capitalism, arising from the meaning of the ruling ideas being those of the ruling class and how to deal with this."Sure, but that is for another time, and a different thread.
Young Master Smeet, in reply to Rosa L, wrote:I note, though, that you don't provide any refutation for the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on experience reconciling their knowledge through discussion.Well, it could be argued that that isn't the 'dialectical method'. It could be argued that it should read:"the dialectical method of two people disagreeing based on theory reconciling their knowledge through experience (ie. practice)".
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Theories or propositions can be refuted (since they are both capable of being true), but a method can't (since methods can't be true or false, only useful or useless, practical or impractical.I don't agree with you here, Rosa. Any method implies a theory behind it, so a method can be refuted, through its theoretical underpinnings.And since theories contain assumptions and axioms, the simple useful/useless or practical/impractical dichotomy would be better expressed as less/more useful or less/more practical. That is, a spectrum which requires judgement after discussion, rather than any obvious acceptance/rejection.
RL,I'm waiting on that chance that the electrons in my brain will jump into precisely the correct configuration for me to comprehend quantum mechanics without needing to do any work.The method of trying to enter the room by vibrating my molecules through the wall can be refuted, since if it isn't possible it isn't even impractical. A method of truth finding either finds an answer or it doesn't. An impractical method may well produce a true result (we could explode the moon into pure computronium and use it's atom as nanocomputers to do advanced quantum mathematics, that's impractical but possible). I think the word we are both struggling towards is valid.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think the word we are both struggling towards is valid.Yeah, and 'validity' is a social judgement, and doesn't simply actively emerge from rocks, if we are passive enough and listen carefully.The notion of 'dialectics in nature', as I'm sure you'll agree, is nonsense.
I never said that Marx had a positive attitude to philosophy in general (In fact I said the opposite) nor would I deny that when Marx talks about ruling ideas he includes philosophy of all kinds in this. My point was narrower: that by "die Philosophen" in your quotes he was talking about post-Hegel German philosophers of which he'd once been one.It is surely significant that in the passage where he writes of this he speaks of "thinkers", "producers of ideas" rather than "philosophers". Surely to make it clear he was referring to a wider group than he referred elsewhere to as "die Philosphen", a group that includes theologists, theorists of law or history or literature and ideologists of all kind as well as philosophers, German or otherwise.It doesn't make any difference which one of us is right on this narrow point. I just think that the ecidence shows that .you are wrong on it.I would add, though, that in assimilating "producers of ideas" and "philosphers" and then rejecting philosophy you would also seem to be rejecting all theorising, even by socialists. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or, more worryingly, denying the utility of arguing the case for socialism with fellow workers, not even in simple, everyday language (preferring to lead them down the path of "transitional demands" instead as a way of making them learn).
ALB:"I never said that Marx had a positive attitude to philosophy in general "I never said you did; my point was that the very last things Marx wrote about philosophy were negative, and after the late 1840s there are no postive (or even neutral) things he had to say about this discipline.ALB:"(In fact I said the opposite) nor would I deny that when Marx talks about ruling ideas he includes philosophy of all kinds in this. My point was narrower: that by "die Philosophen" in your quotes he was talking about post-Hegel German philosophers of which he'd once been one."Indeed, but in view of the other points I made in my last post, it is quite obvious that the things he said about philosophy weren't just about German Philosophy.ALB:"It is surely significant that in the passage where he writes of this he speaks of "thinkers", "producers of ideas" rather than "philosophers". Surely to make it clear he was referring to a wider group than he referred elsewhere to as "die Philosphen", a group that includes theologists, theorists of law or history or literature and ideologists of all kind as well as philosophers, German or otherwise."I agree, but this wider group will include philosophers, too.ALB:"I would add, though, that in assimilating "producers of ideas" and "philosphers" and then rejecting philosophy you would also seem to be rejecting all theorising, even by socialists. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or, more worryingly, denying the utility of arguing the case for socialism with fellow workers, not even in simple, everyday language (preferring to lead them down the path of "transitional demands" instead as a way of making them learn)."No, I don't reject scientific theory, as I have pointed out before.However, I'm not sure why you mentioned 'transitional demands' — I have never argued in their favour, whatever other Trotskyists might have maintained.
LB:"I don't agree with you here, Rosa. Any method implies a theory behind it, so a method can be refuted, through its theoretical underpinnings."I'd like to see the proof that any/every method has a theory behind it."And since theories contain assumptions and axioms, the simple useful/useless or practical/impractical dichotomy would be better expressed as less/more useful or less/more practical. That is, a spectrum which requires judgement after discussion, rather than any obvious acceptance/rejection."Not all theories contain axioms; I think you are confusing formal theories with theories in general.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:However, I'm not sure why you mentioned 'transitional demands' — I have never argued in their favour, whatever other Trotskyists might have maintained.I thought you said somewhere that you were or had been in some Trotskyist organisation (SWP, I think) and jumped to the conclusion that you were an orthodox one. My apologies but what, then, is your case against "abstract propaganda" for socialism?In the meantime, I've discovered that Marx did take some interest in "philosophy" after 1845. He introduced Joseph Dietzgen, who was one of the delegates to the congress of the IWMA in Amsterdam in 1872 as, "our philosopher" (as reported by his son, Eugene, in this article) and also discussed his ideas in correspondence with Engels and Kugelmann. I agree, though, that Dietzgen was into the theory of knowledge (epistemology) rather than general, speculative "philosophy" and that he did write a book called The Positive Outcome of Philosophy, a title implying that philosophy's day was over. But didn't you also claim somewhere that Marx wasn't interested even in "epistemology"?I'm not sure that this makes any difference to anything.
ALB:"I thought you said somewhere that you were or had been in some Trotskyist organisation (SWP, I think) and jumped to the conclusion that you were an orthodox one. My apologies but what, then, is your case against "abstract propaganda" for socialism?"The SWP are, or were, a Trotskyist organisation; I was a member for a few years twenty or more years ago. As far as I know, they have never advocated, or argued for, transitional demands. I have nothing against 'abstract propaganda' for socialism, provided that it isn't all — or the only thing –, that an organisation engages in.And thank you for the Dietzgen reference. There are two things I would say about this: 1) Secondary reports about what Marx did or didn't think about Joseph Dietzgen in no way count as reliable evidence about what he thought about philosophy, especially when they contradict what Marx himself wrote about it. 2) Even if we were to believe Dietzgen's son, Marx's use of 'our philosopher' should be viewed as a non-serious, almost facetious use of that phrase. Unless we were there, there is no way of deciding now whether Marx meant it seriously, or was merely ribbing Dietzgen.And I maintain that Marx wasn't interested in epistemology — or, rather, there is no evience that he was.I am currently in the process of checking Marx's comments about Dietzgen; I'll get back to you when I have finished.
Ok, here are the only detailed comments I could find in the Collected Works (there are many more brief mentions of Dietzgen, but most are only passing remarks — such as 'received letter from…', etc.):Marx to Kugelmann 07/12/1867: "Engels rightly observes that the autodidactic philosophy — pursued by workers themselves — has made great progress in this tanner, when compared with the cobbler Jakob Böhme, ditto that none but the 'German' worker is capable of such cerebral production." [MECW 42, p.497.]Marx to Engels 04/10/1868: "My view is that J Dietzgen would do best if he condensed all his ideas into 2 printed sheets and had them printed in his name as a tanner. If he publishes them at the intended length, he will make a fool of himself because of the lack of dialectical development and the running in circles." [MECW 43, p.121.]Marx to Kugelmann 07/12/1867: "Engels rightly observes that the autodidactic philosophy — pursued by workers themselves — has made great progress in this tanner, when compared with the cobbler Jakob Böhme, ditto that none but the 'German' worker is capable of such cerebral production." [MECW 42, p.497.]Marx to Engels 05/01/1882: "You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one." [MECW 46, p.172.][Unfortunately, these letters are not yet on-line.]In view of what he wrote to Engels, Marx's comments to Kugelmann can be seen in a different light: Marx had a very low opinion of Dietzgen's 'philosophical' work (which mirrors my own view of it).This makes my earlier guess (that Marx was being slightly facetious, or was ribbing the man, when he called Dietzgen 'our philosopher' — that is, if he said it) correct, I think.
The only person who had a low view about Dietzgen was Lenin. Marx called him the workers' philosopher, his under-estimation come from the same Leninists, even more, some of them have said that Plekhanov was the creator of the concept of dialectical materialism and it wasn't him, it was Dietzgen. George Plekhanov wrote about him and asked socialists to study his works:http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/dietzgen.htm This is one of the best piece written about himhttp://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2007/04/joseph-dietzgen-workers-philosopher.html
mcolome1:"The only person who had a low view about Dietzgen was Lenin. Marx called him the workers' philosopher, his under-estimation come from the same Leninists, even more, some of them have said that Plekhanov was the creator of the concept of dialectical materialism and it wasn't him, it was Dietzgen. George Plekhanov wrote about him and asked socialists to study his works"Did you not read these comments by Marx?"My view is that J Dietzgen would do best if he condensed all his ideas into 2 printed sheets and had them printed in his name as a tanner. If he publishes them at the intended length, he will make a fool of himself because of the lack of dialectical development and the running in circles.""You will see from the enclosed letter from Dietzgen that the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one."[References in my last post.]And I note you failed to reference where Marx called Dietzgen:"the workers' philosopher". Was that an oversight?"his under-estimation come from the same Leninists, even more, some of them have said that Plekhanov was the creator of the concept of dialectical materialism and it wasn't him, it was Dietzgen. George Plekhanov wrote about him and asked socialists to study his works"As a Leninist myself, I have, believe it or not, a very low opinion of Lenin as a philosopher, and nearly as low an opinion of Plekhanov and Engels — all three had uncritically appropriated far too many ideas from ruling-class hacks (such as Heraclitus, Plotinus, Spinoza and Hegel).But, all three were geniuses compared to Dietzgen.Marx was right: "the unhappy fellow has 'progressed' backward and 'safely' arrived at Phänomenologie. I regard the case as an incurable one."And thanks for the link; I read that blog article several years ago, and it merely confirmed my opinion that Dietzgen was a rather feeble philosopher. Marx saw through him pretty quickly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.