LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:The issue is, does using a theory of 'quantity/quality' give a better understanding than 'structures/emergence'?
That's what I was trying to say. Or, rather, does the description (form of words) 'quantity/quality' give a better understanding of some phenomena than the description 'structures/emergence'? If not, why not?
No.Quantity/quality: merely adding bricks transforms into wallsStructure/emergence: putting bricks into a certain relationship produces new propertiesWe can use the latter to understand all sorts of physical and social phenomena. The former is near to useless.The focus on 'relations' is the key.
ALB wrote:Aren't "the transformation of quantity into quality" and "the emergence of structure" just two different ways of describing the same phenomena?No. One is a supposed 'law'. The day I see a pile of bricks 'transform' into a wall, just by mere addition, I'll believe Engels.New structures giving new properties is what allows bricks to form walls and produce, for example, 'protection'.The specific relationships between components is the key to understanding. Quantity/quality doesn't stress relationships, just numbers, so it's less useful.Given that we're Marxists, the usefulness of the relational aspect of this theory shouldn't need emphasising.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,the books at home. I'll try and get a ref tonight.Thanks.
YMS wrote:My reading of Pannekoek was that quantity/quality wasn't in nature, but the development of the human understanding of nature.Yeah, understanding, not nature.The issue is, does using a theory of 'quantity/quality' give a better understanding than 'structures/emergence'? At present, I don't think so. I think critical realism is more useful than dialectics.
YMS wrote:So, the quality of overwhelming military force transforms into the military science when we can analyse and quantify military capacity (and thus understand it better).I'm not sure I get your meaning, here. 'Quantify' is a human judgement. 'Quantitative change leading to qualitative change' is a supposed 'law of dialectics', according to Engels; that 'law' is what I'm objecting to, not humans making judgements.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,Would you include Pannekoek in critical realism. ISTR finding his version of the quality/quantity thing (in his history of astronomy) interesting, not least because it kind of chimes with the now widespread view that the advance of a science can be compared to it's capacity to quantify it's object of study (for him it was the quality of brightness).YMS, I've never studied Pannekoek in relation to critical realism.My post 265 was a comparison of Engels' claims that his example of the French army in Egypt provided an example of 'quantity into quality'. I think it's nothing of the sort, and 'structures and emergence' explains the example better. My post is part of a larger critique of so-called 'dialectical laws'.On Pannekoek and astronomy, I bought his book on your recommendation on the other thread, but I haven't had time to read it, yet. If you could give me the pages that refer to his use of 'dialectical laws', like 'quantity/quality', I'll have a look.I don't deny that sometimes quantities change into quality, but more often they don't. Piles of bricks, no matter how many are added to the mound, will never take on the qualitative change into a wall.To me, this means the so-called 'dialectical law of q into q' is nonsense, and that Engels was wrong to formulate it, and that his own example is meaningless: more French soldiers, alone, don't simply evolve by numbers into a force that could defeat the Mamelukes.The notions of 'structure' (the form those extra numbers of soldiers took in organisation) and 'emergence' (new qualities of discipline, effective firepower, esprit d'corps, command and control, etc.) is a better guide to why the French prevailed, not 'dialectics'.
Unless we move on to discussing 'dialectics' in a comparison with 'critical realism', I'm going to bow out of this thread.I'm not interested any further here in Hegel, Rosa or Wittgenstein.DJP, what do you think of my post 265, which I wrote with you in mind, since you mentioned Bertell Ollman's book and critical realism?
ALB wrote:I don't know what you think "our" view of this is. You seem to think that we are claiming that Marx was a devoted follower of Hegel to his dying day. Nobody here has said that. The difference is minimal. You say there is not an atom of Hegel in Marx's 1873 Postface. We say there's maybe a couple. So this really is an argument about how many atoms can dance on a pinhead.Yeah, ironically, I'd side with Rosa on this question.Other than some mentions of Hegel's name, and some throwaway remarks, I'm inclined to agree with Rosa's stance that 'there isn't an atom of Hegel' in Marx's works.There are mentions also of 'dialectics', but I would argue that this is an early synonym for 'critical realism', rather than anything to do with Engels' and Lenin's DiaMat.So, for me, 'dialectics' can be separated into Hegel's, Marx's and Engels' versions. I reject Hegel and Engels, and only accept Marx if his use of the word 'dialectic' means 'critical realism.I've posted earlier a criticism of Engels' use of 'quantity into quality', from the perspective of critical realism. I hope someone takes this up, and either supports me and thinks that it's a useful critique, or criticises me and shows how 'quantity into quality' is more useful than 'structure and emergent properties'.[edit]see post 265, for details[end edit]
ALB, to Rosa, wrote:You'll remain a Leninist and we'll remain socialists. In fact I can't think what you are trying to achieve here, apart from publishing your own. writings (and comparing yourself to Copernicus). None of us here accept Leninist "diamat'. So you are preaching to the converted on this point. You're actually weakening your case with your obsessive dogmatism.I also agree with ALB, here. The real issue now is Rosa's holding of an apriori theory, that of Leninism. If Rosa doesn't want to discuss this, that's OK by me.But we really should be moving on, to a deeper discussion about other issues with dialectics, rather than go round in circles with Rosa's 'obsessive dogmatism'. It's up to Rosa if they wish to continue; if not, thanks anyway for your helpful contributions.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:LB and mcolome1:Quote:Yeah, this is the apriori position I would take, too, YMS, ie. 'that published might or might not take precedence'.It's a different apriori position to the one that Rosa takes, ie. 'that published must take precedence'.As we can now see, not even this unpublished material supports your view of the relation between Marx and Hegel.
This point of YMS, mcolome1 and me is not about 'unpublished material', so your response is incorrect, Rosa.Our point is about 'the necessity of holding apriori theories'.We hold the apriori theory that it 'might/might not'.You hold the apriori theory that it 'must'.The 'it' is not the point being argued; what's being argued about is your assertion, based upon apriori theory, that it 'must'. Any defence that you make of 'must' has to rely on theory.Personally, I blame 'Leninism', but I know you don't wish to discuss that particular theory that you also hold.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Where the two contradict, we need to look at why they conradict, and why the author chose to make their public view different, we cannot take the public as read, though.Yeah, this is the apriori position I would take, too, YMS, ie. 'that published might or might not take precedence'.It's a different apriori position to the one that Rosa takes, ie. 'that published must take precedence'.Why Rosa keeps pretending not to have apriori positions/ideas/theories/philosophies baffles me, and undermines the rest of what Rosa is arguing (other than, for me, the arguments against DiaMat, which I'm convinced by, as they support my own conclusions).
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!
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!
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.
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!]
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!
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: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?
