Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘In other words, as Marcos has pointed out, dialectics is one way of describing observed changes in phenomena not something that is in the phenomena themselves. It belongs to the realm of human thought not to that of “Nature”.’
This implies that scientific descriptions of nature are not human creations but are somehow ‘Godlike’ pronouncements that exist outside of their cultural context. Science is created by scientists who are as human as anyone else. Science is a human construct and one of the most powerful descriptions of observed phenomena that we have but its origins are philosophical (i.e. logic, reason, empiricism etc.).
None of the above alters the fact that all Marx’s work is infused with the dialectical method. ‘Internal relations’ are described in terms of the interpenetration of opposites, the transformation of quantity into quality and the negation of the negation. This is the only way to understand the internal contradictions that transform something into something else. All of this is in the philosophical tradition going back to Plato. It is purely cultural bias that seeks to deny this and replace it with the religion of science.
I’m glad you have found your religion Marcus. Marxism is dialectical, no Marxism = no socialism and no hope of a ‘coherent theory’ of anything. As far as I know the best that can be said of Lenin was that he started out as an idealist before his megalomania forced him to rationalize the brutality of his political actions – just propaganda he convinced himself of and he certainly had no claims to be any kind of philosopher – not even a third rate one.
‘Science is just another name for organised knowledge. It’s not an ideology.’
Agreed but many have elevated it to the status of a religion. If it is indeed another name for organised knowledge then how can it have superseded philosophy which shares the same ambition?
‘I would like to know which is the best book on dialectical materialism.
If you in your organization share this philosophy.’
Some comrades struggle on trying to read Marx without a knowledge of dialectics but others, like myself, believe it to be a key to political insight. Bertell Ollman’s ‘Dance of the Dialectic’ is a good introduction.
‘Having said this, philosophy has largely given way today to the theory of science and to neuroscience as the study of how the brain works.’
I suspect ALB was provoking the likes of myself with this assertion. Of course science can be seen as a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy) but it has come to see itself as somehow superior to its originator. ‘Science’ has become a magical/religious (ideological) concept to many divorced from its origins. As an exercise in empirical trial and error it is something that humans have always practiced. As a branch of philosophy it can never answer interesting questions concerning meaning and purpose etc. Roberto’s statement that the universe is ‘indifferent to our desires’ is illogical since we are part of the universe – we may be a unique example of the universe becoming conscious of itself.
Either you believe that the class struggle is the dynamic element driving social change or you don’t. If you do it would be absurd to not mention Marx as one who developed this theory – why would you want to? It would be as ridiculous as discussing physics without mentioning Einstein or Biology without reference to Darwin. If you do not regard the class struggle to be of primary importance in cultural development then you are not a socialist.
‘Marxist Materialist’ is the definition of a socialist. Without mass consciousness there can be no socialism. Your elitist contention that the majority are incapable of understanding the world as we do has no basis. You imply that you are exceptional in being class conscious – that’s the definition of Leftist elitism. They are always telling us how anachronistic our language is but their novelty sloganeering only leads to disaster and cynicism.
Just put in what you want to search for in the top right hand field of this page. Never heard of ‘combers’.
Yeah, that’s why children are in danger of getting snake bit, savaged by dogs or picking up parasites that make them blind – really healthy. All this is so much romantic twaddle.
You are a master of the non sequitur Mr. Oswald – just as nobody here has claimed superiority as a species I did not claim that we were successful as a species; merely that we have the chance to become so. Human societies are not just ‘ what humans do’ but rather what we do creates our humanity. Again sarcastic statements like ‘Glad you’re enjoying the class struggle. You must be very happy’ do not help your case.
‘Tool – making’ is what makes us human. It has enabled our consciousness to accelerate at unprecedented speed to a point where we can use technology instead of it, and the class struggle it gives rise to, using and defining us. As I said we represent nature becoming aware of its self, something unique as far as we know and nature recognises no superior or inferior species – just successful and unsuccessful ones. Please don’t insult us again with your usual accusations – it just gives the impression, Mr. Oswald, that as well as self loathing you also go in for self righteousness.
