No.733[Last 50 Posts]
Alright so I've had a few interactions with people on /leftypol/ who seem to think that Dialectics means rejecting the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. As far as I can tell this has no real basis in the work of Marx or Engels and is a good to not be taken seriously by anyone who understands logic or philosophy or mathematics. I was really confused about where this came from for a while. I have read Mao's "On Contradiction" many times and I suppose that text could be read that way, but I don't think that is what Mao meant by contradiction or "the unity of opposites". Last night though I read Leon Trotsky's "The ABC of Materialist Dialectics" and I think I've found my answer. In it, Trotsky straight up makes a case for why A=/=A, and does make a somewhat compelling argument until you examine it critically.
This piece is well written like most of Trotsky's work, but his argument is full of non-sequitors and general misreadings of Marx and Engels. I want to make this thread to do some comparing and contrasting between four texts in particular, but we can bring in other lit if people want. Those four texts are…
Anti-Duhring by Engels:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/index.htm
The ABC of Materialst Dialectics:https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/12/abc.htm
Dialectical and Historical Materialism:https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
On Contradiction by Mao Zedong:https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
The first thing I want to note is in paragraph 12 of the general introduction to Anti-Duhring:
>To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. "His communication is 'yea, yea; nay, nay'; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." [Matthew 5:37. — Ed.] For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another, cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis one to the other.
Now, on first read this might appear to be a denunciation of Aristotelian non-contradiction, but I am pretty sure it isn't. It isn't a mere assertion of temporarily either because he specifically says "at the same time". I'm pretty sure what he means here is that a thing can be both itself in terms of it's internal relations, and something else in terms of it's external relations. This is supported by the context of this quote, in which Engels is talking about the metaphysical or even naturalistic approach of examining systems in isolation and not in their particular contexts.
LMAO that is literally the same as Trotsky's argument. Caleb is a crypto-trot confirmed.
It was alleged I think by Aristotle that Heraclitus denied the law of non-contradiction. I don't think that is a fair reading though. Tho say "you never step in the same river twice" is just an assertion of temporality and change. Denying the law of noncontradcition would be saying "you never step in the same river once"… which is basically what Trotsky's arguments in the ABC.
My notes on the first 12 paragraphs of Trotsky's "The ABC of Materialist Dialectics"
>P1: R(dialectics, formal logic) = R(higher, lower math)
this isn't exactly wrong, but the ways in which the relation is the same kinda expose his misunderstanding. You don't get higher geometry by reversing the laws of elementary geometry. There is a trivial congruence here in the difference between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry, but that's not the same distinction as higher and "lower" (elementary) geometry. Higher math takes the same topics as elementary math to a greater degree of abstraction. Trotksy goes on to belittle the notion of abstraction.
>P2: Any assertion of equality we might make will not hold true if the objects we are equating are material, ie A=/A because the letters are different when you look at them under a lense
This is a non-sequitor.
>P3: A=A only of A DNE
Apparently abstractions and thus categories (for categories are abstractions) do not exist.
>P4: When quantitative changes are negligible we may assume A=A
Of course, because you need this law for any practical engagement. Not saying that makes it true, but if it isn't why do you have to assume it?
>P5: (didn't summarize this one)
Okay so he's rejected abstract categories, and yet he places an almost naval-gazing degree of signifigance on the distinction between quantitative and qualitative. It is an important difference so perhaps I shouldn't be frustrated about that, but it seems kinda self-contradictory to place such emphasis on ABSTRACT CATEGORIES when you just rejected the notion of abstract categories being real.
I don't quite understand what he is saying in this paragraph so if anyone could break it down for me that would be appreciated.
>P7:Vulgar though treats categories as "fixed abstraction".
Fair enough. So what is the dialectical way to define these categories or qualitative differences? As emergent properties of quantitative changes? Funny how in order to reject abstract categories you have to appeal again to more abstract categories in order to recover what was lost. Keep kicking the can down the road I guess.
It's also funny how this conforms to contemporary trends in Bourgeois science such as quantizement in physics, and how these trends have spawned cargo cults in other areas of science. Reminds me a bit of contemporary Trotskyism.
P8: This paragraph is the only one worth reading
This is where his actual point is and it is a good point. It's more to do with particularities and context then dialectics though.
>P9: R(dialectical thought, vulgar thought) = R(video, photograph)
He sure likes drawing these relational equivalencies, funny how that too is a form of abstraction. Almost like you can't even argue AGAINST abstraction without appealing to abstraction. Also apparently dialectics is when you know that things change over time…
P10: Allegory of the caves reference where Hegel is trapped in the cave and Marx escapes.
Thank you Trotsky, very cool.
P11: Volition is not a part of nature, and "consciousness grew out of the unconscious"
P12: I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE
Getting tired. Might finish these notes tomorrow or maybe I will just move on to Stalin and see if that's any better.
This seems to trace it back to Hegel. I have no idea if Trotsky ever read Hegel, it could be that he got it from Lenin.
I wonder if Lenin ever asserted that dialectics mean denying the law of identity. I haven't found it anywhere but then again I haven't read all of Lenin.
I think this is based on Trotsky's misreading of Engels, but the itself can be traced back to Aristotle's misreading of Heraclitus.
Maybe we'll have to actually read the Science of Logic to get an answer on this, but it seems like if it went from Hegel to Marx and Engels to Lenin to Trotsky and Stalin and Mao then it would actually show up in Marx and Engels.
Thanks for the link btw. Gonna check out this piece by CLR James.https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/dialecti/james3.htm#J310
There is no such thing as rejecting the principle of non-contradiction. One either accepts it, or rejects and accepts it. Think about it.
Kek. That is a good point. It's actually an illustration of what is known as the "principle of explosion". There is nothing dialectical in the Hegelian or Marxist sense though.
observation: a good historical illustration of the principle "negation of negation" is illustrated in the events of April 6, 1871, when the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion of the National Guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing. the guillotine once represented the negation of the feudal power and the victory of revolution, but by 1871 the Parisian proletariat saw the guillotine also a symbol of bourgeois tyranny. by burning the guillotine, did they renounce its liberatory role? no, as on May 5 the Commune ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI. this illustrates that the negation of the negation is not the same as the reversal of the negation.
There was a crimethinc article about that which Rad Shiba (the one true communist youtuber) brought up in his last livestream. Interesting observation Akko and a good demonstration of dialectics as it applies to history.
Relevant section from Anti-Duhring:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch11.htm
As I understand it dialectics in general is just thought absent any formal mode or system. You probably already think dialectically and just don't realize it. Hegelian dialectics in particular looks for connections of necessity rather than contingency, and I still can't wrap my head around Materialist Dialectics.
Start with Plato's dialogues. Then if you want to learn Hegel I'd suggest reading the Science of Logic. Critique of Pure reason by Kant a Treatise on Human Nature by Hume with both help you make sense of that, as will Descartes meditations. Hegel kinda expects you to be educated in the western tradition leading up to him.
This thread may be of interest to you
Dialectics is like a moving arrow:
When you envision the movment of history; the moving arrow, you do not envision an arrow tht is drawn or an arrow that has met its mark. When you envision a moving arrow you envision it moving through space and time.
That is dialectical logic: You are neither at A or B you are moving between both of them.
This anon is correct when he tell you to start with Plato. Also better, you should learn about the contradiction between two ancient Greek schools: Milesian (the most profound one is Heraclitus) and Eleatics (Parmenides and Zenon). After that was how Plato overcome the contradiction of both sides. After Plato, you can proceed to Aristotle to see how the contradiction in Plato thought was resolved in Aristotle. Also remember that philosophy should never be taken alone without the knowledge of that era, from myths to history and science. You should prepare yourself with enough background knowledge in order to take the philosophy pill.
Also, anyone here who interested in Chinese dialectics?
In general, you are right, but you need to expand your statement in a more concrete form. Why the arrow are neither at A or B, by what specific mechanism, in what condition the arrow are moving? The unending enrichment of the abstract by the concrete is the way of dialectical method too.
I don't think he is right at all. He is reducing dialectics to a mere assertion of temporality.
If you are interested in Hegel's dialectics, these two pages have everything that you need to know:https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_vi.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_divis.htm
For Marx, he talks about his method here and there:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3
To be honest, I am sceptical of dialectical "thinking" ever happening outside of Hegel's fever dreams. To me it is more of a style of presentation. Inquiry into a topic cannot follow the dialectical process because it presupposes already knowing what is decisive. It can only be utilized as a narrative of reconstruction.>>911
This is wrong, dialectics is like yeast.
He is right, not enough. You can start from any statement in dialectics and by constantly expanding and evolving, arrive at other statement in dialectics. That's the essence of Hegel's Logic, concepts in their never-ending birth and transformation. It's only reducing if he refuses to develop the concepts in more detailed form.
This anon is shooting from the hip with his understanding of dialectics: If I can parse out anything from your statment it is that some how dialectics presuppses the conclusion to a statment which is nothing but a matter of falsehood.
A does not inherently lead to A, rather, A can lead to X or A = X, Y, or Z; or any number of possibilities. It is the understanding of A that allows us to understand the possibilities of its future and work from there. You can understand that, for example; the falling rate of profit:
1. Capitalism depends on Profits to maintain its existence.
2.Profits require the circulation of commodities in the economy.
3. Labor power is required under capitalism to generate commodities and, as such, the circulation of commodities.
4. The generation of profits are inherently linked to the circulation of commodities.
5. The production of commodities is always being influenced by innovation
6. Innovation drives out labor power from the market causing prices to fall
7. The general trend for prices to fall, over time, lowers the total amount of profits to be made through the circulation of commodities
C: The generation of profits under capitalism can not be maintained indefinitely and, as such, the system of capitalism will eventually fault due to this inherent flaw in production among other faults.
That's just one conclusion that comes out of the implications of the capitalist mode of production, as well. It is a form of logical induction on the movement of history; Take salve societies for example;
All class societies through out history have fallen. Why should this class society be any different? All class societies have contradictions that lead to their demise. Why are we special?
If you try applying formal logic to Hegelian dialectics you are gonna have a bad time.
I assume you want to learn "dialectical thinking" as it relates to Marx and Marxism, not Hegel. In which case I suggest you read Lukacs' book History and Class Consciousness
and also Karl Korsch's article ''Marxism and Philosphy": https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1923/marxism-philosophy.htm
I am not sure if what you say is in any way relevant to the discussion, and I don't see how mathematical induction got involved.
What I wanted to say is: Marx did not think "dialectically". It is absurd to believe that by some Divine Inspiration he chose to investigate the commodity form and from there, following a rigorous logic, managed to uncover the deepest secrets of the capitalist mode of production. What actually happened, and he seems to admit it in Grundrisse, was that he followed the same method of inquiry as the other classical economists, starting with big concrete categories like population, working his way down to the more abstract categories like the commodity form. What made the difference was that unlike others, he did not stop here, but instead carefully constructed a narrative in the opposite direction, starting from abstract categories advancing towards the concrete. This second part was then published and became known as dialectical thinking. But it is clear that it cannot be done without the first part, and so you know the conclusion in advance.
(me)>>929>his anon is shooting from the hip with his understanding of dialectics
t. this anon
>If you try applying formal logic to Hegelian dialectics you are gonna have a bad time.
t. having a bad time
Why was applying formal logic to dialectics in this thread? You seem to be the first one to try to describe dialectics in terms of syllogisms. Also wtf does logical induction have to do with this?
>If I can parse out anything from your statment it is that some how dialectics presuppses the conclusion to a statment which is nothing but a matter of falsehood.
In Hegel's method, Dialectics IS the conclusion. The proper name for the method is imminent critique. So yes, dialectics presupposes the conclusions in a sense, although the anon you are responding to framed it in a much more coherent way.>>919
Good post. I don't think you should be skeptical of dialectical thinking though. Remember that Hegel's dialectics are something very specific, but they go back to the Greeks. Dialectics is just inquiry absent any specific mode or method. Following the trail of definitions for a concept until you arrive at something rigorous is dialectics in the broader
Marx's dialectics are closer to Hegel's than they are to the cargo cult of "diamat" but they are not identical. The element of necessary connection is lost or is at least not fully adhered to. His critique of capitalism did follow something akin to Hegel's method more broadly, but it was not identical, and he had a specific goal in mind of reaching conclusions which have material implications. This proved to be more powerful than Hegel's method, if less specific. I think this method of materialy oriented critique is worth trying to rescue even if the version of "materialist dialectics" you hear thrown around is metaphysical nonsense.
You can apply formal logic about conclusions related to topics revolving around informal logic, lol. There is no rule or fallacy that states one cannot use formal logic to describe informal logic.
Hegelian dialects are no more the conclusion that a hammer is a house; Dialectics are neither the house nore the lumber required to construct the house. They are the tool by which the house transforms from lumber to home.
The first part is just a starting point, if a scientist started researching "What is commodity, what is its origin, what is its condition? and etc." and never cease to further his research then it's inevitable he would come to research the first part which you said, because after all, everything in the world is existed in a network of interconnection, you cannot research commodity without society, just as you cannot research capitalist society without research commodity
>>938>Hegelian dialects are no more the conclusion that a hammer is a house
And also by which way a hammer is a house, because dialectics doesn't stop at any point. You just built a strawman in order to attack Hegel, without try to understand the essence of his thought.
Anon, it's because that the concrete and the abstract is the same. There is no abstract that doesn't relate to the many other concretes. And the concrete, which in turn is a mini-abstract, relates to other mini-concretes. It's a fractal structure, anon, a never-ending fractal
Again, let me repeat the point. Hegel's only fault was to regard material world as something inferior to the world of ideas. His dialectical method was fine. However, it doesn't that mean we can simply take Hegel's system and change the names of concept, because Hegel's dialectics was expressed in concrete ideas, and those ideas were full of idealist biases. Therefore, we cannot copy, but build ourself a dialectical system in the same veins. It's necessary to put the material world as the primary factor, because Ideas existed in material world, the world nourishes and allows the Ideas to live and develop themselves.
I never claimed you can't. I just pointed out that that is not what this thread is about, and that the anon I was responding to was both the first one to bring it up, and claimed that it's a bad idea.
>>938>dialectics are no more a conclusion that a hammer is a house
You've got this completely backwards. Dialectics are a certain pattern which emerges from the method of imminent critique, not the method itself.
These metaphors are pretty much useless but if you insist in thinking about it this way, the hammer is imminent critique, and dialects are the relationship between the land or space absent the house, the materials making up the house, and the completed house.
You're confidence that you know what you are talking about is stunning.
It's called an analogy, how fucking stupid can one possibly be? That was exactly my point you dumb ass.
You're basically positing "what came first the chicken or the egg?" Neither, it doesn't matter. We can wind the clock back to the beginning of the universe, but, we have to focus on something to start a conversation about the Economy and our starting point is Capital.
This is mental masturbation. I said exactly this.
What is it you hate about analogies?
Then don't use the word such as no more. Instead of it, use "for example"
I don't hate analogies, but if you understood dialectics you would know that they can not be accurately described in terms of an analogy. It's literally in the definition.
To describe dialectics in terms of analogy is to impose an external mode of inquiry upon them, which is the one thing that imminent critique precludes.
>What do you hate about analogies>This is mental masturbation.
You answered your own question here.
>I said exactly this.
You tried to rebut my claim that dialectics are a conclusion by providing an analogy about hammers and houses. I reasserted that dialectics ARE a conclusion, and changed around some parts of your analogy to where it at least sort of describes dialectics, but still doesn't communicate it effectively.
How you think our statements are equivalent is beyond me.
>>949>I don't hate analogies, but if you understood dialectics you would know that they can not be accurately described in terms of an analogy. It's literally in the definition.
Yeah but you have to explain it to the retards in a way that retards can understand it. Go take your smug bullshit to reddit you fucking fag.
>How you think our statements are equivalent is beyond me.
Marx starts his PRESENTATION from the commodity form, but he did not start his INQUIRY from there. That's the point. My claim is the when people talk about "dialectical thinking" they are confusing process with presentation.
Hegel believed that his dialectics was a proper logic, meaning that if you started rigorously investigating Pure Being
like he did, you would necessarily uncover all the secrets of the Absolute Spirit, including material reality, the same way he did.
>>950>Yeah but you have to explain it to the retards in a way that retards can understand it.
Lemme give this a shot. So you wanna do dialectics? Take a thing, any thing. Think about the thing, but don't think about it in terms of any other, external thing. Got it? Now what appears to you? What kind of necessary connections are present in that thing as it relates to itself? What does the existence of that thing–on it's own terms–imply in terms of what other kind of things exist? Not things you already know about, but just things that MUST exist if that thing exists. Got it? Okay good. No consider those things in relation to one another, and repeat the process over and over and over again.
>Go take your smug bullshit to reddit you fucking fag.
I'm getting mixed messages here…
Not the anon you are responding to, but I don't think this is the whole story. I agree that the process by which Marx determined his system probably had more to do with starting from specific categories in the way that Smith and Ricardo did, and that he was under social and institutional pressure to present it in terms of Hegel's dialectics, however I don't think this realization precludes the possibility of dialectical thought. You can read the Science of Logic just looking for the conclusions, or you can try to think through these concepts in the way that they are presented. Then, you can try to perform that same kind of inquiry independently on whatever concept you are interested in. I think that you probably already think this way from time to time, because we all do.
This is called the "principle of explosion".
Are you the same guy who does those music videos, I know one was about Kaczynski.
>>1073>One of the only avatar or namefags left in this wretched den
I could point you to several websites where everyone is a namefag.
True. There are plenty of namefags here too. I meant out of the 2017 cohort.
Some responded that dialectical materialism was invented by Marx not Hegel. That is wrong, it was invented by another German proletarian philosopher Joseph Dietzgen.
Even as an undegrad I was struck by the way the author pretended to deduce things from premises, which went far beyond what the premises would support. The dialectical logic looked awfully like a conjuring trick used to distract attention whilst the desired conclusions were introduced as if by magic.
It is an odd paradox that Marx and Engels, the most prominent Communists theorists developed their own historical materialism in a process of root and branch criticism and demolition of Hegelianism of German philosophy of the 1840s ( The Holy Family, The German Ideology). But today in the 21st century almost the only reason that Hegel is studied is because many Marxists believe that Hegel’s ideas were in some way fundamental to understanding historical materialism.
It is notable that in the German Ideology, not only do Marx and Engels make no mention of dialectics, let alone a positive reference to it but they quite specific in their rejection of Hegel.
The idea that Marxism was based on dialectical rather than historical materialism goes through two stages. First Dietzgen invents dialectical materialism in the 1870s and claims that the theory of social democracy is based on it. At the start of the 20th century it was still recognised that Dialectical Materialism was Dietzgen’s innovation. The dialectical materialism of Dietzgen then became the official philosophy of Social Democracy and then of Communism. Since Marx’s Historical Materialism was also the official theory of both movements, dialectical materialism was projected back onto Marx and Engels and supposed to be their ‘method’.
The problem is that if you read a very out of date logician like Hegel, you cut yourself off from a century and half of advance which has long since shown the futility of the whole Hegelian idealist project. The point about Turing, brought out brilliantly by the more recent Turingist Greg Chaitin in his books is that as he puts it ‘you can not get two kilos of theorems from one kilo of axioms’. Hegel wants to derive all sorts of things from the dialectical development of negation, but what Chaitin and Turing prove is that you can never derive more from a logical system than is contained in your initial axioms. Hegel only appears to do it by sleight of hand where he introduces conclusions that he wants that are actually unsupported by his axioms.
You have the absurdity of Marxists using computers and the internet to discuss anachonistic terms like dialectical versus formal logic when their very activities are entirely depependent on other logicians and materialists like Boole, Shannon and Turing about whom they know little or nothing. Without Booles logic and Shannon’s demonstration that this could be implemented in switching circuits, there would be no digital electronics. Without Turing no mechanisation of thought, without Shannon’s information theory no wifi or internet.
If you want to understand logic Hegel is the last person to study. If you want to understand complex systems as they change, study Markov theory cybernetics and process algebra not Hegel.
What about Engels' delusions about the dialectics of nature?
>>1102>Dialectics of nature>Bad
Remember it has his masterful "The Transition from Ape to Man"
idk op, bump
The logic that you learn in school is called formal logic because it is only concerned with form, not content. If you start from bullshit premises, you can logically derive bullshit conclusions. Hegel, being a turbo idealist, thought this was wack and wanted a logic that was concerned with content.
His grand plan was that if he started with the most basic concept and thoroughly investigated it, he must necessarily uncover all the secrets of the world up to the Absolute Spirit, which is like God and contains every concept ever and governs the rules of the universe. Of course it being a logic if you did the same you must necessarily reach the same conclusions and if you did not, it must be because you are stupid.
His method is the following. First you take a concept and try to give it a definition ("thesis"). You thoroughly study this definition and you realize that you actually defined something entirely different than what you wanted, something like the opposite (negation/"antithesis") of your original concept. Not being a loser to give up, you start investigating this new concept, trying to define it, only to realize that upon further investigation, this second concept now really looks like what you originally wanted. So you go back to defining it, only to realize that you are back at the negation… Until you take a step back, pull a new concept (sublation/"synthesis") out of your ass to distinguish the two previous cases, by both preserving them and abolishing them. Then you start defining it only to realize that it is actually something else… and you repeat until you have the ultimate concept that puts everything in place. Of course, since he has to explain everything, he does not strictly follow his own method.
As an example, consider (pure) Being, which is the concept of something existing. Without anything specific, just the fact that something is. Hegel tells you that investigated on its own, Being is actually a lot like Nothing, the concept of not existing. And if something is not, then it actually is, because we are talking about concepts and not object, right? To solve this contradiction, he introduces Becoming, which is this passing from Nothing to Being.
An example closer to Marxists can be found when examining the interests of the worker and the boss. The boss' interest is to pay as low wages as it can for as much labour as can be extracted, while the worker's interest is to work as little as possible while taking home as much as possible. If their interests are so opposed, how come they end up cooperating always? It is because a third concept, the company's interest. It preserves the opposition, the worker and the boss still struggle to win their little victories in dividing the profit, but it also solves it as they can only do this in the context of the company's interest, both of their survival depend on the continued commercial success of the enterprise. This is an appealing picture, but only an imbecile would claim that companies were invented to contain and neutralize class struggle.
Yet when Marxists talk about the "dialectic" being "in motion", this is what they are talking about. They seriously believe that history is governed by some inhuman forces that evolve on their own. The fact is, Hegel would have been long forgotten if not for the Marxists insistence on preserving his delusions. They think Hegel is somehow relevant to understanding Marx because the first chapter of Capital is structured like a parody of Hegel and makes use of Hegel's terms. As a joke, only to end up with basically saying "this is how the bourgeois thinks lmao they are stupid fucks who thinks commodities move on their own". Of course if Marxists were capable of thinking for themselves they would be anarchists by now.
Oh, and when they accuse you of "not being dialectical", as if that was something to be ashamed of and not a sign of not being deluded, it means that they are upset that you have pointed out their incoherence.
Boy am I glad you asked this questionhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm>Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature.
what is dialectic materialism then?
>>1284>Stalin spammer to intro questions
and the thread in general.
every-time somebody explains hegel they explain it differently
>Of course if Marxists were capable of thinking for themselves they would be anarchists by now.
but nobody can think for them self's, everybody uses mental-patterns that were invented by other people
for somebody taking on philosophical topics you seem to statements that are profoundly un-reflected.>>1290
to be fair we don't have to use Hegelian language to talk about dialectical materialism, most of the concepts have newer far more precise descriptions in other fields.
>>913>anyone here who interested in Chinese dialectics?
I'm interested, where do I start?
Hegel was quite the faggot and while Marx was able to take something from him and make it its own thing, you should not bother with Hegel faggot fuck.
You cannot, of course, do without Hegel. He’s another chap whom it will take you time to digest. The short paper on logic in the Encyklopädie would be quite good to start off with, but the edition you should have is that in Volume 6 of the Werke — not [Karl] Rosenkranz’s separate edition (1845) — since the former contains far more explanatory notes from the lectures, even if that idiot Henning himself frequently fails to understand the latter.
In the introduction, in §26, etc., you have first the critique of Wolf’s version of Leibniz (metaphysics in the historical sense), then that of the English and French empiricists in §37, etc., then that of Kant, §40 et sequ. and, finally, that of Jacobi’s mysticism, §61. — In the first section (Being), you ought not to linger too long over being and nothing — the last paragraphs on quality followed by quantity and measure are much nicer, but the theory of essence constitutes the main section: the dissolution of abstract opposites into their insubstantiality when, as soon as one tries to grasp one aspect alone, it changes imperceptibly into the other, etc. At the same time you can always clarify things by means of concrete examples. E.g. you, as a fiancé, and your affianced yourselves present an outstanding example of the indivisibility of identity and difference. It is quite impossible to ascertain whether sexual love is the pleasure derived from identity in difference or that derived from difference in identity. Remove the difference (in this case of sex) or the identity (the humanity of both), and what remains? I remember how tormented I used to be at first by this indivisibility of identity and difference, though we cannot take one step without stumbling over it.
On no account, however, should you read Hegel as [Paul] Barth has read him, namely so as to discover the paralogisms and shabby expedients that served him as tools for constructing his system. That is a schoolroom exercise, nothing more. What is far more important is to discover the truth and the genius beneath the falsity of the form and the factitious context. For instance, the transitions from one category or opposite to another are almost always arbitrary — and are often achieved by means of a joke, as in §120, when positive and negative ‘fall to the ground’ so that Hegel may proceed to the category “ground.” To rack one’s brains over this is a waste of time.
Since, in Hegel, each category represents a stage in the history of philosophy (as, indeed, he usually indicates), you would be well-advised to read the Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Philosophie — one of his most brilliant works — by way of comparison. For recreation I would commend the Ästhetik. Once you have gained some familiarity with it you will be amazed.
The inversion of Hegel’s dialectics is based on the assumption that it is the “self-development of the idea” of which, therefore, the dialectic of facts is only the image, while the dialectic in our minds is but the reflection of the actual development taking place in the natural world and human history in obedience to dialectical forms.
You should try comparing the Marxian progression from commodity to capital with the Hegelian from being to essence; this would give you quite a good parallel — on the one hand, the concrete development which follows from the facts, on the other, the abstract construction, in which extremely brilliant ideas and, in certain cases, very just transformations such as that of quality into quantity and vice versa, are elaborated to produce what appears to be the self-development of one notion out of another, of which, indeed, it would be possible to concoct a dozen of the same kind.
>>1079>You have the absurdity of Marxists using computers
What a shit way to undermine the rest of your post.
The whole post is shit anon. Basically "I don't understand dialectics therefore it is obfuscation". The same shit we always hear from liberals.
Yeah it's pretty simple. First, off let's list some of the things it is NOT.
Dialectics is NOT the rejection of the law of non-contradiction. Furthermore is not inconsistent with formal logic.
Dialectics are NOT a method. People often say dialectic when what they mean is critique or dialogue.
Dialectics is NOT when two opposing views are reconciled making a better more advanced view.
Dialectics ARE a particular pattern that appears in the result of any rigorous investigation of necessary relations. The word necessary is important here, and I mean necessary as opposed to contingent or sufficient. That distinction is not mysterious or hard to understand, but it is often overlooked. You can look up the definitions but it may be easier to just reflect on the way you use them. What does it mean if something is historically contingent vs historically necessity? What is a necessary condition as opposed to a sufficient condition?
The reason this patter emerges is also not particularly mysterious. Once you wrap your head around it there is literally no way results of such an investigation could not present as a dialectic unless you where to make an error, or break with the method (the method being imminent critique). There is no one reason that this is the case, but in every example you can work through you will see that it could be no other way. That's sorta the thing about necessary relations.>>1290
I'm still trying to figure this one out.
>>1290>what is dialectic materialism then?
[b]Labour purpose and structures[/b]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuV9rvbM_hE
[b]Purpose and entropy[/b]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkx528BQPTs
[b]Thermodynamics and life[/b] (this one does dialectics without Hegel)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuVSKyM0cQ
[b]Thermodynmics of money and capital[/b]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM
[b]The quantum challenge[/b]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOe-7GH83Us
There is nothing to understand. Similar to magic. It's a pro-imperialist pro-Prussians guy's masturbatory fantasy.
He tried developing logic. He was solid for early 19th century, but we have much better things now.
>>1281>They seriously believe that history is governed by some inhuman forces that evolve on their own.
literally the opposite of what marxists believe. fucking retarded.
Yo can anyone explain to me what's up with that coffee joke Zizek loves and why does he think it perfectly represents Hegelianism.
Here's the joke:
<The French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting in a cafe when a waitress approached him: "Can I get you something to drink, Monsieur Sartre?" Sartre replied, "Yes, I'd like a cup of coffee with sugar, but no cream". Nodding agreement, the waitress walked off to fill the order and Sartre returned to working. A few minutes later, however, the waitress returned and said, "I'm sorry, Monsieur Sartre, we are all out of cream – how about with no milk?"
That everything is a word play or word/grammatical tricks that have very little to do with reality
"no cream" implies the existence of "cream". Without "cream", there is no "no cream"
To start in Chinese dialectics, it's necessary to understand the main objects of philosophy researching in China is totally different in the West. In the West, the philosophers often coming from the background of slave holders (aside from some exception) who have free time to think about the essence of the world without relating to the practice of mere mortals. However, in China, most philosophers were coming from aristocracy background, whose concerns were about the nature of the world for the sake of managing it (praxis). Philosophy in Ancient China could be divide into three eras, pre-Confucius, Confucius, and Legalism era, which correlated to three historical eras: Shang-Western Zhou, Spring Autumn, and finally Warring States-Qin-Western Han era. The notable thoughts of ancient Chinese philosophy are Daoism, Confucianism, Mohism and Legalism, each correlated into respective social classes, however, to understand that, you need to deeply understand the historical background of that times.
Of all philosophical school, the most dialectical one was Daoism, and the most canonical text of this school is "Dao De Jing" https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing
I will quote the most political segments in that work:
> 57. (The genuine influence)>A state may be ruled by (measures of) correction; weapons of war may be used with crafty dexterity; (but) the kingdom is made one's own (only) by freedom from action and purpose.>How do I know that it is so? By these facts: - In the kingdom the multiplication of prohibitive enactments increases the poverty of the people; the more implements to add to their profit that the people have, the greater disorder is there in the state and clan; the more acts of crafty dexterity that men possess, the more do strange contrivances appear; the more display there is of legislation, the more thieves and robbers there are.>Therefore a sage has said, 'I will do nothing (of purpose), and the people will be transformed of themselves; I will be fond of keeping still, and the people will of themselves become correct. I will take no trouble about it, and the people will of themselves become rich; I will manifest no ambition, and the people will of themselves attain to the primitive simplicity.'
> 58. (Transformation according to circumstances)>The government that seems the most unwise,>Oft goodness to the people best supplies;>That which is meddling, touching everything,>Will work but ill, and disappointment bring.>Misery! - happiness is to be found by its side! Happiness! - misery lurks beneath it! Who knows what either will come to in the end?>Shall we then dispense with correction? The (method of) correction shall by a turn become distortion, and the good in it shall by a turn become evil. >The delusion of the people (on this point) has indeed subsisted for a long time.>Therefore the sage is (like) a square which cuts no one (with its angles); (like) a corner which injures no one (with its sharpness). He is straightforward, but allows himself no license; he is bright, but does not dazzle.
> 60. (Occupying the throne)>Governing a great state is like cooking small fish.>Let the kingdom be governed according to the Dao, and the manes of the departed will not manifest their spiritual energy. It is not that those manes have not that spiritual energy, but it will not be employed to hurt men. It is not that it could not hurt men, but neither does the ruling sage hurt them.>When these two do not injuriously affect each other, their good influences converge in the virtue (of the Dao).
> 61. (The attribute of humility)>What makes a great state is its being (like) a low-lying, down- flowing (stream); - it becomes the centre to which tend (all the small states) under heaven.>(To illustrate from) the case of all females: - the female always overcomes the male by her stillness. Stillness may be considered (a sort of) abasement.>Thus it is that a great state, by condescending to small states, gains them for itself; and that small states, by abasing themselves to a great state, win it over to them. In the one case the abasement leads to gaining adherents, in the other case to procuring favour.>The great state only wishes to unite men together and nourish them; a small state only wishes to be received by, and to serve, the other. Each gets what it desires, but the great state must learn to abase itself.
> 65. (Pure, unmixed excellence)>The ancients who showed their skill in practising the Dao did so, not to enlighten the people, but rather to make them simple and ignorant.>The difficulty in governing the people arises from their having much knowledge. He who (tries to) govern a state by his wisdom is a scourge to it; while he who does not (try to) do so is a blessing.>He who knows these two things finds in them also his model and rule. Ability to know this model and rule constitutes what we call the mysterious excellence (of a governor). Deep and far-reaching is such mysterious excellence, showing indeed its possessor as opposite to others, but leading them to a great conformity to him.
> 66. (Putting one's self last)>That whereby the rivers and seas are able to receive the homage and tribute of all the valley streams, is their skill in being lower than they; - it is thus that they are the kings of them all. So it is that the sage (ruler), wishing to be above men, puts himself by his words below them, and, wishing to be before them, places his person behind them.>In this way though he has his place above them, men do not feel his weight, nor though he has his place before them, do they feel it an injury to them.>Therefore all in the world delight to exalt him and do not weary of him. Because he does not strive, no one finds it possible to strive with him.
> 75. (How greediness injures)>The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine.>The people are difficult to govern because of the (excessive) agency of their superiors (in governing them). It is through this that they are difficult to govern.>The people make light of dying because of the greatness of their labours in seeking for the means of living. It is this which makes them think light of dying. Thus it is that to leave the subject of living altogether out of view is better than to set a high value on it.
> 76. (A warning against (trusting in) strength)>Man at his birth is supple and weak; at his death, firm and strong. (So it is with) all things. Trees and plants, in their early growth, are soft and brittle; at their death, dry and withered.>Thus it is that firmness and strength are the concomitants of death; softness and weakness, the concomitants of life.>Hence he who (relies on) the strength of his forces does not conquer; and a tree which is strong will fill the out-stretched arms, (and thereby invites the feller.)>Therefore the place of what is firm and strong is below, and that of what is soft and weak is above.
> 80. (Standing alone)>In a little state with a small population, I would so order it, that, though there were individuals with the abilities of ten or a hundred men, there should be no employment of them; I would make the people, while looking on death as a grievous thing, yet not remove elsewhere (to avoid it).>Though they had boats and carriages, they should have no occasion to ride in them; though they had buff coats and sharp weapons, they should have no occasion to don or use them.>I would make the people return to the use of knotted cords (instead of the written characters).>They should think their (coarse) food sweet; their (plain) clothes beautiful; their (poor) dwellings places of rest; and their common (simple) ways sources of enjoyment.>There should be a neighbouring state within sight, and the voices of the fowls and dogs should be heard all the way from it to us, but I would make the people to old age, even to death, not have any intercourse with it.
In other words, Daoism is the ideology of primitive tribal chieftains, who want to return to the simple time of primitive communism. It's not a accident that the more communist you are, the more dialectical you become, because different from private property owners, the communists by their practice must see the world as united whole, and cannot focus on a single part of the world. It's also no accident that Heraclitus, the most dialectical thinker of ancient Greece, was living in Asia Minor, where the relics of ancient way of governing was still strong, and he himself belonged to the ancient aristocrat class. It's class that matters, which I think is the most groundbreaking discovery of Marx and Engels during XIX century. The idea of class struggle can be applied everywhere in class society, East or West, there is no exception.
>>1412>> 75. (How greediness injures)>The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine.>The people are difficult to govern because of the (excessive) agency of their superiors (in governing them). It is through this that they are difficult to govern.>The people make light of dying because of the greatness of their labours in seeking for the means of living. It is this which makes them think light of dying. Thus it is that to leave the subject of living altogether out of view is better than to set a high value on it.
By the way, it's quite funny to see that how the USA are violating all 3 points in the 75th segment. And how /pol/, by not understanding the misery of proletariat, simply displayed their petit-bourgeois ignorance
>>1281>First you take a concept and try to give it a definition ("thesis").
stopped reading there. Hegel never said this
it has to do with Hegel's distinction between essence and appearancehttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean03.htm
basically, essence exist only insofar as it appears, it does not pre-exist its appearance.>>934
So how do you explain statements like>It will be shown later that the most extreme form of alienation, wherein labour appears in the relation of capital and wage labour, and labour, productive activity appears in relation to its own conditions and its own product, is a necessary point of transition – and therefore already contains in itself, in a still only inverted form, turned on its head, the dissolution of all limited presuppositions of production, and moreover creates and produces the unconditional presuppositions of production, and therewith the full material conditions for the total, universal development of the productive forces of the individual
(directly from Grundrisse)
is Marx's description of the alienation of labor not identical to Fichte’s identical subject-object (a key abstract component of Hegelian dialectics)?
furthermore, there are conceptions such as the money form (M-C-M) which can be framed as an example of Hegel's passage from substance to subject. where capital is a substance-money made subject. (in vol. 1 of Capital).
I don't know how you can view these as just a flirtation with Hegel when these concepts are identical in all but representation>>941
I think recursive is a better word than fractal
Is this text accurate? I never saw that the separation between Marx and Engels was an issue here, but the topic of dialectics seems to be pressing.
>>1281>companies were invented to contain and neutralize class struggle.
laterally no marxists says this
He literally says that in §80, he just calls the first movement Understanding (or Abstract).> Thought, as Understanding, sticks to fixity of characters and their distinctness from one another …> … The action of Understanding may be in general described as investing its subject-matter with the form of universality. …> … Thus, in theory, knowledge begins by apprehending existing objects in their specific differences. In the study of nature, for example, we distinguish matters, forces, genera, and the like, and stereotype each in its isolation. …
He continues in §81:> In the Dialectical stage these finite characterisations or formulae supersede themselves, and pass into their opposites.
Idk who taught you about Hegel but you should ask for your money back.
Then stop using stupid ass phrases like "the dialectics is in motion".
pretty much. this is why you should never take anyone on /leftypol/ seriously when they talk about "dialectical materialism" as mutually exclusive to "idealism". it's rabid feral pseudery. I don't know how you can read sentences in Marx about "commodity fetishism" and come to the conclusion that he's "anti-idealist"
I think they're saying that if Marxists were consistently applying their thought process they would be saying that
tbh nothing wrong with Marxism if you ignore the mystique dialectical materialism shit and dogma and essentialism (conflating state and capitalism or reducing all issues to class issues as examples)
btw I heard that Marx used a lot of dry sarcasm in his writings which is hard to detect so some people take it literally, so that comrade might be right about Marx mocking Hegel
>>1602>Idk who taught you about Hegel but you should ask for your money back.
you're the one who chose to call it thesis, antithesis and synthesis. do you even know the difference?
dialectics are human
why are moefags the biggest pseuds on earth?
I put it in quotes because that is how it appears on the picture. Honest question: are you actually this stupid or are you just looking for excuses to disregard the post because it hurt your feelings? This is an anonymous board, you don't have to lie to us.
I asked first. do you even know the difference between the Dialectical and Socratic method?
Of course I do. My turn: are you actually this stupid or are you just looking for excuses to disregard the post because it hurt your feelings?
it’s quite clear the only person hurting anybody’s feelings is Hegel
how can anybody without an understanding of dialectics glean any understanding of it from this thread, when nobody agrees?
the easiest way to learn it accurately is to gain an understanding of Kant and what is meant by the “noumenal I” and how that relates to the “intellectus archetypus”. (you will obviously have to do some studying to understand what those mean). that’s basically the launching point in which Hegel asserts antinomies are inherent to things-in-themselves since Kant proves it for being-in-itself. it can naturally be projected onto noumena since the Kantian “I” is noumenal. only when you get what I meant by all the things in this post will you grasp the thesis-antithesis of Hegel’s method and how to arrive at a sublation/absorption of those specific types of contradictions/antinomies. the point of this post isn’t for you to understand everything that I’ve typed, but if you can parse it and comprehend it you can claim to have grasped Hegel’s method. and if you believe otherwise, you have been misled.
Copy-Pasting some relevant posts I made from a different thread to here. Would just link but /leftypol/ has gotten pretty fast lately.
Here, I intend to show that for Engels, science was a mater of empirical investigation. The following quotations are from the general introduction.
>"The beginnings of the exact investigation of nature were first developed by the Greeks of the Alexandrian period, and later on, in the Middle Ages, were further developed by the Arabs. Real natural science, however, dates only from the second half of the fifteenth century, and from then on it has advanced with increasing rapidity."
Engels–like the Philosophers of Science in the 1920s–viewed natural sciences as a model from which principles of method could be abstracted, but–unlike the Philosophers of science in the 1920s–Engels did not see the method employed in natural sciences as an idealized form to which any future science must conform, but rather as a stage in the development of science, subject to historical contingencies with it's own shortcomings.
>"The analysis of Nature into its individual parts, the groupings of the different natural processes and natural objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms–these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of Nature which have been made during the last four hundred years. But this method of investigation has also left us as a legacy the habit of observing natural objects and natural processes in their isolation, detached from the whole vast interconnection of things; and therefore not in motion, but in their repose; not as essentially changing, but as fixed constants; not in their life, but in their death. And when, as it was the case with Bacon and Locke, this way of looking at things was transferred from natural science to philosophy, it produced the specific narrow mindedness of the last centuries, the metaphysical mode of thought."
Engels had a vision of an approach to science which could overcome these limitations, and he worked to actualize this vision in his work.
The aforementioned shortcomings Engels labels as metaphysics, and as we will see in the next section, it is overcome through dialectics.
The previous section illustrated a congruence between Engels' use of the word science and contemporary uses of the same word. This and all subsequent sections will instead repudiate the existence of any such congruence in use cases of the respective terms.
First: metaphysics. In contemporary academia, metaphysics refers to a branch of philosophy which seeks to answer questions of the substance or fundamental nature of reality. In the previous quotation from Anti-Duhring we can see that Engels uses the term quite differently. For Engels, metaphysics refers to conceptions of systems or things as isolated from the world around them. In other words, the metaphysical outlook sees the internal relations of a things or system, but not the external relations. To view a system as static is metaphysical because it neglects to consider the system in relation to time. This particular metaphysical outlook is the cause for much confusion, because it is used frequently and sometimes taken as the whole picture. It is important to keep in mind that metaphysics includes all models which neglect either internal or external relations, not just static models.
We pick up where we left off:
>"To the metaphysician, things and their mental images, ideas, are isolated, to be considered one after the other apart from each other, rigid, fixed objects of investigation given once for all. He thinks in absolutely discontinuous antithesis."
The opposite of metaphysics, that is to say, a view of objects and systems that considers internal and external relations, and the interrelations between these relations, IS dialectics. The aforementioned reduction of metaphysics to conceptions as static, consequentially reduces dialectics to an acknowledgement of change as constant. Hence, the common misconception that dialectics is the principle that all things are in constant motion.
In contemporary philosophy, idealism and materialism describe metaphysical schools of thought that respectively assert consciousness (or mind or concepts or will) and matter as the fundamental substance of our world. I will not mislead you, Engels does espouse a form of conventional materialism. In addition to this however, he gives idealism and materialism new meanings, I think best illustrated by this section from section "III. Classification. Apriorism" The quotation follows a lengthy section, paraphrased from Eugen Duhring which I will not subject you to here, but the beginning may be confusing as a result.
>"What he is dealing with are therefore principles, formal principles derived from thought and not from the external world, which are to be applied to Nature and to the realm of man, and to which therefore Nature and the realm of man have to conform. But whence does thought obtain these principles? From itself? No, for Herr Duhring himself says: the realm of pure thought is limited to logical schemata and mathematical forms (the latter, moreover, as we shall see, is wrong). Logical schemata can only relate to forms of thought; but what we are dealing with here are only forms of being, of the external world, and these forms can never be created and derived by thought out of itself, but only from the external world. But with this the whole relationship is inverted: the principles are not the starting point of the investigation, but its final result; they are not applied to Nature and human history, but abstracted from them; it is not Nature and the realm of humanity which which conform to these principles, but the principles are only valid insofar as they are in conformity with Nature and history. This is the only materialistic conception of the matter, and Herr Duhring's contrary conception is idealistic, makes things stand completely on their heads, and fashions the real world out of ideas."
This quote can be difficult to parse so read it over again if you need to. Engels unequivocally states here that the distinction between idealism and materialism is one of METHOD, rather than metaphysical substance. The primary difference between materialism and idealism for Engels is not metaphysical at all, it is epistemological! It regards principles, ie, statements, laws of nature, empirical claims. Let's break down his definition of the "materialistic conception" into three points:
>The principles are not the starting point of the investigation, but it's final result.
>They are not applied to nature and human history but abstracted from them
>It is not up to nature to conform to these principles but rather it is up to the principles to conform to reality
Clearly, materialism for Engels entails a particular method of empirical investigation. You might say, a scientific method. The first two points regard how empirical claims are apprehended. Karl Popper explicitly excludes any specifications in this domain from his criterion, so Engels method already has a wider array of applications, but the third point–upon careful consideration–contains the rational embryo for falsifiability! If principles are shown to not conform to reality, what are we to do with the? Throw them out! In this one line, Engels has implied Poppers criterion forty or more years before it's advent! Admittedly, it is not spelled out in Poppers characteristic autism, but I think what it lacks in rigor it makes up for in elegance.
the socialist materialists are idealists
dialectical materialism is nothing else but idealistic materialism
ascribing history and change to dead matter brings forth the concept of god
the truth of the matter regarding A ≠ A is the following:
the reversal of metaphysicshttps://i.imgur.com/FoV4omw.png
1.if everything is becoming then nothing is being
if nothing is being then nothing can become
2.if everything is trying to overcome being
it will always revert into being
3.being is becoming, becoming is being
what is besides becoming and being?https://i.imgur.com/FBUXj09.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/06OhjNs.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/Mz3fjni.png
You understand this is schizo nonsense, right? This is why no one comes here.
And yes, I know my reading is schizo, but it is still better than Trotsky's!!!!
Thank you for the contribution!
Is it true that Mao is the best teacher for dialectics?
Reread that sentence. He’s saying it THEORIZEs Capital’s tendency to perpetuate.
The Hegelian Dialectic is bourgeois, because as the author says, it’s tainted by individual subjective logic that treats the development of logic as something for an individual to do rather than the public consciousness itself.
Wtf is this channel?
long winded rightoid garbage
I think I'll pass, thanks. lol
hilarious. I miss him, comrades. Is he still being insane?
Also, unashamed bump.
>>1413>Daoism is the ideology of primitive tribal chieftains, who want to return to the simple time of primitive communism. It's not a accident that the more communist you are, the more dialectical you become
I like to think that about Jesus and his Christianity, but I don't see any evidence of dialectical thinking on his part, except maybe for the gospel of thomas, but I'll have to read that one again.
>>733>This piece is well written unlike most of Trotsky's work
Unique IPs: 3