BCS: Firstly, why do these discussions always end up in a discussion of natural science and mathematics? The OP is asking if abstraction is a valid form of thinking in reference to Marxism. Thus, whether abstraction is necessary for the investigation of evolution or magnetic fields is somewhat moot.

Let’s examine what Marx’s research program actually consisted of. This is outlined in the Grundrisse and can be described as a broad study of society, as indicated by these themes:

1. The abstract characteristics common to all forms of society, taking into account their historical aspect.
2. The main constituent elements of the internal structure of bourgeois society, upon which the basic social classes rest, capital, wage labour, landed property. Town and country. The three great social classes and the exchange between them. Circulation. Credit.
3. Crystallization of bourgeois society in the form of the State. The ‘unproductive’ classes. Taxation. Public debt. Public credit. Population. Colonies. Emigration.
4. International relations of production. International division of labour. International exchange. Exports and imports. Exchange.
5. The world market and crises.

In other words, Marx was embarking upon a sociological research program. The question then becomes whether abstraction has a role to play within a methodology attempting to grasp (understand and explain) social reality.

According to Marx it does. Above, Rosa mentions the use of scientific instruments such as microscopes for investigating the natural world. The point is that in the social world, we cannot isolate phenomena in a laboratory and scrutinize it with electron-microscopes. We therefore have to develop other means of investigation. In the Introduction to the Grundrisse, Marx discusses two ‘moments’ of thinking, or analyzing, social phenomena – an analytical moment and a synthetic moment which begins and ends with the ‘concrete’. The analytical moment breaks down what we are studying into its simpler component parts. The synthetic moment brings them back together, establishing their mutual connections and providing a more complex and concrete knowledge of our original abstraction. For instance, the ‘education system’ is an abstraction comprising of simpler, more concrete components like schools, colleges, teaching staff, administrative staff, students, parent-teacher associations, etc. In order to fully understand how the education system works we need to strip it down into these analytically separate elements. The second moment of analysis, the synthetic, is where we begin to show the connections and exchanges between the more concrete elements and as we move up towards a more concrete and integrated knowledge of the education system itself. Beyond that, we need to establish knowledge of the interconnections between the education system and its place within the general totality which is society to fully understand it.

You should read the Introduction for yourself as Marx explains it better than me. What her shows, is that abstraction is an unavoidable moment within out thinking, but one which needs overcoming in order for us to establish real knowledge about the social world.

You make several assumptions that are not warranted:

Why are these 'abstract', and not just common elements? What do you gain by calling them abstract?

In contrast, what you lose, however, is the generality Marx sought to locate in capitalism -- in that now, these common elements are turned into abstract particulars, thus losing their generality -- as I pointed out in my earlier post.

Why ruin the theory by calling these 'abstractions? But, these have been 'abstracted' from nowhere, since the process is a myth -- you certainly have not told us how this is to be carried out.

I was, of coure, responding to a specific point made about the physical and biological sciences.

But even so, in the social sciences, researchers have to examine appearances, and they have to report their findings to the rest of us as appearances (in writings etc.). So, no abstractions are evident even here.

'The education system' is not an abstraction, since it is a title given to the things you list. Certainly, no one has ever constructed the 'education system' out of schools etc., by a process of abstraction -- or if they have, you forgot to say who did this, and when -- and how we could ever arrive at the same results, years after that mythical person's heroic mental gymnastics, if we have no access to his/her thoughts.

If it is an 'abstraction' (performed in the mind of each individual) how can you show that you mean the same by it as any other dialectician? Do you possess a universal mind probe?

And, the things you list as 'concrete' entities (schools, colleges, etc.,) are no more concrete that the 'education system' is abstract. Schools consist of parts too, as does the education system; so you have no basis on which to classify the one as abstract but the others as concrete.

Once more, you have signally failed to respond to the serious difficulties I have posed for this way of looking at the world -- yet again, I suspect you cannot answer them.

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class -- so, well done for once again pinning your colours to that particular mast.

Z, I note that you too just ignore the serious objections I have raised against this ruling-class way of looking at reality.

Head still in the sand, is it?

I'm just following Marx's usage here. What do you think he meant? I think he's referring to those characteristics found generally within all forms of society (relations of production, for instance), abstracted from their concrete determinations within history. So we can talk about the capitalist relations of production, but we need to distinguish between the concrete manifestations of this between particular societies - French and American, for example.

Possibly, in the rarefied and exacting terminology of analytic philosophy. But that's your cross to bear. Like Marx, I'm not that bothered by your semantics.

You misunderstand. I was listing Marx's own research program in order to emphasise its sociological content, not claiming that these things were abstractions.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that all theoretical thinking, once externalised as text, is appearance? That seems like a trivial point. Of course, you won't be arguing that all social reality is a text and therefore mere appearance, will you?

It is, using the usage of Marx. The same could be said of evolution. You call it a process, but this is not a singular one. Evolution is the abstract term we give to a multiplicity of concrete processes in the relationship between and within species as they adapt to their eco-system.

Correct. I said "more concrete". Perhaps my terminology is incorrect at this point - and misrepresents Marx's position. How Marx puts it is like this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...risse/ch01.htm

Your suspicion may be correct. But I'm here to clarify what role abstraction plays in the work of Marx and discuss this with other Marxists, not to play philosopher with you.

CZ:

As I pointed out, that usage ruins his own analysis, since it turns those general features into the names of abstract particulars, removing generality from his theory.

And all this talk about "abstracted from their concrete determinations" is little more than hand gesturing -- in 2500 years, no one has yet been able to say how this process works -- you just take it all on a blind act of faith.

This has nothing to do with analytic philosophy; it was a point made by the nominalists -- which you'd know if you knew as much philosophy as you seem to know waffle.

And I note, once more, that you can only make your 'theory' seem to work by your sloppy use of language.

I also note, that you do not complain about Marx's 'semantics' when he makes fine distinctions between, say, the relative form of value and the equivalent form in Kapital. 'Semantics' is OK there, apparently.

Truth be told, you ony complain about 'semantics' when it punches gaping holes in your half-baked 'theory.

On other occasions you are quite happy to make 'semantic' points about the word 'contradiction', for example.

And if you knew your logic, you would know I am making a syntactical, not a semantic point -- that is, one that appeals to features in the ordinary language of the working class -- the language you turn your back upon when it suits you.

This is indeed how ancient Greek thinkers proceeded; as I noted in an earlier post in this thread, they had material interests in developing theories about a hidden, abstract world behind appearances, accesssible to thought alone. So, they had to take the ordinary langauge of their day, and then do precisely what you are now doing -- syntactically altering the use of general words so that they became the names of abstract particulars. This shielded their theories from ready disconformation, and that is why such theories have lasted 2500 years. They are based on a systematic distortion of language, as Marx indicated:

So, once more, Marx's approach is my approach -- but not yours. It's a pity, howver, that he lost this earlier clarity of vision.

No, that is not my point; it is the simple observation that social sciences cannot be based on abstractions carried out in the minds of researchers, since they have to write their results down. In that case, they have to appeal to the meaning of words already in the public domain, not to obscure and uncheckable 'abstactions' carried out in their heads.

It is certainly the title we give to a process, but once more, apart from slavishly copying tradition (a tradition unfortunately Marx also copied), why do you want to call this an abstraction?

And I am aware of this quotation from Marx; I have this to say about it (in Essay Three Part One):

Perhaps you would like to tell us precisely where Marx does what he says he does with 'population'?

He left no record of these 'mental gyrations', and they would have been no use to us even if he had, for such privatised thoughts in the minds of long dead individuals are now in principle inaccessible to us.

Which fact underlines what a crazy view of knowledge this ruling-class theory represents -- it delivers the 'results' of uncheckable mental gymnastics, that no one else can share.

What I propose puts the whole thing in the public domain, where the results and the method used are checkable.

This is something you keep ignoring.

But, this is a bit odd for the modertor of the Philosophy section to say:

I am not playing 'philosopher' since I am attacking an ancient philosophical view that practically everyone (except nominalists -- but they had their own ruling-class hang-ups, anyway) in the history of philosophy has accepted: abstractionism. It is indeed one of the ruling ideas, as Marx noted.

And I am not attacking it to improve it, or replace it with another philosophical theory, but to show that this branch of traditional myth-making does not work either.

But, anyway, we all know the real reason why you are backing-off; you always lose.

As if one needed to know how consciousness emerges from brain states before proceeding to think.

Would that you were only making a syntactical point, then you'd be saying nothing re Marx's method.

All abstractions are generalizations, not particulars.

Would that your approach was Marx's, then we could agree to something.

Who is saying that social science is based on abstractions?

But still you need to abstract to condemn abstractionism.

Trivas:

This has nothing to do with the point I was making; you need to try to read more carefully.

Moreoever, independently of scientific knowledge, there is no way for anyone to check whether Abstractor A has abstracted the same concepts as Abstractor B, or even if they mean the same by the word 'same' -- or even if one or both have hit on the 'right' abstraction, or not.

How could anyone decide?

Is there a 'Novice Abstractor's Standardisation Board' we can appeal to?

Abstactionism thus collapses into radical scepticism.

But Marx is usually scrupulously careful over his use of words, except when it comes to philosophy and abstraction.

So, it is a legitimate point to raise that he does not need these syntactic monstrosities. Das Kapital would not be affected if Marx had never heard of 'abstractions'. Quite the reverse, in fact, the syntatcic mess these introduce into his work threaten to ruin the scientific points he wished to make.

Unfortunately for you, the syntax of the sentences dialecticians themselves use says the opposite, that they are indeed the names of abstract particulars. The details have been summarised here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...97&postcount=2

This has since been updated in a clearer form here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...mmitted_01.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/...e_Part_One.htm

The full details are here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm

I have no doubt you will ignore these awkward facts too.

So, the use to which these are put in dialectics belies your bluff and ignorant denial.

But, we do not even know if your approach is that of Marx -- even though there is enough prima facie evidence that it isn't, since he was no dogmatist, whereas you are.

CZ.

No so -- no more than a doctor needs to catch a disease in order to eradicate it.

Where do I say this?

CZ (now):

CZ (before he was rumbled):

And then you proceed to outline Marx's alleged social science:

Bold added.

Then we get the confused Hegelian gobbledygook:

Bold added.

So, unless you disagree with the above confused thinking, the answer is plain for all to see.

Yes, I know I wrote all that. The question is where did I argue that "social science is based on abstraction"?

Feel free to point it out any time soon.

As I have said I do not consider mathematics a theory at all, I wrote that I consider it a language we can use to describe the organization of the universe. Using mathematics, such a broad word, is perhaps a mistake.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how it is mathematics, or numbers and geometry which is more specifically what I am thinking of, can help us understand nature... how is this? Could it mean that matter is ultimately organized, not unlike numbers themselves?

If I think there are mathematical objects out there in the universe? Funny idea, I would be interested in finding a mathematical object. No...

I think I have discussed with you before on where numbers can correctly be used describing matter, which is on the ultimate microscopic scale. As with all things, what exists on the microscopic scale is reflected in larger scales such as "middle world"... We can not draw a 100% straight line, but it can be a representation (for us, a word in the language of mathematics) of the organization that exists on the smallest scale. The circle is a topic of it's own, I won't go there.

CZ:

Do I have to do everything for you?

Your argument clearly implies that an alleged social science cannot be a science unless if adopts what you view as Marx's abstractive method:

Notice that: "real knowledge".

So, social science for you must adopt this method, and it must deal with/yield abstractions. Anything else ain't real knowledge, and hence isn't real social science -- for you.

Of course, now that you have been rumbled, you might want to modifiy these rather rash statements.

But, I think we can expect pigs to fly first...

Dystisis:

Well, we largely agree on that, then.

You might like to reflect on how mathematics can describe the world if there are no numbers in reality, no mathematical circles, planes or matrices, etc. What exactly is it describing?

We need to start a new thread on this, I think. Otherwise this thread will be derailed.

On the point of what we mean by abstraction. This is the first sentence in the Wikipedia entry and is, in my opinion closest to how "ordinary people" employ it in their "ordinary language"

It then goes on to inform: Reading further, we discover that the word "abstraction" has been used in a number of attenuated ways in different disciplines.

Comrades who are interested can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstrac..._in_philosophy

Firstly, you seem to be employing a similar reading strategy to my scribblings as you do to Marx. The quote you select clearly states that the level of abstraction needs to be overcome in order to produce real knowledge - i.e. knowledge of the real.

Second, I don't believe that all social science applies this method recommended by Marx. So even if I was claiming that Marxist social science is "based on abstraction" (which I do not claim) it would not be the same as claiming that "social science is based on abstraction".

Thirdly, yes in the competition between Marxist historical materialism and bourgeois forms of sociology, I would claim that the former produces superior knowledge to the latter.

But then, I'm biased. Damn that class struggle instinct!

CZ:

Can we see the results of the survey you carried out on ordinary folk to see if they do indeed theorise in this way about a process that defies description even to this day?

However, I note also that you are happy to appeal to ordinary language when it suits you -- I will remember to throw that back in your face when the occasion arises.

Yes, and we must thank you for such diligent research, which carried you all the way out as far as Wikipedia (you really are a first rate social scientist, aren't you?) -- and for inadvertently confirming that 'abstraction' is indeed one of the 'ruling ideas'.

But, I defy you, or even those from the other 'disciplines' you allude to, to say what this mythical process of abstraction actually is, and how it avoids the difficulties I outlined, which, in your class-compromised, and logically-challenged state of mind, even now you ignore.

I.e., you do think that genuine knowledge in the social sciences does indeed require abstraction.

Looks like you ignore your own words as you do Marx's.

In that case you will be withdrawing this, I take it:

It is all the same to me whether you are confused now about your own ideas, or were earlier -- or even both.

Who can say? Certainly not your good self.

I agree, but then HM only does that because it does not rely on abstractions, despite what the dialectical brochure says.

Don't knock it -- that 'instinct', if you give it free reign, will prompt you, too, to throw off this ruling idea: abstraction.

However, the signs so far are not too good -- your commitment to class-compromised dogma is your greatest stumbling block.

Damn those ruling ideas...

You cannot disassociate the activity from its human counterpart, and expecially not its thought processes.

Abstraction is a cohesive understanding of sensory fact. In the sense of studies done, say, with a microscope, a human looks at a cell and translates the objects seen into abstract concepts (i.e. a cell wall) which are then utilized by comparing other abstract concepts (i.e. the intrusion a certain protein may be able to make based on the microscopic scene). Here, the cell wall, the movement of the protein, the inside and outside of the cell are all abstract concepts.

A case could be made that abstractions are not used in scientific arguments. for instance, the scientist has seen the movement of the protein, and so that is a foregone conclusion. But I think that argument would be weak. If an abstraction is a construct of the mind created by a translation of core facts which we cannot deny (say our vision) then most of human activity is driven by it.

I think the best argument you could use against abstraction would be to say that abstractions which are not well-established should not be utilized, or an "abstraction tree" (the acceptance of an abstraction's accuracy based on the assumption of other abstractions) suffers from being convoluted and less grounded in certainty.

But we simply can't ignore that our minds thing symbolically, and those symbols are used for scientific advancement. Christ, even machines use the substitution of an internal variable when confronted with data streams..

Abstraction is nothing but rotten liberalism.

Dean, you need to address the serious weaknesses I have located in this theory, not repeat tired, 2000 year old ruling-class formulae.

I deny this; what happens is that observers make sense of what they see using a public language which contains familiar general words.

The movement of proteins cannot be represented by abstract 'concepts', since, to repeat, Abstractor A would have no way of knowing whether or not Abstractor B had formed the same 'concepts' as he/she had, or whether they had formed the same ones from only minutes ago, or even the 'right' concepts. There is no way of checking the abstract conceptual contents of anyone's head. In that case, scientific knowledge cannot be based on abstraction.

But I went over all this; you just ignored it!

Not so, for the reasons I outlined. And you assume, without proof, that 'most human activity' is 'driven' by this mysterious process (which you have yet to describe to us in anything other than vague terms). I deny any of our thought is so 'driven', and for the reasons I gave.

No, the best arguments are the ones I have already used, which you have just ignored.

We certainly use symbols in everyday language (but they are not the least bit abstract), but the 'mind' does not use symbols -- for who or what lives inside our heads to view them?

Machines process electronic pulses, they do not use symbols. They might output symbols, but these are symbols for us, not for machines (unless you think that human beings live inside machines to view these symbols).

This is a converation I have avoided - it being a very good one without me sticking my oar in. But I just cant resist asking a question, which is this: Rosa, does your model allow for any description of the nature of the difference in the level of generality between, lets say, the concept of exchange Value and the concept of market prices ? Or between the terms market price and prices of production ? etc. Or is it the case that you say merely that not all the terms used are at the same level of generality and that there is no requirement in the manner I suggest to describe the differences in level of generality...just that each term has its own meaning ? Or is your stance otherwise ?