Since the last thread collapsed into a flame-war, I'm starting a new one.

Proponents of dialectical materialism are invited to present their arguments, as are opponent. A lively discussion is encouraged, but flaming, spamming, class-baiting, personal insults, and ad hominem attacks are not.

This is an important philosophical question, expecially for Marxists, which should and can be addressed in an adult and mature way.

But what precisely do you want us to debate on?

see: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/ind...howtopic=42399

I was following the now-locked thread and watched it degenerate into name-calling. But I've been thinking about the example of ice-water-steam as an illustration of quantity into quality. It occurs to me that that is not what is happening at all. The element that changes in quantity, the heat, does not change quality at all. It remains the same as it melts ice, heats up water, and produces steam. And the element that changes quality, the water, remains constant as far as its quantity is concerned. Further, on a molecular level the H2O is experiencing no qualitative change.

Given that this is a prime example of how one of the laws of dialectics works I find it not so useful.

There is actually a very large amount of substantive discussion in the closed thread on this topic.

But if it is felt useful to have a "fresh start", I am happy to oblige.

"Dialectics" purports to be a "different" and "better" way of "thinking" (conceptualizing?) about reality.

Can this be demonstrated to be true?

Not just in words...but in actual revolutionary practice?

Do all (or even any) of the 20th century "masters of the dialectic" have anything useful to say to us?

About anything?

No one denies their skill in manipulating obscure Hegelian terminology or intimidating the uninitiated.

But as I have done repeatedly on this board, I am calling their bluff!

I am saying bluntly: where is the evidence to support your claims?

The responses to my challenge have varied somewhat...but I think it entirely fair to characterize their general tone as theological.

It's true because we say it's true!

For a century or more, that was "good enough". Especially since the ghosts of Marx and Engels and later Lenin and Mao could be summoned up to offer the same assurances.

It's not good enough any more. The scientific skepticism that was so rare in 1850 or even 1950 is now becoming more wide-spread. The internet has accelerated this process to an unprecedented degree.

People on this board are very familiar with my attitude towards superstition of all kinds. I am extremely "intolerant"...and proud of it. :P

"Dialectics" makes no appeal to the "gods". But it does claim a kind of "order" in the universe that cannot be empirically demonstrated except in words.

They take natural (and sometimes social) phenomena and simply substitute "dialectical" terminology for the ordinary materialist language that we use to describe those phenomena.

This, they claim, gives them "greater insight" than that of ordinary people using ordinary language.

But I've seen no evidence that their "insight" exceeds that of ordinary people...and considerable evidence to suggest that they usually fall well short of the standards set by ordinary people using ordinary language.

Consequently, I've recently taken to describing "dialectics" as a superstition...that is, a paradigm that's completely divorced from material reality as it really exists.

At best, it reminds me of Ptolemaic cosmology...undoubtedly "clever" but factually wrong. Perhaps Engels was up to that level.

It's gone downhill since then...and no small distance, either.

In the 20th century Leninist parties, it was used as a tool to "justify" whatever the party leadership decided to do at a particular moment. It could be readily used for that purpose because of its inherent lack of precision.

You can "use dialectics" to prove anything...all that's required is familiarity with a few "laws" and some skill at verbally manipulating the terminology.

It was mostly used, in fact, to "justify" one form or another of capitulation to the bourgeoisie.

Those who now wish to rescue "dialectics" from its accelerating descent into historical obscurity sound a note of desperation in their responses...ranging from "we can really do it right, honest" to "the 20th century Leninists were actually pretty good at it and we need to learn from them".

The former is just another unsubstantiated claim while the latter simply provokes mirth and derision.

Perhaps the question should be rephrased.

Should young revolutionaries pay any attention to "dialectics" at all?

Or should they shitcan their "dialectical" texts as they have the "holy books" that they were given as children by their pious relations?

I vehemently endorse the latter option. Every hour spent "studying dialectics" would better be spent in sleep. There is no more to be gained from "dialectics" than from a close inspection of the collected speeches of any randomly chosen bourgeois politician.

It's all crap.

In the closed thread, it was asserted that the sharpness of my attacks on "dialectics" somehow "called into question" the personal motives of those who were defending that folly.

In fact, I did not intend to do so nor do I have that intention now. There are still people around who grew to political maturity in a period when "everyone believed" that "communists are dialecticians". This is an unfortunate accident of history and not a sign of personal perfidy.

People still "believe" in "dialectics"...it's part of their "political heritage" and "tradition".

What I wish they could do is stand back and subject "dialectics" to the same critical examination that they easily apply, for example, to capitalism as a system.

But I am not particularly hopeful in that regard. If one has been taught that one holds "the magic key" to "understanding everything", then giving that up is rather difficult...to say the least.

But...we'll see.

I read the last thread with great interest. I myself am, more or less neutral on the subject. I possess neither the intelligence or the knowledge to make a strong argument in favour of either side and I will never be advanced enough intellectually to call myself the defender of "proper" science or the master of the dialect.

However what even I noticed, was that in the last debate both sides shied away from providing specific examples of what is or isn't dialectal.

Therefore I'd like to "turn my hand" to this.

It occurred to me that something like estimating loads on a building could be considered a dialectal process. Maths of course is used to do this, but couldn't the mathematical process in this case be considered dialectal?

After all, there are opposing forces acting on the structure of a building and therefore before the maths are calculated, there needs to be a recognition of these opposing forces.

In this sense couldn't it be said that dialectics compliments the mathematical process and therefore dialectics is a useful philosophy on which to base further scientific exploits.

Well, you are a lot of wimps if you call that a 'flame war'.

I do not think I have anything to add to what I have already said.

Anything else, I will post on my site for Miles to ignore.

Companero, apologies for misjudging you, but after over twenty years of reading practically the same sort of stuff that you and Miles posted, etc. it is very easy to get pissed off, and to misunderstand it.

I note however that all you ‘progressive’ men cannot stand to be bettered by a working-class woman.

And you especially can't stand it if she fights back.

No wonder modern feminism began in the USA, as women grew sick of such treatment from 'lefty' men.

I see it's still the same old bile from RedStar and Rosa -- with the added twist that Rosa wants to play this as some kind of sexist vendetta against a "working-class woman" (read: trade union bureaucrat and petty-bourgeois academic). Amusing! Amazing! Little does she know....

Well, I'm going to refrain from posting anything else on this thread until these two actually bother to engage the issue.

Miles

Oh dear, isn't everyone being a bit dramatic today. How incredibly childish. :angry:

Of course there are "opposing forces" that affect the structural integrity of any building.

But this is something that ancient engineers learned through practice...the math came considerably later (and is still "a little shaky in spots").

To simply re-phrase this understanding in "dialectical terminology" serves no purpose.

We already know that there are many material causes of what exists and what will exist...and that their effects on one another are complicated.

Not only does it not help to rephrase this understanding "dialectically", it can actually interfere with our understanding.

Most things involve more than two causes.

When you try to "cram" the complexity of real world phenomena into a model that "demands" that everything must be reduced to "two opposing forces", you can't help but end up generating grossly over-simplified and inadequate hypotheses.

For example, if you try to speak intelligently about modern class struggle as simply a struggle between "the proletariat" and "the bourgeoisie", you will end up with vague and essentially useless platitudes.

In reality, it would be far more accurate to speak of proletariats and capitalist classes.

Because it is those "sub-divisions" that actually explain what actually happens.

To be sure, that's a lot more work. You'd actually have to know something about different sections of the working class or the ruling class and what they perceived was in their direct material interests.

You'd have to empirically investigate the real world...you couldn't just "theorize" your way into an understanding.

Rosa Lichtenstein has pointed out in one of the essays on her site that there's a kind of "general characteristic" of all forms of philosophic reasoning: that truth can be attained simply from the correct handling of words.

I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether what she says is "true in general"...but I do think it applies to "dialectics" with special forcefulness. By simply naming this or that the "primary contradiction", you can "logically" continue to any destination you please.

It's that flexible!

And, consequently, as useful as a ruler made of very soft rubber.

What's the distance between two points? It's whatever you please.

How can something like that be considered useful in any reasonable sense of the word?

I still would like to see a dialectician do a geometry proof dialectically. Something where we can see the merit of both the "metaphysical" formal logic and the "superlogic" of dialectics side by side.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere at all.

But I'll give it a try.

Let's start with a definition of philosophy, then and now. Seeing as this is so confusing to some opponents of Dialectical Materialism.

Philosophy, just as religion, began as a way of exploring the world and finding explanations for objective processes when we had none. This role has gradually been replaced by science, and today we are left with a crisis in philosophy.

I say a crisis, because I'm sure all of us have run across the metaphysical crap that passes for philosophy these days, all of which has been thoroughly ruled out by a scientific understanding of reality.

What passes for philosophy now seems to be spirituality, or new age bull.

So, obviously, that's a dead end. Where then is philosophy still useful? In the realm of logic, organizing thoughts and having a consistent critical approach to the categories we form.

Forget everything the bureaucrats said, everyone thinks in some form of logic, this is not difficult. You don't need to know obscure terms, you don't need to be a magician.

It is simply a matter of ease to have a "shorthand" method to ensure consistency in our approach to organizing thoughts.

Now, formal logic's laws are as follows:

The law of identity states that A=A.

The law of contradiction states that A cannot equal not A. Which is just a restatement of the law of identity really.

By extension, the law of the excluded middle also restates a different element of the first two, as it just asserts the identity of statements by refusing the idea of middle ground between opposites.

This is a very basic rundown, just to put us firmly on a philosophical footing and kill the attempts to debate philosophy through politics, so anyone who wants to add to that or correct it, feel free.

This is an approach based entirely on the form, hence, formal logic. It does not draw its categories from the objective world, and this is its failure.

Regardless, this is a logical approach that has its uses when it comes to many discussions. Sometimes considering the middle ground, or the fact that A is never A (as in no two things are identical, even to themselves), is just not practical. It is an abstraction that is useful for simple ideas, and many mathematical considerations.

Dialectical Materialism attempts to create not a logical system, but guidelines which are drawn from the objective world.

The laws of dialectics are as follows:

The law of the interpenetration of opposites basically states that in every process, the most important aspect is that of the unity and conflict of opposing elements and forces.

The law of quantitative into qualitative states that from those conflicts comes gradual changes of a quantitative character which modify the balance of forces until they reach a certain tipping point where that balance is broken in a major way.

The law of the negation of the negation states that a new balance of forces then follows, on a higher level, and so a return to the same situation can never be. Even if the process is reversed, a circular development is not possible, and an entirely new situation with elements of the new and the old arises.

What about Constructivist logic? It rejects the law of the excluded middle, arguing that everything has to be proven (or else it is unjustified or undetermined).

As you might expect, it originates from mathematics, where one would prove theorems. This conflicts with classical logic, being if you can prove the opposite of proposition A false then proposition A is true (if I'm not wet, then I'm dry).

Constructivist logic points out you could be covered with snow, or mud, or dirt, or something else. Thus if you aren't wet that doesn't make you dry. Or, in other words, you cannot equate a double negative with a positive...curiously a positive can be extended to imply a double negative (e.g. if I am dry then I am not wet).

Actually, modern mathematical logic has provided a fascinating new template originating from category theory: topos.

Used in mathematical logic, topos (plural is "topoi") can categorize "the objective world" according to a set of axioms of what you are looking for.

The objection, however, that symbolic (mathematical) logic isn't philosophical logic and thus should be disregarded seems rather short sighted. This, however, falls to the philosophical question as to why you are using logic; are you making a new theory with it, or are you trying to do the laundry?

If it is the former, then math has it taken care of! Systems Analysis is a fascinating field, mathematics at its prime.

The easiest system to explain is a programming system [1]. Of course, if you don't know programming, then this does not good!

Not only is this all straightforward, but there is nothing confusing about it. Examples can easily be cited in any field of math, viz. mathematical logic and topoi.

Dialectics sound consistent and as if they actually do something. However, they are only intellectual tools; and like any tool when it's worn dull, it's time to upgrade for the sake of precision.

Why bother with a fountain pen when we have computers?

We're not talking computer logic or programming.

We're talking everyday logic that anyone can use.

There's no need to obscure the philosophical discussion with mathematical constructs that are not useful as a way of thinking, but rather find their use in computers and the like.

Philosophical logic is the shorthand basis for our thoughts, not something for people to make advanced calculations with. From that philosophical basis, you can examine things more deeply with complex mathematical equations, but it is useful to have a conscious philosophical logic that is conducive to a good basic understanding from which to proceed.

Please, present a geometric proof with dialectical logic. Or even create a "dialectical proof theory", presenting something that would give an equal comparison to logic.

What good is dialectics if it cannot prove something? This is not too unreasonable a request.

Dialectics, it has been asserted, can easily be deduced from observing systems. In the mathematical field of systems analysis, there should logically be some dialectical superstructure in existence.

And with what luck! Systems analysis is entirely mathematically explained! Dialectics should thus be in the equations! Of course, not defending dialectics, I expect that if it were real and not manhandled onto systems it could easily be presented by even an elementary dialectician.

Neither topoi nor categories are part of computer science. And systems analysis is more mathematically inclined, as it is a mathematical tool to describe systems (hence the name systems analysis).

Even by wikipedia's definition: "Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field with origins in engineering, physics and applied mathematics but has been extended into many areas of natural sciences and humanities such as biology, economics and psychology."

Unlike dialectics, math can be used to do something. Why isn't dialectics used "in computers and the like"?

Could it be that math, groups, categories, and topoi present an easier and superior form of reasoning that anyone can understand?

Or is it that the only way to defend dialectics against mathematical logic is to dismiss it as "mathematical constructs that are not useful as a way of thinking"?

Indeed, it cannot even present an elementary geometry problem, much less these abstract thoughts.

Will you provide a dialectical analysis of tensor calculus? I am very interested in seeing a deeper understanding of this complex mathematical field.

Or maybe that is too elementary. What about operator theory? Or even Riemannian geometry?

This does raise a large number of issues with metamathematics, though; how can we say philosophy does a better job describing (or intuitively investigating, or "a priori apprehension" or whatever you wish to call it) mathematics than math itself does?

And what use, if it could do so, would philosophy be if it couldn't even present an example of its application through an elementary geometry proof? Can it then be used for something even more complex like describing mathematics?

But "clearly" the "common folk" are "too stupid" to understand math, as if they'd understand dialectics better somehow; how could we say that math is thus the better form of reasoning?

Could it be due to the fact that math is a useful intellectual tool?

why does it matter if math is better reasoning than a philosophic concept? That is begging the question of what we are trying to understand, dialectical materialism. (You should note that everytime you respond to my questions you give just as much an answer, you play the game as if i was reducing you so you attempt to negate "the other's" positon only to force that sort of reduction. In every instance ComradeRed you challenge philosopher's to answer a question that you believe has no answer. So you readily negate the answer before it is given, this is only to cause the disscussion to collapse around your pointless challenge. You're interpretation and usage of mathematics is alienating, this is something I disagree with.) ComradeRed you still do not realize that in your chioce of words you stray yourself from any possibility of truth. I mean you present the challenge for the dialectic to prove something, but in every instance you avoid truth. I mean it seems as if your realization of truth is only objectified or valued on the premises that hold value i.e. mathematics. Understood as a descriptive part of the system of objects which math through proof has dedicated to answer. the closest interpretation of dialectical logic your seeking might reside in Godel's theorem. But that is still insufficient it might be more readily advanced through modal logic.

To continue on in the discussion,
I am interested in the following quote given from Che y Marijuana
I'm interested in the conflict part, maybe you could elaborate on that issue. And i'm curious what type of balance is necessary in quantities and qualities?

I'm simply asking the dialecticians to present mathematical proof (or, better, a mathematical formulation) of dialectics.

Anyone can word anything to sound authentic or real, but this is the exact reason why you can prove anything with statistics. Dialectics can be worded to sound as if they can do something, despite not doing anything in reality.

I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree, the extent to which math is mystified compared to how much is known is considerably greater. It's all most as though arguing in Latin, with the exception that math is a tool rather than a language.

No, this is not my intent at all. My intent is that with the tool of mathematics, logic has already been "mathematized". If we could also "mathematize" dialectics, we have a fair and unbiased way to compare the two.

I am not trying to use math as a tool of truth. I am using it as a medium of communication (ironically enough).

Any form of logic can be formulated with topoi, and curiously enough mathematics can be formulated with topoi that can ignore certain rules. In a sense topoi are the tools I am asking the dialecticians to use to use.

If they can encode dialectics successfully with it, not only can we learn more about the dialectic through this neutral medium of communication but we can also compare it in relation to formal logic.

I do assert that math, on its own, is a superior form of reason...just as any structured thinking applied to something with defined rules yields superior skills in reasoning(e.g. geometry, programming, etc.).

And I do assert that unless and until a practical example of dialectics in simple English (or better math) can be presented, it can only be concluded that the dialecticians do not want to be understood. If anything can be said, it can be said clearly and simply.

And, as the Church-Turing Thesis points out, if anything can be formulated it can be formulated mathematically. Is it then too much to ask for dialectics to be formulated mathematically? If so, what is there to hide?

Iconoclasm can't replace the analysis, and loading up on references to math or any other 'hard' (i.e., less ambiguous overall) tool to evaluate dialectics misses the point, and paradoxically places excessive importance on dialectics. Truth value, utility, historical line of demarcation, none of it is important IMO. Yet, those who have adopted pragmatism, empiricism, et al. have generally strayed from 'far left' to the right - James Burnham, Schactman, Sidney Hook, and likely many others. So, maybe, it is rejection of dialectics that indicates something - like the greater or lesser likelihood of removing oneself from Marxism or the Marxist worldview. Whether or not dialectics has 'value' of some sort, who knows. I like Althusser on this question, but I also recall Lucio Coletti case in which he went from rejecting Hegelian dialectics as mystical, embracing Kant, and then serving in Berlusconi's (sic?) government (of course, not a trajectory).

I have explained to you, quite clearly, what dialectics is.

I'm afraid it is you who is attempting to obscure this debate, once again. I will not lie, I have absolutely no fucking idea what the hell "topoi" are. Perhaps you can start a thread about how workers should all learn to think in calculus.

Secondly, you are asking me to describe a philosophy which is pretty opposed to your obscurantist method (thoughts are not mathematical formulae), in your own obscurantist terms. I'm not sure how that works. I'm assuming this "topoi" stuff is a pseudo-philosophical construct, in which case you are asking for an opposing philosophy to adopt, accept and use your philosophical method to demonstrate its method. That doesn't make much sense to me, as this debate is about different logics.

The point of dialectics is that anyone can use them, I'm not about to engage in a pointless exercise which even I cannot understand. At the end of it, what use would the philosophy have in everyday life if you need a calculator to express it?

As for being sued to "prove" things, you are again leaving the realm of philosophy. Please reread my definition of what philosophy is. Science proves things. Philsophy helps us have shorthand understandings, categorize our thoughts, and approach our persuits of knowledge in a consistent manner (looking at process and contradiction rather than snapshot and absolute definition in the case of dialectic vs. formal logic).

Nothing more.

Well, proceeding from the reality that everything is really a process of change rather than a dead object, change is the result of contradictory and opposing elements. Clearly there can be many elements all intertwining and interacting in different ways and degrees, some supporting and some opposing, rather than just two. Yet several tendencies develop out of those interactions.

A certain order emerges, as in society, often with two (for sake of simplicity as I explain we will limit it to two) very strong tendencies in a kind of equilibrium within their struggle. That does not mean however, that that opposition has reached an absolute equilibrium, it is a tenuous one, which actually contains within it a huge amount of small changes.

In the case of water for example, which I will re-explain since someone completely misunderstood, you have the tendency towards settling and dissipating energy within the water. In otherwords, a tendency towards passing the heat from the water to the surrounding environment. Then you have the tendency towards a state of high energy. These, for a time, are in a kind of equilibrium, the heat is resisted by the loss of heat. (I know this is idiotically simplistic, bare with me). Slowly however, more and more molecules reach a state of agitation and high energy until enough has happened to break the equilibrium decisively. The water moves from a state of fluidity to a turbulent, chaotic body which boils and passes to gas. This does not happen all gradually, the buildup does. However, the boiling is very much sudden, at 100 degrees celsius at sea level.

This is a very bad example, I know, but I'll give a better one if you want.

I hope that gives a bit of an insight however.

I didn't respond to this earlier because I wanted to place us on a serious footing before dealing with misunderstandings or mischaracterizations.

What you are saying here is simply "yes, dialectics describes the world, but is too obvious to be useful". Dialectics is not about terminology, it's about method. You don't have to "rephrase" anything, just know that the important part of that process is the interaction of opposing forces. That is all. It's unfortunate that the bureaucrats made such a big deal of words, and dumped the method, but we all know their interpretations of Marxism were designed to be confusing and useful only to them.

Dialectics does not attempt to reduce things to two causes. Often however, a small number of strong tendencies emerge in a process, sometimes two, sometimes three, whatever. This is where "summarizing" can often be useful to understand (but not to calculate).