Trivas (attempt #24, at least 74 still to go):

Seems you can't read, either.

Let me recap, in a larger font, to help your failing eyesight:

Unless you provide evidence -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you rely on faith alone.

Of course, this has been clear since you arrived here several months ago -- that you are a dogmatist who relies on faith, not evidence, still less on argument.

Looking forward to attempt #25...

Hence the list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

Nonsense; reading Capital takes no faith, on which I base the proposition that Marx uses the dialectical method he learned from Hegel to analyze capitalism and social change. The burden is on you to show that Marx used the dialectic as did Aristotle and Kant, both for whom it was a a minor, non-scientific consideration. For Marx, OTOH, it is central to his preoccupation with societal change.

Trivas (and it's now attempt #25):

And yet, as Marx explains his method, it contains no Hegel at all:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

So, the burden is not on me, for Marx saved me the job.

In that case, this still stands (here it is again, nice and large; you seem not to be able to see it):

Unless you provide evidence -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you do indeed rely on faith alone.

Moreover: the list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

Looking forward to attempt #26...

No, Marx doesn't explain his method. He just names "my dialectical method" the one he learned from Hegel and uses throughout Capital. Neither does he use Aristotle's or Kant's considerations re the dialectics.
-- afterword to the 2nd German edition of Capital

Trivas (and yes, it's attempt #26):

Once more, we need not speculate, for Marx (not me) very kindly summarised 'his method' for us, quoted earlier in this thread.

In that summary, you will no doubt notice that there are:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

In short, Marx's 'dialectic method' has had every trace of Hegel removed.

Now, you keep telling us, despite the evidence going against you, that:

Unforttunatley for you, Marx holed this 'argument' well below the water-line by adding the aforementioned summary of 'his method', in which there not one atom of Hegel is to be found.

So, if you have any evidence to show that Marx was wrong when he called this de-Hegelianised summary 'his method', then let's see it.

If you have none, then this still stands (in larger font, since your poor eyes seem not to be able to see it yet):

Unless you provide evidence -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you do indeed rely on faith alone.

Trivas (quoting Marx):

Well spotted; see you can use your eyes! I am impressed.

Now, all you have to do is look a little harder (can you do that?). If you do manage it, you will see that what Marx calls 'the dialectic method' contains:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

In other words, Marx's 'dialectic method' owes nothing at all to Hegel.

Unless, that is, you can show otherwise...

[Some hope...!]

So, looking forward to attempt #27...

Until then:

The list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

No, neither did Marx "summarise" his method in the passage quoted, he alludes to "the materialist basis of my method".

If you need a summary of Marx's method, the likeliest candidate is as follows:
-- afterword to the 2nd German edition of Capital

Repeating yourself is pointless.

Trivas (you guessed it, it's attempt #27):

In fact, he does more than 'allude':

And, in the summary of 'his method' that Marx himself (not me) endorses, there is not one ounce of Hegel:

No "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality", no 'universal change'...

So, unless (again, this is in a larger font, for your poor eyes' sake):

you provide evidence to the contrary -- which would anyway run against what Marx himself tells us -- that Marx's method owed anything to Hegel, then it will be clear to one and all that you do indeed rely on faith alone.

Not so, the point is to keep on repeating this simple message until it sinks in. Only another 73 attempts to go.

Until then:

The list is now as follows: we still do not know whether or not all language is metaphorical; you certainly cannot justify your allegation to that effect -- and we (foolishy!) await your proof that Marx's method in Das Kapital is as you imagine it to be, and as tradition has pictured it for the last 130 years or so -- but not as Marx himself describes it.

Already looking forward to #28...