Trivas:

So, it turns out that you were having a problem with one of my words -- "theory" to be precise.

On the contrary, your words seldom fail to be obsure and opaque.

And I am happy to remain provacative where you mystics are concerned.

You confuse provocation w/ thought, Rosa. Your response is meaningless.

Self-importance, indeed.

Trivas:

Even so, I will always be provocative with you mystics

Only because you failed to understand "theory".

And you fail to demonstrate that dialectics is a theory.

Trivas:

I am happy to concede that it isn't -- it's far too confused.

Then your point is moot, viz.:

Trivas:

Maybe not, since I usually make the point this way:

And I didn't do that this time since you are all too easily confused.

There can be no doubt Marx borrowed heavily from Hegel. Also, the concept of absolute idea proposed by Hegel was NOT mystical at all. It's a logical conclusion, when we accept the idea of opposites.

For instance, if we accept that things always change and evolve (which all marxists do), then the question arises as to 'what' changes. This cannot be answered, unless we admit an absolute idea as a substratum of all changes.

BenHur:

Negation is given in language, but Hegel mystified the whole thing; in fact he pinched the idea from earlier Hermeticists and Neo-Platonists.

And sure, who has ever doubted that the young Marx borrowed from Hegel? The point is that he had waved all that goodbye by the time he wrote Das Kapital.

Not so; we have countless words in ordinary language the allow us to depict every conceivable form of change, in limitless detail, without any assumption that there is, or might be, or that any sense can be made of the idea that there is an 'Absolute'.

What are those words, anyway?

Point is, change cannot be explained without reference to an absolute. Now you may replace the word 'absolute' with another word, that's besides the point.

Put simply, if you speak of change and evolution, I can always ask you WHAT is changing? If your answer is A, then what was A before it became A? If it was A all along, you contradict the basic principle that everything is changing. OTOH, if A were something else, let's call it B, what was it before it became B? And so on, and so forth.

Evidently, we have to admit an absolute idea to solve this riddle.

BenHur:

Here is a greatly shortened list:

BenHur:

So you keep saying, but we have yet to see the proof.

Or, rather you offer this:

1) Why can't this go on forever?

2) How do you know that everything is always changing?

3) Why can't we have:

A -> B -> C ->...->...-> A -> B -> C ->... and so on?

Why does it have to have a 'solution'?

And, if there is an 'Absolute' that contradicts your thesis that everything is always changing, ruining your argument.

I don't want to replace this word since it is devoid of meaning -- any more than I would want to replace "BuBuBu".

LOL. That was a rhetorical query, but thanks for the list, anyway.



Sure it can, I am not disputing that. But you need a fixed frame of reference to even consider the possibility of change. Needless to say, this substratum has to be different from the entities that are undergoing change. Or, the very act of recognition (of change) could be questioned.

BenHur (why the red colour?):

1) Why can't this 'fixed frame of reference' be different everytime?

2) Why does there have to be a 'frame of reference' to begin with? We manage to talk about change everyday of our lives without such a 'frame'.

3) We can speak about change from a background of change. Here are several examples:

a) Acceleration is the rate of change of the rate of change of position with respect to time (all of which change themselves too).

b) Sat on an aeroplane travelling at 600 mph, a passenger can change his seat (and while he is doing that, he can change his jacket, drink, mind...). Against such a changing backgound, we can still speak of other changes.

c) While changing a lightbulb on a speeding train, a railworker can change the power setting of the bulb she is fitting, from 40 to 60 watts.

d) While falling through the air, a parchutist can change chutes if her primary does not deploy.

There are countless changes like this (none of which presume or imply a stable 'frame of reference'), all easily described in ordinary language, which metaphysicians ignored when they invented the obscure and useless concepts they inflicted on humanity (such as 'the absolute').

I see that this is the same old debate from before. Maybe things don't really change all that much...

Anyway, I'm only posting here to get in on this "absolute" thing. It goes like this:

Things (objects, processes, ideas, etc.) can only be defined through statements of the form of negation of negation, that is, through differentiation/opposition. (Ex. "This pen is black." assumes that "This pen is not not black." and would carry no meaning if it didn't.) So, in order to make meaningful statements meaningful at all, there has to be something opposite. That would be the absolute/meaningless/nothingness/indeterminate/undifferentiated/etc. The synthesis of that absolute with the relative forms all of our concepts (reflections of aforementioned things) which have varying amounts of determinateness. Without the absolute, IOW, the determinations would have no ground and be an endless array of information which would then, ironically, become meaningless.

Ah, the A Priori Dogmatist is back:

Can we have the proof that:

All you have done is mention a few contentious examples, which do not constitute proof.

Moreover, 'The pen is black' is not a definition.

Anyway, it does not rule out the pen being white, or green, or even Volderbeek puce. [Want to know why?]

And why should 'determinations' [Wha...?] have a 'ground' to begin with?

Coffee has grounds, so do sports teams. But 'determinations'?

Nah...

Get back to your mystical incantations; it's the only thing you do well.

Apart, that is, from slandering the human race...

So, Marx - the old, seasoned writer of Das Kapital - knows who criticised Hegel: the young, inexperienced author of Die Heilige Familie, Karl Heinrich Marx.

And so, Marx himself would disagree with the idea that his views on Hegel changed too much during his intellectual life.

Luís Henrique

Welcome back LH, but what exactly are you trying to say here?

Your usual clarity seems to have deserted you.

And your proof of that ?

Ah, Gil back for another materialist kicking:

Happy to give it, just as soon as you prove the many thngs I have asked you to demonstrate.

Luis' point, I think, is that Marx is expressing a continuity between his critique of Hegel thirty years ago and his opinion of him during the writing of Capital. This flies in the face of your opinion that there is a major shift in Marx's appraisal of Hegel between the composition of the Grundrisse, which is self-evidently dialectical, and the composition of Capital, which you claim is self-evidently not dialectical.

It's such a good point, in fact, you pretended not to understand it.