Scrapping Dialectics: What would be lost? - Page 3

Hyacinth · #41 26th May 2008, 01:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citizen Zero

Fine. Now give me a thorough outline of this method without mentioning the interconnections of phenomena such as nature and human society; forces & relations of production; or material relations and ideology, which Marxist dialectics attempts to understand.

I don’t see what any of that has to do with dialectics. Dialectics is all that nonsense about the unity of opposites, changing quantity into quality (or vice versa, I forget which), etc.

Talking about the forces and relations of production, the interaction between the natural world and human society, between technology and human society, etc. doesn’t invoke any queer metaphysical laws such as those mentioned above.

We can talk about the interaction of these things (people, technology, nature, the economy, etc.) without any recourse to the unity of opposites, etc.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #42 26th May 2008, 01:34

CZ:

Quote:

But you talk as if the limits of our analysis of the world begins and ends with a copy of Socialist Worker. If that was the case, why do we bother with ISJ?

The vast bulk of ISJ is written in ordinary language (with a few technical terms thrown in).

Dialectical gobbledygook rarely appears even there. When it does, I send them a letter complaining, which they never publish. [They sometimes publish my letters the SW, though.]

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art...ticle_id=10917

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/SW_Letter_001.htm

But, since Socialist Worker is aimed at speaking to the class, no wonder it uses the language of the class, and refrains from using Hegel-speak.

Quote:

Besides, my point above was that its not the words that are important but the way they are mobilised into conceptual tools which help us to understand the world around us. If the truth of theoretical argument came down to who deployed the most "ordinary language" then the most philistine argument would always prevail - and your mate, Wittgenstein, could be consigned to the dustbin.

No one supposes that theoretical arguments should always (or typically) be cast in ordinary language; but the impenetrable jargon derived from Hegel is a different matter.

That jargon cannot explain change, as I have have shown.

And I do not know why you mentioned Wittgenstein in this context.

Quote:

besides employing a dialectic analysis certainly doesn't preclude anyone from using all those words for change you mentioned.

But, dialecticians can only attempt to explain change by using such words, in which case, we can cut the dialectics out, and just use ordinary language at no loss to Marxism.

Jacob Richter · #43 27th May 2008, 01:51

Rosa and CZ, I vividly remember my old dialectics thread on corporate synergy. Then I realized that the notion of "quantity into quality" was nonsense except in the "realm" of ideas:

The physical quantities still exist. For example, the capital assets of the to-be-parent and of the to-be-subsidiary will still remain immediately after the acquisition is ratified by the respective companies' shareholders. It is the combined management style - already a qualitative factor - that improves, which then creates synergy, as measured by an improved share price. However, this "quality" is measurable, so it's more of a quantity.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just babbling on here: quantity (consolidation) -> quality (combined management) -> quantity (improved share price).

BTW, CZ, in regards to "living relations," why don't you just employ the simpler word "dynamics"?

Rosa Lichtenstein · #44 27th May 2008, 05:53

Look, JR, this useless 'law' only works because practically every single one of its significant terms has been left hoplessly vague and obscure.

No one seems to know what 'quality' means (or rather, as soon as anyone tries to define it, several classic examples that Engels and other fans of the dialectic refer to no longer work), or how long a 'node' (or 'leap') is supposed to last. Furthermore, the thermodynamic dimensions of the system to which 'matter or energy' is supposd to be added have been left vague, too. Moreover, no one seems to know what 'added' means here (does it mean expended' or 'incorporated'?).

Consider an example: you push a crate along a rough floor. Energy has been 'added' (expended) in/to the system (but, what system though?), but you can do this all day long, and nothing new will emerge. Blow the crate up (energy 'added' -- but to what?), and you get change.

The thermodynamic boundaries are also vague, as I said (so much so that we have no idea to what the energy or matter has been 'added'). Here is how I have made this point clear in Essay Seven:

Quote:

Consider the Bombardier Beetle:

"Bombardier beetles store two separate chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide) that are not mixed until threatened. When this occurs the two chemicals are squirted through two tubes, where they are mixed along with small amounts of catalytic enzymes. When these chemicals mix they undergo a violent 'exothermic' chemical reaction. The boiling, foul smelling liquid partially becomes a gas and is expelled with a loud popping sound...." [Wikipedia.]

If the original system is the said beetle, then we have here a change in quality (this animal has turned into noxious beetle), where once we had an ordinary insect, but for no change in matter or overall energy in that animal (contradicting Engels). Sure matter is subsequently lost, but before that happens, the beetle has already changed (or it would not happen!).

Even more annoying, the above change is part of that beetle's 'development', so this example is not susceptible to the challenges we met earlier.

Or consider another --, and one more familiar to most dialecticians than the Bombardier Beetle is --, the Widget in certain cans of beer:

"A can of beer is pressurised by adding liquid nitrogen, which vaporises and expands in volume after the can is sealed, forcing gas and beer into the widget's hollow interior through a tiny hole -- the less beer the better for subsequent head quality. In addition, some nitrogen dissolves in the beer which also contains dissolved carbon dioxide.

"The presence of dissolved nitrogen allows smaller bubbles to be formed with consequent greater creaminess of the subsequent head. This is because the smaller bubbles need a higher internal pressure to balance the greater surface tension, which is inversely proportional to the radius of the bubbles. Achieving this higher pressure is not possible just with dissolved carbon dioxide because of the greater solubility of this gas compared to nitrogen would create an unacceptably large head.

"When the can is opened, the pressure in the can quickly drops, causing the pressurised gas and beer inside the widget to jet out from the hole. This agitation on the surrounding beer causes a chain reaction of bubble formation throughout the beer. The result, when the can is then poured out, is a surging mixture in the glass of very small gas bubbles and liquid.

"This is the case with certain types of draught beer such as draught stouts. In the case of these draught beers, which before dispensing also contain a mixture of dissolved nitrogen and carbon dioxide, the agitation is caused by forcing the beer under pressure through small holes in a restrictor in the tap. The surging mixture gradually settles to produce a very creamy head." [Wikipedia.]

Change in quality, no change in quantity.

It could be argued that there is a difference in matter and/or energy in this can, namely the rung pull and gases near the opening. That is undeniable, but are they significant? What causes the change in quality is the Widget, not the ring pull. This can be seen by the fact that in cans where there is no Widget, the above does not happen.

However, someone could still object that the above differences in matter/energy are relevant to the subsequent change in quality; after all, they set in motion those very changes.

There are several problems with this response. First, we saw above (in Note 5) that there was no question-begging way to define the energy locale of such DM-changes.

Secondly, it is questionable that the removal of a ring pull, and the loss of small quantities of vapour amounts to the addition/removal of matter or energy from the beer/Widget ensemble itself. This, naturally, raises issues touched on in Note 5, and above. What exactly is the DM-system here? Until we are told, this objection itself cannot succeed. Even after we are told, that cannot help but beg the question (as noted above), for it will be plain that any new demarcation lines will have been drawn in order to save this 'Law', making it eminently subjective.

Finally, after the ring pull has been removed, and the small quantity of vapour has escaped, the beer/Widget ensemble will undergo a qualitative change for no new matter or energy input into that system, violating the first 'Law'. Anyone who objects to the 'line' being drawn just here (i.e., corralling-off this system at the Widget/beer boundary just after the ring pull has been removed) will need to advance objective criteria for it to be re-drawn somewhere else.

Now, if that boundary is re-drawn to include the removed ring pull and the escaped vapour, then, once more, no new energy or matter will have been added to that system (i.e., the beer/Widget/ring-pull/vapour ensemble) even while it will have undergone a qualitative change.

Anyway, the aforementioned ring-pull could be removed by a battery-operated device inside the can, controlled by an internal timer, meaning that the resulting change in quality was occasioned by no new energy 'added' to the can/beer/widget/battery-device system.

So, this law is far too vague and imprecise for anyone to be able to say if it applies to 'ideas; or not. And it is entirely unclear how it might be repaired.

[Even if we were able to answer the many other objections to this 'law' that I have raised in the aformetnioned Essay.]

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

It is high time we forgot Engels (or Hegel) ever mentioned it.

*Bob The Builder* · #45 27th May 2008, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Richter

Rosa and CZ, I vividly remember my old dialectics thread on corporate synergy. Then I realized that the notion of "quantity into quality" was nonsense except in the "realm" of ideas:

The physical quantities still exist. For example, the capital assets of the to-be-parent and of the to-be-subsidiary will still remain immediately after the acquisition is ratified by the respective companies' shareholders. It is the combined management style - already a qualitative factor - that improves, which then creates synergy, as measured by an improved share price. However, this "quality" is measurable, so it's more of a quantity.

Let's get things straight. Dialectics cannot be applied to explain all changes. If I change my shirt (or push a crate across the floor

) I don't try and apply dialectics to it. That would be ridiculous. Likewise, I don't know if Marx was interested in applying the quantitative-qualitative relation to the merger of particular companies (although that's not to say that the movement towards merger and monopoly is not part of the internal dialectic of capitalism). But just because it can't be applied to everything doesn't mean that it only takes place in the "realm of ideas". In fact, that seems even more mysterious. How can an increase in the quantity of ideas result in their qualitative transformation?

Quote:

On the other hand, maybe I'm just babbling on here:

Well that's a likely theory

Quote:

BTW, CZ, in regards to "living relations," why don't you just employ the simpler word "dynamics"?

So you understood that by using the term "living relation" I was indicating dynamism. So the term wasn't that opaque and mysterious! But, sure, if you prefer the term "dynamic relation" then by all means express yourself that way.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #46 27th May 2008, 10:35

CZ:

Quote:

Let's get things straight. Dialectics cannot be applied to explain all changes. If I change my shirt (or push a crate across the floor ) I don't try and apply dialectics to it.

Every dialectician I have debated with over the last 25 years has his or her own idea of where the boundaries of this 'theory' lie, and they are all different (which makes this 'theory' eminently subjective); and now we have CZ and his non-dialectical shirt.

But, according to Lenin, this theory explains everything, and all change, in the entire universe, for all of time -- including a glass tubler!

Quote:

"A tumbler is assuredly both a glass cylinder and a drinking vessel. But there are more than these two properties and qualities or facets to it; there are an infinite number of them, an infinite number of 'mediacies' and inter-relationships with the rest of the world...

"[I]f we are to have true knowledge of an object we must look at and examine all its facets, its connections and 'mediacies'. That is something we cannot ever hope to achieve completely, but the rule of comprehensiveness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity….

"[D]ialectical logic requires that an object should be taken in development, in change, in 'self-movement' (as Hegel sometimes puts it). This is not immediately obvious in respect of such an object as a tumbler, but it, too, is in flux, and this holds especially true for its purpose, use and connection with the surrounding world." [Lenin (1921), p.93.]

"Flexibility, applied objectively, i.e., reflecting the all-sidedness of the material process and its unity, is dialectics, is the correct reflection of the eternal development of the world." [Lenin (1961), p.110. Bold emphasis added.]

"Nowadays, the ideas of development…as formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis of Hegel…[encompass a process] that seemingly repeats the stages already passed, but repeats them otherwise, on a higher basis ('negation of negation'), a development, so to speak, in spirals, not in a straight line; -- a development by leaps, catastrophes, revolutions; -- 'breaks in continuity'; the transformation of quantity into quality; -- the inner impulses to development, imparted by the contradiction and conflict of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; -- the interdependence and the closest, indissoluble connection of all sides of every phenomenon…, a connection that provides a uniform, law-governed, universal process of motion -– such are some of the features of dialectics as a richer (than the ordinary) doctrine of development." [Lenin (1914), pp.12-13. Bold emphases added.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] [I]nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [E]ach thing (phenomenon, process, etc.)…is connected with every other…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other….

"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute….

"To begin with what is the simplest, most ordinary, common, etc., [sic] with any proposition...: [like] John is a man…. Here we already have dialectics (as Hegel's genius recognized): the individual is the universal…. Consequently, the opposites (the individual is opposed to the universal) are identical: the individual exists only in the connection that leads to the universal. The universal exists only in the individual and through the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another) a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect, or the essence of) an individual. Every universal only approximately embraces all the individual objects. Every individual enters incompletely into the universal, etc., etc. Every individual is connected by thousands of transitions with other kinds of individuals (things, phenomena, processes), etc. Here already we have the elements, the germs of the concept of necessity, of objective connection in nature, etc. Here already we have the contingent and the necessary, the phenomenon and the essence; for when we say John is a man…we disregard a number of attributes as contingent; we separate the essence from the appearance, and counterpose the one to the other….

"Thus in any proposition we can (and must) disclose as a 'nucleus' ('cell') the germs of all the elements of dialectics, and thereby show that dialectics is a property of all human knowledge in general." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58, 359-60. Bold emphases added.]

Lenin, V. (1914), 'The Marxist Doctrine', reprinted in Lenin (1970), pp.1-18.

--------, (1921), 'Once Again On The Trade Unions, The Current Situation And The Mistakes Of Comrades Trotsky And Bukharin', reprinted in Lenin (1980), pp.70-106.

--------, (1961), Philosophical Notebooks, Collected Works, Volume 38 (Progress Publishers).

--------, (1970), Karl Marx (Foreign Languages Press).

--------, (1980), On The Question Of Dialectics (Progress Publishers).

Notice, Lenin includes "every phenomenon" and the entire world, for all of time. indeed, for Lenin, every proposition contains the "nucleus" of dialectics!

So the proposition "CZ changed his shirt" attests to the dialectical nature of reality, according to Lenin (and other dialecticians I could quote).

So, much as you would like to remove these ridiculous consequences from the loopy 'theory' that dialecticians unwisely borrowed from Hegel, and 'sanitise' it -- a bit like Christians who try to 'sanitise' the Bible -- it won't wash.

Finally:

Quote:

But just because it can't be applied to everything doesn't mean that it only takes place in the "realm of ideas". In fact, that seems even more mysterious. How can an increase in the quantity of ideas result in their qualitative transformation?

I note that, just like every other dialectician, you ignore the serious theoretical weaknesses with this 'law' pointed out in my last post -- no surprise there, for dialectics is just Mickey Mouse Science writ large, as I argued in Essay Seven:

Quote:

As far as the other examples dialecticians use to illustrate this 'Law' are concerned: there are far too few in number that actually work (even if the above difficulties are ignored) to justify the epithet "Law" being attached to one and all. If in comparison, say, Newton's Second Law of motion worked as fitfully as this 'Law' does (or was as vaguely-defined and/or as non-mathematical), physicists would be right to refuse to describe it as a law. Hence, if the rate of change of momentum was proportional to the applied force in only a few instances (and even then this was the case only if key terms were either ignored, ill-defined or twisted out of shape), no one would take it seriously.

But, this is Mickey Mouse Science, after all.

In general, however, the examples usually given by DM-fans to illustrate this 'Law' are almost without exception either anecdotal or impressionistic. If someone were to submit a paper to a science journal purporting to establish the veracity of a new law with the same level of vagueness, imprecision, triteness, lack of detail/mathematics, and overall theoretical naivety, it would be rejected at the first stage. Indeed, dialecticians would themselves treat with derision any attempt to establish, say, either the truth of classical economic theory or the falsity of Marx's own work with an evidential display that was as crassly amateurish as this --, to say nothing of the contempt they would show for such theoretical wooliness. In such circumstances, those who might be quick to cry "pedantry" at the issues raised in this and other Essays published at this site would become devoted pedants, and nit-pick with the best.

Now, anyone who has studied or practiced real science will know this to be true. It is only in books on DM (and internet discussion boards) that Mickey Mouse material of this sort seems acceptable.

Hence, this 'Law' can be made to work in a few selected instances if we bend things enough (and if we fail to define either "quality", "node", or "leap" -- and if we ignore Hegel's own 'definition' of a quality into the bargain). In contrast there are countless examples where this 'Law' does not apply, no matter how we try to twist things.

Why Engels's first 'Law' was ever called a law is therefore something of a Dialectical Mystery.

As I said, Marxism is well rid of this mystical rubbish.

*Dean* · #47 27th May 2008, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citizen Zero

What does that mean? You're just saying that the jargon used by dialecticians could just be replaced with a different jargon. That would work if your "ordinary language" described the same patterns of change which dialectics aspires to describe.

Because it's not an issue of linguistics. As you point out, reality does not depend upon what language, what concepts are used to describe it - it exists independently of, and obliviously to, how we speak or think about it. Although this is a grossly simplistic way of seeing it and, crucially, not the whole story when it comes to social reality.

Of course to really understand the relationship between how the world is and how we conceive, speak and act in it, we need the ability to model a complex, inter-related causality which is what dialectics seeks to do.

Now, above, Rosa argues, as do you, that history and social change can be explained using ordinary language. However, that doesn't tell us who's "ordinary language" you're referring to. Adam Smith's? Jeremy Bentham's? Adolph Hitler's? George W. Bush's? In fact, apart from sounding like a sensible dose of Anglo realism, it doesn't tell us anything at all.

Instead of you anti-dialecticians coming on here and telling us what you're against, why not tell us what you're actually for.

No, the point is that "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" is not a special idea in the history of philosophy or exploratory science. We are simply for rational studies in any field, at least I am.

*Dean* · #48 27th May 2008, 14:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by trivas7

I'm sorry, but this is too silly to argue re. Marx writes perfectly ordinary language that anyone with normal intelligence can understand. It's not the language you disagree with, it's Marxism qua philosophy that you disagree with.

I'm assuming you've read the German, then?

I've read some very simple translations, and some that made my head spin. The quote in this topic is a very good example:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/importance...645/index.html

I took one from a book which used a personal translation (~1970, before the work had been translated elsewhere), and the other was from Marxists.org. I would pick the former anyday, unfortunately I only have portions, not a full piece.

*Bob The Builder* · #49 27th May 2008, 16:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

We are simply for rational studies in any field, at least I am.

Fine. So tell me what rational method you recommend for understanding how society works. Positivism? Interpretivism? Structuration theory?

*Bob The Builder* · #50 27th May 2008, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyacinth

I don’t see what any of that has to do with dialectics. Dialectics is all that nonsense about the unity of opposites, changing quantity into quality (or vice versa, I forget which), etc.

Talking about the forces and relations of production, the interaction between the natural world and human society, between technology and human society, etc. doesn’t invoke any queer metaphysical laws such as those mentioned above.

But this is exactly what Marxist dialectics is concerned with.

Quote:

We can talk about the interaction of these things (people, technology, nature, the economy, etc.) without any recourse to the unity of opposites, etc.

Yes, and many have. Max Weber. Emile Durkheim. Talcott Parsons. Gerry Cohen. But my argument would be that none of them have been as successful as Marx, Engels and Lenin's dialectical approach.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #51 27th May 2008, 20:14

Ah, I see, CZ: the old ignore stuff you do not like/cannot answer ploy.

Nice mystical trick that one...

*Bob The Builder* · #52 27th May 2008, 21:26

Sorry, Rosa, which stuff is that?

*Dean* · #53 27th May 2008, 21:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Citizen Zero

Fine. So tell me what rational method you recommend for understanding how society works. Positivism? Interpretivism? Structuration theory?

Humanistic sociology.

trivas7 · #54 27th May 2008, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein

Ah, I see, CZ: the old ignore stuff you do not like/cannot answer ploy.

Can be please be so kind as tell from what philosophy you criticize Marxist dialects? Can you state your philosophical premises? I ask because it's frankly hard for me to imagine where else but from Marx championing the idea of classless communist society comes from.

*Bob The Builder* · #55 27th May 2008, 21:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

Humanistic sociology.

Sounds interesting. Tell me more.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #56 27th May 2008, 21:35

Trivas:

Quote:

Can be please be so kind as tell from what philosophy you criticize Marxist dialects? Can you state your philosophical premises? I ask because it's frankly hard for me to imagine where else but from Marx championing the idea of classless communist society comes from.

I do not have one, nor do I want one. So, I have no philosophical premises.

And I do not disagree with historical materialism (indeed, I accept as a scientific account of history and how to change it).

Rosa Lichtenstein · #57 27th May 2008, 21:36

CZ:

Quote:

Sorry, Rosa, which stuff is that?

Before I tell you, I think your next appointment with Specsavers is overdue...

*Bob The Builder* · #58 27th May 2008, 21:37

Probably.. but until that happy day, please help me out.

trivas7 · #59 28th May 2008, 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean

Humanistic sociology.

In whose humanist sociology is there mention of the class struggle and the ushering in of a communist society?

Rosa Lichtenstein · #60 28th May 2008, 05:26

CZ:

Quote:

Probably.. but until that happy day, please help me out.

Sorry, but among my many amazing skills, performing eye tests is not one of them.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
@nti-dialectics	Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor	Philosophy	11	14th August 2006 11:42
dialectics	jaycee	Opposing Ideologies	57	9th June 2006 14:11
dialectics	sukirti	Philosophy	212	24th March 2006 07:59
Dialectics	Karl Marx's Camel	Learning...	11	7th June 2005 02:28
Dialectics	bunk	Theory	7	9th June 2004 22:09