[Marxism-Thaxis]
Oudeyis >
-clip-
Describing
their accomplishment in a dialectical form, the materialism of Marx, Engels
and Lenin is not a statement about the world but about the unity of logical
and physical and sensual activity in human labour (practice).
NOTE, THAT THE ISSUE OF THE RELEVANCE OF LOGIC (DIALECTICS) TO HUMAN HISTORY
IS NOT A MATTER OF THE NATURE OF THE WORLD BUT OF MAN'S INTERACTION WITH THE
WORLD.
^^^^^
CB: For me, this is a good way to say it. I would just add that their
attitude was that the best way to conclude "what the nature of the world "
is is to see what "works" in the world in practice. This is very clever,
cunning, desirable to follow, as human's have no interest in "the nature of
the world" except in human interaction with the world.
^^^^
As regards the universality of the laws of dialectics:
The abstract laws of dialectics are universalities. We may like
McTaggart find them less than perfect, but whatever the modifications,
revisions and so on we may make on dialectics is a matter of dealing with
universals. That dialectic processes may produce divergent truths is a
different issue from the universality of the logical process itself. To
understand the emergence of divergent dialectically arrived at truths, we
must recognize the diversity of objects and subjects of dialectical
activities. Science, the development of practical knowledge, has as its
object the realization of men's needs in the transformation of the material
world, or, in other words the realization of the needs of men that are
ultimately the function of his being a part and force in nature through the
transformation of nature in conformance to the specifications implied by
those needs. All the components of this description; the object and subject
of the activity described, the means and ends of scientific activity,
involve states universal to men and to the subject of his activity, hence
divergence in science is always a temporary product of differentiated and
limited practical experience. For science truth, temporary as it may be, is
found in effective practice.
^^^^^^
CB: This is fundamental for Marx, Engels , Lenin: Theses on Feurerbach,
Anti-Duhring, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.
^^^^^^^^^
The divergencies of the dialectics of ethics (ideality) on the other
hand are an inevitable and irresolvable consequence of all the
differentiating forces that emerge in human social life; the gender
distinctions, the division of labour, ethnic segregation, and so on. True,
the methods of Natural Science of History, Historical Materialism, can
provide scientific universals that enable the development of theory and
practice to produce, regulate and revise these distinctions, but these
universals, theories and practices should never be confused with the
arguments of the dialectics of ethics (the main object of Hegel and to a
considerable extent of Kant). In general, where we find irreconcilable (in
practice) dialectical arguments we have entered into a debate over ethics or
ethos rather than over a scientific issue. Dialectical arguments of this
sort are properly the realm of religion and traditional philosophy, classic
materialism being an example of the latter.
Regards,
Oudeyis
^^^^^^^
CB: What do you think of treating ethics as a category of practice , since
ethics deals with what people as does practice ?
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
