Comrade dover,
Frederick Engels, in his Dialectics of Nature, is concerned with Dialectics
of Nature. And of course, Engels deals with the historically developed
natural sciences of his time, which had formulated the essence of matter in
motion in their own different fields of investigations, like physics,
chemistry, biology, etc. Regarding the simplest form of motion, in other
words, the simplest in natural scienes of his time, Engels states that "the
first, simplest form of motion is the mechanical form, pure change of
place"(248). As it is evident implicitly from his concept of the simplest,
one might say that Engles takes physics of his time, mainly Newtonian, as
the simplest natural science in relation to the other natural sciences;
however, with one very imprtant provision: one cannot reduce every form of
motion to the mechanical one. In this connection, for example, he states
that "among natural scientists motion is always as a matter of course taken
to mean mechanical motion, change of place. This has been handed down from
the pre-chemical eighteenth century and makes a clear conception of the
processes much more difficult. Motion, as applied to matter, is CHANGE IN
GENERAL. From the same misunderstanding is derived also the craze to reduce
every thing to mechanical motion--even Grove is
`strongly inclined to believe that the other affections of
matter...are, and will
ultimately be resolved into, modes of motion,', p. 16--
which oblitrates the specific character of the other forms of motion"(247).
And this oblitration of the specific character of the other forms of motion
by reducing them to the "elementary particles" of physics is going on in our
modern age of science by many scientists and philosophers od science. The
scientific investigations dealing with different forms of motion in
different natural sciences are still going on; however, as Engles mentions,
"categories [simple and compound] which even in organic nature likewise lose
their meaning and become inapplicable. An animal is expressed neither by its
mechanical composition from bones, gristle, muscles, tissues, etc., nor by
its chemical composition from the elements. Hegel (Enzyklopadie, I, p. 256).
The organism is NEITHER simple NOR compound, however complex it may be. This
last statement of Engles is a brilliant dialectical formulation of simple
and compound, which still many scientists do not notice by either the
ignorance of the materialist-dialectical method or ignoring this method in
favor of some assurances of Russel or Popper type, who hated and attacked
viciously the dialectical method of the great Hegel and Marx. The above
statements are some introductory remarks in relation to the investigation of
the scientific concept of simple in natural sciences; however, this
investigation is becoming more concrete dialectically by the novelties of
our modern understanding of forms of motion. Thus, if we would like to
comprehend this scientific concept concretely, then we must be very familiar
with the great scientific ideas of our times. Now let us turn our attention
to the philosophical concept of simple in an introductory way.
Lenin, in his Materialism and Empirio-criticism, analyses the invented
concept of "the economy of thought" and refutes it in favor of the concept
of truth of dialectical-materialism. Let us hear Lenin himself in explaining
the philosophical position of Mach, which was used by many would-be Marxists
of his time to undermine Marxism among the revolutionary proletariat
philosophically and politically: "In the ANALYSIS OF SENSATIONS (Russ.
trans., p. 49), Mach refers incidentally to his work of 1872 on this
question. And this work, as we have seen, propounds the standpoint of PURE
subjectivism and reduces the world to sensations. Thus, both the fundamental
works which introduced this famous `principle' into philosophy expound
idealism! What is the reason for this? The reason is that if the principle
of economy of thought is really made `THE BASIS OF the theory of knowledge',
it can lead to NOTHING BUT subjective idealism. That it is more `economical'
to `think' that only I and my sensations exist is unquestionable, provided
we want to introduce such an absurd conception into EPISTEMOLOGY"(153).
Regarding the above statements, we might ponder over two questions: (1) What
is the relation of "the principle of economy of thought" to the
philosophical concept of "simplicity"? (2) Why is "the principle of economy
of thought" absurd, according to Lenin, if we want to intoduce it into
EPISTEMOLOGY? I will continue our discussion in the next e-mail.
Javad
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: [MLL] Simple.
>
> OK comrade,
>
> proceed, enlighten me.
>
> fraternally Alan.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Javad Eskandarpour
> > Sent: Thursday, 24 August 2000 16:38
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [MLL] Simple.
> >
> >
> > Comrade Dover,
> >
> > I think that you have overlooked my comments on this matter. As I
clearly
> > indicated that the philosophical concept of "simple", not the scientific
> > concepts of "the simple" and "the simplest" in different
> > scientific fields,
> > has a very great political importance. Thus , the discussion of the
> > philosophical concept of "simple" does not "detract" from the political
> > objectives of the list", and it is not a "pure" academic
> > activity, whatever
> > this "pure" means. Also, Marxism-Leninism is not confined to its
political
> > aspect.
> >
> > Javad
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alan Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 5:01 PM
> > Subject: [MLL] Simple.
> >
> >
> > > Comrade Javad,
> > >
> > > You wish to discuss the concept simple and simplest on the list, you
are
> > > free to do so, though I am not sure that I will join you,
> > especially if it
> > > detracts from the political objectives of the list or is pure
> > acedemical.
> > > You seem determined to put forward publicly, your view of the concepts
> > > simple and simplest in their relation to philosophy. The stage is
yours.
> > You
> > > will note that I have entered appropriate subject heading.
> > >
> > > Fraternally Alan.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > > Javad Eskandarpour
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2000 11:50
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Re: [MLL] Engels' Dialectics of Nature!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Comrade Dover,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to mention that I wish to discuss the scienitific
concept
> > of
> > > > "simple" and "the simplest" with you off the list, but also I
> > > > would like to
> > > > discuss the philosophical concept of "simple" which is
> > distinct from the
> > > > previous concept publically because it is of a great importance
> > > > politically.
> > > > Javad
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Alan Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 1:25 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [MLL] Engels' Dialectics of Nature!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you comrade Javad,
> > > > >
> > > > > But it is clear that you decline to accept my invitation to
discuss
> > the
> > > > > subject in its entirety with me off list. That is fair
> > enough comrade,
> > I
> > > > > have no complaint as it is a consuming subject and I do not wish
to
> > > > distract
> > > > > anyone from political discussion or activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fraternally Alan.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comrade Dover,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to make one point clear here: the scientific
> > > > philosophical
> > > > > > concept of "simple" is not equatable to the different scientific
> > > > > > concepts of
> > > > > > simple in various fields of scientific investigations. Thus, the
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > of the scientific philosophical concept of "simple" is very much
> > > > > > philosophical as it is political.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Javad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Alan Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:59 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [MLL] Engels' Dialectics of Nature!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comrades Javad and John,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hope to have my computer back on line this weekend.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >Snip..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > > > > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > > > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> > http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
>
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
