Andy Austin had asked:
What does it mean to say something is not fully dialectical? Does that
mean that it only meets one or two of the three laws of dialectics, such
as unity and contradiction of opposites, but does not meet one or both of
the other two criteria (quantity into quality and the negation of the
negation)?
______
Charles: I responded as follows. I want
to put on the thread here a section
from Lenin's _The Teachings of Karl
Marx_ which speaks to this issue
of the partial dialectiality of Darwin's
thesis as written by Darwin. Original
Darwinism (not modified by Gould's
theory of punctuated equilibrium).
First follows my comment from the
previous post.
Charles: Lenin in _The Teachings
of Karl Marx speaks directly to this
issue. He points out that Marx's
theory of evolution has more
to it than the "current" theory,
meaning Darwin's. Darwin's has
gradual change ,which is part of
Hegel's. Gradual change is more
dialectical than creationism with
no change. Revolution/evolution
is even more Hegelian. So in
a way Darwin's lacks the idea that
new quality arises from quantitative
leaps or discontinuities.
Here is a passage from Lenin
"Dialectics"
Marx and Engels regarded Hegelian
dialectics, the theory of evolution most
comprehensive, rich in content and profound,
as the greatest achievement of classical
German philosophy. All other formulations
of the principle of development, of
evolution, they considered to be one-
sided, poor in content, distorting and
mutilating the actual course of
development of nature and society
(a course often consummated in
leaps and bounds, catastrophes,
revolutions).
(quoting Engels) Marx and I were
almost the only persons who rescued
conscious dialectics...{from the
swamp of idealism, including Hegelianism}
by transforming it into the materialist
conception of nature... (Anti-Duhring)
Nature is the test of dialectics, and we
must say that science has supplied a
vast and daily increasing mass of material
for this test, thereby proving that, in
the last analysis, nature proceeds
dialectically and not metaphysically
(Anti-Duhring) (this was written before
the discovery of radium, electrons,
the tranmutation of elements, etc.
- Lenin's insert) (end quote of Engels)
Again Engels writes:
The great basic idea that the world
is not to be viewed as a complex of
fully fashioned objects, but as a complex
of processes, in which apparently
stable objects, no less than the images
of them inside our heads (our concepts),
are undergoing incessant changes, arising
here and disappearing there, and which
with all apparent accident and in spite of
all momentary retrogression, ultimately
constitutes a progressive development-
this great basic idea has, particularly since
the time of Hegel, so deeply penetrated
the general consciousness that hardly
any one will now venture to dispute it
in its general form. But it is one thing to
accept it in words, quite another thing
to put it in practice on every occasion
and in every field of investigation (Ludwig
Feuerbach)
In the eyes fo dialectic philosophy, nothing
is established for all time,
nothing is absolute or sacred ( See
Andy). On everything and in
everything it sees the stamp of
inevitable decline; nothing can resist
it save the unceasing process of
formation and destruction, the unending
ascent from the lower to
the higher - a process which that
philosophy itself is only a simple
reflection with the thinking brain. (
Ludwig Feuerbach) (end quote of
Engels)
Thus dialectics, according to Marxism,
is "the science of the general laws
of motion both of the external world
and of human thinking.
This revolutionary side of Hegel's
philosophy was adopted adn
developed by Marx. Dialectical
materialism "does not need
any philosophy towering above the
other sciences." (Anti-Duhring).
Of former philosophies there remain
"the science of thinking and its laws
- formal logic and dialectics. (Anti-
Duhring). Dialectics, as the term
is used by Marx in conformity with Hegel,
includes what is now called the theory
of cognition, or epistemology, or
gnoseology, a science that must
contemplate its subject matter in
the same way - historically, studying
and generalising the origin and development
of cognition, the transition from
non-consciousness to consciousness.
In our times the idea of development, of
evolution ( i.e. Darwinism -CB)
has almost fully penetrated
social consciousness, but it has done
so in other wasy, not through Hegel's
philosophy. Still, the same idea, as
formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis
of Hegel's philosophy, is much
more comprehensive, much more abundant
in content than the current theory of
evolution . (THIS IS WHAT I AM
TALKING ABOUT ANDY. DARWIN'S
EVOLUTION IS NOT FULLY DIALECTICAL
-CB) A development that repeats, as it were,
the stages already passed, but repeats them
in a different way, on a higher
plane (negation of negation) ;
a development, so to speak,
in spirals, not in a straight line;
a development in leaps and
bounds, catastrophes, revolutions;
"intervals of gradualnes";
transformation of quantity into quality;
inner impulses for development,
imparted by contradiction, the conflict
of different forces and tendencies
reacting on a given body or inside
a given phenomena or within a given
society;interdependence, and the
closest, indissoluable connection
between ALL sides of every phenomenon
(history discloses ever new sides), a
connection that provides the one
world-process of motion proceeding
according to law _such are
some of the features of dialectics
as a doctrin of evolution more full
of meaning than the current one.
(See letter of Marx to Engels,
dated January 8, 1868, in which
he ridicules Stein's "wooden
trichotomies," which it is
absurd to confuse with materialist
dialectics)
End quote of Lenin.
This more completely answers
Andy's questions about the
relative dialecticality of
Darwin' evolution and
Marxist revolutionary/evolutionary
dialectics.
Charles Brown
Revolutionism is the apotheosis of change
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Andy Austin had asked:
What does it mean to say something is not fully dialectical? Does that
mean that it only meets one or two of the three laws of dialectics, such
as unity and contradiction of opposites, but does not meet one or both of
the other two criteria (quantity into quality and the negation of the
negation)?
______
Charles: I responded as follows. I want
to put on the thread here a section
from Lenin's _The Teachings of Karl
Marx_ which speaks to this issue
of the partial dialectiality of Darwin's
thesis as written by Darwin. Original
Darwinism (not modified by Gould's
theory of punctuated equilibrium).
First follows my comment from the
previous post.
Charles: Lenin in _The Teachings
of Karl Marx speaks directly to this
issue. He points out that Marx's
theory of evolution has more
to it than the "current" theory,
meaning Darwin's. Darwin's has
gradual change ,which is part of
Hegel's. Gradual change is more
dialectical than creationism with
no change. Revolution/evolution
is even more Hegelian. So in
a way Darwin's lacks the idea that
new quality arises from quantitative
leaps or discontinuities.
Here is a passage from Lenin
"Dialectics"
Marx and Engels regarded Hegelian
dialectics, the theory of evolution most
comprehensive, rich in content and profound,
as the greatest achievement of classical
German philosophy. All other formulations
of the principle of development, of
evolution, they considered to be one-
sided, poor in content, distorting and
mutilating the actual course of
development of nature and society
(a course often consummated in
leaps and bounds, catastrophes,
revolutions).
(quoting Engels) Marx and I were
almost the only persons who rescued
conscious dialectics...{from the
swamp of idealism, including Hegelianism}
by transforming it into the materialist
conception of nature... (Anti-Duhring)
Nature is the test of dialectics, and we
must say that science has supplied a
vast and daily increasing mass of material
for this test, thereby proving that, in
the last analysis, nature proceeds
dialectically and not metaphysically
(Anti-Duhring) (this was written before
the discovery of radium, electrons,
the tranmutation of elements, etc.
- Lenin's insert) (end quote of Engels)
Again Engels writes:
The great basic idea that the world
is not to be viewed as a complex of
fully fashioned objects, but as a complex
of processes, in which apparently
stable objects, no less than the images
of them inside our heads (our concepts),
are undergoing incessant changes, arising
here and disappearing there, and which
with all apparent accident and in spite of
all momentary retrogression, ultimately
constitutes a progressive development-
this great basic idea has, particularly since
the time of Hegel, so deeply penetrated
the general consciousness that hardly
any one will now venture to dispute it
in its general form. But it is one thing to
accept it in words, quite another thing
to put it in practice on every occasion
and in every field of investigation (Ludwig
Feuerbach)
In the eyes fo dialectic philosophy, nothing
is established for all time,
nothing is absolute or sacred ( See
Andy). On everything and in
everything it sees the stamp of
inevitable decline; nothing can resist
it save the unceasing process of
formation and destruction, the unending
ascent from the lower to
the higher - a process which that
philosophy itself is only a simple
reflection with the thinking brain. (
Ludwig Feuerbach) (end quote of
Engels)
Thus dialectics, according to Marxism,
is "the science of the general laws
of motion both of the external world
and of human thinking.
This revolutionary side of Hegel's
philosophy was adopted adn
developed by Marx. Dialectical
materialism "does not need
any philosophy towering above the
other sciences." (Anti-Duhring).
Of former philosophies there remain
"the science of thinking and its laws
- formal logic and dialectics. (Anti-
Duhring). Dialectics, as the term
is used by Marx in conformity with Hegel,
includes what is now called the theory
of cognition, or epistemology, or
gnoseology, a science that must
contemplate its subject matter in
the same way - historically, studying
and generalising the origin and development
of cognition, the transition from
non-consciousness to consciousness.
In our times the idea of development, of
evolution ( i.e. Darwinism -CB)
has almost fully penetrated
social consciousness, but it has done
so in other wasy, not through Hegel's
philosophy. Still, the same idea, as
formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis
of Hegel's philosophy, is much
more comprehensive, much more abundant
in content than the current theory of
evolution . (THIS IS WHAT I AM
TALKING ABOUT ANDY. DARWIN'S
EVOLUTION IS NOT FULLY DIALECTICAL
-CB) A development that repeats, as it were,
the stages already passed, but repeats them
in a different way, on a higher
plane (negation of negation) ;
a development, so to speak,
in spirals, not in a straight line;
a development in leaps and
bounds, catastrophes, revolutions;
"intervals of gradualnes";
transformation of quantity into quality;
inner impulses for development,
imparted by contradiction, the conflict
of different forces and tendencies
reacting on a given body or inside
a given phenomena or within a given
society;interdependence, and the
closest, indissoluable connection
between ALL sides of every phenomenon
(history discloses ever new sides), a
connection that provides the one
world-process of motion proceeding
according to law _such are
some of the features of dialectics
as a doctrin of evolution more full
of meaning than the current one.
(See letter of Marx to Engels,
dated January 8, 1868, in which
he ridicules Stein's "wooden
trichotomies," which it is
absurd to confuse with materialist
dialectics)
End quote of Lenin.
This more completely answers
Andy's questions about the
relative dialecticality of
Darwin' evolution and
Marxist revolutionary/evolutionary
dialectics.
Charles Brown
Revolutionism is the apotheosis of change
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
