Rob,
_Anti-Duhring_ is very good to read.
>>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/13/99 12:24PM >>>
G'day Thaxists,
John has prodded me back to *Anti-Duhring* - and what a good read it is,
too (I've always maintained that, whilst Marx could deliver himself of
some world-historic passages, Engels was the better read over any
distance). Anyway, I reckon a would-be historical materialist, such as my
but recently apprenticed self, can even find sustenance in this book.
Funny thing is, over on LBO, I'm pretty well locked in as hopeless defender
of crass old-fashioned materialism (at least I think this is the case -
they can be pretty hard to follow over there), whilst here my ascribed tag
seems that of boojie idealist. Of course, I reckon I'm arguing from the
same spot on each list - but what's avowal when it's up agin ascription, eh?
Anyway, to business ...
In chapter nine, Engels divides 'the realm of knowledge' into 'three great
departments'. The first encompasses what may be known as something
approximating eternal truth and is necessarily confined to the inanimate
world, which is wont eternally to repeat its motions in a patterned way
(not at all a dynamic which would fall under 'dialectical motion', I
submit).
((((((((((
Charles: But even the solar system has a history. And what about the big bang or
whatever the latest theory of the history of the universe ?
(((((((((
The second is the biological department. Here we may arrive at very few
'big T' truths (only females menstruate or give birth are some of the few
examples that present themselves), for: "In this field there is such a
multiplicity of interrelationships and causalities that not only does the
solution of each question give rise to a host of other questions, but each
separate problem can in most cases only be solved piecemeal, through a
series of investigations which often require centuries; and besides, the
need for a systematic presentation of interconnections makes it necessary
again and again to surround the final and ultimate truths with a luxuriant
growth of hypotheses."
Engels moves on thusly: "But eternal truths are in an even worse plight in
the third, the historical, group of sciences, which study in their
historical sequence and in their present resultant state the conditions of
human life, social relationships, forms of law and government, with their
ideal
superstructure in the shape of philosophy, religion, art, etc. ... *In
social history, however, the repetition of conditions is the exception and
not the rule, once we pass beyond the primitive state of man, the so-called
Stone Age; and when such repetitions occur, they never arise under exactly
similar circumstances*."
***And THEN Engels writes this: "We might have made mention above also of
the sciences which investigate the laws of human thought, i.e., logic and
dialectics."***
Seems to me he's saying the dialectic is a science which investigates the
laws of human thought ...
(((((((((((
Charles: Yes, the laws of motion of human thought. There is formal logic , for which
there is not change; and dialectics for which there is change. The rule of formal
logic is non-contradiction. The rule of dialectics is contradiction. These correspond
somewhat to Hegel's understanding ( formal logic) and reason ( dialectics), except ,
of course, Hegel is an idealist.
(((((((((((
And I find the quote reproduced below interesting, too. I agree with it,
for a start - but find also in it an implicit definition of nature as the
product of human reflection upon human sensuous activity. On this view, we
can never get that 'overall picture' the dialectical materialist posits in
his/her 'all moves through contradictory unity, and all is knowable thus'.
We can but see within the bounds set by our epoch and the limits of our own
being.
Thus, I reckon, sprach the historical materialist.
Here's Engels, then - see what you think.
"The perception that all the processes of nature are systematically
connected drives science on to prove this systematic connection throughout,
both in general and in particular. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific
exposition of this interconnection, the formation of an exact mental image
of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always
remain impossible. If at any time in the development of mankind such a
final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world --
physical as well as mental and historical -- were brought about, this would
mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when
society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical
development would be cut short -- which would be an absurd idea, sheer
nonsense. Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction: on the
one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all
its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of
men and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled.
But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors --
the world, and man -- it is also the main lever of all intellectual
advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless
progressive development of humanity, just as for example mathematical
problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractions.
Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact
limited, objectively by the historical conditions and subjectively by the
physical and mental constitution of its originator."
(((((((((((
Charles: This is the dialect of relative and absolute truth. You might want to take a
look at Vladimir Ilyich's _ Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_on this issue.
Good on ya, Rob,
CB
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
