>>> Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12 4:34 PM >> Good find. Yes I agree that looks like a bulls eye, although no doubt still incredible for the incredulous Andrew. I just feel his further comments are so evasive as to lack intellectual integrity, and his approach to scholarship must be called into question although in a better way than was done on Marxism-and-Sciences. Generally I have found Andrew irritating in political argument but it has been a great spur to study. It is important to keep focussed on the list as a whole and avoid getting frustrated by his inability to accept that the point we are arguing is reasonable, along with most other people who thought they were marxist this century. It would be unmarxist however to think that all arguments can be resolved by logic alone. I have spent about an hour checking the texts and hope the following is useful. The International page reference (for me also on p309 of the Lawrence and Wishart edition) is on p423-424 of the Penguin edition. But first the German, in case anyone wishes to suggest that more rigorous scholarship would dissolve away this irrational excess on Marx's part. I trust Hugh will confirm the accuracy of the translation in the text Charles gives. (Fowkes's addition of "by a dialectical inversion" appears to be his own and not necessarily a feature of quantitative changes turning into qualitative ones although correct in signalling to the reader that of course Hegel's Logik was a work of dialectics.) Here is the text as in the German which follows the 4th edition and *in that* is Chapter 9 - page 327 Dietz Verlag Berlin, 11th edition, Vol 1. "Hier, wie in der Naturwissenschaft, bewaehrt sich die Richtigkeit des von Hegel in seiner 'Logik' entdeckten Gesetzes, dass bloss quantitive Veraenderungen auf einem gewissen Punkt in qualitative Unterschiede umschlagen." The scientific comparison between the social sciences and the natural sciences is irrefutable, and in the context of Hegel's dialectical work. (Or will Andrew bumptiously suggest that Marx forgot that fact, and that Andrew's interpretation should in any case be regarded as much more interesting? Marx's personal responsibility for the statement is also clear (evidenced that Engels corrects it in an addition to the footnote in the third edition.) Marx's footnote reads: "The molecular theory of modern chemistry first scientifically worked out by Laurent and Gerhardt rests on no other law." Engels's Addition in the 3rd Edition:- "For the explanation of this statement, which is not very clear to nonchemists, we remark that the author speaks here of the homologous series of carbon compounds, first so named by C. Gerhardt in 1843, each series of which has its own general algebraic formula. Thus the series of paraffins: CnH2n+2, that of the normal alcohols: CnH2n+2O; of the normal fatty acids: CnH2nO2 and many others. In the above examples, by the simply quantitative addition of CH2 to the molecular formula, a qualitatively different body is each time formed. On the share (overestimated by Marx) of Laurent and Gerhardt in the determination of this important fact see Kopp, "Entwicklung der Chemie." Munchen, 1873, pp. 709, 716, and Schorkmmer, 'The Rise and Development of Organic Chemistry." London, 1879, p. 54. -- F. E." Thus Engels slightly corrects the enthusiasm with which Marx endorsed the research of Laurent and Gerhardt, but of course does not correct the vindication by Marx of the relevance of this dialectical law from Hegel for the natural sciences. Incredible. Chris Burford London.
I agree. Ironically, dialectically (!) the struggle with Andy and others has spurred me to study these issues more exactly and extensively than solitary reading. Of course, this is contradiction at the root of movement in thought. This development of this thread demonstrates dialectics. I guess in the original Platonic dialogue sense. I saw the Engels addition to Marx's footnote ( Andy mistakenly thought the whole footnote was Engels'). But of course in this debate I was forced to stick to the Marx quotes only. Charles >>> Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/12 4:34 PM >> Good find. Yes I agree that looks like a bulls eye, although no doubt still incredible for the incredulous Andrew. I just feel his further comments are so evasive as to lack intellectual integrity, and his approach to scholarship must be called into question although in a better way than was done on Marxism-and-Sciences. Generally I have found Andrew irritating in political argument but it has been a great spur to study. It is important to keep focussed on the list as a whole and avoid getting frustrated by his inability to accept that the point we are arguing is reasonable, along with most other people who thought they were marxist this century. It would be unmarxist however to think that all arguments can be resolved by logic alone. I have spent about an hour checking the texts and hope the following is useful. The International page reference (for me also on p309 of the Lawrence and Wishart edition) is on p423-424 of the Penguin edition. But first the German, in case anyone wishes to suggest that more rigorous scholarship would dissolve away this irrational excess on Marx's part. I trust Hugh will confirm the accuracy of the translation in the text Charles gives. (Fowkes's addition of "by a dialectical inversion" appears to be his own and not necessarily a feature of quantitative changes turning into qualitative ones although correct in signalling to the reader that of course Hegel's Logik was a work of dialectics.) Here is the text as in the German which follows the 4th edition and *in that* is Chapter 9 - page 327 Dietz Verlag Berlin, 11th edition, Vol 1. "Hier, wie in der Naturwissenschaft, bewaehrt sich die Richtigkeit des von Hegel in seiner 'Logik' entdeckten Gesetzes, dass bloss quantitive Veraenderungen auf einem gewissen Punkt in qualitative Unterschiede umschlagen." The scientific comparison between the social sciences and the natural sciences is irrefutable, and in the context of Hegel's dialectical work. (Or will Andrew bumptiously suggest that Marx forgot that fact, and that Andrew's interpretation should in any case be regarded as much more interesting? Marx's personal responsibility for the statement is also clear (evidenced that Engels corrects it in an addition to the footnote in the third edition.) Marx's footnote reads: "The molecular theory of modern chemistry first scientifically worked out by Laurent and Gerhardt rests on no other law." Engels's Addition in the 3rd Edition:- "For the explanation of this statement, which is not very clear to nonchemists, we remark that the author speaks here of the homologous series of carbon compounds, first so named by C. Gerhardt in 1843, each series of which has its own general algebraic formula. Thus the series of paraffins: CnH2n+2, that of the normal alcohols: CnH2n+2O; of the normal fatty acids: CnH2nO2 and many others. In the above examples, by the simply quantitative addition of CH2 to the molecular formula, a qualitatively different body is each time formed. On the share (overestimated by Marx) of Laurent and Gerhardt in the determination of this important fact see Kopp, "Entwicklung der Chemie." Munchen, 1873, pp. 709, 716, and Schorkmmer, 'The Rise and Development of Organic Chemistry." London, 1879, p. 54. -- F. E." Thus Engels slightly corrects the enthusiasm with which Marx endorsed the research of Laurent and Gerhardt, but of course does not correct the vindication by Marx of the relevance of this dialectical law from Hegel for the natural sciences. Incredible. Chris Burford London. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
