Haines Brown
----------http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2008-March/024942.html---------------------------------------------------------------------- At the risk of furthering a side thread, allow me to reply to Carrol briefly. > Carrol writes: "may I suggest that dialectics not be invoked befrore > the 6000th word, at a minimum, of your document." > Why? It seems to me that "dialectical materialism" is a far more > dodgy term than "dialectic." Whatever one's understanding > dialectics, I doubt that they should be invoked in ordinary > conversation/writing on particular topics. As a rule of thumb may I > suggest that dialectics not be invoked befrore the 6000th word, at a > minimum, of your document. Well, to some extent I agree. If the term is not being used effectively, but only serves to add a politically correct tone to otherwise empty verbiage, then that is bad style, a put-off, and best avoided. Now, I wasn't sure what "dodgy" meant, and so had to look it up. There are two meanings that roughly are a) risky, b) deceptive. I don't think you quite meant either. I'll assume you meant something like vague or empty. Let's recall the meaning of dialectics. the application of logical principles to discursive reasoning. Usually it means discussion by dialogue as a method of scientific investigation. Etc. The term dialectics has to do with _epistemology_; it refers to statements about how we teach or learn the truth. Dialectical materialism, on the other hand, is an _ontological_ statement about the nature of things, the way the world works independently of us. If this distinction holds water, dialectics and dialectical materialism are completely unrelated terms. On the other hand, if it does not hold water, then at least dialectical materialism would seem to be a specification of the more general category of dialectics and, unlike dialectics, one that emerged at a particular time and place. Either way, dialects is a broader, more variable and therefore vaguer term than dialectical materialism. However, I have the feeling your objection is to the concept itself, not the use of the term, and if so it would be more productive to approach the issue directly. The overuse of jargon should be avoided, but is a common a practice hardly worth of your attack unless it was not this to which you object, but the concept to which the jargon points. To me, to say in the present environment that we should look at things "dialectically" is shorthand for saying that should be looking at them in terms of dialectical materialism. This is not a Hegelian discussion group. Such a recommendation is, in my mind, certainly valid, for, as I pointed out before, it amounts to the suggestion that we view things as processes (as a relation of causal powers and empirical constraints) and we also understand how development depends on the opposite process: the emergence of new potentials is necessarily tied to the emergence of new needs. Because this is a technical mouthful, it begs for appropriate jargon. I offer this example of the use of the jargon just in case I've misunderstood your objection and you need a target to shoot at. Haines Brown _______________________________________________ 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
