Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Hans G. Ehrbar ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu
Thu Mar 3 12:21:52 MST 2005
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Messages sorted by: [ date
[Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Thu Mar 3 11:52:44 MST 2005
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Power to the People !
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject
: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
I'm substantially in agreement with you here. Now, if one wants to unify
the marxist and natural-scientific perspectives, in place of relegating
them to separate perspectives, then one has to rise to that level of
abstraction to construct
Wow! Thanks for the synopsis. I don't understand how biosemiotics is
Neo-Kantian, though. If you are referring to Soviet philosopher David
Dubrovsky, I'd appreciate some expansion on this topic as well.
Do you know whether Whitehead had a social theory? The lack of social
theory in the
I'm still waiting for your account of biosemiotics. From what I've found
on the web, it looks like crackpot mystical pseudoscience to me.
Once again, my EMERGENCE BLOG:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/emergence-blog.html
As for current objectives, one ought to consider refining one's tools
Gould's statement that punctuated equilibrium is a form of dialectic is
good.
I think Gould's emphatically rejects something that is not dialectics.
Dialectics is _not_ that all change is punctuated. It is that change is both
equilibriated or gradual _and_ punctuated. Dialectics does not fail
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique
Waistline2
* My question is how does heating water to a boiling point change the
quality
of water rather than its form?
I agree that the form of a thing can change in front of its constituent
parts. What quality of H2O has changed?
^
CB: I think there is a problem with
Marxism-Thaxis] OudeyisHegel,
Marx, and, for that matter, Jay Gould (he and Dan Dennett - the
American reductionist philosopher - fought over this issue) did not regard
development to be incremental or continuous. The dialectic, the successive
emergence of negations of previous conditions
I have always wondered about the fruitfulness of
abstract consideration of dialectics, particularly
where they are (it is?) discussed as a method. Here
Jim F seems to suggest the SJG thought that dialectics
was a method or at least a heuristic for producing
hypotheses. I have never seen any
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:51:13 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have always wondered about the fruitfulness of
abstract consideration of dialectics, particularly
where they are (it is?) discussed as a method. Here
Jim F seems to suggest the SJG thought that
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:51:13 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact all the standard examples of scientific
revolutions come from science done by
non-dialectically trained thinkers -- Lavoisier's
discovery of oxygen, Einstein's theory of relativity,
Evolution punctuated by revolution is another way of saying quantitative
change turns into qualitative change.
Socially, the ebb and flow of reform is evolutionary. It is change without
changing the mode of production out of capitalism. Socialist revolution is a
leap in which the mode of
It depresses me that we still have to have these discussions in 2005. But
once more into the breach . . .
First, I'd suggest looking at Engels' motives for doing what he did, which
was not to present a finished ontology for all time but to combat the
half-assed philosophical vulgarities of
Of course, the SU's sciences and math was not without errors,etc. In fact ,
trial and error as a process of the development of anything, including
science, is what Marxism expects. This is some of that same rhetoric and
ideology, Marxist rhetoric and ideology , that you refer to below. It comes
Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
You are correct about Lenin as well as Marx and Engels. Lenin was careful
about communists
I wrote the following back in 1998 for Proyect's Marxmail list.
Jim F.
--
The Fall 1998 issue of SCIENCE SOCIETY is a special issue devoted to
dialectics: The New Frontier. It features noted Marxist scholars,
Bertell Ollman and Tony Smith, as the guest
I'm substantially in agreement with you here. Now, if one wants to unify
the marxist and natural-scientific perspectives, in place of relegating
them to separate perspectives, then one has to rise to that level of
abstraction to construct a unified account of both. This ridiculous meme
I've taken a look at some of Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
mathematical career. As to specifically the career and reading list aspect
of the critique, the thought that occurs to me is that Van H. does not seem
to consider that Engels may have had very advanced uses of mathematics as a
Abraham Robinson's nonstandard analysis adds more numbers,
infinite numbers and infinitesimal numbers, to the numbers
line. Just as Margaret Thatcher says that society does not
exist, modern mainstream mathematics is based on the dogma
that infinitesimals do not exist. Robinson showed, by
I'm not sure that abstract mathematics was altogether destroyed in the
Soviet Union's academics, because of some anecdotal evidence I have.
When I was an undergraduate in 1968, the honors math majors ( the best math
students) _had_ to take Russian language courses, because so much of the
world's
We should find out more about what the Chinese have done. It would also be
interesting to know if in some way, Marx's attempts to think through the
problem based on outdated math books anticipated future
developments. However, the account below looks silly to me.
The existence of multiple
I've got to run now, so briefly: At some point, a modus vivendi was worked
out, which allowed the propaganda apparatus to do its thing while leaving
scientists and mathematicians alone to do theirs. This has roots towards
the end of the Stalin era, in the late 1940s, when formal logic was once
At 2005-03-03 20.52, you wrote:
Perhaps this is one reason Van Heijenoort got so disgusted with Marxists
in the 1940s and decided to try his luck elsewhere. The notion that
Marxists have a right to be provincial, sectarian, and ignorant has got to
be stopped. Marxists should take as their
I haven't been online since mid-afternoon, so I'm just now catching up.
I hope others paid more careful attention to my recent posts. There are
serious consequences when one allows oneself to get trapped in a narrow
corner. It is incumbent upon anyone attempting to speak for the whole to
You are correct about Lenin as well as Marx and Engels. Lenin was careful
about communists' overstepping their bounds of competence. However, even
during the 1920s, when activity in all areas was quite creative before
Stalin's clampdown, certain bad habits got established.
I don't recall
26 matches
Mail list logo
