[Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Steve Gabosch bebop101 at comcast.net
Thu Jun 2 18:45:46 MDT 2005
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author
At 12:00 PM 7/5/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: Steve, I really do not
have enough time to devote to answering this message as it
deserves. So please excuse the briefness of my responses.
No problem at all. I am happy to let that response be the last major
word on this discussion for now, which
raised by Karl Marx and
thethinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 13:36
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst (response
toarrowlessness)
At 12:00 PM 7/5/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote: Steve, I really do not have
enough time to devote
by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 20:03
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Victor :
CB,
Continued from last message.
First, let's not forget that a lot of human learning is human see human
do. And some
social activity.
Oudeyis
- 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: Monday, June 27, 2005 16:49
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O
' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 17:08
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :BakhurstVictor
Victor
CB: Here we see why the transgenerational transmission of how to
make and use tools is the key type of social connection defining humans
I've not had time to keep up with your ongoing debate on Ilyenkov. Since
you are apparently preparing something for publication, I hope you will
apprise us of the finished product. This line of enquiry, it seems to me,
is much more important than most philosophical projects being undertaken.
Victor:
I'm not sure of it either.
However, it appears to me that we can distinguish social labour, direct
cooperation, from characteristically human labour, that is social labour
that is special since it involves the production and use of tools for
realization of material social goals.
Victor
CB: Here we see why the transgenerational transmission of how to
make and use tools is the key type of social connection defining humans.
There are studies showing that chimps , on their own , int the wild, make
and use tools, such as sticks to dig in ant hills. But
I am responding to a 6/22/2005 post from Victor, which I quote from.
The quote below is a good example of where I think Victor gets Ilyenkov
wrong 180 degrees. In the general section of Ilyenkov's 1977 essay The
Concept of the Ideal that Victor quotes from, I believe Ilyenkov is making
just
This is going to take a little time, you raised some heavy questions here.
Oudeyis
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 17:17
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
At 02:12 PM
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gabosch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and
thethinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 12:40
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
I am responding to a 6/22/2005 post from Victor, which I quote from.
The quote below is a good example of where I
think Victor gets Ilyenkov wrong 180
degrees. In the general section of Ilyenkov's
1977 essay The Concept of the Ideal
Victor
The second comment is based on Marx's discussion of the role of direct
cooperation in the initial development of social labour. See Economic
Manuscripts 1861-63 Section 3 Relative Surplus Value Notebook IV
Cooperation. Marx discussion is interesting because his discussion of crude
, Victor wrote:
- Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:17
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
What in bloody hell does this mean?
At 09:32 AM 6/21/2005 +0200, Victor wrote
I am confused by this beyond the reasonably clear first and third sentences
of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph.
At 07:51 PM 6/20/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
I regard Ilyenkov's contribution rather as the Logic (method or met) for a
practical (materialist or
Comments to selected extracts below
At 01:43 PM 6/19/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
Ideality like spoken language is not one thing or another, but two things,
the objectified notion in consciousness and its material representation by
some form of language, united as a more concrete concept, the
AM 6/21/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
- Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:17
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
What in bloody hell does this mean?
At 09:32 AM 6/21/2005 +0200
I've isolated the difficult passages and commented on them below.
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:16
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
I am confused by this beyond
Comments on the commentary included below.
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 10:25
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Comments to selected extracts below
At 01:43 PM
At 02:12 PM 6/22/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
Hegel regards objectification as simply the alienation of spirit in the
object. The ideal itself is the alienated spirit that has become a
universal through the mediation of language. True, I've not addressed the
problem of whether Hegel regarded
What in bloody hell does this mean?
At 09:32 AM 6/21/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
Science is founded as ideas, but unlike Hegel's ideal (which as Marx put
it is as nothing else but the form of social activity represented in the
thing or conversely the form of human creativity represented as a
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:17
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
What in bloody hell does this mean?
At 09:32 AM 6/21/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
Science
Victor
As I see it, the key concept in this regard that Ilyenkov offers is that
just as Marx discovered how social relations can be embodied into things
in the form of commodities - through the incorporation of abstract labor
into the value-form - so too, Marxists can explain that social
Steve Gabosch
a) where is ideality located?
I would answer a) in cultural artifacts, using the term in its broadest
possible sense (tools, signs, all human creations and observations,
etc.) I think you would answer a) in representations.
^
CB: How about in the relationship between the
@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 15:43
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Victor
The social relations are not embodied in a particular coat or in a
particular bale of linen. These are material objects whose concreteness
are
beyond the capacity of human conceptualisation
Victor,
I have read your response carefully. I think I am getting a handle on our
differing approaches. They seem to emerge in the way we understand issues
such as:
a) where is ideality located?
b) where is value is located?
c) what is the essence of ideality?
d) what is the essence of
, 2005 10:11
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Victor,
I have read your response carefully. I think I am getting a handle on our
differing approaches. They seem to emerge in the way we understand issues
such as:
a) where is ideality located?
b) where is value is located
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Victor,
I spent a little time reviewing Ilyenkov's article The Concept of the
Ideal (available on MIA ), and the notes I published on xmca about it
last year. Below, I have copied paragraphs 66 - 90 from EVI's
142-paragraph essay. I don't
PROTECTED]
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
and thethinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:30
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Hi Victor,
Interestingly, footnote one in a paper by Lantolf
I am not at all up to speed on the German Marxist Sohn-Rethel (please
help), but a thought immediately comes to mind on Popper's Three Worlds
cosmology.
If one ignores the positivist framework of these three worlds invented by
Popper and attempts to make them as dynamic and dialectical as
Hi Victor,
Interestingly, footnote one in a paper by Lantolf and Thorne that is
getting discussed on the xmca list - the paper is at
http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/JuneJuly05/LantolfThorne2005.pdfIntroduction,
in Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development -
for the
help.
Oudeyis
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gabosch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and
thethinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:30
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 2:10
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! :Bakhurst
Hi Victor,
If I am getting your first point, that Bakhurst incorrectly takes Diamat
as serious theory, then you are speaking to what I referred
CB said:
However, analogizing to chemistry and biology, biology does not reduce to
chemistry. Human psychology does not reduce to individual physiological
psychology.
Absolutely. On the first point, yes, biology cannot be reduced to
chemistry. On the second point, I also completely agree:
Victor,
Thanks for the refresher course on Rosenburg, which becomes a history of
the Nazi party from 1921. It is always good to be reminded of what
happened in Germany.
Your comments on Dubrovsky are very interesting, as is your analysis of
Bakhurst. I also read your descriptions of
On CB's first comment on SOCIO-history, I certainly completely agree, and
think Ilyenkov would, too.
On CB's second comment, about the subject matter of Marxist psychology, I
think it is true that a dialectical materialist psychology must begin with
sociology and social psychology, and the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/05 07:48AM
from page 283:
A consistently materialist conception of thought, of course, alters the
approach to the key problems of logic in a cardinal way, in particular to
interpretation of the nature of logical categories. Marx and Engels
established above all
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/31/05 07:48AM
from page 283:
A consistently materialist conception of thought, of course, alters the
approach to the key problems of logic in a cardinal way, in particular to
interpretation of the nature of logical categories. Marx and Engels
established above all
Commentary inserted below:
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 16:35
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Very interesting post. Just a few isolated comments to begin . . .
At 03:10
@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 16:22
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Yes, I have this book somewhere. So are you going to forward your review
to this list?
At 03:31 PM 6/7/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
Unfortunately, the mainstay of Western interpretations
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gabosch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx and
thethinkers he inspired marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 0:36
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
I continue
: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
A question on one of your assertions:
Note that this is not the same as saying that nature is dialectical, but
rather is an assertion that dialectics is a universal property of all life
activity no matter how primitive.
How can dialectics be a property of all
My full response is in the prior message. So here I'll just make a couple of
short responses (see below).
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:24
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 4:15
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Well, my reaction here re-invokes my sense of the tautology of all such
arguments
I've inteleaved my comments in the foliage of your commentary.
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:51
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Interleaved comments
Charles Brown
Victor victor
Of course objectivity reality exists, but we have to realize that what Marx,
Lenin and other intelligent Marxists like Ilyenkov meant by objective
reality is not reality contemplated by some totally uninvolved
philosophical being. Just the reverse is true
Yes, I have this book somewhere. So are you going to forward your review
to this list?
At 03:31 PM 6/7/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
Unfortunately, the mainstay of Western interpretations of
Ilyenkov's works is the absolutely wierd product of a Brit academic who
represents them as a sort of
Very interesting post. Just a few isolated comments to begin . . .
At 03:10 PM 6/7/2005 +0200, Victor wrote:
..
The fact that life forms activities are directed to concrete future
states, they are, no matter how simple or mechanical, exercises in
reason. This why, if you
I continue to enjoy this thread, but will be gone for some days and it will
probably be a little while after that before I can reengage. I will think
about the position Charles and Ralph have taken on the relationship of the
brain to the origins of humanity. I think Engels' argument about how
RE Lil Joe joe_radical
Lil Joe: Here, Charles, I think we have a major disagreement as far as
Marxian materialism is concerned. Marx never wrote of 'materialism' and
'idealism' as a discussion outside the context of the materialist conception
of history.
^
CB: He discusses materialism in
Don't forget the extensive discussion of materialism in THE HOLY FAMILY.
Of course, what distinguishes home sapiens from the other monkeys is not
labor as an abstraction, but the brain difference, which means the
genetic capacity for language and hence cultural transmission of
information,
Victor victor
Of course objectivity reality exists, but we have to realize that what Marx,
Lenin and other intelligent Marxists like Ilyenkov meant by objective
reality is not reality contemplated by some totally uninvolved
philosophical being. Just the reverse is true objective reality is
: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Victor victor
Of course objectivity reality exists, but we have to realize that what
Marx,
Lenin and other intelligent Marxists like Ilyenkov meant by objective
reality is not reality contemplated by some totally uninvolved
philosophical being. Just the reverse
Note my interleaved comments on a fragment of a key post of yours
At 03:08 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
..
I don't see this. I see the problem this way: that stage of the
development of materialism is inadequate to grasp the nature of human
activity, both
Interleaved comments on further fragments of your post:
At 03:08 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
..
I see your not going to let me deal with the dogmatics of classical
materialism briefly.
The kernel of my argument is that in general, discourse segregated from
practice can only be
]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
but what about history of nature? I mean before there wasn't anything
that
can be qualified as man's interaction withthe world. does in your view
dialectics start
Your reasoning is fine up until the braking point I note below.
At 03:10 PM 5/29/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
Steve,
Well, now I know what comes after the snip.
First paragraph:
Oudeyis is saying nothing about what nature is, but rather is writing that
whatever understandings man has of nature
-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
I will need to address subsequent posts on this topic, but first: there is
an interesting implicit subtlety here. If the question is not whether
nature is dialectical but whether science (the study of nature) is
dialectical, then even though nature exists independently
. It isn't much but small as it is it's
sharp).
Oudeyis
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:25
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Well, if you got my point (2
consequences for the development of human activity and particularly of human
social activity.
Oudeyis
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:25
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O
-
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, May 31, 2005 22:11
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Steve Gabosch quotes:
Men can
of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 22:48
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
How about objective reality exists ( Lenin's definition of materialism in
_Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_
Steve:
Charles, your logic below unsuccessfully explains the relationship between
human biology and human society. You merely repeat something no one
disputes. All animals reproduce, just as they all breathe, and would die
without doing so. But only humans produce - and probably would not
Thanks much, Steve,for the encouragment. I will take you up on it. I ,
actually, have written out some closely related ideas which critique these
early sections of _The German Ideology_ ( which , of course, was not
published as it was a bit of thinking out loud for themselves by the young
Marx
Actually , this essay ( rough copy here) is not on the issue that Steve
suggested I develop. But it does deal with the anthropological passages at
the beginning of _The German Ideology_ that are close to the one Steve first
adduced for discussion.
As I read this essay, I am claiming that M and E
Charles, your logic below unsuccessfully explains the relationship between
human biology and human society. You merely repeat something no one
disputes. All animals reproduce, just as they all breathe, and would die
without doing so. But only humans produce - and probably would not even
Steve Gabosch
Charles, in that quote from German Ideology below, ME refer to producing
their *means* of subsistence, as in means of production, not the
subsistence itself, as in gathered berries or hunted game, which as you
point out humans did not domesticate until quite recently.
CB:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 16:11:28 -0400
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl
Marx andthe thinkers he inspired
Lil Joe: Rather Idealistic, Charles.
^
CB: I think not. Idealism/materialism doesn't really arise as an issue until
the occurrence of class divided societies and the antagonism between mental
and physical labor. See rest of response to Steve. The question of what
defines humans from their
Thanks for your response, it was a very good one.
Charles, I think you have the makings of a coherent Marxist essay on these
questions you raise. It seems you already have the ingredients at hand for
such a study. For my part, I see the point you stress about the centrality
of the
Steve Gabosch quotes:
Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or
anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves
from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a
step which is conditioned by their physical
How about objective reality exists ( Lenin's definition of materialism in
_Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_) and we only know objective reality
through practice , or our interaction with it beyond contemplation ( First
and Second Theses on Feuerbach). Lenin formulated the idea of objective
Ralph Dumain
RALPH:
Well, specifically, how does the progression plant-seed-plant constitute
the negation of negation? How does the physiology of plant reproduction
correlate to a logical relationship? Is not the burden of proof on a
person making a positive assertion to indicate
Charles, in that quote from German Ideology below, ME refer to producing
their *means* of subsistence, as in means of production, not the
subsistence itself, as in gathered berries or hunted game, which as you
point out humans did not domesticate until quite recently. Wouldn't social
labor -
Well, if you got my point (2), the rest shouldn't be so mysterious. ME
openly admit they're not going to tackle directly either the natural
sciences as an intellectual enterprise or their objects of study (laws of
nature). At the same time they admit that's part of the picture, though
they
-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
If I am reading Oudeyis correctly, he is saying that nature is determined
by human interaction with it; that nature is strictly a product of the
unity of human purposive activity and natural
I do not understand the meaning of the three quotes from Ilyenkov.
At 02:03 PM 5/30/2005 -0700, Steve Gabosch wrote:
...
from my 1977 Progress edition, which I was lucky to get through the
internet last year. I corrected a couple scanning errors from the MIA version.
Copied
ontological statements
about the world in order to realize the objects of theory.
with Regards,
Oudeyis
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gabosch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
If I am
- 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: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
[Marxism
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
but what about history of nature? I mean before there wasn't anything
that
can be qualified as man's interaction
Ralph Dumain _
.
I don't think it was just the existence of atoms at stake. Mach was stuck
in the rut of phenomenalism. Dodging the materialist position, Mach
attempted to redefine matter as permanent possibilities of sensation.
^^
CB: Yes, agree. Lenin's critique of Mach is
[Marxism-Thaxis]
Oudeyis
-clip-
Describing
their accomplishment in a dialectical form, the materialism of Marx, Engels
and Lenin is not a statement about the world but about the unity of logical
and physical and sensual activity in human labour (practice).
NOTE, THAT THE ISSUE OF THE
- Original Message -
From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Interesting post! But I don't understand all of it. Comments interleaved
Part 2
Dialectics of the new class or communist class
I am proud to be part of the communist movement and none of our errors,
mistakes and lapses in judgment comes close on the scale of history to the
murderous actions of the bourgeoisie and my very own imperial bourgeoisie. The
politics of
First see my reply to Steve Gabosch. I would also suggest that your
conclusion requires clarification:
Of course, this unifrom worldview as
an epistemological claim has something to do with class ineterests.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Marxism is subject distortions. But
how far
Very interesting. It is difficult to judge Korsch, Pennekoek, or Lenin
from these fragments alone. A more detailed study of all three is
indicated, I see. Just a few hurried notes on the Korsch piece.
He never conceived of the difference between the historical materialism
of Marx and the
I don't think anyone has paid attention to a word I've said, but I am
intrigued by this intervention, particularly the key assertion:
NOTE, THAT THE ISSUE OF THE RELEVANCE OF LOGIC (DIALECTICS) TO HUMAN HISTORY
IS NOT A MATTER OF THE NATURE OF THE WORLD BUT OF MAN'S INTERACTION WITH THE
WORLD.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0505clarkyork.htm
___
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
Interesting post! But I don't understand all of it. Comments interleaved
. . .
At 07:09 AM 5/26/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
In regards to this thread on emergence and dialectics:
Your discussion (the whole thread) on dialectics and emergence conflates
several contradictory objectives: the
Charles: However, there is
also in the book a clear description of a meeting between Einstein and
Mach late in Mach's life, out of which Einstein firmly disagrees with Mach
on the issue of the reality of atoms.
Justin: Right. Mach was the last skeptic. Einstein won his
Nobel by
In the case of Mach, he was insistent that
scientific concepts must be definable in
observational terms. By doing so, he maintained
that physics could be purged of all extraneous
metaphysical and theological notions.
Thus, in his *The Science of Mechanics*,
he delivered his famous
Some comments interleaved:
At 12:16 PM 5/20/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
Charles: The demonstration that Mach is an idealist in general is the main
thesis of Lenin's book _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_. I don't know
whether a reiteration of the main arguments is worthwhile here.
CB: One thinks of Marx's comments about the need for
abstraction to
make up
for inability to directly observe in certain aspects
of science.
Empiricists, hard-boiled phenomenalists, Berkleyean
idealists, etc., don't object to the use of sbatrction
in science. They wouldn't do science any
On Tue, 17 May 2005 15:46:02 -0400 Charles Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim Farmelant :
-clip-
Frank believed that Ernst Mach had exposed the
inadequacies of the mechanistic world-view (and
indeed there was some convergence between Mach's
My recent encounters with Popperians and others reared in dominant
traditions of Anglo-American philosophy of science, from which Marxism is
excluded, have convinced me that a whole different approach is
required. Indeed, a rapprochement between analytical philosophy and
dialectical
On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:25:15 -0400 Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My recent encounters with Popperians and others reared in dominant
traditions of Anglo-American philosophy of science, from which
Marxism is
excluded, have convinced me that a whole different approach is
97 matches
Mail list logo
