On Dialectis

[P.O.U.M]

So Im talking to this guy who renounces Marxism b/c of dialectical materialism. And here what he has to say.

when i present proof that the first societies
 were not Matriarchal clans
that would completely undermine the entire basis of Historical Materialism
Because on top of it i'd show the 4 stage Dialectic
Dialectics is based on a 3d world
when Physics has already proved 4D
The average skilled worker Engineer
plugs in Absolute Value
to their mathematics
-1
 is PI
in any case they know Dialectics is bullshit already
at least in The Materialist sense
since Materialism is based on the rules of what Marx and Engels saw as a 3D world
So you see approach an engineer with Dialectical Materialism and they'll laugh in your face
cause they already know its bullshit
 Just use Boylean Logic

This was done over AIM, hence the format its in.

But assuming that Dialects is indeed proven wrong, would that change your ideas about Marxism. Would you renounce the whole of Marxism and give up and join another cause. Couldnt Marxism be carried out in its political and economic and social without dialectics?

[Daymare17]

Um how has it been 'proved' that the world is 4D? It was 3D last time I checked...

Marxism without dialectics is like a clock without a spring, in Trotsky's phrase. It's totally worthless. Marx was only able to discover historical materialism and write Das Kapital because he was a dialectical materialist. Most renegades begin with renouncing dialectics and end up renouncing the whole of Marxism.

Do you know what Boylean logic is? I'd like to know before I take up this guy's arguments.

[turnoviseous]

Well, some scientists have all sort of theories how world is more than 3D (and in fact one can describe time, and consciouesness and anything he wishes to be a new dimension of matter, but that just avoids the issue).

And maybe he should present the fact about how matriarchal clans were not the first societies, or is he just making it up?

And mentioning Boylean logic as a worldview, come on?

[Daymare17]

Um what is Boyelan logic?

[turnoviseous]

Boyle was an alchemist :D living in 17th century

[turnoviseous]

Boyle's great merit as a scientific investigator is that he carried out the principles which Bacon preached in the Novum Organum. Yet he would not avow himself a follower of Bacon, or indeed of any other teacher. On several occasions he mentions that in order to keep his judgment as unprepossessed as might be with any of the modern theories of philosophy, till he was "provided of experiments" to help him judge of them, he refrained from any study of the Atomical and the Cartesian systems, and even of the Novum Organum itself, though he admits to "transiently consulting" them about a few particulars. Nothing was more alien to his mental temperament than the spinning of hypotheses. He regarded the acquisition of knowledge as an end in itself, and in consequence he gained a wider outlook on the aims of scientific inquiry than had been enjoyed by his predecessors for many centuries. This, however, did not mean that he paid no attention to the practical application of science nor that he despised knowledge which tended to use.

He himself was an alchemist; and believing the transmutation of metals to be a possibility, he carried out experiments in the hope of effecting it; and he was instrumental in obtaining the repeal, in 1689, of the statute of Henry IV against multiplying gold and silver. With all the important work he accomplished in physics - the enunciation of Boyle's law, the discovery of the part taken by air in the propagation of sound, and investigations on the expansive force of freezing water, on specific gravities and refractive powers, on crystals, on electricity, on colour, on hydrostatics, etc.- chemistry was his peculiar and favourite study. His first book on the subject was "The Sceptical Chemist," published in 1661, in which he criticized the "experiments whereby vulgar Spagyrists are wont to endeavour to evince their Salt, Sulphur and Mercury to be the true Principles of Things." For him chemistry was the science of the composition of substances, not merely an adjunct to the arts of the alchemist or the physician. He advanced towards the modern view of elements as the undecomposable constituents of material bodies; and understanding the distinction between mixtures and compounds, he made considerable progress in the technique of detecting their ingredients, a process which he designated by the term "analysis." He further supposed that the elements were ultimately composed of particles of various sorts and sizes, into which, however, they were not to be resolved in any known way. Applied chemistry had to thank him for improved methods and for an extended knowledge of individual substances. He also studied the chemistry of combustion and of respiration, and made experiments in physiology, where, however, he was hampered by the "tenderness of his nature" which kept him from anatomical dissections, especially of living animals, though he knew them to be "most instructing."

Besides being a busy natural philosopher, Boyle devoted much time to theology, showing a very decided leaning to the practical side and an indifference to controversial polemics. At the Restoration he was favourably received at court, and in 1665 would have received the provostship of Eton, if he would have taken orders; but this he refused to do on the ground that his writings on religious subjects would have greater weight coming from a layman than a paid minister of the Church. He spent large sums in promoting the spread of Christianity, contributing liberally to missionary societies, and to the expenses of translating the Bible or portions of it into various languages. By his will he founded the Boyle lectures, for proving the Christian religion against "notorious infidels, viz, atheists, theists, pagans, Jews and Mahommedans," with the proviso that controversies between Christians were not to be mentioned.

In person Boyle was tall, slender and of a pale countenance. His constitution was far from robust, and throughout his life he suffered from feeble health and low spirits. While his scientific work procured him an extraordinary reputation among his contemporaries, his private character and virtues, the charm of his social manners, his wit and powers of conversation, endeared him to a large circle of personal friends. He was never married. His writings are exceedingly voluminous, and his style is clear and straightforward, though undeniably prolix.

From wikipedia.

[cmdrdeathguts]

i must say, that doesn't look like it has much to do with dialectics at all.  the aim transcript looks like the fellow's ideas have been swallowed and spat back out without any understanding going on in between, and involves various semantic sleights of hand (eg, materialism is taken to imply a model of physics!) and all in all, is simply incoherent and undeveloped.  basically, he's bullshitting.

[Volkov]

Originally posted by Daymare17
Um what is Boyelan logic?

I have never heard of Boyelan logic.  I have heard of Boolean logic (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_Logic ).  I don't know anything about it.  

Of course, there is not any proof that dialectics is crap, and recent discoveries and such confirm dialectics, as Reason in Revolt proves.  I have encountered so-called Marxists (those reformist, adademic cretins) that stated that I should not use dialectics to prove Marxism.  No matter how much they deny it, they are not Marxists for rejecting dialectics (not to mention their hardcore reformsm).

[turnoviseous]

He probably meant boolean logic, yeah.

Yeh, we use boolean logic in school at various mathematical and technical subjects in boolean algebraic structure. How one would apply it to society on large is a mistery tho´.

[Psychic sailor]

It is a very impressive argument that because engineers would laugh at it, it is wrong. Not...First, engineers have no intellectual superiority in terms of their education or profession with which they can judge whether dialectical logic is right or wrong. Secondly, there are of course marxist engineers, eg. Altshuller. Thirdly, Hegel/Marx etc of course do not denounce boolean logic in all areas. If they would had come into the position of doing a bit of C# programming, they would of course have used boolean logic.

[turnoviseous]

It is a very impressive argument that because engineers would laugh at it, it is wrong. Not...First, engineers have no intellectual superiority in terms of their education or profession with which they can judge whether dialectical logic is right or wrong. Secondly, there are of course marxist engineers, eg. Altshuller. Thirdly, Hegel/Marx etc of course do not denounce boolean logic in all areas. If they would had come into the position of doing a bit of C# programming, they would of course have used boolean logic.

Well said!

[OUTOFTHENIGHT]

In my view most workers are dialecticians. Look at a carpenter or an electrician , how they approach their work. The way they analyse a problem or the method they approach to complete their work.Any task will be approached from the point of view that the job doesn't progress in a straight line. The craftsman will adapt and evolve as the job progresses. Surely this is dialectics.
The contradictions in everyday tasks will enable the craftsman to evolve with experience.
The problem is that most workers are unconscious to this line of thought.
After all 'philosophers have only interpreted the world , the point is to change it'.

[turnoviseous]

There is a Russian scientist from times of USSR, he works in Israel now and uses dialectics in his researches. He has a site, but I cant remember the address right now. I believe i posted a link on YFIS forums half a year ago or so.

[P.O.U.M]

Um how has it been 'proved' that the world is 4D? It was 3D last time I checked...

Well... I dont have the full details on it and Ive been stressed to find information about it on the internet, but supposedly there's been a new scientific break through and there are 12 dimensions. My friend was telling me about what he saw on tv from the Science channel. It was also interesting to note, that while explaining what we saw, he was also explaining to me dialectics without knowing it.

The 12th dimension is a new idea. Amongst the scientific "norms" its been generally regarded as only 11 dimensions. There are also sepculations of 26 dimensions. Also, Einstein had four dimensions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

[turnoviseous]

I really dont understand this, why would one consider gravity as a dimension,and  electromagnetism as well. I dont see a meaning.