@nti-dialectics Made Easy

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Excellent question Sameera (I wish others would ask such intelligent things!).

Simply put, a variable in mathematics is a linguistic expression of a rule, such that those who use that rule correctly replace that variable with whatever is defined by the domain of quantification under consideration (or whose manipulation is also defined by other rules).

[Again, all this depends on the substitution rules/domain. So in simple equations, the domain might be the real numbers, some of which substitution instances yield a true mathematical statement, others not. In still others, these variables might be manifolds, sets, matrices....]

In some cases, the variable itself can be variable (and would thus be goverened by second order rules), as in differential equations.

So, it really depends on the equation you are referring to.

In simple equations, the 'variable' is just an unknown constant.

In others it could be a variable itself, if that solution is algebraic (etc).

[sameera]

well...

in an ordinary mathematical expression using variables express some property in a given state by assigning values to the variables. thus its result is more limited.

but a differential equation gives a more concrete expression by considering variations.

am I right?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sameera, I do not disagree.

This was in fact implied by what I posted in respnse to you above.

Except I might not use the word 'concrete'.

[sameera]

As far as I can understand there lies a big difference in approaching to a question when using ordinary and differential equations.

Formal Logic [FL] uses variables, that is letters to stand for named objects, designated expressions (some of these are called "predicates"), and the like -- all of which can and do change.

This handy device was introduced by the very first logician we know of in the West, Aristotle -- and he did this approximately 1500 years before the same tactic was used in mathematics by Muslim Algebraists -- who employed variables in their work several centuries before Descartes experimented with the same device.

Of the latter Engels said the following:

"The turning point in mathematics was Descartes' variable magnitude. With that came motion and hence dialectics in mathematics, and at once, too, of necessity the differential and integral calculus…." [Engels (1954), p.258.]

In line with Engels, no one doubts that modern mathematics can handle change, so why dialecticians deny it of FL is therefore something of a mystery.

I still cannot understand why you state this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sameera, you need to recall that this passage was taken from a very basic outline of my objections to dialectical mterialism, and hence I deliberately omitted all the details I put in the longer Essay on this topic at my site (which is itself 40,000 words long on this one topic).

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm

But, to answer your question: I wanted to plant doubt in people's minds concerning the rash things dialecticians invariably say about Formal Logic (FL) --and they all do this without proof of any sort --, such as that it cannot handle change.

If mathematics uses variables and FL does (and has for 2000 years longer than mathematicians have), then that alone shows that FL can handle change.

Sure, it is a different kind of change, but it need not be. I give examples of the latter in that Essay I linked to above

Modern mathematical logic deals with differential equations (and anything at all mathematical).

So, even rusty old Aristotelian Logic could cope with some changes; modern mathematical logic can cope with any change whatsoever.

However, one can be an excellent revolutionary and know nothing of FL; so why dialecticians make a big fuss of it, 'god' only knows.

[sameera]

Frankly I didn't study your long article, for that I need more time.

But again I like to highlight the difference is not just about the quantity of variation but how it handle the problem. [Maybe I'm not using the right terms, pardon me for that. English is only my second language and I'm still not fluent in discussing thoroughly]

However, one can be an excellent revolutionary and know nothing of FL; so why dialecticians make a big fuss of it, 'god' only knows.

Here we have an important question by our hand.

We'll try to discuss how a man can become revolutionary. First of all a man is a social being and his personal quality can be attributed to the society he's living more or less based on his understanding of the condition of his society. As a feature of any society there are always standing out personalities who understand first the flow and educate and organize other men.

Such an organization of men or education will be successful to the extent it has analyzed the problems and solutions. It is evident understanding of the historical development is essential to decide the actions he's going to take. After all the whole movement can be revolutionary, consist of ordinary workers and many standing out individuals to various extents. The latter themselves are a product of the further movement of the society.

If I'm correct in my approach it is always important to demarcate their method from any other method available in the society. Because guide the beginners to the correct path is at the utmost priority. And again that educating the workers in a conceivable way is also at the same priority. There is no point in trying to teach everyone dialectics, rather the ordinary worker needs to know in their terms how we gonna end this misery. So the outstanding individuals of that society must be capable of converting the results of their studies from theoretical heaviness to simple terms. And it is possible that the outstanding figure becomes revolutionary only after his students become revolutionary. 

I hope it will be clearer to you what I am intend to mean.

Sameera

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thankyou or those thoughts, once again.

However, I think you can be an excellent revolutionary and know not one ounce of dialectics; in fact, since I think dialectcis itself is thoroughly confused, I think the less you know about dialectcis the better.

Ideally, zero.

Which is why iIset my site up.

[sameera]

It seems you have missed my point.

No one is born revolutionary. Suffering only does not make a person revolutionary.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Forgive me if I missed your point, but I am not sure what suffering has to do with anything I have said.

[sameera]

Few individuals in a given society would be able to understand the historical development and how to fight for the society's well being. Majority of any society, including working class, does not know what will bring them their liberty or how to fight for their liberty even though if they were successful in understanding the exploitation. Thus the oppressed mases require a scientific analysis of the problems they are facing and a scientific solution as the target. Which they cannot invent themselves, not everyone capable of, not even thousands in the whole planet. And after all fighting for their objectives alone require a correct method and one can never underestimate the huge task and the responsibility lies on the path.

To accomplish such a task, Marxists use dialectical materialism as their method in analysis. But it doesn't mean every worker must be trained to use DM rather it is what the leaders of workers movement use. Without educating the masses on the problems, solutions and the way to achieve them they wont become revolutionary.

No worker become revolutionary without the social conditions and education. Persons who understand the historical development may teach others and can make a revolutionary movement. So it is absurd to talk about a revolutionary movement without armed with scientific method.

Whether the dialectical materialism is invalid or not, we can discuss later and further. But here I want to point you that it is a necessity to analyze the problem and propose a solution together with a way to archive it requires a scientific method. People who propose Utopian solutions and methods to achieve liberty for oppressed mases  ends in bloodbaths. Such opportunist or reactionary movements must be identified and must warn workers beforehand. Nazi example alone is good enough to understand the importance of correct analysis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I agree on the need for a scientific theory, it's just that dialectical materialism cannot provide it.

It does not even make the list.

It is too confused even to be assessed for its truth or falsehood.

That is what my Essays show.

And, may I remind you that Dialectical Marxism has up until now been a total failure.

So, not only have I done so, but history has refuted it.

[sameera]

Confusion is something we cannot based on, and it depends on the one who's in confusion. It must be proved that dialectical logic is incorrect. I know certainly I'm not in a position to debate on philosophy and I believe many young comrades too are the same because we don't really get a proper teaching of philosophy. But I'm confident in understanding the historical development to a greater extent and trough that I sense the method underly.

Because of I have some knowledge in mathematics I knew that an ordinary equation based on formal logic has it's inherent limitations and may lead to false results. But differential equations may lead to more concrete results. You may oppose to use the word concrete but which is really required to discuss some problems. 

And about the failure of past revolutions has proved it's correctness. I suggest you to study the Russian revolution and it's betrayal carefully. I believe it makes one really confident with dialectical method and his task.

Without being a practical person one cannot really understand Marxist method and one cannot easily understand the subjected person is actually a Marxist. There were many confused individuals and groups in the course of history, many when the time is critical, due to many reasons which includes the immediate threat to their class interest.

And I didn't sense anything like "guiding" or "teaching" in your letter which is the basic requirement of any political or philosophical writing. Without understanding the context you have cited many from Lenin, etc. Without giving any remarks to it's intended task or necessity at the time it wrote, you have cited some others to make it a balanced study.

And if you're to claim a Trotskyite or Leninist based on what you have said is to prove that you have never studied none of them seriously. If you do so you'll hate them and fear of them than with any other. There is nothing common between yours and Trotsky's or Lenin's. One cannot say himself a Trotskyist or Leninist only because we all in a agreement to end the exploitation.

And since you have declared the total failure of Dialectical Marxism, I would like to see your analysis on the socio-economical problems based on your new theory and your program to end it. I'm quite sure you are able to do it since you have found many errors in Dialectical Marxism already. Please don't think this is a joke. I think now it is absurd to debate on philosophy because I'm not a philosopher and you're the opposite of it. But I can understand a political program and on that we can proceed on a more valuable discussion. I never left the chance that even genius make errors and I believe dogma must be eliminated.

Thanks for your comments up to now. I'm discontinuing this discussion but waiting eagerly to discuss any future political study you produce based on what ever the theory you bring.

Sameera

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sameera, thanks for those thoughts.

I have been in and around revolutionary Marxism now for over 25 years, so I do know about the Russian Revolution  -- and I accept, with a few reservations, Trotsky's analysis of its degeneration.

[I also have a mathematics degree.]

The fact is that Dialectical Marxism is among the most unsuccesful theories of all time. I am a Trotskyist, and Trotskyism is even less successful.

And yet we are constantly being told that dialectics is the mainspring of all we do. So, it cannot fail to take some responsibility. In an essay to be published at my site, I will give more details.

Nevertheless, history has returned its verdict: dialectics has been refuted.

So, if truth is tested in practice, as we are also told, then practice has refuted dialectics. The message is unambiguous.

Now, you can try to rescue this theory by all sorts of dodges (a bit like the way that Ptolemaic astonomers tried to rescue Ptolemy's thoery by attaching more epicycles to the crystalline spheres), but the fact that it is based on ruling-class forms of thought, and makes no sense, underlines why it cannot and has not worked.

My Essays are aimned at proving this is so.

And, as far as 'guiding' our actions is concerned, all we need is Historical Materialism, a scientific theory I fully accept (once the dialectcis has been removed).

And if you're to claim a Trotskyite or Leninist based on what you have said is to prove that you have never studied none of them seriously

Not so, I have been studying them for longer than most people here have been alive, and will continue to do so.

What I can and have shown is that where these comrades tried to do some philosophy, they made serious errors of fact and argument -- in essence they were led astray by Hegel -- a ruling-class theorist of the worst possible kind.

If you do so you'll hate them and fear of them than with any other. There is nothing common between yours and Trotsky's or Lenin's. One cannot say himself a Trotskyist or Leninist only because we all in a agreement to end the exploitation.

I am not sure what this means -- I think your English has let you down here. But, if it means we should accept something just because Lenin, or Engels or Trotsky said so, then that would turn Marxism into a religion, and prevent it from being a science.

And since there is good evidence to show that Marx did not accept this theory, your argument would suggest that Trotsky, Lenin and Engels were not Marxists, which is ridiculous.

So, adherence to this mystical theory is not what defines Leninism or Marxism, despite what you seem to believe.

As far as my politics are concerned, as I have said, I fully accept Historical Materialism, since it is a scientific not a philosophical theory. I have no other theory than that (since I think all philosophical theories (not just dialectical materialism) are non-sensical, because they are based on a ruling-class view of reality), nor do I want one.

I will not say any more about the details, since I aim to spend my time killing-off this mystical theory.

And since this is the Philosophy section, I will only confine myself to philosophical issues.

I did not come here to debate politics as such, just the ancient mystical system Engels imported into Marxism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrades might like to read an amusimg dialogue on dialectics written by a friend of mine, here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Boiling%20Mad.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Some comrades might have wondered why I have gone rather quiet of late.

Well, I was putting the finishing touches to the latest of my world-renowned Essays, which has just been published:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

It addresses issues that have concerned even those who largely agree with me about Dialectical Materialism (DM): my claim that this 'theory' has been partly to blame for the lack of success of Marxism -- particularly Trotskyism

Here I provide my evidence and argument -- all 48,500 words of it!

I have much more to add, but I will only be able to do this after I have retrieved the 6000+ books (and 2000+ papers) I have in storage right now.

Naturally, DM-fans will ignore this; as born-again believers they will not allow evidence or proof to disturb their reverie.

That, of course, is just *one* of the reasons why Marxism (so far) has been to success what George W Bush has been to peace in Iraq.

And they mean to keep it that way....