@nti-dialectics Made Easy

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

POUM:

Pretty universal comment. Can go towards everyone. Wether or not I know one philosophy.

Well, we both know what you'd say to someone who rejected Das Kapital, for example, or made things up about it -- but who then admitted they hadn't actually read it.

Now, you do not have to read my work, but then if you don't, you cannot pass informed comment on it. And neither can Axel/Volkov.

And thus, explain to me why you do not have one?

First, I show at my site that all of philosophy (and not just 'materialist dialectics') is nonsensical (that is, it is far too confused for it even to be assessed for its truth or falsehood).

Secondly, I also show that it is derived from a ruling-class view of reality -- whereby fundamental truths about nature are derived from thought alone, and these fundamental truths, these 'essences', are said to underly the physical world, but are inaccessible to the senses (and hence cannot be confirmed by the sciences, directly or indirectly).

Now, if the world has an underlying, and hidden 'rational' structure it implies it is Mind, or the product of Mind. This can and has been used to rationalise the status quo (as 'god'-ordained, or 'natural').

So, I follow Marx when he said:

"We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970), p.118. Bold emphases added.]

And:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65. Bold emphasis added]

You will find a brief, but fuller explanation here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Scroll down to sections 5 and 11.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Question:

Did Lenin believe in Santa Claus?

Apparently so, since he argued as follows:

"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69. Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279.]

 

This can only mean that if you can form an image of something in your mind, it must exist in reality!

So, not only are there unicorns and hob-goblins in Lenin's universe, it is graced with Big Foot and dear old Santa (and Hitler, and Mussolini, and...).

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm

This is a link to a long-overdue demolition of Lenin's egregious book.

It must be avoided at all costs by comrades who like to pontificate about my work without actually having read it.

[Volkov]

Question:

Did Lenin believe in Santa Claus?

Apparently so, since he argued as follows:

"Our sensation, our consciousness is only an image of the external world, and it is obvious that an image cannot exist without the thing imagined, and that the latter exists independently of that which images it." [Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p.69. Bold emphasis added. Cf., also p.279.]

 

This can only mean that if you can form an image of something in your mind, it must exist in reality!

So, not only are there unicorns and hob-goblins in Lenin's universe, it is graced with Big Foot and dear old Santa (and Hitler, and Mussolini, and...).

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page_13%2001.htm

This is a link to a long-overdue demolition of Lenin's egregious book.

It must be avoided at all costs by comrades who like to pontificate about my work without actually having read it.

Uh, he is talking about the image of the actual external world, not subjective idealism.  You really have a talent for misunderstanding things.  If what you state is true, the Bolshevik Party would have flopped and never led a revolution with such a shoddy theoretical basis.   

On the other hand, your ultra-left allies are the shoddiest of shoddies when it comes to the theoretical basis.

On the other hand, Rosa believes in a world where water gradually cools into a gel before freezing into solid ice. 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Axel/Volkov:

Uh, he is talking about the image of the actual external world, not subjective idealism.  You really have a talent for misunderstanding things.  If what you state is true, the Bolshevik Party would have flopped and never led a revolution with such a shoddy theoretical basis.   

But this is the only argument in the book that Lenin uses to ground his 'images' in objective reality. Without it, he cannot distinguish his 'theory' from subjective idealism.

But, the argument is too strong, for if the mere presence of an image implies the existence of that which it images, then, a mental image of, say, Santa Claus implies Santa Claus exists.

Now, it is absurd to believe in the existence of Santa Claus, just as it is absurd to believe that Lenin believed he did.

In that case, Lenin's inference is false, which leaves him with no way of showing his 'images' are not subjective, and thus no way of showing his 'theory' is superior to that of Mach, Bogdanov or Avenarius.

Now, Lenin, and those who agree with him here, might fervently believe in the objectivity of their 'images', but they have no way of proving it.

So, he/they are just as much 'fideists' as those whom Lenin attacks in this awful book.

There is a far better way of grounding knowledge than this, but it involves waving goodbye to dialectical materialism.

And good riddance...

On the other hand, your ultra-left allies are the shoddiest of shoddies when it comes to the theoretical basis.

Translated, this means: Axel/Volkov, once again, cannot respond to my demolition of yet another dialectical fairy-tale, and resorts to abuse instead.

On the other hand, Rosa believes in a world where water gradually cools into a gel before freezing into solid ice. 

Where have I said that?

But, and more to the point, you have still to explain where the 'nodal' point in melting metal, plastic and glass lies.

After a few pathetic attempts to change the subject, you went very quiet on this.

And, I am glad I am still important enough to keep attacking...

[Brian the Bold]

I have been following this debate with interest.

Rosa, a simple google found this about you.

Can you comment

http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk/rosa.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, I sent this to Steve, but he did not publish it:

However, there is no mystery about my use of the term 'alien-class'; it is often employed by Marxists to refer to the ruling-class -- and the 'alien' part is not a reference to 'shape shifting lizards' (and the like), but  contains an allusion to Marx's use of the word "alienation". In that case, such an 'alien-class' is disappointingly human, but no less dangerous.
 
Am I a robot?
 
Well, I have been programmed to deny it convincingly.
 
And, if you read what I have written on the subject (at least with some care), you will see that I neither deny nor accept 'free will', nor do I deny or accept 'determinism', either. I merely claim both terms are nonsensical, and depend solely on the fact that incautious theorists have, up to now, anthropomorphised nature (attributing it with a 'will', but denying it of us; or, indeed, the obverse).
 
[More details in the RevLeft pages to which I previously linked.]
 
I am, after all, trying to break free of the 2400 year grip boss-class theory has on the thought of practically everyone who has ever written about this (and other topics) -- even on the left. [The 'ruling ideas', etc.]
 
RL
 
PS. You can publish this if you want -- not that you ever needed my permission. :)

Does that answer your query?

[Brian the Bold]

Its not a query, I asked you to comment.
Anyway who can you prove that you sent that as a reply? After al you are ignoring all his emails?

By the way, I am not making judgement on your anti dialectic arguments. I think you have a valid view.

I especially like your theory about there being no such thing as 'philosophy'

Why has it taken so long for you to comment?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It took me that long to reply, since I was away for a few days.

And, I am not sure what sort of comment you want me to make.

As to whether I sent that message to him or not, you can e-mail him yourself, and ask.

[His e-mail to me was not treated as spam, or ignored, simply because he sent none. My e-mail wasn't a reply to one from him, but was sent in response to reading his web-page, which I too discovered after a google search.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For anyone interested, there is a ding-dong battle being waged here:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99383&start=20&sid=11c2ede4b34fc764ed7a7d7fc025001a

over dialectics -- and my main opponent is treating me with comradely respect, unlike some I could mention here.

[Incidentally, does anyone know why my post count is super-glued on zero!?]

[Brian the Bold]

I have checked the link

In one of your responses on that forum you quoted this from Hegel

"Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor nature, is there anywhere an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself. The finitude of things with then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being and what they essentially are. Thus, in inorganic nature, the acid is implicitly at the same time the base: in other words its only being consists in its relation to its other. Hence the acid persists quietly in the contrast: it is always in effort to realize what it potentially is. Contradiction is the very moving principle of the world." [Hegel (1975), p.174.]

I think you call it muddled. Can you explain where it is muddled?

What is/ where are Hegel's references to this statement? Or did he suck the idea out of his thumb?

He must have researched it from somewhere? Do you on what basis in scientific research did he reach this conclusion?

I dont know why youre on zero. Maybe the moderators dont like you

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It is muddled, since it purports to present us with a clear answer to the question: is there anywhere in reality an either-or?

The dialectical anwser should have been there is and there isn't, not there isn't.

And this is what I have said about it in Essay Nine Part One:

In that case, if "everything is opposite", and Hegel's works were written somewhere in nature (and copies of them still take on physical form, in this universe), then anything he committed to material paper must be its own opposite, or he was wrong. In either case, it would be wrong to attribute the above thoughts to him while accepting what he says about the LEM.

[LEM = Law of Excluded Middle.]

Hence, and following his advice, the above passage should really be read as follows:

"Instead of both speaking and not speaking by the maxim both of Excluded Middle and not Excluded Middle and (which is and is not the maxim of abstract understanding) and not (which is and is not the maxim of abstract understanding) we should and we should not rather say: Everything is and is not opposite. Neither in heaven nor in Earth, and not neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, and not neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains, but there is, and its everywhere, too, but nowhere as well. Whatever exists is concrete, and it isn't, with difference and opposition in itself, and also without these in itself, and elsewhere. The finitude of things will and will not then lie in the want of correspondence between their immediate being, and what they essentially are, or otherwise, and both. Thus, both in inorganic nature and outside it, the acid is and is not implicitly at the same time and at other times the base, and not the base: in other words, but also in the same words, its only being and its many other beings consist, and do not consist, in its relation to its other. Hence also the acid is not something, and it is something, that persists quietly and noisily in the contrast, or not: it is always and never in effort to realise what it potentially is, and what it actually is not."

The everyday non-abstract understanding will, I think, readily see what nonsense results from Hegel's 'genius'.

Those who object to this re-write can of course neutralise it by demonstrating that Hegel's work was committed to Ideal paper, neither in heaven nor on earth, and that they themselves do not exist anywhere, either (or both or neither), in order to do that (or not).

All this, of course, is quite apart from the fact that Hegel cannot possibly have known that everything in the universe is as he says.

So when you ask for his research, there was none.

And, not even today, when we know a thousand times more about the universe, can we say this of everything in reality.

And yet, he was doing what all traditional philosophers do: deriving all-embracing truths, about fundamental aspects of reality, valid for all of space and time, from the meaning of a few words (a bit like Anselm thought he could prove the existence of God from a few words).

Traditional philosophers did this for ideological reasons, as I explain in my Basic Introductory Essay:

In the West, since Ancient Greek times, traditional theorists have been imposing their theories on nature. This practice is so widespread, and has penetrated into thought so deeply, that no one notices it, even after it has been pointed out to them. Or, rather, they fail to see its significance.

Now, if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought. As is well-known, this tactic has been used for millennia; hence we have Theology and other assorted ruling-class ideologies. All of these were imposed on reality (plainly, since they cannot be read from it).

As Marx said, the ruling ideas are always those of the rulng-class.

In Ancient Greece, with the demise of the rule of Kings and Queens, the old Theogonies and myths were no longer relevant. So, in the newly emerging republics and quasi-democracies of the Sixth Century BC, far more abstract, de-personalised ideas were needed.

Enter Philosophy.

From its inception, Philosophers constructed increasingly baroque abstract systems of thought. These were invariably based on arcane terminology, impossible to translate into the material language of everyday life -- which they then happily imposed on nature, as Marx noted:

"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

"...The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [The Geramn Ideology, Marx and Engels (1970), p.118. Bold emphasis added.]

Philosophers felt they could do this, since, for them, nature was Mind (or, indeed, the product of Mind). In that case, the human mind could safely project its thoughts onto reality --, of which true thoughts were a reflection, anyway. "As above, so below", went the old Hermetic saying. The microcosm reflected the macrocosm. The doctrine of Correspondences thus came to dominate all ancient and modern theories of knowledge -- in which case, all true, 'philosophical' knowledge corresponded with 'essences' that underpinned the world of experience.

These 'essences' were impossible to detect in any way whatsoever (meaning that the 'uneducated' could not raise any doubts as to their existence), and were accessible by thought alone.

This ancient tradition has changed many times throughout history, as different Modes of Production rose and fell, but its main strategy and core rationale remained basically the same: the dogmatic promulgation of abstract theories that were said to reveal the underlying rational structure of reality, conveniently hidden away from the disconfirming gaze of working people -- which is why they were, and still are, inexpressible in ordinary language --, again, as Marx noted.

So, just like Theology, but in this case in a far more abstract and increasingly secularised form, subsequent philosophies came to reflect the 'essential' structure of reality, one that supposedly underpinned and rationalised alienated class society, mystified now by the use of increasingly baroque terminology and technical jargon.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, modern dialectics was invented by a quintessentially Idealist Philosopher working in this tradition (Hegel), and it was appropriated by Marxist classicists before the working class could provide a materialist counter-weight. DM was thus born out of Idealism, and, as we will see, it has never really escaped from its clutches -- despite the materialist flip dialecticians claim to have inflicted upon it.

About zero, it's not just me. One or two others are stuck on it too. Yours for example!

[Brian the Bold]

it seems to me that philosophers had the luxury that most of the upper classes have, and that is the time to pontificate. How many workers have the time and mental energy to contemplate their existance when they know that it is shit?
As Marx I think said with a bit of contempt for philosophers

"philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it"

i think he was refering to Hegel as much as anyone .

Rosa, you are famous. See todays weekly worker

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/711/marxistthinking.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Brain, I could not agree more with what youy say about philosophers.

And thanks for the link; I'll check it out.

-------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I am writing a detailed reply to this article. I'll let you know when it is complete.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, you can find my reply to Conrad here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Conrad_Heart_Of_Darkness.htm

[Brian the Bold]

Hi Rosa

I think you should exercise your  right to reply in Weekly Worker.Do you think they would print your essay?

BTW , I like the 'Conrad Heart of Darkness' bit!!