Four-term dialectics

vv IZZYD5P at
Tue Mar 21 00:13:00 MST 1995


> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 20:54:56 -0800
> From: Ralph Dumain <rdumain at IGC2.IGC.APC.ORG>
> Subject: Re: Four-term dialectics
> Cc: davidb at PHYSICS.UCLA.EDU, kevinh at EFN.ORG, sboyce at COOMBS.ANU.EDU.AU,
>     soup at HELIX.ESKIMO.COM, spurrett at SUPERBOWL.UND.AC.ZA
> Sender: owner-marxism at JEFFERSON.VILLAGE.VIRGINIA.EDU
> >I am curious if there are any of you that are interested in
> >developing a discussion to fill in the middle of Ehrbar .....
> I would absolutely love to follow such a discussion, but I lack
> time to actively pursue it.  About the best I could do would be to
> upload some bibliographic citations of books and some articles
> written on the Hegel-Marx dialectic.
> >Unfortunately Marx never explicated his own dialectic, hence, it
> >very difficult to determine what he has inherited from Hegel and
> >what he has transformed of that dialectic.
> I think it is more difficult than most people know, eg. their
> respective conceptions of dialectical "logic" viz. formal logic.
> Another question: section 3 of the general introduction to the
> Grundrisse capsulates Marx's notion of scientific idealization or
> abstraction.  To me it's very much in tune with the scientific
> method.  How does this dovetail with Hegel?
> >Bhaskar has a lot to say on this issue
> I recently bought Bhaskar's latest book on dialectic, but I
> haven't followed him in years, and he introduces so much of his
> own technical terminology, I know if I start reading this book
> it's going to break my balls.
> >B. Ollman in his *Dialectical Investigations* does a good job of
> >expounding the Marxian dialectic
> The virtue of Ollman's book (specifically chapter 2) is that he
> goes beyond the usual amateurish explications of diamat in party
> literature and deals first and foremost with the nature of
> abstraction.  But I don't recall him following through in the way
> you would suggest.  You may recall that Ollman started out 25
> years ago with the notion of internal relations, which I imagine
> means a different point of departure than those who would begin
> from an opposition of dialectical and formal logic.  (Not to
> mention that their notion of formal logic is well more than a
> century out of date.)
> >And I am unsure if Luckas and the Frankfurt school do much
> >justice to dialectic as method, in expounding their *relational*
> >historical (ontological) dialectic.
> Please elaborate.
> >It seems to me that the first order of business is to rid us of
> >the notion that the Hegelian (and Marxian) dialectic can be
> >represented by the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis of Fichte ....
> I don't think this is the first order of business because I don't
> think anyone takes the thesis-antithesis-synthesis seriously
> anymore as the meaning of Hegel's or Marx's dialectic.
>      --- from list marxism at ---
>      --- from list marxism at ---

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list