[Marxism] RE: Dialectics and Science- Reply to Rob
calvinbroadbent at hotmail.com
Thu May 27 10:58:38 MDT 2004
In reply to the questio below: Why Not? No one sensible would claim that
dialectics is a crude schema (thesis-antithesis-synthesis?) that we apply to
reality to see how things develop. Only science can show how things develop.
What is thought if it is not scientific? Idelaist conjecture that can
neither be confirmed not denied, and certainly does not get us any closer to
the real being of a thing. Dialectic thought and science are not the same?
In order that this science [i.e. Hegels dialectical system] may come into
existence, we must have the progression from the individual and particular
to the universal- an activity which is a reaction on the given material of
empiricism in order to bring about its reconstruction. The demand of a
priori knowledge, which seems to imply that the idea should construct from
itself, is thus a reconstruction only
In consciousness it then adopts the
attitude of having cut away the bridge from behind it; it appears to be free
to launch forth in its ether only, and to develop without resistance to this
medium; but it is another matter to attain to this ether and development of
it. (Hegel History of Philsophy 3: 176-77)
So, for Hegel, philosophy (your dialectic) does not come into its own
outside the growth of the so-called empirical sciences.
>Surely we cannot simply say that dialectical thought and science are
>the same thing?
Get a FREE connection, FREE modem and one month's FREE line rental, plus a
US or European flight when you sign up for BT Broadband!
More information about the Marxism