[Marxism] RE: Dialectics and Science- Reply to Rob

Calvin Broadbent 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? 
Hegel writes:

In order that this science [i.e. Hegel’s 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 mailing list