[Marxism] O, Dialectics!

paul illich paul_illich at hotmail.com
Thu May 12 10:48:04 MDT 2005


"www.leninology. blogspot.com" <leninology at hotmail.com> wrote:

>Incidentally, on the alleged inadequacy of ordinary logic and language with 
>respect to describing change, here is a greatly shortened list of ordinary 
>words (restricted to modern English) that enable the depiction of changes 
>of unbounded complexity:
<snip>
>Naturally, it would not be difficult to extend this list until it contained 
>literally tens of thousands of words all capable of depicting countless 
>changes in the greatest of detail...

Can't comment on the language side of the equation, but so far as the logic
goes...

I thought the basic argument was that traditional logic was bipolar, is that
you deal with Either and Or. This reflected the pernicious law of the 
excluded
middle, which denies the validity of any but polarised and thus extreme
arguments.

Dialectics would call any given Either a thesis, the concomitant Or an
anti-thesis and would then argue that progress is made through a
process that - rather than deny one over the other - creates a new
argument, the Synthesis, which combines elements of both thesis and
anti-thesis, presenting a new thesis for the next, evolved, stage of
the argument.

Logic of this sort is reflective and responsive in a way that aristotelian
logic is not.

Such a logic allows progress in thought, and it is in this sphere that
nothing is fixed. The argument that this is a social process, not a
material process, seems wholly cogent to me. I can't see why this
model of logic is problematic at all. What alternative do you have to
offer?

Paul






More information about the Marxism mailing list