[Marxism] marxist's sublation

Makc makc at ukrprombank.kiev.ua
Tue Nov 15 01:05:41 MST 2005

Hello everyone. Well, let me go straight to business, as you probably
hate long pointless postings.

"With Hegel, it stands on its head" - I seem to agree with this
argument, but I can't find anything valueable Marx said on dialectic
himself. I remember someone saying that he never published his method
details. So I've been virtually pushed back to Hegel for details.

So, this is question about "sublation" as Marx saw it. The question:
"melting two opposite ideas into single more complex one" is just not
enough for working definition.

Take our idea of color. For example, a child, who can only recognize
"red", then learns that there are other, "not-red" colors... Whilst
details of transition are pretty irrelevant, step by step, the child
allegedly "sublates" them all together, until he gets to
the "colored" point of idea, which includes "red", "green", "tomato" or
whatever. The whole process is possible because we have those
color-sensitive cells in our eyes (conus) that react differently to
red, green, and blue.


For some reason we do not form complex ideas based on temperature
distribution over our body. For example, I could be referring to
a state when my right arm feels it "warm" and my left leg feels it
"cold", with some term "t1", and then proceed to its negativity,
"not-t1", when my extremities feel temperature differently from
described above, and then, again, to a number of other possible
combinations, and in the end I would get to idea of "t2", which
corresponds to my sense of temperature based on the difference of
temperature in different body parts.

For some reason, humans formed an idea of "color", but didn't
formed an idea of "t2". I think it has to do with importance of
ideas in human activities. I can't see what else could prevent
sublation in case 2. The process of sublation actually contains
a reference to subject's activity. In Hegel, I do not see this

More information about the Marxism mailing list