As for dialectics and emergence, I think there is an essential distinction to be made between emergent materialism and idealist/vitalist notions. Here a different sort of "dialectical" perspective will be useful. If you look at my emergence blog, you will see a criticism of an effort to use process philosophy in a theory of emergence, with respect to quantum physics. I've been reading some nonsense about biosemiotics. There's a lot of metaphysical junk going on--at the scientific as well as the popular level, apparently--mucking up synthetic perspectives of cosmic evolution and biological evolution. The upshot is that there is something categorically wrong with much of this material, and here dialectics--by which I'm referring to the relationships between philosophical categories--may serve to demystify rather than remystify the issues.
Indeed, the half-assed vulgarities of our day are different.
I'm not sure what you mean that the concept of emergence was developed by analytical philosophers. A lot of different people were in on this from a variety of perspectives.
Soviet tampering with the various sciences and disciplines is not news. I just happened to read an interesting article in a festschrift to Robert Cohen that sums them up historically. Not surprisingly, philosophy itself was hit the first and hardest of all disciplines. All the idealist philosophers were shipped out of the country. Having read Berdyaev, I'd say that was no loss. The problem is, lacking any institutional experience of methodological pluralism, the Soviets made a mess by bureaucratically imposing an immature philosophy as mandatory for everyone, especially prior to the stage of synthesizing existing results from a variety of traditions, including, of course, innovations in logic. This was of course tied into the Soviets' dilemma with respect to "red vs. expert." They felt the imperative to institute their own hegemony, in a situation in which the inherited intelligentsia was not trusted. But in the process of so doing, they induced certain institutional and intellectual bad habits which already created problems in the relatively loose 1920s, even before the horrors of the Stalin period. Perhaps though another thing to look at is the dominant schools of bourgeois philosophy in the teens and '20s--what was the competition doing?
On dogmatism and stagnancy: the examples are legion. The allegiance to the Soviets, Trotsky, Mao--the whole pattern of adherence to authority--has wreaked untold damage. Where sympathetic critics try to refine the concepts, they are constantly beaten back by intellectual ineptitude and dogmatism, whether it is Bernal against Macmurray, Novack against Van Heijenoort, Sayers against Norman .... The record is dismal.
At 11:03 PM 3/8/2005 -0800, Justin Schwartz wrote:
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It depresses me that we still have to have these > discussions in 2005.
It depresses me that intelligent people are still wearing down their shoes talking about dialectics in this way. We have had over 100 years without moving forward an inch out of the murk and without the slightest reason to believe that such talk is anything more than a post hoc way of fitting ideas into an arbitarry and unenlightening scheme.
But > once more into the breach . . . > > First, I'd suggest looking at Engels' motives for > doing what he did, which > was not to present a finished ontology for all time
Wrong target. I wasn't talking about Engels and wasn't ascribing to anyone the hope of presenting a finished ontology.
> but to combat the > half-assed philosophical vulgarities of his day
And why think that thsi way of talking is useful in combating the half-assed philosophical vulgarities of our day, which are quite different.
> which were also interfering > with a proper theoretical perspective on social > organization. Duhring was > only one example of the mismosh that occupied so > much of the intellectual > energy of the second half of the 19th > century--second-rate metaphorical > extensions of physics and biology into the social > sciences, vulgar > evolutionism, etc.
And why do we need dialectical doubletalk to zap this stuff? I have been inspired by this discussion and the interest of a friend ins ociolobiology to reread Lewontin, Kamin & Rose, The Dialectical Biologist. The dialectical talk is 10% external to the scientific criticism and even to the historucally based ideologiekritik.
> > Secondly, I am reminded of a now-defunct journal of > Marxist philosophy of > science called SCIENCE & NATURE. See the table of > contents on my web site: > > http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/sncont.html > > This journal illustrates the ups and downs of the > subject, from attempts at > refined thinking to the usual intellectual > sloppiness and dogmatism, > unfortunately practiced by the journal's editor. > > There was at least one article by a Soviet scientist > illustrating how > dialectical thinking helped him. I can't be > certain, but this might be the > one, in issue #1:
Well;, maybe, Kekele also reported doscoverring the hexagonal shape of benzene after reading Hegel and falling asleep in front of the fire where he dreamed of the world-snake with its tail inits mouth. No doubt someone can be inspired by anything.My point is that dialectics, whatever it is, is not a reliable method even of generating useful hypotheses. For taht, you need to knwo the subject matter in detail and have imagination. > > NIKOLAI N. SEMYENOV: A study in creativity > On Intuition Versus Dialectical Logic > > As I recall, it really is an example of Holton's > themata, as Jim has > described it. In cases like this--theoretical > problems in physical > sciences--I think that's the only way the > dialectical concept makes any > sense. The conception of emergent properties, which > ties into > diamat--matters in certain types of cases, i.e. with > the emergent > properties of organisms, and ultimately with human > existence--consciousness > and social organization.
But this concept was invented bya nalytical philosophers with no trace of dialectics in them.
There may also be some > importance in physics or > others areas--but in a much more subtle form than > the generally crude > conceptions of dialectic repeated ad nauseam.
The crude conceptions are certainly nauseating. I'd like to hear an intelligent and non-dispensible example of a subtle version.
> > The real question is which has done more > harm--botched notions of > subjective dialectic (logic) or of objective > dialectic (dialectics of > nature)? The two issues are linked though distinct. > This reminds me that I > need to write up my analysis of a British Marxist > book from the '30s, > ASPECTS OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, is which the > usual sloppy notions of > dialectical logic were debated. When I acquired > this recently, I was > surprised to find how dogmatic and fuzzy-minded J.D. > Bernal in response to > reasonable objections. Allegiance to Soviet Marxism > did a lot of harm, > which obviously has yet to be undone.
Yet Bernal's history and sociologiacal analysis, not to mention his biological work, is excellent. Which goes to make my point.
> > I also have some more info for later on how party > interference in science > as well as other areas such as philosophy set the > USSR back > considerably. The record is disgraceful, esp. from > 1929 on.
This is not news, as you know.
jks
_______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
