On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 13:53:28 -0500 Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Van Heijenoort argues that Engels was backwards with respect to the > mathematics of his time, and also narrow-minded and provincial with > respect > to the history of science (anti-English prejudice) coupled with an > uncritical veneration of Marx.
Engels was almost a century behind the times in terms of his understanding of the foundations of the calculus. His remarks concerning calculus adhered to the older approaches that were based on infinitesimals rather than on the then recently developed approach based on the theory of limits that people like Cauchy pioneered. I have read people who have said that Marx had a more up to date understanding of that subject than did Engels. Engels also said some silly things about imaginary numbers in his *Dialectics of Nature* as well. On the other hand, Engels seems to have a very good understanding of the natural science of his day. Hilary Putnam used to call Engels the "most learned man of the nineteenth century." His essay, "The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man," is deservedly revered, despite the fact that Engels cast of his reasoning in Lamarckian terms. Stephen Jay Gould in his book, *Ever Since Darwin*, wrote: "Indeed, the nineteenth century produced a brilliant exposé from a source that will no doubt surprise most readers - Frederick Engels. (A bit of reflection should diminish surprise. Engels had a keen interest in the natural sciences and sought to base his general philosophy of dialectical materialism upon a 'positive' foundation. He did not live to complete his 'dialectics of nature', but he included long commentaries on science in such treatises as the Anti-Dühring.) In 1876, Engels wrote an essay entitled, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man. It was published posthumously in 1896 and, unfortunately, had no visible impact upon Western science. "Engels considers three essential features of human evolution: speech, a large brain, and upright posture. He argues that the first step must have been a descent from the trees with subsequent evolution to upright posture by our ground-dwelling ancestors. 'These apes when moving on level ground began to drop the habit of using their hands and to adopt a more and more erect gait. This was the decisive step in the transition from ape to man.' Upright posture freed the hand for using tools (labour, in Engels' terminology); increased intelligence and speech came later." > > However, there are two important circumstantial factors that should > not be > overlooked: > > (1) Engels intervened in the context of combatting the superstition > and > pseudo-science of his own time, including illegitimate metaphysical > extrapolations of vulgar evolutionism. As a critic of bourgeois > obfuscation, Engels make a great deal of sense. Quite so. Lenin to some extent continued that project in his *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*, especially in chapter 5, where he wrote concerning "The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism," polemicizing against scientists and other writers who attempted to use the then recent discoveries in physics to support idealism and theism. Other writers who are not necessarily orthodox Marxists have been concerned with as well. For example, the logical empiricist Philipp Frank took aim at efforts to promulgate metaphysical interpretations of science, in his *Modern Science and It's Philosophy*, and his *Philosophy of Science*. And British philosopher, Susan Stebbing, in her book, *Philosophy and the Physicists*, which took aim at the efforts of physicists, James Jeans and Arthur Eddington to use modern physics (i.e. relativity and quantum mechanics) to support theism, idealist metaphysics, contra-causal free will and so forth. > > (2) Engels was not particularly _philosophically_ backward, given > the > dismal state of philosophy in relation to the sciences of the time. > His > overreliance on Hegel has to do with the deficiency of other > philosophical > conceptions of science of the time. In many respects Engels was > forward-thinking. The problem consists not only in the > contradictions of > his amateur status, but the deficiencies of the academic world, and > finally, the institutionalization of Marxism as a doctrine by the > German > social democracy. > > At 01:39 PM 3/1/2006 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >"What do you find naïve in Engel's views?" > > > >Everything he wrote about science, mathematics and philosophy, > although the > >word "naive" was a little too mild. > > > >I should have said "rubbish". > > > >His other stuff I admire greatly. > > > >RL > > > > > >Comment > > > >Was Engels writings concerning science, mathematics and philosophy, > naive > >when they were written and in relationship to the literature of the > 1850s, > >1860s, 1870-1890s? For me his greatest philosophic gem was his > >statement "that > >materialism must change its form with every epoch making > discovery." > > > >Waistline > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
