A. Mani
He reduces dialectical contradiction to negation in many words... that is
his
conception. Not Marx's or even Hegel's.
A correct interpretation should be that
Suppose A and B are dynamically changing subjects.
Let A have a specific associated predicate P (P need not be a predicate
defining A).
Let B have a specific associated predicate Q
Then A is in dialectical contradiction to B if and only if P is the negative
of Q .
{Formally I am assuming that P, Q are all interpreted}
{'negative of' too need not be specifiable through a unary function... it
may
be a binary relation}
{A set-theoretic ontology may be assumed. }
i.e. it is a 'negation' between certain associated predicates of dynamically
changing subjects.
Lenin summarizes Marxist dialectics very well and in simple terms.
A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc
^^^^^^
CB: Now that's a discussable answer ! This seems a logicio-mathematical
definition.
I see the dialectics coming in with the "dynamically changing subjects".
"Set-theoretic ontology" seems both mathematical and philosophical. I
remember in elementary school they taught us socalled New Math, and they
taught basic set theory. "Naive set theory was created at the end of the
19th century by Georg Cantor in order to allow mathematicians to work with
infinite sets consistently." I think Cantor invented set theory. Is
Russell's paradox dialectical ?
Is "subjects" as in the grammatical "subject of a sentence" ?
Do you have a more concrete example , illustrative example ?
What is the summary by Lenin you are referrring to ?
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
