====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Tom Cod <tomc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > doesn't it really mean looking at something in a nuanced way with reference > to all its contradictory aspects? Who but maybe a middle school pedant > follows the mechanical formal logic these "dialectics" purport to demolish? > From my days on the sectarian left, references to "dialectics" tended to be > sanctimonious, mystical appeals to dogma resorted to when people, > particularly snake oil peddling cult leaders, really didn't know what they > were talking about. And of course intuition has no place in either of these > formalistic schemas. > I think there is a lot of truth to this. It makes me very skeptical of many uses of the term though I still think it has its uses. Of course when Marx was writing in the 1840's Hegel was the latest and greatest in terms of German scientific methodology. I think a contemporary discussion would have to take into account the (sea) changes that have occurred in science since the 1840's and would have to abandon much of the Hegelianism. -dave ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
