A question on one of your assertions:
Note that this is not the same as saying that nature is dialectical, but
rather is an assertion that dialectics is a universal property of all life
activity no matter how primitive.
How can dialectics be a property of all life no matter how primitive when
Your reasoning is fine up until the braking point I note below.
At 03:10 PM 5/29/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
Steve,
Well, now I know what comes after the .
First paragraph:
Oudeyis is saying nothing about what nature is, but rather is writing that
whatever understandings man has of nature are a
Well, my reaction here re-invokes my sense of the tautology of all such
arguments. That is, there can be no meaningful claims about the universe
apart from our interaction with the universe since we can't make any claims
about anything without interacting with the phenomena about which we are
Interleaved comments on further fragments of your post:
At 03:08 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
..
I see your not going to let me deal with the dogmatics of classical
materialism briefly.
The kernel of my argument is that in general, discourse segregated from
practice can only be th
Note my interleaved comments on a fragment of a key post of yours
At 03:08 AM 5/28/2005 +0200, Oudeyis wrote:
..
> I don't see this. I see the problem this way: that stage of the
> development of materialism is inadequate to grasp the nature of human
> activity, both pra
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:31:34 - "redtwister666"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gil,
>
> I am very leery of the tendency to not make a distinguishing line
> between humans and animals. By and large, while it is biologically
> true, there is no obvious argument that would allow us to say that
>
Yes, I have Reed's books on these issues. The International edition of _The
Origin of the Family_ has an updating intro by anthropologist Eleanor
Leacock.
The Manifesto of the Communist Party has one modification of its famous
first line, done by Engels later in life. There is a footnote modifying
> The class struggle in Zimbabwe is moving from the
> Black bourgeoisie of that country mobilizing the
> workers and landless peasants in that African country
> in its own class interests against "White settler-
> colonists" into a struggle in which the Zimbabwean
> worker's and peasants have c
to CB
Right, I hear the same language.
Oudeyis
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'"
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 16:25
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics
Victor victor
Of course objectivity reality exists, but we have to realize that what Marx,
Lenin and other intelligent Marxists like Ilyenkov meant by objective
reality is not reality contemplated by some totally uninvolved
philosophical being. Just the reverse is true objective reality is on
Don't forget the extensive discussion of materialism in THE HOLY FAMILY.
Of course, what distinguishes home sapiens from the other monkeys is not
"labor" as an abstraction, but the brain difference, which means the
genetic capacity for language and hence cultural transmission of
information, p
RE Lil Joe joe_radical
Lil Joe: Here, Charles, I think we have a major disagreement as far as
Marxian materialism is concerned. Marx never wrote of 'materialism' and
'idealism' as a discussion outside the context of the materialist conception
of history.
^
CB: He discusses materialism in "Th
12 matches
Mail list logo
