From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net> Subject: Re: evolutionary dialectics Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 20:00:55 +0300 >'Aufheben' -- cancel, raise, resolve. Yes, "Aufheben". You know, when I tried and couldn't remember the world, I thought, if my favorite adversary Hugh wasn't so busy, he'd definitely come up with the word. Thanks. Hugh: >Hegel starts his logic off with a bang -- in my opinion a bigger bang than >the Big Bang itself -- by negating the negation involved in the >contradiction of Being and Nothing by unifying them in the higher-level >concept of Becoming. Hugh, help a bit more. I've forgotten what little German I knew. What was the "becoming" word as used in German? German seems to have the ability to express "a thing" and "a process" in one word. No such luck in English. It is often not necessary just arrogant to use foreign words when speaking English, but when it comes to Hegel, English is so poor. Also, the above quote is exactly where I start to think Hegel's method is inherently and necessarily idealistic. From there on, one, two, three and he removes the world - He negates existence. What you describe as negation of negation, is movement through contradiction. Fine. Why's that "negation of negation"? I said, "negation of negation" is either meant to mean what you describe it means and hence a redundant term, or is idealistic. Why do we need include that in the method of dialectical thought? >In other words, Becoming as the resolution of the antinomy of Being and >Nothing. Hegel is really very good on movement, change, continuity, >discreteness, infinity and so on. Yes, Hegel is good as such. That's why I thought of Hegel in this thread, when Lisa was discussing discreteness and continuity without naming the words, in terms of biology and physics. The Marxist method of thinking starts from the empirical. The concrete is reproduced in thought as a concrete-in-thought. A never complete process of successive approximations as the subject moves and acts in the real world. An inherent limitation to epistomology that can never be overcome. Is this not contrary to Hegel? >You see, Marx didn't just turn it upside down and leave it as it was, he >cancelled the contradiction involved in its fundamental idealism, and >raised the whole thing to a higher level where the polar contradiction of >being and thought was resolved NOT on an idealist foundation, but a >materialist one. Yes, I think so too. That' why I said Marx didn't turn it upside down, just place it on its feet. Maybe, turned it inside out would be a better description. Zeynep --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005