Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 22:52:17 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: Re: dialectics


I can't keep my fingers out of keyboards anymore. Some hasty remarks
follow...

Christopher Gunn wrote:

> 'Dia' in dialectic (not 'di';  are we somehow talking here about
> two 'alectics'?) is from the classical Greek root meaning 'through.'
> As in dialysis, dialect, diacritical, etc.

Perhaps this prefix isn't essential question with dialectic?

> 'Dialectic' itself means conversational or 'dialogue-ic.'
> The parts of a structure relate, interact, 'converse,' rather
> than just sitting there marinating in their essences.

And not only that. (By the way, what follows isn't particularly to
Christopher. It's just some 'speculations'..)

Dialectic ('dialektike' in Greek, 'dialectica' in Latin, sometimes
even translated as 'art of discussion'!) in a more philosophical, and
in very general sense refers to efforts to show or prove something
through contradictions.

In early Greece eleatics (Zenon!) tried to give indirect proofs
dialectically; a bit later, for Socrates it was more of a process of
dialogue as common discussion oriented towards truth. For Plato it was
more specific, logical procedure of constructing, analysing and
combining concepts in speech ('pro and contra') - finding or hitting
at contradictions are obvious steps in this process.

In India there were, obviously, several philosophical schools that
used dialectic. Unofrtunately I don't know much of them. But in
buddhism Nagarjuna and his disciples developed some great dialectical
ways of argumentation.

Later, during medieval centuries in Europe (and in islamic
civilization, I believe) dialectic was developed and sharpened and
became quite complex. For all of us good hegelian protestants it all
was just catholic splitting of hairs.. but objectively, I believe,
they developed dialectical insights Hegel would have liked, and
learned a lot from it, if he only could have been objectively
adjusted. (That applies to Marx, too?) Instead he left for his
followers like Marx a rather restricted or simplified form dialectic?
'This and that, they go hand in hand.' Well, I don't know..

I don't think there are any convincing reasons to stick to that
(these) particular form(s) of dialectic called hegelian-marxian
dialectic(s). On the other hand, it's also a question of
'argumentational economy': it seems to me that there's no really
pressing reasons to develop more complex ways to dialecticise concepts
and categories, at least for our more or less ordinary uses - though,
philosophers may disagree..?

When it comes to properly materialistic dialectic - well, I'm still a
bit sceptical about idea that natural or human realities work along
some (*not literally*) 'formalised' dialectic (which, I'm afraid, is
always simplification), especially if it's thought to be that of
'thesis & antithesis' kind. Who says there has to be one antithesis?
So, if there are several of them, then wouldn't dialectic be
necessarily of essentially different kind?

For example, dialectical progression in Plato's dialogues proceeds (if
I remember properly) not only through 'Socrates' as opponent and some
other as proponent. Instead other people deliver their
contribution(s), too. Now, this 'polyphony' seems to be different to
dialectic in hegelian-marxian manner.  It's closer to that on this
list, for example. It's not only that some question has been discussed
(and the process proceeds dialectically), but there's also several
threads which are interrelated. Sort of real world dialectic.
Different threads contribute to each others without necessarily
outspoken references. Will it do justice for this 'polyphony' if it's
decribed in a conventional manner?

In a more speculative tone:

You could say that in Hegel's "Logic" the point is to show that the
continuing process is the point. Could be. But that doesn't apply to
"Capital". ('Postmodernists' are hegelians in this sense!) Surely
Marx grasped relational and 'polyphonic' and processual (etc.) nature
of social - and even cultural and political dimensions in construction
of economy - but his aim wasn't in painting the whole picture of
society. Rather it was to clarify and theorize what he thought to be
the most important dimension in it, 'the economic law of motion',
which at least colours all other dimensions or laws of motion. He
simply left some threads out of picture in order to be more lucid and
precise. In this sense Marx's dialectic could be too restricted. I
don't know.

"Complex society" (as a net of freely surfing interrelated processes)
seems to be one of the key concepts of the nineties. I think societies
have been complex enough for centuries. However, what Marx wrote in
"Capital"  wasn't 'complex' in this particular sense - he just
followed one thread without 'articulating' its relations to other
ones. When it comes to dialectic, isn't this slightly simplified one?

Finally, personally I don't believe in idea of 'formalizing'
dialectics. I think the nature of it (say, 'methodologically') is
exactly in conscious uses that distort or cripple nice formalizations.
That's because of reality which is more complicated than clean
formulas. It's not that dialectic represents reality, rather we become
'dialecticians' when we try to figure out all those different real
threads and their 'complex' relations. Perhaps 'dialectic' means our
effort to 'reproduce ideally' all contradictory, interrelated threads
in reality and evaluate them? Don't know.. any sense?

Jukka



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---