Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 20:52:20 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: Re:Re: dialectics


Diamat to U2!

Originally (few weeks ago) the question with "dialectics" was whether
'dia-' meant 'two' or 'through'. My point of daparture was in support
of Christopher's remark that 'dia-' meant 'through'. I also wondered
whether prefix 'dia-' is of any importance with the concept of
dialectics. I just tried to deliver some of the basic dimensions with
the words 'dialektike' & 'dialectics' without aiming at universal
*philosophical* essence of dialectics.

Secondly, Justin wrote:

"Dialectics is not one thing. ... You cannot determine what ...
various thinkers have meant by dialectics without detailed study of
what they said about it, a study which cannot elidethe differences
aming them. Least of all can you derive what something that might be
dialectics is from a half- baked etymology of the Greek, which as
far as I know, none of us know. Greek that is."

"Asto whether dialectics is a "logic," it's not on any of the sensenes
which the term "logic: has been used, mainly referring to theories of
the formal relations between propositions understood from a purely
synatical point of view (that is, apart from the meaning of any of the
propositions or their constituent terms) in virtue of which some
propositions imply others, i.e., the study of valid arguments as
such."

Justin is right about that without detailed study we can't determine
the concept of dialectics some particular writer uses. When it comes
to the concept of logic, I think, Justin should consider the
possibility that by 'logic' isn't meant only theories - although his
'definion' might have been the most common one in 20th century USA?

Justin is also right that my skills in classical languages are
half-baked. I just took some course and did some homework when I
realised that basic knowledge of them isn't of any harm when dealing
with history of phil. It has been enough for my purposes - I don't
intend to translate Aristotle's or Homer's works - very fruitful to
realise how poorly modern philosophers have grasped ancient philosophy
without any knowledge of Greek and Latin. But how Justin can evaluate
my skills if he don't know Greek?

I'd recommend, as a good peace of conceptual analysis, "Heidegger &
Tradition" by Werner (not Karl) Marx. There's an English translation
of it, I suppose. Marx is quite concrete in showing how "different
world" the Greek one was: there's no way of giving straight, simple
out-of-magicians-hat-'definitions' to concepts of Greek philosophy.
Think about 'reason' only...

Thirdly, Peter:

"However, like Justin, I don't think knowledge of Greek or etymology
in general is of much relevance to having a substantive understanding
of the philosophical senses of "dialectics".

To repeat: I didn't meant by that 'dia-speculation' to deliver any
strictly philosophical meaning of dialectics. However, I do think that
you don't make a real study on the concept of dialectics of Plato
without knowledge of Greek. Philological analysis is a basic thing to
do when you're dealing with such conceptual analysis (concerning
wholly different culture with which we don't have much in common). Or
am I just too old-fashioned?

Lastly: Hugh, you are too modest - as a linguist you're supposed to
have firm grounding on questions of philological analysis. We amateurs
are just doing amateur stuff.

Jukka



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