Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 01:29:31 +0100
Subject: Re: dialectics


Jukka rightly adds a historical dimension to Justin's thoughts on
dialectics and logic, and goes on to take issue (however circumspectly)
with Peter B, who wrote:

>"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".

Jukka responds:

>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?

Jukka makes two very important points here.

One is the significance of the cultural-historical context, which is
definitely easier to grasp if you know the language and can read stuff in
the original. You can do it through translations and commentaries at second
hand of course, but to be entirely reliant on the interpretations of others
has its risks. It's like reading a compendium of Chomsky's ideas insteading
of having to plough through Syntactic Structures and later works by the man
himself (a shock-horror experience at Swedish university after doing real
linguistics in England).

The other is the importance of the actual words used for understanding the
concepts involved. I'm becoming more and more of a purist in this matter,
and two of the most powerful reasons for it are in fact Aristotle and
Hegel.

Reading Hegel in the original German, and trying to read Aristotle in the
original Greek makes it abundantly clear that one of the most astounding
things their use of language has in common, believe it or not, is its
puritanical simplicity as far as words are concerned. They're
pared-to-the-bone elements of meaning that are used to provide the basic
terms of argument. The complications come from the weaving together of
these simple elements into more complex propositions. The same goes for
Marx, too, though he's definitely more 'literary' than the other two --
more a Plato than an Aristotle, stylistically speaking (though often
lacking Plato's seductive grace and urbanity -- imagine a hairier,
rebellious Plato (Promethean, not Socratic, rebellion), with fire in his
belly!).

Missing the simplicity, the back-to-first-principles language, is where
translations can be so misleading, as the terms used in translations often
sound strange and exotic, and are easily given a magical import. The term
becomes a fetish, a shibboleth, instead of a basic tool of argument. Just
think of all the trouble caused by the use of 'alienation' or even worse
'sublation' in discussing Marx, not to mention 'dialectics' itself.


As for old-fashioned -- the old ideas bloom afresh in each generation. I
mean who's to say Marilyn's diamonds are more old-fashioned than Eartha's
oil wells or Madonna's material goodies?

Cheers,

Hugh




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