Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 20:07:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: dialectics


On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, J Laari wrote:
> Very interesting! Somehow your post reminded me of Erich Heintel's
> "Dialektik"...
> Chris wrote:
> > 	Justin makes an absolutely excellent point here... I am working
> > very hard on elucidating some of the differences -- but more importantly,
> > some of the very important similarities and core notions -- between the
> > various conceptions of dialectic that have been manifested throughout
> > intellectual and philosophical history.  One thing that most impresses me
> > is that in nearly EVERY version of dialectic, there is an understanding of
> > these important essentials:
> > 1.  an emphasis on the analytical integrity of the whole;
> > 2.  an emphasis on the need to analyze the whole from different vantage
> > points and on different levels of generality;
> > 3.  an emphasis on the internal relations between the parts of a whole, as
> > manifested structurally and temporally;
> > 4.  and as a by-product of the above, an opposition to various forms of
> > dualism, reductionist monism, neutral monism (or strict organicity), and
> > atomism (each of which can be viewed as a methodological orientation
> > distinct from dialectics).
> Why that impresses you? Would you clarify?
> (For example, I wondered earlier why people wrote so much about
> 'internal relations' on old marxism-list until I realised that it's
> because of 'dominant empiricist ontology' of English speaking world:
> it's hard to understand all that weird dialectical prat, where doesn't
> seem to be any sense when one is at home with idea that objects are
> distinct and individual ones - as if social security offices (what is
> the proper word?) doesn't have anything to do with city
> administration. Well, that's poor example...)
	I'm not sure what you mean by the question "Why that impresses
you?"  

> Secondly, would you suppose any conformity between 'organicity' (when
> you wrote about Plato) and 'functionalism' (of modern sociology;
> Talcott Parsons for example)?
	Yeah, that's probably true.  Ollman describes the strict
organicist orientation with different terminology -- he calls it
"formalism," which entails a kind of functionalism in which the parts are
fully determined by the whole (a kind of organic collectivism).

> Lastly, what about so-called subject-object -dialectics in relation
> to epistemology (in broad sense)?
> Jukka
	Well, I assume you mean the subjective dialectics which focuses on
epistemological questions, and the issue of "objective dialectics" which
focuses on ontological ones?  I like to think that dialectics, though it
implies an ontology of internal relations, is somewhat agnostic with
regard to the constitution of these relations.  Strict organicity, by
contrast, seems to make judgments on what the ultimate constituents are,
and it views all the parts as aspects of this ultimate constituent
(whether it be Geist or the Material forces of history).  
					- Chris
=================================================Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ph.D
Visiting Scholar, NYU Department of Politics
INTERNET:  sciabrrc-AT-is2.nyu.edu
=================================================


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