Re: [xmca] Response to David Kellogg about Volition

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Sun Sep 09 2007 - 00:10:13 PDT

>Returning to you, Andy, I take it that you disagree with Vygotsky, and
>Engels, and hold the view that nature is not dialectical, and that the
>laws of dialectical motion do not or can not be applied to nature. Do I
>have that right? Perhaps not. I am actually not sure what your position
>is. I am perfectly okay with whatever view you hold. Perhaps you would
>like to explain your opinion on this in a few lines, or whatever you need.
>- Steve

Your 3-point justification was perfect, Steve. Reams of quotations add
nothing. The claim is either trivial or a category error. Different people
say different things in different situations for different reasons. If you
are having an argument with a Platonist theologian or an analytical
philosopher there might be a point. But in a milieu like this I don't
understand the point.

There are 101 definitions of dialectics. If all we are claiming is that
things change, that's trivial. If you want to go further, then I think you
will have to specify the meaning of "dialectics" with some statement about
concepts, intelligibility, truth, knowledge, science or whatever. The claim
that "we think like this because nature is like this" has a certain obvious
validity - thought must follow the contours of its object - but beyond
that, it is a terribly wrong maxim: "Men are cruel because Nature is cruel"
??? "We drive on the left because nature drives on the left." ??

Tell me: what do you understand by "Nature is NOT dialectical"??


xmca mailing list
Received on Sun Sep 9 00:14 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 08 2007 - 06:02:26 PDT