Diane,
For example, one of a number of definitions of dialectics given by Engels
in "Anti-Duhring" is: "Dialectics, however, is nothing more than the
science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human
society and thought."
When I have questioned people about their understanding of this, and in
particular the idea of dialectics of nature, I find that the assertion is
substantiated by a restriction of the concept of dialectics to things like
"inner contradiction", "continual movement and change" and so forth, and
obviously a statement like "Nature is full of inner contradictions" or
"Nature is subject to continual change" and so forth are non-controversial,
though also not at all without significance, ... but they go no way at all
to explaining what the hell Hegel could be talking about in the 840 pages
of the Science of Logic, and what the hell could be meant by something like
"The Judgment of Necessity" or "The Syllogism of Allness" and why Marx
would spend so much effort working with these kinds of relations working up
the material for _Capital_.
It was Vygotskian psychology which gave me the clue to solve this riddle.
Andy
At 06:15 20/06/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>a. blunden suggests:
>>First thing would be uyou'd have to have an opinion on *what* object hegel
>>is describing.
>>A
>
>yes, i noticed this discussion of object earlier, but i suppose i am
>looking for something that might continue the thread, since
>you seemed so close to saying "Hegel was wrong" and i just
>wanted to keep that going, as i agree, and as do a few others here seem to
>-
>
>if it all comes down to opinion, then there's not much to be done. but if
>it can be arrived through something along the lines of Wittgenstein's
>Tractatus,
>using the method of logical positivism to prove logical positivism can't
>work,
>then i reckon that's where i'm thinking, if that makes sense.... do you
>know
>what i mean?
>how can a dialactic be used in a way that substaintiates its limitation?
>depends on the object. Hmmm. lemme think on it.
>diane
>
>>
>>At 10:05 19/06/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>>>WHAT IF...?
>>>
>>>What if Hegel, and so Marx, were wrong? What if dialectics are a
>>>mis-taken practice of writing that fails to produce anything beyond the
>>>limitations of its own design?
>>>How would we know?
>>>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> :point where everything listens.
>and i slow down, learning how to
>enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
>
>(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
>***********************************************************************
>
>diane celia hodges
>
> university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
>instruction
>==================== ==================== =======================
> university of colorado, denver, school of education
>
>Diane_Hodges@ceo.cudenver.edu
>
>
>
>
**************************************************
* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Consultant,
* and Manager of Videoconferencing Operations
* http://home.mira.net/~andy/
* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)
**************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:39 PDT