On 15 August 2012 12:30, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Ha, ha! We can't be too far apart then, Huw, as I wrote that
definition, albeit 13 years ago.
The main thing though, as Brecht observes, is that there are *two
movements*, somewhat like analysis and synthesis.
Well that bodes well, I think. :)
A natural or social process itself is both abstract and concrete.
I disagree. The only thing that a natural thing is is itself. It is
analog. Abstract and concrete are digital. "Is" is only really
useful in the domain of the digital.
The abstract and concrete are only separated in the act of
conception and action.
Yes.
What exactly did you mean in counterposing "every" and
"universal", Huw?
Hegel indeed makes a big issue of the distinction between the
general and the universal, and it's part of his critique of
parliamentary democracy, for example. But I couldn't quite catch
how you brought this in.
"It is universal that workers are payed" is the same as "every worker
gets payed". By which we allude to going around and checking that
every worker we encounter gets payed in some form. We are looking at
it from the outside in. Work here refers to the instances that we
encounter.
Whereas to say, "payment is a universal (a principle) of work", we are
looking from the inside out. Work here is no longer the instances, it
is the concretized general.
Huw
Andy
Huw Lloyd wrote:
I'm not sure where you're going with "both abstract and
concrete", but this doesn't seem to be the main point which
hinges on universal.
The example of the worker, is applying universal as "Every",
which is a weaker version of universal as "princicple".
Both "every" and "principle" are abstractions, yes.
Measurements are abstractions.
The principle of dialectics is also an abstraction.
But the original quote is perfectly accordant with Marx.
One moves from an empirical (abstract) appreciation to a
dialectic one (concrete).
In other words, the universal in the quote refers to the
principle by which one attains the concrete.
Lenin is referring to process (methods), Marx is referring to
form. They are referring to the same thing.
The parts about context and experience I am happy with.
However, we have a caveat for the contextual truths and that
is that principals (universals) should apply across our
historical contexts, what was a principal (universal) then
will still be a principal now.
I am perfectly happy with the description of concrete and
abstract in the glossary on the Marxists site:
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/b.htm#abstract
Abstract and Concrete
Abstract and Concrete are philosophical concepts concerned
with the development of conceptual knowledge. An understanding
of what is meant by “abstract” and “concrete” is vital to
making sense of dialectics. For Hegel and for Marx, the
contrast between abstract and concrete
<http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlnotion.htm#HL3_587a>
does NOT mean the contrast between an idea and reality. Rather
‘A concrete concept is the combination of many abstractions’.
A concept, such as a number or a definition, is very abstract
because it indicates just one of millions of the aspects that
a concrete thing has, or a brand new idea which has not yet
accrued nuances and associations. Concepts are the more
concrete the more connections they have. If we say “The
British working class are those who work for a wage and live
in the UK,” then we've made a very /abstract/ concept. To make
it more concrete is to show the many aspects of it; showing
the historical circumstances of its rise and development, the
state of the world it developed in, etc.
Huw
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca