I had this question proposed to me recently, and thought I would give it my best shot. I would love any input you guys have on how I can refine this further, make it more clear, more accurate, more succinct, all that.
Also, this is specifically geared towards Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, and that understanding of dialectics, just to be clear. I’m not interested in the hyper-orthodox understanding of dialectical materialism.
I don’t understand the ins and outs of gravity perfectly, but here goes.
Internal contradiction is what drives all things. This is true for gravity, as much as anything in the world. Gravity could then be analyzed in the framework of the contradictor forces within gravity. What would those forces be?
Well, Einstein’s general relativity is probably the best place to start. I will outline the two contradictory forces below.
Again, I don’t know a ton about the in’s and out’s of it, but the way I see it, there are two sets of contradictions at work in “gravity”.
First, the contradiction of Mass and Spacetime Curvature. We have the force of attraction, where masses attract each other, but contradictory to that, we also have the resistance of compression, where the curvature of space resists this attraction.
Second, we have the contradiction of Inertia and Graviational Pull. Objects resist changes to their existing state of motion, but the force of attraction seeks to change the motion of objects
In the case of general relativity, I would say the first contradiction is the primary one, since that relationship is what defines the attraction between masses, and the resistances between each one. I would say the second contradiction is the secondary one, since it’s still crucial for understanding how gravity works, but, it explains the result of gravitational attraction, rather than the fundamental cause of it.
In the case of the primary contradiction, I would say that the force of attraction is the primary aspect of the contradiction, over resistance to compression, since the attraction of mass to itself is the fundamental reason why spacetime is distorted in the first place. In the secondary contradiction, gravitational pull is of course, the primary aspect there.
Let me know what you think, and thank you.
Well gravity itself is not a dialectic since gravity itself remains unchanging.
But the concept of gravity, the understanding of gravity, is a dialectic.
You go from Newton where gravity is an attractive force, to relativistic physics where gravity is not a force at all.
For Newton, gravity was a force pulling us down.
For Einstein, the force we feel is actually the earth beneath us exploding as a result of electromagnetic repulsion, and we stay “in place” at the point where the acceleration of electromagnetic repulsion is balanced by the flow of space time.
Then the concept of space time is itself a dialectic with the dominant view of physics denying a fixed “now” and instead supposing some kind of block universe or perhaps some other understanding of time where there is no fixed now.
And this dominant view increasingly challenged as absurd and reliant on non-empirical assumptions about the 1-way speed of light derived from the 2-way speed of light which gives you a minority view of neo-etherists where a “now” is restored.
It’s an understanding in flux.
Gravity itself is what it is. A fact of nature. What we understand gravity to be, that’s a dialectic.
Engels wrote
Gravity as the most general determination of materiality is commonly accepted. That is to say, attraction is a necessary property of matter, but not repulsion. But attraction and repulsion are as inseparable as positive and negative, and hence from dialectics itself it can already be predicted that the true theory of matter must assign as important a place to repulsion as to attraction, and that a theory of matter based on mere attraction is false, inadequate, and one-sided. In fact sufficient phenomena occur that demonstrate this in advance. If only on account of light, the ether is not to be dispensed with. Is the ether of material nature? If it exists at all, it must be of material nature, it must come under the concept of matter. But it is not affected by gravity. The tail of a comet is granted to be of material nature. It shows a powerful repulsion. Heat in a gas produces repulsion, etc.
It would go too far to credit Engels as a physicist because he wasn’t one but his insight into how the understanding of gravity must evolve was incredible.
I wouldn’t turn to Engels to understand gravity but it’s shocking how prescient he was in foreseeing the shifting understanding of gravity, a dialectic of the scientific revolution, well before Einstein was even born.
gravity itself is not a dialectic since gravity itself remains unchanging.
this is not true, the value of gravity is never constant. On earth its used as a constant because the changes are “insignificant” but there are differences.
the sum of insignificant quantitative changes leads to qualitative changes, if you approached to the moon 1 meter at a time and measured gravity, the difference would be minimal, but after 10km you would start noticing the changes.
Does relativity involve repulsion like he describes?
You jump, fall down, you feet hit the ground.
You feel an impact.
Under the Newtonian understanding of gravity, the impact you felt was due to an attractive force.
Under the relativistic understanding, the force of impact was a repulsive one - electromagnetic repulsion of the earth. The earth is “exploding” constantly outwards due to electromagnetic repulsion, electromagnetic repulsion is accelerating every atom of the earth outwards from the center but this outward acceleration is in equilibrium with the flow of space time. Gravity is not understood to be a force at all under relativity, neither attractive or repulsive, but an apparent phenomenon due to the curvature of space time. The feeling of your feet against the ground is understood as electromagnetic repulsion.
If Newton were to measure the force of impact as the apple hit the ground, he would have understood himself to be measuring the force of gravity.
Think about it this way: a body in free fall experiences weightlessness. When you’re falling you feel no force of gravity at all. It’s only when your feet are on the ground that you feel “gravity”.
Doesn’t that mean there is now a force of repulsion but not of attraction?
Specifically for the feeling of your feet against the ground being due to a repulsive electromagnetic force accelerating you outwards, that’s a repulsive force.
Gravity isn’t understood to be a force at all. Not attractive or repulsive.
I have some questions, which are not intended to be rhetorical or sarcastic. My questions stem from this assertion:
Well gravity itself is not a dialectic since gravity itself remains unchanging.
I’m struggling to see how you can say all that and begin with saying that gravity is ‘not a dialectic’. Doesn’t this framing imply that gravity can mean something/anything in the abstract, as an isolated thing that exists outside of relations. No one thing can be a dialectic because a dialectic is a relation.
The questions, which may be the same question worded in different ways:
-
Dialectics is the study of change. Does that presuppose (measurable) change in everything?
-
That is, if gravity is a relation, if it (partly) explains why matter is in constant motion, is it true that gravity is not dialectical just because it appears (and may be) unchanging in the abstract?
-
How can you/we be sure that gravity is unchanging?
-
How can gravity not be dialectical and yet only be explained as a relation/process?
-
Does “Well gravity itself is not a dialectic since gravity itself remains unchanging” treat ‘gravity’ as a thing in itself? I.e. rather than a part/property of certain material relations?
The understanding of gravity is dialectical but the natural phenomenon of gravity isn’t.
Our explanations of it, understandings of it, our experience of it, those are dialectical.
Nature has only necessity and contingency obedient to unchanging laws and externalities but our idea of nature is what changes.
The sole conclusion to be drawn from the opinion of the marxists that Marx’s theory is an objective truth is that by following the path of Marxist theory we shall draw closer and closer to objective truth without ever exhausting it; but by following any other path we shall arrive at nothing but confusion and lies.
-Lenin
I see. I don’t know, though. That seems to externalise gravity as something beyond, as universal. As if gravity and the rest of physical matter are not internally related. It seems to assume (a) an epistemology that puts some knowledge beyond human comprehension just because we can’t know for sure that our models are correct – like an epistemological scepticism – and (b) that something is unchanging just because we can’t (yet or necessarily) perceive it’s changes.
It seems incorrect to (i) need dialectics to explain a phenomena but (ii) deny that dialectics governs that phenomena on the basis that humans might one day transcend dialectics to arrive at a more accurate or deeper understanding of matter.
The notion that our understanding of nature is only an idea rather than our best approximation of the material seems anti-materialist. Dialectics doesn’t necessarily exclude unchanging laws; it posits that development happens according to such laws, which are dialectical.
I don’t think we conceive of ‘changes’ or of dialectics in the same way. But maybe we’re saying the same thing in different words or talking past one another. That or I’m misunderstanding you.
That seems to externalise gravity as something beyond, as universal. As if gravity and the rest of physical matter are not internally related
It does not imply that gravity and physical matter are unrelated. Not at all.
It does separate the idea of gravity from the fact of gravity, but those things are absolutely and very clearly separate.
The notion that our understanding of nature is only an idea rather than our best approximation
“Understanding” and “idea” are synonyms here so yes they are equated.
Our idea of gravity, our concept of gravity, our understanding of gravity, our model of gravity, whatever… all these are directly synonyms here meaning exactly the same thing. Our idea of gravity is our understanding of gravity.
Dialectics doesn’t necessarily exclude unchanging laws; it posits that development happens according to such laws, which are dialectical.
Sure and if the laws themselves are unchanging then the laws themselves are precluded from being a dialectic.
Even if gravity is a fixed law, it is still dialectical. All things must change doesn’t mean that the fact that all things change changes. Idk.
There’s the inner dialog of concept in mathematics and science, and even formal logic mathematics and science are part of the ideological superstructure. Anti-Dühring was a great work.
And materialist dialectics obviously applies to motion and movement in the world. So you can have a dialect of erosion or a dialect of planetary motion, which are subject to gravity, although it’s some fine line drawing to separate the reality of nature from the idea of nature, it quickly becomes recursive but yeah sure any idea of nature is clearly dialectical and changes, natural processes, in nature can be have their idea expressed as a dialect. To hop from that to insisting the process of natural change is a dialect seems to be insisting that dialectics itself has physical reality as opposed to being an idea which becomes an entirely recursive navel gazing exercise as well as pointless. Expressing a dialect of nature is expressing an idea of nature which is expressing an ideal, not the reality itself even if the dialect is a materialist dialect. Or to put that another way, ideals are not reals and dialectics are an ideal even when they are dialectics of the real.
But if a law of nature is, in material fact, unchanging then how can it be a dialect? How can an unchanged and unchanging thing be a dialect? Virtually nothing is unchanged and unchanging, except for the law of gravity. I mean shit, even other fundamental forces are changeable with the breaking of certain symmetries in the extremely early universe so hell even the weak nuclear force can, at least for a few picoseconds, be considered a dialect but gravity?
You could have a dialect of physics. You could have a dialect of erosion. You could have a dialect of science. Of course. But to say the law of gravity itself is a dialect, the physical reality of it and not the idea of it, well for one what is the point of that when you could fruitfully have a dialect of the idea of gravity or dialects of the effects of gravity, and two; no it’s not.
The interactions of gravity can be expressed and understood within a dialectical framework but dialectics describe processes of change but are not the processes of change themselves.
An unchanging law of nature is an input into dialectics, a dialect of erosion for example which must consider the web of relationships between things and gravity being a rule that determines certain interactions, but to talk about a dialect of gravity itself… what is that a dialect of? What is interacting with what to change the law of gravity? It’s not a dialect.
A person climbing a tower, carrying a ball, dropping it, the ball falling due to gravity, and then bouncing. Yes this is a dialect. So is water evaporating from heat, forming a cloud, then raining. Yes.
It’s not that the universe has the idea of dialectics built in, it’s that things are processes with contradictions. Dialectics is the view that recognizes this truth.
I think you are interpreting me as saying gravity is itself a process. I do not mean that, just that gravity describes the contradictions that effect the way movement occurs.
-
The comments in this thread has made me realise I need to read the following:
- In Defence Of Materialism by Plekhanov
- Dialectical Biologist by Lewontin and Lewin
And re-read the Red Sails articles:
The Dialectical Biologist is pretty great, but keep in mind it’s a little outdated, and they didn’t know Lysenko was vindicated.
Thank you - epigenetics? If you have reading material to share on rethinking Lysenkoism in the 21st century I would be grateful.
I’m not an expert on the topic, but I listened to this, and someone who works in agriculture elaborated how China uses some of his discoveries today. How Lysenko was the guy that got people planting potato eyes instead of the whole potato etc.
Interesting; thank you!
I’m not completely sure I understand your reasoning, but there’s something I was thinking to myself about Einstein and dialectics.
The Newtownian theory was formed at an age where the newest advancements in philosophy and science were made by seeing the world in mechanical interactions and abstract absolute rules. It was opposed to theological thinking so it allowed for massive progress.
Contemporary philosophy goes beyond the enthusiasm of the first modern scientists, and one of the manifestation of this tendency are Hegelian dialectics. Given the socialist orientation of Einstein, it wouldn’t surprise me that dialectics were a way of thinking that helped him go beyond the previously established necessity of having bodies touch each other to interact. Einstein surprised its time, not by being a man-computer that solves every equation, but by daring to bend concepts like space and time in a manner that shatters the old vision of a world made of simple little gears that activate each other in a simple deterministic way.
Utterly incomprehensible. Have a horrible day.
Never in my life would I have imagined that someone would try to apply dialectical materialism to physics.
What do you mean? Beside the OP text, does not the notion that internal contradiction drives change explain a lot in physics?
The same with the unity of opposites?
And the insistence that all subject matter is relational?
Is not the contradiction between electrons and protons dialectical? Engels talked a lot about the dialectics of natural science. Obviously he’s not up to date, but are you suggesting he was wrong to do that?
No. electrons and protons dont attract because they have a history or because of the conditions surrounding them they do so because of intrinsic properties of themselves they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a struggle or process of any kind they just are the way they are, and dialectics tells u nothing about how electrons and protons will behave. Dialectical materialism is just one way to look at the world and it is good and accurate when used to describe somethings and useless when used to describe others, its a model like any other, it is more dear to our hearts than most models but that doesnt make it perfect or a theory of everything.
Also Engles can be wrong and infact im sure he was about many things and so was Marx and so was every other theorist.
You’re mixing up dialectical and historical materialism. Dialectics is an effective outlook for interpreting science. Engels didn’t think he knew everything about science, but he saw trends in its progression.
It is impossible to accurately describe physics thru dialectics, u cant make predictions about what will happen when particles collide for example using dialectics or anything else for that matter, u can describe surface level understandings of things we already know using the language of dialectics but u cant advance physics with it.
Also trends in the progression of science could be dialectical, science itself, as in the thing that humans do to understand the world is a dialectical processes but the things science describes are almost all not dialectical.
Sure dialectics isn’t going to make a mathematical discovery, but it’s a very helpful worldview. A metaphysician sees the world as compartmentalized, binary, and static. This is what led to the errors of mechanism and other errors of thinking long ago and today. In Lenin’s Materialism and Imperio-Criticism he observes the latest discoveries of physics around electrons and shows how that does not invalidate materialism as his idealist opponents said, but shows the error of metaphysics, and that science is moving toward dialectics unconsciously, and it would help them to know it consciously. In science it is true that all things change, have antagonistic parts, must die, and are connected.
There seems to be quite some confusion as to what dialectics is in this thread. I wonder if it comes down to those who accept that everything is contradiction and those who say that dialectics is just a good heuristic. I’m with you in the first group, I think.
I think you might be right. That’s what I was trying to hint at with my blurb about the orthodox marxists and their understanding of Dialectics versus what I have observed as the ML/MLM understanding of dialectics.
No. electrons and protons dont attract because they have a history or because of the conditions surrounding them
What are you even talking about, yes they do. Two particles will interact if their shared history (light cone) includes them being in the right conditions (like proximity to each other, opposing charge, etc.) for that to happen.
they do so because of intrinsic properties of themselves
Their intrinsic properties are part of the conditions that cause any given particles to behave the way they do. The environment they find themselves in, such as what other particles they are in the presence of, very obviously plays just as much an important part of the role in determining their behavior as their intrinsic properties. And those conditions at any point in time exist because of the history that led to those conditions - which is just as true of leptons and bosons as it is of kings and peasants.
they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a struggle or process of any kind
Yes, they absolutely did! “Struggle” would be an inappropriate (but still not necessarily inaccurate) term for it just because it carries the implication of intent and human emotions. But dialectical materialism, which is a metaphysical framework, absolutely does not rely on intention in any way - in fact it’s largely defined by the fact that it does not rely on intention since that would be idealism. But that’s just a matter of odd phrasing, because if you take the word “struggle” out, and just say “they didnt arrive to their current situation thru a process of any kind,” you would be completely, even incomprehensibly wrong. Of course they arrived at their current situation through a process. It could be any measure of complexity in the process that led to their conditions, but at it’s most simple, it’s literally just cause and effect. True of human society, true of particle physics.
they just are the way they are
As is literally everything else.
and dialectics tells u nothing about how electrons and protons will behave. Dialectical materialism is just one way to look at the world and it is good and accurate when used to describe somethings and useless when used to describe others, its a model like any other, it is more dear to our hearts than most models but that doesnt make it perfect or a theory of everything.
Dialectical materialism is a metaphysical framework. The issue here is not that we have to use it to describe particle interactions or predict their outcomes, but that particle physics and dialectical materialism are absolutely compatible with one another. It is even perfectly reasonable to look at the interaction between electrons and protons through a dialectical materialist lens, as @[email protected] pointed out, by considering that interaction as a contradiction and resolution relationship, (law of unity and conflict of opposites), even negation of the negation.
It’s political inadequacy aside, let’s just take a look at the first few sentences of wikipedia’s entry on Dialectical Materialism
Dialectical materialism is a materialist theory based upon the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that has found widespread applications in a variety of philosophical disciplines ranging from philosophy of history to philosophy of science. [emphasis mine]
It’s way too much to quote, but also please note the section on Lenin’s contributions to dialectical materialism, and note how it relates to physics. I do not mean this in a mean-spirited way, but you don’t seem to understand either physics or dialectical materialism. Almost everything you’ve said indicates a deep misunderstanding of both.
Never in my life would I have imagined that someone would try to apply dialectical materialism to physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Lenin’s_contributions
Caudwell’s Crisis in Physics does some of this but for quantum mechanics. You’d love the read.
Really its done science first approach then dialectics to examine the environment your project’s developed in for anything weird that will diminish understanding, then fix and repeat since there’s no such thing as perfection in reality. You don’t go in with dialectics first, that won’t do you good and just make you overly rigid without proper knowledge and limit your understanding of the situation at hand leading to silly errors. Gotta ground yourself in what is known of reality first.
It is neat for thought experiments for project design too and is a way to break out of the ‘its x or y or a mere continuum’ to noticing 'gee this doesn’t fit my data nor my problem, necessity v sufficiency for instance develops from this line of approach (and others, there are many tools in the tool kit, dia is just one) and is beyond helpful in life sciences.
That’s fascinating. Thank you!
I think I can most charitably describe what I just read as a wild misappropriation of dialectics and physics. Please stop.
diamat sucks, change my mind
Oh, you’re named after the podcast, then?
nope, i’m too old for podcasts
we had to learn diamat in the USSR, I wish they put more effort into teaching contemporary geopolitics and economy rather than dry philosophical bullshit that has little to do with real world. Looking back, Soviet society was astonishingly politically illiterate and I think this is part of why people so easily let go of achievements of previous generations.
diamat was by far the most hated subject. the boredom was palpable. you don’t need diamat to understand how the world works is what i meant.
I certainly won’t contradict you on the political illiteracy of latter generation Soviets. The majority that I have encountered (though my sample is deeply skewed as an American) have been politically incoherent to a jarring degree.
However, it seems to be plainly absurd to say that throwing away diamat would help people embrace the accomplishments of the earlier Soviet Union. Do you think that Lenin and Stalin viewed the subject as irrelevant philosophical bullshit? Or did they view it as an integral element of their understanding of politics? Do you think that the revisionists were really too keen on Marxist economics and not keen enough on liberal economics when their entire project was the liberalization of the Union?
It seems to me like you see clearly the symptoms but are just assuming the cause. Have you considered alternative hypotheses, like the transmission of Marxist theory falling into formalism and phrase-mongering rather than existing as a living revolutionary project?
I do think leaving diamat to specific philosophy studies and instead teaching people about contemporary geopolitics and economics would make society much less susceptible to liberal propaganda.
I don’t think diamat is central to Lenin at all. If you think it is, please explain how.
I’m sorry to say but Stalin’s ramblings about it are complete gibberish, he will for instance say “all things in nature change and diamat is about change so diamat is a natural science” which is not what makes a theory scientific (that would be the application of the scientific method which has nothing to do with diamat).
Diamat is completely unnecessary to understand geopolitics and economics and a few modern economists I’ve read e.g. John Smith, Paul Cockshott, Zack Cope, never even mention it.
But I didn’t read much Marxist theory, I can’t say I’m well read in general, frankly I don’t remember a lot from what I learned in childhood and I don’t have that much time and energy to read dense theory nowadays so I’m open to have my mind changed, just not by pompous proclamations and thinly veiled accusations of “revisionism” like in your reply.
(Edit) Kwame Nkrumah also didn’t need dialectics to formulate neocolonialism. The list goes on.
Also a nice false dichotomy there between diamat and liberal economics, very productive.
What makes you think that none of those authors are dialectical materialists? Just because they avoid using certain jargon?
exactly, people thought dialectically long before dialectics were coined by hegel.
I don’t think diamat is central to Lenin at all. If you think it is, please explain how.
The most direct example I know of is Lenin explaining at length the importance of a historical materialist grounding in “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”. Here’s the link to an English translation since I don’t know Russian.
That said, I think a still simpler and more direct inference can be drawn from the fact that historical materialism (which, let us remember, is diamat applied to history) is the core of Marxism, something summarized well in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, and Lenin, as a dedicated Marxist, is working from this framework.
Also a nice false dichotomy there between diamat and liberal economics, very productive.
There’s no need to be cute, and crying fallacy fails to prove the antithesis even if we assumed you were correct that what I said was fallacious.
But it was not, as the three groups in discussion were early Soviets (Marxists), latter Soviets (revisionists), and liberals. The question was where the revisionists fell in the power struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Now, if you believe the revisionists were actually some other, completely distinct thing despite their track record of liberalizing the Soviet Union, that’s not necessarily invalid, but then you would need to introduce what you think it is. Without your having done that, what we are left with is a broadly successful early Soviet Union and the moribund late Soviet Union, and we need to figure out some way to distinguish why one was superior to the other. I suggested one framework, but you can refute it and suggest another, though I encourage you to not nebulously talk about being taught “politics” as though historical materialism is not a political theory. If you believe another political theory is superior, you can say so, but don’t dally in vagaries.
I’ve read Paul Cockshott’s work and he is most certainly a materialist. He is somewhat skeptical of dialectics (though not to the point of abandoning it), but he understands it and talks about. I would say that Marxist theory without DiaMat does not have historical materialism, and developing historical materialism is the crowning achievement of Marx and Engel’s work.
You say that the soviet political education that you received was boring because it did not focus enough on contemporary and concrete issues, and this makes perfect sense. But do we need to throw away DIaMat? Wouldn’t it be better to relate DiaMat to existing issues to make it more concrete?
You say that the soviet political education that you received was boring because it did not focus enough on contemporary and concrete issues, and this makes perfect sense. But do we need to throw away DIaMat? Wouldn’t it be better to relate DiaMat to existing issues to make it more concrete?
This is kind of what I was trying to get at when I suggested that perhaps Soviet education fell into formalism and phrase-mongering, but you expressed it much better than I did.
Capital is filled with dialectics. For Lenin and Mao it’s clear if you read their works that it was ingrained in their ideology, they just generally talked so the average worker could understand. If you don’t like podcasts read the aforementioned authors and Anti-Duhring by Engels. In addition The Dialectical Biologist.
Here’s your homework then: https://revolutionaryleftradio.libsyn.com/size/5/?search=dialectics+deep
Its fine, I think its just overused its a good framework for understanding some stuff but leftist tend to try to understand everything thru it and it becomes nonsense, a lot of people also treat it as tho it was super complicated when in reality its pretty simple.
dialectical materialism led to the discovery of the laws that govern the development of human society, so no it does not suck.
read “the development of the monist view of history” by Plekhanov, there you will find the importance of dialectical materialism. people for thousands of years have tried to find out what moves history forward and always ended up with “human nature” arguments, until Hegel->Marx managed to identify that production is the main driver of history.
You are in the midst of committing a category error. Dialectics is the model that describes changing historical, social, and philosophical systems and processes. Analogies from physics are frequently used to explain how dialectics work, but that doesn’t mean dialectics govern physics, only that dialectical thinking has historically been inspired by physical processes.
The logical role that dialectics fulfills in social science is fulfilled in natural science by mathematics. So rather than taking the dialectical method and filling it with natural objects and laws at random, you should study the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities and interpret the relationships expressed in the equations governing them. I know you might not want to hear this because mathematics is hard, but the only way to understand the inner workings of gravity is to sit your ass down with a book about general relativity and do the exercises.
Yes you need to learn about science from scientists, but it’s not wrong to see dialectics in science. Like others, you are mistaking historical for dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism is Marx and Engels’ scientific world outlook, historical materialism is that theory applied to the social sphere - social science.
It is right to see dialectics in science, but it appears after the fact as a consequence of observation and theory rather than as an epistemological requirement. Certain scientific theories, such as relativity, do not admit a dialectical interpretation due to a lack of actors to play out the dialectical process, or of contradictions between them.
I think I agree. You shouldn’t necessarily be looking for the Fichtean thesis and antithesis or whatever in every single situation. Just recognize that there are contradictions and interconnections and change is a necessity.
On another note, how did the Fichtean thesis and antithesis stuff become so prolific among Marxists? It wasn’t used by Hegel or even Marx as far as I can tell, and it’s completely contrary to the modern ideas of Dialectics as outlined by Mao.
Idk, it really makes it sound like there’s an outside anti-thesis that comes in to oppose and already in-itself thesis.
No defending the OP more generally, but here’s Mao in On Contradiction, emphasis mine:
Changes do take place in the geography and climate of the earth as a whole and in every part of it, but they are insignificant when compared with changes in society; geographical and climatic changes manifest themselves in terms of tens of thousands of years, while social changes manifest themselves in thousands, hundreds or tens of years, and even in a few years or months in times of revolution. According to materialist dialectics, changes in nature are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in nature. Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society . . .
This is correct, but it’s not like there is ever a contradiction between mathematical and dialectical methods. Natural scientists only prefer to work with mathematics because their subject is benign enough to admit mathematical descriptions yielding precise, quantitative results, while social scientists need dialectics because their mathematical models suffer from crippling vagueness and complexity and are quickly outdated. Where mathematics can describe a system to which dialectics happen to also apply, e.g. phase transitions, it naturally produces models that mirror the dialectic because they both describe the same thing.
Howwhy would you describe gravity in terms of dialectics?The unity of opposites in all things in the kernel of dialectics.
wot
