Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, rab wrote:

>...
> It is fine to use the everyday language of the 21st century but the
> formal logic learned at school and university does not suffice to
> 'understand' dialectics and that is why I wrote about suspending
> judgement not as a thing of faith but keeping the mind open enough to
> learn a new approach to thinking itself.  And I do think that many
> people understand the transformation of something into its opposite,
> the new into the old, the revolutionary party into a counter-
> revolutionary one as with Stalinism etc.

Yeah. Happens all the time. Healyism is a much more minor example.

>
> Not all Hegelian concepts and categories are archaic, many remain
> useful in developing critical thought.  I would agree that sometimes
> Healy for instance presented dialectics perhaps too heavily loaded
> with Hegelian concepts and categories for many to understand but it
> will always be a struggle to teach dialectics because it is very much
> an active method of thought rather than a more passive and structured
> one.  Dialectical thought and revolutionary practice go hand in hand
> and will always antagonise the formal scholar.

Ditto that.

However, Healyism was a classic example of the transformation of 
dialectics into formalist dogma. And there was nothing revolutionary 
about Healy's practice.

Cuba being a perfect early example, with much worse to come later.

-jh-

>
> Roger
>