Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

Yes, you probably have to be aware of philosophical tracts about
"dialectics" to have a respectable knowledge of philosophy.

Within the the context of building a "revolutionary" commie political
party, however, I would argue "dialectics" plays another role.

First, it gives the commie leader a venue/pretext/medium for writing
and blathering about his "very im****tant"/deep/profound/boring/
embarassing/assinine "thoughts" garbed in "impressive"
philosophicalistical-ese.

Second, it gives gives a few members of some commie cult/groupo/
sectoid who have a certain philosophicalistical bent an additional
venu for theological hair-splitting to torture and browbeat eachother
with, not to mention "wow" other cult members without any interest
whatsoever in philosophy.




On Jul 2, 1:14=A0am, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> By never studying dialectics, do you mean he is philosophically
> virgin? Any substantial study of philosophy involves topics that deal
> with the same subject as dialectics. Their study of which was
> influenced by the systems-theoretic framework that Hegel and Marx
> pioneered. You don't get free of dialectics merely by avoiding
> canonical texts. Yet there are no doubt mathematicians who think of
> nothing philosophical. It becomes more an obstacle when the
> mathematician thinks *about* the discipline than when he simply thinks
> *in* the discipline. It isn't necessarily that mathematics isn't
> dialectical--whatever that means--but that the ways of dealing with
> "contradictions" become routinized when you reason within an
> established framework, as opposed to reasoning about the framework.
>
> srd