Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On 10 Jul, 20:14, Tom Cod <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I would certainly flatter myself if I were to compare myself to
> a critic of Lenin's view of some obscure topic.  To me the gravamen
> of Lenin as an historical figure were his views on war and revolution,
> not
> those on party organization-harped on by bureacratic rightists
> constantly-
> and certainly not whatever philosphical musings or crypto-religious
> views
> he may have had.  In fact, Lenin in "Socialism and Religion"
> specifically
> cautioned on not taking a dogmatic view on issues of this kind.
>
> Thus Lenin focused not on Kant, Hegel or other obscure religico-
> philosophical
> figures as role models, but individuals like Luxemburg, Liebknecht and
> Debs
> (the latter whom he cited against Kautsky on the imperialist "Great
> War").
> Scientists are still steeped in the middle ages? no the cretinist
> critics of science
> are, a classic example of how the capitalist class had advanced
> humanity
> in battling feudal ideas, but now in its period of decadence must seek
> to
> shore them up as an ideological corollory of maintaining its rule by
> seeking
> to keep the m***** as dupe like as possible, but with the means of
> production
> becoming ever more technically complex that is a daunting task, a
> contradiction
> the liberal capitalists see as the US sinks into imperial decadence
> and illiteracy while its
> rivals crank out techinically savvy workers and specialists.
>
> Yes, educated lay critics don't need to know science in order to
> postulate certain
> conclusions, but only up to the point of the extent of our knowledge
> of this material,
> otherwise we come across like pretentious ignoramuses, not to the
> same
> extent as the creationists obviously.  The error I see, that is basic
> to the creationists
> is a form of logic-"starting from the universal" which basically
> argues back from a conclusion
> which is completely backward and Ptolemaic.  We first look at the
> facts and then
> see where they lead etc and of course intuition can play a role.
>
> I know its politically incorrect around here, but as someone who has
> no particular interest
> in philosophy (and why should I v. myriad other topics?), the
> empiricism and pragmatism of James ("a new word for an old way of
> thinking") and Bergson (whom I stumbled onto on Wikipedia) is what I
> feel an affinity with, the ranting of political ideologues against
> them for years, only having reinforced that view.  It also seems
> congruent with the methodology of the scientific method which doesn't
> start from preconcieved conclusions.  The hazards of these type of
> "marxist" incursions into philosophy by semi-scientifically literate
> ideologues was most dramatically illustrated by the career of TD
> Lysenko and "marxist" botany. Obviously the emperor with no clothes is
> going to feel threatened by empiricism.

American Marxists of the rising generation will no doubt 'cut their
teeth' not only in the class struggle but also in the struggle against
the philosophical outlook of the bourgeoisie which is derived heavily
from the very pragmatism that you espouse. 'The ruling outlook is the
outlook of the ruling class'.  If you do not fight this outlook then
you remain confined to think within its parameters and remain subject
to the thinking of its ideologists.

Roger