The Forum > Article Comments > Marxism Destroyed the Dialectic > Comments
Marxism Destroyed the Dialectic : Comments
By Gilbert Holmes, published 27/9/2010Marx poisoned modern political philosophy because he didn't understand the dialectic
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Page 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- ...
- 53
- 54
- 55
-
- All
> enough rabbits, it seems to me that a relatively stable population
> of rabbits will evntually be reached, with these rabbits keeping the
> grass pretty well clipped.
>
> This seems pretty logical to me. If it is wrong, can anyone explain
> in more detail how or why?
> GilbertHolmes
Besides the fact that such ideal situations do not exist in Reality (bugsy covered this quite thoroughly!), I have already pointed out it has been well-established that the population growth of e.g. biological systems -- including rabbits -- in FACT vary by _rate_ of growth in a way which oscillates according to 1 or more *chaotic attractors*. This is a major fact of all Reality which you simply must become aware of. If you intend to write (e.g. professionally) on such matters in anything more than a sophomoric way, you must acquaint yourself 'with the literature', as they say. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.
> My own interpretation of the dialectic comes from an interest in
> polarity. Specifically in this context I look at there being three
> fundamental polarities. Yin/yang as the underlying polarity, being/
>non-being and separateness/connectedness which are more related to
> actual goings on in the world.
Actually, you misunderstand dialectic because you are lumping together different levels of Reality -- ontological or otherwise -- and choosing whatever resulting setup appeals to you. Dialectic develops by series of 'triads' (cough) which 'ascend' by succeeding levels of complexity: _emergent_ complexity, actually -- which produces ever newer qualitative phenomena. Like the reflective/reflexive [self-]consciousness of physical Beings.
> Specifically then, I look to there being two categories of
> dialectic within which all dialectic progressions will fit.
> The first relating to the being/non-being polarity.
So finally you are addressing the basic ontology of existence -- as you should have at the beginning of this exercise.
> Here we can look at whether something is either more or
> less manifest (such as rabbits).
A category or two too far, AFAIC.