The Dialecticians' Dilemma
If you are using Internet Explorer 10 (or later), you might find some of the links I have used won't work properly unless you switch to 'Compatibility View' (in the Tools Menu); for IE11 select 'Compatibility View Settings' and then add this site (anti-dialectics.co.uk). Microsoft's new browser, Edge, automatically renders these links compatible; Windows 10 also automatically makes IE11 compatible with this site.
However, if you are using Windows 10, Microsoft's browsers, IE11 and Edge, unfortunately appear to colour these links somewhat erratically. They are meant to be dark blue, but those two browsers render them intermittently mid-blue, light blue, yellow, purple and red!
Firefox and Chrome reproduce them correctly.
As is the case with all my work, nothing here should be read as an attack either on Historical Materialism [HM] -- a scientific theory I fully accept --, or, indeed, on revolutionary socialism. I remain as committed to the self-emancipation of the working class and the dictatorship of the proletariat as I was when I first became a revolutionary nearly thirty years ago.
The difference between Dialectical Materialism [DM] and HM, as I see it, is explained here.
If your Firewall/Browser has a pop-up blocker, you will need to press the "Ctrl" key at the same time or these links here won't work, anyway!
I have adjusted the font size used at this site to ensure that even those with impaired vision can read what I have to say. However, if the text is either too big or too small for you, please adjust your browser settings!
Summary Of My Main Objections To Dialectical Materialism
Abbreviations Used At This Site
Return To The Main Index Page
Below is the (slightly edited) text of a letter a supporter of this site sent to the editors of Socialist Worker, which they saw fit not to publish.
Unfortunately, anyone who accepts dialectical materialism must disagree with
what Alice concludes about the development of science.
[This link is now dead!]
Here is why:
If nature is fundamentally contradictory, then dialecticians can't distinguish those contradictions that reflect nature accurately from those that are simply the product of a defective theory, the acceptance of which would hold up scientific development.
On the other hand, if dialecticians think nature is fundamentally contradictory (which they do), then why advise physicists to conduct more research in order to remove the contradictions in any given theory if it reflects the fact that nature is contradictory? Surely, the more true a theory is the more it should reflect the contradictions dialecticians think exist in nature. Hence, a true theory should contain more contradictions than one that isn't. But, if science progresses by removing such contradictions, then this should produce theories that tell us that nature isn't contradictory, after all!
Alternatively, if scientists do not remove such contradictions, perhaps on the grounds that a contradictory theory should reflect contradictory nature more accurately (if they take the advice on offer from dialecticians, or from Alice), then this would permanently hold up the progress of science.
We can call this The Dialecticians' Dilemma, for which there is no solution -- if, that is, we take advice on science and philosophy from Hegel and/or Engels.
On a side issue: we both know you'll not publish this letter, comrades.
More details here:
[Name and address supplied.]
Return To The Main Index
Back To The Top
© Nemesis 2012
Hits Since 02/08/12: