Re: [ox-en] thinking about logics
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz hbv.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 23:48:10 +0100
Wow, cool, so many responses for really a meta topic :-)
I respond to ThomasB, Till and StefanS in one mail.
On 2008-02-06 01:18, Thomas Berker wrote:
My general statement, Michel, is, that I am in the process of
learning dialectis directly from the source, namely G.F.W. Hegel
(letting you know, where I am). My experience is, that most
followers -- be they affirmative or critical -- did not get, what
Hegel wants, or they oversimplify his thinking, or both (if they
read him at all).
In my experience, one can say exactly the same about almost every
'thinker' who is/was out there. But then: Who knows what Hegel really
wants?
I don't know. Thus I see no other chance than seeking for an own
position and read Hegel myself. Well, more often I read or talk to
defenders of Hegelianism and confront them with my objections and
questions. -- You may recognized that I change my role depending on the
context ;-)
If you have links to critiques, I would appreciate any hints.
However, I would favor emancipatory approaches and not
backward-oriented ones. I am sure that there must be some
postmodern critiques. What I know is this, but it says not much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Criticism_of_dialectic
Maybe rather alternatives than critiques? Would that suffice?
No, this doesn't help me, it is kind of "undialectical": isolated
opposites. What about the relationship?
If you
are looking for the 'thinker' who outdoes your Hegel, engaging him
upfront (ie not 'backward oriented' as you write) then you will wait
in vain, because *your* Hegel enjoys immunity from both his followers
and critics anyway (you gave him immunity: all dissenters didn't
really get him).
I said "most", and I mean that. Well, when some says "why is dialectics
so binary, why not take one option more, let's build trialectics",
sorry, then I only can conclude, that this person didn't get anything
at all.
But you are right, there is a problem of self-immunisation. But citing
you: "one can say exactly the same about almost every 'thinker' who
is/was out there." I see no other way then developing and debating the
content itself.
On the hand, with your immunity critique you immunite yourself against
taking the critized position into account. Which then brings me into
your position you take in this mail confronting you with the same
arguments. Quite self-referential and in this sense postmodern. Hm,
maybe I should change my role....
But I am sure that you are willing to consider that there are
*alternative* views of the world which are valid? Even though they
are not based on Hegel at all? That they are able to describe some
phenomena well, really well, on a fundamental level, maybe even
better than dialectics? No?
Sure! I strongly belief, that we are living in the same world which can
be viewed from different perspectives. Do it!
Two alternatives come to (my narrow) mind: First, there is Derrida's
Différance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance). And then,
closer to (my) home, there is actor-network theory's direct refusal
to engage in any dualist construction of world
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor-network_theory),
stressing heterogeneous and multiple relations and associations
instead.
I would be happy when you write more about that here, or in our
keimform-blog ;-)
Sorry, I know this kind of discussion seldom leads to anything else
than ever more meta-meta-meta fight-misunderstanding-grief-sorrow.
But you moved to the meta-level first,
...but you put one on top and took the meta-meta level ;-)
and I just try to show that this cannot lead to more clarity.
For me, it leads to more clarity. It is my form of reflexion, and I let
you take part of it. What you are doing with this, depend on you.
One consequence of a critique of this kind of ideology is to
stubbornly strive for the 'real' apprehension of a general truth
(trying to save German idealism) - eg the 'real' understanding of
'the' dialectic. I suspect you, Stefan Mz, are following this path.
At first my aim is to understand dialectics at all. What then I really
don't understand, is why you unpack the big hammer against my seeking.
With your anti-general-truth logic you are perfectly in line with the
logic you criticize. You construct polar opposites (general-truth vs.
Non-general-truth). This is what I try to show does not bring us
further, it is part the formal logic I criticize.
One I can promise: I don't want to "save German Idealism", but I also
don't want simply to put it on the black list.
And, third, and not superior (rather just the expression of
*my* specific position in space and time) there is my preferred
option to take this fragmentation of truth seriously and to seek for
Just btw: is fragmented truth not a general one?
concepts/worlds which allow to think and practice a greater degree of
complexity and heterogeneity, than is possible in the world we have
now. It seems to me that actor-network theory's 'relational
materialism' and Derridas différance and - I am sure - a handful of
other approaches (probably even dialectics) are helpful in this
respect.
Fine, put your position (the content, not the meta) on the table,
please.
On 2008-02-06 14:02, Till Mossakowski wrote:
the best and deepest text about Hegel I know is "Erfahrung des
Bewusstseins" by Hans-Juergen Krahl.
An important critique of Hegel (but not of dialectical reasoning)
is Marx' last chapter of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts
of 1844, and also in Marx' doctoral dissertation (although the
most important parts of the disseration are lost).
A recent critique of Hegel and Marx can be found at
Recht, Christine (2002) Warum mit Marx marschiert, aber schlecht
Walzer getanzt werden kann. Versuch einer Kritik der Tanzschule.
http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/619/
Thank you for these hints! The latter seems to me rather a critique of
Marx than of Hegel. I found my points mentioned here in the debate
reading the table of contents. I'll see.
On 2008-02-06 21:27, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
The only way to cope with that, is to talk about the meaning of
what we are talking about. The meaning itself can not be clarified
using true/false logics, but only by understanding what is said and
meant.
Right. Further, the meaning of what we say (not only our respective
and collective understanding), evolves throughout this discussion. So
instead of looking at this as two well-separated steps in
communication through first clarifying the vocabulary, then arguing
within these agreed-upon terms, we have to understand this process in
a more organic whole.
Panta rei. :-)
This is what I tried to do. What do you mean in special?
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de