There are two kind of
disagreement:
- In my speech a given sentence A
is stated to be true, while in your speech the
same sentence A is stated to be false.
- In my speech a given sentence A
is stated to have a truth value, while in your
speech A is senseless: it can be
neither true nor false.
The disagreement between science and
dialectic is of the kind (B) or of the kind (A) ?
When committed to show that no conflict
there is, Marxists mostly presuppose the conflict to be
of the kind (A): dialectic doesn't turn false what
science says it is true; it just takes science as a part
of a larger system; a system which is able to grasp the
teleological movement of history - and that, at least,
locates science at the level of an instrumental thought
or of a store of partial representations in wanting of a
more comprehensive view.
|
But what is dialectic ?
Here you are some meanings I know:
- A flexible thought, able to pursue the changeable
movements of a living experience
- Historical reason against normative reason.
- An investigation concerning the posits of a
thought
- The ascending proceeding, having a direction and
an internal finality, of reality as a whole
- The philosophical discourse, whose task is to
grasp this ascending proceeding of reality
(fulfilling the task, the philosophical discourse
turns a subjective assumption - the subjective
assumption that such an ascending proceeding
there is - into an objective truth)
- The subjective/objective character of reality:
what seems a chrema (a solid thing) is a pragma
(the result of actions, will, projects, thought
etc. )
A. Toson
|