Dialectics

[John Stuart Mill]

Dialectal accounts of history have been rejected out of hand. Foucault's system of power relations has become the predominant sociological method. In a dialectical system power is merely the result of processes, and not the motivating factor. Various material forces interacting seems more intuitive than power relations. What is power but a control relation between individuals? How could one form power out of nothing? It must be a result rather than the cause. I prescribe to a materialistic dialectic. Material forces interacting and synthesizing form all we know. Everything is simply the result of natural forces. We are all matter in motion. Of course, one has to be a determinist for such a view to hold water.



Why did I create such a worthless topic? I'm terribly bored. Edited April 9, 2008 by John Stuart Mill

[Johnny_D]

Dialectal accounts of history have been rejected out of hand. Foucault's system of power relations has become the predominant sociological method. In a dialectical system power is merely the result of processes, and not the motivating factor. Various material forces interacting seems more intuitive than power relations. What is power but a control relation between individuals? How could one form power out of nothing? It must be a result rather than the cause. I prescribe to a materialistic dialectic. Material forces interacting and synthesizing form all we know. Everything is simply the result of natural forces. We are all matter in motion. Of course, one has to be a determinist for such a view to hold water.



Why did I create such a worthless topic? I'm terribly board.

HUH?!

Maybe you could post that in english for us thick bastards?

[gaia.plateau]

Are you just looking for someone to argue/debate with? 50% of this post seems to be more ranting than arguing, but I'll try to address the few points you do seem to make.

To say that dialectical accounts of history have been 'rejected' out of hand is hyperbolic, to put it charitably, and ridiculous, to put it uncharitably. I don't know how sociology, philosophy, history, and political studies classrooms are in Colorado, but in my university dialectical thought is quite prevalent. Yes, if you conducted a survey of all the academic literature in these fields over the past 30 years, you'd find a preponderance toward Power Relations theory, but it is by no means overwhelmingly dominant.

Determinism and dialectics may by conducive to one another, but they are by no means inseparable or exclusive of other intellectual syntheses.

Power is much more than than a control relation, it is a socially constructed idea and ideology. It absolutely can be created out of nothing, if we're speaking materialistically, because as history has shown ad nauseum, powerful ideas spring out of nowhere and become magnetic forces of influence.

We may biologically be matter in motion, but does that really 'matter'? Do we define ourselves physiologically, or by our principles, ideas and accomplishments? If you truly believe in the former, why do you wake up in the morning?

* Bored, not board
* As power relations and dialectics are not mutually exclusive, is this poll asking which the view perceives to be more important? Or more relevant in society? Or more widely recognized? It's not clear. Edited April 9, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[John Stuart Mill]

Are you just looking for someone to argue/debate with? 50% of this post seems to be more ranting than arguing, but I'll try to address the few points you do seem to make.

To say that dialectical accounts of history have been 'rejected' out of hand is hyperbolic, to put it charitably, and ridiculous, to put it uncharitably. I don't know how sociology, philosophy, history, and political studies classrooms are in Colorado, but in my university dialectical thought is quite prevalent. Yes, if you conducted a survey of all the academic literature in these fields over the past 30 years, you'd find a preponderance toward Power Relations theory, but it is by no means overwhelmingly dominant.

Determinism and dialectics may by conducive to one another, but they are by no means inseparable or exclusive of other intellectual syntheses.

Power is much more than than a control relation, it is a socially constructed idea and ideology. It absolutely can be created out of nothing, if we're speaking materialistically, because as history has shown ad nauseum, powerful ideas spring out of nowhere and become magnetic forces of influence.

We may biologically be matter in motion, but does that really 'matter'? Do we define ourselves physiologically, or by our principles, ideas and accomplishments? If you truly believe in the former, why do you wake up in the morning?

* Bored, not board
* As power relations and dialectics are not mutually exclusive, is this poll asking which the view perceives to be more important? Or more relevant in society? Or more widely recognized? It's not clear.

It was mostly a rant stemming from my irritation with the endless references to Foucault at CU Boulder. Dialectics have been rejected out of hand in the social sciences here. Plus, I would trust Europeans to be even more tightly griped by the vice of postmodernism. I think materialist dialects serve us best in analyzing society, and they have not been given their due.

In terms of a materialist dialectic it must be deterministic. I don't even consider Hegelian dialectics worthy of consideration. You might be able to fit some measure of free will with the conflict and subsequent synthesis of ideas. Even that would require a stretch, as new ideas arise merely from the synthesis of the old. Perhaps, will creates the bedrock that other ideas follow from? It isn't worth considering, because thoughts are nothing but the emanations of our material state. As I recall Marx said, "What Hegel really describes only resides in his own head."

Dialectics are fundamentally separated from Foucault's method. In any dialectical account power is merely the result of processes, and not the important factor. Power relations cannot be reconciled with dialectical accounts. At least Foucault rejected dialectics as incompatible with his beliefs. He espoused a web of powers all exerting force on each other. New power arises from individuals and groups rather than the interrelating forces. Individuals or groups have some kind of bizarre ability to generate power. That certainly doesn't appear dialectical. I suppose one could have a power dialectic, but that wouldn't be what I was referring to. Plus, I would contend it is merely describing a result of more fundamental processes. I will change the question to Foucault's conception of power relations.

If you are truly a materialist, power is merely a relation between material. We simply call material acting in a particular fashion power. Material can't form from nothing. Are you saying power arises removed from causation? Our creation of power is self causal? For if our creation of power is determined by something beyond material it would still necessitate a root cause. How can something be self causal? Most theologians have even abandoned self causal power in relation to god. God now is generally portrayed as ever present, rather than causing himself at a specific time. It at least seems contrary to common reason that anything can be self causal. Now Foucault would seem to believe in such nonsense, but do you?

Why do I wake up in the morning? Why not? I have the same instinctual desire towards life as the next man. Edited April 10, 2008 by John Stuart Mill

[SupremeOstrich]

=D

Somehow reading this while on a Nakhla buzz made it interesting....but no more understandable.

You get'm Gaia! Or...whatever..

[gaia.plateau]

Just as soon as I finish this last term paper. Procrastination is self-defeating when you have to think.

[Johnny_D]

Just as soon as I finish this last term paper. Procrastination is self-defeating when you have to think.

Gaia - WTF was he talking about? Maybe you could translate it into laymen's terms?

[mathuv]

ummm.....yes? :S

[John Stuart Mill]

Just as soon as I finish this last term paper. Procrastination is self-defeating when you have to think.

Gaia - WTF was he talking about? Maybe you could translate it into laymen's terms?

Materialistic Dialectic

Material relationships come into conflict and synthesize to from something new. Stuff # 1 comes in contact with stuff # 2 creates stuff # 3.



Hegelian Dialectic

Different ideas come into conflict and synthesize to form something new. Idea # 1 comes in contact with idea # 2 creates idea # 3.



Foucault's power relations

Everything exists under a complex relationship of powers. It is post modernist, so everything is relative. Power comes into and falls out of being. It is somehow created by groups and individuals. The point of Foucault's analysis is to observe the power controls in place and their effects. For instance, subject #1 is under control of subject #2; his discontent causes resistance, creating another power relation where 1 exerts power on 2.


I say our ideas are just stuff, invalidating a Hegelian dialectic. I also think power is merely the result of material relations. A lot of the complexity is superfluous, but it gives philosophers a job. If you ever hear a Marxist talk, prepare to be even more confused. You practically need a dictionary of Marxist terms. Isn't obfuscation part of the fun of philosophy? Edited April 10, 2008 by John Stuart Mill

[nathan_Choi]

omg tl;dr


but thank you for clarifying John

[r1v3th3ad]

i'm hungover and now i'm confused

[Johnny_D]

Well there are at least two people that have no -ing idea what this thread is about.

I'm calling Intellectual cock-waving.

[Canon]

+1 to that, i say we keep to the simple debates like politics or religion

[r1v3th3ad]

Well there are at least two people that have no -ing idea what this thread is about.

I'm calling Intellectual cock-waving.

I loled man...gotta update something because of this...

[John Stuart Mill]

Well there are at least two people that have no -ing idea what this thread is about.

I'm calling Intellectual cock-waving.

Mental masturbation is like normal masturbation, ultimately pointless, but still fun.

[erufiku]

Well there are at least two people that have no -ing idea what this thread is about.

I'm calling Intellectual cock-waving.

Ah, yes, Post-Modernism. A godsend for academics that have nothing useful/interesting to say but do indeed have a good thesaurus on the shelf. There was this neat site calle 'PoMo generator' that used a random text generation system to make up post-modernist essays in seconds. The scary part is that some of the essays I had to read for my english classes were similar to what the site generated.

edit: found the link I was looking for, it's a about two engineers who rewrote their paper following the guidelines of postmodernism, but the twist is that the whole thing was basically a bunch of gibberish.

http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html Edited April 14, 2008 by erufiku

[John Stuart Mill]

Well there are at least two people that have no -ing idea what this thread is about.

I'm calling Intellectual cock-waving.

Ah, yes, Post-Modernism. A godsend for academics that have nothing useful/interesting to say but do indeed have a good thesaurus on the shelf. There was this neat site calle 'PoMo generator' that used a random text generation system to make up post-modernist essays in seconds. The scary part is that some of the essays I had to read for my english classes were similar to what the site generated.

edit: found the link I was looking for, it's a about two engineers who rewrote their paper following the guidelines of postmodernism, but the twist is that the whole thing was basically a bunch of gibberish.

http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html

I was rejecting post modernism. Fortunately, all complex lingo doesn’t reside with them. Dialectics certainly didn’t arise from post modernist thought.They are absolute in their analysis of the world.

I despise post modernism; it is a foolish philosophy espousing knowledge of nothing. Everything is relative, so what can be known. Our perceptions may not be universal or correct, but what use is there in operating under that assumption. We should act as pragmatists in regard to reality. At least, our perceptions appear relatively coherent and consistent. Our perceptions seem useful do to the fluid nature of the universe. One man unless insane does not see a house when there is none. We gain much through objective analysis.

Post modernism conceals the fact that social sciences are finally being brought into union with the analytical. Through gene sequencing and neurology we are reaching that inevitable conclusion.

[Snoopy1966]

dont say what, say huh?

Materialistic Dialectic

Material relationships come into conflict and synthesize to from something new. Stuff # 1 comes in contact with stuff # 2 creates stuff # 3.

This I understand. How to make babies Stuff 1 comes in contact with stuff 2. That is great stuff to do!!

So I can ask my girl do you wanna have some Materialistic Dialectic..puuuuuur...lol That should heat things up in a hurry.

[erufiku]

I was rejecting post modernism. Fortunately, all complex lingo doesn't reside with them. Dialectics certainly didn't arise from post modernist thought.They are absolute in their analysis of the world.

I despise post modernism; it is a foolish philosophy espousing knowledge of nothing. Everything is relative, so what can be known. Our perceptions may not be universal or correct, but what use is there in operating under that assumption. We should act as pragmatists in regard to reality. At least, our perceptions appear relatively coherent and consistent. Our perceptions seem useful do to the fluid nature of the universe. One man unless insane does not see a house when there is none. We gain much through objective analysis.

Post modernism conceals the fact that social sciences are finally being brought into union with the analytical. Through gene sequencing and neurology we are reaching that inevitable conclusion.

I guess I was just venting due to the imminent end of the academic year.
But seriously, when you read a paper on how Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson exemplify a homosexual relationship, you kind of lose faith in everything that the academic world has to offer, at least in the English Lit Department

[seeskwared]

When you get down to it, nobody will ever uncover the sheer complexity of everything from a deterministic viewpoint either. I say some social aspects are more logically viewed from a perspective that they come from "nowhere" simply on that basis. If you try to find the source of everything, you'll just go insane. I haven't read up on much philosophy, but that's just my two cents.

[jordanneff]

Just as soon as I finish this last term paper. Procrastination is self-defeating when you have to think.

Gaia - WTF was he talking about? Maybe you could translate it into laymen's terms?

+1 I'm with JD on this. I consider myself to be a man of above-average intelligence and after reading that paragraph 5 times over the only thing I have to say is WATF?!?!?!

Mental masturbation is like normal masturbation, ultimately pointless, but still fun.

And as for this, all I can say is that for this comparison to be even slightly true then I'd have to masturbate with a god damned meat tenderizer.
For me, mental masturbation would be a nice massaging of the mind with a brilliant idea at the end. After reading that first post my mind just shot blanks man. Edited April 18, 2008 by jordanneff

[Johnny_D]

For me, mental masturbation would be a nice massaging of the mind with a brilliant idea at the end. After reading that first post my mind just shot blanks man.

Very well put Mr JordanJ