[Marxism] O, Dialectics!
tzsche at shaw.ca
Thu May 12 15:57:28 MDT 2005
www.leninology. blogspot.com wrote:
>> funny but my dictionary says CHANGE /n/ -- that makes it a thing in
>> my book. besides a "mode of existence" itself is also a thing, but
>> not tangible (physical) in the everyday sense of "thing".
> That's an interesting point, Steve, but if it is a 'thing', one should
> be able to distinguish one such thing from two such things.
i don't follow you here.
> More importantly, 'change' is an abstract noun - it doesn't refer to a
> thing, but what happens *to* things.
i don't agree. change is the thing that constitutes all things, since
all things come into being and pass away. it is the underlying ground
of all reality (sometimes called "becoming", especially by Hegel). (hey
-- at this rate we will soon be working our way up to Heraclitus! - "All
> There are all sorts of words that do not designate things: tomorrow,
> the past, freedom, justice etc.
again, i would call these "things" too. they are not things in the crass
empiricist sense (the "this here now") but they are certainly objects of
study and contemplation, which makes them things, in my view. the
important thing is to be sensitive to the use of the word "thing" in
this notion that all is change is a real threat to bourgeois ideology
which tries to convince us, on ever-shifting grounds, that its
underlying social formation (capitalist society) is somehow eternal and
NOT subject to change. you could say that bourgeois ideology is every
changing (to meet current historical conditions) and yet never changes,
i.e., ALWAYS has its task as justifying the current system. it changes
and yet it doesn't change. now, that's dialectic!
p.s. don't get me going on "things" and "relations", hegel's specialty.
More information about the Marxism