回顾不矛盾规律:马克思主义的解读

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2021-10-02 DOI:10.1080/02580136.2021.2004800
Maxwell Omaboe, Eromosele Eric Usifoh
{"title":"回顾不矛盾规律:马克思主义的解读","authors":"Maxwell Omaboe, Eromosele Eric Usifoh","doi":"10.1080/02580136.2021.2004800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Karl Popper argues that (i) because dialectics fails to comply with the law of non-contradiction (LNC) and (ii) a thought system that violates the latter is destructive to scientific theorising, dialectics cannot serve as the basis for scientific theorising. In connection with Popper’s accusation, the article seeks to review evidence of dialectical thinking in Marxist literature in accordance with the LNC to clarify the former’s relation to scientific theorising. Lucio Colletti and Lawrence Wilde are notable examples who have made clear commitments to extricate dialectics from the accusation that it violates the LNC. Despite the commendable contributions made, related conclusions do not arise from a concrete analysis of examples from Marxist dialectics about the LNC. We put forward two claims as our position and hence our contribution. First, we side with Popper’s premise (ii): that any thought system that fails to take the LNC seriously cannot validly support scientific theorising. Second, we oppose the truth of Popper’s premise (i): that dialectics undermines the LNC. Consequently, because premise (i) is unfounded, we are unable to grant the soundness of Popper’s contention against dialectics. According to our method of proof, we deploy the tool of concept analysis on relevant examples from Marxist literature. In the end, our overarching purpose is to show that dialectics operationalises the LNC and therefore Marxist dialectics is not disturbed by Popper’s objection.","PeriodicalId":44834,"journal":{"name":"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"40 1","pages":"410 - 420"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reviewing the law of non-contradiction: A Marxist reading\",\"authors\":\"Maxwell Omaboe, Eromosele Eric Usifoh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02580136.2021.2004800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Karl Popper argues that (i) because dialectics fails to comply with the law of non-contradiction (LNC) and (ii) a thought system that violates the latter is destructive to scientific theorising, dialectics cannot serve as the basis for scientific theorising. In connection with Popper’s accusation, the article seeks to review evidence of dialectical thinking in Marxist literature in accordance with the LNC to clarify the former’s relation to scientific theorising. Lucio Colletti and Lawrence Wilde are notable examples who have made clear commitments to extricate dialectics from the accusation that it violates the LNC. Despite the commendable contributions made, related conclusions do not arise from a concrete analysis of examples from Marxist dialectics about the LNC. We put forward two claims as our position and hence our contribution. First, we side with Popper’s premise (ii): that any thought system that fails to take the LNC seriously cannot validly support scientific theorising. Second, we oppose the truth of Popper’s premise (i): that dialectics undermines the LNC. Consequently, because premise (i) is unfounded, we are unable to grant the soundness of Popper’s contention against dialectics. According to our method of proof, we deploy the tool of concept analysis on relevant examples from Marxist literature. In the end, our overarching purpose is to show that dialectics operationalises the LNC and therefore Marxist dialectics is not disturbed by Popper’s objection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"410 - 420\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2021.2004800\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2021.2004800","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

卡尔·波普尔认为:(i)由于辩证法不符合不矛盾律,(ii)违反不矛盾律的思想体系对科学理论具有破坏性,辩证法不能作为科学理论的基础。针对波普尔的指控,本文试图从辩证思维的角度来考察马克思主义文学中辩证思维的证据,以澄清前者与科学理论的关系。卢西奥·科莱蒂(Lucio Colletti)和劳伦斯·王尔德(Lawrence Wilde)是著名的例子,他们明确承诺将辩证法从违反LNC的指控中解脱出来。尽管做出了值得赞扬的贡献,但相关结论并不是通过具体分析马克思主义辩证法中关于LNC的例子得出的。我们提出了两项主张作为我们的立场,因此也是我们的贡献。首先,我们支持波普尔的前提(ii):任何不认真对待LNC的思想体系都不能有效地支持科学理论。第二,我们反对波普尔前提的真理:辩证法破坏了LNC。因此,由于前提(i)是没有根据的,我们无法证明波普尔反对辩证法的论点是正确的。根据我们的证明方法,我们对马克思主义文献中的相关例子进行了概念分析。最后,我们的首要目的是表明辩证法是LNC的可操作性,因此马克思主义辩证法不受波普尔反对意见的干扰。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reviewing the law of non-contradiction: A Marxist reading
Karl Popper argues that (i) because dialectics fails to comply with the law of non-contradiction (LNC) and (ii) a thought system that violates the latter is destructive to scientific theorising, dialectics cannot serve as the basis for scientific theorising. In connection with Popper’s accusation, the article seeks to review evidence of dialectical thinking in Marxist literature in accordance with the LNC to clarify the former’s relation to scientific theorising. Lucio Colletti and Lawrence Wilde are notable examples who have made clear commitments to extricate dialectics from the accusation that it violates the LNC. Despite the commendable contributions made, related conclusions do not arise from a concrete analysis of examples from Marxist dialectics about the LNC. We put forward two claims as our position and hence our contribution. First, we side with Popper’s premise (ii): that any thought system that fails to take the LNC seriously cannot validly support scientific theorising. Second, we oppose the truth of Popper’s premise (i): that dialectics undermines the LNC. Consequently, because premise (i) is unfounded, we are unable to grant the soundness of Popper’s contention against dialectics. According to our method of proof, we deploy the tool of concept analysis on relevant examples from Marxist literature. In the end, our overarching purpose is to show that dialectics operationalises the LNC and therefore Marxist dialectics is not disturbed by Popper’s objection.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The South African Journal of Philosophy (SAJP) is the official publication of the Philosophical Society of South Africa. The aim of the journal is to publish original scholarly contributions in all areas of philosophy at an international standard. Contributions are double-blind peer-reviewed and include articles, discussions of articles previously published, review articles and book reviews. The wide scope of the South African Journal of Philosophy makes it the continent''s central vehicle for the publication of general philosophical work. The journal is accredited with the South African Department of Higher Education and Training.
期刊最新文献
Two faces of control for moral responsibility African Metaphysics, Epistemology, and a New Logic: A Decolonial Approach to Philosophy The idea of rights in the African thought scheme The good Dogs are still in the Portico: Making sense of the cynic-stoic moral and sociopolitical continuities Violence as a technological concept
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1