LAWS OF FORMAL LOGIC***
---under all conditions a "thing" remains one and the same
---it is only one thing...itself
---excludes "difference" from the "thing"
Law of Contradiction (A is not non-A)
---reverse formulation of Law of Identity
---other "things" are not A
---also excludes "difference" from non-A's
Law of Excluded Middle (if A=A & A is not non-A =then nothing in between)
---a "thing" cannot be both A and non-A
---A is not "part non-A" and non-A is not "part A"
---all "things" are "either/or" / "true/false" etc.
CRITIQUE OF FORMAL LOGIC
(Five Basic Errors Inherent in the Laws of FL)
FL DEMANDS A STATIC UNIVERSE
----FL excludes movement, change, development
--------no internal change or evolving
--------"difference" is distributed among things as their own "identity"
--------i.e. separate, rigid, external, static, before/after
----FL = "non-motion"
--------MUST deny motion, by its own standards, or wouldn't be FL
----FL defines contradiction as the opposite reflection of Identity
--------actual motion is contradictory WITHIN identity
FL ERECTS IMPASSABLE BARRIERS BETWEEN THINGS
----Barriers
--------between one "thing" and another "thing"
--------between "phases" in development of same "thing"
--------in reflections of objective reality in our minds
---Absolute Independence of "things"
--------relations are external, not an internal dependency
--------boundaries are unaltered under ALL CONDITIONS and at ALL TIMES
--------every"thing" has definite limits
----------Fl ignores that "limits" have limits
FL EXCLUDES DIFFERENCE FROM IDENTITY
----Identity & Difference have sharp lines between them
--------in absolute independence and opposition
--------can't be the same at the same time
--------ANY relation between them is
----------purely external and accidental
----------does NOT affect their simple & individual being
----IGNORES difference WITHIN identity
--------FL categories & mode of thought persist
--------Even though: we live and experience the "infinitely small changes"
FL LAWS ARE PRESENTED AS ABSOLUTE
----Absolute = Final/Unconditional
----HOWEVER:
--------our lived experience reveals that everything originates and presents itself:
----------under specific historical & material conditions
----------in indissoluable connections with other things
----------and at all times
----------in definite and measurable proportions
----FURTHER:
--------IF everything comes into existence:
----------under definite material & historical limitations
----------develops,
----------diversifies itself,
----------alters,
----------and then disappears
--------HOW can any absolute "law" be applied to:
----------anything in the same way,
----------to the same degree,
----------at all times,
----------and under all conditions?
--------YET: this is precisely:
----------the claim put forth by the laws of FL,
----------and the demand they make upon reality
FL CAN ACCOUNT FOR EVERYTHING...EXCEPT ITSELF
----Fl (the "scientific method")
--------purports to be THE standard by which all else is judged
----But, by its OWN LAWS:
---------it cannot account for itself, its own origin
----How does FL answer this?
--------It implies:
----------it has nonearthly roots (divine revelation?)
----------it is an "invariant law of reason"
----------it is the ONLY system of Logic
----------it is thus, eternal
----Questions:
--------WHY is FL elevated above history?
--------WHY is it considered exempt to variability of all else?
----WHY?
--------Because FL goes hand in hand with:
----------any THEISTIC dogmatism
----------ANY dogmatism (i.e. Monarchy, Capitalism)
----FL can't explain itself to itself by means of itself
--------FL is a "closed system" of thought
--------FL's "three laws" are really just ONE "law"
----------Identify it!!
--------FL is the logic of DECLARATION, not analysis
--------FL is the logic of "because I said so"
--------FL has no "beginning"...no "ending"
----------"always has been...is now...always will be"
PERIOD!!
Dialectical Logic
----AND can explain FL
--------thus transcending the limits of Fl
DL is NOT a "closed system"
----Rather, it is the logic of Movement, Evolution, and Change
----Its focus is on the WHOLE: the "sensuous concrete"
--------an ever-changing reality of lived-experience
--------it cannot be encompassed in rigid and old categories
----Thus: it shares the same characteristics as the reality it describes
--------afterall, its a part of that very reality
--------i.e. changing/concrete, oppositional forces, fluent
----It's categories must be the same
Dialectics is not contained in any fixed set of formulas
----is NOT codified in the same way as Fl
----BUT: it does have its own "rules" or "guides"
--------Interconnections between all processes and realities
--------Change is constant
--------Unity of Opposites within all things
--------Quantity and Quality are related to each other
--------Negation of the Negation...Synthesis
----To expect DL to be codified like FL...
--------puts a Formal demand on DL
----YET: There's not an absence of standards and categorical expressions
--------Fact is: DL incorporates (i.e. completes) the apparatus of FL
----------Strict Definitions
----------Classification
----------Coordination of categories
----------Syllogisms
----------Judgments (decisions/naming/identifying)
--------However:
----------In DL these are the "servants," NOT the "masters" of thought
----------Never more than approximately correct...subject to change and revision when warranted
----DL is the logic of matter in motion
--------the logic of contradictions & development
--------because...development IS self-contradictory
DL is the science of SOCIAL RELATIONS (i.e. historical realities)
----As they exist in the material world
----the ways people take things, themselves, and others into account
DL is not a simple one-way linear "cause and effect" relation (such as Fl is)
----NEITHER is it merely a "two-way" linear back and forth relation
Rather, DL CAUSALITY is a reciprocal relation
----INTERNAL relations of creation and (re)creation
-------of parts to the whole and the whole to the parts
-------these "units" are never studied in isolation from each other
-------because any THING needs every other THING in order to exist, to become itself
-------a THING is created and recreated by all else, never by itself
-------Everything is always transforming into something else
-------everything is BECOMING what it is NOT
-------real boundaries are always crumbling
THUS: DL is NOT the ABSENCE OF CAUSALITY
----Rather, a very different (from Fl) notion of cause
DL does not eliminate "lines of demarcation" or "identity"
----Identity is necessary
----but must be discovered in the practice of living
----this must be taken into account in our thinking
-------modifying, changing, altering, revising
DL is a science of non-determinism or non-inevitability
----FOCUS is on development and change
----on POSSIBILITY...not a "set" program of "logical conclusions"
----a science of conflict and contradiction
-------of how a "unity of opposites" results in change (synthesis...newness)
-------"conflict" is NOT equal to "zero-sum" kind of "winner and loser"
DL is a science of AGENTS IN CONDITIONS (causality)
----how agents both create and are created by the structures around them (i.e. social, economic, political)
-------structure is both a product and a producer (i.e. both A and non-A at the same time)
-------agents are both producers and products (i.e both A and non-A at the same time)
THUS...DL starts with the "material"
----the "SENSUOUS CONCRETE'
----develops concepts consistent and reflective of it
----CONTRARY TO FL...which starts with the "concept", the "form", the "idea" and applies it TO reality
----Dialectics's reference point is always the material and real people interacting with real circumstances...LIVED EXPERIENCE
-------circumstances not always of their own choosing, but always the product of some past action
---------including the dominant ideas of the moment
DL is thus "analysis"
----FL is the science of the "IMAGINED CONCRETE"
-------the "concrete" BEFORE analysis (i.e. without a history...of development)
-------is incomplete, one-sided, a "repression" of the history of the development of a "thing", any "object"
---------DL is a (re)membering (a re-putting-together) of that very development
DL has TWO MOMENTS
----1st = the "negation" of FL
----2nd = the "completion" of FL
DL treats every "thing" as a "moment" in the historical development of that "thing"
----the study of the "concrete"
-------a unity of the "thing" and its "foundations" (conditions)
-------that which makes it possible, sensible, or conceivable
-------that which is presupposed by its very existence
DL reunites an "object" with its "subject"
----presupposes that the "meaning" of anything is NOT in the "thing" itself
----RATHER...is the RESULT of a "subject", a "meaning-maker"
----To treat objects (i.e. like freedom, control, governments, terrorists, values, deviance etc.) as "things-in-themselves" is to...
-------"repress" what their very existence presupposes
------THAT IS...their own history and the dialectical interaction of opposites which gave rise to them
DL...AS a "mode (method) of theorizing"...or...conceptualizing...
----focuses on the INTERNAL RELATIONS of a subject and object which produces any "thing"
-------FL takes this process as "self-evident"
-------FL produces merely "ungrounded abstractions"
---------i.e. without a presupposed PURPOSE, things...for FL...merely ARE!!
-------Thus, if things merely ARE, then any deviation from them MUST be considered as BIAS
DL (dialectics) allows us to grasp the contradictory development of life and the continual process of change inherent in it
----that everything develops from within something else
----that everything needs everything else to be what it is
----that everything is becoming what it is NOT
----what is different becomes identical and what is identical becomes different
The following is an brief outline of Howard Sherman's article..."Dialectics as a Method"
The approach to reality should be relational. Never assume a particular social phenomena is accidental or isolated. Rather,
ask how it is related to the entire social-political-economic environment surrounding it. Although one may analytically separate a
single phenomenon from the whole for study, no valid conclusions can be drawn till the possible relations to the rest of the social
system are also examined.
2. CHANGE
The approach to reality should always be dynamic...not static. Ask...is the social system changing? How did it evolve and where
is it going? What is the process of development? What kind of society preceded this one and what kind will the present relations
produce?
3. UNITY OF OPPOSITES
Always ask about the opposing forces in any given process or reality...or..."thing". How are they related and in what direction
are they moving? Are there opposing interests...despite the presence of existing or apparent harmonies?
4. QUANTITY AND QUALITY
What are the present quantitative trends in society? Will these trends eventually create a sufficient level of difference to give rise
to a qualitative change? In what direction is that change likely to be? Or...when a process shows a discontinuity or qualitative jump,
ask what continuous quantitative evolution led it to that point.
5. NEGATION OF THE NEGATION
When one aspect of a process seems to completely eliminate or negate an opposed aspect, ask if it in turn may be eliminated.
Will the result be something quite new? What forces might impede its elinination? In what ways might it include aspects of the previous realities?
What will the new "synthesis" be like and what opposing reality will it create and/or encounter?
Sherman: "Obviously the dialectic method suggests questions to ask, it does not give answers. These rules suggest
approaches to the social sciences, to everyday problems, to political tactics, to the formulation of methodology itself, possibly to the natural
sciences, and to any other developmental process."
DIALECTICAL APPROACH TO CATEGORIES
1. From material practice we develop concepts and categories. Through further practice the categories change...although we treat them as fixed at any one time (i.e. treat them "as if")
2. Categories (ideas) are reflections of the material process of development of human knowledge. Which in turn reflects the processes of natural and social development
3. Non-dialectical categories are rigid and absolute dichotomies...always posed as opposites which create sterile disputes of choice between them
4. Viewed dialectically, these dichotomies can be understood and overcome. However, the dialectical approach is not to merely find an eclectic mix of two extremes (i.e. combining "two sides"). Nor is the goal to find a "golden mean" or middle point between them. Rather, the approach is to overcome BOTH old views and through this clash of opposites (although artifically created by Formal Logic), we try to SYNTHESIZE the grain of truth from each in a thoroughly new view
5. False Dilemmas of Formal Logic
Facts vs Theory
Free Will vs Determinism
Ethical Values vs Scientific Method
Relative Truth vs Absolute Truth
Individual Interest vs Social Interest
Accident vs Necessity
Freedom vs Cause
Inspiration vs Technique
Intuition vs Science
Principle vs Flexibility
Scepticism vs Utopianism
Parts vs Wholes
Quantity vs Quality
Uniqueness vs Universality
Individuality vs Commoness
Practice vs Thinking
Appearance vs Essence
Form vs Content
Individual vs Society
Sherman: "All of these are merely different aspects of social reality. Each must be carefully and slowly pushed to its limits and negated by its opposite. Then our understanding can make a qualitative jump to a new synthetic concept (the "negation of the negation")."
