From: cyrilsmith-at-cix.compulink.co.uk (Mr C Smith)

Subject: Evolution and Hegelian dialectics in nature

They're at it again!

when Annette talks about 'dialectics in nature', she seems to mean a very general kind of pattern, found in many different situations. But I still don't know what it is that is in something else. If you could shake Nature, could you hear the little dialectics rattling inside? She also wants to mean that there is a special 'method of logic', attributed to Hegel.

How do these two things connect? Two questions: (a) Why is this method good for talking about Nature? (b) If it is, why does Hegel not 'use' it when he talks about Nature? As you all know, Hegel is quite sure that there is no development in Nature, and so no dialectic. These only operate in the realm of Spirit, consciousness, etc. Dialectic is the movement from 'in-itself' to 'for-itself'. So rocks, trees and elephants can't have it, because Nature for Hegel is only 'in-itself'. It has no history, only cyclic changes. Its shapes are a series of separate stages, and not a connected sequence in time.

Then I read Stephen's message, reminding me of Chairman Mao's contributions. (What happened to the Great Helmsman's inspiration, the mass murderer who also moonlighted as philosopher? I refer to the book 'Dialectical and Historical Materialism', 1938, or, as a friend of mine always calls it, 'Diabolical and Hysterical'.) And what would Hegel think about 'feeling the dialectic in your bones'? I think there is an important difference between 'standing the dialectic on its feet', and Stephen's picture of it standing on its own head - neatest trick of the week.

No. When we discuss the way we understand things, we can't avoid talking about who we are. And that implies getting to grips with the obstacles to Reason, as well as its triumphs. Hegel wants these obstacles to be part of Reason itself, so that Spirit can find the way to overcome them. Marx has another tale to tell. His critique of Hegel leads to his understanding of praxis as the activity, not of Spirit, but of living human individuals, who are part of Nature, struggling to emancipate themselves from the power of capital and the state.

I think I like Andy's ethics bit, but I'll come back to that later.

Best wishes to all,

Cyril