David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Karl Popper famously opposed Marxism in general and its philosophical core – the Marxist dialectic – in particular. As a progressive thinker, Popper saw in dialectic a source of dogmatism damaging to philosophy and political theory. Popper had summarized his views on dialectic in an article that was first delivered in 1937 and subsequently republished as a chapter of his book (2002, pp. 419-451), where he accuses Marxist dialecticians of not tolerating criticism. Ironically, Popper’s view that all Marxist dialecticians dogmatically dismiss any criticism of dialectic by claiming that their opponents do not understand dialectic makes his position no less dogmatic. Indeed, any attempt to criticise Popper’s views on dialectics would be seen only as an additional example of responses by “dogmatic dialecticians”, making his theory essentially immune. This completely prevents dialecticians from being able to criticise Popper’s views. This is exactly the opposite of what the great philosopher wanted. Therefore, for the sake of “anti-dogmatic science” it is desirable and even necessary to defend dialectic. In this work I address several central points about Popper’s criticism of Marxist (materialist) dialectic. In particular, I (a) analyse Popper’s definition of dialectic as the dialectic triad (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis) and contrast it with a notion of dialectic as a much more complex concept which occurs in dialectical materialism today, where the triad represents only one of the aspects; (b) compare dialectic with the trial and error method; (c) discuss the place of dialectic amongst valid scientific methods: Does dialectic accept logical contradictions; (e) discuss lessons dialecticians should learn from Popper’s criticism. I will test my arguments as to their constructiveness and will demonstrate explicitly the nature of my disagreement with Popper - thereby trying to avoid the “dogmatic dialecticians” response as much as possible.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Rees (1998). The Algebra of Revolution: The Dialectic and the Classical Marxist Tradition. Routledge.
Ernest Benjamin Koenker (1971). Great Dialecticians in Modern Christian Thought. Minneapolis, Minn.,Augsburg Pub. House.
Bence Nanay (2011). Popper's Darwinian Analogy. Perspectives on Science 19 (3):337-354.
Nicholas Maxwell (1972). A Critique of Popper's Views on Scientific Method. Philosophy of Science 39 (2):131-152.
Annamaria Schiaparelli (2009). Plotinus on Dialectic. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (3):253-287.
D. V. Nikulin (2010). Dialectic and Dialogue. Stanford University Press.
Maurilio Lovatti (1996). Neopositivists' Crusade Against Karl Popper. Per la Filosofia (36):99-109.
Karl R. Popper (1940). What is Dialectic? Mind 49 (196):403-426.
Joel Kovel (2008). Dialectic as Praxis. In Bertell Ollman & Tony Smith (eds.), Science and Society. Palgrave Macmillan. 474 - 482.
Shigeru Shojaku (1970). The Criticism on Dialectic by K. Popper in His "What is Dialectic?". Kagaku Tetsugaku 3:59-72.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads55 ( #40,819 of 1,696,305 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #111,244 of 1,696,305 )
How can I increase my downloads?