[ show plain text ]
Replies to Rakesh and Ale
Rakesh 2716 I think I agree
>thanks for your illuminating post #2723.
>I have a couple of questions:
>a) What would be the difference between the Hegelian and the Aristotelian
>form of the syllogism?
In a word totalisation. Aristotle has a linear argument from premises to
conclusion. hegel is interested in trying to show that the premises may be
comclusions of another syllogism such that a whole system of syllogisms may
be self-supporting as it were with everything both premise and conclusion.
(This does not affect the point I made before however.) I drew on Hegel to
address the similar complementaries of the circuits of capital in my
contribution to *The Circulation of Capital* eds Arthur and Reuten.
>b) Can we think of the Hegelian form of syllogism as a *historical*, *real
>time* process, pressumably in contrast with the Aristotelian one, which
>would be a *purely logical*, *atemporal* scheme?
Hegel has both atemporal and historical movements.
>I think Marx conceives the C-M-C and the M-C-M' as real time, historical
>processes which cannot be collapsed into an "instantaneous", "logical" moment.
Hm. I think that at the early levels of abstraction the question of time is
not important; what is important is the 'distribution' of the moments of
value; C is its particularity, M its universality, and their unification in
an individual is achieved in the metamorphoses, certainly a process rather
then a synchronic relation to be sure.
P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
but the old one will also run until the summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT