From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 04:14:29 EST
And I take his point in appealing to a logic of exposition is exactly to
show that if we keep stumbling over surprises, as VFT finds in Capital, ch.
1, then we have a problem. Or is that just with a logic that is linear?
That is, supposing a presentation that was dialectical, could we find the
insufficiency of each stage to comprehend its presuppositions a kind of
surprise that drove forward the immanent logic of the argument so that it
constituted a move from surprise to surprise, dialectically sublated, so to
speak?
Howard what do you mean by a linear logic?
Do you mean the same thing as a monotonic logic?
I am skeptical that the Hegelian arguments are logical developments from a
given
starting point. Wherever you have surprise, you have new information.
This must have been introduced from outside as a hidden additional
premise.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 29 2005 - 00:00:02 EST