Talk:Marxist philosophy of nature

2005 comments

• This page is currently in progess, i'd appreciate any help conforming this article to wikipedia standards, attaching this article to the communism group or contributing information. Thanks.--EatAlbertaBeef 20:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• This article is now complete, i'd appreciate any contributions to it.--EatAlbertaBeef 15:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid, my friend, you got it all wrong, By attributiong to Marx all that was stated by Hegel. mikka (t) 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this shows that the author hasn't read the original sources. Marx refers to Hegel all the time. Trious 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging

• As the original author of this article I support the merge, as long as the quality of the article doesn't suffer. I originally intended this at the dialectical materialism article, but narrowed it down. --EatAlbertaBeef 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree with the merge <contrib by 86.138.4.141>

Reason? mikka (t) 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• The article says: ..Marxist Philosophy of Nature (also called dialectical materialism).. Please explain why, then, there are two separate articles? mikka (t) 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, "philosophy of nature" is a calque from German word "Naturphilosophie", Anyway, the expression "Marxist philosophy of nature" is not a standard expression.

Also, while we are at this, the philosophy of nature article looks suspicious to me. In particular, it doesn't encompass such traditional things as Hegel's philosophy of nature (naturphilosophie), etc. mikka (t) 01:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

it doesn't encompass such traditional things as Hegel's philosophy of nature (naturphilosophie) - and why should it? Hegelian view appears to be quite different to one of Marx. Marx said it himself, that ge had to "turn it upside down", and he did. Hegel philosophy isn't materialistic, and so it does not belong here, imho. 217.25.194.150

I think the quality of this article is not great, and that it is based on Soviet interpretations rather than original sources. It presents a caricuture of dialectical materialism. There is no need to have a separate article. The DM article is of much better quality. Trious 14:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting marxist question which could lead to endless fights, in other times!... However, IMO it should be merged, as no theoretical distinction should be made between both. Or am I wrong? I hope I won't have to do my autocritique for this! Lapaz 17:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the oversimplifications they are far more Hegel than Marx, who did a lot more than just turn Hegel on his head, whilst not referencing either properly. And without wanting to dampen the spirit, this piece doesn't capture Marx at all. Well done for the effort but this article really needs some drastic reworking before it should be brought anywhere near dialectical materialism piece, let alone merge80.225.14.191 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Readers might like to visit my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/

where dialectical materialism is systematically taken apart from a Marxist angle.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

---

A better summary than the DM article itself

I support merging these two articles, the DM article seems to be unclear as well as overly concentrated on the anti-DM marxists. I wouldn't be surprised if Rosa, above, had a big role to play in the way that article has come out.--Che y Marijuana 05:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Che, I had nothing to do with this article.

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

---

[11/08/06)

Merging would make sense - the telos of this dialectic movement? Could the Marxist critics of the D of N be granted their arguments?

Blake

---

The merge would be very helpful. I had no idea how DM differed from dialectics after reading the DM article. The MPN article clarified that, but the DM article contextualizes the definition, which was helpful. The Marxist/postmodern jargon in the DM article makes it inaccessible to non-specialists, however. --Aarden 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This article begins with a negative ("there is no such thing as ...) which suggests to me that it's purpose is questionable.

The statements of the 3 laws of DM are not quoted from sources but paraphrased. This leads to the questionable emphasis on the word 'leap'(including the dubious link - purpose please?) - even though leap is used by some marxist scholars it is a simplification of Marx:-

"Merely quantitative differences, beyond a certain point, pass into qualitative changes." (DM page)

None of the arguments in the last paragraph 'Opposition Views' are referenced and my response to this paragraph is to argue that the claims made are just plain wrong or misinterpretations of what was implied by Marx or Engels. In other words your putting an argument rather than providing information.

This entry is a disgrace!

The DM article has several kinks in it, but this one is absolutely horrible, incompetent and ignorant, and both the links and bibliography leave much to be desired. It should most certainly not be merged with DM, especially in its present state.

Another consideration is Marxist philosophy of science, which is related to philosophy of nature, though perhaps not entirely synonymous.

The whole thing needs to be redone.

Salvaging the article

This article is clearly a summary of dialectical materialism, it alludes to that in it's very introduction. However some parts can be saved and included in DM, namely the "Basic Overview" section and it's subpoints which really explain the fundimental laws of not just DM but general dialectical thought. Any suggestions? What does the original author say? (Demigod Ron (talk) 07:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Retraction or Re-categorization

It would honestly be better if the article was withdrawn, and the link "Marxist philosophy of nature" led to a page asking for brand new contributions. The entire entry is misguided in its approach, and is full of incorrect information. A Marxist philosophy of nature is not simply a subtopic of dialectical materialism. A Marxist philosophy of nature cannot be reduced to a conception of dialectical materialism. Among many objections, perhaps the easiest to point out, is that "dialectical materialism" is one particular interpretation of how to characterize the philosophy of Marx and later Marxist theorists (it is one particular interpretation, and one much contested by various other interpretations of Marx and Marxist theories). Given this, the best the current entry could aspire to in its current form would be a *revised and expanded version* listed under the qualified title along the lines of "Dialectical materialism and and the philosophy of nature" or "conception of nature in dialectical materialism" or "the concept of nature under dialectical materialism." Alternatively, the entry could be moved and listed as a sub entry underneath the larger "Dialectical Materialism" entry, provided it is made clear in the description of "philosophy of nature" that the entry is only considering "philosophy of nature" from the perspective of dialectical materialism, and that there are many other mainstream accounts of the "Marxist philosophy of nature" within Marxist philosophy which differ significantly from this one. You would do well to at least list a few of the mainstream interpretations, even if they are not hyperlinked.

Also, proper and relevant citation very much needed.

Lastly, a final point of interest: the concept of "nature" was no small matter to Marx himself--his Doctoral Dissertation concerned the concept of nature in Ancient Philosophy: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/index.htm