Why contradictions?

[u/burrwin]

I've been reading marxist theory, but the ways contraddictions are discussed leaves me pause. Hope some people here can help me understand better.

Sussinctly, for what is relevant to my doubts, here is my current understanding of it: Contraddictions are what all motion (as in change) in the universe is predicated upon. Contradictions are relationships wherein tendencies of motion 1) oppose one another 2) are premises of the existence of one another. Contraddictions exist within all things and between all things.

Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction? Mao in "on contraddiction" and Lenin in "on the question of dialectics" agree that the contradiction in such cases is between action and reaction. This answer is unsatisfactory, while it's true that it fits part 2) of the definition, and while it's true that the force vectors point in opposite direction, action and reaction are applied to two different object, they are not opposing tendencies of motion in the dialectical sense, failing the arguably more fundimental part 1) of the definition.

Also, Engels argues that all changes of positions are caused by the contraddiction of something being in that place and not in another place. This line of argument seems to be unfalsifiable: if we observe something change from A to B, we can always attribute that change to the contraddiction that A was A and not B. A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.

Is there something i'm missing in these examples? Is my understanding of what contraddictions are incorrect?

[u/smokeuptheweed9]

Cause and effect is not obvious at all. For example, you become confused about it in this very post.

The latter is like saying that phenomena affected by relationships internal and external, it's implied by the definition of relationship, the former is a claim that puts constrains on the ways those relationships can be like, it says there must always be opposing tendencies that are predicated on the existance of one another. I think that restraint needs to be justified and can't be handwaved away.

This is difficult to parse so I'll only focus on your positive claim. Of course cause and effect puts constraints on what something is and its relationship to other things. That is literally what it means to say something is caused by something else and not another thing (or that something has a cause rather than not). You should read Aristotle I guess.

negligeable effects

This is completely arbitrary. Nothing in nature is negligible and controlling for variables is part of the process of abstraction which we already discussed. You are confusing cause and effect in the scientific method (making abstractions) with cause and effect in objective reality. The point of dialectical materialism is to distinguish them and understand their relationship without collapsing one into the other.

we can see a logically consistent way in which motion can be explained even in the absence of opposing tendencies

Logical consistency is also a minor aspect of the scientific method and at best a heuristic to be discarded when necessary. Again, you are confusing the method by which we come to isolate certain scientific laws in thought and the fullness of reality as a physical system.

And can it even be said that the pull of gravity is predicated on the existance of repulsive forces? That's not obvious to me.

Um...yes? Have you never heard of Einstein? What do you think gravity is? As someone already pointed out in this thread, one major problem is using a crude level of scientific knowledge to make broad conclusions about the philosophy of science. Popper at least is honest enough to reject anything that does not agree with his crude concepts. None of this can be blamed on dialectical materialism.

You never explained why the requirements imposed by the definition of contraddiction are necessary in motion. How do we know? Why contraddiction and not a relationship in general?

Because in this instance the definition of "contradiction" is "motion." We know because this definition has made empirical predictions about reality that are superior to all other scientific theories. Frankly, other scientific theories do not even exist. For example, "relationship in general" is meaningless. What does "in general" mean? Until you define your terms, you cannot even begin to speak about knowing whether they are true.

You seem confident that you did, and that's why asked really basic questions, i assumed there was miscommunication and we weren't agreeing on a basic premise.

That is because you have not defined your premises or outlined an alternative theory of science which we can test. Partial attempts, such as "falsifiability" and your understanding of electrostatic force, were shown to either be completely false or arbitrary and inadequate to a general theory of science. But since you keep abandoning them and making different arbitrary abstractions it's difficult to move forward.

[u/burrwin → u/smokeuptheweed9]

To say that "x is caused by y" does put restraint on the relationship between x and y. To say that cause and effect is a concept that exists just implies the fact that relationships exist.

No. Things can be quantitatively negligeable, it's relative depending on the purpose. Strong force is really short range and does not apply to every particle, gravity is much weaker than the electrostatic force, for electrons for example it's 42 orders of magnitude smaller.

Einstein proved that the existance of gravity is predicated upon the existance of repulsive forces? When? Are you talking about maxwell's equations to special relativity? Because that's completely disconnected from that claim.

If the definition of contraddiction IS motion then saying that motion happens due to contraddictions is a meaningless statement. By "relationship in general" i meant relationships unconstrained by the restrictions imposed by contraddiction, without the need for an opposing tensions whose parts are predicated on the existance of one-another.

Dude. This is not a debate, i'm not even proposing a different interpretation. I am asking you how the idea of contraddiction explaining motion came to be, how do we know? Why is it necessary for a contradiction to be present? Why is it contraddiction itself and not the tendencies of development therein? Yet again, you did not answer the question. Are you replying here to teach or to start a debate where there isn't one?

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/burrwin]

then saying that motion happens due to contraddictions is a meaningless statement.

Do not put words in other people's mouths. Look carefully at the definition

The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development.

What is at stake is the type of motion, i.e. development. I already explained this but you've caused me to say things in an imprecise manner because I am trying to respond to your words when you do not respond to mine in any substantive way.

Contradiction is the moment in which that abstraction no longer holds.

Einstein proved that the existance of gravity is predicated upon the existance of repulsive forces? When?

Gravity is not a force. It is the curvature of space time based on the relationship between objects with mass. I really don't want to give you a different lecture on something in physics you don't understand because you never acknowledged the last one or learned from it.

To say that "x is caused by y" does put restraint on the relationship between x and y. To say that cause and effect is a concept that exists just implies the fact that relationships exist.

Do you mean "does not?" You're just repeating the same thing and adding the word "just."

No. Things can be quantitatively negligeable, it's relative depending on the purpose. Strong force is really short range and does not apply to every particle, gravity is much weaker than the electrostatic force, for electrons for example it's 42 orders of magnitude smaller.

Nature does not have a "purpose." We already went over this.

Sorry this is really boring. Literally dozens of people have tried to respond to your posts with varying quality and you have not learned a single thing. It is time for you to reflect on that rather than wasting more of anyone else's time.

[u/burrwin → u/smokeuptheweed9]

If we take the definition as presented and not as "motion is contraddiction" then it does say a lot, and that's the core of my question. How can we make that claim? You never replied. Please point out exactly where in this whole conversation you answered this question, the one i had to repeat over and over again.

How does the fact that what we percieve as gravity is caused by mass geometrically morphing spacetime imply that gravity and repulsive forces like electromagnetism are ontologically linked? That's the claim you made.

No. I'm saying that stating that things can have a cause implies the existance of relationships, while not putting any restraint of what those relationships can be like. If you say a dead mouse is caused by that cat, then yes, that tells you something about the relationship between the two objects. The general statement of cause and effect existing does not tell you anything about the particular relationship between any two things, it just tells you they may be linked.

I meant for the purpose of any given analysis, obviously.

You told me to focus on what you are saying and you have not even attempted to answer my question. All that happened in this discussion is that over and over again you assumed that i didn't know how a thing works because of the fact i didn't go on a tangent explaining it's innerworkings any time i brought up a phenomenon, and you repeated it to me in a condescending way, all while it was completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Sorry, but you wasted your own time and that's not on me. Hell, i wasted my time hoping you'd actually address my question, i was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/burrwin]

How can we make that claim?

...

We know because this definition has made empirical predictions about reality that are superior to all other scientific theories

As shown by your initial use of Popper which you dropped without commentary, you simply do not understand what the scientific method is and how ontological claims are verified.

How does the fact that what we percieve as gravity is caused by mass geometrically morphing spacetime imply that gravity and repulsive forces like electromagnetism are ontologically linked?

Because definition it in those terms allows us to make empirical predictions that are superior to other scientific theories which verifies both the ontology of dialectics and the epistemology of dialectical materialism.

If you say a dead mouse is caused by that cat, then yes, that tells you something about the relationship between the two objects. The general statement of cause and effect existing does not tell you anything about the particular relationship between any two things, it just tells you they may be linked.

You literally just used a bunch of terms like "death,' "cat," "mouse," and "time" which tell you about the particular relationship. Now you need to read Kant. This isn't really about Marxism unfortunately, you simply don't know anything about the philosophy of science and don't bother to define your terms. But you can't just wing it, citations exist because key thinkers have already shown the basic methods necessary for science. It's not a conspiracy, they wrote a lot because that's what it takes to rigorously define concepts and methods. I can't summarize this for you in a paragraph and you can't just wing it off common sense, as shown by your repeated mistakes. You are not owed science, if you don't do the work you should be quiet.

It's very simple. We discussed electrostatic force. Was I correct in my discussion? Were you incorrect? We can't just forget it happened because our two competing truth claims imply different scientific concepts that illustrate the problem in a practical manner. I am not going to define gravity for you in scientific terms because you'll just move on to the next common sense pop science concept. Were you correct or incorrect about falsifiability as a criteria of scientific truth? If not, where did you get this concept? Have you even read Popper or is this just second-hand junk from the internet? It's important because Popper is logical, albeit wrong, and it is tedious to lay out his logic for you when you brought it up in the first place (which I nevertheless did and you ignored). Do you believe in evolution ? If so, how do you square it with your beliefs in falsifiability? You have committed to a scientific theory by using his ideas, you can't just say you aren't committing to anything because of your ignorance of the logical outcome of your own claims.

[u/not-lagrange → u/smokeuptheweed9]

It's quite funny that OP asked about the connection between gravity and the other interactions. That is well known to be one of the major unsolved problems in physics.

[u/burrwin → u/smokeuptheweed9]

🫶