I would also add a book that helped me quite a bit with understanding diamat along side the things already mentioned, although I don’t know how valuable the examples are if you’re not familiar with some biology.
Specifically the last chapter “Conclusion: Dialectics” is great because they go through the various aspects of dialectics with various biological (and some other) examples. A critical reading of this chapter with me analyzing the examples given and also trying to come up with my own really helped me.
Funnily enough, I just started The Ecological Rift by Foster, Clark, and York (MR Press), and I thought, this would be a good example of dialectical materialism. The preface states,
We have also benefited from the support of Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, and from their dialectical approach to biology.
It sounds like others have found Lewis and Lewontin helpful, too. Might have to add them to my list after working through Foster and Burnett.
Sometimes I like to work forwards, starting with the oldest author and reading chronologically. There’s nothing quite like seeing the debate unfold like that. But when I’m shorter on time or the subject is less familiar, I like to work backwards as the examples of more modern writers can be easier to get on with; and reading the previous work with some background knowledge can make the task a bit easier.
I think Levins and Lewontin are definitely worth checking out, especially for dialectical views of biology but also other related natural sciences and their applications. They also contrast their dialectical view to the traditional reductionist views and conceptions of the discussed topics but the focus is still on the dialectics.
Yes, in my experience, the level of previous background knowledge is the key in determining which strategy (chronological or not) is better suited to the study of a subject. Without knowing the historical and social context of an author or work it can be difficult to properly analyze and contextualize it. That’s when reading some secondary sources from more modern writers can serve as a great starting point. Once I have a better understanding of the context, reading the oldest or primary sources is much more productive. Knowing where that threshold lies just takes some experience.
One thing I find very useful is when the more modern authors directly cite and include paragraphs or explanations from the older authors (which is quite common is Marxist writing). It helps directly with the contextualization and provides a list of works for further reading.
I would also add a book that helped me quite a bit with understanding diamat along side the things already mentioned, although I don’t know how valuable the examples are if you’re not familiar with some biology.
The Dialectical Biologist by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin
Specifically the last chapter “Conclusion: Dialectics” is great because they go through the various aspects of dialectics with various biological (and some other) examples. A critical reading of this chapter with me analyzing the examples given and also trying to come up with my own really helped me.
Some essays like this one were also quite useful: https://redsails.org/what-is-dialectics/
Funnily enough, I just started The Ecological Rift by Foster, Clark, and York (MR Press), and I thought, this would be a good example of dialectical materialism. The preface states,
It sounds like others have found Lewis and Lewontin helpful, too. Might have to add them to my list after working through Foster and Burnett.
Sometimes I like to work forwards, starting with the oldest author and reading chronologically. There’s nothing quite like seeing the debate unfold like that. But when I’m shorter on time or the subject is less familiar, I like to work backwards as the examples of more modern writers can be easier to get on with; and reading the previous work with some background knowledge can make the task a bit easier.
I’ll have to check out The Ecological Rift then.
I think Levins and Lewontin are definitely worth checking out, especially for dialectical views of biology but also other related natural sciences and their applications. They also contrast their dialectical view to the traditional reductionist views and conceptions of the discussed topics but the focus is still on the dialectics.
Yes, in my experience, the level of previous background knowledge is the key in determining which strategy (chronological or not) is better suited to the study of a subject. Without knowing the historical and social context of an author or work it can be difficult to properly analyze and contextualize it. That’s when reading some secondary sources from more modern writers can serve as a great starting point. Once I have a better understanding of the context, reading the oldest or primary sources is much more productive. Knowing where that threshold lies just takes some experience.
One thing I find very useful is when the more modern authors directly cite and include paragraphs or explanations from the older authors (which is quite common is Marxist writing). It helps directly with the contextualization and provides a list of works for further reading.