/dead/ - Post-Left

What is your conception of dialectics that you think to be valid? There does not seem to be a general concept of dialectics, every author seems to have their own version that contradicts every other.

>>1396
I delved deepest into the Hanz Heinz Holz/Thomas Metscher conception of dialectics (based on Hegel obviously) where dielectics describes both a way of thinking (as in viewing processes as a flow of negation that propells the process so to speak) and as the natural make-up of the universe. So it's not that viewing the world through an dialectical lense that makes the development-through-contradiction dynamic appear, but reality is already moving in such a way and thus the only correct way of analysis can be dialectics.
As I stated above I'm not really convinced by the naturalist standpoint, but still think that viewing any phenomenon as a process of reciprocal negation is the most applicable.

I'll be honest, I don't give a fuck. I tried to understand what the hype around dialectics is all about, but to me it just seems like a bunch of bullshit.

>>1405
The 'hype' is around leaving behind the nominalist and metaphysical conceptions of development in favor for one that addresses movement and development much more precisely as processes that exist as a whole instead of analysing them as a row of singular instances.

>>1407
What does that mean in practice?

>>1410
Think we wanna analyise a flower and try to make sense of how it changes. In the traditional view, we would look at the flower in any particular instance and be able to make statements about it's make up right then and there. Like first it is just a seed, than we get a stage where leaves grow, later buds and even later the actual flower.
But in an dialectical view, it's all part of the same process of becoming, you can not make sense of the flower without containing the earlier stages in the same thought. Furthermore, while in the traditional sense, the bud and the flower conradict each other (everytime youu look at it only one can exist, if the plant has buds it can not yet flower, if it flowers the bud is gone), while in the dialectical sense they even necessitate each other, you can't have the flower without having the bud or the seed first. Both bud and seed are parts of the flowers being at any time and have to be kept in mind.
The same is true for when we analyse the becoming of societies. In the traditional view, enlightenment, the nazi regime and modern liberal democracy are seperate and even exclusionary steps in the history of the german nation. But through the lense of dialectics, they are part of the same movement and are dependent on each other. It allowes us to delve deeper in the mechanisms that made one become the other stage and thus gives us a much more complete understanding.
I'm sorry if I poorly worded things, I only know the german terms for alot of stuff here, but I hope you get the gist.

>>1411
If you want a philosophy of becoming go read Nietzsche, Bergson or Deleuze. Dialectics is teleological bullshit.

>>1414
>>1414
>Dialectics is teleological bullshit
How?
I'm not saying that you are wrong I would just like a little bit of an explanation because dialectis in the conception I described above can be used with in idealist, materialist, positivist and even spirurtual base.

>>1415
Because dialectic movement always points to a resolution. There is always a conciliation at the end of it. This is also the reason why dialectics is incapable of comprehending difference i.e. anything that falls outside its totalising movement.

>>1397
What is even negation? For example, Bakunin has this to say on the matter of human development while discussing materialism in God and the State:
> But as every development necessarily implies a negation, that of its base or point of departure, humanity is at the same time and essentially the deliberate and gradual negation of the animal element in man; …
What does this even mean, other than "the more things change, the less they remain the same"?

>>1414
Ok, I'll read Deleuze
>It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. The breast is a machine that produces milk, and the mouth i machine coupled to it. The mouth of the anorexic wavers between several functions: its possessor is uncertain as to whether it is an eating-machine, an anal machine, a talking-machine, or a breathing machine (asthma attacks).

>>1438
The beginning of Anti-Oedipus is pretty great but you should probably rather start with his book on Nietzsche.

>>1426
>Because dialectic movement always points to a resolution
Every process does come to end, but at that end a new process begins

>>1435
>What does this even mean, other than "the more things change, the less they remain the same"?
I would say the things don't stay the same, they are always changing, but the form of change is persistent