[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1608528068706.jpg (44.05 KB, 960x639, ynu.jpg)


Can you nerds explain it using simple language?


idk op, bump


File: 1608528070370.png (494.14 KB, 666x941, 63428ca89461c890c12f113873….png)

The logic that you learn in school is called formal logic because it is only concerned with form, not content. If you start from bullshit premises, you can logically derive bullshit conclusions. Hegel, being a turbo idealist, thought this was wack and wanted a logic that was concerned with content.

His grand plan was that if he started with the most basic concept and thoroughly investigated it, he must necessarily uncover all the secrets of the world up to the Absolute Spirit, which is like God and contains every concept ever and governs the rules of the universe. Of course it being a logic if you did the same you must necessarily reach the same conclusions and if you did not, it must be because you are stupid.

His method is the following. First you take a concept and try to give it a definition ("thesis"). You thoroughly study this definition and you realize that you actually defined something entirely different than what you wanted, something like the opposite (negation/"antithesis") of your original concept. Not being a loser to give up, you start investigating this new concept, trying to define it, only to realize that upon further investigation, this second concept now really looks like what you originally wanted. So you go back to defining it, only to realize that you are back at the negation… Until you take a step back, pull a new concept (sublation/"synthesis") out of your ass to distinguish the two previous cases, by both preserving them and abolishing them. Then you start defining it only to realize that it is actually something else… and you repeat until you have the ultimate concept that puts everything in place. Of course, since he has to explain everything, he does not strictly follow his own method.

As an example, consider (pure) Being, which is the concept of something existing. Without anything specific, just the fact that something is. Hegel tells you that investigated on its own, Being is actually a lot like Nothing, the concept of not existing. And if something is not, then it actually is, because we are talking about concepts and not object, right? To solve this contradiction, he introduces Becoming, which is this passing from Nothing to Being.

An example closer to Marxists can be found when examining the interests of the worker and the boss. The boss' interest is to pay as low wages as it can for as much labour as can be extracted, while the worker's interest is to work as little as possible while taking home as much as possible. If their interests are so opposed, how come they end up cooperating always? It is because a third concept, the company's interest. It preserves the opposition, the worker and the boss still struggle to win their little victories in dividing the profit, but it also solves it as they can only do this in the context of the company's interest, both of their survival depend on the continued commercial success of the enterprise. This is an appealing picture, but only an imbecile would claim that companies were invented to contain and neutralize class struggle.

Yet when Marxists talk about the "dialectic" being "in motion", this is what they are talking about. They seriously believe that history is governed by some inhuman forces that evolve on their own. The fact is, Hegel would have been long forgotten if not for the Marxists insistence on preserving his delusions. They think Hegel is somehow relevant to understanding Marx because the first chapter of Capital is structured like a parody of Hegel and makes use of Hegel's terms. As a joke, only to end up with basically saying "this is how the bourgeois thinks lmao they are stupid fucks who thinks commodities move on their own". Of course if Marxists were capable of thinking for themselves they would be anarchists by now.

Oh, and when they accuse you of "not being dialectical", as if that was something to be ashamed of and not a sign of not being deluded, it means that they are upset that you have pointed out their incoherence.


Boy am I glad you asked this question
>Dialectics comes from the Greek dialego, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature.


what is dialectic materialism then?


>Stalin spammer to intro questions
Fuck off.


See >>1079 and the thread in general.


every-time somebody explains hegel they explain it differently

>Of course if Marxists were capable of thinking for themselves they would be anarchists by now.

but nobody can think for them self's, everybody uses mental-patterns that were invented by other people
for somebody taking on philosophical topics you seem to statements that are profoundly un-reflected.

to be fair we don't have to use Hegelian language to talk about dialectical materialism, most of the concepts have newer far more precise descriptions in other fields.


File: 1608528072352.jpg (30.27 KB, 392x446, 1576935422844.jpg)



Yeah it's pretty simple. First, off let's list some of the things it is NOT.

Dialectics is NOT the rejection of the law of non-contradiction. Furthermore is not inconsistent with formal logic.

Dialectics are NOT a method. People often say dialectic when what they mean is critique or dialogue.

Dialectics is NOT when two opposing views are reconciled making a better more advanced view.

Dialectics ARE a particular pattern that appears in the result of any rigorous investigation of necessary relations. The word necessary is important here, and I mean necessary as opposed to contingent or sufficient. That distinction is not mysterious or hard to understand, but it is often overlooked. You can look up the definitions but it may be easier to just reflect on the way you use them. What does it mean if something is historically contingent vs historically necessity? What is a necessary condition as opposed to a sufficient condition?

The reason this patter emerges is also not particularly mysterious. Once you wrap your head around it there is literally no way results of such an investigation could not present as a dialectic unless you where to make an error, or break with the method (the method being imminent critique). There is no one reason that this is the case, but in every example you can work through you will see that it could be no other way. That's sorta the thing about necessary relations.

I'm still trying to figure this one out.


File: 1608528080165.gif (157.92 KB, 280x280, jigglingatoms.gif)

>what is dialectic materialism then?

Explaining materialism:

[b]classical materialism[/b]

[b]Labour purpose and structures[/b]

[b]Purpose and entropy[/b]

[b]Thermodynamics and life[/b] (this one does dialectics without Hegel)

[b]Thermodynmics of money and capital[/b]

[b]The quantum challenge[/b]


He tried developing logic. He was solid for early 19th century, but we have much better things now.


>They seriously believe that history is governed by some inhuman forces that evolve on their own.
literally the opposite of what marxists believe. fucking retarded.


>First you take a concept and try to give it a definition ("thesis").
stopped reading there. Hegel never said this


>companies were invented to contain and neutralize class struggle.
laterally no marxists says this


File: 1608528104809.jpg (956.63 KB, 1487x1657, 81349130_p0.jpg)

He literally says that in §80, he just calls the first movement Understanding (or Abstract).
> Thought, as Understanding, sticks to fixity of characters and their distinctness from one another …
> … The action of Understanding may be in general described as investing its subject-matter with the form of universality. …
> … Thus, in theory, knowledge begins by apprehending existing objects in their specific differences. In the study of nature, for example, we distinguish matters, forces, genera, and the like, and stereotype each in its isolation. …
He continues in §81:
> In the Dialectical stage these finite characterisations or formulae supersede themselves, and pass into their opposites.
Idk who taught you about Hegel but you should ask for your money back.


That's the point.


Then stop using stupid ass phrases like "the dialectics is in motion".


I think they're saying that if Marxists were consistently applying their thought process they would be saying that

tbh nothing wrong with Marxism if you ignore the mystique dialectical materialism shit and dogma and essentialism (conflating state and capitalism or reducing all issues to class issues as examples)
btw I heard that Marx used a lot of dry sarcasm in his writings which is hard to detect so some people take it literally, so that comrade might be right about Marx mocking Hegel


>Idk who taught you about Hegel but you should ask for your money back.
you're the one who chose to call it thesis, antithesis and synthesis. do you even know the difference?


dialectics are human


why are moefags the biggest pseuds on earth?


I put it in quotes because that is how it appears on the picture. Honest question: are you actually this stupid or are you just looking for excuses to disregard the post because it hurt your feelings? This is an anonymous board, you don't have to lie to us.




I asked first. do you even know the difference between the Dialectical and Socratic method?


Of course I do. My turn: are you actually this stupid or are you just looking for excuses to disregard the post because it hurt your feelings?


it’s quite clear the only person hurting anybody’s feelings is Hegel

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]