/edu/ - Education

>>24706
Yeah i figured the glowie post was either stupid or malicious, just doing my part to avoid the concensus crack.
I appreciate the delving into the bourgoise philosophies that may have influenced the theory's emergence, i didnt know it was as old as Kelvin. When i was a teenager i fell into that trap after reading Asimov's "The Last Question", so it's for sure still influential, especially in the techno-fash communities

>>23090
>What the fuck are they?
literally just science. marx repeatedly says dialectics is just a mode of presentation to him, not some arcane method to gain forbidden knowledge jesus fucking christ

Dialectics is advanced religgery

Once you've gotten through all the dialogue and links above you're ready for:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/

Have a glance through:

>>23225
>>24686
>>24362
>>23862
>>23803
>>23501

If you have trouble, ask questions in this thread even, if you see something someone posts ask questions about it

And if you just want to see it in motion https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm

>>24711
Wrong. Dialectic is the only genuine science.

>>24705
>Saying heat death is "proven science" is just so stupid, now i gotta jump in.
Wrong. You deny the Second Law of Thermodynamic. Denial of heat death is denial of dialectic. Your admission of ignorance demonstrates you speak from bourgeois contrarianism.
>Physics is not complete.
Irrelevant. The universe does not care about humankind's undersanding.
>Physics is not complete. For example, physicists expect that there are undiscovered "structures" between the quark and planck scales, that there must be issues with the current models due to its inability to correctley predict the higgs boson mass, and lets not forget the breakdown of quantum mechanics and relativity when used for modeling black holes. More blatantly, heat death is currentley predicted by the observation that the universe seems to be expanding, and is explained by undiscovered "dark energy".
Wrong. Your appeal to ignorance and unknown future discoveries is undialectical. Dialectics is based on study of material reailty. Quantum calculations do not determine if a star or the universe dies.
>Heat death is not "proven science", it is a prediction based off assuptions about dark energy, which may or may not turn out to be true. There may be a Big Rip if things expansion keeps accelerating, for example.
Wrong. Heat death is proven science. All proven science is prediction based on evidence. Science has no room for maybes. Big rip is heat death with extra steps.

>>24707
For what it's worth, thermodynamics is fairly clear about the ultimate fate of the universe if heat is analogous to all energy, so eventually there is no more thermal activity as such in the universe, and no way to start the engine artificially. I have no problem with the credibility of the theory. I just reject calling it "proven science" imperiously for the reasons provided, as if it were declared or asserted by nature to doom us. There are other ways for the universe as we can possibly know it comes to an end that aren't about heat systems, and we have no "natural" notion of an artifice that can generate heat in the first place. My take on it is that "the universe as we know it" is primarily artificial history, even if the "artifices" came about by happenstance in nature. We study a thing called "nature" to discern a past and general laws about all of these things, but nature by itself says little about what the universe is or should be. Appeal to nature ends with a gigantic "just-so" story which is where you get stupid things like the "anthropic principle", or pure self-centered hedonism that makes the most ridiculous parts of Christianity and Islam look like bastions of sanity. It's not a great theory or claim to believe that eventually the energy or fuel for processes is exhausted, but for the crass interpretation to hold, heat has to be a "total, closed system", i.e. there can be nothing but heat in the universe which is patently false. If you're not referring to heat then thermodynamics is not the appropriate principle, and one thing I find really annoying are people who make asinine philosophical claims based on thermodynamics about "order", "chaos", and so on. You've probably heard them many times because stupid people raise these points all of the time.

I can't say as much about the current state of the theory or "Dark Energy" since Dark Matter and Dark Energy only exist as a very big cosmological fudge factor, or an acknowledgement that we really don't see much at all with telescopes. My take is that physics went really really bad some time around the 1930s because they didn't want people to know how a nuclear bomb worked and thought they could make their death weapons like magic. The problem is, people can understand fission well enough, and can understand fusion and why you can never do much with fusion power. Maybe if you had enough matter and space to create another Sun, but even this by itself seems dubious. The heat-generation action in the Sun could have come about without fusion. Every planet has hotter temperatures near its core due to pressure, and so something like the Sun would be no different except it has much more pressure and has abundant fuel to burn, and a reach that would have eliminated any cooler outlying regions of gas, unlike the other gas giants where enough cool gas coalesces and obscures entirely the "suns" of Jupiter and Saturn. The temperature at the center of the sun is far less than that required for "hot fusion".

>>24716
Lost my shit at 'science has no room for maybes'. Maybe one abstract in a million would resonate with this insane reduction of the human process of finding out the truth of things.

>>24741
The sick thing about these people is that science doesn't have "maybes" if you're doing it right, but their logical positivist dreck insists every fact is a "maybe" decreed imperiously by a thought leader.

What is not allowed for them, but what a scientist can accept as their limitation, is "I don't know". If you can't defend your claims based on any actual evidence, your claims are going to be dubious or at best speculative. You would still need a theory or model to be complete even if you don't really know, or else the theory can be easily attacked for inconsistency. What you don't do in science is insist imperiously what truth is, then insist nothing new is possible for decade after decade, such that science can only progress one death at a time if we're fortunate.

Humans have ways of knowing things that are not science, and ultimately knowledge is only beholden to itself and the world itself, in all possible interpretations of "the world". If you're going to proclaim Received Knowledge, you can say that and rely on it. In some way, everything we know came about by revelation, rather than a source decreeing by some Working that it shall be so where the Working itself is wholly "unknowable". At some point knowledge accepts that new artifices "out of nowhere" appear first as revelation before we can trace their proper history and speak of their origin and what they're going to do. If we suppose something exists and then prove it, that is different from revelation, but there will be eventually "primary knowledge" which isn't explicable by any history available to us. You'll go insane trying to find a "theory of everything" or some master key to insist the whole universe conforms to something simple and reductionist.

In science we discount revelation because we quickly learn there is a history and a way anything in the world goes on, and revelation disallows that history. There is not a good or naturalistic explanation for why anything exists at all, let alone anything exists as it does in these peculiar formations. You'd be left with either absurdism, that the universe is arranged this way for no particular reason, or you'd start building this human-centered theories for purely asinine reasons to fill in for a reason that preceded humanity and life and occurred for its own purposes. Probably the hardest thing for the imperious mind to accept is that "shit happens" for real, and new recurrent emergences aren't necessarily "for" anything. They arose in the first place because they could, and secondly because they did for whatever reason. We then have to backdate why this is a recurring pattern and whether it can be predicted by any model.

You cannot have a proper scientific understanding without an understanding of history as something apart from science as such. No history and scientific models cannot speak of anything beyond tautologies or "just so" stories that make them worthless. That was one of the great difficulties of beginning "science" as a discipline many humans did beyond the crudest level. The first "scientists" were naturalists and philosophers and disdained what we would call today scientific approaches.

Where you place history isn't even metaphysics or any of the standard categories of philosophical knowledge. You can base a metaphysics on "history" as the foundation if you like, but this runs into some obvious problems. It implies there is a place where the past is "happening now" and that there is a permanent record, time travel is possible, and the universe has to be constructed in a way that requires a lot of "just so" stories to hold true.

The more effective approach to history is that history is a category of investigation about the world generally, which does not at first need to suppose any particular 'things" or "beings" are at work. History could pertain to generalities or groupings of things vaguely defined and still be a history. We suppose there is a past and a future because for any of OUR knowledge about the world to be sensical, this is a necessary understanding; that for everything that "is", there is a "was" and "will be" at the least. This way doesn't require there to be a "universal history" that ties anything together. We could understand time and causality in other ways that are perhaps more effective for describing the universe we live in. I learned recently there was a Soviet physicist, Kozyrev, that had an interesting theory of time and believed he had proven it during the 1950s, but he was discredited by the establishment and had a troubled life to say the least.

The important thing for understanding histories of the world isn't that there is a geist or daemon binding the world together to make history possible. Historical agents can operate on their own power and for their own purposes, and we can suppose there is such a thing as space allowing those things to be related to each other and affect each other. Small, almost imperceptible things can coalesce into greater structures, up to as large as we can imagine. We have to hold there is a world to speak of whose history precludes "anything can be anything" due to the finite structures we see. The galaxy isn't spontaneously disappearing and didn't form as a system by any grand intent, and it is limited in size. We demonstrate the concept of space and proximity simply by a few axioms about what it means to even speak of space, and that if not space, then what "mediates" things? It would be the simplest possible environment, since at the start there is only the world for us to evaluate when speaking of "history of the world". We don't need within that world a "total system" that makes volition absolutely impossible. We can predict with reason that the volition of any historical actor is limited and that, absent a compelling reason, an object in motion tends to stay in motion.

Useful here

>>24743
>denying ontology
to exist is to have been.

>>24836
You cannot demonstrate that philosophically in the way you insinuate. There was a time where I didn't exist in history, and there will be a time where I am dead and my component parts scatter.

Philosophically, you cannot demonstrate that there is any inherent or "fundamental" causality. Existence only claims something exists for the sake of some argument, something you are expressing in language. When we speak of a human being "existing", we are inserting an assumption of a living, breathing entity whose existence implies a temporal history, which is a concept we have to understand the world. History itself as a concept is not subject to inquiry where it can be redefined arbitrarily. To speak of history requires that everyone, regardless of their ontological claims, agree that there is a world where there was a past and a future, however those may be understood. That is to say, there has to be a way you can say "this entity was doing this at some other time and place", or "this entity will do that". We can't even guarantee that there is a fixed "linear causality". That's something we have to imply to make sense of any historical thread. Nothing in the universe necessarily ties this together simply by making "fundamental" claims about temporality. Everything we know about the universe suggests the exact opposite: that things exist in their own time, and we can only theorize that there is such a thing as "space" that relates them and ask questions about where those things arose, which usually involves some genesis that tied them to a singular event. For example, in the formation of the solar system we live in, nearly all of the matter accumulated into the sun, which emits radiant energy that feeds the processes on Earth. We are tied to the procession of the planets and the activity of the Sun, and so that is our reference point. There wasn't a metaphysical hobgoblin anywhere "making" time move in a particular fashion. It just so happens that everything near us on Earth and in the solar system proceeds through a familiar cycle, based on the planets' activity and the tendency for night and day to recur regularly. You can surmise the same is true of the wider universe; that it is tied to some event, perhaps a singular one that can explain where everything came from. The indefensible claim is the claim that there are spiritual thetans "moving" time and forcing everyone on a path that is clearly the conceit and design of humans doing their very particular things.

The point here is to not confuse "time" with causality, which is entirely a way we understand the world and relate objects… and to not confuse either with history, even though we almost always refer to the passage of "time" in history and must do so. Causality is a relational concept and only that, and if we actually look at causes and effects in the universe they could not conform to the bad pseudoscience of the German ideology.

So you can make the argument that since I exist, I will always "exist" in some capacity. I cannot "un-exist", as in, my existence can't be negated by any thought experiment to make me disappear from all history. Someone is going to notice a lump of matter at the places where I was and ask "what was there" to explain evidence that there was an entity living, collecting money, purchasing things, and so on. At the same time, pretty much no one will know that it's "me" doing those things, or know who or what I am with any great certainty, just from a cursory look. You have to get over the conceit of self and perception and subjectivity to really understand why the German ideology is poison.

Let me try to explain this. Consider a transhistorical concept, for example, "politics exists", i.e. that there is a concept we can call politics that refers to a specific aspect of the universe. We ask where did "politics" begin, and the answer is that it has no proper genesis where before this we say "there is no such thing as politics" and after "politics is inevitable". The claims of politics are transhistorical, if politics is to be a sensical proposition. You can, by obtuse reasoning, apply political deliberation to atomic particles if you like, to speak of a "state" of anything existing, for there to be any static objects that would be contested by animals and eventually humans. The invention of language or institutions by humans is not "special" or itself the definition of the political. We did politics of a sort before there was the state as such or this conceit we held about it. For politics to mean something, its claims must refer to something more than "we made it up". It is not so with institutions, which are very clearly things humans made up. No institution exists in nature whatsoever, and they don't even exist for all humans, nor in any preferred form that was natural or inevitable. Institutions exist precisely because they are instruments devised entirely by the conceits humans hold about existence and their personal conduct. Once established, an institution takes on its own existence apart from what it was originally "supposed" to do. If institutions didn't exist, we wouldn't be blind or rudderless. We would probably set about building institutions to answer a question, which is what institutions like any technology exist to do. We originally built these ideas, long ago, because they were useful for something, rather than because they were compelled by a natural law to "make us" do any of this. The claims of politics are different, because politics concerns temporal authority itself at the least. Someone or something has to have the authority to decide what actually happens in the final analysis, however that happens. You don't get to dodge it by saying "it's all natural forces and material conditions", because the most obvious material condition in politics is that human volition to act on their own power towards deliberate ends. That's how the universe decides what happens; it's delegated to humans who make decisions, based on whatever criteria those humans deem worthwhile or what they're made to accept by other political actors, which usually means other humans. The universe itself does not care about humans or what they make, and so far as the world has anything to say about politics, the world has been telling all of mankind, universally, that what they're doing in politics has been a really, really bad idea.

If you are following politics thoroughly to its genuine origins, you don't arrive at the creation of the universe itself or "the eternal, primordial spirit" or anything like that. Politics pertains to a very simple question that we can assess, and then retroactively ask how it manifested in entities that are not like us, to explain where we humans came from and why the world is as it is. There is a very large part of the universe, and a part of human life, that is not at all "political" or interested in the matter politics describes. In reality, the universe exists as a large grouping of fluctuating "things" rather than states or cleanly defined objects for our consumption. What humans do with politics is actually very weird so far as the universe is concerned. To the universe, it doesn't perceive any "struggle" or care about which essence prevails, as if the victory of helium over hydrogen is some sort of essential struggle for existence with spiritual significance beyond the fact. A hydrogen atom isn't "struggling for existence". The hydrogen manifested likely in the simplest way it could have manifested from whatever "substance" existed in a prior condition, and this became a regular recurrence in the universe; so regular that it effectively is a natural law that we can expect hydrogen to exist without questioning too much that fact. This assumes we are clear about what is meant by a "hydrogen atom" and the propositions of chemistry, but this is not a terribly hard concept to understand. The bigger question is to ask if the universe actually is constituted this way, and we have a lot of experimental evidence in favor of that; and yet, for the longest time we didn't quite know what an "atom" was, the distribution of electrons around the nucleus. That's still a question that tells us a lot about physics and what matter does. What we don't do is invent baseless accusations to chant "LALALA HYDROGEN DON'T REAL". "Politics" on the other hand remained vaguely defined, because things that are politically contentious are likely to become topics of disinformation or bullshittery. Sure enough, there are people who use political arguments to deny basic facts we can discern about the universe, so that science became impossible.

You have to be very, very careful when making grand philosophical claims about anything, including time, history, existence, and all that you're assuming you "just have to" accept. You could reassemble most of our scientific knowledge without any particular metaphysics or cosmology, but you will see in each competing model vast differences and thus different predictions. Science doesn't require any particular metaphysics to "power" it. The entire point of metaphysics is to place any scientific model or something we describe in language on the soundest possible footing, so that other people can know what we are talking about with sufficient precision. This applies just as much to our "native language" of looking at the world, since we don't have unfettered access to "received knowledge" in that manner. All of the data and information we process is only understood by us, as we are able to understand it, and we are aware of that limitation and can ask what it would be like if we did have this received knowledge from somewhere, or if knowledge didn't work the way we naively assumed.

That's what is wrong with "dialectics". It's imposing what is basically a linguistic trick on reality to make indefensible claims. If however you eliminate or mitigate dialectic, you're going to have a hard time defining anything in language or really knowing what you think you know. That's where someone who is reasonable asks some very basic questions a child would ask about their own existence, but that apparently we're not allowed to ask in this day and age.

>>24845
>you cannot demonstrate causality
yes i can, by probablistic inference. if i drop something, it will fall 100% of the time. dont believe me? try it.
>When we speak of a human being "existing", we are inserting an assumption
we are only being deductive of the claim.
>ontology is taxonomy
question: did the planet earth exist before life on earth existed?
>>24846
>So you can make the argument that since I exist, I will always "exist" in some capacity.
this sentence exists, but has no necessary cause to keep existing.
>For politics to mean something, its claims must refer to something more than "we made it up".
why? concepts exist. it cannot be reduced to language either, since πολιτικά and politics refer to the same abstraction. the term "one" and number "1" denote the same variable.
>>24849
>You have to be very, very careful when making grand philosophical claims about anything
such as "you exist"…?
>basic questions
it seems that you are less asking questions and making verbose diatribes. i would suggst you speak with more precision, since truth is ultimately singular. a thing is or it is not.

>>24850
You cannot make philosophical claims and substitute them for science, and vice versa you cannot use science to make philosophical claims about "fundamental nature" in the way you are implying.

Obviously you refused to read anything and insist on this retarded Germanic slop, insisting "this always works" despite 200 years of utter failure and retardation that spawns from it.

I don't even know how to speak to you people. I'm the crazy person for telling you basic things about what it means to speak of time and history as if they pertained to a real world. You do this specifically because it's me, and you drop the facade around your friends. That's all this Satanic, retarded forum does.

The simple answer is, can you imagine a universe without causality in this narrow, predefined manner you insist on? Very easily, you can do that. You can envision a universe with no causality at all, where "past" and "future" have to be diagrammed to locate where, if anywhere, the future or past "exist" for a particular thread of interest. You can further reduce causality to a "force" about which little can be said. There would be no transmutation of "essence", which is philosophically impossible without resorting to asinine "contradiction" to insist that what "is" isn't actually what it is. As it turns out, nowhere in the universe does this "sublation" actually happen, where an essence is destroyed and replaced with another. This is very clearly an exhortation to edit history and reality in the German ideology, and that's what its intended purpose is.

In typical Satanic fashion, you just recapitulate your own claims as if they are default. This is the standard Satanic, Germanic mindset regarding the universe, and it makes science as such impossible.

My point above is that you wouldn't be able to pursue science without HISTORY, which is very different conceptually from causality or time itself. That is, you would need to be able to speak of something where the condition of the universe is different than it is "now", and this applies to any thing in that universe that could be described. You cannot from that assert that causality must "fundamentally" exist, let alone in a specific form that is amenable to your political conceits about what the universe "ought" to be. This is very basic shit if you understand the empirical habit of thought. Basic shit. Germanism exists not just to make empirical science impossible, but to make all science impossible—and then further to make reality itself impossible, where "anything can be anything". It's insidious and it must be fought. And yet, on its own terms, it can persist as a total system, and impose itself on the world as a thought-form.

For causality itself, causes and effects can be multiple and do not have to follow from singular threads for each of them. That right there should remove the philosophical sleight of hand accomplished by substituting "time" with "causality" to shit up physics as we once knew it. Bad philosophy is what leads to taking the principle of relativity to make claims about the universe that are not defensible like the retarded "many-worlds" theories that came up because they didn't want ordinary people to inquire into this topic for any reason any more. Like I said, it's insidious and evil and must be fought viciously to prevent it from shitting up a country. Shitting up the world.

>>24851
>>24852
>causality
if i drop something, it will fall to the ground
gravity can be measured and given as a cause
your onslaught of words disguise your hollowness
>temporality
a curve in space-time, causing relative motion

>>24853
What do you measure gravity with? "Gravitons"? Are you asserting gravity is Absolute knowledge "baked into Nature and undeniable" without any further inquiry into what it even is?

You do not understand the arguments you are making, which is why you speaking of a "curve in space-time" as if it were Absolute knowledge that can be asserted imperiously. You're making claims about the universe that are not supported by any evidence, all because you have this funny notion of what time is (a notion that, if you follow the relativistic principle, you should not follow).

Like I said, you do not know what you are talking about, and simply refuse the arguments because they come from me. You're doing a habitual Lie routine because you believe this is "power", the power to transgress and humiliate others by Lying to them. A Satanic race cannot change.

>>24853
BTW this argument has been done a million times over in physics, and they have to spend exorbitant effort undoing the damage people like you are doing to understanding. It's so bad that it is destroying the field of physics itself, because educated people are taught to incredulously believe this essentially Satanic cosmology and aren't allowed to think of anything other than it.

Even here, the causes for something falling to the ground are more than "gravity" as a single utterance, as if were a universal force and not something local to the Earth. If something falls to the ground, you can ask if this force is equal for all objects, is it contingent on the weight or mass or composition of the object, and so on. This is actually something Germanics will try to make magic about to say that there is some special stuff that makes them go. They're the ones denying that there can be any inquiry into gravity. It's "just there", because God (Satan) said so.

With electromagnetism the force is the electricity itself rather than a vaguely defined force that you need to find the substance for. They're describing the behavior of this electricity rather than making a claim about the whole universe that is "immanently" imposed on existence. That is simple enough. You can't do that for gravity, yet gravity exists, so the question is why this happens. Is it related to electromagnetism? Is there something wrong with our understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe? Personally I think there is a big open hole in human understanding, because everyone was caught on electromagnetism since the study of electricity is obviously very useful.

>>24855
>>24856
>>24857
gravity is real, yes. science doesnt need to wait for people like you to achieve results.

>>24860
You don't even understand what you're doing with your bullbaiting. You're just thinking "tee hee he's the retard he's the retard" and thinking "this always works". You have failed to understand any of what I am saying. You're just uttering imperious statements about what reality is and saying this is "science". If we all thought as you did, there wouldn't be any understanding of gravity other than "hurr durr objects fall". You're insisting that this low level of understanding is all there can be, and you're just supposed to believe whatever cosmology feels good rather than what evidence suggests. This is where you get imperious statements about the Earth or the sun being the center of the universe (neither of which were believed by the ancients by the way; the "controversy" over geocentrism was invented by occultists in the renaissance to have a strawman to argue against, while making kooky arguments that largely revolved around solar deities). No one in ancient times could say much about outer space or what might be out there, but they definitely figured out that there was a thing called outer space that was very very big, and so one solar system was likely not unique in the universe. The default assumption would be that Earth (which they knew to be a spherical body suspended in "something") was not in any way special, and that the answers were "up there". This is where the reasonable writers at the time conclude they really didn't know anything about what they believed they knew let alone things of that nature. But, "geocentrism" was invented by astrologers selling horoscopes as part of a magical thinking scam. The learned men, and this happened all around the world, would tell you the Earth orbited the sun, and that this had no special or mystical meaning because the sun, whatever it is, is just a big ball of light. It would be quite impossible to place Earth where it was if you think for five minutes about the orbits of the planets, and because there are very few nerds doing this calculation, someone had to invent a dual system to keep humanity retarded and sell more astrological charts.

>>24861
i dont think youre stupid, but just vapid, boring and irrelevant.

>>24862
It's very relevant if you want to answer the OP question, since this sort of reality control is what so many try to pull and they do this by conflating wordplay with science and insisting no one is allowed to acknowledge what is done right in front of them. In this way, public relations ghouls have hijacked the planet and insisted on this death cult.

>>24863
my comment was "to exist is to have been" which is incontestable, yet i am confronted with reality-denying nonsense based on word games. its boring at best, and irritating at worst, especially when this person is extremely verbose and meandering. the OP question concerns dialectics, which if we take it in the context of hegel, we see that he begins his logic with being as such, so one person here is productive and the other, not.

>>24864
You're stuck on Hegelism and its conceits and insisting that philosophy declares reality "just because"; that history only exists because of an assertion that it "should" exist, and that existence inherently is tied to history and a limited form of history and temporality at that.

This is so simple a child can understand it. A child can ask themselves, and be honest with themselves, if there was a time where they did not exist. When you make an imperious statement that "to exist is to have been", you are saying "i have been in an imminent moment just before now" but extending that into infinity. In effect you are declaring that because you exist, you always exist; or "He who controls the present controls the past". You do understand where that thinking leads? Existing does not mean you have an immortal soul, or that everything that exists has an immortal soul, just because you insist you do. If you do want to make that argument, you are making spiritual claims about existence and the universe beyond a simple fact that there is a world where events happen. You can make that claim, but you must be clear about what you are doing and the implications of something like an immortal soul.

This concept must be inadmissible under Germanism, and conflated with the universe and existence itself. In this way, they can abolish or edit history. But, you can't explain this to someone infected with the virus. Someone infected will never, ever again consider the thought a child could have about their own existence and mortality. When carried to its logical conclusion, this leads to the bizarre distortions of truth that their philosophy requires.

If you are claiming "to exist is to have been", you are not making a straight philosophical claim about existence itself, but about history. Not everything that exists has a "history" in that sense. There are things that exist like "Nature" that by definition do not have a "history" as if they were equivalent to some smaller, artificial object. Nature is a proposition about existence itself and a particular aspect of it, rather than a "thing" that was instantiated in the universe. If you are saying "God created Nature" you are making a claim about existence that isn't a just-so fact you have to accept automatically, and making claims about this God and its intention for the universe. Even if God created Nature as a "thing", it is not a thing that can be treated like any other temporal object and manipulated, and there are many concepts like that which are trans-historical.

This concept, of course, is wholly inadmissible. The Germanic only thinks of things it can take from other people, glorifying the mindless avarice of their race. It was a philosophy given to them to open their country's asshole for deeper ramming.

And my point isn't to say "you can say that historical objects don't exist". I am saying that existence as a philosophical concept is not contingent on history, as if there could be no universe at all without history. Temporal, physical objects are always contingent on history. But, the proper formulation for such temporal objects isn't "To exist is to have been". The proper formulation is that all such temporal objects have a genesis that can be understood in principle by anyone, without any received knowledge that is confined to "the unique" or any other such faggotry. I can ask myself where I came from, how my existence as a human came about, and I can pose questions like whether I have an immortal soul, what my existence as "human" really is. I can choose to believe that my existence is something more than the mere act of being sexually conceived at some time in history, and I can find proof of that claim by invoking rather esoteric concepts of what "I" am. What I can't do is claim that I was literally comprised of some spirit energy and my temporal existence as an animal of flesh and blood is entirely incidental and can be overridden by thought alone.

In other words, "to exist" in an imagined present is itself a dubious proposition, because there is no "now" that we have to regard as relevant to the question of existence. We understand our existence instead precisely because we are temporal events that proceed in clockwork fashion, rather than us existing as some frozen steady system that is ready-made for human consumption. Whenever we isolate any part of this system, we are asking the question of that part's genesis and history. As it turns out, most of "me" in the sense of my physical body was reproduced by assimilating matter from the world long after I was born. The "original particles of fundamental me" are long gone, as if there were some core substance that constituted existence and I lost the magic energy because I don't possess those specific particles in my constitution any more. That, though, is not what we think of when we think of a human being, either its genuine existence, its legal person, or any spiritual concept we hold about ourselves. We can ask ourselves though if we have changed in any of those aspects over the course of our lives, and I believe human beings are very malleable in all of those qualities. There are then those aspects of a human that aren't so easily malleable, and none of us edit history in the Germanic manner.

>>24851
>My point above is that you wouldn't be able to pursue science without HISTORY
you are infected with Germanism my boy

>>24856
physics is dialectical and copemorehagen is cold war anti-communism that is holding back fusion

>>24872
You're wasting your time responding to Eugenics-kun. He is the most obstinate person on this website, if not the entire internet, if not the entire planet. He doesn't actually want to have a conversation with anyone, he wants to leverage the premise of a conversation to then pontificate at you endlessly. It's all he ever does. He doesn't know how to be wrong.

>>24872
History is not the Germanic slop. History relies on a world outside of our conceits about it where it can exist, and it doesn't have any preferred intent inherent to it or an "end" as such.

>>24875
Fortunately I am never wrong.

Fuck philosophy and science yo

διαλεκτική (dia-lectic) refers to "through speaking", or "conversation", which has its ultimate roots in the term διαλέγεσθαι. dialectic is also strongly related to διάλογος (dia-logos), or "dialogue". as we know, plato gives the socratic method of reasoning in his own "dialogues", of which are said by hegel to be the origin of dialectical philosophy, as per diogenes laërtus;
<"Diogenes Laertius says of Plato that, just as Thales was the founder of natural philosophy and Socrates of moral philosophy, so Plato was the founder of the third science pertaining to philosophy, namely, dialectic"
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlabsolu.htm#HL3_824

concerning plato's (socrates') dialectical method, there are these remarks: [cratylus, 390c]. here, dialectic refers to the "art" of conversation (διάλογος), and also here: [phaedrus, 266c]. there is a dispute made by phaedrus between a rhetoritician and dialectician however, which socrates responds to with this: [phaedrus, 276e-277a]. so the difference between mere rhetoric and dialectic is the "seed" of knowledge which breeds its own fruit. the "artful" speech he concludes [277b-c] is the speech which seeks to discern the indivisible variables of discussion, or the formality of the discourse itself (what in "parmenides" would refer to the forms, or in "cratylus" would refer to the names of things). concerning this art then, the "method" is given here: [protagoras, 336c-d]. it is described as a "question-and-answer dialogue" by alcibiades, which indeed is socrates' manner of inquiry. within this method however is a negative movement, which is further commented upon here: [republic, 511a-e]. in this, socrates appears to see how a negative movement from the non-hypothetical is superior to self-limiting hypotheses. it is by the "power" and "science" of dialectic that reason grasps the intelligible. socrates continues this line of thought: [republic, 532a-b], where dialectic is described as a "song" and "journey" from the allegorical "cave" of ignorance to the "sun" of knowledge, and too, here: [republic, 533d]. glaucon then refers to earlier notions: [republic, 534b], such as discussed in phaedrus, where the knowledge of being is possessed by the dialectician. dialectic is seen to be the highest art here: [republic, 534e]. socrates himself describes his own art as a form of midwifery: [theaetetus, 150b]. it is this mediating power then which concerns socrates, in the movement of reason from ignorance to knowledge. dialectic then concerns the content of this "journey" by the format of question-and-answer sequences (we see this employed in algorithms, where propositions are either accepted or rejected based on their function, which leads to conclusions, until a final state is determined; this logic is a socratic dialectic in effect, since it perceives truth as a final result, not a genesis).

this differs from aristotle's notion of truth, which is largely based in "demonstration" (hypothesis) and predication (logical deduction). he does offer the validity of dialectical propositions however. we may begin with aristotle's account of dialectic: [prior analytics, book 1.1]. a demonstrative proposition can be understood as affirmative or negative of a given term (since to aristotle, all terms entail internal contradiction, which are held in their unified principle. for example, good implies evil, yet both are contained in the notion of "morality" as such - plato's ideal of "the good" thus falls into internal contradiction, since "the good" cannot comprise evil, since they are opposed terms. so to say, "the good" is not "the one", lest we imagine that there is no such thing as evil). a dialectical proposition is in the form of a question, not an assumption. this cannot be any question however: [de interpretatione, chapter 11; posterior analytics, book 1.2]. the dialectical proposition posits a choice between contraries (while a demonstration begins with the assumption of either). aristotle states directly here: [topics, book 8.2; sophistical refutations, chapter 11] that a dialectical proposition should be in the form of a "yes or no" question, rather than directly of a thing itself. in both of these examples, each either affirm or negate one side of a contradiction (immanent in terms themselves, which imply a unity of opposites, but of which only become contradictory without a middle term, or "intermediary" - de interpretatione, chapter 6; posterior analytics, book 1.2). graduating from plato therefore, aristotle formalises the precedence of the internal contradiction of terms (or what plato would perhaps call the dyad), and sees various forms of propositions as a way to disentangle the duality of being; dialectic simply being without any prior assumption, and so following inquiry from a non-hypothetical basis, the same as plato (socrates) affirms. dialectic in this classical vision then is achieving truth from the position of ignorance; "all i know is that i know nothing" (but of course, this sentence occurs nowhere in plato's actual text).

>>24878
Narcissistic nonsense.

eugenicsmithanon?

dialectics is when the government does stuff

continuing from the classical dialectic: >>24881 (You)
we may move on to the modern notion. hegel describes his difference from plato here:
>The efficient or motive principle, which is not merely the analysis but the production of the several elements of the universal, I call dialectic. Dialectic is not that process in which an object or proposition, presented, to feeling or the direct consciousness, is analysed, entangled, taken hither and thither, until at last its contrary is derived. Such a merely negative method appears frequently in Plato. It may fix the opposite of any notion, or reveal the contradiction contained in it, as did the ancient scepticism, or it may in a feeble way consider an approximation to truth, or modern half-and-half attainment of it, as its goal. 
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/printrod.htm#PR31
which entirely mirrors what he writes here:
>Even the Platonic dialectic, in the Parmenides itself and elsewhere even more directly, on the one hand, aims only at abolishing and refuting assertions through themselves and on the other hand, has for its result simply nothingness. Dialectic is commonly regarded as an external, negative activity which does not pertain to the subject matter itself, having its ground in mere conceit as a subjective itch for unsettling and destroying what is fixed and substantial, or at least having for its result nothing but the worthlessness of the object dialectically considered.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlintro.htm#HL1_43
this appears identical to marx's dialectic:
<In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Germany, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
this pure negativity of movement is contrary to hegel, by marx's own admission:
<The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
marx then treats dialectic platonically, as a pure negativity which aspires to deconstruct things to their first principle, or rational determination. there is no end, but only destruction. hegel explains his difference:
>But the higher dialectic of the conception does not merely apprehend any phase as a limit and opposite, but produces out of this negative a positive content and result. Only by such a course is there development and inherent progress.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/printrod.htm#PR31
here, he sees that plato is entirely negative, while his own dialectic derives a positive from the negative, which is the same as he says here:
>The understanding determines, and holds the determinations fixed; reason is negative and dialectical, because it resolves the determinations of the understanding into nothing; it is positive because it generates the universal and comprehends the particular therein.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlprefac.htm
continuing from the original citation:
>Hence this dialectic is not the external agency of subjective thinking, but the private soul of the content, which unfolds its branches and fruit organically. Thought regards this development of the idea and of the peculiar activity of the reason of the idea as only subjective, but is on its side unable to make any addition. To consider anything rationally is not to bring reason to it from the outside, and work it up in this way, but to count it as itself reasonable. Here it is spirit in its freedom, the summit of self-conscious reason, which gives itself actuality, and produces itself as the existing world. The business of science is simply to bring the specific work of the reason, which is in the thing, to consciousness.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/printrod.htm
hegel's dialectic therefore is the process of actualisation by self-consciousness. this then makes it a retroactive mode of relation, whereby the posited precedes reason's negativity and unity thereof, such as hegel remarks here about the owl of minerva:
>Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/preface.htm
matter then precedes mind, but matter cannot become "real" without its rational self-conception. this then follows the meaning of hegel's dialectical logic: we begin with positive being, which incurs internal negativity, only to be united in its self-conception. the purpose of dialectic then is the aristotelian conception of the unmoved mover, "thought thinking itself":
<Now thinking in itself is concerned with that which is in itself best, and thinking in the highest sense with that which is in the highest sense best.6 [20] And thought thinks itself through participation in the object of thought; for it becomes an object of thought by the act of apprehension and thinking, so that thought and the object of thought are the same, because that which is receptive of the object of thought, i.e. essence, is thought.
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12%3Asection%3D1072b
here's hegel's conclusion:
>the Idea is, therefore, only in this self-determination of apprehending itself; it is in pure thought, in which difference is not yet otherness, but is and remains perfectly transparent to itself.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlabsolu.htm
yet, within the unity of thought to hegel is also the unity of theory and practice, held together, but maintained in their separation by irresolvable contradiction:
>The absolute Idea has turned out to be the identity of the theoretical and the practical Idea. Each of these by itself is still one-sided, possessing the Idea only as a sought for beyond and an unattained goal; each, therefore, is a synthesis of endeavour, and has, but equally has not, the Idea in it; each passes from one thought to the other without bringing the two together, and so remains fixed in their contradiction.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlabsolu.htm
this differs from marx's notion of overcoming contradiction (moneyless, classless, stateless society) by simply reversing form and content. here, marx preserves the state in content, but not in form:
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
he preserves taxation here:
<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
he preserves wage labour, value and money here:
<Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
marx's theoretical failure then is not grasping the "idea" in its constitutive contradiction. this is because marx's theory of alienation is about how man has become separated from nature by the medium of society, and so man's determination is back to nature. a hegelian would disagree and insist upon our separation, since separateness is required for reality's own realisation. thus, marx seeks a journey to the first principle of things, while hegel sees nature adequately reflected in history.

Value form is dialectical i heard. So read capital vol. 1

>>25114
you probably shouldn't post if you dont know what you are talking about

>>25122
explain what im misunderstanding

Anon all dialectics is - it's literally just a way to understand the truth.

think of plato's "dialectics" - a platonic dialectic is when two people argue about something, they're arguing because they both have the same idea about something and the only way for them to discover what that idea really is about is by hashing it via words.

i havent read hegel and I only know a bit - but from what i gather it's basically that hegel believes that the truth reveals itself over time - that truth is a substance? I think? like an actual thing that is apart of the pyhsical world, and that physical thing called "truth" was always embedded in everything, and only reveals itself over time through??? people living in history? I think??

>>25133
a platonic dialectic is not a two-sided dispute over a common idea, but is a process of negating propositions by investigating their fundamental elements. children engage dialectically when they constantly ask "why?" - trying to reach for a first principle. i have compared the platonic dialectic to algorithms before: >>24881
where chains of reasoning reach a final value:
>if no, then no, then yes, then no = X
i find it very helpful to think in this way.

hegel's dialectic is a process by which truth is totality, or thought thinking itself, in contradiction with its constitutive parts. the unity of being is a medium between particulars as they self-relate by otherness. for A to relate to B, it must become not-A, yet in its movement to B, it must likewise negate its negation. yet in each movement, A and B are still preserved. history to hegel represents society's self-consciousness (geist) in different epochs. each era is the fulfilment of its movement to self-realisation, but at the moment of self-realisation, we conceive of something already lost (retroactivity) - hence the vanishing mediator. an example in psychoanalysis is in desire (pleasure principle). hunger creates a fantasy and in realising the fantasy, our desire also leaves us. so for something to be, it must also not-be.

so both are pursuing the completion of thought by arriving at final conclusions. the difference is perhaps that plato conceives of a non-contradictory unity while hegel perceives of a contradictory unity.