Dialectics Anonymous 07-12-24 20:43:05 No. 23090 [Last 50 Posts]
What the fuck are they? Every time a Marxist attempts to explain them it's like a Haskell programmer attempting to explain Monads.
Anonymous 07-12-24 21:19:27 No. 23096
>>23090 Dialectics comes from the word "dialogue". Meaning back and forth between two parties. To have a dialogue you need two people, otherwise it's simply not there. It's like trying to figure out the sound clapping with one hand makes.
Dialects is kind of this deceptively simple idea that things " exist " in relationship with other things, in motion. So think of you seeing a chair, the photons are moving back and forth. The idea of the chair exists in your brain but also the chair exists outside you. You also understand the chair as a discrete object with some purpose or order of sorts (it's to sit, you can identify a chair). In a way the chair exists in the relationship between you and the chair through time. Without you observing it, it could not "exist" as this is a human concept and a human experience, but the chair also exists outside human experience, it is in relationship with the ground. The ground opposes it and the chair opposes it. The forces are balances and hence the chair appears stationary.
Hegel applies this to a bunch of things, mostly related to culture, knowledge, the question about what being is, history. It's a trip!
Regarding monads in Haskell, I think those are easier. It's just a wrapper class that defines:
A way to create new values: new List("one element")
A way to run functions on the "inside" of the wrapper class, although what this actually does depends on the implementation. Eg: list.map( x => x * 2 )
Or
nullableValue.map(x => x.getName() ) // null safe, only runs the map if the variable contains a value (isn't null)
And has a join or flatten function that flattens nested monads of the same type.
Eg: list( list(1), list(2)).flatten
The reason why this is all so weird is that there are different wrapper classes or use cases that can be either shoe horned or actually fit quite nicely to this pattern. The effect of all this is that some languages (or libraries) add support to make working with these structures more generic.
For example, the "monoid" type class already has support in many languages. You can add numbers, strings, arrays, with simply using the "+" . every type implements what "+" actually means.
Glownonymous 30-01-25 21:16:25 No. 23493
>>23090 Dialectics is when things become other things, or when two people converse, or when nationalism is good actually.
Marxist pseud attempts to explain them it's like a Haskell programmer attempting to explain Monads.Because to maotards and other MLs it's quite literally a mystical force to excuse a lack of investigation of the object, i.e. that they invoke a priori principles. Mao's 'On Contradiction' is probably the most childlike document ever produced by a world leader lol. It reads like a reddit post. Nothing but dogma, dogma, dogma, with no deeper understanding at all. Exactly why tankies think they can cite this in response to just about any concrete criticism is beyond me. It's every bit as abstract and formalistic as any Hegelian work, with none of the insight lol, and this whole current of "Marxist" thought that obsesses over 'dialectics', from Engels to Lenin to Mao, is just completely worthless. It tells us nothing and is unrelated to communism in any practical way.
It's not even sophistry, it's just completely vacuous. It's literally just a study of logical forms. There's no way to progress from abstract categories like 'contradiction' and 'negation of the negation' to insight about the actual content of the object being studied. Insofar as it actually has a content, it is just describing proper scientific inquiry, i.e. appropriation and working-up of the subject-matter itself. No special knowledge of an abstract ‘dialectics’ is required for this.
Insofar as Marx had a method, it was simply 'to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion.' You don't get an inch closer to this by starting with empty abstractions like 'internal contradictions'. Abstractions like 'contradiction' can only be established through a process of generalisation. At most, they are conclusions, results established after examination of the specific objects themselves. Maotards, on the other hand, reverse the whole thing, so that we are supposed to start from abstractions like 'internal contradiction' and then work our way from that to some sort of actually concrete content. The general notion that everything contains both internal and external contradictions, for example, doesn't allow me to understand why ice cream melts in the sun. You would have to actually examine the nature of ice cream and of sunlight themselves, and their interaction.
If you try to impose a pre-established method upon the subject-matter, naturally you will only produce a version of the subject-matter modified by your method, by the a priori principles you have forced the content to conform to. That's why Marx's method wasn't really a coherent 'method' or set of steps, but rather the simple observation that one must study each object in detail, and allow it to 'speak for itself', as it were. It is, if you want, a critique of 'method', but pseuds focus on the presentation itself rather than the content.
Glownonymous 01-02-25 09:00:55 No. 23501
The Holy Family furnishes a whole load of examples of what happens when you think knowledge of 'dialectics' is a worthy substitute for knowledge of real history. For example, in Chapter 2:
< In real history the cotton industry was founded mainly on Hargreaves' jenny and Arkwright's throstle, Crompton's mule being only an improvement of the spinning jenny according to the new principle discovered by Arkwright. But Critical history knows how to make distinctions: it scorns the one-sidedness of the jenny and the throstle, and gives the crown to the mule as the speculative identity of the extremes. This is the speculative method, whereby reality is made to conform to philosophical categories rather than vice versa.
Marx and Engels target this method directly later on:
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1845/holy-family/ch05.htm#5.2 Anonymous 02-03-25 20:14:11 No. 23782
Either don't think too hard about it or go read a ton of Adorno, maybe Houlgate or Jameson. Adorno's lectures on dialectics and lectures on negative dialectics are both good and clear imo but there just isnt really a way for someone to explain it to you in an imageboard reply without either wildly oversimplifying in a way that makes it seem trivial, leaving you wondering what the value of the concept is, or devolving into walls of indecipherable schizobabble, leaving you wondering what the value of the concept is. You will note that this thread has both of these phenomena. There are many Marxists who don't know anything about Hegel, and there are many people who call themselves Marxists but just sort of mean that they believe in a type of magic, and they call that magic "dialectics". The fact that both of these groups will just assert their vibes about dialectics as the meaning of the word without clarifying their priors, and the fact that neither of these lines up at all with the way German Idealist and Marxist concepts are talked about by scholars and marxologists (who themselves are not often unified), exacerbates the already significant difficulties learning about this concept. This is all to say that the most important thing is for you to not listen to imageboard users' explanations of complicated philosophical concepts.
Anonymous 10-03-25 21:45:28 No. 23839
>>23515 If relations are treated as "things" you don't really know anything. Relations implies there are things to relate, and you're back to reducing an object ad infinitum. It doesn't tell you anything about genuine knowledge, and you wouldn't superimpose dialectic onto science in that way.
What really happens in a scientific approach is supposition of something, for example "the world exists" and then demonstrable proof of that supposition based on how we have defined it. It's very easy for science to invent phantoms and reify them, while conducting the most thorough and proper science with a genuine interest in the world, presuming you believe there is a world to study (which, if there isn't, then anything you're saying is bullshit and intended to be so, and there is no discussion to be had regarding what you said).
On some level you have to accept "the world exists", whatever its nature, since without it, why are we here speaking of this matter? You may doubt this existence or any particulars about it. You can certainly doubt your existence, because there was a time where you did not exist, and you could very easily ask the question of what would exist if you didn't exist. You cannot take your existence for granted. What you can't really do is disregard that there is a world and continue to say anything about it with any meaning. The problem is not solipsism or insanity, but that without a "world", there is no basis for any knowledge whatsoever, even if that world was entirely a fiction created by some unknowable malevolence.
So basically when defining things you're really saying "this section of the universe does that". You would require a concept of "doing" anything, but it is far easier to conceptualize actions than "beings", which rely on many assertions to speak of any "thing" existing. Whatever preliminary assertions one makes about "things that do something", it is what those things do that define anything real, before you can speak of verifiable "things". The important thing for us is to speak of things that can be verified as facts, rather than that which forever remains supposition. That is, the facts we have are those that withstand our best and honest analysis of the objects in question. You would have to hold that there is a world outside of yourself where any of these facts are relevant, and then you have a question of what this sense-experience that is "you" does, which every child asks in some way.
None of this will be found in a philosophy textbook of course but it can be reconstructed trivially.
Anonymous 10-03-25 21:58:47 No. 23840
Basically, if you have to relitigate "Being" ad nauseum you're wasting your time. You can reconstruct a model with clever wordplay, and use this model to describe an ideal model of what happens, but if you deal with abstractions very far removed from the object of inquiry, you are further removed from a description of what you ostensibly explain.
Anonymous 10-03-25 22:13:16 No. 23842
>>23841 This is infantile. One of the big differences in Greek thought was that they were the first to consider democracy a viable concept of political power for a city-state, and no one else thought "democracy" was worth anything for that purpose. In most of the world, kings, priests, scholars, bureaucrats, and warriors ruled, and there was a great aversion against the idea that every free man was a soldier, the way it was for Greek city-states or barbarian nations. Some of the Greeks did this for what was expedient for their situation, but once it stuck, it really stuck.
Anonymous 10-03-25 22:19:33 No. 23843
>>23842 >This is infantile. One of the big differences in Greek thought was that they were the first to consider democracy a viable concept of political power for a city-state, and no one else thought "democracy" was worth anything for that purpose. In most of the world, kings, priests, scholars, bureaucrats, and warriors ruled, and there was a great aversion against the idea that every free man was a soldier, the way it was for Greek city-states or barbarian nations. Some of the Greeks did this for what was expedient for their situation, but once it stuck, it really stuck. I wasn't talking about the Greeks. I meant Western as in the Germans like Hegel and whoever. Post-enlightenment Western philosophers. Or Spinoza or whatever. Like that era and later. Ancient Western philosophy is another matter. I think the Greeks obviously created very relatable and understandable allegories like how Plato's Cave has stood the test of time.
Anonymous 10-03-25 22:34:32 No. 23845
>>23842 >was that they were the first to consider democracy a viable concept of political power for a city-state, and no one else thought "democracy" was worth anything for that purpose. In most of the world, kings, priests, scholars, bureaucrats, and warriors ruled, and there was a great aversion against the idea that every free man was a soldier, the way it was for Greek city-states or barbarian nations. Some of the Greeks did this for what was expedient for their situation, but once it stuck, it really stuck. Sorry I didn't even read the rest of your post before I had to reply about your misconception. What the fuck does Platonic ideals have to with democracy? I thought we were talking about philosophy? Government only marginally has to do with philosophy.
Anonymous 11-03-25 00:33:37 No. 23858
>>23856 >there can be no historicity to monism, and so the Spirit must progress apart from it.
Anonymous 11-03-25 01:18:15 No. 23871
>>23867 > All blemishes are external character, God is our only internal character at the root. Like Sri Chinmoy said, paraphrasing, "people think that the spiritual path means freedom, but it actually means enslavement to God." And this is why people can't commit to the path. Because they're still attached to desire. You have to renounce all desire for wealth, power, sex, praise, even the desire to do good itself. God is desireless because God is complete. Once you turn your desires to the eternal fountainhead, you will find they are met immediately, they are cancelled out without the need to try and fulfill them. All questions are immediately answered. You can use the fountainhead to achieve desires, but the result is you will end up even more confused.
(ok I realize Ayn Rand said fountainhead but I like the word. It's a good word instead of source or whatever)
Anonymous 11-03-25 01:36:23 No. 23875
>>23873 >would the blemishes of external character, that drive a difference in external actions characterise a independent personhood? As in as that's the dependant variable to the constant of god that effects the ability to commit to the path. Thus environmental context determines the degree of external blemish that opposed to the antithesis of gods internal character is a sum difference that defines a separate ego. Synthesising into an independent personhood that is both part gods internal character and part desire. Yeah definitely. That's what I was saying before. It's all God's plan and all will come to God in their own time. I like the idea of reincarnation. I think if you ask anyone, I don't know, some say "oh I want to see my dead relatives again," well I think at the heart of it, at least selfishly, we all just want another shot at life to do it over knowing what we know now don't we(and I've heard some theories of reincarnation say that people reincarnate in association with people they've known in past lives.) Well it's all a very nice thought I think it's very ideal, but I won't say I have any real sure notions of that.
What I really do have experience with and surety of is that we are some kind of consciousness behind this physical body in some way. I am not going to say I can give you an absolute definitive explanation of that. In experiences where you can experience it directly, it doesn't mean you can formulate an explanation that will make sense in another frame of mind or experience right? That's why I was talking about, the conceptual things I was talking about, like Vivekananda says you must go and experience it for yourself or you have nothing.
Anonymous 11-03-25 16:03:22 No. 23880
>>23856 >who is more moralistic than marxists today?
Anonymous 12-03-25 04:51:27 No. 23890
>>23882 >in one sense, but i would claim something similar in the very institution of science.
Anonymous 12-03-25 17:16:24 No. 23899
>>23891 I don't think we can really communicate (not surprising since you're a Nazi). I can try on the economic claims you make but I'd be repeating myself.
My writing is at:
https://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net Anonymous 12-03-25 19:17:59 No. 23901
Aight, listen up, lemme break this down, ‘cause I know you’re probably thinking this is all just some fancy talk, but nah, I’mma hit ya with the real. So, pure math? That’s like the stuff you dream up when you’re sittin’ in your basement, all by yourself, thinkin’ you got it figured out. It's just numbers and equations floatin' around like ghosts, no walls, no limits, no nothing. You feel me? It’s like a chess game but there ain't no pieces to move—just some theoretical, abstract nonsense. But applied math? That’s the real deal, the gritty stuff you use to build somethin’ that actually matters, like a bridge or even a freakin' airplane. Like, take Gorilla Glass, right? That stuff was sittin’ around forever, just waitin’ to be useful. No one cared ‘til we got smartphones, and all of a sudden, BOOM—it's saving your screen from shatterin’ every time you drop your phone. See what I’m sayin’? It’s math that’s been chillin’ in the background, just waitin’ for the world to catch up. That’s real world applied math. That's the kinda stuff that actually fixes problems.
Anonymous 12-03-25 19:51:14 No. 23902
>>23901 If you wanna talk about clappin' back and throwin' around “philosophy” talk, let’s first talk about psychology, astronomy, and economics, right? Now, none of these are “pure” sciences like math, but they ain't just some abstract pipe dream unlike dialtones or whatever. At least these “not-sciences,” if we’re gonna call 'em that, got some actual, tangible results. Like, astronomy ain’t just stargazing—it’s predicting how planets move, how black holes behave, what’s out there in space. And economics? We can measure stuff like inflation, unemployment, stock markets—real data, real trends. Psychology, too—ain’t no fluffy “just think better” talk. We got therapy that helps people, brain scans that show how we think and feel. Yeah, it's tough to replicate every single aspect, sometimes downright imposible which is why a lot of People dont cansider em real sciences, but they ain’t just up in the clouds, talkin' philosophy.
Now, philosophy—bro, it's all talk, no action. People just sit there, discussin' the meaning of Materialism when they all bout being trans and their experience not being one of a metaphisical and aesthetic experience of a woman being all bout idealism and not materialismo, but ain’t nobody building bridges with that kinda thing. So when you throw leftist intelectual letter soups in the mix, don’t even try to say it’s got some real-world application. You can talk about dialectics and revolutions all you want, but who’s actually out here doing something? Ain’t no "Gorilla Glass" moment for Marxism, bro. It’s just a bunch of talk with no practical, measurable outcome. Philosphy is just abstract thoughts in a void.
So, when you talk about psychology, astronomy, and economics, even if they’re not perfect sciences, at least they can show progress. They can measure things, adapt to data, and make breakthroughs. They got something real to work with that makes itself evident, like finding a planet. And let’s not forget, you ain’t gotta be sittin’ there deciphering some fancy words from some so-called intellectual. You ain't gonna be using “dialectics” in your everyday life. Trust me, learning about FOSS or helpin’ your mom clean the house is more useful than trying to crack the code on some Marxist manifesto, there is more praxis to that than reading hegel and sucking your own Dick in /lit/.
At the end of the day, what’s useful ain’t that “big-brain” nonsense about the soul or the ethimology of whatever. It’s about what actually gets you somewhere. You don’t need a degree in "intellectualism" to understand that. Just use your head, learn some practical stuff, and leave the abstract fluff behind. Don’t waste time tryin’ to understand Marxism, ‘cause it's just a pseudo-goodreads list made to sound intellectual on Reddit. Just padd through whatever you are having problems understanding the lexicon off through AI. I read all of Espinoza or whatever the fuck that prick was called through GTP chapter by chapter as if it was an AVGN review.
Anonymous 17-03-25 02:59:02 No. 23949
>>23902 This is retarded as fuck because a lot of we now consider practical knowledge or skills were built out of doing seemingly useless things. You are also making a distinction between philosophy, social sciences, and hard sciences that didn't exist for most of human history. Even to this day all of these things influence and are influenced by each other. Also to say that Marxism has had no practical outcome is insane, did you just skip past 20th century history?
Promoting AI slop as a shortcut to actual learning is especially disgusting.
Anonymous 17-03-25 04:18:27 No. 23952
>>23949 First of all:
L + (You) ratio + can't read capital + no home gym + Protein powder expired + Can't even bench your own Steam Deck + Zero functional programming skills + Unread libgens + Book backlog spanning three genres + No soldiering kit + No powertools + AI romance + acquaintances with anime profile pictures ppl + shit sleep schedule + Unplayed steam games + No sunlight + No Vitamin D + No Maidens + Discord account + virgin
Sexond:
Get that head outta yo ass and this site and get somethin' done like I was with your mom okah son?
Anonymous 17-03-25 04:22:26 No. 23953
>>23949 Actually it may be that it's the other way around. Regardless we are living in an age where technical skills are looked down upon as unnecessary.
Most of our academic skills are underutilized for everyday tasks
Anonymous 21-05-25 21:28:50 No. 24363
>>24362 The funny part about that Jacobin trash is that all the quotetweets are absolutely clueless too. Of course what Chibber says isn't materialism he's just peddling naive realism under the label. But he's not entirely wrong: communists do understand class actions as driven by material (i.e., economic) interests.
The key is that communists don't just assume people act out of class interest, they expose those interests, make them conscious, which is what actually reform of consciousness. It's not that everyone always knows or follows their class interest, class society hides those interests behind moral justifications, even morality talks against those interests. Also, I'm not sold on Chibber's democratic idealism. There's no mention of the middle class and how their democratic demands actually obstruct the class interests of the proletariat.
Anonymous 19-07-25 05:47:00 No. 24697
>>24685 In other words, the termination of thought.
There is no "negation" in the real world we live in, nor in any actual idea we hold. Every idea we hold to be true stands on its own merits. It is destroyed only when it is inoperative or it was only ever an abstraction without substantive existence. At no point is history "edited" in this way, and that is a profoundly Satanic cosmological view.
Glownonymous 19-07-25 06:12:48 No. 24700
>>24697 >There is no "negation" in the real world we live in WRONG. the heat death of the universe is the negation of this cycle of reality. you are cosmic illiterate who dismiss heat death (proven science) while peddling idealist mysticism ("no negation").
>There is no "negation" in any actual idea we hold. Every idea we hold to be true stands on its own merits. Wrong. All ideas are predicated entirely on material condition. You are an idealist.
> It is destroyed only when it is inoperative or it was only ever an abstraction without substantive existence. Wrong. ideas are destroyed only by material forces
> At no point is history "edited" in this way, and that is a profoundly Satanic cosmological view. Wrong. History is rewritten every day. Your priestly copes are brainworms
Anonymous 19-07-25 08:37:31 No. 24701
>>24700 One, heat death is not "proven science". Two, the settling of the universe into heat death is not a "negation" of anything. All it says is that at some point, there is no more temperature and therefore no more movement of physical matter (which is something very different from a philosophical notion that there is no motion at all, you cannot claim that without making very specific metaphysical claims about existence).
Three, nothing in thermodynamics is "destroyed" in a philosophical sense. The universe is still there, and to Lord Kelvin, the universe was always here. That was the cosmological supposition the imperial academy made at the time, and it stuck to that until the 1960s, which is why Fred Hoyle scoffed at the idea of a "Big Bang".
Four, if you follow physicalism, it disallows anything being "negated" in this manner to be disappeared from existence. If you follow that, then the past happened and does not change no matter what. Something that existed at one time will have always existed at that time. This again requires many metaphysical assumptions that are usually left unstated, because they lead to obvious errors without a proper notion of what "history" means.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your retarded drivel. History is reconstructed by us any time we ask "what happened in the past to create the present situation". We may have our local biases at some place and time, but we are aware of our own limitations and hold that there was a singular world with a singular history we refer to as "the past". No matter how many times history is rewritten, we would have to reconstruct certain facts if we are speaking of the same world history pertains to. For example, babies come from a mother and father, and happen to create specific babies from specific parents, and so we would ask who was the first human, where did our ancestors come from, what our descendants might become. Everything that happens in any credible history happens for a reason that is independent of any theory or system we purport to be "the true history" of any record. If the record is wrong, we can ask that question. If the record is correct, all of the efforts made to rewrite history will either be unsuccessful or will be deliberate lies recording to "make reality". That is what the Hegeloids do, which is why I call their cosmology essentially Satanic.
Glownonymous 19-07-25 09:59:13 No. 24703
>>24701 >>24701 >One, heat death is not "proven science". Wrong. Your denial of infallible science is equivalent to flat-earthism. 2nd Law of Thermodynamic. You are anti-science, and thus counter-revolutionary.
>Two, the settling of the universe into heat death is not a "negation" of anything. All it says is that at some point, there is no more temperature and therefore no more movement of physical matter (which is something very different from a philosophical notion that there is no motion at all, you cannot claim that without making very specific metaphysical claims about existence). Wrong. Negation = transformation of state. Heat death is the negation of the universe, reducing all matter to inert homogeneity. Your semantic retardation changes nothing—contradiction is solved and matter ceases to exist in any meaningful form.
>Three, nothing in thermodynamics is "destroyed" in a philosophical sense. The universe is still there, and to Lord Kelvin, the universe was always here. That was the cosmological supposition the imperial academy made at the time, and it stuck to that until the 1960s, which is why Fred Hoyle scoffed at the idea of a "Big Bang". Wrong. Your philosophies are retarded. "Destruction" = irreversible dissolution of form. A dead star or universe is not the same as a living one—this is literal negation. Your appeal to bourgeois rationalist eternalism is irrelevant. Modern science demonstrates the universe had a beginning and will end.
>Four, if you follow physicalism, it disallows anything being "negated" in this manner to be disappeared from existence. If you follow that, then the past happened and does not change no matter what. Something that existed at one time will have always existed at that time. This again requires many metaphysical assumptions that are usually left unstated, because they lead to obvious errors without a proper notion of what "history" means. Wrong. History is negated by the present. This is very simple. The rest of your retarded drivel will be destroyed irrefutably.
>History is reconstructed by us any time we ask "what happened in the past to create the present situation". We may have our local biases at some place and time, but we are aware of our own limitations and hold that there was a singular world with a singular history we refer to as "the past". No matter how many times history is rewritten, we would have to reconstruct certain facts if we are speaking of the same world history pertains to. For example, babies come from a mother and father, and happen to create specific babies from specific parents, and so we would ask who was the first human, where did our ancestors come from, what our descendants might become. Everything that happens in any credible history happens for a reason that is independent of any theory or system we purport to be "the true history" of any record. If the record is wrong, we can ask that question. If the record is correct, all of the efforts made to rewrite history will either be unsuccessful or will be deliberate lies recording to "make reality". That is what the Hegeloids do, which is why I call their cosmology essentially Satanic. Wrong. History is not riddle. There are as many histories as there are classes. Your singluar history is fascist theory. All of your profound questions have long since been answered. Only Marxist-Leninist grasp history.
Anonymous 19-07-25 13:17:18 No. 24705
>>24703 Saying heat death is "proven science" is just so stupid, now i gotta jump in. 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".
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.
Anonymous 19-07-25 13:39:16 No. 24706
>>24705 The guy's whole post is this sort of dictatorial powertrip calling itself "The Science", which is why I just gave up. My main point is that the heat death proposed by Lord Kelvin did not say philosophically anything that was asserted about "negation", and if anything it rejected the entire premise of negation. Even if you want to hold that heat death is an inevitable consequence of the laws of thermodynamics and that this would mean the end of any "information", that has nothing to do with "negation" or some intent of the universal mind to make it so. It is merely a consequence of what we believe systems of heat are, and so the matter of the universe as a whole "degrades" by becoming still. In the physicalist model, the matter is still there and effectively eternal. It cannot be destroyed or created. At heat death it becomes simply "substance", which may be arranged in some structure we can discern but doesn't "do" anything.
There are certain philosophical/religious assumptions at work among the British imperialists, but they are not the Hegeloid's assumptions, and strictly speaking they do not forbid "divine intervention" or something supernatural at work in the universe. The hidden secret many of those people in the British academy believed is that they were going to be that supernatural force. They would become gods and their technology indistinguishable from magic. Famous pederast Arthur C. Clarke is representative of their spiritual vanguard regarding such a fate, and he's hardly alone.
Anonymous 19-07-25 15:15:11 No. 24707
>>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
Anonymous 19-07-25 16:14:31 No. 24712
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
Anonymous 19-07-25 17:50:33 No. 24716
>>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.
Anonymous 19-07-25 20:47:10 No. 24717
>>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".
Anonymous 29-07-25 18:48:45 No. 24742
>>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.
Anonymous 29-07-25 19:02:25 No. 24743
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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 13:09:37 No. 24845
>>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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 14:03:46 No. 24847
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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 14:12:15 No. 24848
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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 14:19:12 No. 24849
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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 14:25:05 No. 24850
>>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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 15:37:11 No. 24851
>>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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 16:02:14 No. 24853
>>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
Anonymous 19-08-25 17:20:38 No. 24855
>>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.
Anonymous 19-08-25 19:18:19 No. 24861
>>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.
Anonymous 20-08-25 03:49:14 No. 24865
>>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.
Anonymous 20-08-25 03:57:14 No. 24867
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.
Anonymous 21-08-25 20:26:03 No. 24881
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).
Unique IPs: 56