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

/edu/ - Education

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

File: 1608528029712.jpg (808.47 KB, 1700x2151, Hegel_by_Schlesinger.jpg)


I'm trying to learn and understand dialectics, but I think getting some direction for this would be helpful.

Which works should I read to understand dialectical (Hegelian, materialist) thinking and in what order?


As I understand it dialectics in general is just thought absent any formal mode or system. You probably already think dialectically and just don't realize it. Hegelian dialectics in particular looks for connections of necessity rather than contingency, and I still can't wrap my head around Materialist Dialectics.

Start with Plato's dialogues. Then if you want to learn Hegel I'd suggest reading the Science of Logic. Critique of Pure reason by Kant a Treatise on Human Nature by Hume with both help you make sense of that, as will Descartes meditations. Hegel kinda expects you to be educated in the western tradition leading up to him.


This thread may be of interest to you


Dialectics is like a moving arrow:

When you envision the movment of history; the moving arrow, you do not envision an arrow tht is drawn or an arrow that has met its mark. When you envision a moving arrow you envision it moving through space and time.

That is dialectical logic: You are neither at A or B you are moving between both of them.


Citation needed.


This anon is correct when he tell you to start with Plato. Also better, you should learn about the contradiction between two ancient Greek schools: Milesian (the most profound one is Heraclitus) and Eleatics (Parmenides and Zenon). After that was how Plato overcome the contradiction of both sides. After Plato, you can proceed to Aristotle to see how the contradiction in Plato thought was resolved in Aristotle. Also remember that philosophy should never be taken alone without the knowledge of that era, from myths to history and science. You should prepare yourself with enough background knowledge in order to take the philosophy pill.

Also, anyone here who interested in Chinese dialectics?


In general, you are right, but you need to expand your statement in a more concrete form. Why the arrow are neither at A or B, by what specific mechanism, in what condition the arrow are moving? The unending enrichment of the abstract by the concrete is the way of dialectical method too.


I don't think he is right at all. He is reducing dialectics to a mere assertion of temporality.


File: 1608528030901.jpg (2.71 MB, 1980x1980, 80812398_p0.jpg)

If you are interested in Hegel's dialectics, these two pages have everything that you need to know:

For Marx, he talks about his method here and there:

To be honest, I am sceptical of dialectical "thinking" ever happening outside of Hegel's fever dreams. To me it is more of a style of presentation. Inquiry into a topic cannot follow the dialectical process because it presupposes already knowing what is decisive. It can only be utilized as a narrative of reconstruction.

This is wrong, dialectics is like yeast.


He is right, not enough. You can start from any statement in dialectics and by constantly expanding and evolving, arrive at other statement in dialectics. That's the essence of Hegel's Logic, concepts in their never-ending birth and transformation. It's only reducing if he refuses to develop the concepts in more detailed form.


File: 1608528031584.png (202.45 KB, 800x600, 3a451df8349f3a84c336d2c923….png)

This anon is shooting from the hip with his understanding of dialectics: If I can parse out anything from your statment it is that some how dialectics presuppses the conclusion to a statment which is nothing but a matter of falsehood.

A does not inherently lead to A, rather, A can lead to X or A = X, Y, or Z; or any number of possibilities. It is the understanding of A that allows us to understand the possibilities of its future and work from there. You can understand that, for example; the falling rate of profit:
1. Capitalism depends on Profits to maintain its existence.
2.Profits require the circulation of commodities in the economy.
3. Labor power is required under capitalism to generate commodities and, as such, the circulation of commodities.
4. The generation of profits are inherently linked to the circulation of commodities.
5. The production of commodities is always being influenced by innovation
6. Innovation drives out labor power from the market causing prices to fall
7. The general trend for prices to fall, over time, lowers the total amount of profits to be made through the circulation of commodities

C: The generation of profits under capitalism can not be maintained indefinitely and, as such, the system of capitalism will eventually fault due to this inherent flaw in production among other faults.

That's just one conclusion that comes out of the implications of the capitalist mode of production, as well. It is a form of logical induction on the movement of history; Take salve societies for example;

All class societies through out history have fallen. Why should this class society be any different? All class societies have contradictions that lead to their demise. Why are we special?

If you try applying formal logic to Hegelian dialectics you are gonna have a bad time.


I assume you want to learn "dialectical thinking" as it relates to Marx and Marxism, not Hegel. In which case I suggest you read Lukacs' book History and Class Consciousness: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/ and also Karl Korsch's article ''Marxism and Philosphy": https://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1923/marxism-philosophy.htm


File: 1608528031734.epub (1016.44 KB, The Revolutionary Philoso….epub)



File: 1608528031932.jpg (235.3 KB, 972x887, e5d6d965f1602ecc0a729c4949….jpg)

I am not sure if what you say is in any way relevant to the discussion, and I don't see how mathematical induction got involved.

What I wanted to say is: Marx did not think "dialectically". It is absurd to believe that by some Divine Inspiration he chose to investigate the commodity form and from there, following a rigorous logic, managed to uncover the deepest secrets of the capitalist mode of production. What actually happened, and he seems to admit it in Grundrisse, was that he followed the same method of inquiry as the other classical economists, starting with big concrete categories like population, working his way down to the more abstract categories like the commodity form. What made the difference was that unlike others, he did not stop here, but instead carefully constructed a narrative in the opposite direction, starting from abstract categories advancing towards the concrete. This second part was then published and became known as dialectical thinking. But it is clear that it cannot be done without the first part, and so you know the conclusion in advance.


File: 1608528032337.jpg (20.02 KB, 474x271, ok.jpg)

>>909 (me)

>his anon is shooting from the hip with his understanding of dialectics
t. this anon

>If you try applying formal logic to Hegelian dialectics you are gonna have a bad time.

t. having a bad time

Why was applying formal logic to dialectics in this thread? You seem to be the first one to try to describe dialectics in terms of syllogisms. Also wtf does logical induction have to do with this?

>If I can parse out anything from your statment it is that some how dialectics presuppses the conclusion to a statment which is nothing but a matter of falsehood.

In Hegel's method, Dialectics IS the conclusion. The proper name for the method is imminent critique. So yes, dialectics presupposes the conclusions in a sense, although the anon you are responding to framed it in a much more coherent way.

Good post. I don't think you should be skeptical of dialectical thinking though. Remember that Hegel's dialectics are something very specific, but they go back to the Greeks. Dialectics is just inquiry absent any specific mode or method. Following the trail of definitions for a concept until you arrive at something rigorous is dialectics in the broader

Marx's dialectics are closer to Hegel's than they are to the cargo cult of "diamat" but they are not identical. The element of necessary connection is lost or is at least not fully adhered to. His critique of capitalism did follow something akin to Hegel's method more broadly, but it was not identical, and he had a specific goal in mind of reaching conclusions which have material implications. This proved to be more powerful than Hegel's method, if less specific. I think this method of materialy oriented critique is worth trying to rescue even if the version of "materialist dialectics" you hear thrown around is metaphysical nonsense.


File: 1608528032516.jpeg (46.56 KB, 474x664, 3434f34f34f.jpeg)

Marx did think dialectically. He just took it and removed the immaterial spooks from it to further refine its definition and application; I also find this untrue, though, admittedly, I need to read Grundrisse. However, I do know that capital opens up on the commodity form. I think what the critiques in this thread are missing is that Marx does start with the abstract, Marx begins with the abstract notion of capital and works his way into concretion in the form of the commodity. No one is saying it was Divine. Marx investigated capitalism from his own lived experiences.


File: 1608528032695.jpg (632.51 KB, 1024x769, 1585236294063.jpg)

ITT: Brainlet.

You can apply formal logic about conclusions related to topics revolving around informal logic, lol. There is no rule or fallacy that states one cannot use formal logic to describe informal logic.
Hegelian dialects are no more the conclusion that a hammer is a house; Dialectics are neither the house nore the lumber required to construct the house. They are the tool by which the house transforms from lumber to home.


The first part is just a starting point, if a scientist started researching "What is commodity, what is its origin, what is its condition? and etc." and never cease to further his research then it's inevitable he would come to research the first part which you said, because after all, everything in the world is existed in a network of interconnection, you cannot research commodity without society, just as you cannot research capitalist society without research commodity


>Hegelian dialects are no more the conclusion that a hammer is a house
And also by which way a hammer is a house, because dialectics doesn't stop at any point. You just built a strawman in order to attack Hegel, without try to understand the essence of his thought.


Anon, it's because that the concrete and the abstract is the same. There is no abstract that doesn't relate to the many other concretes. And the concrete, which in turn is a mini-abstract, relates to other mini-concretes. It's a fractal structure, anon, a never-ending fractal


Again, let me repeat the point. Hegel's only fault was to regard material world as something inferior to the world of ideas. His dialectical method was fine. However, it doesn't that mean we can simply take Hegel's system and change the names of concept, because Hegel's dialectics was expressed in concrete ideas, and those ideas were full of idealist biases. Therefore, we cannot copy, but build ourself a dialectical system in the same veins. It's necessary to put the material world as the primary factor, because Ideas existed in material world, the world nourishes and allows the Ideas to live and develop themselves.


I never claimed you can't. I just pointed out that that is not what this thread is about, and that the anon I was responding to was both the first one to bring it up, and claimed that it's a bad idea.


>dialectics are no more a conclusion that a hammer is a house
You've got this completely backwards. Dialectics are a certain pattern which emerges from the method of imminent critique, not the method itself.

These metaphors are pretty much useless but if you insist in thinking about it this way, the hammer is imminent critique, and dialects are the relationship between the land or space absent the house, the materials making up the house, and the completed house.

You're confidence that you know what you are talking about is stunning.


It's called an analogy, how fucking stupid can one possibly be? That was exactly my point you dumb ass.


You're basically positing "what came first the chicken or the egg?" Neither, it doesn't matter. We can wind the clock back to the beginning of the universe, but, we have to focus on something to start a conversation about the Economy and our starting point is Capital.


This is mental masturbation. I said exactly this.
What is it you hate about analogies?


Then don't use the word such as no more. Instead of it, use "for example"


File: 1608528033445.jpg (19.58 KB, 474x402, sponoza.jpg)

I don't hate analogies, but if you understood dialectics you would know that they can not be accurately described in terms of an analogy. It's literally in the definition.

To describe dialectics in terms of analogy is to impose an external mode of inquiry upon them, which is the one thing that imminent critique precludes.

>What do you hate about analogies

>This is mental masturbation.
You answered your own question here.

>I said exactly this.

You tried to rebut my claim that dialectics are a conclusion by providing an analogy about hammers and houses. I reasserted that dialectics ARE a conclusion, and changed around some parts of your analogy to where it at least sort of describes dialectics, but still doesn't communicate it effectively.

How you think our statements are equivalent is beyond me.


>I don't hate analogies, but if you understood dialectics you would know that they can not be accurately described in terms of an analogy. It's literally in the definition.

Yeah but you have to explain it to the retards in a way that retards can understand it. Go take your smug bullshit to reddit you fucking fag.

>How you think our statements are equivalent is beyond me.

IQ 2000trillion


Marx starts his PRESENTATION from the commodity form, but he did not start his INQUIRY from there. That's the point. My claim is the when people talk about "dialectical thinking" they are confusing process with presentation.


Hegel believed that his dialectics was a proper logic, meaning that if you started rigorously investigating Pure Being like he did, you would necessarily uncover all the secrets of the Absolute Spirit, including material reality, the same way he did.


File: 1608528033887.jpg (16.91 KB, 313x400, vvvgaypotus.jpg)

>Yeah but you have to explain it to the retards in a way that retards can understand it.
Lemme give this a shot. So you wanna do dialectics? Take a thing, any thing. Think about the thing, but don't think about it in terms of any other, external thing. Got it? Now what appears to you? What kind of necessary connections are present in that thing as it relates to itself? What does the existence of that thing–on it's own terms–imply in terms of what other kind of things exist? Not things you already know about, but just things that MUST exist if that thing exists. Got it? Okay good. No consider those things in relation to one another, and repeat the process over and over and over again.

>Go take your smug bullshit to reddit you fucking fag.

I'm getting mixed messages here…

>IQ 2000trillion



Not the anon you are responding to, but I don't think this is the whole story. I agree that the process by which Marx determined his system probably had more to do with starting from specific categories in the way that Smith and Ricardo did, and that he was under social and institutional pressure to present it in terms of Hegel's dialectics, however I don't think this realization precludes the possibility of dialectical thought. You can read the Science of Logic just looking for the conclusions, or you can try to think through these concepts in the way that they are presented. Then, you can try to perform that same kind of inquiry independently on whatever concept you are interested in. I think that you probably already think this way from time to time, because we all do.


Some responded that dialectical materialism was invented by Marx not Hegel. That is wrong, it was invented by another German proletarian philosopher Joseph Dietzgen.
Even as an undegrad I was struck by the way the author pretended to deduce things from premises, which went far beyond what the premises would support. The dialectical logic looked awfully like a conjuring trick used to distract attention whilst the desired conclusions were introduced as if by magic.
It is an odd paradox that Marx and Engels, the most prominent Communists theorists developed their own historical materialism in a process of root and branch criticism and demolition of Hegelianism of German philosophy of the 1840s ( The Holy Family, The German Ideology). But today in the 21st century almost the only reason that Hegel is studied is because many Marxists believe that Hegel’s ideas were in some way fundamental to understanding historical materialism.

It is notable that in the German Ideology, not only do Marx and Engels make no mention of dialectics, let alone a positive reference to it but they quite specific in their rejection of Hegel.
The idea that Marxism was based on dialectical rather than historical materialism goes through two stages. First Dietzgen invents dialectical materialism in the 1870s and claims that the theory of social democracy is based on it. At the start of the 20th century it was still recognised that Dialectical Materialism was Dietzgen’s innovation. The dialectical materialism of Dietzgen then became the official philosophy of Social Democracy and then of Communism. Since Marx’s Historical Materialism was also the official theory of both movements, dialectical materialism was projected back onto Marx and Engels and supposed to be their ‘method’.
The problem is that if you read a very out of date logician like Hegel, you cut yourself off from a century and half of advance which has long since shown the futility of the whole Hegelian idealist project. The point about Turing, brought out brilliantly by the more recent Turingist Greg Chaitin in his books is that as he puts it ‘you can not get two kilos of theorems from one kilo of axioms’. Hegel wants to derive all sorts of things from the dialectical development of negation, but what Chaitin and Turing prove is that you can never derive more from a logical system than is contained in your initial axioms. Hegel only appears to do it by sleight of hand where he introduces conclusions that he wants that are actually unsupported by his axioms.
You have the absurdity of Marxists using computers and the internet to discuss anachonistic terms like dialectical versus formal logic when their very activities are entirely depependent on other logicians and materialists like Boole, Shannon and Turing about whom they know little or nothing. Without Booles logic and Shannon’s demonstration that this could be implemented in switching circuits, there would be no digital electronics. Without Turing no mechanisation of thought, without Shannon’s information theory no wifi or internet.

If you want to understand logic Hegel is the last person to study. If you want to understand complex systems as they change, study Markov theory cybernetics and process algebra not Hegel.


What about Engels' delusions about the dialectics of nature?


>to understand dialectics you really want to start by getting a Master in Ancient Greek Philosophy, History and Culture


>Dialectics of nature
Remember it has his masterful "The Transition from Ape to Man"




>anyone here who interested in Chinese dialectics?
I'm interested, where do I start?


Hegel was quite the faggot and while Marx was able to take something from him and make it its own thing, you should not bother with Hegel faggot fuck.


You cannot, of course, do without Hegel. He’s another chap whom it will take you time to digest. The short paper on logic in the Encyklopädie would be quite good to start off with, but the edition you should have is that in Volume 6 of the Werke — not [Karl] Rosenkranz’s separate edition (1845) — since the former contains far more explanatory notes from the lectures, even if that idiot Henning himself frequently fails to understand the latter.

In the introduction, in §26, etc., you have first the critique of Wolf’s version of Leibniz (metaphysics in the historical sense), then that of the English and French empiricists in §37, etc., then that of Kant, §40 et sequ. and, finally, that of Jacobi’s mysticism, §61. — In the first section (Being), you ought not to linger too long over being and nothing — the last paragraphs on quality followed by quantity and measure are much nicer, but the theory of essence constitutes the main section: the dissolution of abstract opposites into their insubstantiality when, as soon as one tries to grasp one aspect alone, it changes imperceptibly into the other, etc. At the same time you can always clarify things by means of concrete examples. E.g. you, as a fiancé, and your affianced yourselves present an outstanding example of the indivisibility of identity and difference. It is quite impossible to ascertain whether sexual love is the pleasure derived from identity in difference or that derived from difference in identity. Remove the difference (in this case of sex) or the identity (the humanity of both), and what remains? I remember how tormented I used to be at first by this indivisibility of identity and difference, though we cannot take one step without stumbling over it.

On no account, however, should you read Hegel as [Paul] Barth has read him, namely so as to discover the paralogisms and shabby expedients that served him as tools for constructing his system. That is a schoolroom exercise, nothing more. What is far more important is to discover the truth and the genius beneath the falsity of the form and the factitious context. For instance, the transitions from one category or opposite to another are almost always arbitrary — and are often achieved by means of a joke, as in §120, when positive and negative ‘fall to the ground’ so that Hegel may proceed to the category “ground.” To rack one’s brains over this is a waste of time.

Since, in Hegel, each category represents a stage in the history of philosophy (as, indeed, he usually indicates), you would be well-advised to read the Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Philosophie — one of his most brilliant works — by way of comparison. For recreation I would commend the Ästhetik. Once you have gained some familiarity with it you will be amazed.

The inversion of Hegel’s dialectics is based on the assumption that it is the “self-development of the idea” of which, therefore, the dialectic of facts is only the image, while the dialectic in our minds is but the reflection of the actual development taking place in the natural world and human history in obedience to dialectical forms.

You should try comparing the Marxian progression from commodity to capital with the Hegelian from being to essence; this would give you quite a good parallel — on the one hand, the concrete development which follows from the facts, on the other, the abstract construction, in which extremely brilliant ideas and, in certain cases, very just transformations such as that of quality into quantity and vice versa, are elaborated to produce what appears to be the self-development of one notion out of another, of which, indeed, it would be possible to concoct a dozen of the same kind.


>You have the absurdity of Marxists using computers
What a shit way to undermine the rest of your post.


The whole post is shit anon. Basically "I don't understand dialectics therefore it is obfuscation". The same shit we always hear from liberals.


There is nothing to understand. Similar to magic. It's a pro-imperialist pro-Prussians guy's masturbatory fantasy.


Yo can anyone explain to me what's up with that coffee joke Zizek loves and why does he think it perfectly represents Hegelianism.
Here's the joke:
&ltThe French existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting in a cafe when a waitress approached him: "Can I get you something to drink, Monsieur Sartre?" Sartre replied, "Yes, I'd like a cup of coffee with sugar, but no cream". Nodding agreement, the waitress walked off to fill the order and Sartre returned to working. A few minutes later, however, the waitress returned and said, "I'm sorry, Monsieur Sartre, we are all out of cream – how about with no milk?"


That everything is a word play or word/grammatical tricks that have very little to do with reality


"no cream" implies the existence of "cream". Without "cream", there is no "no cream"


To start in Chinese dialectics, it's necessary to understand the main objects of philosophy researching in China is totally different in the West. In the West, the philosophers often coming from the background of slave holders (aside from some exception) who have free time to think about the essence of the world without relating to the practice of mere mortals. However, in China, most philosophers were coming from aristocracy background, whose concerns were about the nature of the world for the sake of managing it (praxis). Philosophy in Ancient China could be divide into three eras, pre-Confucius, Confucius, and Legalism era, which correlated to three historical eras: Shang-Western Zhou, Spring Autumn, and finally Warring States-Qin-Western Han era. The notable thoughts of ancient Chinese philosophy are Daoism, Confucianism, Mohism and Legalism, each correlated into respective social classes, however, to understand that, you need to deeply understand the historical background of that times.
Of all philosophical school, the most dialectical one was Daoism, and the most canonical text of this school is "Dao De Jing" https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing
I will quote the most political segments in that work:

> 57. (The genuine influence)

>A state may be ruled by (measures of) correction; weapons of war may be used with crafty dexterity; (but) the kingdom is made one's own (only) by freedom from action and purpose.
>How do I know that it is so? By these facts: - In the kingdom the multiplication of prohibitive enactments increases the poverty of the people; the more implements to add to their profit that the people have, the greater disorder is there in the state and clan; the more acts of crafty dexterity that men possess, the more do strange contrivances appear; the more display there is of legislation, the more thieves and robbers there are.
>Therefore a sage has said, 'I will do nothing (of purpose), and the people will be transformed of themselves; I will be fond of keeping still, and the people will of themselves become correct. I will take no trouble about it, and the people will of themselves become rich; I will manifest no ambition, and the people will of themselves attain to the primitive simplicity.'

> 58. (Transformation according to circumstances)

>The government that seems the most unwise,
>Oft goodness to the people best supplies;
>That which is meddling, touching everything,
>Will work but ill, and disappointment bring.
>Misery! - happiness is to be found by its side! Happiness! - misery lurks beneath it! Who knows what either will come to in the end?
>Shall we then dispense with correction? The (method of) correction shall by a turn become distortion, and the good in it shall by a turn become evil. >The delusion of the people (on this point) has indeed subsisted for a long time.
>Therefore the sage is (like) a square which cuts no one (with its angles); (like) a corner which injures no one (with its sharpness). He is straightforward, but allows himself no license; he is bright, but does not dazzle.

> 60. (Occupying the throne)

>Governing a great state is like cooking small fish.
>Let the kingdom be governed according to the Dao, and the manes of the departed will not manifest their spiritual energy. It is not that those manes have not that spiritual energy, but it will not be employed to hurt men. It is not that it could not hurt men, but neither does the ruling sage hurt them.
>When these two do not injuriously affect each other, their good influences converge in the virtue (of the Dao).

> 61. (The attribute of humility)

>What makes a great state is its being (like) a low-lying, down- flowing (stream); - it becomes the centre to which tend (all the small states) under heaven.
>(To illustrate from) the case of all females: - the female always overcomes the male by her stillness. Stillness may be considered (a sort of) abasement.
>Thus it is that a great state, by condescending to small states, gains them for itself; and that small states, by abasing themselves to a great state, win it over to them. In the one case the abasement leads to gaining adherents, in the other case to procuring favour.
>The great state only wishes to unite men together and nourish them; a small state only wishes to be received by, and to serve, the other. Each gets what it desires, but the great state must learn to abase itself.

> 65. (Pure, unmixed excellence)

>The ancients who showed their skill in practising the Dao did so, not to enlighten the people, but rather to make them simple and ignorant.
>The difficulty in governing the people arises from their having much knowledge. He who (tries to) govern a state by his wisdom is a scourge to it; while he who does not (try to) do so is a blessing.
>He who knows these two things finds in them also his model and rule. Ability to know this model and rule constitutes what we call the mysterious excellence (of a governor). Deep and far-reaching is such mysterious excellence, showing indeed its possessor as opposite to others, but leading them to a great conformity to him.

> 66. (Putting one's self last)

>That whereby the rivers and seas are able to receive the homage and tribute of all the valley streams, is their skill in being lower than they; - it is thus that they are the kings of them all. So it is that the sage (ruler), wishing to be above men, puts himself by his words below them, and, wishing to be before them, places his person behind them.
>In this way though he has his place above them, men do not feel his weight, nor though he has his place before them, do they feel it an injury to them.
>Therefore all in the world delight to exalt him and do not weary of him. Because he does not strive, no one finds it possible to strive with him.

> 75. (How greediness injures)

>The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine.
>The people are difficult to govern because of the (excessive) agency of their superiors (in governing them). It is through this that they are difficult to govern.
>The people make light of dying because of the greatness of their labours in seeking for the means of living. It is this which makes them think light of dying. Thus it is that to leave the subject of living altogether out of view is better than to set a high value on it.

> 76. (A warning against (trusting in) strength)

>Man at his birth is supple and weak; at his death, firm and strong. (So it is with) all things. Trees and plants, in their early growth, are soft and brittle; at their death, dry and withered.
>Thus it is that firmness and strength are the concomitants of death; softness and weakness, the concomitants of life.
>Hence he who (relies on) the strength of his forces does not conquer; and a tree which is strong will fill the out-stretched arms, (and thereby invites the feller.)
>Therefore the place of what is firm and strong is below, and that of what is soft and weak is above.

> 80. (Standing alone)

>In a little state with a small population, I would so order it, that, though there were individuals with the abilities of ten or a hundred men, there should be no employment of them; I would make the people, while looking on death as a grievous thing, yet not remove elsewhere (to avoid it).
>Though they had boats and carriages, they should have no occasion to ride in them; though they had buff coats and sharp weapons, they should have no occasion to don or use them.
>I would make the people return to the use of knotted cords (instead of the written characters).
>They should think their (coarse) food sweet; their (plain) clothes beautiful; their (poor) dwellings places of rest; and their common (simple) ways sources of enjoyment.
>There should be a neighbouring state within sight, and the voices of the fowls and dogs should be heard all the way from it to us, but I would make the people to old age, even to death, not have any intercourse with it.



In other words, Daoism is the ideology of primitive tribal chieftains, who want to return to the simple time of primitive communism. It's not a accident that the more communist you are, the more dialectical you become, because different from private property owners, the communists by their practice must see the world as united whole, and cannot focus on a single part of the world. It's also no accident that Heraclitus, the most dialectical thinker of ancient Greece, was living in Asia Minor, where the relics of ancient way of governing was still strong, and he himself belonged to the ancient aristocrat class. It's class that matters, which I think is the most groundbreaking discovery of Marx and Engels during XIX century. The idea of class struggle can be applied everywhere in class society, East or West, there is no exception.


>> 75. (How greediness injures)
>The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine.
>The people are difficult to govern because of the (excessive) agency of their superiors (in governing them). It is through this that they are difficult to govern.
>The people make light of dying because of the greatness of their labours in seeking for the means of living. It is this which makes them think light of dying. Thus it is that to leave the subject of living altogether out of view is better than to set a high value on it.

By the way, it's quite funny to see that how the USA are violating all 3 points in the 75th segment. And how /pol/, by not understanding the misery of proletariat, simply displayed their petit-bourgeois ignorance


it has to do with Hegel's distinction between essence and appearance
basically, essence exist only insofar as it appears, it does not pre-exist its appearance.
So how do you explain statements like
>It will be shown later that the most extreme form of alienation, wherein labour appears in the relation of capital and wage labour, and labour, productive activity appears in relation to its own conditions and its own product, is a necessary point of transition – and therefore already contains in itself, in a still only inverted form, turned on its head, the dissolution of all limited presuppositions of production, and moreover creates and produces the unconditional presuppositions of production, and therewith the full material conditions for the total, universal development of the productive forces of the individual
(directly from Grundrisse)
is Marx's description of the alienation of labor not identical to Fichte’s identical subject-object (a key abstract component of Hegelian dialectics)?
furthermore, there are conceptions such as the money form (M-C-M) which can be framed as an example of Hegel's passage from substance to subject. where capital is a substance-money made subject. (in vol. 1 of Capital).
I don't know how you can view these as just a flirtation with Hegel when these concepts are identical in all but representation
I think recursive is a better word than fractal


Is this text accurate? I never saw that the separation between Marx and Engels was an issue here, but the topic of dialectics seems to be pressing.


pretty much. this is why you should never take anyone on /leftypol/ seriously when they talk about "dialectical materialism" as mutually exclusive to "idealism". it's rabid feral pseudery. I don't know how you can read sentences in Marx about "commodity fetishism" and come to the conclusion that he's "anti-idealist"


how can anybody without an understanding of dialectics glean any understanding of it from this thread, when nobody agrees?


the easiest way to learn it accurately is to gain an understanding of Kant and what is meant by the “noumenal I” and how that relates to the “intellectus archetypus”. (you will obviously have to do some studying to understand what those mean). that’s basically the launching point in which Hegel asserts antinomies are inherent to things-in-themselves since Kant proves it for being-in-itself. it can naturally be projected onto noumena since the Kantian “I” is noumenal. only when you get what I meant by all the things in this post will you grasp the thesis-antithesis of Hegel’s method and how to arrive at a sublation/absorption of those specific types of contradictions/antinomies. the point of this post isn’t for you to understand everything that I’ve typed, but if you can parse it and comprehend it you can claim to have grasped Hegel’s method. and if you believe otherwise, you have been misled.




Is it true that Mao is the best teacher for dialectics?


File: 1619832085811.png (284.33 KB, 1114x617, 1613083855358.png)

Here anons, this will get you started


File: 1619974136026-0.png (131.6 KB, 562x305, E0VAWk8XsAANcbV.png)

File: 1619974136026-1.png (61.08 KB, 558x152, E0VAF1dXIAgxQA2.png)

File: 1619974136026-2.png (72.44 KB, 563x177, E0U_7-tWUAIY9IM.png)

File: 1619974136026-3.png (116.48 KB, 564x268, E0U_3RUXIAAQVCK.png)

gonna de-rail the thread. sorry

am i interpreting this right? the author is claiming that the dialectic itself is bourgeois and perpetuates capital. is hegel's 'real' a logic or an "existence"? it's an interesting take, and are there arguments for and against this claim?

book is "reading marx philosophically" by Harry Cleaver


Reread that sentence. He’s saying it THEORIZEs Capital’s tendency to perpetuate.
The Hegelian Dialectic is bourgeois, because as the author says, it’s tainted by individual subjective logic that treats the development of logic as something for an individual to do rather than the public consciousness itself.


File: 1620422428683.png (1.21 MB, 1022x767, 1_z094hXsb5c5g8ElsqmKV9w.png)

>Which works should I read to understand dialectical
this is a pretty good introduction




Wtf is this channel?


long winded rightoid garbage


>4 hours
I think I'll pass, thanks. lol


hilarious. I miss him, comrades. Is he still being insane?

Also, unashamed bump.


best explaination of hegelian dialectics so far
It's in German but with English subtitles just turn them on


>Daoism is the ideology of primitive tribal chieftains, who want to return to the simple time of primitive communism. It's not a accident that the more communist you are, the more dialectical you become

I like to think that about Jesus and his Christianity, but I don't see any evidence of dialectical thinking on his part, except maybe for the gospel of thomas, but I'll have to read that one again.

Unique IPs: 14

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