Engels created Marxism by theoretical errors he himself admitted to overemphasizing. Lenin fully embraced and expanded those mistakes, Stalin took them to an even more extreme level, and Mao just followed Stalin. None of them deserve any praise, each step only deepened the disaster.
It was Engels who first built a kind of cult around Marx, and through his writings particularly in Anti-Dühring, he laid the groundwork for what would later be called "dialectical materialism." As J.A. Jordan rightly observes, Engels conflated three strands of thought: Marx's naturalism (which is essentially a rejection of Hegel's idealism, Feuerbach's materialism, and both French and British materialism and positivism), French positivism, and the so-called laws of Hegelian dialectics.
Engels is correct in pointing out that Marx did not arrive at his critique of capitalism by assuming that Hegel's dialectical laws are somehow embedded in nature, history, or the process of investigation. Rather, Marx first analysed the real workings of capitalism and only then used Hegelian terminology to express some aspects of that analysis. Engels however somewhat misunderstood this. He mistakenly believed that because Marx used Hegelian categories to describe his findings, the Hegelian laws themselves universally apply to all processes of analysis and investigation. This led him to concoct those infamous three laws: the law of the unity and conflict of opposites, the law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, and the law of the negation of the negation.
In the preface to Anti-Dühring, Engels even goes so far as to suggest that natural scientists would do well to employ Hegelian logic in order to better grasp their own disciplines, an absurd proposition, ofc. Plekhanov, who can be seen as a precursor to Lenin, picked up on these ideas and developed them further. Kautsky followed suit. Lenin adopted this framework wholesale and deepened it, and it seems it was Plekhanov and Lenin who began calling this bundle of ideas "dialectical materialism."
The problem with Lenin's version is that both he and Plekhanov completely sidelined Marx's naturalism, which, tbf, Engels at least recognised and instead leaned heavily on Hegelian formalism, mixed with a crude version of French positivism and a variety of representative realism like Engels. The result is a kind of mechanical materialism and naive realism that owes more to the mechanical materialism of French thinkers than to Feuerbach's anthropological materialism and Marx's anthropological realism/naturalism. This same stupid materialism of Lenin was later codified in Stalin's writings on dialectical materialism and then taken to even more ludicrous extremes by Mao in his essay On Contradiction.
78 posts and 10 image replies omitted.>>2278869many people hide behind engels when they really want to criticise marx himself. thats why no specific examples of engels deviating from marx have been presented. there's not even a source for OP's claim:
>Engels created Marxism by theoretical errors he himself admitted to overemphasizing.>>2277830if i said "the sky is blue", there is an objectivity to my meaning. it exists beyond myself, even. i cannot say afterwards that what i meant was that "the sky is green", because words speak for themselves. either i was wrong or i wasnt. i can correct myself later, but i cannot revise what was previously stated. this is the objectivity of interpretation, or "intelligibility".
>>2278173>i would say the good interpretation of hegel is…the correct one?
>>2278035>Hegel is dead so we can do whatever we want with his workno you cant. logic dictates the internal necessity of terms. this is what aristotle calls deduction by predication and is the basis of the syllogism. if i propose redness, it cannot be confused for blueness. this would be illogical and hence unintelligible.
>present it in the commonly understood way in order to undermine said author's validity, what you are doing with hegelhow did i "undermine" hegel? i presented a fact, that hegel was a metaphysician. anyone who has read hegel directly knows this. hegel sees that kant has criticised classical metaphysics, and so hegel sees that his "science of logic" builds from this in restoring metaphysics to the dignity of concreteness, the same as he writes for "philosophy" in general:
>The objective logic, then, takes the place rather of the former metaphysics which was intended to be the scientific construction of the world in terms of thoughts alone. If we have regard to the final shape of this science, then it is first and immediately ontology whose place is taken by objective logic — that part of this metaphysics which was supposed to investigate the nature of ens in general; ens comprises both being and essence, a distinction for which the German language has fortunately preserved different terms. But further, objective logic also comprises the rest of metaphysics in so far as this attempted to comprehend with the forms of pure thought particular substrata taken primarily from figurate conception, namely the soul, the world and God; and the determinations of thought constituted what was essential in the mode of consideration. Logic, however, considers these forms free from those substrata, from the subjects of figurate conception; it considers them, their nature and worth, in their own proper character. Former metaphysics omitted to do this and consequently incurred the just reproach of having employed these forms uncritically without a preliminary investigation as to whether and how they were capable of being determinations of the thing-in-itself, to use the Kantian expression — or rather of the Reasonable. Objective logic is therefore the genuine critique of them — a critique which does not consider them as contrasted under the abstract forms of the a priori and the a posteriori, but considers the determinations themselves according to their specific content.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlintro.htm>The systematic development of truth in scientific form can alone be the true shape in which truth exists. To help to bring philosophy nearer to the form of science – that goal where it can lay aside the name of love of knowledge and be actual knowledge – that is what I have set before me. The inner necessity that knowledge should be science lies in its very nature; and the adequate and sufficient explanation for this lies simply and solely in the systematic exposition of philosophy itself.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phprefac.htm >>2279499Just picking and choosing stuff you like like a pussy faggot is so gay and french
It takes a real man to read coherently
>>2279645and do you object to my interpretation of hegel?
>>2279499hegel distinguishes his "science of logic" between two volumes: "objective logic" and "subjective logic" (which, again, we may read at the beginning of the text). logic to hegel is divided between 3 areas of relation: being, essence and concept (notion). objective logic pertains to being and essence (ontology), while subjective logic pertains to the concept, which culminates in "the absolute idea", or God. this is hegel's metaphysical project. we may otherwise read this summary:
>In Book One of the Objective Logic, abstract being was exhibited as passing over into determinate being, but equally as withdrawing into essence. In Book Two, essence reveals itself as determining itself into ground, thereby entering into Existence and realising itself as substance, but again withdrawing into the Notion. Of the Notion, now, we have shown to begin with that it determines itself into objectivity. It is self-evident that this latter transition is identical in character with what formerly appeared in metaphysics as the inference from the notion, namely, the notion of God, to his existence, or as the so-called ontological proof of the existence of God. It is equally well known that Descartes' sublimest thought, that God is that whose notion includes within itself its being, after being degraded into the defective form of the formal syllogism, that is, into the form of the said proof, finally succumbed to the Critique of Reason and to the thought that existence cannot be extracted from the notion.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlobject.htm#HL3_705you have no rational objections, only insults.
You are accusing Engels of building a cult around Marx, when you yourself call every alleged deviation from Marx revisionism. The whole "Engels was the first revisionist" trope isn't now, and you are not original. The Japanese Communist Party, ironically, believes the same.
Dialectical materialism stems from Joseph Dietzgen, who Marx very much acknowledged, not Plekhanov or Lenin. Of course you are not mentioning historical materialism, which Marx of course employed, even too dogmatically sometimes, and which is based on the same principles.
>Marx's naturalism (which is essentially a rejection of Hegel's idealism, Feuerbach's materialism, and both French and British materialism and positivism), French positivism
>Marx's anthropological realism/naturalism
Dude, Marx, and especially when he was older, would wholeheartedly reject all those labels, he hated this. His mission was to make science grounded in materialism and revolutionary philosophy, he would not identify as any of those even though he borrowed from them.
>mechanical materialism
Which is something else entirely (you are throwing around "-isms" you don't understand), but this is the point I partly agree with you. The CPSU, especially after Stalin, always applying dialectical materialism too rigidly, too normative, and too mechanistically - basically the rejection of dialectics in favour of some kind of weird materialist monism. Doesn't matter, China already fixed all of this.
>even more ludicrous extremes by Mao in his essay
Which was partly influenced by Chinese philosophy, but that's written by icky ying-and-yang Asian people, right?
>>2279813>and do you object to my interpretation of hegel?idk? where is it?
>>2277666>hegel's project is about redeeming metaphysics as a science. this?
dark traid 666!i dont object but i would point out that its likely by non-metaphysical the other poster means something different then you, as metaphysical is used in a more narrow way and as a pejorative by marxists. i havent read brandom or mcdowell but i know who negarestani is so i think the person who posted that probably also isn't wrong
i made this one
>>2277879 as a joke because i learned hegel from hegel marx lenin deleuze and zizek. i would think the hegel part is implied and secondary sources only strengthen understanding. your interpretation if its present in this thread doesn't really tell us all that much and neither does the other posters
but when people say metaphysics they mean "making up random shit" and when they say materialism with no qualifier they mean "dialectics". so you ask a maoist and hegel is a materialist not a metaphysician.
>>2279828>by non-metaphysical the other poster means something different then you, as metaphysical is used in a more narrow way and as a pejorative by marxists.yes, because most are formally uneducated. many even deny things like the principle of abstraction for fears that this would violate the cult of "materialism".
>the person who posted that probably also isn't wrongtheir claim is that hegel was not a metaphysical (first principles) thinker, which is an incorrect claim.
>your interpretation if its present in this thread doesn't really tell us all that muchmy only claim is that hegel is a metaphysician
>but when people say metaphysics they mean "making up random shit" and when they say materialism with no qualifier they mean "dialectics"which is due to profound ignorance
>>2279831>which is due to profound ignorancenope
>In China another name for metaphysics is hsuan-hsueh. For a long period in history whether in China or in Europe, this way of thinking, which is part and parcel of the idealist world outlook, occupied a dominant position in human thought. In Europe, the materialism of the bourgeoisie in its early days was also metaphysical. As the social economy of many European countries advanced to the stage of highly developed capitalism, as the forces of production, the class struggle and the sciences developed to a level unprecedented in history, and as the industrial proletariat became the greatest motive force in historical development, there arose the Marxist world outlook of materialist dialectics. Then, in addition to open and barefaced reactionary idealism, vulgar evolutionism emerged among the bourgeoisie to oppose materialist dialectics.
>The metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist world outlook sees things as isolated, static and one-sided. It regards all things in the universe, their forms and their species, as eternally isolated from one another and immutable. Such change as there is can only be an increase or decrease in quantity or a change of place. Moreover, the cause of such an increase or decrease or change of place is not inside things but outside them, that is, the motive force is external. Metaphysicians hold that all the different kinds of things in the universe and all their characteristics have been the same ever since they first came into being. All subsequent changes have simply been increases or decreases in quantity. They contend that a thing can only keep on repeating itself as the same kind of thing and cannot change into anything different.
>As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes. Thus materialist dialectics effectively combats the theory of external causes, or of an external motive force, advanced by metaphysical mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism. It is evident that purely external causes can only give rise to mechanical motion, that is, to changes in scale or quantity, but cannot explain why things differ qualitatively in thousands of ways and why one thing changes into another.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
>In Modern Standard Chinese usage, xuanxue can mean "Neo-Taoism", "esoteric", "metaphysics", "spiritualism", or "mysticism". Xuanxue is also taken to refer to astrology, geomancy and other popular religious arts.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xuanxueits similar to a distinction i once heard here that hegel is non-ontological or something like that
>>2279831>their claim is that hegel was not a metaphysical (first principles) thinkeryou could just say first principles instead of metaphysical. maybe they will come back and tell us if they really disagree
>>2279835does mao really disagree with marx here? or even hegel? hes not even going hard on the materialism except where he keeps saying "a thing". whats the chinese for a thing? is it translation problem or can we assume charity and maybe he is using simple language in a short pamphlet? hegel also talks about things sometimes even specific ones by necessity. but does maos description of dialectics fundamentally contradict hegel? if we correctly understand dialectics as relational does putting materialism first even make a difference or is it phenomenological either way? when we understand the absolute as the patterns of forms of the natural world in motion and the ideal as a properly calibrated conception of them is that actually different then materialist dialectics?
>>2279839but also hegel WAS a mystic and also not. he studied esoteric mysticism and was an occultist, which have similar roots etymologically
>The concept of the "esoteric" originated with the coining of the Ancient Greek adjective esôterikós ("belonging to an inner circle")>"Mysticism" is derived from the Greek μύω, meaning "I conceal", and its derivative μυστικός, mystikos, meaning 'an initiate'.>The occult (from the Latin word occultus; lit. 'clandestine', 'hidden', 'secret') is "knowledge of the hidden".[4] In common usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable"and with that final part we can see the derogatory or pejorative sense that "metaphysics" is used in, rather then the academic
>metá (μετά, meaning 'after', 'above', and 'beyond') and phusiká (φυσικά)or the title of aristotles work. So in one sense hegel was doing mysticism and metaphysics, but his purpose for it was
>becoming one with God or the Absolute,[1] but may refer to any kind of ecstasy or altered state of consciousness which is given a religious or spiritual meaning. which is of course woo woo. but the purpose of his writing was not to to hide or keep secret this spiritual or religious meaning concealed for an inner circle of initiates but to uncover it and make it public rational and intelligible to all, to secularize and universalize it into the social and material. so in this second sense hegel is anything but a mystic, though remnants persist due to the difficulty of the subject and imperfection of language. and from these imperfections we get these interpretations that hegel was "just" a mystic(meaning nonsense) or "just" a christian(meaning irrational) or "just" a german nationalist etc. which is why i advocated interpreting him as widely as possible, because his intention was certainly not so constricted. hes trying to account for everything that has existed. i dont think its necessary for him to explicitly consider future events he couldn't possibly conceive to apply his method forward and update it, and i think if you did would end up saying what mao and stalin and all the others do.
>>2279839>you could just say first principles instead of metaphysical. they mean the same thing. any person gently acquainted with philosophy knows this.
>>2279835>nopeyes. claiming metaphysics as "making things up" can only be due to the depths of ignorance
>its similar to a distinction i once heard here that hegel is non-ontological or something like thathegel begins his objective logic with a description of abstract being. this is pure ontology.
>>2279857>any person gently acquainted with philosophy knows this.yeah but some people arent acquainted at all
>can only be due to the depths of ignoranceor they could just be using the word differently to imply that metaphysics is solved, so it need no more doing. its also pretty common for vulgar materialists and the public to call making ungrounded assumptions "doing metaphysics" as a synonym for believing in the supernatural or paranormal. but in the second case that is usually ignorance, not always though, there are a lot of well read militant physicalist atheists
>this is pure ontology.oh i thought you were someone else. if we read dialectics as everything interconnected and always in flux there are no fixed ontologies. phenomenology can be considered an alternative to ontology, depending on what you mean by it.
>>2279869>yeah but some people arent acquainted at allexactly, and so they should refrain from such strong opinions
>or they could just be using the word differently to imply that metaphysics is solved, so it need no more doingwell its interesting since i originally qualify hegel's metaphysics as post-kantian.
>there are a lot of well read militant physicalist atheistsive scarcely encountered any.
>if we read dialectics as everything interconnected and always in flux there are no fixed ontologieswell that would be an incoherent worldview. heraclitus perceived the logos as still fixing the elements of life by proportion, or harmony. flux is only possible within static spheres of formality, since it is the formal which grants the semblance of intelligility. flux belongs to transient appearance. if we only held to this, knowledge of things would be impossible.
>phenomenology can be considered an alternative to ontologyin what sense?
>>2279875>well its interesting since i originally qualify hegel's metaphysics as post-kantian.isn't that the same as disputing that it is solved implicitly denying it. which would make your
>how did i "undermine" hegel?feigned ignorance yes? since you do know the difference.
>heraclitusokay but we are talking about hegel. just because i said flux instead of in motion doesn't mean we have to invoke others.
>in what sense?in the sense that there are no fixed categories. if we say traditional metaphysics and ontology is the study of what "is" that is an invocation of being. of things. but hegel says being is becoming, not things. things belong to transient appearance, not flux. asking what "is" is the wrong question.
to say hegel is doing metaphysics implies there are multiple, either that he did not complete what he set out to or that he is one of many, that there are alternate competing ways to overcome traditional metaphysics and that we now have neo-metaphyics rather than one metaphysic known as dialectics. not only do you undermine hegel but you undermine marx, by implying that his foundation is on shaky ground. and from this we can conclude that when you say
>many people hide behind engels when they really want to criticise marx himself.you are not complimenting engels, but projecting. you present a distorted image of hegel because you are hiding behind hegel to criticize marx. kant thought he was critiquing metaphysics but he was really doing it and hegel killed it and marx buried it. metaphysics is gone.
>>2279888>isn't that the same as disputing that it is solved implicitly denying it.hegel wants to solve metaphysics, but takes the kantian criticism along with him.
>feigned ignorance yes? explain directly how i have "undermined" hegel
>okay but we are talking about hegel.no you werent. you said flux abolishes the very notion of being (which has nothing to do with hegel, at all). i referenced heraclitus as the theorist of flux by citing how flux itself has its determinations.
>in the sense that there are no fixed categoriesapart from there being the category of no fixed categories, of course…
>but hegel says being is becoming, not thingsbecoming to hegel is the movement between pure being (being as such; undetermined reality) and nothing, which generates determination in being, and culminates in being-for-itself, which relates to essence. essence partakes in appearance (a property of "substance" which aristotle already identifies).
>not only do you undermine hegelhow?
>you present a distorted image of hegelhow?
>to criticize marxwhy would i be afraid of criticising marx? im not a marxist
>kant thought he was critiquing metaphysics but he was really doing it and hegel killed it and marx buried it.🤣 please explain how this happens.
>>2279895>heraclitus just because i said flux instead of in motion doesn't mean we have to invoke others.
>how?lets see
>but takes the kantian criticism along with him.you are trying to rehabilitate the defeated kant
>im not a marxisti know. you are the one who said hegel was non-ontological but now you dispute it. of course i cant prove it because your posts were deleted, mr smith
>how?you present a narrow incorrect view of hegel just like you do of marx. maybe you should stick to socdem money theory
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#Heg >>2280526>>2280575>just because i said flux instead of in motionno, the issue isnt about fluctuation. its about you saying that the fact that things change means that there are no "things" as such, and impress this upon hegel's view. hegel *begins* by a consideration of being, which gradually gains determination by negation. this determination of being to itself by an immediate nothingness is becoming, or the ground of being. in other words, for being to-be, it must relate to itself by internal negativity. this is hegel's general structure of dialectic: negation - negation of negation. we may read this directly:
>Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbeing.htm#HL1_81this "unity" does not deny being, but preserves it by its self-negation.
>lets seelets see what? you havent provided evidence of me "undermining" hegel. all youve done is prove your apparent disregard and ignorancd of hegel, by, in the first place, claiming that we must read secondary sources of hegel to understand him. then you say that we may chop up his corpse for our own amusement. you are nothing but a despicable hypocrite. pure philistine.
>you are trying to rehabilitate the defeated kantwhere do i do this?
>you are the one who said hegel was non-ontologicalwhere? you are the one who said hegel had no metaphysics, not me. you have me confused for someone else; perhaps yourself. it must be hell to be so foolish.
>you present a narrow incorrect view of hegelhow? i am the one actually referencing hegel. you are the one trouncing around in the theatre of the mind. a humean devil, or a cartesian demon, projecting ghastly shadows of illusion onto your own senses. deadly hallucination. it is a sinister thing to lie so stubbornly and so proudly.
>picrel and link>scholars who offered an alternative non-metaphysical, post-Kantian view. By “non-metaphysical” these thinkers had in mind metaphysics in the sense that Kant had been critical of, a point sometimes missed by critics. But in turn, this post-Kantian reading has been challenged by a revised metaphysical view, critical of the purported over-assimilation of Hegel to Kant by the post-Kantians.so the "non-metaphysical" post-kantians were criticised for trying to make hegel too much like kant - but i thought you hated kant? in all this, you provide nothing but hypocrisy and insult. you must do better. a blunt sword is always ineffective. if you wish to attack me, be sharp and precise.
>>2280620>claiming that we must read secondary sources of hegel to understand him.actually i did not say that. you can perfectly well understand hegel from reading him alone. but depending on personal experience and previous study, or in your case motivated reasoning and political orientation, its easy to be led astray into one or another particular narrow interpretation.
>so the "non-metaphysical" post-kantians were criticised for trying to make hegel too much like kant - but i thought you hated kant?of course i dont hate kant his work was necessary to bring us hegel. but i do have a distaste for crypto-kantians that try to distort dialectics to undermine marx. you jump strait to assuming i take one of these particular interpretations and go with the analytical one, hilarious. i post the link to show that you are endorsing one of these narrow views, and that there are alternatives even within those same approaches. if you read hegel alone and correctly understand him you will see that what he is actually saying aligns with what marx engels lenin stalin and mao are also saying, and reading such sources reaffirm broaden and strengthen his applicability and correctness. i already told you hegel was both doing and was not doing metaphysics. its also clear not that you do not understand but that you are rejecting it but wont say so, instead endorsing a flawed hegel in order to retain your perceived ability to go beyond him. but all such projects really are just repetitions of parts of hegel. no one has been able to escape him so they pretend we can go back, as if he never existed, so that they do not have to contend with marx.
>>2280640>The λόγος is the rational principle that orders the universe. At times, it is connected with the divine and with fire. It is linked to the idea of measure and proportion, but mostly to the idea of rationality.https://heraclitusfragments.com/categories/logos.htmlits difficult to find complete and comprehensive collections of the fragments of heraclitus for some reason, but here are some examples:
>47 The hidden harmony is better than the visible.>56 The harmony of the world is a harmony of oppositions, as in the case of the bow and of the lyre.https://pressbooks.pub/sapientia/chapter/heraclitus-fragments/>It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word (logos), and to confess that all things are one. (fragment 50)https://pressbooks.pub/sapientia/chapter/heraclitus-fragments/aristotle also tells us that plato was inspired by heraclitus, and plato is the one who sees the distinction between "the one" and "the many", mediated by number (a pythagorean influence which aristotle also cites):
>After the systems we have named came the philosophy of Plato, which in most respects followed these thinkers, but had pecullarities that distinguished it from the philosophy of the Italians. For, having in his youth first become familiar with Cratylus and with the Heraclitean doctrines (that all sensible things are ever in a state of flux and there is no knowledge about them), these views he held even in later years.>Things of this other sort, then, he called Ideas, and sensible things, he said, were all named after these, and in virtue of a relation to these; for the many existed by participation in the Ideas that have the same name as they. Only the name 'participation' was new; for the Pythagoreans say that things exist by 'imitation' of numbers, and Plato says they exist by participation, changing the name.https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.htmlplato then was a heraclitean in his youth, and in fact, most attributions to heraclitus come from plato and aristotle. its clear then that heraclitean materialism affixed itself to a belief in λόγος which later becomes the platonic "one", which orders reality by proportion. plato then is the synthesis of heraclitus, pythagoras and socrates.
>>2280866>>2280877>or in your case motivated reasoning and political orientation, its easy to be led astray into one or another particular narrow interpretation.here is my only claim: hegel was a metaphysician. here's the evidence:
>The objective logic, then, takes the place rather of the former metaphysics which was intended to be the scientific construction of the world in terms of thoughts alone. If we have regard to the final shape of this science, then it is first and immediately ontology whose place is taken by objective logic — that part of this metaphysics which was supposed to investigate the nature of ens in general; ens comprises both being and essence, a distinction for which the German language has fortunately preserved different terms. But further, objective logic also comprises the rest of metaphysics in so far as this attempted to comprehend with the forms of pure thought particular substrata taken primarily from figurate conception, namely the soul, the world and God; and the determinations of thought constituted what was essential in the mode of consideration.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlintro.htmthe "objective logic" (book 1 and 2; the doctrine of being and essence) comprises the full content of metaphysics according to hegel.
>you jump strait to assuming i take one of these particular interpretations and go with the analytical onestraight*
and you literally recommend brandom,
an analytic philosopher.
>you read hegel alone and correctly understand him you will see that what he is actually saying aligns with what marx engels lenin stalin and mao are also sayingwhich is……?
>i already told you hegel was both doing and was not doing metaphysicswhere? here?
>>2277536you expressly recommend the "non-metaphysical, non-bullshit" hegel to try and make a rhetorical point, but you fail, since you havent even read the science of logic's introduction - now you backtrack like a coward.
>if you actually read hegelhow would you know what that looks like? everything youve claimed about his work is incredibly incorrect. youve not even read the openings to his works.
>anglosyou mean like brandom?
the analytic philosopher you recommended?
>>2281073>you mean like brandom?>you expressly recommend the "non-metaphysical, non-bullshit">>2279828>i havent read brandom>i dont object but i would point out that its likely by non-metaphysical the other poster means something different then you>>2279852>So in one sense hegel was doing mysticism and metaphysics>>2280620you are the one who said hegel had no metaphysics, not me
no i didn't, but also but metaphysics and ontology while often synonyms are not necessarily. if you insist on flattening the difference then of course i am going to say that in that sense hegel has no metaphysics, but if you recognize the difference then he does.
>wherei think it was in the political economy general thread but it could also have been from a zizek thread a few months back. we will never know because neither made it into the archive
>you have me confused for someone elseyes theres more than one pedantic cunt who posts long winded out of context quotes at 3 AM to bicker over semantics and intentionally miss the point. you just happen to use the same images. i dont believe you lol
we came to an agreement before but you keep barging into threads assuming marxists in opposition to you havn't read anything on the basis that they are marxists. maybe you should stop that
theres a similar semantic argument itt
>>2279881whether "materialism" can include electromagnetic energy since it is not "matter". if a person were to call electromagnetism "non-physical" and accuse physical reductionism of expanding the definition of matter every time they discover something new, then they could also see how hegel is "non-ontological" and how traditional metaphysics is just expanding its definition to include hegel. if we discover a force or some other relational interaction that proves the mind is something like a soul, do souls now become physical too? or does that mean what we thought was materialism is not true and we need a new word?
of course i disagree with physical reductionism even more than you, they are even further from understanding marx. you try to provoke people into understanding what they are really saying, to be more precise with their words, but you always assume the worst interpretation instead of dialogue in good faith
>>2279639just picking says the faggot who willfully keeps alleged intellectual opponents weak in order to artificially increase his pussy ego instead of thoroughly understand them until you comprehend their system better than they could ever do themselves… Stay delusionally strong while we the real uyghas do the real work over here fucking piece of shit
>>2279813>only insultsI will address all this shit tomorrow
>>2281675>you are the one who said hegel had no metaphysics, not meits literally the opposite. i am claiming hegel as a metaphysician, while you are saying that dialectics means "things" dont exist. i retort by showing how even heraclitus believed in the logos as an underlying "harmony" to fluctation, which historically progresses into platonism. now you revise history by claiming that hegel did in fact, engage in metaphysics, but provide no source for this. your earliest comments is that the "non-bullshit" version of hegel is "non-metaphysical", based on the works of analytic philosopher, robert brandom. you cite a page which defends the "post-kantian" interpretation of brandom, but then later assert that analytic philosophy and "anglos" distort hegel, revealing your contradiction and hypocrisy. you say i am actually the author of a non-metaphysical interpretation of hegel, which means that either way, i am correct, since i both apparently comprise the metaphysical and non-metaphysical view. between these, you are totally wrong.
>metaphysics and ontology while often synonymshegel is not just talking about ontology in his objective logic, but the entire classical metaphysical project, as we may read:
>The objective logic, then, takes the place rather of the former metaphysics which was intended to be the scientific construction of the world in terms of thoughts alone. If we have regard to the final shape of this science, then it is first and immediately ontology whose place is taken by objective logic — that part of this metaphysics which was supposed to investigate the nature of ens in general; ens comprises both being and essence, a distinction for which the German language has fortunately preserved different terms. But further, objective logic also comprises the rest of metaphysics in so far as this attempted to comprehend with the forms of pure thought particular substrata taken primarily from figurate conception, namely the soul, the world and God; and the determinations of thought constituted what was essential in the mode of consideration.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlintro.htm>no evidence of claims because conveniently, they dont exist anymoreyour autistic hallucinations of the past cloud your present. what is your argument against my position as it stands currently? all you do is accuse and insult.
>>2281874>I will address all this shit tomorrowno, all you will do is avoid responsibility of your errors and continue insulting those who threaten to break your delusions
>>2282238>its literally the opposite.missed a >
that part is quoting you, thats why immediately preceding it is a link to your post. on my system when you hover over the link it shows your post. do you not recognize what you type after you hit submit? that would explain the denials
>your earliest comments is that the "non-bullshit" version of hegel is "non-metaphysical"again, thats a different person
>you cite a page which defends the "post-kantian" interpretation of brandomno i cite a page that shows there are three different common interpretations of hegel in academia in addition to the marxist interpretation of hegel, and position them as misunderstandings that are each examples of things hegel overcame.
>what is your argument against my position as it stands currently?you haven't really explained it. what is your argument against my position, that hegel and mao share a metaphysics, and the idea that the assumption of being in ontology is not something that belongs to dialectics? or do you claim that energy is matter?
>>2282263>that part is quoting youso you must agree with me then, since im defending the notion of hegel having metaphysics.
>thats a different personokay, link this post in your reply then:
>>2277520>and position them as misunderstandingsso what is incorrect in the 3 interpretations?
>you haven't really explained it.here's my position:
i reply to this post:
>>2277657>I said those people because they offer the non-metaphysical non-bullshit reading of hegel, yours is just another reading coming down from other people, a very large amount of other people, since a lot of 19th and 20th century philosophy are answers to hegel.with this:
>>2277666>hegel's project is about redeeming metaphysics as a scienceto which the subsequent autism ensues.
again, in your reply, link these posts:
>>2277536>>2277657>>2277746>>2278035>>2279835>>2279888>>2280526since your claim is not to be the brandomite ive been debating.
>hegel and mao share a metaphysicswhich is?
>>2282300>>hegel's project is about redeeming metaphysics as a science>>2279828>i dont object but i would point out that its likely by non-metaphysical the other poster means something different then youthen i explain what they mean with a mao quote and you…imply mao is ignorant from my simplified rendering of metaphysics, specifically in the sense i assume a marxist would use it to mean "making shit up", which i back up with the chinese translation of metaphysics corresponding to the paranormal.
maybe you should tell us how maos interpretation of dialectics in
on contradiction is in conflict with your interpretation of hegel?
>hegel's project is about redeeming metaphysics as a science.really does not tell us much that is why i said
>idk? where is it?because that doesn't really tell us much about what you think, but we know you are not a marxist, presumably you think there is a significant enough difference between hegel and marx that mao would be even further from, tell us about that.
>>2282343would you say plato (the father of idealism) was a metaphysician?
did you know that hegel attributes the origin of dialectics to plato based on a claim ement by diognese laertius (an ancient historian of philosophers)?
>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 — a service which the ancient world esteemed his highest, but which often remains quite overlooked by those who have most to say about himhttps://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlabsolu.htm#HL3_824and i know you couldnt be this person:
>>2282263because you never linked the posts i asked for. so its fine to be mistaken for now.
>>2282373what question?
i already responded to your amateurish picrel
now what's left?
>>2282376>how maos interpretation of dialectics in on contradiction is in conflict with your interpretation of hegel? also if you think hegel is a "first principles" thinker then what are his first principles?
if you disagree that marx and hegel both are dialectical phenomenoligists
the difference between marx and hegels metaphysics
the difference between mao and marxs metaphysics
whether hegels has a metaphysics of becoming that includes the totality of the whole or if it can be reduced to an "ontology" of being or of motion or change or something else
what your interpretation of hegel actually is in more detail then "redeeming metaphysics as a science"
okay so im confused now.
this is is you:
>>2282381>>2282325correct?
is this also you?
>>2282263>>2282373>>2282343Unique IPs: 23