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

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/


File: 1630999208528.png (125.04 KB, 247x204, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.480702

What is it? Is it important for regular people to know? How would you explain dialectics to the average worker?

 No.480703

>>480702
IMO it's the most important of Marx's contributions.

It's really hard to teach, but as much as it is teachable, it is very important.

 No.480706

>>480702
Dialectics is whatever. It's just that you have to realize that processes are connected to one another in the real world and its history and that things don't come out of nothing, they have a past, they were created by what existed before etc.

 No.480723


 No.480736

>>480702
Its an alchemical understanding of history that is formed in reaction to its material conditions that sets itself in.

 No.480744

>>480702
>How would you explain dialectics to the average worker?
it's like, all connected, maaan

 No.480748

>>480702
Dialectal Materialism, like all Marxist science, is a scientific theory that grows naturally out of a clear understanding of political economy, history, anthropology, philosophy, and all other related fields.
The best way to spread any aspect of Marxism is to educate people on the facts of these foundational topics, allow them to come to their own conclusions, and then offer the fully developed theory to them. Let them recognize it as the tried and true theoretical evolution of their own nascent thoughts.

 No.480761

>>480723
Somewhat ironically Stalin and Stalinism are probably the worst intepretation of dialectics you could find:


> in the process of transforming Russia’s backward peasantry into an advanced industrial society, Lenin’s warning was swept aside. Stalinism glories in partisanship, and prefers the ideology, the false consciousness, to the true consciousness which Marx and Engels devoted their lives to free from the trammels of the false. The struggle to attain towards an objective understanding of social reality was denounced as “objectivism”, a betrayal of revolutionary class commitment. As we shall see, Stalinism converted the concepts of “reflection” and of the “superstructure” into mechanical operations in a semi-automatic model. The, conscious processes of intellectual conflict were seen not as agencies in the making of history but as an irritating penumbra of illusions, or imperfect reflections, trailing behind economic forces. The ideas of critics or opponents were, and are, seen as symptoms of bourgeois conspiracy or penetration, targets for abuse, or fear, or suspicion. Hence it was easier to abolish the economic category from which the ideas arose – the old intelligentsia, the national minority – than to change their minds and their way of life


https://www.marxists.org/archive/thompson-ep/1957/sochum.htm

The key to dialectical thought is not to let the categories of how we apprehend the world become your reality. Instead the categories only ever stand for relations. Paulo Freire is a good writer on this.

>As the oppressed, fighting to be human, take away the oppressors’ power to dominate and suppress, they restore to the oppressors the humanity they lose in the exercise of oppression"


What Freire is highlighting here is that someone is an "oppressor" or "oppressed" not because of some intrinsic characteristic, but because of their position within a material world. Yet at the same time, Freire does not have a mechanical ontology of the world, but sees that liberation involves 'acts of cognition' from individuals. This is my interpretation of dialectics, looking at the way things interact in society, at all levels and how these interactions always result in something novel.

 No.480777

>>480761
Funny how Losurdo concludes the opposite here

 No.480782

File: 1631009402507.png (548.03 KB, 680x1236, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.480788

>>480782
the funny thing is, by posting a response that merely resorts to "ahh you're that category", you're kind of confirming what I said.

 No.480792

>>480788
I didn't read what you said so why should I care

 No.481121

>What is it?
Pseudoscience.
>Is it important for regular people to know?
No.
>How would you explain dialectics to the average worker?
"It's communist pseudoscience."

 No.481230

>>480761
>Somewhat ironically Stalin and Stalinism are probably the worst interpretation of dialectics
I found it to be the opposite. I struggled for years trying to read Marx and watch lectures even read Hegel directly and it wasn't until I got through the mental block of "Stalin bad" that I finally understood.

Your first quote is vague and doesn't provide material examples of Stalins supposed "mechanization" of dialectics. The second quote is a very common post-ussr sentiment, that the reason it failed was because of authoritarianism and if the bureaucrats could have just been nicer, not the cold war with the US, is also undialectical. I sounds like it is working back from the fact that the USSR failed to the conclusion that they misread Marx, rather than falling into revisionism after Stalin.

If you are correct then why do Lenin Stalin Trotsky and Mao all agree?

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/summary.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/12/abc.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

dialectics is:
contradiction and unity of opposites
quantity into quality
negation of the negation

 No.481240

Diamat is a methodology for analyzing processes and systems within social science and making some heuristic predictions of future effects based on past and current causes. It’s not a crystal ball any more than Maximum parsimony in phylogenetics or bayesian statistics.

 No.481247

>>480703
It’s hard to teach because it’s an abstract mechanism of analysis and heuristic which must have content (preferably that relating to human social science and social systems) inputted to be demonstrated.

But it’s basically that every structural change will sow the seeds of its own eventual restructuring. First these are present by an opposing effect caused by a process that is inseparable from the process, and as the process goes on, the quantitative number changes gradually become qualitative until they finally conclude in a restructuring that negates the previous restructuring.

 No.481249

>>481121
>Pseudoscience
>t. Pseud
Not even a science. Try again.

 No.481252

The best way for me to think about dialectics is to remember that Hegel was an occult alchemist. The way it works is the way you purify metals, it is not thesis antithesis synthesis. When you put a metal ore into a chalice and heat it the metal and impurities separate and collect, you are negating impurities, which are the negation of the essence of pure metal. The metal has different properties than the ore and is not a simple summary of the parts of the whole. The new properties will depend on elements present the starting substance, but will change at given purities, or by combining elements eg; it has more strength, becomes a conductor of electricity, and so on. Wholly new properties that could not be derived from the original. That is dialectics. This is the key to 'sublation' - in every sense "to lift up", "to abolish", "cancel" "suspend", "preserve", and "transcend". Its not just random or picking the best parts, the parts that are sublated are defined by the ingredients and the alchemical process by their elemental essence. Hegel's idea was that thought follows this same process - as above, so below.

 No.481258

>>480748
>The best way to spread any aspect of Marxism is to educate people on the facts of these foundational topics, allow them to come to their own conclusions, and then offer the fully developed theory to them. Let them recognize it as the tried and true theoretical evolution of their own nascent thoughts.

How long do you think that would take? Sounds like a life-long project. Do you think its our job as communists to educate everyone? Does the average prole need to know or is it only important for the vanguard to study theory?

 No.481266

We have this thread every other day. It's just an attractive way to describe complex interrelating concepts. It is not a method of analysis, a science or some fundamental laws of the Universe. Marx discusses it in this section of Grundrisse:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3

 No.481285

File: 1631042211816.jpg (55.21 KB, 640x649, 1630964134679.jpg)


 No.481729

On Practice
http://www.marxists3va6eopxoeiegih3iyex2zg3tmace7afbxjqlabmranzjjad.onion/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm
On Contradiction
http://www.marxists3va6eopxoeiegih3iyex2zg3tmace7afbxjqlabmranzjjad.onion/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm

read these

Dialectics is best exemplified as a scientific method, where the parts data and theory have an oscillating interplay that is the motor of development of deeper knowledge. But dialectics as a philosophical thing is also able to be very complex, abstract, obscure, and theoretical.

Thats basically all i got. I think dialectics is the most important thing, but you really can't talk about it deeply and in its fullness and comprehensive nature without sounding crazy. i think that might be because our worldview is founded on undialectical, idealist foundations

 No.481747

>>481247
best comment <3
>But it’s basically that every structural change will sow the seeds of its own eventual restructuring.

Have you thought about this at a fundamental level? Ive been taking a dialectics/reading break, but the idea that every process undermines itself is imo totally antithetical to a traditional model of the world (physics?). Because it assumes that every single thing is never just its pure self-same self, it's always a thing which is wracked with contradiction and internal tension, which points to it's own lack of identity. But our whole worldview is based on this idea of essences, atoms, vacuum, etc. Which at some level are assumed to be "pure" substance. But this is impossible if we take the dialectical insights to their full expansion, because they would be an instance of a thing with no need for change, and with no internal conflict.

What do you think? Is this taking it too far, or is this a necessary part of dialectical understanding?

 No.481753

>>480792
>>480782
Ask, and you shall receive, ball licker.

 No.481774

>>481258
>Do you think its our job as communists to educate everyone? Does the average prole need to know or is it only important for the vanguard to study theory?
We should educate everyone! We only became communists (or whatever you are) through some type of education, even if it was informal, but something allowed us to imagine the prospect of a different world. And if we do it without science and without dialectics, we are going down the wrong path. So yes everyone should be educated, and educated in part in dialectics, because it can raise up all of our consciousnesses. I don't think that this is related to political change though, or I don't belief in a gradual change where everyone comes to a consensus. But we should have the compassion and wisdom ourselves to want everyone to be more intelligent and informed, and informed in the right ways, not just bourgeois technics and "facts" how schools now inform people. We should always be doing political change, no matter why. Political change is a matter of material need. Education is equally important in changing quality of life and spurring people towards action, but we can't wait on others. If we have the knowledge and passion now, the few of us that do will act. Anything else would be hypocrisy and show that we have no wisdom after all.
<3
good luck in whatever you do, comrade

also i think if we think of vanguard as more "avant garde" than "the ones who run everything" we get a more truthful view of our purpose. There will always be a vanguard whos politics is more enunciated, more advanced, and more actionable than that of others. These people naturally will act on it, and lead the way for everyone else with their knowledge, experimentation, and actions. But there's no room for the idea of an elite class of "truly educated" political people in communism. The goal of fascism is replacing the old ruling class with a new one, keep that in mind. But that's not to say that people who have empowered themselves, have an advanced political consciousness, and are taking action are wrong because we assume them to be a new elite. The goal of communism is rising everybody up. That means some will rise up higher than the rest first, and it's the duty of those people, if they're communists and not fascists, to reach down and help as many others up as they can.

 No.481829

>>481747
What do you mean by fundamental level? Chemicals and molecules break down into atoms and particles and have contradictory parts and properties but the different identities depend on your subjective focus. I think they have obviously dialectical relationships but you won't find much writing on it, almost like its some kind of secret knowledge. I did find some articles from the USSR on this but they were published in Hungary and privatized by Harvard and not digitized.

Engels wrote about Mechanics Astronomy Physics Chemistry and Biology in the Dialectics of Nature
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch07f.htm

Then theres stuff like this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287119610_Dialectics_and_synergetics_in_chemistry_Periodic_Table_and_oscillating_reactions

 No.481865

>>481747
The arrangements and structure breaks down, but not necessarily every constituent part

 No.481879

>>481747
>>481865
Like the dialectical processes in ohysics are like how
Forces of attraction and repulsion both exists at the same time in many of the same systems. It’s not like the laws of physics are constantly rewriting themselves. (The idea of laws and systems completely reordering is more possible in socially constructed systems than natural ones. Nature still exhibits dialectical characteristics, though)

 No.481935

>>481829
by fundamental i just meant like, at the heart of all things. So that would pertain to physics I guess, but on the 'wtf is this shit' side, rather than the interaction side.

Though I guess there's the "everything is waves" shit which is closer to this idea, where there is no pure substance that an atom is made of… anyways i really just dont know about this shit, because the physics you learn in high school is dumbed down so im sure im not really able to come to any interesting conclusions

And about chemistry and all that, yeah i totally get that. But the beauty of dialectics is idea of intrinsic change, which necessitates from the start an incompleteness or a lack of pure, stable being existing in things, rather than just the interplay between multiple external objects (though from a farther view, it acts like this immanent change)

 No.481945

>>481935
I mean the internal is not in objects but in systems. You can’t have a dialectical view of an atom that doesn’t recognize it as subatomic particles interacting in concert to form a system.

 No.482121

intellectual wankery

 No.482132

File: 1631075331405.jpg (42.11 KB, 561x547, stonewall engels.jpg)

>>480702
I think Engels probably had the best summary of dialectics and its importance in Anti-Duhring.

"When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. This primitive, naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away.

But this conception, correctly as it expresses the general character of the picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of which this picture is made up, and so long as we do not understand these, we have not a clear idea of the whole picture. In order to understand these details we must detach them from their natural or historical connection and examine each one separately, its nature, special causes, effects, etc. This is, primarily, the task of natural science and historical research: branches of science which the Greeks of classical times on very good grounds, relegated to a subordinate position, because they had first of all to collect the material. The beginnings of the exact natural sciences were first worked out by the Greeks of the Alexandrian period, [25] and later on, in the Middle Ages, by the Arabs. Real natural science dates from the second half of the fifteenth century, and thence onward it has advanced with constantly increasing rapidity. The analysis of nature into its individual parts, the grouping of the different natural processes and objects in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms — these were the fundamental conditions of the gigantic strides in our knowledge of nature that have been made during the last four hundred years. But this method of work has also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constants, not as essentially variables, in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the preceding centuries.

To the metaphysician, things and their mental reflexes, ideas, are isolated, are to be considered one after the other and apart from each other, are objects of investigation fixed, rigid, given once for all. He thinks in absolutely irreconcilable antitheses. "His communication is 'yea, yea; nay, nay'; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." [Matthew 5:37. — Ed.] For him a thing either exists or does not exist; a thing cannot at the same time be itself and something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another, cause and effect stand in a rigid antithesis one to the other.

At first sight this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound common sense. Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and even necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the wood for the trees.

For everyday purposes we know and can say, e.g., whether an animal is alive or not. But, upon closer inquiry, we find that this is, in many cases, a very complex question, as the jurists know very well. They have cudgelled their brains in vain to discover a rational limit beyond which the killing of the child in its mother's womb is murder. It is just as impossible to determine absolutely the moment of death, for physiology proves that death is not an instantaneous momentary phenomenon, but a very protracted process.

In like manner, every organic being is every moment the same and not the same, every moment it assimilates matter supplied from without, and gets rid of other matter; every moment some cells of its body die and others build themselves anew; in a longer or shorter time the matter of its body is completely renewed, and is replaced by other atoms of matter, so that every organic being is always itself, and yet something other than itself.

Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions which only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa.

None of these processes and modes of thought enters into the framework of metaphysical reasoning. Dialectics, on the other hand, comprehends things and their representations, ideas, in their essential connection, concatenation, motion, origin, and ending. Such processes as those mentioned above are, therefore, so many corroborations of its own method of procedure.

Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasing daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, nature works dialectically and not metaphysically. But the naturalists who have learned to think dialectically are few and far between, and this conflict of the results of discovery with preconceived modes of thinking explains the endless confusion now reigning in theoretical natural science, the despair of teachers as well as learners, of authors and readers alike."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/introduction.htm

 No.482134

>>481249
<Dialectics is pseudoscience
>Well actually, dialectics is not even a science
>>481285
Cope

 No.482175

>>482134
>Cope
<When you have no argument and just wanted to get a rise out of people

 No.482190

>>482175
Seethe

 No.482191

>>482121
>>482134
>>481121
Are you an Anarchist? Communist? Marxist? Do you disagree with Marx entirely or just with dialectics?

 No.482194

>>482191
>is you a crip or a blood
Who cares
>do you hate my daddy Marx
No

 No.482203

>>482191
Marx would have disagreed with the interpretation of dialectics in this thread. See >>481266.

Do you imbeciles seriously believe that Marx just sat down one day and by divine inspiration chose commodity as the dialectical starting point for his criticism of the capitalist mode of production? Of course he did not, and anyone who claims that dialectics is a method of analysis are seriously deluded. Marx studied our material world just like we do, only his presentation of it was dialectic.
> The concrete is concrete because it is the concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse. It appears in the process of thinking, therefore, as a process of concentration, as a result, not as a point of departure, even though it is the point of departure in reality and hence also the point of departure for observation [Anschauung] and conception. Along the first path the full conception was evaporated to yield an abstract determination; along the second, the abstract determinations lead towards a reproduction of the concrete by way of thought. In this way Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, probing its own depths, and unfolding itself out of itself, by itself, whereas the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is only the way in which thought appropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in the mind. But this is by no means the process by which the concrete itself comes into being.

 No.482210

>>482203
> one day and by divine inspiration chose commodity as the dialectical starting point
What gives you this impression?
>Marx would have disagreed with the interpretation of dialectics in this thread.
Which interpretation, it seems like people have several ideas. Do you think he disagreed with Engels? Why wouldn't he tell Engels that it isn't a science?

Did Marx have a method at all? What do you think of immanent critique?


I don't understand the relevance of your quote. It sounds like he is critiquing Hegel's idealism, not the dialectic.

 No.482216

>>482210
The process of concatenation that Marx talks about in the quote is dialectics. The part about Hegel is significant because people ITT fall into the same trap as Hegel did when they claim that nature is dialectical just because they claim to understand it dialectically.

Marx talks about his method in the afterword to the second German edition of Capital, where he repeats the importance of distinction between inquiry and presentation:
> Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
Be sure to read the whole thing, it mentions many of the key principles that people like to forget. It is also where the famous misquotation of turning Hegel upside-down originates.

 No.482284

>>481230
>it wasn't until I got through the mental block of "Stalin bad" that I finally understood.
Maybe because you're a complete brainlet and the kind of dumbed down "dialectics" Stalin (and Plekhanov and Bukharin) peddled are the only ones you understand.
Go read some Gramsci. Contrary to what libs would like you to believe, he was a pretty firm Stalinist with an actual grasp on Marx. You could start with his critique of Bukharin's "Theory of Historical Materialism" in the Prison Notebooks. Pdf related, starting at page 419 (513).

 No.482397

File: 1631103052221.jpg (5.76 KB, 228x221, 1631074415885.jpg)

>>482284
>Gramsci

 No.482399

>>482216
Nice answer, please keep posting.
What do you think of the Anon's other questions?

 No.482401

>>482134
How could dialectics be a science? Political economy is a science, sure. Historical analysis is a science, sure. But please explain how dialectics could be a science, even if you think it's a pseudo science, what is it a science of?

 No.482403

>>482397
Why? What did Gramsci ever do wrong?

 No.482405

>>482403
Died in prison. I like Marxists who don’t get captured

 No.482407

>>482405
If just reading "successful" theorists like Mao or Lenin got people anywhere we'd be living in world communism but we don't

 No.482410

>>482397
>no to Gramsci
Vijay Prashad says he's based, so you are basically wrong and fuck off.

 No.482422


 No.482700

>>482132
damn this is good as fuck
i tried reading this before but it was boring and seemed lame

 No.482702

>>482700 (me)
oh wait this is anti-duhring, i thought it was dialectics of nature
silly me

 No.483924

>>482702
Yeah, you should definitely read Anti-Duhring if you haven't.

 No.494858

How do you get people to think dialectically when they keep insisting that your argument is an example of how you don't understand that A = A.

 No.494927

>>494858
Ask them when. All the time? Ask them about flowers or fruits.

 No.495037


ΤΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ Η ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ; ΕΝΑ ΦΛΕΓΟΝ ΕΡΩΤΗΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΙΡΟΥ ΜΑΣ. Η ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ ΛΟΙΠΟΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ: "ΠΙΠΙ ΚΑΚΑ, ΝΑΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΙΠΙ ΚΑΚΑ." - ΛΕΝΙΝ.
ΔΙΑΛΕΓΩ. ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ. ΕΙΝΑΙ ΟΤΙ ΔΙΑΛΕΞΩ ΟΤΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ. É um bolo de côco. É a casa do meu cachorro, um azuis prato de arroz. ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΥΧΑΙΑ Η ΛΕΞΗ, ΟΥΤΕ Η ΕΠΙΚΟΥΡΙΑ ΠΡΟΕΛΕΥΣΗ ΤΗΣ: "ΠΕΡΝΑ ΚΑΛΑ, ΚΑΝΕ ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΓΟΥΣΤΑΡΕΙΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΖΩΗ ΣΟΥ" -ΕΠΙΚΟΥΡΟΣ. ΔΕΝ ΠΡΕΠΕΙ ΝΑ ΑΝΤΙΛΗΦΘΟΥΜΕ ΑΥΤΟ ΣΑΝ ΠΑΡΟΤΡΥΝΣΗ ΣΕ ΜΙΑ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΕΙΑΚΗ ΑΣΥΔΟΣΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΚΥΝΗΓΙ ΗΔΟΝΗΣ, ΟΧΙ.
ΕΔΩ ΕΙΝΑΙ Η ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ: ΠΕΡΝΑΩ ΚΑΛΑ = ΚΑΝΩ ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ ΣΩΣΤΟ, ΟΧΙ ΑΠΛΟΣ ΖΩ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΕΡΨΙΝ ΤΗΣ ΣΤΙΓΜΕΩΣ. ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ ΛΟΙΠΟΝ: ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΘΕΛΩ, ΒΓΑΙΝΕΙ ΑΠΟ ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΘΕΛΩ ΕΙΣ ΒΑΘΟΣ ΧΡΟΝΟΥ, ΙΣΩΣ ΟΧΙ ΟΜΩΣ ΑΥΤΟ ΠΟΥ ΘΕΛΩ ΤΩΡΑ. ΠΧ, ΕΓΩ ΕΧΩ ΝΑ ΓΡΑΨΩ ΠΤΥΧΙΑΚΗ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΤΗΝ ΣΤΙΓΜΗ - ΘΑ ΗΘΕΛΑ ΟΜΩΣ ΝΑ ΚΑΨΩ ΣΤΙΣ ΝΤΟΤΕΣ. Η ΣΥΝΘΕΣΗ ΛΟΙΠΟΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΔΥΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ ΣΚΑΤΟΠΟΣΤΑΡΙΣΜΑ ΣΤΟ ΛΕΦΤΥΠΟΛ: ΟΥΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΤΥΧΙΑΚΗ ΜΟΥ ΓΡΑΦΩ, ΟΥΤΕ ΝΤΟΤΑ ΠΑΙΖΩ. ΤΟ ΠΑΛΙΟ ΑΝΑΔΥΕΤΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΝΕΟ.
ΛΟΙΠΟΝ. ΛΟΙΠΟΝ. ΣΑΝ ΧΤΕΣ ΠΕΘΑΝΕ Ο ΚΑΖΑΝΤΖΙΔΗΣ. ΣΑΝ ΧΤΕΣ, ΧΑΣΑΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΓΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΓΕΡΑΚΙΝΑΣ: ΑΥΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΙΚΗ: ΑΥΤΟ: Ο ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ ΧΩΡΙΣ: ΤΗΝ ΨΥΧΗ ΤΟΥ: ΤΗΝ ΦΩΝΗ ΤΟΥ: ΤΗΝ ΨΥΧΗ ΤΟΥ. ΚΑΤΑΛΑΒΕΣ; ΤΟ ΕΝΑ ΑΝΑΔΥΕΤΑΙ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΑΛΛΟ. Η ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΤΗΤΑ ΑΝΑΔΙΠΛΩΝΕΤΑΙ ΕΝΤΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΑΥΤΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΙ ΒΓΑΙΝΕΙ ΑΠ'ΤΗΝ ΑΛΛΗ - ΜΟΝΟ ΠΟΥ ΑΠ'ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΔΙΠΛΩΣΗ, Η ΑΛΛΗ (ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΟΠΟΙΑ ΒΓΑΙΝΕΙ) ΕΙΝΑΙ ΙΔΙΑ ΜΕ ΑΥΤΗΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΟΠΟΙΑ ΜΠΗΚΕ. Δ - Ι - Α - Λ - Ε - Κ - Τ - Ι - Κ - Η.
-kutsubasKUTSUBAS_DIMITRIOS_posting-poster:dialectics:dia:legw::(in/out)side

 No.495048

>>494858
A thing can never just be itself because it is also not everything it is not.
A flower is also not a tree. Etc.
Without these qualities, it would be impossible to delineate objects.

A = A only makes sense in formal setting where objects are from a well defined and determined domain.

 No.495859

>>495048
i dont know if i totally accept this reason as the only or the main reason that nothing is just itself,
but yeah damn this is the battle lmao
people aren't ready to accept that a thing is not itself, because our main ideas of the world are all rooted in the notion of 1=1, of a thing being equal to itself.

To me, i'd rather focus on the idea of a class of objects which contradict themselves, rather than insist that everything falls under this category.
Second, the most easy way to see the truth in the world's contradiction is it's constant change. There's never a point when a thing is not changing into something else. Our language puts a boundary around something in time and space and defines it as whatever ("this flower is a flower - until it dies and becomes dirt, or is eaten and becomes shit + insect, etc.") - but it's not only that, because at a wider scale the universe is in constant change. At the very least, the universe as a whole is a dialectical, self-contradicting object, otherwise it would be static and lifeless.
Though the even worse contradiction here is that it still is an object - it can be delineated and defined as well. It's beautiful is all, idk how to put it. While everything can be said in some way to always be itself, because selfness is bound to our defining of boundaries and those can expand or gain conditionals to basically accept anything, it's a type of thing which is in constant conflict and not quite managing to be itself in its fullness. Everything has a past that's already distant to it, and a future which it has yet to achieve.

To me, it's time and not space that is the real defining factor here.

 No.496720

>>495037
What is this? I don’t speak pederast.

 No.496726

>>495037
What pasta!!!

 No.496764

>>495037
>WHAT IS DIALECTICAL? A FIREFUL QUESTION OF OUR TIME. THE DIALECTIC IS SO: "PIPI KAKA, YES IT IS PIPI KAKA." - LENIN.
based

 No.499227

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis is pretty self-explanatory, isn't it?

 No.499290

Debate him

 No.499317

>>495859
What the fuck do you think it means that a thing is not itself? It does not mean anything. This is some advanced level of sophism.

 No.499323

>>499317
Things not static things change over time

 No.499340

>>499323
Then say that instead of LARPing as a metaphysicist. I can guarantee you that if you tell someone that in the social sciences everything is historically determined, which means that if you notice a pattern today there's no guarantee that it was also present in the past or will be present in the future, they will be much more open to it and many probably already agree with it. But if you tell them some stupid shit about A not being A and things not being themselves people will rightly call you a deranged idiot.


Unique IPs: 32

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