/lit/ - Literature

>1827
>Hegel is here, whom Goethe personally esteems very highly, though he does not much relish some of the fruits produced by his philosophy.

>The discourse then turned upon the nature of dialectics. “They are, in fact,” said Hegel, “nothing more than the regulated, methodically-cultivated spirit of contradiction which is innate in all men, and which shows itself great as a talent in the distinction between the true and the false.”

>“Let us only hope,” interposed Goethe, “that these intellectual arts and dexterities are not frequently misused, and employed to make the false true, and the true false.”

>“That certainly happens,” returned Hegel; “but only with people who are mentally diseased.”

No description lf the Hegelian will suffice if you havent't read Hegel. This is so because every determination you could possibly use to describe the dialectical method must also be deduced from the same method, which would lead to a bad form of logical circularity. If I start by saying "in the dialectical method you start with a concept -" this would already be an abstract form of circularity, since "concept" is one of the determinations that are to be derived with the dialectical method.
That said, I'll try to describe it abstractly, just to give an idea. 1) You start with an abstract determination; 2a) by thinking through that determination you discover that it passes into its opposite; 2b) when you think the opposite it passes into the original determination: you have two opposite determinations, which passes into each other. 3) The concept that denotes this movement is the result of the dialectic.

Here's an example from the beginning of the Science of Logic.
1) you start with the most abstract logical concept, the one of Pure Being (which is contained in every definition: when you say "A is B" you have already presupposed Pure Being with the copula "is").
2a) You think through Pure Being. It cannot be a Determinate Being: if I were to say "Pure Being is X" I would still presuppose the meaning of "is". As such, absolutely no positive predicate can be attributed to Pure Being. But if this is the case, Pure Being is a completely empty concept, and as such it cannot be distinguished from Nothingness.
2b) Now, if you think Nothingness through, you'll end up with the same conclusion: no predicate can be attributed to it. Nothingness is too an empty, immediate and indeterminate concept, exactly like Pure Being. So, thinking Pure Being leads you to Nothingness, and viceversa.
3) The concept that denotes this movement is the result of the dialectic. Since we have a passage from Pure Being to Nothingness and vice versa, the concept that denotes this passage will be the one of Becoming. Becoming is now a concept which has, as its constitutive moments, Being and Nothingness. Conversely, now Pure Being and Nothingness makes sense only in this movement. In this sense, Becoming is the truth of Being and Nothingness. Trying to concieve Pure Being independently of Nothingness, or Nothingness independently of Pure Being, is a mistake, a mere abstraction, since their essence is to pass one into the other.

what is the use of the hegelian dialectic? what are its fruits?

>>19136535
literally the history of the universe

>>19136535
>what is the use of the hegelian dialectic? what are its fruits?
It will make you rich, bugman.

>>19136545
You can tell me what happened on Tuesday the 14th of -458BC in Washington DC with the hegelian dialectic?

>>19136556
how so? teaching philosophy or writing books on it?

>>19136561
yes you can

>>19136535
There isn't, other than bragging rights from a bunch of other pseuds who failed high school physics.

>>19136586

>>19135700
The understanding coming to realise that the concepts it holds can only be reconciled if they are subsumed within the absolute.

>>19136590
Have fun serving coffee that contains 5 variations of the same artificial sweetener that's worded differently, for a bunch of diabetic middle-class white liberal women, hum*nities fag!

>>19136636
sorry you’re not smart enough to keep up

>>19136510
let me rephrase this so I see if I understand:
>you think of a thing
>you think about the concept, and then what Is the thing
>as you realize what is the thing, you realize what is not the thing
>what is not the thing is a new thing, let's call it thang
>as thang is the filler to thing, thinking about thang will lead you to thing
>of this process, we can now meta analyze it and call the whole process a new thing

>>19135700
You, me, bang.

>>19136703
Yes.
Of course this method cannot be used arbitrarily, you HAVE to start from the most abstract snd indeterminate determination for it to work (Hegel argues that it is Pure Being because it is presupposed in every possible reality and thought), and then work your way through all the other determinations.

It's what mathlet mental masturbators call convergent alternating series.

>>19136788
every argument has to start with pure being? what if i just want to use it to discover some properties of my cup of tea? it seems very long winded.

>>19136788
why can't you do it arbitrarily?
>this is a chair. what is a chair?
>this is not-a-chair
>this is not-not-a-chair, also called a chair.

>>19136818
this seems absolutely useless

Dialectics is meant to study things in their own state as it is now, in the past, and in the future. In order to understand anything, you must understand it's past, present, and future rather than in its current state only. Dialectics is about change

>>19137149
so what can dialectics be applied to? concrete terms with an example if possible

>>19136664
Sorry, you got manipulated into studying a degree that was fueled by your narcissistic, armchair inadequacy to a pitiful, baby's first thoughts degree. I guess it's your parent's fault for edging you on. No intelligent being in the future would use a dialectical framework. It will, however, be an improvement from the science today.

haha stinky

>>19137200
Dialectics is only usefull if you take the materialist pill.
It can be applied to basicly everything: Quantum Mechanics, Biology, History and so on.

see:
Loren R. Graham, Quantum Mechanics and Dialectical Materialism
Levins and Lewontin, The Dialectical Biologist
Labriola, Essays on the Materialist Conception of History

>>19136817
You start with Pure Being, get to the Pure Idea, and the deduce Nature from it. Technically, in Hegel's system everything is deduced from Pure Being. That said, Hegel has an argument for which indivudual natural entities cannot be deduced, so you can't really deduce a pen, or a cup of tea like Krug wanted.
>>19136818
Because the contradiction you've found there is not immanent (internal), it's just something you arbitrarily applied to it.

>>19137078
welcome to philosophy

dude history lmao

>>19137254
you really think schools teach hegel holy kek

>>19136556
Post bank account or retirement portfolio, wife in a bikini or figure hugging dress, and your socks drawer. Yes, your socks drawer.
Then explain how Hegelian dialectic have you a sustainable advantage in your career or financial decisions to enable that lifestyle

>>19137078
its only useless because the guy explaining it is purposefully making it seem so. take time will hegel and you will see his work bear fruits. it will directly better your life and make you a bloomer.

>>19137743
give me an example of how you bloomed through dialectics.

>>19137761
literally hegel solves everything philosophical problem in a single book, if you read it and don't bloom you should just kys because youre hopeless
what philo question do you need answered? because he has already addressed it.

>>19137761
he connects all of human history to god and spirit
he elaborates on spinoza in an extraordinary way

>>19137743
>it will directly better your life and make you a bloomer.
How will this, for example, help me get a comfortable source of income?
Or have a relationship that lasts over a month with a woman?
or allow me to better weigh up personal projects so that they actual make meaningful returns on the time and emotional investment in them instead of being ways to avoid coming on 4chan or bignewatch netflix?

>>19137809
do you think that is what bloomer means?

>>19137871
You're not convincing me it will directly better anyone's life... how about answering the questions?

>>19135700
thesis + antithesis -> synthesis

>>19135700
It's arguing with yourself because all your opponents are trash

>>19137743
>its only useless because the guy explaining it is purposefully making it seem so
Wtf, I pointed out in both posts that the dialectical starting point cannot be arbitrary, stop being so unfair

It is something an autistic german came up with so that he can pretend he's never wrong on anything since whatever someone else says he can just respond with that is part of muh dialectic

Now it can be used by all. Whether religious or materialist atheist etc. Deny the Christian God? uh partaking in the dialectic much? just proves god even more

>>19138256
hegel is religious, youve never read him pseud >>19137879
it will calm your soul
>>19138235
sorry but it was a bad explanation

>>19136510
>which passes into each other
what exactly is this supposed to mean

>>19137303
This anon is operating on another level

>>19138287
are you stupid?

>>19138262
>it will calm your soul
Not what I asked, is Hegel an expert is skirting practical questions... you know what... don't answer that - simply tell me how Hegel will help me get a comfortable source of income, meaningful relationships, or evaluate personal projects based on long-term return? Because comfortable employment would calm my soul. In fact I'm pretty sure you can't read philosophy unless you have a shelter, food in your belly (and the calories to ensure you're alert and can process what you're reading), and an absence of distractions and interventions in your time.

>>19138351
apparently you are because you are incapable of elaborating

>>19138262
>sorry but it was a bad explanation
Is there any mistake in it? And how would you improve it?
>>19138287
The guy that responded to you (>>19138351) is not me.
Regarding your question: it means that the determinations of a given concept end up denoting its opposite concept. So, in the case of Pure Being, which is defined as immediate, pure and indeterminate, we have a set of determinations that end up denoting its opposite concept, the one of Nothingness (which is equally a concept denoted by immediacy, indeterminateness and purity).

>>19138357
Why is philosophy supposed to teach you how to satisfy your practical needs (which will be contingent on your personal and historical condition anyway)?
Like, I need food in my belly to study math too: should math teach me how to put food in my belly?

>>19138689
I got involved in this thread because either you or another anon said Hegel isn't useless and it will better your life. So as far as I'm concerned right now you're implicitly admitting that it won't better my life because right now I'm struggling to fill those practical needs.
What the fuck is wrong with you that rather than openly admitting "maybe it's not for you" you have to circle around the fact that it won't!? What the fuck is wrong with you!?

Nobody actually read and understood Hegal, not even Hegal

the problem with the dialectic is that at no point are you required to have something true