/lit/ - Literature

>you never went to a primary school which taught latin and ancient greek
>you have parents with Arabic as first languages yet somehow you stopped speaking it after being aged 4

Forever a pleb

>>4726434
You can't read Wikipedia?

>tfw monolingual

this is suffering

>tfw when it's too early in the day for the owl of minerva to take flight

>>4726445
don't be so hard on yourself

>>4726455
the wikis dont explain anything
>its not a debate and not a systematic deduction.

>it accepts inner contradictions. real world has contradictions, so dialectic is better than pure logic at describing real world. (->positivism dispute)

>in the history of philosophy the dialectic had different meanings

so now i know what it isnt, what it theoretically is capable of and that it can mean different things. 2marxist4me

>>4726493
It's not Marxist. Marx learned that shit from Hegel.

>>4726493
The term "dialectic" predates Marx by around 2000 years at least, and Marx got his idea of "dialectic" by fucking up Hegel's work, which was profoundly spiritual.

>>4726505
>implying dialectics weren't around before Hegel.
Seriously, bro? Do you even Socratic Dialectics?

two contradicting statements are to be compared in order to find out which one is true. Two people with no previous attachments to either point takes one of them at random. They then provide arguments for their statement and these arguments are compared to see which original statement is true.

The difference between this and debate is only in ambition. In debate each want their thesis to be true, in dialectic both want to find out which one is true.

It is a logically meaningless distinction. The distinction is only necessary due to the fallacy of the human emotion.

a dialectic is just a sensible debate

If you ever found someone capable of dialectic, you've found an intellectual friend

if you want to be good dialectician yourself, here are some key phrases:

as far as I see...

I believe...

that is true...

good point...

I see a fallacy here...

thanks for pointing that out...

>>4726434
dialectic can be learned, but cannot be explained. the minute u define it, give it a static meaning, u do injustice to it. u render it undialectical.

dialectica is about things turning into their opposites. read hegels science of logic to get a better idea

>you've read 5 different meanings of the word "synthesis" in a philosophical context
>you haven't really understood any of them

>>4726592
Just obfuscate and a lot.

>>4726434
dude... just read the definition, jesus

>>4726592
Synthesis is easy to understand. I'm with OP, though. I have no idea what dialectic means.

>>4726649
>Synthesis is easy to understand
Explain it.

>>4726553
Can anyone else verify this?

I had never been able to understand what dialectic mean, but put in these terms it seems quite simple. This means I've had dialectical discussions without even realizing it. Neat!

Dialectic = back and forth in several senses, some already described above

Often used politically or academically-colloquially to mean a process that has a reverberating motion, with two sides or tendencies to it reacting to one another, especially in the sense of a 'heightening' in the middle of their interaction in the process. Not necessarily cyclical between the two (like 'right wing then left wing then right wing'), more like envisioning historical processes like revolution <-> reaction or optimism <-> pessimism as being two-way affairs, which continually develop with mutual reference to one another.

>>4726649
Hegel describes it as a more supple way of expressing truths.
There is a an argument based in reason;
that is the thesis.
There is a counter argument based in reason;
that is the antithesis.
Somewhere in the discourse a mid point is found;
that is the synthesis.
Synthesis become thesis;
repeat until you reach objectivity and the in itself root of all existence.
I think it's a load of bollocks, personally.

>>4726664
Well, it depends on how the words are being used. In the Hegelian sense, it's the reconciliation of opposing propositions.

Otherwise, it simply means unifying ideas. For example, when scientists try to create a theory of everything, they're attempting to synthesize multiple theories to create one unified theory.

>>4726680
So did Hegel. He only discussed it in an intro to one of his works and rejected it as soulless.

Marx took it and ran halfway around the fucking world with it, though.

>>4726680
>thinking thesis->antithesis->synthesis is actually from Hegel
>i-shiggity-diggity-dee

>>4726506
It certainly had similar aspects though, both were behind the philosophy of history inboth theories.

Do you even Kojeve bro?

It's the magic that causes communism to be the best ever because _____

dialectic means I'm scared help me

Btw, what's discourse?

>>4726806
Communism really is a horrible little thing.
Read some chinese history and you'll realise Marxism is essentially a tool for oversocialised opportunists.
Don't trust the supposed "anti stalinist" trotskyites either. If it's rooted in marxism, it is foul and needs to be thrown away.
Too bad british politics is stuck in between the choice of horrible radical marxists and tories, of all things.
I hate monarchy, but even that is better than marxism.

It amazes me how rarely it occurs to Continentals that, perhaps - just PERHAPS - if something is not understood, and cannot be explained by someone who claims to understand it, then it may just be that there is nothing much there to understand. Continentals always assume it is in inadequacy on the part of reader/listener, where, in matter of fact, the blame is, I would wager, more often than not on the author/speaker for their stubbornness in the face of clarity and explication. So perhaps, OP, you should entertain the notion that dialectic is vacuous garbage through-and-though, and that THIS, very simple reason is why none of the supposedly initiated will let you in on the big secret. Just a thought.

>>4726851
how is it worse than monarchy? how is it worse than most current forms of government?

>>4726874
>What're we allowed to do!
>anything you want, we're free!
>Cool! Let's go kick those guys over there's asses and take their girls!
>Whoa, sexism and racism, that's not okay
>Then... let's... tell them to join us and start a new kingdom! We can be KINGS!
>Um, reactionary much?
>we can uh... play baseball?
>A testosterone fueled "playful" analogy for war and competition which causes unnecessary divisiveness and conflict?
>well then let's get drunk I guess
>Alcoholism is a major social ill which causes anti-social behaviours.
>well let's go slap those girls' asses and fuck 'em
>Take your pills and get back to work you mentally ill piece of garbage
>okay

>>4726874
Monarchy's pretty good bro.

>>4726926
>tfw living in an interregnum period

nice dialecting there, sport

Dialectic is just dialogue for truth, as opposed to dialogue for win (debate).

>>4726865
I'm feeling the vibes.
I also feel annoyed that people hail fiction and throw metaphysics aside, though.
Fiction, if it even manages to do that, postulate through analogy a very narrow minded metaphysical lesson.
Why not cut out the middle man?
Why does some thing need to have a history and a moral lesson to be entertaining?
Philosophy; the love of knowledge.
It's autistic, but If I enjoy it I will pursue it,
and people don't really enjoy fiction, come on,
it's a social currency, like a strike of red across your forehead instead of blue.

>>4726874
It is based on interpretation of marx' writings,
the interpretations of which are constantly obfuscated to favor the hedonism that could very well appear in the people who happen to decide what happens.
See China.
It is essentially a sort of ironic cult where every one is expected to work towards a point of moral objectivism that will never fucking come and why should the people who do it at the start even do it at all?
It is some thing for opportunists and is worse than capitalism.

>>4726644
dictionary is about as helpful as
>rocket is the art of flying into space
>4chan is the enquiry into anonymous

>>4726969
>Why does some thing need to have a history and a moral lesson to be entertaining?
Could be they're not automatons, bud.

>>4726966
yfw the justice system operates on the altter

>>4726989
The US needs to be nuked. I don't think there's any hope for them anymore.

>>4728253
but they have like all the nukes
dilemma

>>4726912
Sounds like a perfect society. Minus the baseball thing. All true communists love baseball.