/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10144170]

Explain Hegelian dialectics as concisely and precisely as possible in a way that can be comprehended even to someone that has never heard of it.

[Anonymous No.10144193]

Reese's + Pieces = Delicious

[Anonymous No.10144239]

>>10144193
/thread

[Anonymous No.10144295]

>>10144170
Thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

Everything that is (thesis), it is in function of what it is not (antithesis), the adequate intellection is the one that unify the inherent contradiction in eveything (synthesis).

Example: being (thesis), nothingness (antithesis), becoming (synthesis).

You welcome.

[Anonymous No.10144359]

>>10144170
Thought takes itself to be distinct from the thing it's thinking about, but after passing through a series of contradictions to which this assumption leads, comes to realize it has been thinking about itself all along, and in so doing subsumes everything.

[Anonymous No.10144372]

>>10144170
You write so much garbage that it becomes too tedious for people to refute you.

[Anonymous No.10144382]

>>10144295
whats the difference between being and becoming? and what does nothingness have to do with becoming? please respond without the words: thesis, antithesis and synthesis

[Anonymous No.10144503]

>>10144382
to become, you need to go from nothing to being

[A.W. No.10144712]

>>10144170
https://empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/

[Anonymous No.10144758]

>>10144295
How exactly does one, using dialectics, get to the conclusion that "communism is inevitable"?
Commies keep spouting this when confronted with the fact that every communist government thus far has failed massively.
Shouldn't synthesis be social democracy rather than communism?

[Anonymous No.10144769]

Here's an attempt,

Hegel's dialectic was an attempt to continue Kant's project of critical philosophy, and an attempt to justify his own metaphysics.
The notion that the limits of what can be said was important to Hegel - as we land in trouble when we try to apply our thoughts which are finite in nature to the infinite, as these thoughts are only valid in explaining finite experience.

At this point, Hegel makes an even more radical claim, in that Kant had failed to investigate the inherent logic of concepts themselves by simply classifying them as either subjective or objective.
Further, Kant's claim that we must use a criterion of knowledge prior to actual knowledge was a knowledge claim in itself - we cannot criticize the forms of thinking without already having used them.

Also, it should be noted that Hegel saw metaphysics as having primacy to epistemology, as he felt that to claim epistemology was somehow autonomous and could solve its own problems (the massive issues caused by the noumena/phenomena division) was misguided.

The hallmark of the dialectic was avoidance of a priori principles in forming a criterion of a given thing. That the standards, rules and what have you, of a given thing were the result, and not the starting point of an investigation.
From this, "the concept" - the inner purpose of a thing - is grasped. The dialectic is then what follows from the thing, and is in no way prior.
Method is a posteriori.

In his Encyclopedia, Hegel details three stages of the dialectic (though he often strays from this formula for reasons outlined above), and they are (i) the moment of abstraction, (ii) the negatively rational moment and (iii) the positively rational moment.

(i) The understanding postulates a thing absolute, and attempts to conceive of this thing were it totally independent. Pushing the metaphysical claim that something exists in-itself and independently.

(ii) At this moment, something is found to not in fact be independent, and is only able to be understood by its relation to other things. There is a contradiction in that something absolute was posited, but it can only be understood in terms which relate it to other things - reasons outside itself. The thing is thus conditioned and unconditioned.

(iii) The resolution to this conflict is thus, to grasp the absolute thing as not the thing alone, but the whole of that thing and those others upon which it depends.
This move is Aristotelian, in that we ascend from the things to the view of the whole. These things are parts of the whole, and the relations are within it, self-relations.

The dialectic continues from this point, until we find the absolute whole.

[Anonymous No.10144773]

>>10144712
holy shit AW is even here. AW is Hegel incarnate.

[Anonymous No.10144774]

>>10144170
Thesis: Form (3D)
Antithesis: Beauty
Synthesis: 2D

[Anonymous No.10144784]

thesis: bugs bunny
antithesis: carrots
synthesis: bugs.. easy on the carrots

[Anonymous No.10144786]

>>10144774
thesis antithesis synthesis is not everything Hegel is about. also you don't understand how conflict makes that evolve. your Hegel is shallow.

[Anonymous No.10144797]

>>10144758
Only orthodox brainlets think that way - this got btfo'd already by the Frankfurt guys, and now most 'commies' who are not stuck in arcane thought won't spout such nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10144819]

>>10144786
>your Hegel is shallow
>has a PhD in Hegelian aesthetic
Heh heh. Nothing personnel, kid.

[Anonymous No.10144825]

thesis: thesis
antithesis: antithesis
synthesis

[Anonymous No.10144921]

>>10144769

Good post.

[Anonymous No.10144942]

>>10144769
>>10144921
>Good post.

seconded, much appreciated

[Anonymous No.10144946]

>>10144769
Every time I see Hegel's dialetic explained it seems so childish to me. How could anyone believe in this? I wonder if he had any inkling he would be directly responsible for 80 million deaths via Marx's use of his dialectic.

[Anonymous No.10145482]

>>10144819
frog is cool

[Anonymous No.10145637]

>>10144825
I smirked

[Anonymous No.10145687]

>>10144946
Because it makes sense and is encompassing. A summary of Hegel isn't going to have the force behind it that his writings do. Idea about the form of ideas/thought/history aren't meaningful because of how you can condense them, they gain there virtue in what they account for/ the movement of hegel's system is important. I strongly suggest you -and everyone- just read the phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.10145774]

>>10144769
>>10144712
thanks senpaitachi

[Anonymous No.10145820]

>>10144193
Speak English, Doc! We ain't scientists.

[Anonymous No.10146140]

>>10144769

Sounds like reverse-engineered Gnosis.

[Anonymous No.10146205]

>>10144774
>>10144784
>>10144825

T: Pink Floyd
A: The Clash
S: Talking Heads

[Anonymous No.10146207]

>>10146205
T: SJWs
A: /pol/
S: RADICAL CENTRISM

[Anonymous No.10146209]

>>10144170
Tesis: Boy
Antithesis: Pussy
Synthesis: boipucci while wearing gucci listening to amaguchi doin the cuchicuchi

[Anonymous No.10147214]

>>10146207
Thesis: tits
Antithesis : ass
Synthesis : put nipples on bumcheeks

[Anonymous No.10147506]

>>10146205
/mu/fag

>>10146207
/lit/fag

>>10146209
/hm/fag/fag

>>10147214
/d/fag

[Anonymous No.10148176]

>>10144758
>Commies keep spouting this when confronted with the fact that every communist government thus far has failed massively
This is a very reductionist view of a much more complicated topic. The fact that communism itself has failed is not communism's fault.

[Anonymous No.10148224]

Hegel's preface to the phenomenologie shows why this kind of thread is bullshit

[Anonymous No.10148252]

>>10144170
Play Fallout new vegas

[Anonymous No.10148303]

what did marx do with it?

[Anonymous No.10148321]

>>10148252
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyeTaXv6o4Y

[Anonymous No.10149163]

>>10147506
im actually a /fa/ggot not /hm/

[Anonymous No.10149328]

>>10149163
What's the difference desu

[Anonymous No.10149444]

>>10149328
/hm/uongrindr fags have naked gay sex, /fa/gs have gay sex while wearing all their clothes
It's pretty awkward

[johnathan armstrong brannigan !Y4n2LCfJnM No.10150200]

>>10148321
>thesis-antithesis-synthesis
caesar confirmed for dumbass

[Anonymous No.10150252]

What are Negative Dialectics?

and Trialectics?

[Anonymous No.10150266]

>>10150252
>2017
>not subscribing to hexalectics

[Anonymous No.10150275]

>>10148176
>the fact that a great number of disparate systems, that share one important characteristic, failed is not to be attributed to this defining feature

[johnathan armstrong brannigan !Y4n2LCfJnM No.10150292]

>>10150275
are you implying that, necessarily, that one feature MUST be responsible, that there cannot be multifarious factors contributing to this failure?
sentiments like the one you're expressing are overly simplistic, even moreso than the tankie position that commies can do no wrongs bcause commies are defined as pepole who know what is right and do it

[Anonymous No.10150350]

Hegel looked down on those who would reduce the dialectic to thesis/antithesis/synthesis, mocking Fichte for this in the Phenomenology. Hegelian dialectic is about the movement of Spirit from itself, to outside itself, and back to itself. Hegel isn’t one for concrete examples, but let’s look at one.
The geocentric model of the solar system was at one point widely accepted. At one point the Spirit of society came into contact with Copernicus’ idea of heliocentrism. The two ideas struggled together, and in the end heliocentrism became the accepted theory. But heliocentrism was no longer just heliocentrism; it was heliocentrism-as-opposed-to-geocentrism. The old idea was sublated into the new one, with the falseness of the old idea still intact, but now an important part of the true whole. Spirit started in the geocentric position, then moved to consider the heliocentric position, then finally subsumed both into its final position. This sort of dialectic is easily observed in pedagogy. Darwinian evolution isn’t taught to students in a vacuum, but as Darwinian-as-opposed-to-Lamarckian evolution, and evolutionism is almost universally conceived as evolutionism-as-opposed-to-creationism. 21st-century capitalism isn’t just capitalism, but capitalism-as-opposed-to-communism.
Furthermore, the dialectic cycle repeats after each resolution. The World Spirit continues its advance, and the Spirit of our age contains all the advances of Spirit in all past ages.
I can’t go into more detail on how this operates at an individual level since I’m only a hundred pages into Phenomenology, but this is the basic grasp I got of how it operates from Reason In History.

[Anonymous No.10150434]

>>10150350

What does Hegel think of ending the nightmare?

>>10146171

[Anonymous No.10150458]

>>10150350
What does he say about Geist, is it simply God?

[Anonymous No.10150463]

>>10144758
Interpreting history as dialectics.

[Anonymous No.10150471]

>>10150458
It is the Absolute, the Mind (Spirit)

That's like first thing he says about it in POS: Why are you asking?

[Anonymous No.10150509]

>>10150350
>movement of Spirit from itself to outside itself and back to itself.

but how can Spirit move *OUTSIDE ITSELF* to *COPERNICUS*, when Copernicus a reflectively self-aware human was already part of that spirit?

The spirit reflects back on itself and changes itself more likely, when the Spirit starts to not match the Idea (The Concept in the way it is expressed in phenomenal world)

So in short, when the Spirit does not mwatch the world it is reflectively self-concsiouss and turns a new (like taking heliocentrism)

did i mek sense

[Anonymous No.10150551]

>>10150509
>but how can Spirit move *OUTSIDE ITSELF* to *COPERNICUS*, when Copernicus a reflectively self-aware human was already part of that spirit?

It is so unimpeachable in its singularity that all refraction considers itself as the nexus of everything despite interpersonal plurality.

[Anonymous No.10150599]

>>10150434
Not entirely sure what your question means in context of that post. Absurdity can be integrated into Hegelian dialectic perfectly well, just read Kierkegaard. I can't say what Hegel's thoughts on the issue would be.
>>10150458
Spirit is the divine Idea. I suppose you could call it the mind of God.
>>10150509
Spirit doesn't move to consider Copernicus the individual. In my example, it moves outside its own geocentric ideas to consider the heliocentric, Copernican theory. Spirit cannot fail to match the Idea since it is the Idea, albeit only the Idea at a particular stage of development.
Apart from those points, your core understanding seems to line up with mine.

[Anonymous No.10150626]

>>10150599
>Spirit cannot fail to match the Idea since it is the Idea

Spirit can fail to match the Idea, that is why it moves from geocentrism to heliocentrism to fix itself, it becomes more self-reflectively introspective the less it can match the Idea leading to a change in it. This is how I understand it.

[Anonymous No.10150633]

>>10150626
>reflectively introspective the less it can *manifest* the Idea (the Concept as it appears in phenomenal reality)

[Anonymous No.10150717]

>>10150626
Spirit cannot fail to match the Idea, since it is defined as the divine Idea.
The Idea is that Spirit should evolve in space (creating Nature) according to certain laws, and Spirit should evolve in time (creating History) according to a certain pattern. These proceed on orthogonal axes. Looking down the time axis, we see History; looking down the space axis, we see Nature. These may not align perfectly, and in fact they usually do not. But both are mere 1D cross-sections of the actual 2D evolution of Spirit in time and space, the totality of which is the divine Idea.
Understood in Hegelian terms, your argument becomes "Nature can disagree with History," and this I fully support. But both are aspects of the Idea, and thus do not differ from the Idea.

[Anonymous No.10150803]

>>10150717
thanks.

[Anonymous No.10150824]

>>10144170
Autistic German writes some wordy bullshit. Other autists argue semantics over it decades after. No one else gives a flying fuck.

[Anonymous No.10151176]

>>10150824
Wrong.
You are a Hegelian, that means you care. Stop acting like le gritty Realpolitiker bluecollar cigs n coffee man, you flaming retard

[Anonymous No.10151192]

>>10144170
Alchemy.

[Anonymous No.10151210]

>>10150471
wtf is the mind or absolute spirit or the Object and Subject? Hegel is dick.

[Anonymous No.10151223]

>>10150350
That makes much more sense than just thesis/antithesis/synthesis

[Anonymous No.10151229]

>>10151210
Spirit IS THE SELF-REFLECTION OF HUMAN THOUGHT. Idea is SELF-REFLECTION OF THOUGHT, AS SUCH, AND CONCEPT AS IT APPEARS IN PHENOMENAL REALITY.
>the individual mind is subjective spirit
>objective spirit refers to the forms that spirit takes at a level above individual consciousness; it is
thus associated with community and culture in general, including custom and law.

Absolute Spirit
>includes religion, art and philosophy, is infinite.

All forms and levels of spirit are rational, constituted by thought and self-consciousness, consist in process or purposive activity (rather than thinghood).

[Anonymous No.10151230]

>>10151176
>gritty Realpolitiker bluecollar cigs n coffee man

[johnathan armstrong brannigan !Y4n2LCfJnM No.10151231]

>>10151223
TAS is a dead formula. the dialectic hegel set out to describe is a living process at work on all levels of existence across all time and space, patterned on the eternal Idea

[Anonymous No.10151233]

>>10151223
Of course, because t-a-s is Fichte and not Hegel.

[Anonymous No.10151252]

>>10150292
>wow are you implying that a scenario with statistically insignificant and continually diminishing chances of happening is less likely than the obvious answer
Yes. Yes, I am, retarded tripshit.

[johnathan armstrong brannigan !Y4n2LCfJnM No.10151274]

>>10151252
what?

[Anonymous No.10151355]

>>10144503
But there ain't a thing come from nothingness bro

[Anonymous No.10151401]

>>10150717
Why does this all seem vaguely Spinozian to me?

[johnathan armstrong brannigan !Y4n2LCfJnM No.10151409]

>>10151401
gee, i wonder

[Anonymous No.10151413]

>>10151230
I was more thinking some ex-trucker dadcore dad who reads the news from multiple sources and now thinks he's woke and really HATES video games

[Anonymous No.10151417]

>>10151409
I'm not very well read, and I know very little about Hegel, so please either enlighten me or fuck right off.

[johnathan armstrong brannigan !Y4n2LCfJnM No.10151423]

>>10151417
there's nothing to enlightern you about
i mean gee i wonder what it could be?
maybe hegel was influencved by spnioza?
yeah, that's it!@ it's probably that!
ffs it's literally that simple, your questgion was retarded--the answer is obcious

[Anonymous No.10151426]

>>10151417
Hegel is pretty much the straight-up successor to both Spinoza and Kant

He said "you're either a spinozan or not a philosopher at all"

[Anonymous No.10151433]

>>10151417
>I know very little about Hegel
>>10151423
>maybe hegel was influencved by spnioza?
>there's nothing to enlightern you about
You're a useless cunt.
>>10151426
Thanks

[Anonymous No.10151443]

>>10144170
This is a story told by one of my philosophy professors.

>One evening Hegel had to attend, unwillingly, to a dinner with the great writer J.W Goethe. Even more dreadful to Hegel, whom did not wish to be there, was the fact that Goethe decided he should sit at his right hand- a position most people would consider a honor, and the place everyone else pay more attention after the host. Goethe had a lively talk with all his guests, but unfortunately for him, Hegel had remained silent all evening. Goethe, hoping to involve Hegel and have everyone hear a deep lecture about his philosophical work, asked him at the very moment when everyone was silent "Professor Hegel, could you explain to us what is dialectics?" Hegel succinctly answered: "Dialectics is the possibility of saying No." After minutes of silence everyone resumed their common talk, and Hegel remained silent for the rest of the evening.

[Anonymous No.10151463]

>>10151401
Spinoza heavily influenced Schelling's initial formulation of Absolute Idealism with his monism and view of nature, which was a viewpoint
Hegel himself then adopted during his "allegiance" with Schelling, but then restructured based on his disagreement with Spinoza's(and Schelling's) methodology.
That is, that Spinoza started his philosophizing on axioms in the manner of the rationalists, which Kant accordingly tore apart in the Critique.

[Anonymous No.10151549]

>>10151463
Thesis: Spinoza
Antithesis: Kant
Synthesis: Hegel

[Anonymous No.10151561]

The way in which something is separated provides the basis for its unification.

[Anonymous No.10151564]

>>10151561
expand upon this

[Anonymous No.10151566]

>>10151443
he didn't want to fucking talk man. can you blame him? he was eating.

[Anonymous No.10151570]

What is his philosophy beyond dialectics? That's all anyone goes on about

[Anonymous No.10151575]

>>10151570
maybe that's the only bit that matters

[Anonymous No.10151579]

>>10151570
Death.

[Anonymous No.10151593]

>>10151564
You create separate territories when you build a wall, but the wall itself is what provides the basis for the unification of territories in the form of its own destruction

[Anonymous No.10151609]

>>10151593
Now it just sounds like a truism. "You can't fix a broken leg if you don't break it first!"

[Anonymous No.10151613]

>>10144295
That's fichte

[Anonymous No.10151627]

>>10151549

[Anonymous No.10151766]

>>10144758
Read Capital

[Anonymous No.10151868]

>>10151570
The funny thing is that he seems to take the basic idea of dialectics itself for granted, using it as a foundational tool for his framework, but spends relatively little time explicitly justifying the idea of dialectics.

[Anonymous No.10151916]

>>10151868
>The funny thing is that he seems to take the basic idea of dialectics itself for granted, using it as a foundational tool for his framework

I think that is the case because he sees Kant as having already done the heavy lifting in showing the need for a critical approach in philosophy.

>but spends relatively little time explicitly justifying the idea of dialectics

He doesn't have a very organized account in Phenomenology, but goes pretty explicit in his Science of Logic, and his Encyclopedia.

[Anonymous No.10151998]

>>10151570
It's integrated into almost all of his writings form history to epistemology with varying success. Master-slave dialectic is best dialectics though, maybe my favourite thought ever

[Anonymous No.10153386]

>>10147214
more like
Thesis: bagine
Antithesis: benis
Synthesis: futa :DDD

[Anonymous No.10153390]

Thesis: dicks make traps gay
Antithesis: feminization makes traps not gay
Synthesis: fetishization of the feminine benis makes traps gay

[Anonymous No.10153442]

>>10151564
You make distinction on the basis of difference, the implication is what is not differentiated is the same

[Anonymous No.10153483]

>>10151998
Why?

[Anonymous No.10153706]

The dialectic of memes:
Thesis: Pedobear
Antithesis: Jonne
Synthesis: pedro bärä :DD

Thesis: Pedro bärä :DD
Antithesis: Pepe the scatological Frog
Synthesis: Spurdo Spärde :DDD

Thesis: Spurdo Spärde :DDD
Antithesis: Feels good man
Synthesis: Feels burdo bärde man :DDD

[Anonymous No.10153766]

>>10153706
Ei se mee aivan näin

[Anonymous No.10153774]

You take the two things such as nationalism (thesis), and internationalism (antithesis) and combine the best aspects of both (synthesis).

You basically try and take two extremes, because he believes in both extremes you could find something necessary, for nationalism it may be pride in ones country, and for internationalism it may be cooperation between countries, you try and strike a balance between the two extremes, taking the best parts and trying to reduce the negatives of the extremes and get the necessary positive aspects.

[Anonymous No.10153978]

>>10153774
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.10153999]

>>10151570
God, State and Country to the max fellow germ.... I mean prussians.

[Anonymous No.10154134]

>>10144170
Problem, Reaction, Solution.

The totalitarian tip toe.

[Anonymous No.10154254]

>>10146209
anamanaguchi*

[Anonymous No.10154430]

So how does he come up with a coherent thesis that is able to produce antithesis? When is a thesis not a set that has no antithesis, or how is the problem of locating antithesis from thesis not itself a process of synthesising the thesis into possible opposites? All these examples given so far are so simplistic and problematic. A bird is not a reference to an antithesis like the strong is to the weak, and the strong cannot have an antithesis of weak until it's made into a particular set of information that coheres with another particular set of information - which seems like white hat, black hate, hero/villain, type dumb. And I'm sure I'll need to read it to see otherwise, but if this is all that you people can give, it doesn't really impress me.

Is this a philosophy for anxious people trying to justify their conditions for systematic thoughts that they already had before they started philosophy?

>mfw you find out Hegal would have made neat boardgames with such overzealous rules and procedures, only a select few would be willing to play the game

[Anonymous No.10154439]

>>10154430
Bird is antithesis to not-Bird. That's how you differentiate bird.

[Anonymous No.10154445]

>>10144193
REESEES PEESEES

[Anonymous No.10154463]

>>10154439
Ok, so even at this level of abstraction, can you locate bird without locating the antithesis?

[Anonymous No.10154481]

>>10154463
No because the way you differentiate the bird is in the way other things are not bird. Differences of a determined thing are subjective and relative to every other thing

[Anonymous No.10154485]

>>10154439
Aren't you searching for duality, I mean? Rather than producing one from the other?

[Anonymous No.10154514]

>>10154485
there's no duality there's unity where thigns can be differentiated

t. spinoza t. hegel

[Anonymous No.10154519]

>>10154481
Exactly. So you can't have an accurate version of either the thesis or antithesis because you need both to be in perfect relation to the other, which is impossible. Non-bird has too much information within itself to be related to bird, except when you find the duality and dismiss the other criteria.

[Anonymous No.10154536]

>>10154514
Ah, ok. This is what my problem is then. Differentiated. The absolute One that corresponds perfectly to the absolute None.

[Anonymous No.10154542]

>>10144758
Social democracy has failed too. But somehow nobody talks about it like they do with muh communist boogeyman, and still advocate is as the ideal government.
Hmmm..... makes you think....

[Anonymous No.10154633]

>>10151443
I won't believe this story unless a source is provided. Hegel was such a nerd for Goethe that an evening like that sounds like his dream.

[Anonymous No.10154646]

>>10154536
Absolute Spirit responds to Absolute Spirit.

[Anonymous No.10154649]

>>10144295
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10154656]

>>10154430
>So how does he come up with a coherent thesis that is able to produce antithesis?

The thesis is posterior (though Hegel terms this phase as the moment of abstraction) to the concept, and is when from the concept something absolute and independent is posited.
Take for example the claim of the self/I/Ego as being absolute. The first claim which can be posited is that it is absolute - that solipsism is true and only I exist alongside the creations of my mind.
At this point, something which could be called antithetical arises, in that my mental creations which I would claim constitute the world are not under my control.
These are the opening moves of the master-slave dialectic which has something like five stages - which should patently show people who use the thesis/antithesis/synthesis explanation are wrongheaded.

Again, the formulation of synthesis, antithesis, and synthesis is never found within Hegel, or any of the German Idealists really (not even Fichte, as it is sometimes claimed) , and these things invoke language which is misleading about what Hegel is trying to describe. Hegel is not looking for opposites per se, but to verify whether something we claim to be independent and unconditioned is truly so. That the object of investigation is only
absolute if, and only if, at no point can we ever find a relation exterior to itself, and until then the dialectic would continue in theory.

>Is this a philosophy for anxious people trying to justify their conditions for systematic thoughts that they already had before they started philosophy?

In Hegel's case, certainly so. He had already worked out a lot of his metaphysical notions prior to fully developing the dialectic, but this is not to say he ignored Kantian critique, which he desired the dialectic to be a continuation of.

I just think the thing a lot of people do not take into account regarding the dialectic is that it is not set in stone, or that it cannot be revised in light of new evidence. Even though systematic thought, with few exceptions, is truly out of vogue now,
it doesn't seem problematic to myself as long as the capability of revision is there.

[Anonymous No.10154715]

>>10154656
>implying the three-step dialectic was never formulated by any German idealist
What exactly do you mean by a 'formulation'?
I can quote directly from Fichte's Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre (1974):
>Die Handlung, da man in Verglichenen das Merkmal aufsucht, worin sie entgegengesetzt sind, heißt das antithetische Verfahren [...]. Das synthetische Verfahren nämlich besteht darin, das man in Entgegengesetzen dasjenige Merkmal aufsuche, worin sie gleich sind.
>So wenig Antithesis ohne Synthesis, oder Synthese ohne Antithesis möglich ist; ebensowenig sind beide möglich ohne Thesis.
(Erster Teil, §3).

[Anonymous No.10154761]

>>10154715
As in, none of the German Idealists used it for conceptual analysis or in any manner that would resemble Hegel's dialectic.
Fichte's epistemology rested on the activity of the I consuming objects, and his employment of thesis-antithesis-synthesis was far more
limited and was not the means of knowledge acquisition.

[Anonymous No.10154833]

>>10154761
You're right about Hegel doing his own thing, but the three-step dialectic is still at the very core of Fichte's epistemology because the maxim with which he starts his analysis: 'The I is'/'I am' is itself a thesis. Fichte remains closer to Kant in that he only wanted to set up a groundwork for a 'science of knowing', with Fichte being more modest and mostly denying its eventual completion, whereas Hegel's project was more more expansive and (I would argue) messianic in nature.

[Anonymous No.10155023]

>>10144170
do any of you have /lit/-tier flow chart for reading hegel?
maybe including pre-hegel works by spinoza&kant and other philosophers.
thanks in advance, and may the absolute spirit be with you

[Anonymous No.10155032]

>>10155023
I personally got into Hegel with Kirkegaard's disertation on Socractes. That will fill you in with general Hegel knowledge and memes.

Also don't start with PoM/PoS or Logic. Start with either Philosophy of History or Philosophy of Rights, those are easy reads and concern already established subjects as History or Politics.

[Anonymous No.10155054]

>>10144295

Good lord, philosophy is the definition of irrelevant noise.

Are you telling me people study this shit? Why? Isn't the "Philosophy major working at Dairy Queen" joke well-known by now?

[Anonymous No.10155127]

>>10155023
>spinoza and Kant

Stick with the mystics. You'll get used to Hegel's style that way. Reading Hegel after Kant will just give you a big headache regarding their writing styles.

[Anonymous No.10155148]

>>10154445
Saying this out loud is cringy but
/thread

[Anonymous No.10156454]

>>10154656
Thanks.

Sounds like a man looking at the edge of some indeterminate abstraction, needing to know it widely enough that he doesn't have to put brackets around it and call it something like X.

>Are you the one I've been looking for?
>I am not one you will abide.

I think I'm still missing the reason this has so many people in thrall. I will give it a go someday I suppose.

[Anonymous No.10156559]

>>10144295
Dialectics is dyadic, not triadic. There is no synthesis in Hegel, he is looking at irreducible oppositions (what Kant called antinomies)

[Anonymous No.10156573]

>>10144758
I'm not trying to be a dick but...do the reading. I know you're from the US and have been brought up in a specific way that isnt conducive to this kind of stuff but youre just so far from understanding anything itd be a waste of time to tell you anything specific.

[A.W. No.10156960]

>>10154656
It's very rare to see someone grasp Hegel on this very well. Whoever you are, hats off to you.

>>10156454
It's for autists who will settle for nothing less than the absolute truth.

[Anonymous No.10157003]

>>10155023
Hegel can be started with Science of Logic or with Phenomenology of Spirit. He is a viable starting with philosophy in general.

[Anonymous No.10157204]

>>10144170
I believe that the dialectic is much simpler if understood from the point of view of the british empiricist tradition, and it's mystifications purged.

It isn't so much that (i.e) Heliocentrism as a concept in it's conception required something to which it could be opposed and that in continuing to exist it needs to exist as that which opposes itself to geocentrism, because if so, no fully new idea could be conceived, and astrology would have no origin (in fact all radically new ideas wouldn't exist, since they never oppose something prior, they're ex nihillo due to this radicality) What I believe would be an interesting reinterpretation would be to say the following:

In order for a concept A to be verified, variations of the idea of this concept must be tested. These variations are not the same idea but claim to represent the same object, making them contradictory. In Hegelian terms, this would be an inversion, in which you start with Thesis only to create Antithesis to verify the original Thesis into a Synthesis were concept A stands at the center and all its variations function as falsifications of opposite truth values related to the concept. This can also be done backwards, as well as backwards and forwards. Or in any order of refuted ideas.

[Anonymous No.10157218]

>>10157204
Gehel isn't mystic at all though. He is just in an abstract level of thought, as metaphysics is.

Something like Evola is mystic.

Maybe that's me I guess.

[Anonymous No.10157220]

>>10157204
As actual proof, the outer space exposed to sun rays without any blockage from atmosphere is really extremely cold to approximately 3ºK (-273ºC), water freezes approximately at 4ºC. Why is it not then extremely hot, since when sun is resplendent, in summer for instance, and there are no clouds is hot outdoors? Heat iscaused by a thermal reaction between sun rays and the electromagnetic planetary aura, the Van Allen lines or the morphogenetic fields of matter as taught in ancient arcane wisdom and in the book Telos.

[Anonymous No.10157228]

>>10157220
I just want to remind everyone that this isn't me lole

stop fakefagging pls

[Anonymous No.10157269]

>>10144170
Spooks reproduce like bacteria

[Anonymous No.10157426]

>>10144170
Don't bother. Hegel is an intellectual dumbass. Save yourself the trouble and read some Ayn Rand, she BTFO's Hegel

[Anonymous No.10157452]

>>10157426
>Rand

[Anonymous No.10157489]

>>10157452
Jews are the smartest and most successful race. Take notes goy.

[Anonymous No.10158564]

>>10157426
Why are Aristotelians so cruel to their fellows