/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16678515]

I’ve seen people make fun of this reading if Hegel’s dialectic. Is it really wrong?

[Anonymous No.16678520]

>>16678515
Looks good to me but would be better if formalized

[Anonymous No.16678527]

Yes. It is tangential maybe to hegel but its still a nice idea. I cant remember how hegel put it but he said it better. I imagine thesis as space, antithesis as the negative slace of that space, and synthesis as all possible space. The picture you have is like a clunky analog

[Anonymous No.16678534]

>>16678515
Wtf I don't have to read Hegel now

[Anonymous No.16678533]

Is it a synthesis if one side just completely wins out?
E.g.
>thesis: slavery is good for slaves
>antithesis: slavery is inherently wrong and should be banned
>synthesis: slavery is inherently wrong and should be banned
Because that's how a lot of things seem to play out historically

[Anonymous No.16678535]

>>16678527
I realize how i put it is just as clunky but this is a stupid message board and these analagies are required for brevity

[Anonymous No.16678540]

This implies the antithesis is external when generally it is the internal contradictions of a thing that lead to the creation of its higher form.

[Anonymous No.16678543]

>>16678540
Yes agree here

[Anonymous No.16678593]

It's funny because they are making fun of it as "the pedestrian understanding of Hegel lmao" but they are doing this as part of a pedestrian's understanding of how to show you aren't a pedestrian at understanding Hegel. Just like the 0th-level pedestrian has assimilated "ah I see, it's like there's a thesis, an antithesis, and then a synthesis!" from seeing it memed online, the "LMAO THAT'S FICHTE NOT HEGEL FICHTE NOT HEGEL IT'S FICHTE NOT HEGEL LMAO YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HEGEL" 1th-level pedestrian is spewing something he heard online. He thinks he is overcoming the pedestrian by negating him, but ironically it is a false negation. In fact "1th-level pedestrian" is not accurate, it would be more accurate to say that the "LMAO THAT'S FICHTE THAT'S A PLEB SIMPLIFICATION OF HEGEL" guy is simply pedestrianness cubed. He is even more of a pathetic pleb than the guy who is simply trying to find his way in Hegel and, who is unpretentiously willing to begin at the beginning.

He's not even correct about the "THAT'S FICHTE LOL" part. None of these people have read Fichte, and if they read Hegel, it was forcing themselves through part of the Phenomenology of Spirit out of shame, after using a smartphone case with it printed on the outside for a year, and failing miserably.

[Anonymous No.16678605]

>>16678593
Yea but its like this ad infinitum like derrida saying you have to read the greeks in the original greek or you are doomed to misinterpret. So its all just gatekeeping cope.

[Anonymous No.16678634]

>>16678515
Can someone just copy paste something Hegel wrote about this

[Anonymous No.16678725]

>>16678634
He didn't. Not in this format. I have his books in portuguese so it would be a hassle to translate it

[Anonymous No.16678762]

>>16678634
Section 81 and the page following it, in his Encyclopedia:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/sl_vi.htm

"In the Dialectical stage these finite characterisations or formulae supersede themselves, and pass into their opposites.

(1)But when the Dialectical principle is employed by the understanding separately and independently — especially as seen in its application to philosophical theories — Dialectic becomes Scepticism; in which the result that ensues from its action is presented as a mere negation.

(2)It is customary to treat Dialectic as an adventitious art, which for very wantonness introduces confusion and a mere semblance of contradiction into definite notions. And in that light, the semblance is the nonentity, while the true reality is supposed to belong to the original dicta of understanding. Often, indeed, Dialectic is nothing more than a subjective seesaw of argumentsproandcon, where the absence of sterling thought is disguised by the subtlety which gives birth to such arguments. But in its true and proper character, Dialectic is the very nature and essence of everything predicated by mere understanding — the law of things and of the finite as a whole. Dialectic is different from ‘Reflection’. In the first instance, Reflection is that movement out beyond the isolated predicate of a thing which gives it some reference, and brings out its relativity, while still in other respects leaving it its isolated validity. But by Dialectic is meant the indwelling tendency outwards by which the one-sidedness and limitation of the predicates of understanding is seen in its true light, and shown to be the negation of them. For anything to be finite is just to suppress itself and put itself aside. Thus understood the Dialectical principle constitutes the life and soul of scientific progress, the dynamic which alone gives immanent connection and necessity to the body of science; and, in a word, is seen to constitute the real and true, as opposed to the external, exaltation above the finite."

[Anonymous No.16678766]

>>16678725
Well in whatever format he did write about it, you can just open an English pdf and find the corresponding section, I do this all the time when looking between languages at texts. I just want to know what he actually said about this concept

[Anonymous No.16678794]

>>16678762
The example he gives follows this, Pure Being-Nothing-Becoming into Determinate Being.

[Anonymous No.16678799]

>>16678762
>the indwelling tendency outwards by which the one-sidedness and limitation of the predicates of understanding is seen in its true light, and shown to be the negation of them.
So there is an implication of one-sidedness and limitation in any statement, and this implication negates the statement itself?
>For anything to be finite is just to suppress itself and put itself aside.
I can see how the concept of being finite implies a greater whole, but where does this lead to, a total everythingness of thought?

[Anonymous No.16678827]

>>16678593
Based, T,A,S is abstract but its certainly not way off base

[Anonymous No.16678978]

>>16678533
If you out it that way instead of
>Slavery is good
>Slavery is bad
>Outlaw slavery but pay people subsistence wages whereby they provide their own housing, and are nominally free to choose their own mate and to travel but not practically.

The odd slave in former times because liberated and was able to live as a citizen, perhaps even a wealthy one if they were especially lucky or adept. Count those as the modern day 'entrepreneurs' who might jump a few classes into wealth and influence, etc.

[Anonymous No.16678981]

>>16678978
>because liberated

Became liberated...

[Anonymous No.16679557]

>>16678515
%100 accurate

[Anonymous No.16679657]

>>16678978
Makes sense. So basically you're saying that while the abolitionist side "won," we can't just look at the fact that they got their political goal through and upheaved the system but must also see what came to replace it and how what replaced it actually had some resemblance to the "thesis" prior.

[Anonymous No.16679832]

hegel had aversion to all diagrams

[Anonymous No.16679904]

>>16678634
Paragraph 50 of the phenomenology

[Anonymous No.16679957]

>>16678515
This

[Anonymous No.16679980]

>>16679957
>>16678593

[Anonymous No.16680008]

I'Ve seen people make fun of Hegel's analysis of electricity. is it really wrong?

>Electricity is the purpose of the form from which it emancipates itself, it is the form that is just about to overcome its own indifference; for, electricity is the immediate emergence, or the actuality just emerging, from the proximity of the form, and still determined by it - not yet the dissolution, however, of the form itself, but rather the more superficial process by which the differences desert the form which, however, they still retain, as their condition, having not yet grown into independence of and through them.'

[Anonymous No.16680140]

>>16678533
>Shitposting is a waste of time
>Shitposting is fun
>Having fun is a waste of time
Is it possible to refute this?

[Anonymous No.16680179]

It's about the negation of a concept, which is internal to concept, negating itself, or, it becomes the negation of negation. Concept and negation cannot be reduced to one another which is why there exists a movement to be overcome (sublation).

I remember a thread here talking about Hegel's dialectic written as a formula. You can't write A + B = C, it's more like C - C(n) = C + -(C(n)), or even more specifically (C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) < C + ((C - C(n) = C + -(C(n))) + -(C - C(n) = C + -(C(n)))), but it's still not it.

[Anonymous No.16680466]

>>16678978
You are trying to fit reality to your schizophrenic idea, an anon said once that Hegel didn't even talk about thesis, antitheses and synthesis, this comes from secondary literature on Pheno. Of Spirit I'm high on coffee listening to crazy Hideto Kanai Ode to the Birds Jazz

[Anonymous No.16680529]

Yes, it's wrong.

Sublation isn't a "synthesis", it's a double negation, which is not the same thing.

[Anonymous No.16680617]

Hegel doesn't actually use that model and even criticizes Kants Triad. Its simply just to help people who know nothing at all about Hegel understand vaguely what is about. Ive seen people just put whatever variables they want into thesis and antithesis but that isn't how it works.

"Now that the triad, adopted in the system of Kant – a method rediscovered, to begin with, by instinctive insight, but left lifeless and uncomprehended – has been raised to its significance as an absolute method, true form is thereby set up in its true content, and the conception of science has come to light. But the use this form has been put to in certain quarters has no right to the name of science. For we see it there reduced to a lifeless schema, to nothing better than a mere shadow, and scientific organization to a synoptic table. This formalism – about which we spoke before in general terms, and whose procedure we wish here to state more fully – thinks it has comprehended and expressed the nature and life of a given form when it proclaims a determination of the schema to be its predicate. The predicate may be subjectivity or objectivity, or again magnetism, electricity, and so on, contraction or expansion, East or West, and such like – a form of predication that can be multiplied indefinitely, because according to this way of working each determination, each mode, can be applied as a form or schematic element in the case of every other, and each will thankfully perform the same service for any other. With a circle of reciprocities of this sort it is impossible to make out what the real fact in question is, or what the one or the other is. We find there sometimes constituents of sense picked up from ordinary intuition, determinate elements which to be sure should mean something else than they say; at other times what is inherently significant, viz. pure determinations of thought – like subject, object, substance, cause, universality, etc. – these are applied just as uncritically and unreflectingly as in every-day life, are used much as people employ the terms strong and weak, expansion and contraction. As a result that type of metaphysics is as unscientific as those ideas of sense."

[Anonymous No.16680631]

>>16679980
Retarded negroid assuming your own preconceived idea is true and trying to rework everything into it.

[Anonymous No.16682021]

>>16678515
To read hegel will i need to read basically every major philosophical work prior to him?

[Anonymous No.16682105]

>>16678515
makes it look like the antithesis is summoned ex nihilo

[Anonymous No.16682113]

>>16680140
>Having fun is a waste of time
>Having fun is not a waste of time
>Sometimes having fun is not a waste of time

[Anonymous No.16682366]

BUMP

[Anonymous No.16682383]

>>16682021
To get a fuller picture sure but you don't have to. Read his lectures on the history of philosophy

[Anonymous No.16682422]

>>16680140
>Shitposting is a fun waste of time
is the more appropriate synthesis

[Anonymous No.16682614]

>>16678527
It was more like abstract/negative/concrete. The concrete isn't just an even synthesis of the abstract and negative, rather the negative is a shit-test for the abstract which modulates it and brings closer to something concrete.

[Anonymous No.16682641]

>>16679657
>but must also see what came to replace it and how what replaced it actually had some resemblance to the "thesis" prior
yes

[Anonymous No.16682650]

>>16680179
Its like a matrix operation.

[Anonymous No.16683392]

>>16678515
Its wrong because it implies "two unite into one" rather than "one divides into two". The "synthesis" isn't just a combination of the thesis and anti-thesis.

[Anonymous No.16684681]

bump

[Anonymous No.16684702]

Baseless metaphysics. If you're feeling superstitious, go to a casino.

[Anonymous No.16684837]

>>16678515
Something like that notion of dialectic is used both by Kant and Fichte, Hegel uses a different terminology but it’s essentially a similar three step process.

I would disagree with how that diagram shows it though. The core idea is that the ‘antithesis’ is generated as the reaction to the thesis, and the “synthesis” step subsumed both the previous stages and then becomes a thesis for a higher level, which in turn generates its own antithesis.

Hegel idea was more like ‘abstraction -> negation -> concretization’. “Sublation” is the term hegel would use most often in taking about a concept subsuming the contradiction of lower concepts.

For the most part Hegel is talking about really abstract metaphysical concepts. Most famously ‘being’ as the abstract, which generates ‘nothingness’ as it’s negative, and leads us to ‘becoming’ as the ‘negation of the negation’.


The example of slavery >>16678533 is more the domain of the Marxian ‘materialist’ dialectic, where we talk about the contradictions between material forces as driving forth changes in history. >>16678978 is closer to being correct here. The contradiction between the interests of master and slave are overcome in the form of primitive capitalist relations which took hold in the south after the absolution of slavery. The sharecropping system had new contradictions, between owner and sharecropper, which in turn let to its own abolition.

The Marxian dialectic also allows for more than one simultaneous ‘contradiction’ because it’s talking about real life forces, rather than strictly the relationships between concepts. So they would also discuss the contradiction between the economic formation of slavery with the capitalist formation of the northern states, as well as the contradiction between the United States and other countries on the world market, just two name two others.

[Anonymous No.16684848]

>>16684702
>Baseless metaphysics
Nice oxymoron, anon.

[Anonymous No.16684853]

>>16678534
Yes start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.16684932]

>>16678515
yes obviously

[Anonymous No.16685256]

I made a mistake
I'm not gonna do it all over again

[Anonymous No.16685363]

>>16682113
>Sometimes having fun is not a waste of time
>Sometimes I wipe my ass after shitting
>Wiping my ass after having fun is a waste of time

[Anonymous No.16685553]

>>16678515
Perfectly correct image, those who disagree just got confused by hegel's words.

[Anonymous No.16685557]

>>16685256

[Anonymous No.16685561]

>>16685557
Uhhh, based alert?

[Anonymous No.16685582]

>>16685256
umm can someone make a Wikipedia article for this please :)