/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21020319]

Can someone explain to me what the fuck is the dialectics?

[Anonymous No.21020337]

>>21020319
In trying to know an object as it is in itself, we know the object as it is for us, but in knowing the object as it is for us, we don't know the object as it is in itself, but instead change both the type of knowledge and the object in itself in order for an object to be known absolutely or closer to it. The only object in itself is the final sublation of the object being progressively understood through different concepts, where concept finally equals object. Ultimately it's gibberish but this is the basic idea which you can get from reading the preface and introduction.

[Anonymous No.21020348]

>>21020337
Can someone explain to me what the fuck this post is?

[Anonymous No.21020349]

>>21020337
Thank you anon

[Anonymous No.21020350]

>>21020319

Dialectics is difficult to understand only because it's our default way of understanding the world, whereas that wasn't the case in Hegel's time. You need to remember that most 18th century science and metaphysics was based on the idea of a static, mechanistic universe that was unchanging objects acting on other unchanging objects in clear chains of cause and effect. More often than not it was the result of looking at things in isolation.

Hegel's dialectics is, to put it simply:

1. The idea that everything is in a state of constant change, closer to organic growth than mechanical cause and effect.

2. That things can only be understood as part of a whole, reaching higher and higher levels of wholeness until you reach the absolute. At the same time, however, those wholes are more than just the sum of their parts, and in a way predate their components. For instance, a human being is comprised of cells, but is also a whole that predates those cells.

That's Beiser's POV anyway. There seem to be as many interpretations of Hegel as there are Hegel scholars.

[Anonymous No.21020364]

>>21020350
Thanks to you too anon.

[Anonymous No.21020365]

>>21020319
dialectics is the ancient debate custom: dia lechites of the leccites, the pre-yakubian master race of europe, from whom the polish people largely descend.
hegel read their metaphysical engravings in the orbits of the planets, which he studied for his dissertation, and "developed", essentially copied his philosophy from the body of their wisdom.

[Anonymous No.21020398]

>>21020364

It's also worth keeping in mind with Hegel and other German Idealist philosophers that they have a different idea of the relationship between the subjective and objective than what we do today. For them the subjective and objective worlds are of equal importance, as one of the central questions of their project was how to reunite the subjective experience with the objective world after Descartes and Kant had succeeded in severing the two.

[Anonymous No.21020413]

>>21020319
That's how a brother be speaking different from a other

[Anonymous No.21020416]

>>21020398
Is it then "the key to idealism"? I can't imagine materialistic dialectics.

[Anonymous No.21020422]

>>21020413
lol

[Anonymous No.21020430]

>>21020337

[Anonymous No.21020451]

dialetics is when you dont think it be like it is but it do

[Anonymous No.21020457]

>>21020430
That quote is already refuted by Hegel in the preface. Any knowledge which doesn't require effort to attain isn't philosophical knowledge.

[Anonymous No.21020543]

>>21020457

[Anonymous No.21020569]

>>21020457
Einstein is talking about the ability to explain it to someone. Proving it through arguments in text is another matter though. But regardless hegel isn't someone you can just jump into anyway, and someone who has read philosophy before him is going to understand it much quicker.

[Anonymous No.21020662]

>>21020350
>The idea that everything is in a state of constant change
Both organicism and mechanism fulfil this criterion, anon, in different ways.

[Anonymous No.21020695]

>>21020337
So you've just started Hegel and made it to the second chapter, of which you have just summarized a part.

The crazy stuff is afterwards though. Force and the understanding and self consciousness are a lot better to represent here

[Anonymous No.21020765]

>>21020695
I told you in the post I summarized the preface, the preface gives you an overview of the entire project. All of the further chapters of the PdG are an elaboration on the principle.

[Anonymous No.21020892]

>>21020765
Look, I'm not going to be a dick about it, but I don't think that improves your position. The distinction you're making here is between an overview and a subset of an overview. And it misses a major essence of Hegel.

I haven't finished the phenomenology. But we both more or less know that Hegel's philosophy here is explicitly about the actualization of consciousness and self consciousness. The way the object comes to be for us is a preliminary stage to this, and a very early one, if I understand it correctly.

Look at what you said too:
>In trying to know an object as it is in itself, we know the object as it is for us, but in knowing the object as it is for us, we don't know the object as it is in itself, but instead change both the type of knowledge and the object in itself in order for an object to be known absolutely or closer to it.
You've just stated the issue: We don't know the object in itself, it exists "for us" as we apprehend it. This leaves us in a mere Kantian state.

But this is the answer you provide:
>The only object in itself is the final sublation of the object being progressively understood through different concepts, where concept finally equals object.
All you've stated here is that we get the object in itself by understanding it through different concepts. Is this not extremely simplistic? Thus stated, the process is not distinguishable from merely turning an object over in your hand, or considering it from an artistic and religious perspective.

Does this take us to an object in itself? No. And what we're after isn't so much the encounter of the object, it's the encounter of consciousness within itself. Already I feel myself straying into potentially misleading language, not having a confident enough grasp on Hegel's ultimate conclusion. But I don't think you've effectively summarized Hegel. The greater issue is self consciousness. His explanation of the process of apprehending objects is just a step towards a further elaborated case which explicates consciousness itself.

[Anonymous No.21020961]

>>21020337
fpbp

[Anonymous No.21020988]

Don't bother with Hegel, he causes brain rot unironically. If you like reading things that have a lot of jargon and give off an air of profoundness then but lack anything of substance then read him.

[Anonymous No.21020999]

>>21020892
>You've just stated the issue: We don't know the object in itself,
Read my post again and then read the preface if you still don't get it. I'm not going to spoon feed you any more because frankly I do not care that much.
> Is this not extremely simplistic?
Of course it is, it is a two sentence summary of the purpose of the work. Read the preface if you want more. OP asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer with followup readings.

[Anonymous No.21021015]

>>21020892
The other thing is, if you were not aware of this, concept and object are equivalent terminology to subject and substance (in the preface Hegel uses the former terms though). You should know that subject = substance is a common enough summarization of his entire philosophy, in that it is not sufficient in itself but not wrong either. In simplistic terms again, it means the goal of philosophy is to make subject (concept = Begriff) substantial, to provide it with content, which is the process of attaining absolute knowing. This is why he considers the process of knowing equally as essential as the end result. The concept itself evolves through this process, just as the object does, hence the use of "concepts", not in the sense of just examining different concepts and figuring out the right one.