[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 181 KB, 452x572, Hegel_portrait_by_Schlesinger_1831.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5599522 No.5599522 [Reply] [Original]

Do you believe in the dialectic?


I never used to but lately I've understood its narrative

>> No.5599527
File: 82 KB, 452x579, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5599527

It's dogma.
http://brahmsiano.wdfiles.com/local--files/prueba-archivos/dialéctica.pdf

>> No.5599528

Do you mean Hegel's, or dialectic altogether?

>> No.5599534

>>5599527


So is logical positivism.

Now fuck off Popper.

>> No.5599545

>>5599534
Popper was opposed to logical positivism

>> No.5599546

>>5599522
Negative dialectics, sure.

>> No.5599648

>>5599534
But the dialectic is the most dogmatic concept in philosophy

>> No.5599650

>>5599546
Fuck off Adorno.

>> No.5599652

>>5599534

>Logical positivism
>Popper

Topkek

>> No.5599673

Do you believe in miracles?

>> No.5599708

>>5599648
Well if something is objectively true for the human experience, then it's sorta dogmatic in a way, I guess.

>> No.5599720

>>5599522

Not in Hegel's excessive incarnation.

The only true dialectic is found with Plato and the ancient greeks. Thesis - antitheses - synthesis, dialectic as true philosophical method as opposed to rhetoric.

>> No.5599949

>>5599708
>objective truth
Lol?

>> No.5599955

>>5599522
>Do you believe in the dialectic?
>believer

>lately I've understood its narrative
>narrative

9/10 if troll. Very subtle; managed to rustle my jimmies.

"Quit philosophy forever" out of "10" if not troll.

>> No.5599957

>>5599955
>believer
typo, meant:
>believe

>> No.5599959
File: 85 KB, 775x828, Imagen 11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5599959

>> No.5600052

I think I'm Hegel's ghost

>> No.5600427

>>5599708
How is the dialectic objectively true?

>> No.5600439

Do you believe in ping-pong?


I never used to but lately I've understood its paddles

>> No.5600441

>>5600439
Ping-pong is actually a perfect example of a dialectic

>> No.5600572

>>5599522
It's a useful concept to use when looking at history in many cases, but not in all cases. You don't have to "believe in the dialectic" or not to realize this.

>> No.5600746
File: 25 KB, 500x320, 1392282034232.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5600746

Can anyone explain 'dialectics' to me? I've never read Hegel or the Frankfurt School and I really struggle to understand the concept.

>> No.5600757

>>5600746

seconding this

put it in retard layman terms pls have not read any hegel

>> No.5601093
File: 12 KB, 381x371, c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5601093

come on /lit/

>> No.5601100

>>5600746
>>5600757
History progresses through opposing forces. Some philosophers see the opposing forces as ideas, some see them as physical groups of people, doesn't really matter, it's dialectical either way. The idea is that conflict between these two forces (thesis and antithesis) is resolved, producing synthesis, and also producing a new antithesis (a new opposing group) that sets itself in opposition to the new normal produced by the resolution.

So there is always a status quo (thesis) and always an opposition to that status quo (antithesis) and once the ideas of the opposition have been absorbed into the new status quo, there will be another new opposition, etc.

>> No.5601177

>>5600746
If you really want to understand it you should just read Hegel's Logic, it's pretty simple stuff.

>> No.5601217

An important part of the dialectic is the place of consciousness within it.
Some (Omnisexual Tyrannosaurus, Hegel himself) claim that the dialectic can be used to understand any aspect of human experience, largely because it's based on seeming truisms. Our experience of our world shapes our thoughts, and our thoughts shape the experiences (or the way we interpret them, rather, which is vital) we have of our world. There is the thesis, the conscious being, or rather its abstract thoughts about its world; the antithesis, the concrete things in the world from which the conscious being is separated; and the synthesis, the growth of the individual through the mediation of the concrete and the abstract.
Consider the dialectic Hegel presents in the Phenomenology of the master and bondsman, or master and slave, depending on your translation. A slave is a slave in both his own eyes and the eyes of his master. If/when the slave manages to earn or buy his freedom, he ceases to be a slave, but he is still himself. The transition from slave to free man is not in fact any real transition. Nothing in the essence of the man who was a slave and is now free changes. All that has changed is the situation he finds himself in: he is no longer in bondage to the man he once thought of as his master, but who is now his equal, both being free men.
In this dialectic, the thesis is the notion of the slave; the antithesis is the notion of the free man; the synthesis is the transition of the slave to freedom.
This is essentially the path Hegel says history takes. In Philosophy of History, he argues that history is governed by Reason, and it is progressing toward the universal realization of freedom, which he holds to be the highest good. His concept of freedom is rather complex, but it amounts to the freedom to become the being one wants, which (according to him) is only fully realizable within the State, the spiritual embodiment of the will of a people.

>> No.5601353

>>5601217
faggot

>> No.5602884

>>5601100
Dude whenever I read this I just have no idea in what terms to think. Can you give an example or two?

Was the Cold War an example of this?

>> No.5602912

>>5599522

Understanding something, isn't essentially contradictory to believing blindly in it?

>> No.5603285

>>5601217
you'll have to slow down boy, i can't hold all this continentalism

>> No.5603296

>>5601217

You're trying too hard.

>> No.5603947

>>5602884
Sure, you can do it with the Cold War. A dialectical way to look at the Cold War:

You have the capitalist west (thesis) and the nominally communist USSR and China springs up in opposition to it (antithesis). To combat the possible threat of communism at home, the US and other western capitalist democracies give labor unions more power and increase the size of the welfare state, so after the USSR falls you have strong-welfare-state capitalism as the dominant mode of government in the developed world (synthesis).

But strong-welfare-state capitalism (now the thesis) is disliked by the economic elite the world over, who push for more free markets in the wake of the Communist collapses (neoliberalism, the antithesis). We're probably somewhere in the middle of this dialectic now, and it's not clear how it will synthesize.

Ultimately, it's a simplifying tool to help you understand how historical forces work, not a dogma that is fully correct or incorrect all the time.

>> No.5603992

>>5603947
completely historically innacurate, the attack on the welfare state of which you speak started in the 1970s, well before the ruling class could have predicted the collapse of the soviet union

if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and while dialectical analysis might sound plausable when applied to a lot of things, if you press it it is either a truism or false.

>> No.5604005

>>5603992
I don't know, I wasn't really trying to claim that was a super accurate bit of historical analysis, just that it was a dialectical way of simplifying the Cold War to look at it.

>> No.5604015

>>5604005
and i wasn't necessarily attacking anything you said, just trying to point out that ive yet to see a reason why dialectics aren't dumb

>> No.5604040

>>5604015
Fair enough