Explain Hegelian dialectics as concisely and precisely as possible in a way that can be comprehended even to someone...

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.

Other urls found in this thread:

empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/
youtube.com/watch?v=NyeTaXv6o4Y
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Reese's + Pieces = Delicious

/thread

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.

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.

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

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

to become, you need to go from nothing to being

empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

thesis: thesis
antithesis: antithesis
synthesis

Good post.

>Good post.

seconded, much appreciated

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.

frog is cool

I smirked

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.

thanks senpaitachi

Speak English, Doc! We ain't scientists.

Sounds like reverse-engineered Gnosis.

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

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

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

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

/mu/fag

Veeky Forumsfag

/hm/fag/fag

/d/fag

>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.

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

Play Fallout new vegas

what did marx do with it?

youtube.com/watch?v=NyeTaXv6o4Y

im actually a Veeky Forumsggot not /hm/

What's the difference desu

/hm/uongrindr fags have naked gay sex, Veeky Forumsgs have gay sex while wearing all their clothes
It's pretty awkward

>thesis-antithesis-synthesis
caesar confirmed for dumbass

What are Negative Dialectics?

and Trialectics?

>2017
>not subscribing to hexalectics

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

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

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.

What does Hegel think of ending the nightmare?

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

Interpreting history as dialectics.

It is the Absolute, the Mind (Spirit)

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

>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

>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.

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.
Spirit is the divine Idea. I suppose you could call it the mind of God.
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.

>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.

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

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.

thanks.

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

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

Alchemy.

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

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

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).

>gritty Realpolitiker bluecollar cigs n coffee man

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

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

>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.

what?

But there ain't a thing come from nothingness bro

Why does this all seem vaguely Spinozian to me?

gee, i wonder

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

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

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

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"

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

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.

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.

Thesis: Spinoza
Antithesis: Kant
Synthesis: Hegel

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

expand upon this

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

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

maybe that's the only bit that matters

Death.

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

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

That's fichte

...

Read Capital

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.

>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.

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

Ei se mee aivan näin

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.