Examples: >I should probably just make a pasta about this at this point, Athism is a mix of marxism, nihilism, and Christianity and all bundled into one core idealogy which focuses its worship around the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic and solipsism, in which solipsism is selectively used to deny certain syllogisms and observable phenomena in the environment. Most athiest are Christians at heart, they have the same moral structures, beliefs, and carry themselves in the manner of heretical but still highly obvious Christians. lrn2 ontology >He who controls the Hegelian dialectic controls the world. >They are using global warming/climate change as a way to further their globalist agenda to establish a single planetary government. Remember: Global 'problems' require global 'solutions'. This is the Hegelian dialectic on a global scale. Not only do they want a single planetary government, but they also want to DE-INDUSTRIALISE THE WORLD via their global warming/climate change SCAM. Don't fall for it >Neocohens aren't a new phenomenon. You're just waking up. Jews hve been playing the Hegelian dialectic forever. >Bear in mind that the Hegelian Dialectic is another old and consistently effective page from the playbook. This same Chicago crowd also practices the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine; after sufficient chaos is created, then there is moral justification for militaristic forces to come in and stomp out the chaos in order to restore order: the new world order. >I'd just point out that the most ''''conoservative'''' jews I know also happen to be the most neocon--Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris, for instance are super zionists in their own ways. Compare them to the ''''liberals'''' like Chomsky whose job it appears to be to break down other western societies in a Hegelian dialectic--good cop, bad cop tandem as you say
There are thousands of these posts Are they essentially right? Was Hegel really a Jewish invention? What is this nonsense all about?
(this isn't bait, I genuinely want to know what they mean. I haven't studied Hegel all that closely, but this particular aspect escaped me. Please explain if you're from there)
Luis Jones
More: >The beleif that everything is a complete accident of chemestry and everyone is a soulless machine driven by chemical interactions is an example the duality I speak of. Likewise people who become so fully immersed in religon that they beleive in God's predetermined plan for them. It's the same duality that has been created in people to control the way they react. Hegelian dialectic is a very basic form social engineering and there are much more subtle and advanced methods >The World has echoes of the Hegelian Dialectic. The Illuminati NWO as the pyramid, and some other on the left, clearly being both controlled by some third party. Perhaps this has been rearranged from the Illuminati being in the obvious middle, to show their possible back-up plan, The Mask, acting like they were not the center. >Hegelian dialectic is literally cultural marxism. > It's called the Hegelian dialectic. Create a scenario, sow seeds of ideologies, and divide and conquer. As of now it's Pizzagate conspiracy nuts vs. your average bluepill drone, and they're trying to push that divide >The Jew's are another Hegelian dialectic. >I'd rather not be a pawn and get dragged into some Hegelian Dialectic race war bullshit which (((they))) are so clearly orchestrating. >Until you realize they are the sole force behind the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, and soon to be WWIII. They are misguided fools—but they are tremendously powerful. They believe in achieving one world government through Hegelian Dialectic, which in short is—create so much conflict that the pain of separation exceeds the pain of unity. >This is the hegelian dialectic, Judea's most powerful and efficient weapon. A weapon that plays on the insecurities and fear of the masses that are too afraid or lazy to band together and fight. >Talk about advance Jewish mind control (aka Hegelian Dialectic) >Hegelian dialectic is simple. Create a problem, with the solution ready to go when people are desperate.
Cameron Price
It's all memes based on Fallout New Vegas. Also pic related, only read your subject field.
Aaron Morris
>Hegel is a Jewish conspiracy The absolute state of /pol/
Brandon Wilson
>look it up >it's real >/pol/fedoras are taking a character in a video game who deliberately misuses a term at his literal word and uses it in their nonsensical babble about der joos
Brody Nelson
What is this about? I know nothing about video games
Henry Powell
I didn't read them all but I only counted one that used the term 'dialectic' in a sentence correctly but they still didn't know what they are talking about. If you want to know about the Hegelian dialectic then just read Hegel's fucking dialectic, it's not difficult to grasp and it's a good eye-opener to the fact that /pol/ doesn't have a clue about what they're talking about.
In a nutshell, Hegel states that in a world of free beings who express their freedom upon said world, said free beings will group together and these groups will inevitably try to "inflict their freedom" upon each other by way of war. so if I'm in a room and you're in there with me we can either be friends and do what ever we want or I'm gonna do what I want at your expense and defeat you or vice versa. So after groups 1 and 2 duke it out, one wins and the other loses; one becomes master and one becomes slave. That's not really his original philosophy, that's just an observation of life. So the actual dialectic part is the master/slave dynamic. A master finds value and is validated by his status; he is judged by his 'self'. A slave, who does all the master's work, finds value in the quality of his work, the product of his hands, the needs he fulfills. Therefore in a master/slave dynamic the master is truly a slave bc his value is measured by his Self and he is found despicable for enslaving other men who despise him. The slave is the master because he controls the means of survival, the means of production, and is measured by the work of his hands. You can see why Marx was into this idea. But it's just a philosophy. You can't "control" the hegelian dialectic, it's not a "page from a playbook", it's not Jewish mind control, it's just a perspective. It's philosophy, it doesn't "do" anything.
Luke Torres
>You can't "control" the hegelian dialectic >it's not Jewish mind control
Spotted the liberal
Aaron Butler
please stop posting stupid shit
Matthew Young
this
Isaiah Ortiz
>muh Jews
/pol/ is so retarded. They act as if Jews are super human mind controllers who's every action is meant to control the world. It makes no sense at all.
Michael Hall
Not an argument, sweethearts
Daniel Torres
Your /pol/ memes aren't either. Stop acting like you've been chosen to enlighten us.
Ian Brown
Tf did I just read
Brandon Young
...
John Collins
Is it from this?
Cooper Davis
Yes, that is a screenshot of it.
Carter Anderson
"Hegelian dialectic" as a term in this context has been used by right wing conspiracy theorists going way back, you can find John Birchers using it in the 60s already. Its one of the super secret powers known only to the inner elite of the "illuminati" and other top secret societies, the idea is once you learn Hegels dialectic it allows you to create two opposing forces to fight it out as an optical illusion to distract everyone while you really control things behind the scenes or something like that. The genealogy of all these tinfoil ideas is actually pretty funny if you can trace them back to their nuclei.
Jaxson Rivera
It's called 'redpill'
Kayden Sanders
What is the best secondary literature about Hegel? I'm currenetly reading Pickard and I enjoy him.
Ayden Foster
Wrong explanation unless you can site a source from POS for ". Therefore in a master/slave dynamic the master is truly a slave bc his value is measured by his Self and he is found despicable for enslaving other men who despise him. The slave is the master because he controls the means of survival, the means of production, and is measured by the work of his hands."
Jason Moore
This is exasperating to read.
Most basically, the dialectic is nothing beyond the investigation of the movements of a concept. While not a fully accurate analogy, to say someone can control the dialectic is the same as to say we control what we see through a microscope. This misunderstanding is so fundamental, it is difficult to offer any critique. I think the issue should be obvious when they never make any point to clarify what Hegel actually said.
To counter some of the "moral" points made in the post, the dialectic overcomes dualism and solipsism and affirms the freedom of individuals and the rationality of the world, and Hegel was a Lutheran.
A more accurate account can be found here,
Jackson White
>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.
If this is accurate summary, what did Kant mean by "we must use a criterion of knowledge prior to actual knowledge "
>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.
If this is accurate summary, are you or Hegel telling me that - 1900 year of philosophy had started from "conclusions" they had about things, and then generated another conclusion about given thing and proclaimed it as a true thing about the thing, which was now coated with double layer of conlusions?
William Lewis
The wiki is basically my understanding of it
>Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus[35] as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. In more simplistic terms, one can consider it thus; problem → reaction → solution. Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.[36] Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.
On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Hegel used this writing model as a backbone to accompany his points in many of his works.
The formula, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, does not explain why the thesis requires an antithesis. However, the formula, abstract-negative-concrete, suggests a flaw, or perhaps an incompleteness, in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error, and experience. For Hegel, the concrete, the synthesis, the absolute, must always pass through the phase of the negative, in the journey to completion, that is, mediation. This is the essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics.
Is this wrong? This thread is confusing me.
Carter Turner
Its wrong, that is Fichte in green libes
Tyler Fisher
>If this is accurate summary, what did Kant mean by "we must use a criterion of knowledge prior to actual knowledge ".
As you may know, Kant cut the world into noumenal and phenomenal things - respectively things grasped by reason, and thinks grasped by the senses. Now, he thought that we perceived things according to certain cognitive rules which would give us uniformity of experience. This boils down to the claim we will always experience things in certain ways, due to the mind imposing certain rules on our experience - and this move was to counter skepticism about our empirical senses. That we can make true judgments about things that appeared to us in virtue of them having certain rules and standards imposed upon them.
So, effectively Kant says we must have certain knowledge before we can make claims about knowledge - a prior criterion to empirical knowledge.
>If this is accurate summary, are you or Hegel telling me that - 1900 year of philosophy had started from "conclusions" they had about things, and then generated another conclusion about given thing and proclaimed it as a true thing about the thing, which was now coated with double layer of conlusions?
Essentially yes, in the capacity that they tried to establish rules about knowledge which were somehow meant to be above knowledge. This is not to say that things which have been said in philosophy are necessarily invalid, but they have to be shown as true by investigation which does not take for granted all things can be treated in the same manner.
