Can anyone give a better explanation of history than the whole thesis-antithesis ordeal? Can we prove this madman wrong...

Can anyone give a better explanation of history than the whole thesis-antithesis ordeal? Can we prove this madman wrong? Marxism is awful and is directly descended from his logic.

Other urls found in this thread:

cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Friedrich Nietzsche/Friedrich_Nietzsche - Untimely_Meditations_(Cambridge_Texts_in_the_History_of_Philosophy__1997).pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

well Hegel (and Marx) presuppose that the history of the world is a history of progress, which I think is highly doubtful. I personally think the idea that history is cyclical, i.e. the same set of fixed historical "forms" repeating themself over and over again, is more convincing. Alternativley there is the morphological view of history, like Spengler proposes, which goes in that direction.

what makes marxism awful?

i don't know but i was told marx was the reason people call gamers sexist and that really hurts my feefees so i'm against marxism now

My theory is that history is not necessarily cyclical in the way you describe it. When things wither away, they make room for different things to thrive. There is an illusion of repeating historical forms, but there are too many exceptions and changing variables for it to apply all the time.

broke:thesis-antithesis-synthesis
woke: identity-negativity-totality

>Shit critique of capitalism and power structures
>dialectical materialism

Ment for

Hegel does not pressupose that history is progressive. The philosophy of history is an after-the-fact theory conceivable only after the logical development of his theory of concrete freedom of society in the Philosophy of Right. Only in light of the philosophy of right is the philosophy of history possible since an form and end is given in the concept of the state.

People in general have no idea what the Phil of Hist is even about, let alone how it logically functions.

You get the progress of states in the same manner that the Phenomenology has a progress of forms of consciousness, through an taking q logical shape and putting its dialectic in a sublating form, that form being the state where the contradiction of the beginning is no longer a brute contradiction and instead makes sense. Hegel thinks, and was right to think, that institutions of freedom were appearing in the modern world and thus something has matched a logical structure of freedom. This in no way tells us we have all the institutions of freedom nor that we are as a people capable of maintaining them, but it provides the criterion of he history of spirit, human society, and not anything else.

>thesis-antithesis
this isn't really what Hegelian dialectics are about, though. it's more: in itself, for itself, in itself and for itself

identity-negativity-totality

Break it down like I have an iq of 109.

fuckin can't work the tag proper from mobile.

What is is this? Who says that?

THE NUMBERS MASON, WHAT DO THEY MEAN

Other than negativity I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.
Shouldn't it end in identity?

t. hasn't read Hegel
Hegel believed that the democratic "experiments" of his time would become monarchies again. His view of history is circular, or really spiral- similar forms keep repeating themselves, but with each revolution aspects which were regarded as universals are now abolished as particulars.
Good post, although I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph. With the Spirit of the age containing all past developments of Spirit, I think History is necessarily progressive, in the sense that there is no doubling back since nothing is lost. In addition, I don't think Hegel would totally agree that philosophy of history can only be done after the fact, since he dabbled in prediction as I mentioned earlier- although Marx took the whole thing a bit further than Hegel would have been comfortable with.
In itself, for other, for consciousness, no? I'm a bit rusty with all this.
I'd need to get back into Hegel to give this the response it deserves, but I'll explain this as I remember it, as regards perception. This is just one example of the Hegelian dialectic.
Identity- the "in itself." There's a cup on my table, which exists in itself. I have nothing to do with it.
Negativity- the "for other." Now the cup is not itself, it is sense-data which is processed by my sense-certainty. You could say now it's not the cup, but the appearance of a cup.
Totality- the "for consciousness." You perceive the cup, and you understand that you see not the cup-in-itself, but the cup-for-another. This is Understanding.

If anyone can tear any of this to shreds I would thank you endlessly, I'm only 1/6 of the way through Phenomenology so I still have a lot to learn.

>leftypol is THIS buttmad that anyone would dare question their ideology, which brought us great states like the Soviet Union, the DPRK, Cuba or Venezuela (except it actually didn't and Khrushchev subverted it except when you point to Stalin's crimes, in which case he subverted it, except when you point to Lenin's crimes, in which case it either wasn't Real Marxism (tm) or it's high time to talk about Cuban health care or the eastern front)

The totality would be numenon and phenomenon in kantian terms?

>Hegel does not presuppose
wrong

Identity-negativity-totality is one way of putting it, though not the best in my opinion.
Basically take an object, a cup. That cup is itself. This is Identity.

You perceive that cup, and you take in all it's qualities. The funny thing is that you learn what the cup is through its qualities, not through knowing what a cup is. You find that a cup is used for holding water, it has a little handle on it for holding, it's ceramic perhaps. All of these different qualities are not by themselves what makes a cup a cup. Together, they make a cup, and you know what a cup is by knowing what each of those qualities is. The object, the cup, has presented itself to you as something other than it is. Instead of being a cup, a single object, it is a collection of multiple qualities. It has "Self-Othered".

You have the cup as the one thing, you have it's qualities altogether as a cup. You now say that both of these are the cup. It has reconciled it's identity with this self-other. This is what is often called "Subltation."

This Identiy - Self-Othering - Sublation structure is what Hegel uses in his Phenomenology to reach his various conclusions. He has a couple of other tricks but that's his big one.

only thing that's wrong is your statement "This is Understanding".

Great post

Dialectics isn't logic.

Pyle killed himself. The question is, will you?

Not quite, I think.
Should it have been Perception, not Understanding?
Thanks for this, this is good.

I have a pen I have an apple nnngghh apple pen xdddd

>I believe there has been no dangerous vacillation or crisis of German culture this century that has not been rendered more dangerous by the enormous and still continuing influence of this philosophy, the Hegelian. The belief that one is a latecomer of the ages is, in any case, paralysing and depressing: but it must appear dreadful and devastating when such a belief one day by a bold inversion raises this latecomer to godhood as the true meaning and goal of all previous events, when his miserable condition is equated with a completion of world-history. Such a point of view has accustomed the Germans to talk of a "world-process" and to justify their own age as the necessary result of this world-process; such a point of view has set history, insofar as history is "the concept that realizes itself", "the dialectics of the spirit of the peoples" and the "world-tribunal", in place of the other spiritual powers, art and religion, as the sole sovereign power.

>The time will come when one will prudently refrain from all constructions of the world-process or even of the history of man; a time when one will regard not the masses but individuals, who form a kind of bridge across the turbulent stream of becoming. These individuals do not carry forward any kind of process but live contemporaneously with one another; thanks to history, which permits such a collaboration, they live as that republic of genius of which Schopenhauer once spoke; one giant calls to another across the desert intervals of time and, undisturbed by the excited chattering dwarfs who creep about beneath them, the exalted spirit-dialogue goes on. It is the task of history to be the mediator between them and thus again and again to inspire and lend the strength for the production of the great man. No, the goal of humanity cannot lie in its end but only in its highest exemplars.

cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Friedrich Nietzsche/Friedrich_Nietzsche - Untimely_Meditations_(Cambridge_Texts_in_the_History_of_Philosophy__1997).pdf

That's a misrepresentation of Hegel. Hegel sees the current age as the culmination of history so far, but not of history itself, and certainly not as the teleological endpoint of all that has ever occurred.
As to the second quote, Nietzsche really seems to underplay the extent to which a man, even a great man, is a product of his age.

>As to the second quote, Nietzsche really seems to underplay the extent to which a man, even a great man, is a product of his age.
Just in that quote. You'd have to read the full passage.

Fair enough. I suppose even in the first quote Nietzsche is really criticizing the fallout of Hegel's philosophy (hi Marx) rather than Hegel himself, which is pretty fair.

It's kind of hard to say, but the specific part of his process you're referring to is found under the Perception section. The Understanding is more about Force, form vs. content, etc. His Phenomenology is difficult because he'll start with a hypothesis, and then make an argument for why its wrong and needs an update. I'm also still working through it; it's dense as fuck and I can barely read it without falling asleep.

That's even dumber than the thesis crap.

Give evidence that he logically presupposes anything in the History other than the concept of the state he developed in the philosophy of Right. Matter of fact, do me one better: explain what in the History is even taken to be the logical operation which moves it.