Hegel's dialectic is """problematic"""

Hegel's dialectic is """problematic""".

>(1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition.

Isn't this basically classed as a golden mean fallacy?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

...because it only works if both sides of the argument have worthwhile ideas, which is not always the case (no matter how much you argue about socialism vs capitalism, capitalism always comes out on top).

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis
hegel.net/en/faq.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The real problem with the dialectic is that it conflates logical contradiction with contradictory forces in the world.

i hope this is just bait, but in case it's not, thesis, antithesis > synthesis was described by Fichte and has nothing to do with hegelian dialectics.

FUCK OFF
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEGEL

Yes it's often misattributed to Hegel but he was basically describing Helgelian dialectic.

Man that is an awful lot of long words to describe two people debating something and coming to a conclusion.

>linking to Wikipedia pages for informal fallacies

plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

>one concept is introduced as a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two

Are you a school teacher from the early 2000s? Do you not understand how references work?

...

Care to inform a primary source? That's right: there's none. Just stupid anglos repeating the same BS about a philosopher they never read.

Lectures on the Philosophy of World History.

Not an argument

I'm pretty sure I read that in a logic textbook.

WHY ARE YOU ALL SO STUPID

>Hegel never used the term himself. It originated with Johann Fichte.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis

I know, I already conceded that terminology was Fichte's. The concept of the dialectic, which is similar to that described as thesis-antithesis-synthesis, is outlined in Philosophy of World History with plenty of examples.

>Hermann Glockner's reliable Hegel Lexikon (4 volumes, Stuttgart, 1935) does not list the Fichtean terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" together. In all the twenty volumes of Hegel's "complete works" he does not use this "triad" once; nor does it occur in the eight volumes of Hegel texts, published for the first time in the twentieth Century. He refers to "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" in the Preface of the Phaenomenology of Mind, where he considers the possibility of this "triplicity " as a method or logic of philosophy. According to the Hegel-legend one would expect Hegel to recommend this "triplicity." But, after saying that it was derived from Kant, he calls it a "lifeless schema," "mere shadow" and concludes: "The trick of wisdom of that sort is as quickly acquired as it is easy to practice. Its repetition, when once it is familiar, becomes as boring as the repetition of any bit of sleigh-of-hand once we see through it. The instrument for producing this monotonous formalism is no more difficult to handle than the palette of a painter, on which lie only two colours ..." (Preface, Werke, II, 48-49).
hegel.net/en/faq.htm

Yeah, that's a golden mean fallacy, but that's also a strawman of Hegel. He doesn't use the thesis/antithesis/synthesis language; later commentators imputed that to him. Hegel's point is that two ideas which arise in opposition to each other are mutually implicating. So Enlightenment looks at Christian faith and says, "You only believe in God because you fear punishment; your belief in God is rooted in your own interest, not in God's." Faith looks back at Enlightenment and says, "Your belief in natural laws is founded on a lawgiver; you push Good out the front door only to bring him in through the window." The point is that they're both right, but their dispute can only be solved on a level above them that takes into account both positions. In this case, I think that's Kantian philosophy, which openly acknowledges that reason tells us there are things we can't reasonably know. So it's not "truth is somewhere in the middle," but, "many disputes cannot be resolved on the level at which they're formulated."

Fuck you, I'm done with your shill thread.

Hegel himself criticized the model you're describing as too rigid and dogmatic; his dialectic is much more nuanced. It's better understood as the movement of Spirit. Spirit starts with itself, then moves outwards from itself, and finally returns to itself, now with a self-knowledge obtained from the movement.

t. someone who read the first hundred pages of Phenomenology

Thanks for an actual response.

You're implying that a synthesis is always a golden mean. Which it isn't. They way thesis and antithesis interact can even entail the almost complete rejection of one of the antithesis. The thesis then becomes in a slightly altered fashion the synthesis.

I guess the literature on this topic has conflicting evidence. Never mind.

There's no 'conflicting evidence', the scheme is not part of Hegelian philosophy and that's it, all evidence points to this conclusion.