What did he mean by this?

My only connection to it is how Zizek uses it to literally just ignore any opposing point.
Which turned me off Hegel.
Even tho I like phenomenology.

universe is organic, monistic
dialectic not transcendental okay
aristotle rocks
the divine idea is a good one
kant (& fichte) is a f*Cking dualist
identity of identity & non-identity ok?

Dialectic is not a single term. The point is to ascend through argument/discussion to a clearer idea of your own concepts and values. You start out with confused concepts, words you can say without really knowing what they mean or being able to apply or explore them consistently, and you progressively eliminate inconsistencies and reach a higher understanding.

Hegel's dialectic is similar in that the current state of knowledge, by virtue of being imperfect and incomplete, opens up the possibility (or depending how you read Hegel, the necessity) of a resolution, which will sublate the existing, but incomplete or inconsisten, terms into a more complete state of knowledge. But that's only a vague and general description because all Hegel scholars disagree on what exactly Hegel is committed to in his philosophy, whether metaphysically, historically, etc.

How is than any more revolutionary than the Socratic process or basic skepticism?

Using history is probably easiest. You know the Renaissance as a thing, with it's glory, aesthetics and other prideful(sinful things) symbolism. Well that was that eras thesis. Obviously it isn't the end of history, so there needs to be a reaction to it in the face of the Reformation(which is more strict and moralfaggy), but the culmination of this struggle won't be either side winning, but a new result, like the Englightenment, which has elements from both and some original ones.

A Kantian explanation is thesis->antithesis->synthesis. Hegel goes concept->judgement->syllogism..

It's not, Hegel never said he was coming up with something new.

Don't listen to that guy. His obscurantism shows he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

For Plato, the dialectic is pitting two actually opposite ideas against each other and seeing what comes from that process. For Hegel, the dialectic is a notion that chooses between two indistinguishable opposites.

As far as I can tell, the difference is that Plato sees it as something we use to uncover the truth, whereas Hegel sees it as something that happens to us.

The first one IS the elenchic method of Socrates. Scepticism is very different, whether radical ancient scepticism or solipsistic modern scepticism.

To understand Hegel you need to understand what Hegel was taken to be saying by the people who appropriated him. Hegel's historical dialectic was very influential on Marx for reasons that aren't obvious from a reading of just the Phenomenology, or the Logic, which has only ever been imperfectly understood by anybody.

>two indistinguishable opposites.
Example please.

Anything, really. What's the difference between a "dog" and a "not dog"? They're the same thing in your mind. The only way you know that you're really thinking of a dog, or understanding that dog is in front of you is if a notion guides your mind, over and over again, to "dog", which, over and over again, you'll confuse with "not dog". I think there's a quote in The Phenomenology somewhere about "self vibration," which I'm pretty sure is about this idea.

Complete garbage, basically a loyalty test of the brainwashed idiots who want to suck Marxist cock "can you gobble up this gibberish and 'agree with it'"? "Yes I can", "Okay you are in our cabal now".

But not all opposites are mere negations of the other.

A mental gymnastics for any person, that isn't lucky, rich and handsome, to turn himself, herself, xirself into a victim and start insane mental gymnastics to blame evreyone but themselves.

Reminder that Aristotle (or one of the Greeks) already dismissed this as nonsensical way of "arguing".

Hegel btfo pre-emptively by the greeks 2000 years before he was born

>marxists
>understanding Hegel, ever

user kys

...You don't remember the actual argument, do you?

Of course, but the Phenomenology is guide for building a worldview, discovering the variety of truths in the world starting with the way your mind works.

For example, at one point he reached the conclusion that all truth is One, which is the same reason to conclude that the categories exist (categories being a variety of truths, the opposite of one truth)

It was about Greeks and not-Greeks and how this division and dichotomy.

doesn't do anything, doesn't reveal anything, because it is so nonsensical.

Actually pretty much every philosopher between the Greeks and Hegel believed in the law of non contradiction. Hegel offered, in my opinion, the most fascinating and potentially convincing alternative.

If you aren't giving Hegel a chance because you think the Greeks already proved him wrong, I would urge you to reconsider. I only say this because I felt how you did until I read him.

I gave him a chance for 2 years and I got nothing out of it. Probably has to do with my hatred against anything marxist and communist, since they tried to ruin my country twice.

...I'm starting to think that this is one of those deals where you think something is super complicated even tho (or because) it is actually so simple, that it borders on the mundane.

Or you are oversimplifying it for me.
I'll probably just read it myself.
Any of the other phenomenologists necessary to understand stuff or can I jump right in?

...You know he predates Marxism, right?

You might have seen too many Zizek Memes. (As we all have.)

Not that guy, but Hegel isn't tied to communism, Marx took his dialectics which were in the realm of spiritual and applied it to the material world (a stupid move, for sure), turned it into a conflict related to the production of goods.

I've seen his ideas applied and taken to reality by Marx and that led to millions dying and world threatened. No thanks. Burn both of their books.

and after Marx's wave had slowed down the material got changed to culture and turned it into a conflict of oppressing cultures vs. minority cultures, and that is as much as cancer as the previous strain..

>comes from Easter Europe
>hates on Hegel

Every single country of ours had people who were influenced by Hegel in their Nationalist movements. You are a historical illiterate, especially regarding your country's history if you don't know this. The conservative turn of Nationalism can be traced to Hegel.

I jumped right in and survived. Just accept at the start that he's speaking another language and that it's your job to learn it, and you'll be fine (as long as you put in the work)

You're right, but you're missing the point. All those things don't change the fact that Hegel himself doesn't have anything to do with all that, and you should check him out.

dialectics is not just fancy structuralism

>call someone else out on obscurantism
>explain jargon with unexplained jargon

"For Plato, the dialectic is pitting two actually opposite ideas against each other and seeing what comes from that process."

Have you read a single Platonic dialogue? They aren't called "Temperance vs. Mercy," they're called "Temperance." Dialectic means discourse, dialogue, between two interlocutors, in Plato. Not some kind of BattleBots of arbitrary Begriffe. The whole premise is that the terms themselves are unclear and require clarification THROUGH discussion, not to pit terms against one another meaninglessly. That would be closer to the self-satisfied eristic that Plato is debunking.

You have some intuition about Hegel's logic (which you haven't read) that you find interesting, and you're reading that backward onto Greek philosophy you haven't read either.

How exactly is this an argument against the post of mine you quoted? What are you even addressing? I'm confused by this post.

But that's like not reading Nietzsche because of the nazis.

Hate on Marx all you want. Has little to do with Hegel.

If you think dialectic is dialogue, then I would have to doubt whether you've ever read a platonic dialogue.

where did you see all that?

You are not ready enough for Hegel. Get in touch with your volkgeist more.

>n-no, YOU didn't read!

>Gadamer developed an approach to Plato that rejected the idea of any ‘hidden’ doctrine in Plato's thought, looking instead to the structure of the Platonic dialogues themselves as the key to understanding Plato's philosophy. The only way to understand Plato, as Gadamer saw it, was thus by working through the Platonic texts in a way that not only enters into the dialogue and dialectic set out in those texts, but also repeats that dialogic movement in the attempt at understanding as such.

>Gadamer draws our attention to how Plato’s appeal to the Good allowed him to transform Eleatic dialectic in two important ways: 1) to direct it towards getting clear about the “subject matter” (die Sache) as opposed to having as its goal the defeat of one’s opponent with logical prowess, and 2) to ground it in Socratic dialogue. Gadamer himself sought to recover the emphasis on the early Platonic dialectic, while refusing its later Hegelian instantiation, in order to return philosophy to Plato’s original intention as a dialectic defined primarily as the “art of carrying on a conversation” (Philosophical Apprenticeships, 186).

The "dialectic" (etymology: from Greek dialektikē [tekhnē] ‘[art] of debate,’ from dialegesthai ‘converse with’) is the actual structure of the dialogue.

There needs to be more Gadamer on Veeky Forums

Not radical enough.

history "sorting itself out" through an ascending ping pong process

>And so, Glaucon, I said, we have at last arrived at the hymn of dialectic.
This is that strain which is of the intellect only, but which the
faculty of sight will nevertheless be found to imitate; for sight,
as you may remember, was imagined by us after a while to behold the
real animals and stars, and last of all the sun himself. And so with
dialectic; when a person starts on the discovery of the absolute by
the light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, and
perseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perception
of the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectual
world, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible.
From The Republic

This is basically the closest Plato gets to defining the dialectic himself. It does not seem to me to be a process of dialogue, but one of intellect, which can be used in dialogue.

>Marxism
>bad

He meant to confuse. People while ultimately not saying anything important.
Hegels main contribution is basically
For a thing to be
It must have been, is being and must eventually become.
To this day stupid people consider him a great thinker probably because his name was easier to pronounce than all the better ones.

>posts indie gaming-tier pixel art

Reddit please. You could have at least talking somewhat about Marx.

>conflating the platonic dialogues with the hegelian dialectic

I hope that both of you are trolling.

>Marx
>Bad

If you think that Zizek's main points have been seriously addressed by the people most anxious to dismiss him, then you haven't read enough Zizek.

I've read his beef with Chomsky and feel that he was seriously BTFOed there.

Well, Marxism IS bad--Marx's key insights are important, but all political ideologies are attempts to prescribe a universal solution to an infinite number of particular problems; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but attempts to build an ideology called 'Marxism' out of Marx's work instead of applying Marxist notions to actual situations is fucking stupid at best and fucking diabolical at worst. Class struggle is real; however, this does not justify the liquidation of social classes--it is simply a factor to be considered in an analysis, whether this analysis is in the context of the classroom or the workplace or the legislature or the battlefield. Different contexts yield different adequate answers based on the spectrum of adequate solutions available within the context. There is no excuse for ignoring important information and on account of this dismissing sound theories and courses of action that will, in fact, work in favor of dogmatic conservatism and courses of action that will, in fact, not work.
Chomsky is a pompous careerist living off of tenure. Zizek is open about serving in the military, Chomskians have to sweat off his work for the DoD. On top of all this, I bet that you can't even explain why you think Chomsky adequately addressed Zizek's main theses.

good post

one things for sure is that the contemporary landscape is a battleground of his ideas being split into new forms, which he probably wouldnt endorse but what can you do when youre dead.

Rousseau did it better.

>literally hasn't read Phaedrus

lol

Really doesn't change the point of the argument, though. Dialectic isn't defined as dialogue there, either...

What is the elements of the philosophy of right?

Seriously though, the phenomenology does ponder on ethics due that the core of the phenomenology of spirit it's to evaluate how conciousness is determined dialectically by the the motion of spirit (i.e. how humans determine nature and nature determines humanity in a process of negation, therefore humanity becoming culture, which presents the friction between the individuallity and the subject (being for other and being for itself) ).

Not precisely, Dialectic is the form of clarification that an individual subject has with the subjectivity that determines him in a process that could clarify the spiritual motion. In other words, it's the process by which we could formulate operative concepts
Both of these anons have good explanations.

Hegel's philosophical pretention was to sythensize the philosophical proposition before him. If you read the encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences you'll realize that he sees Socratism as an anteroom for his own system. (in other words, the doctrines you propose are included in Hegel's system).

tha rational
bee real