Dialectics
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
Was Marx right to turn Hegel on his head? What do you all think of dialectics? Are you an idealist or materialist? Will we ever reach a final synthesis or is that contradictory to the nature of dialectics?
hegel, get down from there.
>>7391601
Yes, Hegel is full of bullshit anyway.
>>7391601
Wouldn't final synthesis be infinite stability? Like a nice big hard rock?
>>7391601
Reaching a final, or complete, synthesis is impossible. As you pointed out, it would be contradictonary to the nature of dialectics. A final synthesis would be some kind of salvation for mankind , and its just naive to not think that our human nature will ever be able to reach such a state.
Our material needs may temporally be satisfied, but our inherited mentality will always crave more after a period of time. Our specie also demands mental stability and long lasting happiness, which is something reality simply cant give to us. There will always be a gap between human consciousness and the nature of all things, and this gap leads us to constantly drive towards something we just cant get. We are the thesis, the reality of things are the antithesis, and the synthesis is what we want but never can get.
>Marx made a famous boast that he had taken Hegel's dialectic and 'stood it on its head'; but he did not mean quite what he said. Hegel's dialectic begins with thought, goes on to nature, and ends with mind. Marx did not invert this order. He referred to the first and second terms only, not the third, and he meant that whereas Hegel's dialectic began with thought and went on to nature, his own dialectic began with nature and went on to thought
t. collingwood
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little intuitionist? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the seminary and I’ve been involved in numerous secret readings of Plato, and I have over 300 confirmed histories. I am trained in pure idealism and I’m the top dialectician in the entire Prussian reich. You are nothing to me but just another spirit, I will sublate you the fuck out with reason the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me in metaphor? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of historians across Prussia and your footnotes are being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that negates the pathetic little thing you call your self. You’re fucking history, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can sublate you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my first book. Not only am I extensively trained in undirected dialectics, but I have access to the entire corpus of western philosophy and I will use it to its full extent to show your miserable ass how unimportant you are, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” philosophy was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit reason all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking negated, kiddo.
>>7391601
S-Sandro?
>>7391601
Even if rational absolute spirit isn't the sole driving force behind history, it's safe to say that neither is economics.
>>7393706
>it's safe to say
I wonder how the fuck you came to this conclusion.
>>7393706
It doesn't have to be purely economics, it's just man's relationship to the material world around them. Calling this economics is broad generality. Most things have a material force behind them. And plus, what's to say that the relationship to material forces isn't the rational spirit Hegel was thinking of, but he couldn't quite make the connection?
>>7391601
yes
they are a good way of looking at history
materialist, mostly; although I do think Weber had some good ideas about how culture can effect economics rather than the other way around, such as protestant Christianity giving rise to capitalism.
it would be contrary to the nature of dialectics
>>7393706
>Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.;
>>7394239
>it would be contrary to the nature of dialectics
It would not. It would just be a different dialectic.
>>7393284
kek, nice meme
Marx didn't turn Hegel on his head at all, the two men focused on entirely different areas of life and their theories have almost nothing to do with each other. If he did incorporate Hegelianism into his economic theory then his theories could only possibly have suffered for it.
>>7394969
Marx didn't discover that at all, you fucking idiot. Before they design a beautiful city in the Republic, Socrates and friends go through a long and boring process of explaining that society requires people to grow food and make clothes. These statements are pure hyperbole and don't make Marxists look very good.
