What is dialectics?
>>7723233
Thesis antithesis synthesis boi
>>7723392
>>7723233
The dialectic is the notion that, to use an example from society, there is a "thesis" (eg, black people deserve to be treated as animals), an "antithesis" (eg, black people deserve a privileged position in society).
Hegel believes society goes from one extreme ideal to another before finally reaching the "synthesis" and idea between the two (eg, black people deserve neither better nor worse treatment than other humans)
Hegel believed in a literal world spirit and that we were all, as a humanity, moving towards to creation of God.
A lot of what he says is unfalsifiable and where it is it has been falsified, I wouldn't take him or his successors (see: continental philosophy which died with Popper and Kuhn) seriously.
P.S Analytic philosophy became the remit of scientists with the dawn of Chomsky so it's just as redundant a school.
https://youtu.be/cTy5awlv6UE?t=1m21s
Very basic. In the context of Marxism but it is an easy view into dialectics
>>7723483
>continental philosophy which died with Popper and Kuhn
Explain
>>7723649
"A lot of what he says is unfalsifiable and where it is it has been falsified"
Same goes for his successors
>>7723649
To be honest I was being facitious, sorry. Continental philosophy has a lot of useful facets for self-exploration, mental nourishment and ethical proofs through things like Phenomenology and even the dialectic. They're useful for examinations which are either inherently personal or just as thought experiments which, naturally, enrich our worldview.
However even these, the best in my opinion, Continental concepts end up stepping on the toes of Karl Popper who posits the notion that in order for something to be a meaningful statement it must fulfil the following criterion:
It must be subject to falsification, at least in principle. (this means you know what you would have to do to disprove your hypothesis, and these have to be realistic (though not necessarily currently attainable)) - this leaves room for scientific development but also leaves the general ongoing "revolutionary" scepticism of science intact.
Kuhn on the other hand presents a more relativistic view of science in his paradigms. I wont go into that, it's not quite as all-encompassing as Popper but very interesting and worthwhile in my opinion.
Either way, you can see how Continental philosophers will makes statements, especially phenomenological statements, which dispute or ignore the general scientific method or offer "metaphysical" answers to questions science seeks to answer.
Like I said, this is a bit unfair, because I believe you can appeal to another's phenomenological experience of, say, happiness to prove it is inherently good (for example). However it is clearly highly unscientific as neither of us will be able to disprove, or even confirm, objectively that we are both talking about the same thing. Furthermore Continental philosophy doesn't yet have a great deal of overlap with the scientific method and where is does it tends to damage scientific work.
The same could be said of Wittgenstein to an extent though. Eh, hope that helped, I wasn't trying to be edgy, but I was being flippant.
>>7723707
pooper is a mediocre philosopher. and his claim of his faith to have overcome induction shows how much he failed as a thinker. the falsification remains pure induction and does not prevent ''science'' from all its flaws as social activity.
let's recall that in physics, in any field called a science, you have
-first step is inductive; with what you see, you fix a system, then you discriminate between systems which behave like your system, and systems which do not behave like you system [the definition of a system is bogus of course, since the system is literally putting, at least, spatial and temporal boundaries to get an ''event'' (people love to take seriously space and time, they cannot think outside space and time)+ giving this event other qualities that it is supposed to bear]
induction serves, at the very least, to tie things/events/phenomena together through the concept of identity (or its opposite, of difference). instead of induction here, you can talk about abstractions, but they are the same things : to group things together and/or to differentiate between things.
-you continue your induction/abstraction (and frankly, you cannot even anything else in your life; it is too difficult to stop having faith in your inductions), in saying that, since two systems behave the same so far, they must have a few qualities which are the same
-then you apply deductive reasoning borrowed from math/logic: you quantify your qualities above and get new formulas from deductive rules (deductive rules are got by induction/abstraction just as above, why do you have faith in the modus ponens ? because you want to which leads you to see the world through logical causation. Rationalists like Quine who think of themselves as empiricists say that we are wired to see the world through classical logic (kant says that we are wired to see the world through space and time...)
-then you go back to induction in telling the experimental physicist (a complete stranger) to check statistically your deductive predictions
-then you get the result and you ask people what degree of statistical significance they like ? (the famous p-value or the n-sigma (n is number like 3 or 5 today))
if the null hypothesis is rejected (p-value of 0.05 or any other socially accepted level to reject officially the null hypothesis) then your predictions are officially accepted (by whom ? nobody really knows)
and then you can claim that your deductive formulas ''describe the world'' (if you are a good rationalist-realist).
the underlying fantasy under this endeavour is ''motion brings knowledge''. the error is to think that ''immobility does not bring knowledge, or at least less knowledge than the study of motion''. but of course, this falls outside of physics like the rationalists have been perpetually painfully doing.
When you try not to move, physically and mentally, things happen too, and they yield certainty, contrary to studies through induction.
>>7723233
The New Science of Mental Health
>>7723750
I own this but ive never read it
>>7723707
It became lucidly clear by about the second line of this disaster that the anon had no clue what he was talking about; nevertheless i proceeded to the end and found that i was right.
OP, don't worry.
This video by professor Alex Jones explains what is the dialectics and how it's being used by the NWO to control the population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_oWIY_xiWc
>>7723760
explain
>>7723744
If you're going to make a point could you at least make it readable.
As far as I can tell you're asserting that this philosopher, (who is a rockstar among actual scientists) failed to get rid of induction.
You seem to be saying that induction and falsification are the same. Induction is about pointing out patterns, but Popper says this fails to escape metaphysics, it amounts to assertion.
With falsification you aren't indentifying anything, you're just positing hypotheses which are constantly under evaluation, there is no set delination or "grouping" going on. Science is just a set of these surviving hypotheses.
>>7723755
scared?
WHAT IS DIALECTICS PRECIOUS
GOLLUM GOLLUM
>>7723865
No my IQ is too low and i got confused
>>7723667
Perhaps the same could be said of ALL "religions" . . .
