>dialectics
hold it
dialetics under hegel? Under marx? Okay, that's silly I can agree. But dialectics as a philosophic concept or tool? wrong, it's perfectly valid and unavoidable in all forms of logical thinking
the universe is a giant dialectic, don'tcha know
>>303653
>y-y-y-you can't know n-nuthin
>>303666
>dialectics under hegel?...that's silly...the universe is a giant...dialectic
Uhh, what is your position?
So is dialectics a fancy western interpretation of yin and yang
>>303675
that spirit and state whatever the fuck was it dichotomy (legit didn't finish the book the moment he started that logical fallacy shit, straight into the firepit it went fuck that guy) is nonsense.
HOWEVER- the fact that all concepts have logical opposites is not fallacious. For indeed as human beings we require an opposite as a point of reference in all cases. This is simply undeniable and I'd argue fundamental as man is a product of the universe as all things are and thereby his perception operates in accord with it's principles.
Anyways. Generalize for a second on a massive scale and apply dialectics to it. Now, work backwards to the more complex and smaller derivatives. Result? There must be at the highest level of all matter two clefts, derivatives from the highest fundamental part, whose subcategories derive like fractal branches of a tree everforth until all levels of complexity and division are accounted for. At the same time, all causation and arrangement of matter are to be taken as derivatives of higher, logically simplifying forces until this highest division of complexity. Just my cents
Can someone ELI5 to me what the hell dialectics is exactly and why guys like Nietzsche hate it with a passion?
>>303727
interesting, haven't seen dialectics elaborated this way. Instead i've had to deal with uni Marxists who pretend to read Hegel
>>303780
it's homebrew and I have no idea if this has been independently invented by other philosophies. But I find dialectical type thinking fascinating and have found certain marxist style applications of it to natural laws entertaining. Also hegel is shit on a stick so you're doing god's work. This thesis antithesis thing I have no idea about
>>303734
It's a spook.
>ELI5
>>>/reddit/
>>303727
>legit didn't finish the book the moment he started that logical fallacy shit, straight into the firepit it went fuck that guy
Idiot.
>>303734
kill yourself, rebbit scum :^)
>>305992
his argument involving freedom? grew out of this hideous logical fallacy and contortion I've since forgotten. Feel free to correct me, but I don't think Hegels dialectic was worth a damn- and I was being generous whilst reading it, trying to reinterpret spirit as structure of phenomena, etc
>>308035
1. Every argument he makes is about freedom on one level or another.
2. You literally described the universe as 'a big dialectic,' which is something that only a Hegelian or a Marxist would do. O ly Hegelianism and Marxism affirm that proposition. Every other form of dialectic or the process whereby opposites play out their opposition and reveal a higher truth is confined to a sub-cosmic scale.
You literally didn't finish the book and can't cite any of the passages you take issue with, or address the propositions you disagree with in adequate terms. You also haven't explained what 'fallacy' you're talking about.
>>308049
1. What's the relevance bud
2. Yes I did, but that doesn't particularly make me a hegelian or marxist
"gotta finish this horseshit book about freedom to opine on related topics"
fuck off /lit/, all of this is red herrings from a butthurt phil major I reckon
>>308097
>>308097
1. Hegel thought that the nature of Spirit was unconditioned freedom.
2. No, but you're fucking retarded for agreeing to something and then saying 'But the two most well-known expounders of precisely this theory with which I completely agree were completely wrong.'
>Gotta not read books and then call the authors idiots because I'm too stupid to realize I agree with them
>>308110
You seem to believe that I've got to take the fishhook with the bait- to accept freedom/spirit etc as the dichotomy in order to think dialectic is worthwhile. And that simply is not so. I make no pretense to knowing what the actual casual factors are, believe it to be a purely mechanical casual process, and furthermore suspect in many cases seemingly identical parts are in fact from dialectically opposite trees. In fact, I seriously doubt the highest possible clefts are anything other than symmetrical forces whose warping produce seemingly asymmetrical results
marx a shit. Hegel a piss. Defend the theories you clearly believe warrant defending shiteater because I'm not gonna
>>303638
>popperism
>dianetics
>>308140
I just don't think it makes sense to call the same thing silly and valid at the same time, when 'silly' means 'useless and basically incorrect' and 'valid' means 'useful and basically correct.' That's literally what you're doing. Why don't you investigate Hegel and Marx or other dialectical thinkers a little more? You might realize that your violent rejection of them is completely unwarranted.
>>303727
>Critiquing books you haven't finished.
>>303734
There is A.
There is B.
A and B cannot coexist.
They enter into a conflict.
A or B could win, it doesn't matter.
The point is that the victor is irrevocably changed by the conflict and becomes C.
Now there is a D.
Do this until gommunism x-DD
