/lit/ - Literature

all things ultimately contradict/negate themselves and the dialectic is the name of this continuous, ongoing movement

the absolute both constitutes and is constituted by this movement (in Thought).

>>11194451
In short, it's the method Hegel uses to classify reality, a gnoseological tool and a metaphisical representation of what ideas look like.

They are organized in triads, grouped in higher and higher triads, all of which contribute to the Absolute Spirit, the highest expression of reality.

These triads are built with the dialectic method: there are a and an antithesis which by confronting each other are surpassed and reach a synthesis, and so on. e. g. : art and religion are thesis and antithesis of the synthesis that is philosophy.

I am by no means an expert, and I hope somebody else will be able to answer your questions but this should be an overview of how the dialectic method works

>>11194497
the thesis-antithesis-synthesis progression originates from fichte, hegel never used the terms. there's no "return" to a lost unity, the unity is always lost, the "synthesis" is just what makes lemonade

Hegelian dialectic is the concept which proceeds to the judgement from whence emerges the syllogism. This is sometimes simplified as thesis->antithesis->synthesis but really it is a unique way of formulating the metaphysics of consciousness attaining self-consciousness by going through certain stages in development of their psyche such as sense perception all the way to force and understanding. The master slave dialectic emerges from the struggle for life and death when the subject encounters another subject who refuses to be treated as an object. This creates the origin of class systems. Marx removes the spiritual aspects of Hegel's historical reading of philosophy according to which geist (spirit) comes to know itself, and said it is really about economics and quality of life improving until the slaves overthrow the masters and begin living without masters or slaves. Some conspiracy theorist take the thesis->antithesis->synthesis idea and say that people false flag antitheses to discredit true theses and create illegitimate syntheses.

>>11194451
While we're at it, I know this gets asked every week so I don't want to make a new thread, but what is the proper order to read Hegel? I heard Sadler same something like it doesn't matter that much any way you do it, because it's difficult regardless, but is there really no order? Surely one work serves more of an introduction to his ideas than others, right?

>>11194525
read hegel's actual history of philosophy

>>11194525
Less Tha Nothing->Kojeve->Hyppolite->Hegel's Lectures on Religion and History->Phenomenology of Spirit->More Lectures->Science of Logic->Catherine Malabou

>>11194529
>>11194543
Thanks friends

I think thesis-antithesis-synthesis is a dumbed down way to understand dialectics. Hegel never uses these words, he talks about aufhebung. I would suggest you read at least a little bit of this dissertation that I've found on the internet when I had to present Hegel's dialectics in philosophy class
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/234670/1/PALM%2Bdissertation.pdf
Dialectics is more of determining relations between contradictory positions, how one position determines the other. First you have one position (e.g. subjectivistic account of history) then trough negation appears the second position (e.g. objective account of history) then comes YOU who determines a relationship between first two; one position is inevitably related to the other - there can be no objectivistic account of history without historical subject taking part in it and vice versa. First two positions in dialectical movement define doxas - common opinions about things, but philosopher is the one who understands their interconnectness

>>11194543
>starting with Less Than Nothing

Patrician, popped my cherry, too

>>11194563
zizek puts it another way: the real synthesis is not between a subjectivist/objectivist account of history, the true reconciliation is that the "real" picture is nothing BUT this difference, this split/antagonism between the competing accounts

>>11194581
Yes, relating one position to another in no way implies reconciliation, thats why I'm sceptical about thesis-antithesis-synthesis dogma, because it implies that synthesis has somehow ontologically overcome first two positions and now is discrete entity. The only overcoming implied in aufhebung is that of the understanding, you overcome doxic knowledge

>>11194508
Well now I feel dumb, but I never would have known it, my philosophy professor isn't that good

>>11194593
right, the reconciliation isn't a "return" but the shift in perspective that makes the "return" nothing but a getting down to it right here, right now

>not a single hegel fag could explain it
wow really makes you think

>>11194563
Why use German? Say sublation like a proper anglo!

>>11194611
it's been explained brainlet, learn to read

>>11194611
>several people explain it
>don't read the thread
>hurr hegelfags are so stupid no one can explain it!!
>keep shitposting and screaming until people stop responding
>hurr I won!!
I know your kind, and it ain't allowed here

>>11194622
you didn’t explain anything at all
>>11194625
you didn’t explain anything at all

tell me exactly what the dialectic is with no metaphors or similes or any use of metonymy. What is it?

you have all day anons. im going to give you another cat for motivation

>>11194621
If this is a joke, it's hilarious

If it's not it's involuntary irony I guess. Sublation is straight from latin, so really using a borrowing from a language of another doesn't seem that important

>>11194641
>middle school student intellect philosophy pseud
>reads wiki article on wittgenstein but hasn't bothered to read any serious texts
>"hurr durr language games i am a genius xD"

>>11194641
see this, or read a book
>>11194563
>>11194581
>>11194593
>>11194610

>>11194621
jokes aside, the connotations of aufhebung in every day german usage helps explaining dialectics

Did Hegel ever own a slave? Seems somewhat silly to arbitrarily define a master/slave relationship when the practice has seen such myriad applications. The dialectic seems like an extremely long way of congratulating oneself for submitting to the dialectic.

Its how we went from Homer to Joyce

>>11194486
>>11194497
>>11194508
>>11194516
>>11194525
>>11194529
>>11194543
>>11194563
>>11194566
>>11194581
>>11194593
>>11194610
>>11194611
>>11194625
OP here. You're all missing the point. I was referring to /pol/'s concept of the Hegelian dialectic
Examples:
>I should probably just make a pasta about this at this point, Athism is a mix of marxism, nihilism, and Christianity and all bundled into one core idealogy which focuses its worship around the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic and solipsism, in which solipsism is selectively used to deny certain syllogisms and observable phenomena in the environment. Most athiest are Christians at heart, they have the same moral structures, beliefs, and carry themselves in the manner of heretical but still highly obvious Christians. lrn2 ontology
>He who controls the Hegelian dialectic controls the world.
>They are using global warming/climate change as a way to further their globalist agenda to establish a single planetary government. Remember: Global 'problems' require global 'solutions'. This is the Hegelian dialectic on a global scale. Not only do they want a single planetary government, but they also want to DE-INDUSTRIALISE THE WORLD via their global warming/climate change SCAM. Don't fall for it
>Neocohens aren't a new phenomenon. You're just waking up. Jews hve been playing the Hegelian dialectic forever.
>Bear in mind that the Hegelian Dialectic is another old and consistently effective page from the playbook. This same Chicago crowd also practices the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine; after sufficient chaos is created, then there is moral justification for militaristic forces to come in and stomp out the chaos in order to restore order: the new world order.
>I'd just point out that the most ''''conoservative'''' jews I know also happen to be the most neocon--Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris, for instance are super zionists in their own ways. Compare them to the ''''liberals'''' like Chomsky whose job it appears to be to break down other western societies in a Hegelian dialectic--good cop, bad cop tandem as you say

There are thousands of these posts
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/hegelian%20dialectic/

>>11194508
He used antithesis and synthesis a lot. He didn't draw the chart thing that people always allude to.

>>11194721
>Talk about advance Jewish mind control (aka Hegelian Dialectic)
>I hate to say this guys, altough I support Trump 100% because he is our only option, we are still being played by the jews. Its called the Hegelian dialectic, something people used to discuss here before /pol/ was overrun by newfags, "alt-rights" ctr, and idiotic faggots.
>An excuse to introduce more legislation to CONTROL the chaos. Increased surveillance, police powers etc. Classic Hegelian dialectic.
>The beleif that everything is a complete accident of chemestry and everyone is a soulless machine driven by chemical interactions is an example the duality I speak of. Likewise people who become so fully immersed in religon that they beleive in God's predetermined plan for them. It's the same duality that has been created in people to control the way they react. Hegelian dialectic is a very basic form social engineering and there are much more subtle and advanced methods
>The World has echoes of the Hegelian Dialectic. The Illuminati NWO as the pyramid, and some other on the left, clearly being both controlled by some third party. Perhaps this has been rearranged from the Illuminati being in the obvious middle, to show their possible back-up plan, The Mask, acting like they were not the center.
>An excuse to introduce more legislation to CONTROL the chaos. Increased surveillance, police powers etc. Classic Hegelian dialectic.
>I hate to say this guys, altough I support Trump 100% because he is our only option, we are still being played by the jews. Its called the Hegelian dialectic, something people used to discuss here before /pol/ was overrun by newfags, "alt-rights" ctr, and idiotic faggots.

Here's the best one:
>i fucking hate these gluten free faggots. shit fucking PISSES ME OFF. MUH STARCHES N SHIEEEETTTTTT. literally subhuman tier shit, jews make gorillians off this market. people need to drop the starch and glucose meme all together and move on from peasant sources of energy. fucking plebs. perfect Hegelian dialectic.

>>11194525
Sadler is fine if you have like 200 hours of spare time

>>11194721
>/pol/'s concept of the Hegelian dialectic

isn't the Hegelian dialectic.

> Athism is a mix of marxism, nihilism, and Christianity and all bundled into one core idealogy which focuses its worship around the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic and solipsism, in which solipsism is selectively used to deny certain syllogisms and observable phenomena in the environment.

what the fuck is this retard talking about

>>11194641
Its when the spirit advances rationally towards truth.

/thread

>>11194721
You again?
>>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=+%3EI+should+probably+just+make+a+pasta+about+this+at+this+point
How many times must you be told to ask /pol/ for /pol/'s interpretation or opinion on a particular topic, given that the answer:
>/pol/ is accusing the usual suspects of playing both sides of a given conflict
hasn't satisfied you yet?

>>11194721
You should be more specific when defining thread's topic then. /pol/ is just conspiracy ridden board, they use every term in a way that drains every last drop of meaning the word had, so don't pay much attention to them. Pick up a book please

>>11194757
Partially right: towards the truth that it is nothing but this (interminable) advance towards truth.

>>11194742
>>11194721
It can be explained as "things happen cause they do"

>>11194753
It's your brain on redpills and paranoid schizophrenia

>>11194721
>>11194742
good lord put me in the screencap

>>11194647
>>11194655
That's what my book translated it as :(

Pray tell me the secrets of the German?
>t. Latin loving anglophone

>>11194765
>we can laugh endlessly at plebbit, goodreads, tumblr, all social media platforms, /leftypol/, etc. but not /pol/!

>>11194516
This is a decent answer.
>Some conspiracy theorist take the thesis->antithesis->synthesis idea and say that people false flag antitheses to discredit true theses and create illegitimate syntheses.

>>11194742
>>11194721
>>11194770
It almost reminds me of Lenin's utilitarianism or something? What the fuck is this?

Hegelian dialectic is not a “method”, and it has nothing to do with the “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” triad.

>>11194787
who are you quoting?

>>11194796
This. It's Jewish mind control which is used to breed out both whiteness and masculinity

Dialectical Historicism is the theory in which spirit comes to higher levels of understanding of itself throughout history. Basically le weed science bro "we are the cosmos experiencing itself".

>>11194819
what a retard

>>11194778
It can mean contradictory things like "remove" and "preserve" at the same time.

>>11194651
i have phenomenology of spirit sitting next to me
>>11194653
unclear and doesn’t avoid the issues I asked you to steer away from. Please define the dialectic and demonstrate how it works in simple english for the board. I can only understand posts on 4chan which were created within a day of the reply
>>11194757
not comprehensive and seems like its incomplete from >>11194768


so you’ve all failed, AGAIN, please tell me what the dialectic is in plain english and demonstrate its function for the board, i cannot understand words that are not 4chan posts conceived within 24 hours of the reply (i will not accept copy paste from blogs or from Hegel).

c’mon anons all you have to do, if its so simple, is explain what it is and what it does.

>>11194778
>>11194848
It means to cancel out, and also to preserve, but it can also mean to pick up off the ground.

>>11194866

Literally these two posts you tard
>>11194757
>>11194768

>>11194866
>Please define the dialectic and demonstrate how it works in simple english for the board.
motherfucker no one said it was simple, you have the PoS beside you so you should know that full well.

>>11194866
brainlet

>>11194866
Dialectic:

Hellenic culture encountered Jewish culture and Christian culture emerged

>>11194866
Thats really all there is. Spirit is the only thing in the universe. It can test itself against itself and become better.

Was it true that Hegel was Jewish like /pol/ is telling me?

>>11194922
Wrong, this isn't Fichte. Spirit is just the self-relation of matter. Spirit isn't the "only thing" in the universe because Spirit is nothing but this mediation of itself with an irreducible otherness/negativity

(1/3)

I'm going to throw in another definition of the dialectic into the slurry, as everyone has their own opinion.

Something important to understanding what the dialectic is, is the fact that Kant had apparently dealt a deathblow to metaphysics
as Hegel was developing his system in the form of Kantian critical philosophy. While Hegel did not think that metaphysics were done
away with, he did accept that Kant was correct in his critique and accordingly Hegel became very conscious of methodology.
Accordingly, Hegel became critical of the usage of a priori and schemata in philosophizing and rejected them on the basis that they would
presuppose too much about their subject-matter (i.e. Hegel rejects the Kantian divide of Phenomena and Noumena as it presupposes epistemology
is separate from metaphysics and only allows us to look at a topic in a certain light rather than exploring it for its own sake).

It is also important to note that Hegel's dialectic is entirely a posteriori - which is to say it is not predictive, divining or actualizing in-itself. This is something Marx disagreed upon and set into motion the famous 'turning Hegel upon his head'.
Now, there is no set amount of 'steps' in the dialectic, as then we recede into applying schemata or forms where they may not fit or distort what we are investigating.
Further, in the study of metaphysics, we are investigating the Absolute (the infinite, the unconditioned and indivisible) - and the traditional critiques of the possibility of absolute knowledge are built around the
apparent fact that we possess at best finite knowledge, we inquire analytically (break things down into parts - so we fail to grasp the whole) and all our knowledge possesses these qualities of limitation and finitude
in virtue that we must negate them in order for us to 'make' them ours.

>>11194930
but matter (existence) is thought, and thought is an aspect of spirit, is it not?

>>11194936
(2/3)

Now, the STRUCTURE of the dialectic is described by Hegel in his Encyclopedia (§§80–2) as follows,

>>The moment of abstraction or the understanding
>This moment is the analogue of the Kantian thesis. The understanding postulates something unconditioned or something absolute,which it attempts to conceive in itself, as if it were independent and self-sufficient. This is the moment of the understanding whose specific virtue is to make sharp and fast distinctions between things,each of which it regards as self-sufficient and independent. But, in insisting upon its hard and fast distinctions, the understanding is in fact making a metaphysical claim: it holds that something exists in itself, that it can exist on its own without other things.

>>The dialectical or negatively rational moment
>This moment is the correlate of the Kantian antithesis. When the understanding examines one of its terms it finds that it is not self sufficient after all, but that it is only comprehensible through its relations to other things. It finds that it has to seek the reason for its apparently self-sufficient terms, because it is artificial to stop at any given point. This stage is dialectical because the understanding is caught in a contradiction: it asserts that the unit is self-sufficient or comprehensible only in itself, because it is the final term of analysis; and that the unit is comprehensible only through its relations or connections to other things, because we can always find some further reason outside itself. The contradiction is that we must affirm both thesis and antithesis: the unit of analysis is both unconditioned and conditioned, both independent and dependent.

>>11194943
(3/3)

>>The speculative or positively rational moment
>This final stage is characteristically Hegelian, whereas the former stages had analogues in Kant. The understanding now finds that the only way to resolve the contradiction is to say that what is absolute or independent is not one thing alone, but the whole of that thing and all others upon which it depends. If we make this move then we can still save the central claim of the thesis – that there is something self-sufficient or unconditioned – and we can also admit the basic thrust of the antithesis – that any particular thing is dependent or conditioned We avoid the contradiction if we ascend a higher level, to the standpoint of the whole, of which the unit and that on which it depends are only parts. While any part of this whole is conditioned and dependent, the whole itself is unconditioned or independent with respect to them. The problem with the understanding is that it unwittingly sees the unconditioned simply as one part of the whole, whereas the only thing that can be unconditioned is the whole, of which the unit and that on which it depends are only parts. This whole is unconditioned relative to its parts since it does not stand in relation to them as they stand in relation to one another. They stand to one another as one thing outside or external to another; but the parts are internal to the whole. The whole’s relation to its parts is a selfrelation; but the parts, before they are integrated into the whole, stand in relation to an other. Of course, the dialectic must continue. The same contradiction arises for the whole, of which the unconditioned and conditioned are only parts. It claims to be unconditioned; but there is something else, on the same level, upon which it depends, so that it too is conditioned. The same thesis and antithesis work on the new level. The dialectic will go on until we reach the absolute whole, that which includes everything within itself, and so cannot possibly depend upon anything outside itself. When this happens the system will be complete, and we will have achieved knowledge of the absolute.

>>11194938
Thought is matter's reflecting itself to itself, there isn't just One Thing hovering in the Void, what Spirit is this absolute difference within the One Thing that both makes it just one (I mean, it is one, it's all one reality, what the fuck else would it be?) but also not (the contradictions immanent to being as such)

>>11194936
>It is also important to note that Hegel's dialectic is entirely a posteriori - which is to say it is not predictive, divining or actualizing in-itself. This is something Marx disagreed upon and set into motion the famous 'turning Hegel upon his head'.
This inevitability teleology built into Marx's system is why Zizek considers Hegel the true materialist

438. Reason becomes Spirit when it achieves the full consciousness of itself as being all reality. In the previous stage of Observing Reason it merely found itself in an existent object. From this it rose to a stage in which it no longer passively perceived itself in an object, but imposed itself more actively on the world, a stage as one-sided as the previous one. Finally, it rose to an as yet abstract identification of itself with reality in the vocational dedication of itself to the ‘task itself’, or in the arbitrary institution of moral canons, or in the personal pronouncement upon such canons.
439. The essence of Spirit has already been recognized as the ethical substance, the customs and laws of a society. Spirit, however, is the ethical actuality which, when it confronts itself in objective social form, has lost all sense of strangeness in what it has before it. The ethical substance of custom and law is the foundation and source of everyone’s action and the aim towards which it tends: it is the common work which men’s co-operative efforts seek to bring about. The ethical substance is as it were the infinite self-dispensing benevolence on which every individual draws. It is of the essence of this substance to come to life in distinct individuals and to act through and in them.
440. Spirit is the absolutely real being of which all previous forms of consciousness have represented falsely isolated abstractions, which the dialectical development has shown them to be. In the previous stages of observational and active Reason, Spirit has rather had Reason than been Reason: it has imposed itself as a category on material not intrinsically categorized. When Spirit sees itself and its world as being Reason it becomes ethical substance actualized.
441. Spirit in its immediacy is the ethical life of a people, of individuality at one with a social world. But it must advance to the full consciousness of what it immediately is through many complex stages, stages realized in a total social world and not merely in a separate individual consciousness.
442–3. The living ethical world is Spirit in its truth, its abstract self-knowledge being the formal generality of law. But it dirempts itself on the one hand into the hard reality of a world of culture, and on the other hand into the inner reality of a world of faith and insight. The conflict between these two modes of experience is resolved in Spirit-sure-of-itself, i.e. in morality. Out of all these attitudes the actual self-consciousness of absolute Spirit will make its appearance.

>>11194951
A
A ↔ B
A = B
becoming includes both being and nothing, the distinction is only immediate as they vanish into one another. Spirit is "one thing" but it is a developing thing, it isn't one static Parmenidian thing. Mediation (the I existing for itself) is Spirit's reflective turn into itself.

>>11194990
pretty much what I said, it is "one thing", but a oneness only constituted by this movement

>>11194877
nope you need to say it for me as a reply to my post
>>11194879
ok then you don’t know what it is
>>11194882
you do not know what the dialectic is if you can’t explain it to me without resorting to metonymy, metaphor or self-referential lexicons
>>11194885
go baq to >>>/pol/ mein kameraden
>>11194922
sounds like you made that up
>>11194930
lol if spirit is just a mediation why even suggest its important? why bring it up? >>11194951
is this Hegel or Marxist Hegelianism? this sounds like the latter
>>11194990
>>11195026
Becoming is becoming, being is just being and nothing is a negation not a thing unto itself.

DEFINE THE DIALECTIC IN PLAIN ENGLISH

>>11195060
brainlet

>>11195060
Read Hegel, its impossible to "sum it up"

>>11195060
What is your problem with metaphors? Hegel uses them himself. Do you want to understand it or not?

>>11195073
what is the dialectic, without deferring to Hegel’s words or anyone elses ideas
>>11195079
what is the dialectic?

you’re both starting to disappoint me, i figured you would be both humble and patient enough to help me with my inquiry. I didn’t say anything besides Spirit being somewhat pointless as an idea, which you never responded to. Nowhere have i even critiqued Hegel, all ive done is ask you to be clear and consistent and you’ve failed to do that. Every single reply above is unclear and either contradicts or amends the others.

>>11195113
brainlet

>>11195113
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

>Brianlets on /lit/ still haven't realized I'm using the socratic method

>>11195126
brainlet

>>11195113
Spirit is just the fact that we can't posit the unknowability of God without always-already having a conception of God to begin with, which is why Hegel says the absolute is "on our side", hence we are the absolute (as process) because it could not be thinkable to itself otherwise. If thought can think its Outside, then it must be the constant appropriation of this Outside.

include me in the screencap

Consciousness coming to reason with itself through other agents of consciousness.

>>11195134
>>11195146
What is it through? Without metaphors.

>>11195154
brainlet

>>11195154
>philosophical terminology is a metaphor

absolute fucking brainlet

>>11195158
You still haven't explained.

>>11195165
brainlet

>>11195154
the power of the mind to know itself as a mind

>>11195171
No metaphors.

>>11195176
brainlet

>>11195176
That isn't a metaphor. God you're fucking stupid.

Consciousness.

>>11195181
you do not know what the dialectic is if you can’t explain it to me without resorting to vague terms like "consciousness"

What a great thread.

>>11195189
I've explained it already, you will not accept anything less vague than one-word answers. I don't even know why I'm still responding to you.

>>11195197
Just admit you are full of shit then.

Can someone who isn't a retard please explain Hegel's dialectics?

>>11195210
Dumb faggot.

>>11195213
No need to resort to name calling, just admit you don't know the subject at hand.

>>11195060
>DEFINE THE DIALECTIC IN PLAIN ENGLISH
if this
>>11194990
isn't plain enough English than you need to read more Hegel. You can't demand complex ideas be boiled down for brainlets without totally losing the message and getting black science man (or worse, Sam Harris).

>>11195215
I know it more than you do bud, trust me.

>>11195219
It doesn't make sense in the context of these
>>11194721
>>11194742
AKA you got it wrong pal

>>11195224
So the problem is you think /pol/ is smarter than /lit/. Just gb2>>>/reddit/

>>11195224
bretty good bait

>>11195232
/pol/ is never wrong

>>11195239
now tell me why this is any different from "CNN is never wrong"

How did Hegel kill God? By deducing him to an intrinsic part of spirit?

>>11195311
By his immanentization of God: God is nothing without that which cognizes him. God doesn't exist outside the movement, he's the very impetus of the movement itself (as Spirit trying to realize necessity in contingency). Keep in mind these are somewhat Hermetic notions, and it wouldn't be fair to place the blame of killing God squarely on Hegel's shoulders.

Hegel performs a double reduction, essentially: the infinite is just a projection/abstraction from finitude, but finitude itself is nothing but the infinite movement of itself, as what projects/abstracts/synthesizes, etc. So the finite is neither the finite, or the infinite the infinite, they are both reduced to each other

>>11195415
Can this be demonstrated mathematically or did he just expect us all to nod and follow him

>>11195439
It's called following his reasoning an arguing the counter position. Demonstrated mathematically? Lol if you're asking that you didnt get it

>>11195443
>you didn't get it
No shit, sherlock, because it's nonsense. Modern philosophy amounts to creating and undressing your own bogeymen. Hegel didn't contribute a thing other than a neat way of confusing simpletons. If the finite and infinite are so meaningless, how can we quantify anything?
>lol
Must be tough being so detached

>>11195454
You really didn't get it. I don't feel like explaining it to another reddit p-zombie with the same old rhetoric I've seen hundreds of times elsewhere

>>11195439
>unzips the fourier transform

>>11195457
>reddit
You disgust me. To be perfectly desu you seem to have a religious fervor about you

>>11195464
Because I can talk about ideas in a philosophy thread and know how to defend them. Keep conflating conviction with zealotry, you walk the path to knowledge I can tell lmfao

>>11195454
>wants autistic math metaphysics
>hates modern philosophy
go read Russell, modern philosophy loves the analytic tradition. Hegel was the end of a beautiful era.

For what reason must there be antithesis? I've been reading and reading but everyone seems to just follow along as a matter of course.
>>11195467
You seem confident, talk about this.

>thread in autosage
OP must be upset
>>11194990
I whittle a block of wood into a spoon. At what point are they the same thing? Forgive the blunt metaphor, but the whole A, A to B, A is B thing seems pretty arbitrarily defined.

>>11195486
Okay. There is no divinely preordained reason, any determinate x sooner or later starts to suggest and point to what it is not, precisely because it is a determinate x. This is what Hegel means by being having otherness with itself: BECAUSE I apprehend some state of affairs as x, that by implication I get a sense of y, and z, and... Everything is negatively defined by its Otherness, everything is differentiated from itself. To ask why we cant just stop this process would be to ask why we cant stop time: Spirit cannot be static, if it was, it would not be life and consciousness.

>>11195514
> The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole.

>>11195525
This is nice, but how does nothing imply something? Moreover, why shouldn't it imply everything? Does water suggest the existence of fire? Maybe I'm just a brainlet but this all seems like self-driving masturbation. Here's one: is the spirit not static in death?

>>11195117
sounds like you are alone in your conviction
>>11195122
nope that’s not your explanation that’s someone else trying to explain it. weird how this is so difficult for hegelfags. don’t see this in most other continental threads. even deleuzefag explained BwO to me patiently for hours without complaining
>>11195171
this >>11195176 isn’t me.
>you can’t assume a negation without knowing its antipode
no that’s assinine i can know not-x without ever knowing x because not-x is a negation which all humans can intuit by having experienced them near constantly while thinking incorrectly or ascertaining lies or inconsistencies.
>we are the absolute
we’re finite beings not the absolute
>as process
then its not the absolute its the germ-absolute
>if thought can think its outside
you mean a negation? no one is thinking its just a negation its the opposite of thinking. god is such a hollow idea all it yields is a negation which is worthless for further considerations.
>appropriation of the Outside
i think i know what you mean, i disagree, but what do you actually mean? notice how you couldn’t go two sentences without soliloquizing in your little personal spook resonance chamber?

so, again anons:

WHAT IS THE DIALECTIC, HOW DOES IT WORK?

>>11195549
This guy wasn't a chemist, was he.

>>11195553
All philosophy must be accepted axiomatically. Marxists or capitalists can work up empirical examples but there is still a leap of faith. Hegel asks you to presume that christ completed philosophy...

>>11194753
>>11194771
>>11194765
>>11194766
>>>/reddit/
the lot of you

>>11195551
Water suggests what is not-water, by extension, it suggests itself. Think less static objects in space and more a maturation process. You can not not grow as a person, even the junkie who never breaks his habit nevertheless cognizes it differently at year 10 vs. day 1.

>>11195553
Simplistic criticisms. Of course were finite beings, Hegel's point is the absolute can only subsist as (the cognizance of) finite beings.

To think what thought cannot think (specifically, the Kantian noumena which Hegel was responding to) must mean we are the unthought's thinking of itself. In other words: there is nothing outside the thinkable, if there is, it must be thinkable. So thought is just this appropriation of this negative "unthinkability" (almost none of this is Hegelese, I'm trying to make it as clear as possible) to itself.

Anything we say the Mind is not (its not an accurate representation of things-in-themselves, it doesn't perceive God, the intelligible realm, etc.) necessarily takes place within Mind: everything we say Mind is not is eventually overcome by our positing it.

Or, essentially: The KNOWLEDGE of a facticity (some state of affairs x) is necessarily other than the BEING of this facticity (because the knowledge is precisely what facilitates our acting on it). Spirit just is this (infinitely self-propulsive) difference, and it's Spirit precisely because this negativity leads to Spirit (the good, love, unity, arts, culture, etc.)

>>11195553
Dialectics is about spirit moving toward truth. Its not that difficult.

>>11194611
It is because nobody on /lit/ reads.

Hegelian dialectic is not a method, it is a process; things develop dialectically and it is up to you, the thinking subject, to understand this process.

For example, think about a chair in your room. The chair was at first a tree, that was chopped down into wood, from which it was assembled, and so on. So what is the truth of that chair, so to speak? That it is a chunk of wood? Or that it is the very chair you're seeing right in front of you? Neither of those options. In order to understand what the chair is you have to take into account every stage (in Hegel's terminology, moment) that it has been through. One moment negates another (i.e. a tree is not a chair) but moments do not negate themselves entirely, meaning that something is always transferred from one moment from another, and not lost, whereas other parts of the negated moment are lost. Back to the example: the chair is not a tree, but it is still made of wood, which is something that both the tree and the chair have in common, the fact that the chair is made of wood is the truth that has been transferred from one moment to another (from the tree to the chair).

As you might have noticed, by observing the dialectics, we overcome contradictions (it is a supposed contradiction that a chair is both a tree and a chair at the same time and we have just seen that the chair is in a sense a tree, since it is made out of wood).

And finally, a few clear signals to discover a pseud post and skip reading it:
1) Claims that the dialectics are an epistemological method
2) Cannot explain the Hegel's notion that is being discussed by an example
3) Recommends Kojeve (that madman thought that the only part of the phenomenology written by Hegel was from the slave-master dialectic and beyond).

And finally, some advice to everyone who would like to read Hegel: read the lectures on philosophy of history first, and proceed to the phenomenology. Skip all secondary literature.

>>11195619
>h-hegel just f-forced me to accept his axioms i-i feel so violated

lmao read and think for yourself you goober. Come to your own conclusions. You're playing buzzword sudoku, this isn't school of life or warcraft lore faggot.

>>11195689
So the Hegelian dialectic is just a rationalization of the passage of time? Anterograde amnesia exists, some people literally cannot change. The junkie might experience a different phenomenon in year ten than day one, but he's still just doing drugs; might this not suggest that while consciousness subjectively appreciates things differently, their objective results do not differ? You burn my hand once, it hurts. You do it again, maybe it hurts less, but the cells are still destroyed, regardless of how intense the sensation was the second time.

>>11195706
No metaphors you gigantic retard

>>11195781
It is not a metaphor fuckface, it is an example of dialectics. The whole point of the phenomenology of spirit is to show you the path from ground zero (that consists of literally opening your eyes) to absolute knowledge, that is the stage one reaches when every single supposed contradiction has been overcome. And the entire path consists of observing the dialectics, plain and simple.

>>11195818
Fuck off. If you can't explain Hegel's dialectics without resorting to metaphors then don't even try because you obviously don't understand how to.

>>11195827
You are mentally impaired.

>>11195841
Hey I molded this pile of shit into a chair is it shit or chair? You must choose

>>11195841
You are the one who can't follow simple instructions. No metaphors

>>11195776
>So the Hegelian dialectic is just a rationalization of the passage of time?

Good. How time "self-rationalizes", how a contingent immediacy is thematised in real-time. So its not about unveiling a necessity "behind the scenes", but how necessity is always-already grounding itself retroactively, how what is not is always subsumed-appropriated by what is. The stories you tell yourself.

>>11195776
>The junkie might experience a different phenomenon in year ten than day one, but he's still just doing drugs

Exactly this, the dialectic is this unfolding/articulation of the same phenomenon /because it has been undergone/. Because this dude's been doing pills for a decade he is himself who has been doing pills (for a decade). It's just this phenomenon's infinite spiraling in on itself, and the greatest spiral is Mind

>>11195901
>>11195914
Would another way of relating this be that nothing is impossible, because we have an idea of impossibility? Is this because to perceive something this way is to acknowledge its possibility? How does this "kill God?" To be frank this thread has been more enlightening than anything I've ever heard out of a professor's mouth.

>>11195189
dialect is if you learning truth by interaction with something: in Plato it is by dialogue with other person. I dont know case of Hegel, i did not read him, probably something like interaction with own spirit idk

>>11195995
Yeah pretty much. And i guess you can tie that into the question of science, since the final impossibility might be to cure death, but Hegel wouldn't probably see it that way.

It kills God because God is just his existence embodied by those who believe in him. God has a virtual existence. Or, there's no transcendent guarantor of anything, we just are this spiration, and God is this Sense's fullest 'sense of itself'. Everything is closed, but because we know its closed, is open etc. and on the wheel turns.

>>11196039
>the wheel keeps turning
Fuck me, I think I'm gonna read the Mahabharata next.

>>11195689
>To think what thought cannot think (specifically, the Kantian noumena which Hegel was responding to) must mean we are the unthought's thinking of itself
I don't think this is the case, the word "nothing" isn't nothing its just a sign post that denotes a negation, like the symbol '0'
>In other words: there is nothing outside the thinkable, if there is, it must be thinkable.
But, that's not true. The infinite is outside the thinkable but is not thinkable. The word infinite is our blurry eyed, totally inadequate 'notion' of the infinite, its not the infinite; in fact the 'infinite' to most people is just a very big number or the concept of vertiginous series heading to somewhere that would take our whole lives to reach. the 'Notion' of 'Nothing' to most people is darkness, but that's not what it is, almost everyone's tacit understanding is just bodiless darkness, but that is a something as it implies a witness for there to be relative darkness to apprehend. We know however nothing couldn't be that, but it is still unthinkable. We can know lots of things indirectly about unthinkables but we cannot know the thing-in-itself ever, and truthfully there is no such thing at all. There is only the appearance of the infinite, which is again incomprehensible, and there is only the appearance of 'nothing' which has never been apprehended, only approximated.
>So thought is just this appropriation of this negative
No thought is a comparison of objects and a realization of principles lying underneath their relation and their composition, its more than just a relation but the relation is necessity for understanding the significance of their composition. We need philosophy to make strong meaningful distinctions between true and false, this and that, but we need Science to understand compositions.
>Anything we say the Mind is not (its not an accurate representation of things-in-themselves, it doesn't perceive God, the intelligible realm, etc.)
there's no such thing as a thing in itself, there are just more or less useful or true appearances. And further still there are people who say the Mind is God and that the Mind IS the intelligibles or that the Mind is THE thing-in-itself (Yogacara, Vedanta, Hermeticism, Gnosticism). That it takes place within the Mind even if it held that these were not Mind is irrelevant to ITS status as an unknowable, Hegel a priori assumes that he has knowledge that all things come up first in the mind, not so! You actually had to have a physical experience first, no one first thinks, they react. So we can identify the source of the first few fundamentals, this-that, outside-inside, nothing-something, good-bad, ALL (god) and particular, from reactions to objects, which are pre-mental, we do not need mentation to seriously grasp them, in fact grasping can be totally libidinous and primitive. Hegel denies the ability of animals to think and also denies the existence of animal consciousness as yielding knowledge

>>11195689
>Or, essentially: The KNOWLEDGE of a facticity (some state of affairs x) is necessarily other than the BEING of this facticity (because the knowledge is precisely what facilitates our acting on it)
this is extremely unclear language, and I've noticed that the continentals don't seem to care that this is bordering on schiz speak (I'll bite because I like schiz speak, ie Deleuze).

How is the knowledge other than the thing? isn't knowledge of light in our eyes also the light in our eyes?
>Spirit just is this (infinitely self-propulsive) difference, and it's Spirit precisely because this negativity leads to Spirit (the good, love, unity, arts, culture, etc.)
You made a massive leap in the last few lines here anon, I don't think I can even vaguely see how it follows that IF everything we say the mind is not takes place within the mind (it can't you don't hold a thing-in-itself or a universal in your mind when you say the Mind is not this, or this is not this or any kind of negation) that this is overcome and then also yields all these other things. You list off: the good (which is an abstraction, bordering on a highest principle, many see that as the highest, and also intangible), love (another abstraction which has physical correlates; no idea how Hegel thinks this comes from this weird negation propulsion), unity (even more vague) and physical objects have unity in their composition which is implicitly understood even by animals when they build structures, and then arts (arts are works they require physical activities, you can't just Know them and they appear; there's no reason at all why this dialectic would have an effect that leads to art) and then finally culture (a nebulous nothing, which people try to construct out of a multiplicity of heterogeneities)

I'm sorry but if this is actually what Hegel believes I'm disappointed and I don't think I'm going to finish the Phenomenology. I really liked what I was hearing, and this seems like what he was saying in the first few sections but my god that's really preposterous reasoning. Huge leaps in logic and much of it is just blatantly contradicted by watching animals or studying neuroscience. I'm not a materialist or an empiricist but if this is what Idealism ends in, not good.

>>11196253
>But, that's not true. The infinite is outside the thinkable but is not thinkable.

right so what hegel does is transpose the infinite unknowable transcendence etc. etc. of what we usually think of as infinity, which is really a projection of our own immediacy as like a hypostasized for-itself, is actually the infinite realization of the finite in time. It's not asymptotic, because it finds its consummation in precisely the knowledge of its consummation (as self-knowing asymptotic activity).

>Hegel denies the ability of animals to think and also denies the existence of animal consciousness as yielding knowledge

it's fair to say he just pushes the dialectical plunge of sense-certainty to more or less to the human frame. But yeah in a weird way it does pre-exist us

>>11196284
I don't think it's schiz speak. It's saying s very simple thing: we become familiarized to everything (it becomes an object of determinate reflection), we get tired of it (we discover its Notion, ie democracy, freedom, God, Law, etc.), and we move on to something else on account of this very movement (sublation). There's a lot to this. The tension between universality and the concrete. Safe to say you should keep reading.

The rest is the usual pomo pap around. Just keep reading get enlightened by a master

>>11194543
>Kojeve
Into the trash it goes. And have you read Hyppolite? Your list is baseless. Starting with 3 highly idiosyncratic interpreters of Hegel before even cracking the preface to the Phenomenology is bound to lead any beginner astray.
Really the best place to start with Hegel is the Phenomenology. Specifically the preface, which was written after the Phenomenology and was used by Hegel himself in his classes as a way of introduction to his thought for his students. Finally, leaving out the Philosophy of Right is unacceptable to any true reader of Hegel. Your list seems more like a post-structuralist Marxist brainwashing course on Hegel, rather than a serious approach to the subject.

>>11194721
>I was referring to /pol/'s concept of the Hegelian dialectic
Oh, so you're retarded

>>11194451
Everything contains the germ of its own undoing.Marx applied this principle to capitalism.

Also Hegel's master-slave dialectic was inspired by the Haitian revolution which he read about contemporaneously in Minerva magazine.

>>11194611
your 100% right. No one gave a good explanation
>>11194641
Here's what the Hegel's Dialectic is, according to Phenomenology of Spirit. Note that I think the dialectic is bullshit.

First of all, the dialectic is something only consciousness itself can engage in.

Consciousness proposes a concept.
A concept is analyzed based on consciousness's own assumptions.
The self-contained analysis produces a contradiction.
This contradiction is developed, by consciousness, into another, "opposite" concept.
The opposite concept produces a contradiction.
The failures of the concept and its opposite to explain some phenomena spurs consciousness to realize that a higher concept is required.
A new concept is introduced which takes into account the previous concepts, utilizes their similarities, and fixes their inherent contradictions.

Hegelians often claim that the dialectic is self-moving. This means that steps within the dialectic naturally, and necessarily, happen simply based on the nature of consciousness.

Here's an example:
Hegel starts with sense-certainty, or knowledge of the immediate; knowledge that something exists. He points out that in any knowing, there is know-er and known; subject and object. The sense-certain consciousness desires certainty of the immediate, so it places emphasis on either the subject or the object, one as immediate, one as mediated. Hegel analyzes what happens when you place emphasis on the object, and finds that this does not hold up under scrutiny. So then consciousness analyzes the opposite idea, that the subject is immediate, and finds this also fails. So finally, consciousness asks: what was common to both of these things? They are both moments of sense-certainty, and neither is the essential moment. Therefore, both together must be essential, and it is the relation between subject and object which is immediate for sense-certainty.

That was one of a couple of steps that occur in the sense-certainty section, but its fairly straightforward.

>>11196293
>>11196322
deeply unsatisfying. I don't think you want to, nor can you, explain Hegel to me. I will finish the book and look at more of what I've seen online. But what you said about transposing the infinite unknowable hypokeimenon/arche into infiinite realization of the finite isn't properly justified at all.
>its not asymptotic
really? when is the finite going to turn into the infinite? oh wait...
>consummation is find precisely in the knowledge of its consummation
oh fantastic! so God is found in the knowing that one is creating/ed God. Wow that's so reassuring I almost forgot to ask you again how knowing something makes it suddenly appear as itself, unless you presuppose its mental existence as being as good as its existence
>it pre-exists us
Interesting so bacterium and nematodes are the Notion and are Spirit which is immanent to their matter and is moving the dialectic higher? So evolution is driven by this? Did Hegel even think about evolution at all?
>we become familiar~we get tired (because why? because democracy comes from what? the universal of freedom or something? seems specious)~we get move on to something because of the moment (totally inconceivable that this should be the case relating to something like God or Democracy; rather than just an idea dying because bodies don't simulate it anymore)
totally incomprehensible logic.
>pomo-pap
honestly Deleuze and his plane of consistency crap is significantly more legible and parsable than this shit man

>>11196672
yes, I gather the general drive of it, but the justification for it seems insane to be perfectly frank with you all. I am really having trouble just believing what some of these philosophers say. How can you ground an infinity by just saying that we are that infinity becoming itself so we can know it by its negation and the knowing of the consummation ensures its consummation as an infinity? It all seems to presuppose its own logic implicitly over and over ad nauseum so that everything takes care of itself and we don't actually have to: find real universals; distinguish physical and mental processes coherently (rather than just smuggling the subject in with objects, or smuggling objects in with the subject); and fails to even account for material conditions causing notions to arise (without subjects!!)

>>11196673
wow it's like you're trying to be obtuse. frankly the content is arbitrary, hegel's point is that it happens, the absolute is the (self-)differentiation of this content.

>>11196689
what if there are actual existing physical absolutes or universals? or at least what if there was a metaphysical realm or an intelligible realm? How would any of those come about or implant themselves in the finite?

>>11196686
Yes it is circular. Hegel repeatedly talks about his circles, as does Boehme. But an immersive circular movement that articulates itself for having begun. Like the Democritus clinamen. Or was it Lucretius? Everything is a swerve in the void. Tbh it doesn't seem like you're able to think at that level.

No one has managed to explain it yet. I'm jist sitting here waiting. I thought this was supposed to be a smart board

>>11196704
these are good questions I'd like the answers to too, I'm just saying Hegel does a pretty good job on snapping the lid shut on transcendence so you gotta fight tooth and nail for it. intelligibility is self-mounted, immanently self-grounding, since all mentation only brings out what is latent in the ground.

>>11196712
No these people understand it, you just haven't read a post that resonates with your understanding yet

>>11196719
I am not an atheist materialist and I am not an idealist or a spiritualist, I don't believe there is a transcendental realm at all and I don't think we can reduce everything to verificationist autism.

My issue is:

I really like Hegel, because of Nishida who basically made a diagram of Zen (Impossible, but he basically did it, really remarkable he could); however, I have this nagging feeling that Hegelians are afflicted by some kind of sluggish schizophrenia (pardon the irony of using USSR psychobabble to talk about Hegel), where they think this skipping over into the consummation, into the guarantee of self-propulsion and this "knowing through cognizing that one's knowing changes the knowing and the object of knowledge" is actually real or has been justified. I'm worried that you all think that's the case. But I don't see it as being the case. I'm perfectly familiar with this type of logic, in fact its totally sensible to me. You assume much. I was playing dumb in some places and asking genuine questions in others. I wanted to see if anyone on this board was: charitable, patient, well read, a good instructor and would actually walk me through the Logic like I was a blind man in need of assistance. You sort of did this but at the end you started referring back to ideas from German Idealism and basically presupposing Idealist conceptions of the world which no one in the 21st century can just jump into and take seriously. They all need justifications.

>>11196719
Hegel seems to have not understood that most cognition technically happens at a totally preconscious level, and that intelligent systems do not require a subject (computers) nor do they need to be self-aware (animals). He also seems to think that you can literally avoid the problem of infinities (remember CNS can't cognize even most of the large finitudes) by sublating them into the process of knowing and cognizing itself and into the life of the CNS on Earth as an "ascendant" (its not at all; we're descending, so the dialectic is wrong; humans will go extinct before any consummation happens) arcing motion towards the Absolute. I don't think this is difficult to quibble about. Nor should you assume that I'm "beneath" this kind of thought. If it has no substance and I refuse to play along that's Hegel's fault not mine.

>>11196752
So you really wanted to talk about the Greeks?

>>11196752
Hegel describes the discursion that Zen seems to be an antidote for very well, is all I'm saying.

>>11196767
I think he did understand it, in a sense there is no subject, because subject is substance. We're the self-seeing eye of ground. Also you're reading more teleology than is intended: the process is wholly contingent, again, he's just describing how that contingency is thematised by thought.

>>11196686
Well, Hegelians will deny it, but there's some key problems with the dialectic that are obvious to those who don't buy into it. If you have the A. V. Miller Phenomenology of Spirit, you'll find that the gentleman who wrote the foreword admits that Hegel says things "which makes one at times only sure that he is saying something immeasurably profound and important, but not exactly what it is. (I am in this position, despite help, regarding the two intelligible worlds in the section on Force and Understanding.)" or in plain English, he can't figure out what the hell Hegel was saying but damn did it sound smart.

1. It's not presupposition-less, despite claims to the contrary. The phrase "THE knowledge, which is at the start or immediately our object, can be nothing else than just that which is immediate knowledge, knowledge of the immediate, of what is" (PoS 90), is a presupposition. Nothing wrong with a presupposition, in fact I think its a reasonable place to start, but by denying that it is a presupposition Hegelians argue that the dialectic is unavoidable (since it has no axioms to dispute, you can't dispute it!).

2. It's not self-moving. In the sense-certainty example I gave, Hegel starts by allowing sense-certainty to notice that there is know-er and known. But, if sense-certainty is only knowledge of what is, i.e. knowledge without apprehending, then it only knows that things exist without knowing any of their particular qualities. The result would be that subject and object are the same for sense-certainty, and it would feel no desire to make one immediate and the other mediate. The extra condition, the condition that sense-certainty place emphasis on subject or object, is introduced by Hegel himself, not by the primordial sense-certain consciousness.

3. Just because a certain stage of consciousness is possible does not mean the next highest stage is. For sense-certainty, perception, the understanding, and self-consciousness, this is not a problem: we have all experienced these forms of consciousness, or seen them in other animals. However, the only way to know that the "solution" to the problems presented by these forms of consciousness is really possible, one needs to actually possess that level of consciousness. Note that in (2), all that is needed for sense-certainty to progress is to perception is that it already possesses perception. What happens, then, if Hegel proposes a solution that I don't believe exists? The next stage of consciousness after self-consciousness is Reason, or "the conscious certainty of being all reality" (PoS 233). Well, I don't consider myself to be even somewhat certain of being "all reality." Why then should I not assume that consciousness has made a poor presupposition in sense-certainty, assuming the following logic was solid? Perhaps sense-certainty is certain of immediate knowledge, but immediate knowledge does not actually exist, and consciousness was certain of nothing!

>>11196705
You are the reason no one takes Hegelians seriously.

>>11196852
I call it like I see it

>>11196854
everyone does

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q54VyCpXDH8

/thread

>>11195695
What is the spirit

>>11196904
>Alain de Botton

>>11196767
Not who you are replying to, but I have some objections to your points.
It is perhaps not a clear distinction in many summaries of Hegel, but he is working with the Aristotelian concept of the human, and his account of cognition
is meant to primarily describe humans as the rational animal. Even then, I do not think his account precludes the notion of preconsciousness as the way we was working
was (ostensibly) observational, and also I do not think it precludes intelligent systems (I say this because in the first stage of observable consciousness,
he contends at least, the designation is not subject and object but rather 'This' and 'Knowledge of This' and I do not think it is too much of a strain to say that a computer possess information in a concrete sense).
Also, on the point of knowing infinitude, I do not believe he thinks an individual can possess this. As far as I know he never claims to show absolute knowledge, and he is more concerned with showing that the possibility of
absolute knowledge exists.

>>11196842
Also, I have some quick replies to two of your points (I have to read further to be able to say anything of value on the third),

For (1), I think we should consider the fact that we ourselves do not start in sense-certainty, and I do not think Hegel ever considered there to be a particular paradigm of a sense-certain consciousness (I think he considers it more to be a process which is indefinitely repeatable perhaps).
What Hegel would claim the truth of sense certainty to be (I am still a bit unsure of this myself) is just awareness of being. I am not sure if that is a presupposition as much as an observation that there is something rather than nothing. Skepticism about our sense certainty requires far more theory that the observation that 'something is' I would think. Perhaps he enters shakier ground in paragraph 107 (iirc) where he states language (or maybe just the act of reference?) is a fact of consciousness - this I think may be a presupposition.

For (2), in sense-certainty I do agree that Hegel's claim that the object at first appears essential is a bit hard to swallow, but I do not think there is a possible inversion where subject would be the truth-criterion first . This of course hinges on what I think is the more contentious aspects of the universality
of referential activity and the multiplicity of "I"'s (I do understand the claim that the concrete universals of Here and Now unify into a community of 'thens' and 'places' - but I find this same application to the 'I' into a community of "I"'s a bit more difficult to comprehend).

>>11194563
Wow i get it now.

>>11197000
On (1), I do not mean to say that it is something easily denied. I mean in a perfectly mathematical sense that it is an assumption that is made. I don't know if you know anything about the Zermelo-Franklin + Axiom of Choice model of set theory in mathematics, but suffice to say many of the axioms are fairly intuitive. Even in pure Logic, the phrase " 'A and not A' is always false" is technically a presupposition, one that Hegel actually takes issue with, although most people accept it. I would consider even the statement "there is something rather than nothing" to be a presupposition, especially since Hegel would say "pure something" is the same as nothing.

Different people say different things about how exactly the development of consciousness occurs, whether humans start as embryo's that possess only sense-certainty, or whether as soon as we're conscious we possess all those higher forms but lower animals possess sense-certainty, etc. I'll leave you to whatever interpretation you prefer.

You're right, there are some things Hegel says that are easier to disregard. I only choose the opening line of paragraph 90 because there is no way to claim Hegel justifies it with some preceding argument; it's simply where he starts.

Finally, I'll grant that it is possible for distinctions between subject and object to be possible if you consider knowledge of existence to necessarily include knowledge of time and space, like Kant does. Then sense-certainty would know that there are multiple objects corresponding to different positions in space. Then, sense-certainty would be immediately certain of its own existence, and thus its own position in space. Furthermore, it would be certain of other objects, which correspond to different locations in space. It would then be able to suppose that it's existence does not correspond to those positions in space, thus there are multiple objects in the world. It could then begin the process of placing emphasis on its own existence vs. the existence of another object etc. etc.

I personally don't think knowledge of existence is equivalent to, or even implied by, knowledge of time and space, or in other words, I don't see why things cannot exist outside of time and space.

imagine how crazy it'd be if it turned out Hegel actually wrote anything of value

>>11196989
>taking the bait or samefagging this hard

>>11195189
>>11195210
>>11195215
>>11195224
>>11195239
>>11195311
>>11195439
>>11195454
>>11195464
>>11195486
>>11195551
>>11195553
>>11195560
>>11195684
>>11195707
>>11195781
>>11195827
>>11195848
>>11195854
>>11196284
>>11196673
>>11196686
>>11196712
>>11196752
>>11196767
>>11196980
>>11197043
>>11197193
brainlet

>>11197353
Imagine reading all of those posts and wanting to respond to them

>>11196904
I hope you are just baiting

Although I kinda get what hegel is about... What effects does this have on my everyday life?

you mean this
Or the dialectic of "History and Class Consciousness" (a very important 'AND', not an either/or, but the two as one.) Perhaps "socialist"-dialectic fits better, as it predates Hegel and Marx. (when people say social-Marxism, they ought to say Hegelian-something; if people read Hegel) desu
Here's an incomplete unordered list of thinkers worth browsing through, or read about might be better for some:

Rousseau
Rosa Luxemburg
Charles Fourier
Georges Sorel
Henri de Saint-Simon
Lukács
Hannah Arendt
Ronald Dworkin
Thorstein Veblen
>Eric Hobsbawm
Joseph Alois Schumpeter
Ernst Cassirer
George L. Mosse
E. P. Thompson
Blanqui
Herbert Marcuse
Ernest Mandel
Bakunin
Louis Althusser
Sismondi
Thomas Paine
Murray Bookchin
Simone de Beauvoir
Auguste Comte
Émile Durkheim
Edmund Wilson
Deleuze
Gerald A. Cohen
Werner Sombart
Engels
Why not add;
John Stuart Mill
Max Weber
Proudhon
George Orwell
Edward W. Said
Hofstadter
Skip anyone else, they are superfluous (as are most things written by the above), especially he whom a third are named. White flags post-50s can mostly be ignored.

>>11197423
brainlet

^mad

Brainlet here, can someone tell me if I have this correct?

1. Hume posited that because our minds are limited we can't know anything about the objective world.
2. Kant responded that even though we can't know anything about the objective world, we can know about how the objective world affects human beings.
3. Hegel responded that we can know about the objective world because reason/rationality are part of the world itself because dialectic exists independently of human beings.

If this is true, can someone explain to me how dialectic exists independently of humans? Why, in the physical world, does the thesis require antithesis, and why do both require synthesis?

>>11200395
Because positing the limits of reason also posits the reason that is being limited. To know our knowledge is limited is to be precisely the knowledge that abides in/as this negativity.

reminder that you will inherit the entire history of spirit and wealth of absolute movement in faithful devotion just by reading Kierkegaards Fear and Trembling and will climb the narrow and steep path of faith to an inner serenity and ownership over oneself and ones short, tragic, tender life that will repay you in a meaning and fulfillment that is divine and eternal.
or you can waste years of your life inhaling the noxious black clouds of clownfish ink Hegel sprays around his system to prevent those from realizing it is vacuous and devoid of substance.

>>11200395
1. he's not a pyrrhonian skeptic, so he suspends judgement rather than outright affirm the impossibility of any knowledge. Rather, what we call our knowledge comes from experience, observation and habits,and is understood by Hume as probable and provisional, and however not 100% certain it is definitely not useless. Hume's day job has more to do with attacking metaphysics than any scientific enterprise, that's why he's an inspiration for the positivists. And however limited our minds may be:
>Nature, by an absolute and uncontroulable [sic] necessity has determin'd us to judge as well as to breathe and feel."
Which means that:
>"'Tis evident, that all the sciences have a relation, more or less, to human nature ... Even Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural Religion, are in some measure dependent on the science of Man."
Much contemporary philosophy and neuroscience are dedicated on figuring out how human beings may acquire knowledge, perform mathematical operations, etc. and ultimately to find out how is anything like science possible at all for these strange animals - in a way that is quite different from 18th century Germans' armchair speculations on how the intellect works.
Start over, and note that unlike the German retards, Hume can actually write.

>>11200395
I would have two things to say on this. First, is that at the core Hegel thinks there is another consciousness beyond the individuated Human (or Spirit)
in the form of culture or in a more neutral sense community which contains the 'universal' position which members participate in. While this may sound
a bit out there, I think we would agree that there is a whole nexus of culture we are brought up in and we have general consensus on, for example, in the
West we share a great number of ideas, practices, values and so on. Compare what would be an educated person in the days of the Romans and what would be an
educated person today.That said, the dialectic does not exist entirely independent of humans as we are the ones who 'fill the chalice' so to speak but at the same
time the way it develops is somewhat out of our hands. The Greeks saw the polis as the height of humanity, but then they were conquered by the Romans.


Secondly, there is no requirement that there is the dialectic in a certain way - this would imply that it is part of a schema. Rather, the dialectic is after the fact.
It is said now and then, but it is more useful to consider Hegel as a 'radical empiricist' - Hegel believes historical facts are contingent, but as they are still parts
of the World they cannot help but reveal some facet of it. The dialectic is a process of self-relation into a higher 'whole'. The 'process' of the dialectic is when
a relation is found which shows something to not be independent and only comprehensible with its relation to other things.

Also, one last thing because I do not think it is ever said enough, is that failure, false starts and misunderstandings are important parts of this process for Hegel.
If you are interested in an opposing view to this (that community isn't consciousness), I'd advise looking into Niklas Luhmann.

>>11200558
>Much contemporary philosophy and neuroscience are dedicated on figuring out how human beings may acquire knowledge, perform mathematical operations, etc. and ultimately to find out how is anything like science possible at all for these strange animals - in a way that is quite different from 18th century Germans' armchair speculations on how the intellect works.Start over, and note that unlike the German retards, Hume can actually write.

the mechanics only confirm the identity of being and knowledge that hegel's arguing for, and is presupposed by any scientific endeavor. hume has it that: fine, okay, all knowledge is appearance, but hegel's innovation is to ask what does it mean for appearance to emerge out of a presubjective ground, and what we are in relation to that ground as its self-given activity. hegel's on another level than hume. he never denies the contingency of knowledge; that contingency is its very motor.

>>11200582
>that contingency is its very motor.
you don't know that

>>11200592
Things happen, and necessity is only after the fact like this anon says: >>11200578

There is immediacy, and there is this reflection. Thought is this reflection, but as this reflection it has its germ in immediacy. Immediacy is this reflection; cannot but be anything other than this negative movement.

>>11200601
>necessity is only after the fact
Causa finalis? You don't know that either. Just get rid of all this retroactive causation and metaphysics already. Do the Hegelian thing for once, and grow up.

>>11200609
Nice argument.

>>11200629
Then prove it faggot. You are nothing.

>>11200656
Prove what? That Thought is the discursion of immediacy? That's obvious

>>11194794
>implying all the systems that came after the french revolution aren't utilitarian at its core
we are cosequencialist

>>11200878
*consequentialist

>>11194721
>/pol/
>>hegelian dialectic

yeah, you truly are a brainlet, but not for the reasons you think

Let's start off with an example. You take a piece of paper. You expose it to a flame. The paper burns and afterwards turns into ashes. The original paper can no longer be recovered, nor can it be synthesised, because it has undergone a chemical change.
The paper is the thesis. That which you start off with. The flame (or rather, the action of burning which is produced by a flame) is the antithesis. The thesis and antithesis stand against each other and turn into the synthesis, a byproduct of both.
According to Hegel's theory of history, mankind has, by a series of processes, evolved from simple to complex in pursuit of reason (which is not too different from Whig history, if you think of it).
This was applied by Marx as the stages of history (which you might've probably seen if you've read The Communist Manifesto). First, the history of mankind starts off with primitive communism, in which there is no private property, and people who hunt and gather food are exactly the same people who eat this food. With the Agricultural Revolution came the rise of the slave-master system. Thus came an era in which both land and people could be owned by other people. Those who did not own land would work for others. The feudal society arose during the Middle Ages. People were no longer owned, but could instead work on a parcel of land in exchange for being allowed to live in it, and would pay a certain tribute to their lord, to whom they owed their allegiance. With the rise of the merchant class in cities, thus came the bourgeoisie. They took power over the aristocracy with the French Revolution and other such movement. Feudalism was abolished, and the small-scale artisans were replaced by factory workers, employed for a certain wage by the bourgeois factory owners. This society, in which capital was the means by which people exchanged goods and services, is capitalism, which most of the world currently lives under. According to Karl Marx's predictions, eventually, there would be a socialist revolution in which the workers would overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish themselves as the collective owners of the means of production, and thus would there would come to be a stateless, propety-less communist society (as the final synthesis of everything else).
The reason why I think that /pol/ must be against Hegelian dialectic as applied through Marxism must be because they do not believe that history happens in stages, which eventually would eventually lead to the fall of private propety (one of the fundamental rights of Man, alongside the pursuit of life and liberty, according to John Locke, and other classical liberals). According to my understanding, Mao, as well as certain other radical communists rejected Hegelian dialectic because it did not suit the needs of real human beings, since explaining the world through this dialectic did not have a practical purpose in helping make common people's lives better.
1/2

2/2
/pol/ must have a similar idea to Mao in regards to Marxism as a whole (in that it doesn't help make people's lives better). The reason why they demonize Hegelian dialectic is most likely because they associate it with communism (in other words, the absence of private property), rather than with any of its metaphyisical components. If they are aware of them, they might altogether reject metaphysics because they do not think of it as actually being applicable to understanding real life.
This is what I have to say. I know I may have misrepresented some of Hegel and Marx's ideas, but I hope I may have conveyed their ideas well enough.

>>11194451
I started a thread on /pol/ to ask them what they mean by Hegelian dialectic by imitating your thread.

>>>/pol/172698074 (hope I did the link right)

>>11200954
>Let's start off with an example. You take a piece of paper. You expose it to a flame. The paper burns and afterwards turns into ashes. The original paper can no longer be recovered, nor can it be synthesised, because it has undergone a chemical change.
>The paper is the thesis. That which you start off with. The flame (or rather, the action of burning which is produced by a flame) is the antithesis. The thesis and antithesis stand against each other and turn into the synthesis, a byproduct of both.

>>11201013
I used the word synthesis to mean both a chemical synthesis as well as what Hegel would call a synthesis. These two terms, despite being identical both in pronunciation and spelling, are quite distinct in terms of the way in which they are applied to describe the results of completely different types of processes.

>>11201011
>implying those are that much better answers than the ones you got itt

Terrible bait

>>11201062
It is not clear from OP's original post, but he was interested in /pol/'s understanding of the Hegelian dialectic (see >>11194721). It's a smart thing to ask the /pol/tards themselves about it, I should think.