/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13665391]

>Dialectics
Explain this word to me without looking it up. Im talking about the Hegelian version, not Socratic.

[Anonymous No.13665397]

Delet this paedo

[Anonymous No.13665404]

>>13665391
Two viewpoints clash and mingle, and a single view emerges. Whichever view “won” and emerged is changed from the encounter and different from what went in.

[Anonymous No.13665480]

>>13665391
I saw this on /fit/, but you deleted it before I could answer.
The only times I ever hear the term Hegelian Dialectic is from some anti-establishment videos.
Generally they refer to the Democratic and Republican party as a false Hegelian dialectic.
So I assume a hegelian dialectic means there can only be two answers, or two ways of looking at something, the wrong and the right, with less focus on nuances or something.
Their point was that the democrats and republicans are clearly one and the same, and are both wrong, yet the media and stuff tries to make it so they are polar opposites and the only alternatives.

[Anonymous No.13665689]

>>13665391
https://discord.gg/P4ENU37

[Anonymous No.13665721]

>>13665391
dialectics comes from the same word as dialogue. dia means "through, across" in greek, as in "diameter": the measure across, and logos, the discourse. Dialectics is making an idea confront itself, converse with its own possibilities, through and through. If there is possibility A, then it implies x and y, here is the thesis, its antithesis, the synthesis i draw from all this, etc. Good enough?

[Anonymous No.13665740]

>>13665391
i've still got the first lostprophets album on cd somewhere
i bet there aren't many of those left any more

[Anonymous No.13665743]

>>13665391
It's a system concerned with concepts and their immanent contradictions. A trascendent contradiction is something that goes beyond one concept, and they generally have no philosophical value (the contradiction white/black for example, where white is a concept and black is a different concept, therefore their relation is trascendent).
An immanent contradiction is inherent to a single concept: by analyzing the concept you find out that it os indistinguishable from its opposite concept (its essence seems to be identical to the essence of its contrary).
One example: the contradiction Absolute being/nothing. Absolute being is being as such, which means that you cannot use determinate beings to define it (you cannot explain what "is" is by referencing things that already are). This means that the concept of Absolute being cannot be determinated in any possible way, which means that this concept is identical to the one of "Nothing". As you can see, the contradiction is already implied in the concept itself.
The dialectical method identifies these immanent contradictions as sides, or moments, of a single concept. In this case Absolute being and Nothing are just moments of the concept of Becoming.

[Anonymous No.13665752]

>>13665721
>thesis antithesis synthesis


ahahaha oh no no no

[Anonymous No.13665776]

>>13665752
Isn't it the "Hegelian, not Socratic [sic]" way to to it? And even if the outline of your reasoning isn't literally "thesis antithesis thesis", dialectics still means exploring several possible outcomes to come to a conclusion

[Anonymous No.13665794]

>>13665391
"dialectics" just means logical discussions
unfortunately it is a word that has been hijacked by godawful pseuds like >>13665743