/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19784055]

I’m a high school student (18) studying philosophy, but there are a few terms that even after asking my teacher about I have no idea what to make of them or how to present them in an essay. Does someone want to enlighten me? Maybe I am dumb, but if I understand these I think i could unlock more smart vibes
The words are:

Dialects
Metaphysics
Ontology/ontological

Don’t care if you think i’m retarded I just want to know what these words REALLY really mean, like completely understand them

[/Lit/ resident Philosopher No.19784069]

>>19784055
Dialects is like how you speak


Meta-Physics is kinda like ,Physics but instead more like, ther thing inside the subjecitivie.


onto-logy is to do with positions of objects ans processes as well (from the greek)

Glad, to be of Service!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.19784095]

>>19784055
Dialectic is a logic process but it also has the connotation of speech, verbal logic, etc.

Metaphysics is dealing with first principles, not the specific physics of certain beings, but being itself.

Ontology is harder to define, but it's basically a form of metaphysics no matter what SOME philosophers define metaphysics as.

[/Lit/ resident Philosopher No.19784110]

>>19784095
Nah, dont listen to, this guy. Hes got it pretty much completely Backwards; Why are you, trying to mislead O.P.????

[Lou Reed No.19784122]

>>19784069
So is dialectics basically just interchangeable with the concept of rhetoric and engaging in a conversation to find some semblance of truth?

[Anonymous No.19784125]

>>19784069
Low quality bait

[Anonymous No.19784132]

"Meta" is the Greek word that means "above." So "metaphysics" literally means "above physics."

Practically speaking, metaphysics is the "why" to physics' "how." Physics teaches us HOW the universe works. But it doesn't teach us WHY. To know WHY the universe works--to know the purpose behind the workings of the universe--we must go beyond physics. Above physics. Hence, to metaphysics. And in this we leave the realm of the physicists and enter the realm of the philosophers.

[/Lit/ resident Philosopher No.19784134]

>>19784132


Yeah, yeah - close but no Cigar. Meta actually means "outside of." Meta-Physics referrs to outside of Physics. that's because the two are Not actually related concepts.


Btw your photo is actually Socrates, not plato

[Anonymous No.19784156]

>>19784055
Dialects help you go to the toilet consistently.

Metaphysics is a branch of physics that deals with min-maxing the game of life.

Ontology is the study of birds.

I wish you well in your studies my young ignorant friend

[Anonymous No.19784165]

>>19784055
>vibes
Obvious bait thread.

[Anonymous No.19784180]

>>19784055
Dialectic is usually used in the context of the rhetorical/dialectic schema. Rhetoric is how one presents an argument, how it is structured, the tone and language one uses, etc. The dialectic is the "logic" of the argument, kind of the essence. To give an example: All cats are red, all things that are red are bad, therefore all cats are bad. If I were to change the wording of the argument here to something like: Felines are universally red, it is evident that all that is red is bad, ergo all felines are bad. I haven't changed the basic argument here, just the way it is presented, so this is just a change in rhetoric. However, were I to instead say something like: no cats are bad, that which is not bad is good, therefore all cats are good, that's obviously a fundamentally completely different argument, and this a change in dialect. The chain of logic is different.
A text are strongly recommend reading to give you a much more fleshed out understanding of the concept is Plato's Phaedrus. It also has many other important ideas and every philosophy student should read it.

Metaphysics is literally just that which is "above" or before or transcendent over physics. So if the role of physics is to ask, "how does the universe work, what are its laws, etc," the role of metaphysics is to ask "what exactly IS the universe, or a law, or really any abstract/transcendent thing in general"

Idk what ontology is either desu, I'm not a philosophy student

[Anonymous No.19784184]

>>19784055
>Dialects
This isn't a philosophy term AFAIK. Maybe you mean "dialectics"? If so, it's just the idea of coming to higher levels of knowledge by having a thesis replied to with an antithesis, which in turn is replied to with another antithesis. When Socrates is going back and forth with someone in Plato's dialogues, that's dialectics. The term means something somewhat different if you hear it in a Hegelian/Marxist context, but you should be able to mostly infer what that is from the explanation I just gave you.
>Metaphysics
This is hard to define. Basically it's the study of that which the sciences are unable to answer, for example the existence and nature of God are entirely metaphysical topics. Whether we have free will would be another metaphysical question, as would whether we have a soul. You might have heard of some philosophers having "metaphysical systems", this means that they have basically an entire metaphysical worldview figured out. A good example of someone like this is Leibniz and his monadology.
>Ontology/ontological
Ontology is the study of being. That might not be helpful, but maybe if I give examples of ontological questions you'll understand; for example, the question of "When is someone dead?" is an ontological question, as are "What exactly does it mean when we say God is omniscient?" or taxanomical questions like "What kind of animal is a dog?". It might be noteworthy that ontology is considered a subsection of metaphysics, hence these questions having some overlap with the examples I gave for metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19784199]

>>19784184
Just pasted your answers into my notes, this seems to be the most congruent response i've gotten. So when Marx says that history should be viewed dialectically, he really just means it should be viewed through a subjective lens of presenting thesis' and being met with antithesis? I always thought it was a lot more nuanced than that for some reason. And yeah, I did mean dialectic

[Anonymous No.19784214]

>>19784055
>>19784069
samefag

[Anonymous No.19784250]

>>19784199
>So when Marx says that history should be viewed dialectically, he really just means it should be viewed through a subjective lens of presenting thesis' and being met with antithesis?
Not sure what you mean by "subjective lens", but yes, to brutally oversimplify, Marx basically views history as a succession of thesis and antithesis coming in conflict with each other. But unlike Hegel, who views the theses and antitheses of history in terms of ideas (e.g. Leibniz's ideas vs. Spinoza's), Marx views them in terms of physical forces. For example, the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie. So the conflict between thesis and antithesis is quite literally violent for Marx.
>I always thought it was a lot more nuanced than that for some reason.
It is, I'm giving you the Sparknotes version because I can't do it justice here. If you really want to learn what it means for Marx then start here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
If you find that too daunting, try this (although I honestly somewhat disagree with this interpretation): https://youtu.be/Lst0znvp3AQ
Just a note. If you go around using "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to describe Hegel's and Marx's dialectics you will get keyboard warriors telling you you don't understand Hegel/Marx. Even the video I linked does this a bit. Ignore them, they're just posturing. My 19th Century Philosophy professor, who is a Hegel scholar, used the terms as does my friend who took an entire graduate course on just the Science of Logic. It is the case that the terms never show up in Hegel or Marx (except once where Hegel is criticizing the terminology), but it maps onto their dialectics well enough. Once you get to a higher level of understanding you might want to use different terms though, but you'll know when you're there.

[Anonymous No.19784259]

>>19784214
>>19784132
>>19784156
samefag

[Anonymous No.19784737]

>>19784055
>high school student
>studying
No, no you’re not. You’re not studying anything until a few semesters into your undergrad.

[Anonymous No.19784781]

>>19784134
No, it is surely Plato you pedantic little shit. Its from Raphael's painting The School of Athens.

[Anonymous No.19784814]

>>19784184
ontology also seems to overlap with epistemology.Would that mean metaphysics and epistemology are the two supreme rulers of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.19784823]

>>19784132
>>19784134
It means "after physics". The term comes from Aristotle because he wrote a work called "Physics" which was succeeded by another work that he didn't name, which was about what we would today call metaphysics, and so his archivers called it "after physics" which in Greek is "metaphysics".
I'm not against autodidactism, but at least learn a thing or two before lecturing others.

[Anonymous No.19784832]

>>19784250
Thank you a lot, looking through the links now

[Anonymous No.19784852]

Dialectics doesn't have a universal definition across the board because it's used by different philosophers in different ways. Greek dialectics are pretty simple, unlike Hegelian. The latter is anything but easy to explain to somebody who's not familiar with Hegel's writings. A lot of people break it down to "thesis + antithesis = synthesis" but that is not just oversimplified but factually wrong. I'm majoring in philosophy at a German uni, am studying Hegel in German, and this formula does nothing but distract from how Hegelian dialectic actually works. Don't let any anglos on this board tell you otherwise even if they call you "keyboard warriors". Keep in mind that Hegel in German is difficult enough, so only relying on how foreigners interpret Hegel is tricky.
Here is a rare case where a youtube video actually does a good job at explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh_KE4VwPDk It's in German but it does have English subtitles. Here is another one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIsWRZh29Sc by German professors, also in German obviously but with English subtitles, which explains how you should approach Hegel for starters.
Marxism adapts the shape of Hegelian dialectics but not its substance. Don't know how familiar you are with Marxist theory so I'll just leave it at that so as to not confuse you further.

[Anonymous No.19784875]

>>19784852
>Greek dialectics are pretty simple
EXPLAIN PLATO'S PARMENIDES TO ME RIGHT NOW

[Anonymous No.19784909]

>>19784852
>Don't let any anglos on this board tell you otherwise even if they call you "keyboard warriors".
That's what you are. Sorry, but being an undergrad at a German university doesn't really make you much of an authority. Meanwhile I cited my professor who knows German, as well as a grad student.
The terms are perfectly fine for an introductory understanding of Hegel, even if Hegel doesn't like the terms.

[Anonymous No.19784914]

>>19784852
Thank you, I should also ask while you're here: Do you think German is worth learning just to enjoy things like philosophical texts and philosophy? As i'm young, and still have a modest amount of time before my brain can't comprehend and properly become fluent in another language i've been tossing between learning german or french. Could I ever get to a point where I can read original Nietzsche texts if I work hard or is it borderline fucking impossible if I didn't start learning it earlier?

[Anonymous No.19784915]

>>19784069
Bait
>>19784095
Bad
>>19784132
Cringe
>>19784180
Shut up
>>19784184
Very bad and misleading

[Anonymous No.19784918]

>>19784909
>a grad student.
One that studied the SoL in its entirety might I add.

[Anonymous No.19784919]

>>19784914
Meant philosophical texts and opera*

[Anonymous No.19784924]

>>19784915
>Very bad and misleading
You should make a response. I'm repeating what I was told in class.

[Anonymous No.19784960]

>>19784055

Dialectics is literally just a conversation

[Anonymous No.19785002]

The absolute state of /lit/ hahahahahahhahahaa

[Anonymous No.19785012]

What an awful thread.

[Anonymous No.19785038]

>>19784909
no, they're not, even as an introduction. That's just analytical retards trying to reduce everything into their framework. I'm glad I don't go to your college. Don't even bother replying to me because I know you'll just repeat Philosophy Tube-level filth.
>>19784914
Hard to say whether or not it's worth it because it depends on how far you wanna go. I've heard of one American professor who studied at my university only to learn German and thus understand German idealism better. I guess for him it was worth the dedication. If you have similarly high ambitions but only limited time and attention span then I'd recommend the Assimil series. Haven't used it personally but I've only heard good things about it. It promises to get you to a decent level if you spend 30 minutes a day for 6 months straight, and judging by the reviews it seems to work. I'm not sure if it's available in English though given that it's a French company. But there are German versions so the chance is high.
It's definitely not impossible to learn German to read Nietzsche fluently but the question is whether or not it's even worth it. Nietzsche's prose is often quite poetic and he writes in a way that is unusual for today's German, he definitely stands out in the philosophical tradition, so even for the average German it's not perfectly clear what every sentence of his means, but that doesn't make his ideas complicated. If you just want to "enjoy" Nietzsche's writings in its original form then sure why not, but if it's just to avoid misinterpretations then I'd say it's not worth the hassle (German grammar specifically is very difficult after all) given that the translations and secondary literature by Walter Kaufmann are perfectly sufficient. I've talked to my professor in a class about existentialist philosophy and he recommended him too.
So overall learning German for philosophy depends on your ambitions and dedication, since you apparently don't go to university it might be too much of a workload if you have anything else going on in your life. But if you want to learn German for enjoying German literature, then go ahead, there are a lot of great authors that make it worth it.

[Anonymous No.19785466]

>>19784055
The reason the term dialectics is used is to maintain continuity with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.19785630]

Dialectic comes from Greek dia- (through, by means of, to the completion of) and legein (to speak). Ordinarily it meant conversation, to speak-through something, to speak-to-the-end-of something. It took on more technical meanings as philosophy developed, and it came to mean something like a constructive dialogue or an argument in which the truth of a matter is sought, between more than one speaker (since the speaker is either trying to convince someone or prove his point, or it's a fully mutual dialogue with multiple people constructively trying to reach the same goal of agreement/truth).

Over the centuries it had different technical uses that basically related to this fundamental meaning. Different, more or less stereotyped styles of philosophical "talk" could be called "dialectic," for example the medieval "sic et non" or disputatio format.

But the main technical and philosophical use people have in mind when they say dialectic is the use Hegel and Marxist Hegelians gave to the term. For them, "dialectic" is extended metaphorically to describe a process of apparent logical differences (paradoxes, dualities, etc.) coming to an ultimate reconciliation. For example, Hegel would say that the apparent duality between mind and matter, subject and object, in early modern science, was a false duality, but also a necessary one, because it first had to manifest clearly in apparent philosophical paradox before this paradox could be "dialectically" reconciled in a new conception that "sublates" the two opposed terms, which in hindsight reveal themselves to have been only APPARENTLY opposed, although the people at the time could not have understood this, because for them the paradox was objective and irreparable.

The "dialectic" then is the way that the underlying logical process (of moving toward an ultimate synthesis, an ultimate reconciliation) "moves forwar," "through" the particulars (particular conceptions of particular people in their philosophies, social and religious beliefs, etc.), in a kind of civilisation-wide meta-"conversation" that works itself out in all these spheres, until finally it becomes abstractly visible for philosophers, and is ultimately resolved, at which point the resolution becomes a commonplace idea, because the result of the "conversation" (dialectic) was the ultimate realisation that the paradox was only apparent, never actual.

[Anonymous No.19785637]

>>19785630
Marxists adopt this usage and some use the term "dialectic" very freely. The same basic Hegelian idea is applied within Marxism to the tension, not of abstract philosophical issues like subject-object or mind-matter dualism, but to the ongoing class conflict between the actual producing class and the class of owners of the means of production. All of the apparent philosophical issues are actually aspects of THIS ongoing dialectic, whose current phase is the bourgeois-proletariat opposition, which will be reconciled when the proletariat abolishes (sublates) the apparent difference, by actually abolishing BOTH itself and the bourgeoisie and creating a new era of the "universal class." This is why the proletariat is sometimes called the universal class, because it is the class that will reveal and constitute this universal class once it finishes absorbing the bourgeoisie, in the same way that the bourgeoisie previously sublated the feudal class (which was irrational relative to the bourgeoisie's greater rationality, just as the proletariat is now more rational than the bourgeoisie).

The focus of the Marxian dialectic is more on getting the proletariat to recognise (and thus act out) its own "nature," which is simply the thoroughly rational, commonsense viewpoint that it is IRRATIONAL for an arbitrary (arbitrariness is always irrational) class of owners to own the means of production for merely historical-accidental (i.e. irrational) reasons, while the actual producers produce all surplus value but own only the bare means for reproducing their own labour. Marxism a Hegelian story with a socialist protagonist. That's why it's said that Marx was the synthesis of "German philosophy (Hegel), British political economy (Smith, Ricardo), and French socialism (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Proudhon, etc.)." The idea being that he was achieving the GOALS of French socialism by an immanent CRITIQUE of British economics with a Hegelian METHOD.

Unfortunately it gets a bit more confusing from there, because "dialectical materialism" inspired by Marx can mean either the Hegelian METHOD by itself (which is not infrequently treated as a borderline religion or meta-philosophy), which is what it meant to Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci, Lukacs, Korsch, the Frankfurt School, etc., OR it can mean a sort of metaphysical theory or meta-narrative of history like Engels and Stalinism had, where "materialism" no longer means a method but an actual metaphysical materialism (for example Engels tried to combine Marx with Darwin and scientific naturalism).

[Anonymous No.19785638]

>>19785637
When people say "dialectical" today and they mean more than dialogical or conversational, they tend to be channeling this general background of leftist critical theory, although they have likely never read anything on "dialectics" or dialectical materialism. And this critical theory background is itself drawing on a general appreciation of Hegel's use of "dialectics." That's where the term gets such a confusing mix of meanings, because Hegel's use of it is hard to understand and is more a philosophical "way of seeing" than a tidy method that can be described easily (honestly one of the best ways to understand it is by thinking through Marxist uses of it until it clicks), and Marxists had various appropriations of Hegel, and then modern leftism has various appropriations of Marxian thinking, and now some random manager lady who read two pages of critical theory in college is saying "dialectical."

Meta-physics mean "after or beyond (meta)" physics. The probably apocryphal funny story is that the work of Aristotle we now call the Metaphysics (actually it's a compilation of different texts and probably lecture notes by his students or by later editors) was simply the text placed "after the Physics," i.e. "meta Physics," so our modern term derives from this. But Aristotle described the matter of metaphysics as "first philosophy," "the study of being qua being," and "theology" (god-study or divine-study, i.e. the study of the highest ultimate reality).

Aristotle's Physics is not really concerned with "physics" in the modern geometrical and mathematical sense of classical mechanics (that comes out of Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, and others). Physics means "nature," meaning basically "everything out there, whatever it really is," so Aristotle's Physics is the study of what can be said about the world. You might think this means natural science but for Aristotle it was more a series of discussions of the most primordial things that can be said about the world, like the fact that movement exists, that bodies exist and interact, etc.

The Metaphysics then moves on to what and why things are what they are. Instead of studying the movement of beings, you study BEING, and try to think of why and how it is what it is. This is the modern usage, and metaphysics is loosely applied to any "first philosophy" or primordial philosophy of "reality qua reality," of "whatever exists, in its most fundamental." A metaphysician can be concerned with all of reality (e.g., he can think all of reality is one big mind) or he can be concerned with metaphysical questions like "what is the nature between our experience of objects and the objects themselves," because this question involves first understanding what "experience" and "objects" ARE in their actual being.

[Anonymous No.19785640]

>>19785638
Like dialectic, metaphysics has many extended meanings for the obvious reason that it's vague and can apply to a lot of things, and can be used colloquially to mean simply "philosophical." A physicist who wants you to finish your quantum mechanics homework might tell you to "stop getting metaphysical" if you start asking "what really IS an electron? is probability REAL or is the universe deterministic and probability is just an illusion?"

By itself ontology means something almost identical to metaphysics: onto- (being) logos (study, reasoning about). So, the study of being qua being. People often use ontology loosely to say things like "what's this guy's ontology of electrons?," meaning something like "what does he think electrons really ARE." Sometimes people talk about "ontological status," like, "do all numbers have ontological status for Plato?," meaning, "does Plato think all numbers have independent 'being', or are they just manifestations or functions of other beings that have real independent being?"

Adding to the confusion a bit again, ontology is often used as a shorthand for Heidegger's "fundamental ontology," which is really better understood (at least initially) as a complex form of epistemology (studying knowledge and how we know things), since it's not about BEINGS as they REALLY ARE IN THEMELVES but beings AS THEY APPEAR (presence) FOR US. When Heidegger says he is interested in "how beings become the beings they are for us," to put it in simplified terms, he means something like how the collective human consciousness shaped them into the "thing" they are for us today, by passing them on and thinking them through again and again. He's also interested in questions like: what happens when we take "the way something is" so for granted that we can't question it anymore, it becomes kind of "stuck?" This kind of thinking is often used in critical theory too, as people might ask (for example) "this culture sees animals as things" or "this culture sees slaves as objects." That is, their ontology actually includes slaves under inanimate things, they "unconsciously" think of slaves as thing-ly, as having the "character" or "aspect" of a possession.

You can see why this is useful for cultural critique and social theory, etc. And it sort of relates to the more explicitly metaphysical, realist use of "ontology," because you're talking about what is "real" (what is a "being") FOR a specific culture or person. But it's not quite the same as the plain straightforward sense of ontology as "the study of being," as plain metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19785753]

>>19785640
>>19785638
>>19785637
>>19785630
Thanks, very thorough.

[Anonymous No.19785789]

>>19784055
Dialectical philosophy in the Hegelian/Marxist context refers to a system of thinking that depends on mutually antagonistic but necessary categories of thought (although there are also ontological implications).

A good, simple example of dialectical thinking is how Marx conceptualizes the commodity.

Marx defines value as socially necessary labor time. What is the average amount of labor time that is socially necessary to produce one commodity? That's its value.

From there the commodity has use-value and exchange-value. These are extremely simple to understand. Use-value is what you use it for, and exchange-value is its commensurability with other commodities.

Notice that these two forms of value are not at peace with each other. In other words, there is a contradiction at the core of the commodity.

[Anonymous No.19785824]

>>19784055
Dialectics refers to the linguistical/logical process in which knowledge is brought forth in philosophy, through the examination of contrary ideas. Socrates exposing the falsehood of his interlocutors is a dialectical method. It may refer to itself as a process, as with Marx, or as an aspect of ontology itself, as with Hegel.
Metaphysics refers to the science of first principles. It was defined first by Aristotle as the study of Being itself, of things that are not accidental, and of the first cause itself. This definition is no longer very applicable, however, as most philosophers doing metaphysics nowadays are doing something closer to ontology or mereology (study of "parts/parthood to whole" relations).
Ontology (and you have to distinguish here that some philosophers use the term very differently) is the "modern metaphysics", it is the study of various "objects" previously handled or summoned by metaphysics which cannot be subsumed under the usual empirical/scientific outlook completely. The practice is no longer unified by principle. It'll talk about space and time, causation, colors, mind-body dualism... And despite the supposed precision in practice brought by a better, less "mystical" definition, they still constantly mistake ontology and epistemology, or fail to understand that they are intertwined completely.

[Anonymous No.19785919]

>>19784055
Perhaps an example of ontology could help.
Take color ontology. Are colors real?
The standard taxonomy of color ontology is :
> Irrealism or Realism.
> If Realism, then either Mentalism or Externalism.
> If Externalism, then either Physicalism, Dispositionalism or Primitivism.
Futhermore, Irrealism itself could be fleshed out in ways which are incompatible :
> There are no properties at all. Therefore there are no color properties.
> There are properties, but colors do not figure amongst them.
> There are properties, and color are amongst them, but for a matter of (matter of necessary or contingent) fact nothing in the actual world exemplifies any color properties.
Fleshing out, refining and exploring this taxonomy is the practice of color ontology in modern days. See The Red & the Real, by Jonathan Cohen.

[Anonymous No.19786351]

bump

[Anonymous No.19786376]

>>19784055
hey brit whats the word aristotle came up with to describe two people describing the same metaphysical concept in different ways? been trying to remember it for an essay and just can't fucking find it. it might have been plato too.

i heard the word in a lecture sometime over the last couple weeks and the definition has stuck but the word is just gone.

[Anonymous No.19786413]

>>19786376
nevermind the term is extensional equivalence.

[Anonymous No.19786414]

>>19786376
are you sure it was a classical word

i've heard commensurate, isomorphic

[Anonymous No.19786418]

>>19784134
the central figures are plato and aristotle, not socrates and plato. fuck man.

[Anonymous No.19786427]

>>19786414
i was confused i thought it was something one of them said in ethics or the republic but its a modern term i believe.
see
>>19786413

[Anonymous No.19786449]

>>19784134
Is your name a joke? Am I being what the kids used to call 'trolled?' This is a candidate for one of the least-informed posts on /lit/ I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.19786453]

>>19784132
meta means "after" above is "hyper", meta physics is after the physics, that is because the metaphysical works of aristotle should be read after his works on physic according to his disciples
>>19784134
>. Meta actually means "outside of
no, "exo" means outside in greek

[Anonymous No.19786485]

>>19784055
>Dialects
means a lot of things platonic dialectics and hegelian dialectis are two different things
the basis is that your notions of things and concept is linguistic in nature, so if you wanna know someting you'll have to engage in a semantical path in which your concepts will be tested semantically
>Metaphysics
the science that studi the first principles, read sometihng about aristotle metaphysics if you wanna know more
>Ontology/ontological
the study of the existence of things, how a thing can exist, in which way and context, for example you culd say that a dragin ball character don't exist on this world, but at the same time exist in pop culture, it also exist in your imagination, so ontology study the different forms of existence

[Anonymous No.19786585]

>>19786485
>dialectics
>the basis is that your notions of things and concept is linguistic in nature, so if you wanna know something you'll have to engage in a semantical path in which your concepts will be tested semantically
This is way off-base anon.

[Anonymous No.19787354]

>>19784199
marx and other communists have their own lingo. you actually have to read up what meaning THEY gave the words and not what it normally MEANS.
TIC on Youtube has some good videos about the subject.
Anyway, why read communist papers? You will not find anything of worth in them. They are just a failed hypothesis powerhungry dictators used to lure the "peasants" into giving them the power over the government.
Or as the joke goes "Hungary defeated Hitler and became communist. So we still lost the war."

[Anonymous No.19787378]

>>19784055
A dialectic is like a debate, wherein two or more people are conversing over some disagreement. The difference is that in a debate the participants are against each other, but in a dialectic the participants are working together to reach some truthful conclusion.

[Anonymous No.19787412]

>>19784069
thank you for your service, mr. veteran (of the peloponnesian war)

[Anonymous No.19787689]

>>19784055
Dialectics are types of development.
Metaphysics is the study of first principles.
Ontology is the study of existence.

[Anonymous No.19787813]

>>19784055
I'm not going through everybody else's.
Dialectics is greek for discourse between two opposing ideas. Hegel used it in a different manner and it's just where once you receive an abstract idea it is negated if it's real to become another idea (think if you come upon the idea hot then it becomes the idea cold) then that becomes negated again (so theoretically you get temperature). Granted Hegel is talking from an epistemological perspective and I'm not defining that because German Idealism is dumb and should be taken when you get to it. More realistic examples of that type of dialectics is taoism and heraclitus. Taoism has good negate bad and bad negate good forward. Heraclitus said panta rhei or everything changed and war was the mother of invention or something. It espouses emergentism. Not defining that either.

Metaphysics is, as was said, from aristotle's books. It means after physics but conceptually it means a framework fir physics. We use the prefix meta in other fields too like metamathematics or even metametaphysics. The google definition is framework of first principles so if you have a concept of time, structure etc then you can develop anything in that conception of reality based on how good it is.

Ontology is from parmenides but had a history of meaning metaphysics. Parmenides wrote a short poem saying "everything is". Onto is the present participle of to be (so it means being) therefore it's the study of being. You can see why that may imply it is metaphysics but ontology takes on more particular conceptions. If you ask for the ontological nature of gender etc then you're asking whether it's monistic, dualistic, nihilistic, pluralistic (ontological dimension), whether it's a social construct or material etc. It could be whether you think it's good or bad if that's in your metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19788547]

>>19786585
how so?

[Anonymous No.19789506]

>>19784055

>quotation is itself dialectic

Chomsky is already figuring it out

[Anonymous No.19790962]

>>19788547
Your overstating the linguistic/semantic component of dialectical thinking. Linguistics has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.19790967]

>>19790962
You’re* lol

[Anonymous No.19792041]

>>19790962
not really, the basis of dialectis is that things are also concepts, and concepts have a meaning, (a linguistic meaning)
that's how i can produce knowledge, by discussing/articulating,(with another person or with myself) the meaning of a concept

[Anonymous No.19792130]

Some of these metaphysics definitions are off. Specifically, in tying metaphysics to literal contemporary physics. We call it metaphysics for a certain historical reason, and some of what we describe as metaphysics is retroactively applied to previous philosophers and religions when they weren't using that concept. In fact, Aristotle, "founder of metaphysics," was probably not the one who coined the term. Nor does that mean his own study of metaphysics assume his study of physics. The name likely comes from his work on metaphysics as "writings after the physics" as categorized by later librarians. And the work itself is a reaction to the (metaphysical) ideas present in Plato.
Physics as a field has to do with metaphysics, but as much as art, aesthetics, biology, religion, and numerous other studies.
I would add this definition:
Metaphysics is the study of being, and the *intuition* of being. All people therefore have an innate grasp of metaphysics in that that can intuit ways of being. And such is obvious in the art and language of all people.
Ontology is in some senses synonymous with metaphysics. But it's distinct in this: ontology is the study of things. Think of "entity-study," ontology. It asks questions about the reality of entities or objects.
There is always an ontological question when broaching any scientific or even religious field. For example, when we look at any organism, is the organism "real" in one essence, or is it merely a web of interconnected physical parts? That is, is there really a tree or a brain, or can they be reduced to mere "pile" of cells, processes, or even atoms? Or: is there such a thing as "processes," or are they a convenient fiction for us to understand the world?
Consider religion. In Christianity, is there really a God, or is the religion just an ethos? In Hinduism, is there a God, are we all part of God, or is God separate?
In the study of metaphysics and ontology, you will find many fields of inquiry reach these open philosophical questions, from neuroscience, to religion, to physics, and even to the witchcraft practiced by primitive tribes.

[Anonymous No.19792440]

>>19792041
Linguistics, up to a certain point, is always going to play a role in philosophy, but ultimately I think you’re overstating its essentiality to dialectical thinking.

I’d even be tempted to say linguistics is only important to Platonic and Hegelian dialectics up to the point it allows concepts to be communicated and understood, i.e. no more important than it is to everyday conversation. It’s not a defining feature of the philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19792508]

>>19784055
If you read this after all the answers you have already gotten... be happy for it... listen up :

there is no other way of answering your questions but to give you the advice to read Aristotle metaphysics... you won't have to read all books but the first three I guess will make it... he is defining metaphysics and ontology exactly there... you won't get it any better than that...

and forget about dialectic... the word is used differently by every philosopher you can not understand it independently from a certain philosophical system

[/Lit/ resident Philosopher No.19794325]

>>19787378

>He Thinks a dielectic is a debate

LOLE debates werent even invented in Ancient greece


>>19786449

UH, excuse me????? I am pdh student at Harvard university (masters from Oxford; bachelors cambridge) in phlilosophy, philology, etc etc. I know what, I am talking about OKAY???????????????????????? PLease, can we just trust the experts for once??????!!!!!!!! DAMN every hudley, dudley, and chudley's out to get me these days, shseeesh!!!!!!

>>19786376

SYnonymity! DO not listen to the replyers below.


>>19785919
yadadayadayayada

>>19784914

Do Not learn german; only neo-n@zi chuds learn germ-an. Not even most g#merans speak Germ*n anyway. Learn the language of diveristy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


>>19784132
>>19784781

That Picture, [btw] is still SOcrates. LOLE. The state of /Lit/ these days!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.19794407]

>>19784055
Dialectics - to argue in search of truth
Metaphysics - the thought that drives thought
Ontology - how we classify metaphysics

[Anonymous No.19794564]

>>19784055
The meanings of all three are highly disputed. Like the meaning of 'philosophy'.
Aristotelians and Heideggerians for example will have different answers.

[Anonymous No.19795830]

>>19794325
lol " /Lit/ resident Philosopher" and he posts a photo of Plato that is called "aristodle".

Read a book brainlet!

[Anonymous No.19796602]

>>19784055
Whenever you struggle to understand the meaning of a word, just read their etymology which means "the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning". Several English words tend to derive from Latin and ancient Greek sometimes which might cause some confusion.

[Anonymous No.19796663]

>>19796602
Nice etymological fallacy fag.

[Anonymous No.19796672]

>>19794407
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I recommend you read more.

[Anonymous No.19796692]

>>19796672
Holy shit, just explain it yourself. Wasting everybody's time with your retarded shit.

[Anonymous No.19797004]

>>19796672
>>19796692
Telling the above anon that his stupid formulations were “wrong” was a totally apt response.

[Anonymous No.19797886]

19794325
schizo faggot thinks low quality bait is still good if he knows its low quality

no (You) for (You), nigger

[/Lit/ resident Philosopher No.19798091]

>>19797886

That is very Interesting; unfortunately for, (You), I procreated with your mother, last night.

Yes, i am the /Lit/ resident Philosopher :: i reside, in your mother.

[/Lit/ resident Philosopher No.19798158]

>>19796672

No; You do not know, what you are talking of. He is actually :: Right, right, and right


>>19795830


As previously stated in other replys, i am a pdh Student at harvard college (prevsly ba at oxford, ma at cambridge); OKAY, can we PLEASe just trust the experts for once!!!!!???????


>>19794325


WOw, you are very intelligent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10/10 for You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>19792130


Woe-Fully incorrect. LOLE see what i did there Ha-Ha; [Woe];[-][Fully] incorrect. As in it causes, tremenous woe for me to read your Incorrect Definition LOLE LOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>19787412


you are Very welcome!!!!!!!!!!! Its Hard to be a Philosopher when i am Surrounded by all these Dim-Wits.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>19785789

Why are you bringing, Comunism into this Discussion??????????? ARE you aware this is NOT /Pol/ because, if it was THE BOARD would be probably orange instead of blue??????????????????????????????????????? Yes, LOLE, The state of /Lit/ these days!!!!!!


>>19784960

YEs, This is what we are talking about!!!!!!!!!! You are a fellow Philosopher-Extraordinare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bravo, Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.19798196]

>>19784055
Philosophy is gay. Just memorize some terms, read prolegomena, familiarize yourself with Schopenhauer, and move on. It's all a load of trash that will make you autistic and there's so much hairsplitting and casuistry that it will waste your time.

My advice is to go straight to spending more time reading Tao Te Ching, Heraclitus, and Nagarjuna, (maybe Heidegger, Jung, Guenon), and learn about Logos instead. Meditate on it instead. If you need to read some book, do it in audiobook form as this is how ancient literature was meant to be read.

It's a useless trap. Don't waste your time. You have a nice life to live

t. Faggot who has wasted his time reading Philosophy from Platonism, to Scholasticism, to German Idealism throughout High School, was a Marxist throughout Freshman. Biggest waste of my time. Am currently about to finish my Associates now.

[Anonymous No.19798218]

>>19784055
I am a PhD student but first of all... a-aa-are you cute anon?

[Anonymous No.19798221]

>>19798196
In addition, all that time you spend wasting your time drowing in words is better spent meditating and working out. Often times you can learn to enter Pranayama while you are lifting weights. Stay Based.

[Anonymous No.19798706]

>>19784055
>Dialects
Dialectics you mean. There are several different concepts signified by the term

1. Socratic dialectics, a form of inquiry in which opposing arguments attempt to expose and arrive at the contradiction between them, thereby exposing the truth

2. Hegelian dialectic: The process of conceptual subsumption in which a concept is integrated with its negation, yielding a higher stage of thought.

3. Historical or materialist dialectics : The struggle of history in which the present mode of production is confronted with its mounting contradictions and is self-obsoletes, leading to a new system.

>Metaphysics
The study of the fundamental nature of being, substance, and reality.

>Ontology
The study of existence and what exists, what it means to exist, etc.

[Anonymous No.19798779]

>>19784915
idiot.

[Anonymous No.19798804]

>>19798221
this is a nice answer, although to properly lead to this conclusion you might consider that OP needs to actually go through all the reading you did to truly understand it (your conclusion). "Do as I say" isn't a good answer for the youngers.

[Anonymous No.19799030]

>>19798196
>Nagarjuna
>Guenon

didn't Guenon hated Nagarjuna?

[Anonymous No.19800524]

>>19798804
Youngsters need an elder, a Guru to guide them initiatically, to demonstrate for them the prerequisite exoterism before they move on to the esoteric. This can only be done empirically. Because such a system does not exist now, the closest I can say is "see for yourself and come to your conclusion," and at the end of the day, all of what I will say will only convince or intrigue those who think on what I say. "The proof is left as an exercise for the reader."

>>19799030
>"Didn't poopoo hate peepee?"
Didn't Vasishtha hate Vishvamitra? Or Saul hate David? Your role as the reader is to read and learn for your own sake. My friend, when you were a child, you had many existential crises and sought answers everywhere, even in places which contradicted each other, all because you were desperate for answers. The point is to take their legacy and understand Reality for your own sake so you don't have to refer back to literature.

These dead men are pioneers. The landscape beyond you is vast and infinite, and not closed off to the confines of what one or two dead authors have to say. You will end up disturbed trying to defend the points of one author against another. As above, I say in the same vain, do not do as I did. Stay comfy.

And for both of you, I say to seek that childlike wonder, for what you are looking for is in there.

[Anonymous No.19801563]

>>19784122
>So is dialectics basically just interchangeable with the concept of rhetoric
More like "narrative making".

> and engaging in a conversation to find some semblance of truth?
More like "forcing truth into reality through discourse".

Basically
> If I bullshit you long enough with my tales, then your perception of reality change and so reality changes
> There is a process on how I can optimize my bullshit capabilities in "story-making"
> One good way of bullshit-story-making my reality is through thesis-antithesis reaching a middle point