Explain dialectics using this template

...

ok

this stimulated my neurons

...

stare into the void, the void stares back into yuo.

...

check'd and kek'd

...

this is literally me

DO IT

Truly the most dialectical ideology.

I kek'ed

...

le Bakunin was a nationalist meme

No, he was just a little bit anti-semitic.

fixed

No, but he was a raging antisemite and believed Marx's ideas would result in Jews taking over the state through national banks.

fug

Pretty sure OP only made this topic to samefag that joke in the first post.

He's absolutely right though

...

fpbp

More applicable than ever considering Holla Forums banned books.

Well, that was embarrassing.

It's true. I don't know why people obsess over the whole "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" bit when the real core of dialectics is about analyzing systems for internal self-contradictions.

You need to switch Hitler and the socdem

lol they did what

wat, they did?

Historically not correct

...

yep, I've seen them bumplock or delete pdf/reading threads

...

how in the FUCK

more like this i guess

apparently on leftypol you are allowed to shit-talk all religions expect the jewish one, just look at the /econ/ thread

I know that this is a shitposting thread, but I'd like to let the people who have never read Hegel know this – Hegel never used Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.

He used the term "sublation" which has a radically different meaning.

People who say that Hegel's philosophy revolved around TAS never read him.

so what is sublation? and where did TAS come from?

Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis was used by Fichte, a German Idealist. Both Schelling and Hegel studied and criticized Fichte in their early years.

Hegel used the term sublation – Aufheben in German, which has several contradictory meanings – to abolish, preserve, transcend, lifted up and canceled.

In other words, you could say that the previous concept is lifted up, abolished and preserved at the same time. TAS usually gives the impression that various tendencies within a concept are mixed up to form some child-variant. TAS also gives the impression that certain tensions are resolved.

With sublation you know that it is a movement which overcomes while preserving it within it, so somethings could be left unresolved.

Yeah, that sounds like solid criticism of the Jewish religion.

People who insist on not using tas to explain dialectics havent read hegel too in my expirience. I have read so many chrestomaties and interductions to reading hegel where they use these terms (first used by kant if im not wrong). Best example of dialectics in greek philosophy is parmenid - platon, and heraclit. Not to say you're wrong but insisting on using sublimation for describing ot is stupid when you have more descriptive terms like tas. If you wamt to get deeper insight into hegel then read him or at least his introductions so please dont get angry when i try to explaon hegel by tas. And even then you need to have knowledge of german idealism. For kant ideas have regulatory functions thats why antinomies cant be resolved, fichte resolves subject object prpblem by constituting subject inhimself byhimself and these gives need fpr ideas to go beyond purly regulative function which is only possible with dialectics tjere for in dialectics its actually logical that idea trough her evolution contains earlier stage within herself so it can be productive in later stages

Marx sublated the Young Hegelians, then?

"the criminally simple way to put it"

Sublation is when one of 2 dialectically opposed "which is not a simple opposition but an opposition where one can not exist without the other and can be explained as the opposite such as being and nothing" concepts negate the other.

But if something of the previous concept(s) is(are) to be "preserved at the same time", they can't completely negate each other, can they? In Marx's case, the opposing forces are idealism and materialism, but obviously the latter "wins out", so it's not a complete i.e. mutual negation, is it?

babby's first continental philosophy, pls no bully

...

In the Science of Logic Hegel explicitly describes what he means by Aufheben. He contrasts it with Plato's dialectics and where his differs from it (Plato's doesn't have necessity and is entirely contingent whereas Hegel's does). He also describes 3 things which sublation (Aufheben) is not, and one of those is synthesis. Using TAS for Aufheben is wrong according to Hegel himself. This isn't my opinion.

Hegel's entire approach belies the worst sort of analytical poverty. Marx's achievement was to cut the dialectic out of a diseased body.

Wow, this makes a LOT more sense for the proletariat vs bourgeoisie. Communism is the negation of BOTH the bourgeois and the proletarian classes. I've had a lot more trouble seeing how communism would be a synthesis between the proles and the porkies.

Hegel most certainly did not use "aufheben" in the meaning of "preserve".

It's like you've never watched Zizek's lectures.

Hegel was awful and the only reason anyone even knows about his wizard-tier tomes is because of Marx. So really Hegelians should be happy that Marx existed since he is the only reason anyone knows about their archaic bullshit.

I assume this is shitposting so I'm just gonna drop it by calling you a dumb fuck

marx fucking bodied feuerbach and stirner in theses on feuerbach / the german ideology tho lol

the german ideology is autistic screeching

lel we have a separate pdf board you tard
>>>/pdfs/

U made the thread to post this didnt u

The Ego and its Own is autistic screeching

This is a fairly comprehensive explanation of Hegel's sublation/Aufheben, and should settle this conclusively.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

The only books Holla Forums reads are communist related.

Everything else is read by Holla Forums. Especially the classics, economic books, legal books, computer science books, sociology books and psychology books.
Holla Forums thinks they're "more intellectual" but all I ever see is fucking ramble about the same old communist bullshit time and time again.

Holla Forums needs to branch out, but it won't because that would make them read shit that would conflict with it's ideology.
The only thing that conflicts with Holla Forums's ideology is the communist ideology.

Hell even stirner is considered there. Only we look at the arguments of classical writers such as plato and socrates.

...

...

the only thing Holla Forumsyps read are jpeg charts made in paint

except Holla Forums calls anything it dislikes "communism" or Jews, which is freely interchangeable at most times with you people.

pic related

We used to remove retards like yourself.

yeah well how much of the full works of lenin can you bench-press, bitch? that's what I thought

How embarrassing for you.

so you look at one greek

wew

tbh

:)

Have yet to meet someone that also understood them

that actually explains a lot considering most of what they said is only historically relevant nowadays at best

Had the same thought and you beat me to it lol

Gave it a shot with something relevant.

Is that how it works?

...

...

This is why nobody takes Holla Forums seriously.

...

How does that make any sense?

idealist dogmatism (SJW) X "realist" cult of spontaneity (alt-right) => materialist self-criticism and self-parody (Holla Forums)

Kek this guy got bullied to fuck.

People who post without any self-awareness get bullied. Not only did he project what he read onto everyone on Holla Forums. He also assumed that Holla Forums only reads leftist theory. Also, he sperged out about a joke.

Lol please, Bookchin's work is firmly rooted in Greek naturalist philosophy, with his Aristotelian dialectic and naturalism.

I can never tell apart a retarded Holla Forumsyp from satire.

???
I study CS you fucking faggot

He disliked books and knew nothing. What made him better than Holla Forums is that he know the latter.

Oh my dayz