Dialectics Discussion Thread

ITT we share favorite books on dialectics and discuss our opinions on the scope of the application of dialectics.

Other urls found in this thread:

dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome.html
marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm
plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/marxs-dialectical-method/
youtube.com/watch?v=jvBWJWFTZWY

What kind of fucking schizophrenic made this diagram

dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome.html
Heard it was a guy trying to formalize dialectics into linear algebra.
You can see for yourself if he succeeded or not.

there is no way this isnt obscurantist pseudoscience

marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith4.htm

Jesus fuck get a grip and ACTUALLY READ MARX.

so what the hell is dialectics actually?

A method to falsify perceived truths by doscovering internal contradictions in them. Then (something something) sublating by doing the negative again (something) and then you have the result.

What Lenin got wrong

this is some quality autism

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

This is quite dense, is there some kind of introduction to Hegel or the guys before him, which would help to understand? There are books listed in the Secondary Literature section at the bottom but I don't want to waste my time on something with a big risk of not understanding it anyway.

The picture certainly is, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Thank you. I will give that a read.

Just get out a notebook and some pencils and start taking notes. You will be fine!

edensauvage.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/marxs-dialectical-method/

I found this a good explanation, and surprisingly well written/easy to understand (in comparison to A.W.'s article). It dispels common myths and misconceptions, but doesn't overload one with new terminology or obscure graphics.

This is called autism.

so it means to criticise something by using its own logic against it?

Dialectics it is the study of the nuances in relationships between opposing forces withing a system, with the goal of resolving internal conflict.

The dialectical method is sometimes expressed as "thesis, antithesis, synthesis." This model is an oversimplification, but can be a helpful way of thinking about it.

There are examples of dialectics in just about everything, so much so that some people believe that all knowledge can be reduced to dialectics.

Within the mind, you have cognitive dissonance, which comes about when someone is made aware of two mutually exclusive ideas. Cognitive dissonance can be resolved in a way that leads to delusion, or to clarity.

In conversation with another person there is contradiction between each persons ideas. This conflict is resolved through examining the root causes of the disagreement, and synthesizing a position that addresses the roots of the disagreement.

In mathematics you have positive and negative values within expressions. The value of an expression is only ever positive or negative because positive and negative are mutually exclusive concepts. However, and expression can still contain positive and negative terms, hence the internal conflict. The value of the expression is determined when the contradiction is resolved through simplification of the expression.

In feudalism there is the conflict between the peasantry and the ruling class. This is resolved through democratic revolution.

In imperialism and colonialism, there is the contradiction between the interests of the empire or colonial power, and the interests of the colonies, or subordinate states. This is resolved through nationalist revolution.

In capitalist society there is the conflict between the bourgeoisie interests and the proletariat interest, which is resolved through socialist revolution.

but the bourgeoisie doesn't see it that way, since it means they lose their dominance. it's not so much a resolution as one side defeating the other

After seeing these images long enough I can conclude that the person who made these is either autistic or schizophrenic. Random, unrelated things all tied together, words and letters in arbitrary colors and underlines, horrible misuse of parentheses, comas, dots and quotation marks. Signs out of place.

I don't a common neurotic can make such disparate works of art. It is amazing as it is stupid.

Dialectics.org is a joke website made probably by buttmad analytic philosophers. It is really useful for trolling on/pol/ tho

The image is a joke.

The bourgeoisie are also victims of capitalism. They may be economic benefactors, but they too endure an existential loss of purpose resulting from an alienation from their labor.

Capitalism cant work without exploiting the worker, which creates the internal contradiction.

This website looks like the result of a 5th grade computer sience class playing aroung with HTML for the first time.

kek plz post proofs.

but they don't care. they're still the dominant group with the most muh privilege, and they want to preserve that

so what follows that? just sounds like a truism

What follows is that the proletariat take control of their workplaces, thereby resolving the contradiction of surplus value extraction.

It means that capitalists cant truly defeat the workers or their own system breaks apart.

I think it has meme potential though.

Has anyone here read Norman Levine? He claims that it was Engels' fault for the rise of Diamat. I think this is the same argument as Luk√°cs and Korsch

I can see where he is coming from because Engels' '3 laws of Dialectics' is not much better than the T-A-S triangle meme

youtube.com/watch?v=jvBWJWFTZWY

bzzzt wrong!
What follows is that workplaces no longer exist as they cannot be conceived of as existing outside of the historical cycle of capital The synthesis between the thesis of value-producing labor (commonly known as "work") and antithesis of capital (work's crystallization and elevation to the status of a commodity which acquires its own life via the alienation of the worker) necessarily requires the complete and utter obliteration of both and the rebirth of the non-alienating alternative - the integration of labor into the lives actually lived by people, the form taken being determined by the material conditions. One is defined by the other and vice versa. The workplace, as we know it, cannot survive outside of this particular context, and yet we cannot imagine a world without it. That is the power of dialectics - to describe society as a system in motion through criticism and dissection of its many interlinking components to describe the transformation of both these components and the system as a whole.

No shit.

I was using workplace to refer to the means of production themselves, rather than the concrete structure of the social institutions surrounding the means of production.

You think that after the revolution people will just abandon the existing infrastructure? We will still need building to do work in, and machines to do work on, even when the structure of the workday and the social institution of the workplace are abolished, and labor is integrated into our lives.

Using words like "workplace" and "money" instead of "means of production" and "capital", although admittedly imprecise, can help people to understand how these ideas would apply to their own lives.

Hegel is the cancer of the left. No one needs dialectics.

dialectics have their place but use them too much and you get autism

it's an elaborate bullshitting tactic

That is not helpful to anyone. Retards just end up thinking dialectics is the golden mean fallacy. It's dumb word-play without any substance or meaning behind it.

No. Dialectics is a technique for analyzing a system and nothing more. All knowledge can't be reduced to dialectics for the same reason that all knowledge can't be reduced to fourier transforms.

No, this is retarded. Please stop posting.

Dialectics is a completely reasonable and fairly simple approach to problem solving, but its most vocal proponents are crazy people who manage to twist it into an entire philosophy of life and make it sound confusing and needlessly complicated just so they can talk about the dialectic contradiction between breakfast and lunch.