Is the concept of yin and yang anti-dialectical?

Is the concept of yin and yang anti-dialectical?

In both systems you have one thing that contains and presupposes its opposite, and they exist in constant tension. Dialectics holds that the contradictions between the two should be resolved and produce something that is both new and that preserves some of the old. The idea of yin and yang is that the opposites should coexist in balance and harmony. Do these two ideas have more or less the same premise but utterly opposite conclusions? Does this have anything to do with ideology and philosophy of the East vs. West and the distinction between the "Western" and "Asiatic" modes of production?

Other urls found in this thread:

Gorilla posters are getting better at shitposting every time.


dialectics is retarded

Dialectics assumes that there is some kind of progression, while yin and yang is eternally repeating the same thing.

Not sure, but I wanted to point out that the dynamics behind the Mandate of Heaven is eerily similar to the Hobbesian concept of the sovereign.


Anarkiddies aren't helping their movements by pulling shit like this.


Yin and Yang are not opposites to balanced or resolved. They are better understood as states of flow in a cyclic system. For instance, Yin is often associated with night and yang with day. Or yin with inhaling and yang with exhaling. You cannot balance the flow of night into day, you cannot resolve exhaling after inhaling. One must flow into the other and you either go with the flow or you suffer.

I don't think dialectics is like that.

explain what dialectics are right fucking now

Explain how mathematics is correct. ffs these are all abstract systems.

That user didn't ask you to explain how dialectics is correct, just to state what it is.

Of course Marxists usually have no idea.

The opposition of exhaling and inhaling is resolved in breathing.

The entire concept of yin and yang is one of best ways ever devised to project superstition onto anything and everything. It's like someone had explained to them that humans are objectively poor at dealing with probability because we are hard-wired to look for correlations in everything and they said "hey we should make that even more shit". Probably one of the most integral parts of Confucian culture because it's so simple and so hard to disprove.

Dialectics are a method of analyzing systems. They were a component of Hegel's method and consist of finding the contradictions within an idea and speculatively but rigorously working out how those contradictions will cause the idea to change until it transforms into something else. Hegel applied this to ideas, and so did his followers but Marx applied this to power structures in the real world, which is where you get the idea of materialist dialectic (versus Hegel's idealist dialectic).

Marx didn't use the phrase dialectical materialism, but it's not wrong to call it that. He used "historical materialism" because he applied dialectics to history specifically. He used the concept to understand how historical conflicts play out and to predict how they would play out. His goal was to critique the existing ideology and uncover the material forces that he argued actually shaped history (including ideology) rather than the reverse (which was the common view of the time and largely still is for most people). A significant portion of his analysis is to explain how certain practices of capitalism (e.g. the capitalist class) require another component (e.g. the working class) that come into conflict with each other (e.g. class struggle) that will resolve by transforming the system into something else (abolishing the capitalist class and ultimately class entirely). This is material in that it deals with the physical world and its interactions vs. how Hegel would examine abstract concepts e.g. Being -> Nothing -> Becoming.

But in yin and yang, how do worker and capitalist flow cyclically?

Capitalism is against the flow therefore the worker suffers. Which is why we need to end capitalism.

Would dialectics resolve exhalation\inhalation by a cyclic action?

I am going to need a fucking explanation for this.

Dialectics will resolve inhalation/exhalation by altering human lungs so there is a constant flow of air both in and out by swapping the diaphragm for a pump and installing gills in the ribcage.

Capitalism is against the flow because the extraction of surplus value from commodities produced by the worker diverts the flow away from its natural pathway.

But the extraction of surplus is inherent to the capitalist/worker yin/yang so to that is the "natural pathway" within that system. What is the "natural pathway" supposed to be that would preserve the capitalist/worker dualism that isn't present in capitalism?

Capitalism is unnatural, there is imbalance of yang, which naturally gets balanced when the worker revolts. The natural flow is when the worker gets everything he produced.

But that's not a balance between the yin and yang of worker and capitalist, it's the combination of the working and earning parts of both roles and obliterating of the exploiter/exploited parts. It's not a harmony. Wouldn't applying the yin/yang dynamic lead you to a socdem conclusion of "balancing" labor relations so that the workers aren't too exploited but the capitalist's profits aren't too low?

I am not sure I agree with your assertion that the capitalist/worker dichotomy is part of natural world. What makes you think the natural path is supposed to preserve the capitalist/worker dichotomy? Early Taoist thought was about returning man to his natural state, I don't see how this would be inducive to any system based on exploitation.

Would be really interesting to hear what someone who is an expert on both Hegel/Marx and Taoism (or Buddhism, Hinduism, and "eastern philosophy" in general) have to say about this. My guess is that while some people in this thread are very knowledgeable on Marx (and maybe Hegel), they lack a deep understanding of Taoism and the yin yang shit.

A capitalist would argue this. They'd use the idea of balance as support. But what would the natural balance be that the capitalist disrupts then?

Yin/Yang is not about balance though. The flow capitalists disrupt is human productivity. They syphon off a portion without physically contributing to the flow, or worse still they store it.
If human productivity was a river of water, the capitalist would be a dam builder. Sure the dam can produce an artificial abundance but the river will seek to return to its natural state.

OK, I think I get what you mean. So would the yin and yang be workers and the MoP or what?

The metaphor is getting a little drawn out now, but here yang would be the producer of the commodity and yin the receiver. Trade would be chi (the flow) and the MoP would be Tao. Within Taoist thought it is arguable that yin/yang are not separate things but are different aspects of Chi (sometimes Qi) all of which emanate from Tao.
The natural order would be for the producer/yang to create enough stuff for the receiver/yin to be content.

I've read some of the Zhuangzou and from what I understood the two thing really ultimately form "the dao" but from what I've understood one should not be unable to choose between them. That is the concept of having the army but not use it or as in the zhuangzou the metaphor of the giant bird or whatever.the resolution of the contradition is the control you hold over the two different paths. But I don't know the Zhuangzou also talks about snow giats lmaooo

Ok, now that does make perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation.

You'll be interested in the one becomes two controversy (referenced in society of the spectacle btw)

My opinion is that yin and yang is not antidia because of the fact that they contain their opposite. Therefore you cant really contrast them in the obvious way, since they contain each other.

This would be like dialectics because in any situation the dialectical insight is achieved by recognizing how two things are more alike than they know.

I think the ultimate philo problem is subject/object. Taoism is not specific enough (not a science) and Marxism is too specific (dogmatic and trying to prove certain statements from the outset) to really address this, although the kernel is in Marx when he notes that our economic conditions of existence are also the conditions of possibility of political philo et al. Its just that the question of what we are is pretty open and winds up leading straight back to mysticism / solipsism. Marx prefigures this in 1844 but most Marxists don't chase that bone.

Dialectics isn't yin and yang, it's yin and not-yin

This is an example of dialectics…


No. They're pretty similar really.

Normie detected.

So then it's more like…

Abstract - axe
Negative - but it's just a sharpened stone so you have to hold the axehead by hand which makes it not all that effective
Concrete - give that bitch a handle

hello Socialism or Barbarism! that debate with AltHistory was pathetic. please actually read what you preach.

Why do anarchists hate dialectics so much? Because Chomsky doesn't or do they really have legit theoretical reasons to be against the method?

Because unless you're actually going to go all the way through with it and critically examine every bit of it, you end up with worthless half baked crap.

Dialectics isn't some law of the universe, it's just a method of critique. You don't need it to explain why capitalism is garbage and socialism is a natural progression. I don't particularly feel strongly about dialectics though.

Dialectics are a pattern that frequently emerges as the result of an immanent critique, that is, examining a system on its own terms. Dialectics themselves are unimportant, what is important is the method of examining a system–and its material relations–on its own terms.

Go ask Anal Water.


Is it really shitposting when gorillaposting generates more interesting threads than 80% of the catalog?

What did they mean by this?