So what are dialectics exactly? Are they evil? Are they used to undermine the status quo? Are they useful? Will I gain magical powers if I learn dialectics? Someone please give me some advice. Also what does it mean to be "undialectical?"
Interestingly this lying magic dialectics enables is why the great polymath Goethe did not like Hegelian philosophy. Apparently in their private talks Goethe asked if the method could not be used to turn truth into falsehood, and falsehood into truth. Hegel's only reply was that it could, but one had to be an exceptionally evil person to use it for such a thing.
No powers. No, but they will help your brain grow from a puny idealist to a strong materialist. You are undialectical if you do not see things as constantly changing and impacted upon by other things/themselves. An undialectical opinion would be "Science and politics are seperate, and a scientist should not speak of politics". This is both ignorant of dialectical change where science and politics will effect each other (along with other things ofc!) and an example of bourgeois idealism where things are seperated to ignore their true interactions/existences. If you look at something dialectically, you look at it, and it's influences, past and present. You do not see things as absolute and unchanging. These are dialectics. Yes, bourgeois hate dialectics because they challenge the idealist absolutes that the bourgeois use to camouflage the true nature of things. Yes, as it is useful to see things as they are.
If you are Chaya, keep your name fag away please.
All kikes get the gas
thesis + antithesis = synthesis Evil is subjective. On the contrary dialectics are neutral, they are simple and materialist No, they explain how it is overthrown through contradiction and through struggle As a means of analysis, undoubtedly. They are purely scientific Absolutely not, they are materialistic in nature, not occult Its a meme in general, means you are being dumb. But if used correctly it means you aren't analysing things properly within the framework of dialectics, you aren't analysing competing interests struggling against one another, resulting in change.
Wow top notch analysis, here's your you, now fuck off with your trite garbage.
What are you getting at? I'm not the user you responded too btw
Dialectics means absolving yourself of dogmas and observing material realities in the moment. However, doing so is impossible in the Cult of Marx.
That's not what dialectics is at all you fucking retard. Additionally just claiming that "hurr durr Marx isn't dialectical ecks dee xDDD" isn't an argument.
That would mean you are somehow able to step outside the dialectic process and observe totality as an independent subject, you can't, material reality is always acting on you. There's no revolutionary Subject, the process itself is revolutionary, war is God.
and the like as an alternative to rationalism; basically, every idea innately runs into problems, and it's the responsibility of humanity to ruthlessly critique any and all ideas to expose their flaws and create new iterations on them, rather than attempting to reason a priori all the way to the summit or denying the idea of truth altogether.
Dialectics will never be even on par with the mind abilities you get from tool-assisted speedruns. If you mean thesis-antithesis-synthesis: People don't like it, because it sounds like Fichte's dialectic, where the third thing is simply a compromise compared to what was there before, a middle thing. And how do we continue then, the synthesis sounds like the end point. In Hegelian dialectics, the third thing is in a way a very new thing and the shit goes on and on and on this is based on second-hand or perhaps third-hand knowledge.
Damn, could that line have been taken any more out of context?
"The maiden stands so pale, So silent, withdrawn, Her sweet angelic soul Is misery-torn.
Therein can shine no ray, The waves tumble over; There, love and pain both play, Each cheating the other.
Gentle was she, demure, Devoted to Heaven, An image ever pure The Graces had woven.
Then came a noble knight, A grand charger he rode; And in his eyes so bright A sea of love flowed.
Love smote deep in her breast, But he galloped away, For battle-triumph athirst; Naught made him stay.
All peace of mind is flown, The Heavens have sunk. The heart, now sorrow's throne, Is yearning-drunk.
And when the day is past, She kneels on the floor, Before the holy Christ A-praying once more.
But then upon that form Another encroaches, To take her heart by storm, 'Gainst her self reproaches.
"To me your love is given For Time unending. To show your soul to Heaven Is merely pretending."
She trembles in her terror Icy and stark, She rushes out in horror, Into the dark.
She wrings her lily-white hands, The tear-drops start. "Thus fire the bosom brands And longing, the heart.
"Thus Heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well. My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for Hell." Cont
"He was so tall, alas, Of stature divine. His eyes so fathomless, So noble, so fine.
"He never bestowed on me His glances at all; Lets me pine hopelessly Till the end of the Soul.
"Another his arm may press, May share his pleasure; Unwitting, he gives me distress Beyond all measure.
"With my soul willingly, With my hopes I'd part, Would he but look towards me And open his heart.
"How cold must the Heavens be Where he doesn't shine, A land full of misery And burning with pain.
"But here the surging flood May deliver me, cooling The hot fire of heart's blood, The bosom's feeling."
She leaps with all her might Into the spray. Into the cold dark night She's carried away.
Her heart, that burning brand, Is quenched forever; Her look, that luminous land, Is clouded over.
Her lips, so sweet and tender, Are pale and colourless; Her form, aethereal, slender, Drifts into nothingness.
And not a withered leaf Falls from the bough; Heaven and Earth are deaf, Won't wake her now.
By mountain, valley, on The quiet waves race, To dash her skeleton On a rocky place.
The Knight so tall and proud Embraces his new love, The cithern sings about The joys of True Love!"
I can tell what you are talking about and I'm literally reading about dialectics. Stop strawmanning.
The incels can NOT see this.
lol I remember thinking agile was dialectical.
dialectics is not a "thing" or a "method," like the idiots who spout the whole anti/syn/thesis thing seem to think. it's, above all i think, a process of movement. this means that we can't really get some kind of "pure dialectics" as an abstract system. i think the way zizek talks about lenin's revolution is a good way to think about it, at least for how i understand it.
think about a given state of things, say, tsarist russia. within the objective circumstances of such a state, the "empirical reality" if you want, what is possible, what there "is" is just that: economic exploitation of the peasants, monarchist dictatorship, yadda yadda. on a phenomenal level, there is no revolution here. revolutionary activity literally doesn't exist. nonetheless, as we all know, a revolutionary situation was nonetheless created. the way zizek understands this begins with the antagonism which constitutes all essences, including, of course, class society. as we already know, on the phenomenal, objective level of capitalist society the antagonism between labor and capital is hidden, we can't see it, because if we could, if this negativity between the two was observable to all, we would be in a revolutionary situation. the only way for class exploitation to function is if the antagonism is sort of "repressed," or we could even say if the antagonism refuses to be symbolized, which would imply the antagonism's actualization. "speaking the antagonism," in this way, brings this thing which, in the present state of things e.g. capitalist "objectivity," literally cannot exist on the level of objective reality into being as if from nothing.
as should be obvious, such a frenetic attempt to cover up or even forget this traumatic, symptomatic out-of-joint-ness in it's own sense of being becomes what the thing is. this is hegel's idea of the shift from the thing "in" itself to the thing for itself. in class society, the antagonism occupies this negative space within the society's essence. it's the one thing which, on the level of what can be symbolized, cannot be there, yet this exploitative antagonism is also the functioning kernel of the entire thing. the antagonism is "inside" capitalism. it doesn't 'exist,' it cannot be seen on the level of appearances, but it is also the "hole" in the symbolic space which the entire thing revolves around. revolutions, then, happen when one says what is quite literally impossible, unseeable, yet is there in the sense that its own objective nonexistence curves the observable symbolic space. the shift to "for" happens when this antagonism with no positive being retroactively creates itself by, as hegel put it, "positing its own presuppositions."
the antagonism in russian society did not "exist" until lenin effectively brought it into being by an "Act." he acted as if the antagonism was there when, in an empirical sense, it was nowhere to be seen. revolutionary dialectics, then, is precisely this process of movement from in-existence to being. the antagonism in russia did not exist in material form before the october revolution, yet lenin acted as if it did, bringing what could not be seen in the process One of capitalist society relating back to itself, which is to say this gap or inconsistency in the symbolic space (the One) which effectively formed the shape of the One itself
Why do people complicate this for themselves so much? Is it an intellectual masochism? Shit is simple yo. NEGATIVITY my dude. Dialectics is a way of being which is always already negative. Empirical relations can't be dialectical yo, they're chaotic messes of things that are by chance and could be otherwise, they are only contingently necessary, you dig? It's the worst kind of necessity, the kind you can never derive in pure reason, and the know and dialectics can do fuck all to describe or predict.
Dialectics is only for the what the Hegal man calls absolute knowledge, not for anything else. For anything NOT absolute, all dialectics does is break it down, and at best you can do a build up of a system of falsehood as opposed to a system of truth.
tl;dr: dialectics as you talk of it is bunk and intellectual wankery my dude. You lead the proletariat astray from concrete practice with that, and at best you waste your time making up empty theory that never will do a thing for anyone. Zizek is a hack even if he is an entertaining one.
jesus fucking christ is the way you type insufferable
is the point of the thread to "lead the proletariat" anywhere in particular or did op ask for an explanation of dialectics? was marx writing "for the proletariat" when he wrote capital? not that i'm making any comparison between my meaningless posting and marx himself, but this weird pragmatism that i see, on Holla Forums especially, is completely useless. what is the point of having any discussion at all if you're obsessively checking to make sure that what you're talking about is accessible to "average workers?" (as if such a thing existed anyway!) i see nothing wrong with discussion for discussion's sake, even if it may, god forbid, get theoretical.
the entire fucking point is that they're not "by chance," all that's contingent is how in what specific way an empirical situation relates to itself. if anything, empirical relations are highly structured in the sense that they're defined by the revolve around a central and immaterial antagonism.
and i'm LAFFIN at the fact that you're accusing me of wankery when pretty much your entire post is incomprehensible.
Y'all realize that you don't need magic spells to lie, right? You can just say things that aren't true whenever you want. Look, I'll demonstrate: This is a good thread.
Ever since I first read about it, I've been developing this pet theory about what dialectics actually is. I think that dialectics is actually a relatively simple thing. I also think that pretty much everyone after Engels and definitely everyone who says that we need to go back to Hegel is running full tilt in a massively, ludicrously wrong direction.
Note that for this to make any sense to you, you're gonna need to know what I mean by an 'emergent phenomenon'. Wikipedia has a summary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence . Other names/related concepts include 'self-organization', 'spontaneous order', 'extended order', 'complex (adaptive) systems', and 'complexity' (but not computational complexity).
I think dialectics is an early attempt to develop a scientific understanding of emergent phenomena in complex systems. Think about it. Every single example given of a 'dialectical' process, system, or phenomena is also an emergent phenomenon. Engels wrote 'Dialectics of Nature', in which he attempts to explicitly extend the concept to other emergent phenomena in nature like temperature, chemistry, life, etc. From this perspective, the 'laws of dialectics' appear less as philosophical tools and more like very general physical laws describing phase changes in emergent systems.
Capitalism is simply one more such phenomenon, emergent from the interactions of human beings with each other, their technologies, their energy sources, and their environment. Just like H2O's quality changes from ice to water to steam as the energy of its constituent particles is increased, so too does human society change from hunter-gatherer to slave-based to feudal/tributary to capitalist and beyond as the material conditions of humanity change.
What I see as the great insight of Marx and Engels, one that hasn't yet been surpassed, is the idea that emergence - this universal phenomenon that arises at all scales - can be thoroughly understood and even harnessed. Lots of subsequent thinkers on the Left have ignored this innovation and completely failed to develop it further. Proof of this is the quite common rejection of 'Dialectics of Nature' in favor of silly shit like closer readings of Hegel. This failure has bogged the Left in a quagmire of idealism - the only solution is to keep believing, at various stages of remove, that they can change either everyone's mind or the entire economic system by forcing it to be so. This forcing, and the natural resistance that emergent systems have to such blind tinkering, is sufficient to explain the failures of 'actually existing socialism'. As bad as the Left is on this question, the Right manages to be far worse. They treat emergence as a fundamentally mysterious process, as something that cannot be understood, let alone harnessed for human benefit. The will of the market is treated as unquestionable. Such absurdity! As if we should munch on dry spaghetti because the invisible hand of temperature regulation has decreed our water to be room temperature.
Anyway, viva 'vulgar' materialism!
Couple of things I want to add to that. I don't mean to imply any kind of 'progression' when I write this. There are of course a ton of examples in the archaeological record of sedentary agricultural societies returning to hunter-gatherer ones as they deplete the material conditions (ie soil fertility) that allowed agriculture.
I know the T-55s are going to start REEEing at me, but the conceptual framework I'm building here pretty straightforwardly leads to this conclusion. It's pretty obvious that, at a basic physical level, there was no difference between the First and Second Worlds. They both get the vast majority of their energy from fossil fuels, both produce goods in factories, both engage in trade, etc. The only real difference was a 'soft'/political one - wealth distribution. That is, nations in the Second World devoted much more of their resources to eradicating homelessness, feeding their populations, etc. My argument is that this enforced difference in wealth distribution was analogous to attempting to artificially lower the entropy of the economic system. As established by Cottrell et al. in Classical Econophysics, the distribution of wealth in the presence of exchange will tend to follow a Boltzmann-Gibbs Distribution. In other words, a highly-unequal distribution of wealth is the configuration that maximizes entropy. Without constant energy input, the system will tend toward a state of maximum entropy.
The upshot of all of that is that, if we really want to wipe out capitalism, we have to determine the conditions under which it is no longer the societal state that maximizes entropy. Lots of people on the Left come close to grasping this point, especially when they talk about spontaneity. Spontaneity, after all, is a fancy way of talking about a phase change brought about by changed material conditions. Water boils 'spontaneously', but only when heated. However, the people that look to 'spontaneity' lack any sort of theoretical grounding to their assertions, which is why they tend to flail when pressed on the mechanisms of spontaneity and retreat into incoherence.
My dude, you are clearly deluded or brain impaired if what I said is too hard 4u. You are so stuck in your own word salad spook theory that normal language makes no sense, I am truly sorry. The proletariat does not need useless theory, they need real answers that speak to their needs from their level. You are no Lenin, my dude. Do not kid yourself about your theories lol.
Dialectics of nature are spooks my dude. Hegal tried harder than Engels at it and he failed too. No scientist needs a nonsense useless theory.
Ohhh shit OK one more thing. Note that this argument about capitalism being the economic/political form that 'maximizes entropy' also provides a good physical basis for arguments against utopian socialism, communes, co-ops, etc. Under this conceptual framework, building a commune and expecting its economic model to overtake and out-compete capitalism is like dropping an ice cube in a glass of room temperature water and expecting the water to freeze. Some utopian thinkers like to imagine that they alone have stumbled upon the formula to ice-nine (it's a Vonnegut reference), but the sheer number of people participating and interacting makes the random discovery of a higher-entropy political-economic state astronomically unlikely.
Again the argument returns to the fact that a concrete change in the way that we create and reproduce our livelihood (our material conditions) is needed, just like it was in all previous societal phase transitions (revolutions).
I'm not saying that 'Dialectics of Nature' was the last word, far from it. All I'm saying is that it's a cute first go at stating the dynamics of complex systems.
Plus Hegel a shit who was looking through the wrong end of the telescope with his idealism.
it's not too hard, it's just written like shit because you're so dedicated to this EMBARRASSING "i don't even care! you're just tooooo serious mahhhnnn xD" character that everything you write sounds like it's coming out of the mouth of a fucking child
it's pretty funny that you think anything that happens on an obscure imageboard has anything to do with actually existing workers. they don't "need" anything from us, because what the fuck are we? if anyone here thinks they're lenin, it's clearly you.
I refuse to believe this exists.
As it happens, dialectics is also how the Jews have managed to keep control over us with Christianity. If you start with the thesis, which is Satanism (paganism), the antithesis is clearly Judaism, which was created to oppose the gentiles. Thus, they believed the answer was a fusion of gentile practices with Jewish tradition, hence why Christianity was born, after several hundred years of trying other ways to keep the gentiles down.