DIALECTICS

Hold on here since when was Hegel secular/atheist? Sure he had some rather unorthodox views about Christianity but to say that he is not "religious" is a stretch maybe?

I don't think Freud ever read schelling, what are you talking about?

No need to read someone to absorb ideas floating around by someone at the time. Freud never read Hegel either, yet clearly he has dialectical ideas as well. Schelling is literally the father of the unconscious along with Böhme

Hegel is neither atheist nor theist. His philosophy is about the Absolute.

big shout out to hegel and my idealist crew peace ya'll

Is pizza delicious? Yeshh and no. *SNIFF* By eating pizza, we partake of the capitalishhht shhyhhhstem which ishh in place in modern society *rubs nose* and represshhhents the negative ashhhpect of capitalist ideology. *stares with dead eyes for a second while violently shaking hands in air* You know, I am a marxhhhist supporter and for example, my friend would shhhay "if we don't buy pizza, it will get cold and if it gets cold the pizza will stagnate and if the pizza stagnates it will not be sold" and shoo on and shooo on. I mean, some leftisssht even were for pizza because they claim that, they claim if you, if that, if you *rubs nose* if you eat not pizza you represhhhent the shhhtagnation of italian culture, and I shhhtand on the side of europe and for example why buy pizza when you have hamburgers and hot dogs and shhho on and shhhho on.

AW what's your opinion on the term overdetermination?

Then what kind of psychoanalysis do you like?

RD Wolff's Althusserian postmodernism is shit, I'll tell you that much. Overdetermination in Freud originally means that that which is determined comes to determine what determines it. In Wolff's theory it's literally just the basic and bare bones concept of causality: everything is caught in causal chains, but what makes a cause a cause is that it has an effect, and what makes an effect an effect is that it has a cause. The effect is supposed to be determined by its cause, but logically it equally is the cause of its cause being a cause. Since every action is immediately always a two way reaction, ultimate cause is unknowable and it's all a clusterfuck of arbitrarily valuing one portion of reality over another.

Fuck Wolff. He's good on econ analysis, he's bad on theory.

lmao you obsess over his philosophy yet you don't know the first thing about Hegel. Hegel was protestant and he fucking hated Catholics.

Lad, just because someone says they're 'x' does not mean their 'x' is what you think 'x' is. Hegel uses christianity for his own purpose. There is a reason that in his system Philosophy, not religion, is the final actualization of the Absolute.

He was Christian his whole life. You think he was using Christianity as part of his master plan or something. Stop worshiping Hegel and actually read something about his life. He wasn't as radical or revolutionary as you think.

Utterly dialectical.

What do you think about Leszek Kołakowski's thesis in his first volume of Main Currents of Marxism that the philosophical antecedents of Marxism include figures such as Eriugena, Plotinus or Nicholas of Cusa?

ITT: We rank the board personalities from most to least insufferable.

I'll start:

1. A.W.
2. Prickly
3. me
4. Yui
5. Xexizy/muke
6. Rebel

I could read logical positivist autists on Hegel like anti-dialectics.co.uk/ and I'd seriously get a more accurate interpretation of Hegel and his dialectical method.

What I don't get is how this faggot thinks he can genuinely claim to have listened to criticism when Freudposter/Ginjeet wrote him mounds of incredibly cogent criticism on his Bunkermag articles and he hasn't properly addressed or rebutted anything by him there at all.

Literally true. Here is an intredasting old marxist aussie who made it his life work to study this, but he's been fucked by the academic system.

edensauvage.wordpress.com

Look mate, it's not my problem that you literally can't think. Doesn't bother me, I just hope you enjoy your dogmatic kiddie pool shallow theory .

1. you
2. the other post-leftist who doesn't namefag but is so retarded and shitposts so much they're practically a personality – second biggest USI-driven autist around
3. obesity
4. xiphoid
5. yui
6. a.w.

a.w. last because despite being insufferable and practically illiterate at least he doesn't spam the board with his bullshit at every turn but mostly keeps it to his own threads.

You know, you have a point

jej. No surprise when you get BTFO by a Lacanian.

Quit projecting your reading insecurities on me, bucko. I have enough of my bullshit to deal with to have to take on yours.

I've never deleted anything on Bunkermag. If that fucker who owns it deleted my shit someone is getting slapped.

Are you sure you linked me the right page? All I see is one blog entry.

also

garbage ultra-left left-com nonsense, Dauve can fuck off

What article was this about? Is there an archive of it somewhere?

This is my own blog for my personal use. Bunkermag is pretty dead and I don't want anything I write under my own name to be inherently linked to this shithole of a board.

You linked me to edensauvage.wordpress.com regarding Leszek Kolakowski but all I see on this blog is a single blog entry

just a reminder aw wrote an article for bunkermag about dialectics that was thoroughly torn apart when it came out because aw has no idea what the fuck he's talking about

Oh, shit. Wrong link, that edensauvage literally plagiarized my bunkermag dialectics article a month ago almost word for word lol. Kid learned a lesson and deleted it all i guess.

I meant to post this

philipstanfield.com/category/mysticism/

I answered every comment last I knew, and they were all from illiterate morons.

Isn't this your reddit account?

reddit.com/user/Althuraya

Neck yourself.

Your ego is impressive as always.

A difficult question, an answer to which I've been researching myself. Dialectics is older than Marx, even older than Hegel, but there are books you can read that provide something of an introduction.

Arguably, in the context of this board, when one is speaking of dialectics it's dialectical materialism – Marx's method. Hegel's dialectics weren't concerned with explaining material phenomena – something which Marx took upon himself to rectify; however, he was not a philosopher despite his philosophical training, and he never wrote a treatise on his methodology.

There are three books where it's addressed specifically, but no single book provides an unbiased answer. First is attached: Georges Politzer's Elementary Principles of Philosophy. As others have noted here, it takes after the official communist – i.e. Stalinist – interpretation. Second, linked below, is Henri Lefebvre's Dialectical Materialism, which was written in response to the Stalinist line. Third is a more modern book, Bertell Ollman's Dance of the Dialectic. Ollman, I've heard, is a Spinozist, though I don't know what that means particularly for his interpretation of Marx's method. Anyone but A.W. is invited to comment on that.

Lefebvre:
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=BD63A49BB8DBAC73D5E9B4F78260FFF7

Ollman:
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=3D7150DE0F763D929981496361BCECFD

If you want to see a simplification of Marx's method, then pic related.

If you want to research dialectics in general then you could probably do it yourself :^)

Seriously, above Rebel? Have some self-respect.

n1x's shitposting is nowhere near as pretentious and therefore much more tolerable, despite it being in more threads.

Should've recommended Negative Dialectics by Adorno.
A translation of which is available at:

members.efn.org/~dredmond/ndtrans.html

...

I knew about that, but I didn't consider it a beginners' book. A "rough and ready" translation probably isn't for beginners either. From what I know it also builds on Marx's method rather than just explains it.

I've also been here long enough to know that negative dialectics isn't exclusive to Adorno, either, at least according to Zizek:

>Mao scathingly dismisses the category of "dialectical synthesis" of the opposites, promoting his own version of "negative dialectics" - every synthesis is for him ultimately what Adorno in his critique of Lukacs called erpresste Versoehnung - enforced reconciliation - at best a momentary pause in the ongoing struggle, which occurs not when the opposites are united, but when one side simply wins over the other
lacan.com/zizmaozedong.htm

I wonder how much you'd have to read in order to fully grasp negative dialectics. More than I have at least.

I hate Marx for being moronic on that one. You can reqd all the books you want, they're wrong if they continue to claim dialectics are form different from content.

I have friends on bunkerchan shill my ideas for me all the time. I shall neither affirm or deny it, so I shall deny affirmation of either. The first dialectics article i wrote way back when was mightily shilled on reddit and other forums. Help is appreciated.

Thanks for linking it anyway.

Cavemen and romantics, all of you. The Phenomenology is a negative dialectic, and the only serious one at that.

...

Yes, they are. Rationalism doesnt mean robotic life, it means self controlled and determined life.

ye I was kidding, but this is actually very good, I can tell a lot of work has been put into this. The caveats also make it very normie friendly

Like, this fatass dog, holy shit.

Dogs ain't free, they are slaves to their desires.

I dig it

Fuck me this reads like a first year essay, and I don't mean only that you used 'which' instead of 'that' in the very first sentence. Tbh if this stuff was handed to me to mark from a first year I'd be pretty happy (it's only characteristically juvenile, rather than actual quality) but past that? no.

The fucking arrogance of it as well: "a few authors have written on this" - essentially shaving off the masses of good thinkers who have, whilst simultaneously ranking yourself among those left.

What upsets me about people like you is not that you exist but that there's the cluelessness at some loci in the world. Like, wherever you're sat right now, you're so out of touch with the actual level of thought going on in the texts and minds of people from history or right now in universities across the world, that you're [at least coming off as] thinking you're in contention to be a 'philosopher'/

...

And now we all know you've never read any literature on the topic Mister Christian Commie poster. What you quoted is the kind of thing you see in bulletpoint in a powerpoint presentation. It's essentially what anyone who has just read a couple of chapters of Hegel's phenom. and some Marx would come up with off the top of their head to explain it in a bar.

Jason, is that you?

babe, please stop, if you're enjoying this so much then good, but just go and get some roper secondary literature (or actually go to the primary?) and you won't be able to even find the anime faces you need for your wonder.

I'm sorry to inform you I wrote this specifically for regards like you. I even say so in the first paragraph. Are you illiterate anarchist? If you are a TA or an adjunct, boy are the standards low.

Holy shit, get off the high horse. Nobody cares. I never claimed to understand Hegel.

I read 3, and I didn't get it, so maybe it's you who is out of touch and not A.W.

Get some empathy for idiots like me please.

Regards is

Fucking autocorrect.

it's Jay Leno tier ignorance - designed purely to try and skew off the egotisical self-confidence in other areas

is it wrong? If it's wrong you haven't argued against it, and so there's no reason for me to believe it's not wrong.

And if it's not wrong, then there's no harm in reading it. True = good, no?

no reason for me to believe it's wrong*

That's the joke fam.

I'm sorry to inform you I only read the first few sentences of your article and everything I've said is based on not much at all, have a nice day :)

Mah boi, he's yanking your chain.

This bucko don't know shit.

Oh, oh, I knew this part lol

Yeah, you run away, small son, you go ahead and run away.

Despite being the case, I'm struggling to understand how you would come to that conclusion from what I've said, except as a manoeuvre of your Ego to de-legitimise someone who's talking shit about your stuff. Actually look at what I've said, there's nothing there implying any knowledge or lack of knowledge. It is a weak thing to do to apply "This bucko don't know shit" to someone simply taking the piss out of you primarily and your introductory article.

As for this… ????????? I literally did write everything I have done after only reading the first few sentences. I am extremely confused. You're worse than I thought if you're resorting to such distorted and banal psychological protections.

Can you save that sentence (the one if your post) so that you are no longer s 'small son' (wtf?) yourself you can cringe for me?

Just because you get slammed does not mean you stop being a small son. You can be man boi like Rebel when you actually start reading.

You're a wilful ignorant, you get no respect from me. Respect is earned, small son. When you begins. To write and converse like an adult you'll be treated like one.

Fucking cheap ass phone.

I finished the article, it's some good stuff my man, I learned a lot. I'm gonna save it in my bookmarks for when I finally read Science of Logic like I should be doing

First, your (over-)use of the term "postmodernism" as the "big scary word" reminds one of right wing/positivist paranoia. Second, Althusser wasn't a postmodernist (he was a structuralist Marxist). Third, your understanding of
is shit tier.
marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm

You must be aware that there are severe limitations to this.

Which brings me to the your use of "rationalism vs. irrationalism" as some kind of motto, or a buzzword-tier contradiction for "good vs. bad" or "SCIENCE! vs. religion" while it isn't even a proper philosophical opposition, debate, or topic. Quite frankly I've heard about this shit first on positivist sites like lesswrong (again, right wing misinformation and paranoia) and failed to see serious resources on the topic, except of course if you take anglo sites' repackaged continent-phobia and sense of cultural superiority seriously (like britannica.com). It's interesting to observe how the original rationalism vs. empiricism debate (one that really exists, as opposed to your fake dilemma) is now taken to be resolved by the superior analytical philosophers, absorbing both terms into the former (rationalism and empiricism used as interchangeable terms), and sticking the affix ir- on everything else that is not taking place on the Queen's or Burger's territory.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Many severe limitations of human subjectivity were unearthed by the very rationalists (Descartes, and Kant comes to mind) you seem to put on a pedestal. Freud, coming from a different field and praxis pretty much gives another account of them, and one could claim he gives a way to resolve some of these limitations and ease suffering stemming from them.

I too wonder. Must be the BEST SUPER RATIONALIST psychoanalysis ever, as opposed to the SHIT WRONG IRRATIONALIST psychoanalysis.

Dis gon be gud.

So first, I'll admit I 99% do not k kW shit about Althusser.

Second, I have, however, read more of Wolff and Resnick's (its mainly him) shit than I would like to. Resnick and Wolff are absofuckinglutely postmodern relativists, THEY OPENLY SAY SO FUCKING everywhere they get theoretical.

Third, hahahaha, you clearly don't understand HEGELIAN rationalism so shove it. Next you'll link me to he pave on idealism and materialism and tell me those apply to Hegel and Marx. The ignorane is laughable.

These didn't happen. AW posted a text on dialectics, followed by a YUI text. AFAICR I didn't comment on AW's (though I appreciated aspects of it) and both AW and I commented on the YUI "Self-theory" text. I wouldn't call it "torning" YUI, though I was critical of the text, I remain sympathetic to his intellectual endevour.

AW does respond to comments on his texts.

Tell me about A.W.
Is it autism?

"Hahaha," indeed. ech
Tell me how "rationalism vs. irrationalism" is a thing, again?

You always had the impression on me that there were two A.W.s. One, that could take responsibility and reevaluate, and another gotten drunk with his online identity, memeing down himself.

z

Me mum didn't love me, and me dad, well, 'oo wuz 'e again?

And they forced me to kill my first dog. Fuck that.

We got what we came for boys.

I am like a rabid Socrates who mocks those who claim to know, yet really don't know. If I claim to know and am wrong, I want to be called out.

You get out of me what you put in mate. There is civil discussion where clarification and elaboration is asked and given, and then there is wall to wall shitposting.

Hegelian rationalism is, funny enough, just that: the demand for reasons as that which fully explains why's.

You aren't answering the questions. I have better things to do.

more like a rabid faggot am i right boys

Drawing out answers via subtle interpretation is your job, Freud. I'm not paying for this session if you're not doing your job.

The rationalism vs irrationalism debate comes from Hegel against the other GI's. Hegel thought it was all intelligible or none of it was. No steps back for intuitionism, not even once.

this is some great satire 3/5

2 rite m80

Source?

You're above AW and prickly is below Yui

1. Prickly
2. n1x
3. Rebel
4. A.W.
6. Yui

xexy doesn't tripfag

this is touching tbh

You may be a cunt n1xy but 10/10 post.

A.W. is an annoying cunt who should just chug bleach and make the world a better place.

A.W. is too autistic for self awareness.

You will always be the "man boi" of that relationship A.W.

JUUUSSSST

Actually the order is:

n1x
Christcuck
all other tripfags
Xylophone

twitter.com/philosopher70/status/775351559869923328

A.W. confirmed for rising philosophical giant

Tripfags never cease to amaze me with their autism.

Hey AW and/or Rebel, have you read this?

Would like to hear your thoughts on it.

...

HOLY SHIT

Congratulations a nobody liked the drivel that A.W. wrote, he surely is going to rise to be one of the greats.

hegelian dialectics are too stringent to be applied to economics except in the extreme abstract. Over-deterministic marxian economics is the way to go.

I just want I add on to this that Hegel supposedly thought he discovered a sound ontological argument. I don't see how it's likely that he would be anything other than a theist.

From SEP:

This is supported by other philosophers writing in his own time including Schopenhauer.

whew

Shut up, Greg!

Fuck off Greg.

...

memes

Clearly this thread needed more shitposting.

watch out, we pissed of Greggy B

...

...

1. A.W.
2. yui
3. other post-leftist
4. n1x
5. rebel

Today starts off gewd.

Holy shit! That's amazing!

Good work AW!

KEK even some of the leddit fags shit on A.W, this exchange is funny as shit.
reddit.com/r/leftcommunism/comments/48w4qa/dialectics_an_introduction/d68zafh

Never change.

../fapfolder/nudeselfiesandother/Sadler_comment.png

you got no stomach for the leftist life, boye

AW can I just point out how easy it is for someone who writes little philosophy articles to not get this kind of reaction? And you think all these people are the ones doingitwrong?

I posted this.
On Holla Forums.
A site I constantly insult for being ignorant and a shithole.

Do you think I don't expect it?

I still don't get why you guys are so angry. It's a good article.

Well I can't speak for everyone else here but this is the first time seeing you for me, I've seen your threads before but I always get disheartened reading actual theory threads on chans so I never go into them, I'm just here for the memes.

So it was posted on Reddit too. Do you consider them ignorant too? Is Greggy B the enlightened one?

Don't you get it? We're not actually angry, everyone posting here is sat with a complete straight face, and the occasional grin when this guy writes stuff like "Respect is earned, small son." The anger is the equivalent of writing lol to laughter.

That's not a ranking of who is the most insufferable but who is the most intelligent on the board. AW is no doubt smart as fuck and deserves respect and Prickly is really up to date with his theory on all leftist spectrums and well its verry reasonable that yui is under an autistic larper and that Rebel is more stupid than Muke. Pretending to be smart is a mutch more embarrassing than pretending to be ironic/dumb.

Greg Sadler is top notch, congrats!

Cause its le to hard please i need a lenin to translate 4 me

You call prominent Philosophers besides the ones you like ignorant, or that they don't understand Hegel at all, so it does not matter at all.

No, I don't get it.

this actually really hurts my feelings.

Yes it is hard for me. I'm not an intelligent person, but I want to do my best to understand things. What's wrong with that?

Would you say if he could explain why they don't understand Hegel, or why they are ignorant, it would be unjustified?

No ones angry, A.W. is just a good lolcow.

A.W.'s lack of self awareness and sheer autism is more entertaining than anything else.

Greggy B the irrelevant is the truth of Hegal.

Sure, just keep smiling as you eat that shit, bucko.

You are dazzled by titles because you're ignorant. Once you know, you start realizing that a lot of dumb and ignorant fucks have academic titles and get articles published.

I've read it, I love it, I disagree with his conclusions. I'm the one who has pushed the "Hegel is a wizard" meme.

Except Greggy B, of course.

The Phenomenology's preface, the Phenomenology as a whole, and everything he wrote and taught afterward. Schelling himself continued it by arguing for the limits of reason in order to maintain his mystical specialness and intellectual intuition.

They never called it rationalism vs irrationalism, but that's just what it's about: does reason have the power to know everything, or does it not?

Nice projecting, also you say this as you stroke yourself by getting retweeted by Greggy B.

I rest my case.

Didn't know calling everyone who even lightly critiques you a fascist/totalitarian/tankie is considered legit "theory" these days. Prickly is the icon of being a illiterate anarkiddie.

There are plenty of very intelligent and useful anarchist theory, Prickly has never heard of them, or does not care to read them if he has.

Like you are with Greggy B the irrelevant who dazzles you with his PHD while producing shitty blog articles and philosophy 101 videos instead of any real works of significance.

ps Hegel is a Naive rationalist

Damn that's quite the inferiority complex you have

Well, there goes all of philosophy after Socrates.

Oh god you're one of those people.
And no I don't mean someone who simply thinks all of philosophy after Socrates is interpretation.
I mean someone who says shit like

P.S.
How Ego-fucked do you have to be, look how long this thread is!

...

...

This is but just the nature of the lolcow, they have to keep responding no matter what their autism compels them.

u wot m8

That's pretty lazy. I'm not sure if you realize this, but the pre-Socratics never called themselves that either.

I feel sad for you all.

Everybody is wrong and i am right!
Subjectivity and Irrationality wins again!

In all honestly, I don't understand how Freudposter gets a free pass with his blatant shitposting. What point were you even trying to make? That you didn't know that rationalism v irrationalism was a thing and therefore people who bring it up are wrong to do so?

My arms are tired (from milking) so I closed the tab, but then I re-opened it just to find out if I can literally make this go on by saying this:

Fuck you AW.

I'd do some B. Rabbit shit about how you're going to actually reply and say something about how pathetic it is that I'm still spending my time shitposting, but I'll leave it as this and see what you can come up with. Don't reply AW, resist it, come on, small son, resist. Or are you really so fucking pitiful that this last sentences gets you going?

:D:D:D

Reported.

...

Will I be able to summon a succubus if I read your blog?

...

Hasn't worked for me yet. Must not be using the right concepts, I think.

I'm pretty sure Fromm had that ability

"Common sense is not what anyone should aspire to." t. Occultist Hegelian Wizard

...

It's times like these that I wish Žižek actually posted here…

Don't flatter yourself. He'd just mop the floor with both sides, even his sycophants

Myself? What have I got to do with it? I'm speaking strictly about how Žižek calls Lacan a reiteration of Hegel.

THEN IT IS SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL!
SINCE LACAN IS A POMO FAGGOT, SO IS HEGEL!

smh, not even good bait

That's what the entire movement of objective spirit is about, as well as the genesis of self-consciousness from natural immediacy.

Pretty sure A.W means Autistic Awareness pal.

And AW, you strike me as a sharp dude but you still spell of dialectics from a purely logical, formal aspect. Things like contradiction are aspects of the dialectic but the dialectic is attached to a specific content, it is the logic of a particular movement of existence, tied to a specific social formation. Reducing dialectics to negation, contradiction, etc, conceal the genesis of dialectics in bourgeois society.

That Hegel and Marx are both dialectical thinkers, that Kant found the clue of dialectics is a consequence of them articulating a self-critique of bourgeois society.

I think you're confusing me with someone else. What you claim I didn't do, I certainly did. I explicitly state that formalism is not part of dialectic.

You are being a silly leftcom if you buy the interpretation that Hegel's Logic=Capital. You read the Logic and Phenom and it's just obviously not true.

You're not doing what you think you're doing. And you still treat dialectics like a method to be applied to particular cases or examples.

Marx's charge against Hegel's mystification of the dialectic isn't one critiquing an idealism, it's happening upon the structure of bourgeois society in the phenomenology, purifying that into a logic and then making that logic expressive of society outside developed bourgeois society.

Show me where I am breaking the form and content.

Marx's critique of Hegel's "mystification" is his own mystification. Hegel isn't mystical about anything. The Phil of right is about logical normative structures of freedom.

A.W. just keeps coming back
stop milking it

Bumperino.

A.W. basically reads the sparknotes on philosophy and then develops shit tier edgy positions off it all

Why is this faggot still writing

do you commence auto-fellatio before or after you spew this pompous drivel?

A.W.s great ebin conscious will continue to be unappreciated by the sea of mindless normies on this board who cannot possibly be as euphorically enlightened by his understanding of dialectics

Fucking kill yourself