DIALECTICS

empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/

Today, I shall remind you.

I significantly expanded the explanations over the last few days. If you have questions about dialectics, Marxist or Hegelian, ask.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XA7P1MNfqqk&feature=youtu.be
marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1841/anti-schelling/index.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

...

...

This thread is liking giving a bunce of monkeys a computer.

Surely you meant to write:

Your prose is awkward and verbose. You use too much passive voice and too many double negations.

You write like this:


When you could put it like this:

Back to literal quotes from your text:
>Dialectical relationships: Such relations are of the kind of contradictory concepts that in their meaning, or existence, necessarily presuppose and require their opposite. To have one is to have the other. To think through one leads to thinking of the other. To change one is to change the other. This is the famous unity of opposites dialectics is described as by many Marxists. Such ‘materialist’ relations are: {Worker—capitalist}; {[use-value]—[exchange-value]}; {material—ideal}; {base—superstructure} etc.

Bosses by definition require workers to exist. Being a boss is playing a part in a social relation where workers also appear in. But things can have the same use value while the exchange value changes (technical progress making processors cheaper, for instance). Indeed, things can have use value without having an exchange value.

The text devolves from pretentious banalities into pretentious gobbledegook.

Thanks for the correction on that sentence.

Your example of my argument, though, isn't anything like what I wrote. I'm not a skeptical Buddhist nor write like one.

If that's the structure you got out of the text, I can't see how.

As for gobbledegook, not much I can do if you can't follow structure, which is what the maybe-too-long abstract Being example is meant to show.

bump

Gonna be honest with you AW, if you're trying to make this more accessible to people who don't set themselves down to reading dense theory on a regular basis, it would be a bit easier if it were written less like it's from the 1800s.

This isn't for those "interested" in theory. This is for those INTERESTED in theory.

I could just have listed claims out and have shown nothing, like literally everyone else does, but that's not what is lacking in the world today. This is a piece to allow someone who actually is interested and wants to get into real theory some entry into what this kind of thinking is and to see how it is used.

So, in other words, you're once again more interested in flaunting your massive thinking ability to the masses so that they will recognize that you are part of The Elite, and the unwashed masses are kept out by your pretentious verbosity.

woah

So, in other words, those who could just go read Hegel?

Anyway, nice blog, buddy. I'm sure the ladies will love it. :^)

No, it's that literally if someone cannot comprehend what I wrote, they cannot comprehend at all. There is no way it can be simplified, the images themselves are only good insofar as they help you with the concepts, and the concepts themselves don't matter. The abstract example of Being is only one of the basic examples, so is the commodity (which I should expand into its own article)

What exactly, is "verbose" about Being and Nothing?


Yes, this is for those who >could< just read Marx and Hegel and see it for themselves. This is just a quick catchup to what, if they put in the effort, they would see for themselves.

Anarkids need not apply, as always.

Do you even read what you post? This is pure narcissism.

...

What are stupid people? Apparently, you.

And everybody else who doesn't feed your inflated ego

Just keep on trucking bucko, dig yourself that hole deeper and deeper into that cave of ignorance.

What's your problem with anarchists?

you're describing yourself and the cave is your ass

someone explain that pic to me

Your writing is worse than Hegel's.

Water >
+ fire
=Smoke
______
Water >
-fire
=Non-smoke
______


it is shitposting famboi

Water + no water = BIG WATER. since water exists and there is no water Sell water to people with no water :^)

youtube.com/watch?v=XA7P1MNfqqk&feature=youtu.be

1:55:00

smh that pic should be ice + steam = water

Oops it's 1:57:00

I like how you refer to yourself in third person on your reddit account, pretending that you aren't A.W

how does reading your fucking stupid ass blog help my life?

Anthony Wiener doesn't understand dialectics

Last thread you had a breakdown after realizing you know fuck all.

I wonder how this thread will go.

Link? I want to see that.

...

A.W. has yet to apply dialectics to himself. While most of us still as teens confronted reaction to the pathetic parts of our personalities and became better people, A.W. sticks to the thesis of his psyche. If you're already over the age of 20 A.W. it's almost too late, begin now or you'll forever be one of those people are who pretty smart but wholly uninteresting and far from great because you're still juvenile.

Most of the reaction against your articles and posts on this board are due to you, not your article, though truly, it is written poorly. Not poorly in terms of making sense, but just - similar to your soul - not quite mature. It's written in the Parnassian of undergraduates.

I noticed that Gregory Sadler (one of the best professors of Hegel in the U.S.) gave you props the other day. Congrats, AW.

Do you actually read any modern philosophy, or do you think that philosophy stopped being meaningful after 19th century German idealism? Because the cult of Hegel stuff is weird to me.

Modern philosophy is just footnotes to Hegel.

Kept things separate, it's not like I have ever hidden from you idiots.


'Most' of the reaction is you being mad that I call you out for being ignorant or stupid when it's true. I don't mind your anger and mockery since leftypol is literally retarded.


Yes, and no. I don't read things I'm not particularly interested in, especially from points of view that are precluded by what already was discovered by the German idealists long ago. Why the fuck would would I waste time reading shit like structural ontology, views on the mind/body problem, the latest systems of formal logic, and the newest hot topic ethics opinion from the same systems that conceptually don't work if universalized?

I think the last philosopher I respected after Hegel is Wittgenstein, though continentals are generally more interesting, and the technically modern and classical philosophers tend to be way more interesting than recent ones.

It's like asking a materialist why he doesn't read idealists and care about their problems.

Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno
Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno Never read Adorno

Why do you hate Schelling? Is it because he's 2hard4you to understand? If you hate him what do you think about Engel's polemic?

marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1841/anti-schelling/index.htm

and what do you think about Hegel's attempt to reconcile to his "cordial friends of old" (Hegel's words) in 1929?

You have no self-awareness, it explains why you're hated everywhere you go.

Well it seems like you have a pretty good grasp of Hegel. How do you feel about Zizek and/or Lacan.