Hegel’s Dialectic in one minute

Показать описание

darkwaterhermit

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

It cuts off at the end there, so if anyone is wondering he was saying "you can apply this to all sorts of things. Black, white, Asian. "

leftistLizard

HEGEL NEVER MENTIONED THESIS-ANTITHESIS-SYNTHESIS. Thats so simplistic.You clearly do not understand Hegel. And niether do I

nickpharo

Thank you for sharing these words. I might not look like the type of person who would appreciate this, but i found it helpful.

D-Reality

A better understanding of Hegel than I have. I have heard people say that this thesis-antithesis-synthesis take is wrong and more in line with Fichte.

cat_city

Aryan Bharahaman coming from Euresiya near of Black sea and Arya Bharahaman DNA R1N1 2001 time of india news . Bharahaman of DNA 🧬 not available in Rakhi Garhi sight. So that 100% true bharahaman migrant they coming in India 2500BC and Attech On Indus Velly Civilization in India ❤❤❤❤# RSS organisation ban in India Go Back Eurasia ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

ifdrradhey

You just made this up, hegel explicitly rejects formal schemas in science of logic, the real movement is Abstract, negative and concrete. It’s a imminent process not a set of independent points.

aaliadoesanarchy

Hi Fred. Have you read The Master and the Emissary - The Divided Brain and the Making of Western World by Ian McGilchrist? This sounds like a lot of what he discusses - fascinating stuff. S

stephenmcclelland

That only works if there’s no such thing as absolute truth. Relative and absolute truth has been an argument for centuries.

The problem with relative truth thinkers like Hegel is that it is irrational and illogical for everything to be rooted in relativism.

In other words, saying everything is relative is in of itself an absolute; therefore relative reasoning becomes a sub category of absolute truth.

EJ-dodk

“The universal is the truth of the particular” or, the whole is the truth of the parts.

DelFlo

So nonsense then. Non-contradiction is axiomatic. Something cannot be what it is and what it isn't simultaneously. A wall cannot be completely blue and completely red simultaneously.

slow_goon

No, on at least two fronts, probably three. The principle of non contradiction is alive and well in hegelian dialectic - for example, it is a logical necessity that the thesis is not the thesis and also the antithesis and/or also the synthesis, or else the dialectic disproves itself.

Second, "everything" and "nothing" are indeterminate pure concept and there is no determinate thing-ness to become an object of dialectic. Things move according to principles of exclusion and re-determination and can be synthesized, pure concepts do not and cannot. Hegel has whole lectures on the logical relations of being, nothingness and becoming, but this is a whole conversation that can only confuse our understanding of conceptual things and the process of re-determination.

Third, you seem to be referring to a reductive understanding of hegelian dialectic as a tool to avoid "black and white" thinking. That has some utility, but "black and white" are not relational and subject to sythesis - according to hegel, expressed as a synthesis of light and matter. He would not and has not said anything that might be heard as "everything is a shade of grey, man"

AllTenThousand

This ain’t it This is knock off aftermarket Hegel for dummies

trenceraponer

Hegel saw himself among other things as a protestant theologian and had some criticism of the catholicism of his day

aeonian

So let’s apply that to morality. If you take Morality as the Thesis and Immorality as the Antithesis then Amorality would be the Synthesis?

BillyBob

Thanks … however pretty sterile ah? I mean I bet tons of people thought of that but didn’t had the balls to write about it or call themselves philosophers.

neptunevibe