Dialectical materialism

>stirner posting
>gets holy digitz
what did OP mean by this?

Egoism?

The prefix dia- means through, not two. The duality of dialectic comes from the fact that it thinks through another. It thus rests on the principle of identity, where identity is understood not as simple sameness, but according to the difference which unifies, and unification which differentiates. The two necessitates the third, and this is why the Science of logic begins with the concepts of being, nothing, and becoming, the three most primordial concepts of identity.

>tfw non-dialectical math prof says you can't divide by zero
dialectics.org/dialectics/dialectics/Applications_files/page_2_,_Seldon's_Opus_,_Key_Excerpts_,_Excerpt_No._10_,_'The_Problem_of_Division_by_Zero_--_SOLVED'._,_22MAR2017.jpg

Attached: page_1_,_Seldon's_Opus_,_Key_Excerpts_,_Excerpt_No._10_,_'The_Problem_of_Division_by_Zero_ (2250x3000, 643K)

>tfw He’s making coming back

Attached: 0214BB89-CDE5-4786-AC4B-1E5B98E1B1FB.jpg (480x360, 9K)

>1488
>Hitler's birthday
lmfao, Sieg Heil!

This is pretty entertaining for crackpot math, although I'm expect a Hegelian math professor doesn't begin by rejecting the law of the excluded middle.

Attached: 1552909083750.jpg (569x835, 45K)

A lot of Hegelians and Marxists get into intuitionism or constructivism for that reason. Only to their dismay that neither system refutes LEM. "A or not A" doesn't make sense where "A" denotes "proof/construction/epistemic warrant to state A" rather than "A is the case"

good thing there is a saviour

Attached: graham priest.jpg (220x286, 25K)

e.g. considering the case of the continuum hypothesis in the context of ZFC, since the hypothesis is independent of ZFC there is neither a proof nor a proof of the negation using the system of ZFC. So LEM doesn't hold necessarily when you give logic a proof-theorectic semantics rather than a truth-theoretic semantics.

From what little I know about dialethism is seems like an interesting approach, especially with regards to issues involving vague properties. The main issue I could see though is for every vague property there seems to be a way to recontruct a meta-vague property even when the original vagueness is resolved.

Well if you think about it, dualism is the single most common theme in pretty much every religious and philosophic field and has been since... Forever?

Like imagine if we had good, evil, and then just some third thing. Let's call it Blangze.
So to be as brainlet as possible, you have Good, which is stuff that I like, like being in love, being healthy and happy, and chinchillas.
Then you have Evil, which is stuff that I don't like, like murder, loansharking, and alcoholism.
Then you have Blangze. Which is... Uh... The color orange, that weird aftertaste that you get when drinking gatorade, and the fact that the human nose produces more oils than the rest of the face.

It just doesn't work. and it's the same everywhere, politics are always dualistic. Religion is always dualistic. Wars are almost always dualistic--name me a single time in history where three armies from three different countries showed up and fought each other. Not allies, I mean literally three armies where each fought the other two. It almost never happens and when it does, it's chaos. In California prisons, there was a hilarious incident a few years ago where the leaders of the NLRs (Nazi biker gang) MS13, the Nortenos and a bunch of niggers had to sit down and just hash out two major factions (Spics and Whites vs everyone else) because it was too complicated to have more than two major blocs. So now you have this ridiculous situation where a bunch of white supremacists with swastikas tattooed on their chests hang out in the yard with goddamn Mexicans and everyone is just fine with it, because if they weren't, well then there'd be more than two sides, and our tiny criminal monkey brains just can't handle it.

I mean just think about it. It has to be a dialectic because we're too fucking stupid to do anything more complicated than that.