Read book

Dialectics I think is the modern counterpoint to scholastic thinking and magical, idealistic ways of thinking. Kant uses the term dialectic to refer to 'common' ways of misusing pure reason (in dialogue) and how either side of these debates are rationally correct despite being opposed. What people usually refer to as Hegelian dialectic is like, on the one hand, Hegel (in the Phenomenology) shows how things are 'overcome' and 'sublated' by consciousness (Example: The stoic becomes the unhappy consciousness as it reconciles with skepticism), and on the other hand attempts to describe how becoming and change occurs against the static One...

Marx's view is that change occurs primarily against material and real world things; the dialectic is the explanation of how multiple different processes can exist in a material world at the same time, without invoking causality. Dialectical thinking sees things occuring as adjacent processes through time rather than cause and effect; we can argue how many dots were on the first domino all we want, but that says nothing about the dominoes already falling in a chain reaction before our eyes.

An example in Marx is how things become commodities through expended labour-time, use-value, and exchange-value, etc.

That being said, most people use 'dialectics' to appear smarter than they really are. It's sort of the high-falutin term for 'allowing multiple different things in one's conception of reality.'

An abstraction of a commonly found sequence of events, a ping-pong, a struggle.
It's different than a descriptive account of static truths. We don't describe how the sun shines or the grass is green, instead we descibe a sequence of happenings and identify the tropes.
The recognition one (master-slave) sequence of events is probably the most famous one.

dialectics.org

It means "a particular system of thought framed by it's own terminology" from what I gather

What the flying fuck is this

The day before the Zizek/Peterson debate, the Petersonfags were shitposting here that their guy was going to destroy this filthy communist. The day after, they said "it was a productive conversation between two individuals who have a lot in common." This is dialectics

You mean the heelturn on their position or the discourse they had? Because the dialectics OP is referring to isn't Socratic dialectics/dialogue.

it's a joke about their heelturn, yes

contd. A dialectic is to philosophy what a paradigm is to science

God damnit Kant, read Hegel

No, a dialectic is more like a function/equation. It's about how things relate and operate on each other to transform in some way. When people talk about a specific dialectic, they usually mean one they identify in society, the same way Newton can use the function F=ma to describe a law of nature

It's a relation between two opposites, that ends up producting something

How do I explain this basically enough? It's a philosophical theory, the kind you might encounter if you took time to read some books.

The fundamental premise is to envision history as a series of dialectical conflicts. Each conflict begins with a proposition, a thesis, which inherently contains, or creates, it's opposite. Thesis and antithesis. Conflict is inevitable.

But the resolution of the conflict yields something new - a synthesis - eliminating the flaws in each, leaving behind only the common elements and ideas.

Attached: 1523126860-julius_caesar_coustou_louvre_mr1798.jpg (875x988, 152K)

Eliminating the incompatibility, not necessarily the flaws.

Dialectical means two or more terms in mutual interaction with one another

that's pre-Hegelian dialectic.

>what's a dialectic
read more pseud

I'm intrigued. I have a master's degree in applied math, your source seems to be pure bullshit gibberish. But why'd sometime waste their time to read it like you do, let alone write it? How did you learn of this? What compelled you to share it?

you should've started with the greeks and worked your way up, this wouldnt have been an issue

In most simple terms, it's one of the ways of reasoning. You have some idea, you bump into something that contradicts it, and think about the new one that suits all cases.

However, it can also be seen as a hint that most statements carry the seeds of what supersedes them. “If X, and in presence of Y, we see that Z, etc.” — it's natural to start thinking about what may be true in cases of NOT X, NOT Y, an so on. By doing that, we may find more general idea, more interesting conditions we might not have thought about or experienced naturally.

>read it like you do
I haven't really read it. I need to start putting effort into my real education before putting effort into meme shit.
>let alone write it
don't ask me lol
>How did you learn of this?
Yea Forums, I'm pretty sure
>What compelled you to share it?
it's funny

Read charles taylor's hegel

If you want philosophy that hybridizes itself well with STEM fields, look into Spinoza's ontology rather than formalized dialectics.

>all these pseudo-marxists trying to feel smarter than peterson after the debate
>end up reading the actual text for hegel and marx and just end up getting their skulls fucked in

typical Yea Forums posers

Just read Magister Ludi user. The first chapter, or it could be the foreword, deals with this in a succinct and easy to understand way.
I read it when I was 14 - having a measured reading age of 19, so it should be more up your alley.

b+r

Try reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on Kant, Hegel, Hegel's dialectics, Marx, and maybe Fichte, Schelling, and Adorno. I've found the articles to be pretty uneven in their quality, but they have the advantage of being fairly short, and they should give you a general sense of what dialectics is all about.

This site is terrifying on an inexplicable level

I always confuse it with diuretics

I want to do anal

My gf says she doesn't want to

She ends up letting me stick my thumb in her asshole during doggy instead

gay desu

based

Attached: 1510522306507.gif (460x351, 309K)

This. Philosospeak is fucking gay.

>The most powerful institutionalized social force that has ever existed on Earth, in all of Earth's known human history to date -- today's global, core, petroleum-finance plutocracy -- is hell-bent on preventing, or reversing, any improvement of human life for the vast majority of humanity, and on making life worse for that vast majority, until that plutocracy has made life literally impossible for most of that majority. They are hell-bent on "population reduction" -- to the extent of eliminating 95% of the human race

mediocre and purplepilled.

Youll get over it eventually, I barely even have sex with my gf anymore desu

Its a kind of argumentation where you ask questions like Socrates in Plato, Protagoras is meant to have invented it, I always assumed Marxists and Hegalians were using it metaphorically to describe the past and future as being in discussion with each other.

Dialectics is a method of reasoning and achieving a conclusion.
The sequence goes like this:
>Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
Or, in perhaps simpler words:
>Position, Opposition, Compromise

Isn't dialectics an approach to processing information?

Like a filter that you sift new concepts through that offers insights you wouldn't otherwise pick up on?

Diarrhea

The Marx fags in here are just trying to flex OP. We should start with the raw Greek meaning: διά- "to oppose", or "pass through" and -λεkτιkός "speech", "word" (similar to logos). Thus, dialectic is a conversation, especially one with opposition. If you have some familiarity with Plato and his dialogues (dialectics), you will remember the basic structure: someone asks a question about something (usually Socrates), another answers the question, and there is a continuous back-and-forth of elaboration, refinement, and further questioning from that initial question.

This is the dialectic. It went beyond its initial application to only people having conversations to also have to do with general oppositions in the world. I'd suggest reading the Stanford Encyclopedia pages on the various dialectics as suggested. Next, maybe grapple with Hegel (very difficult, both due to denseness and poor writing+translation) if you feel up to it, though very little of his work is a actually about the dialectic itself and is more based on using a dialectical method.

At its core though: a dialectic is an opposition between two thing evolves based on back-and-forth interaction. This rough definition captures the Greek dialogues and later incarnations of the idea.

Attached: 56749279_580264359149437_7711401101777436672_n.jpg (680x680, 40K)

any philosophy system based on history is gay

it's a concept used by "philosophers" to trick people into buying and reading several hundred pages of bullshit rather than just simply writing down their ideas in a couple of sentences, which is absolutely possible but then they wouldn't seem smarter than everyone else.

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

welcome back! have you finished the book by now?

I'm not A.W.
Is he a regular here?

he shilled his blog pretty hard for a while
haven't seem him namefig recently, but, of course, we're here forever

so it's basically a fancy word for dialogue?

Do you think the way he explains dialectics is correct?

I don't think, period.

A dialectic is a dialogue between the past and present to produce the future. This is closer to the Hegelian definition, that other user was explaining pre-Hegelian dialectic, which isn't particularly relevant and likely isn't what OP was asking about.

>can’t understand a concept as simple as dialectics
>projects insecurities to the entire history of philosophy
Defense mechanisms at it

Sad!

Kek

Yeah, that's more socratic dialogue, and it's not really the mystical term that it has become post-Hegel

what made you think anyone wants a legit answer?

OP here i actually want a legit answer. I read every post in this thread and i still have no fucking clue what dialectics is.

Attached: Fate sealed.jpg (750x751, 39K)

Read

The user I was quoting explains it quite well.
First meaning in ancient Greece:
>We should start with the raw Greek meaning: διά- "to oppose", or "pass through" and -λεkτιkός "speech", "word" (similar to logos). Thus, dialectic is a conversation, especially one with opposition.
Then the more modern meaning based on Hegel: a dialectic process happens when a being negates itself and therefore, thanks to negating itself, becomes self-conscious. Hegel spots this kind of process in all the things or events that express spirit. Let's take 2 examples
>example 1. I have an idea ! Just an idea. Something intellectual, spîritual. A pure theory. Now I express it through words, which are signs and sounds - words in themselves are not spiritual at all! Through words, my idea negates itself. But then I fully realize and understand what I mean. Thought needs words to become fully conscious of itself.
>example 2. I am a free man. Good. Now I have slaves, too, who work for me. Slaves are the negation of freedom. But let's see - woah, through this negation of freedom, I just realized that there shouldn't be slaves, because every man is free! Now I have a more complete and self-conscious idea of freedom. I needed to negate freedom to fully understand what it is.

And then you have Marx who uses the notion of dialectic to describe the conflict between the people who own means of production (they own money or machines or factories) and those who, owning nothing but themselves, have to work. Their conflict is the main factor that explains history. So basically it's still a 'dialectic' because you have a relationship between two opposite sides, and this conflic is what makes things evolve.

So basically as the other user said
>a dialectic is an opposition between two thing evolves based on back-and-forth interaction
And the outcome is something 'positive' (finding the truth through a dialogue, becoming conscious of oneself through the negation of self, progress in history thanks to the conflict between social classes).

Nope, I've taken my usual time off ad have not read for the last half year or so, I still have insights I keep writing about. It's rather amazing that so much can be developed out of so little of Hegel's works that I've written about a 300 page book's worth of extended self-contained commentary. I think I'll do just that eventually: turn all of this into the book I wish had existed when I started.

Also, the dialectics intro article is going to get some significant revision for its 4th revision probably this year. I've come to a deeper insight into 'contradiction' and 'speculation' which cuts down a lot of the verbosity and lack of clarity in those sections.

Dialectics were mentioned by Heraclites and then Hegel expanded onto them and largely influenced Marx. The core idea is that the logos (reason, language, discourse) works like the world (cosmos) so basically geometrical demonstrations work in both language and on a mathematical point of view.
So basically nature works like a rational discussion eg the order of nature (phusis, origin of the word physics) is intelligible to us.
Now the idea of dialectics is conflict. If there is discussion, there ought to be disagreement and then a dialectical process operates, which is the very motion of the logical structure of the thesis (Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis) which means both continuity and overcoming (aufheben in german) in the process. The idea of hegelian dialectics is that natural sciences also work in a dialectical fashion, that opposing forces in nature operate like dialectics (eg herbivorous herd vs predators acting like regulators are in a kinda dialectic relationship) as well because it is purely rational (what is real is rational) but also works through conflict (polemos father of all things, heraclitus)

Everybody in this thread (or at least the first dozen posts, I didn't care to read further) is wrong, which shows pretty well how deficient the brain of an American, and most posters here are American, is.
Dialectics is the idea that contradictions are a necessary part and the driving force of development of a great many real-world systems.
While it's nothing but a mental tool, not unlike the concepts of an "object", or "influence", or "development", it's still a useful one, because, unlike the above-mentioned ones, dialectics as a concept is not exactly intuitive - most people assume that development is just a steady growth.

>Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
big yikes on that one champ

>Compromise
It's aufheben you swine

>says that the method is not the dialectic
>proceeds to subsume dialectics with its Hegelian form

What do you think of the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's article on hegel's dialectics?
plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

Here's an attempt at an answer for you:
A lot of people here are mentioning the simplified form of Hegelian dialectics, but this is an entirely modern conception, and given their starting point we may end up further from the truth.
Just consider how Plato's dialogues work out, often there is a proposition and an exploration of that idea to see its faults; or we wander the paths along which the idea takes us until beauty reveals itself or the path comes to an abrupt end. This is the method, not the dialectic itself. A Nietzschean or poetic method can be used in opposition to a reasoned and logical one. In the Nietzschean case, bombs are lobbed into the forest to see if any beautiful path survives; in a reversal of taking the auspices we are forced to accept the only remaining road.
Dialectics essentially form our position relative to the truth, its questions ask of us: how close is our path to the beautiful tree at the center of the forest? To risk an all too mechanical interpretation, consider this in terms of a game of chess. There may be a winning move, the Truth, two or even thirty moves ahead, and the effort to discover the series of winning moves is the dialectic. Neither the short series of moves nor the long are necessarily more difficult to imagine - only the short series presents a force of immediacy, just as the long evades a purely mathematical positioning.
One can even say that the dialectical relation (as a position relative to Truth) still affects those without the ability to see the ideal path, as from the position of strength the amateur players will still move with the force of the winning moves behind them - they reside within an unintelligible realm, yet influence surrounding territory like a great wall. Truth is often an unseen figure, a powerful force who will take up arms with whoever first shows her loyalty; maintaining superior control of the space in proximity to the winning moves - if not mobilising it for its own uses - enacts sovereignty over the territory of influence, thus preventing others from aligning with it (same as controlling the center of the board). However, such moves tend to be vulgar, not ideal, and the alliance with contingency increases potential for the loss of truth, and a shifting of control.

Attached: Athena-Goddess-in-The-Judgment-of-Paris-by-Guillaume-Guillon-Lethiere.jpg (1280x903, 326K)

Within such a game we must take care to not impose too many rules or aesthetic concerns. A rude or even violent person may engage in dialectics just as well as the polite and cultured intellectual. Truth may not always be expressed as we had hoped, and, even if we are capable of grasping its material form, to reveal our insight may be in opposition to our strategic interests. Here we see the dialectic as its own set of laws: it is not the formal investigation between a group of people, nor even the dominant conversation of a society in regards to truth. The dialectic is a chasm between Truth and its revealing, but also the attempt to reconcile with this; hence why it moves throughout the world much as we do.
One might even say that the dialectic is to Truth as art is to Beauty - we follow the Muses into the memory of death on the battlefield, where gods clearly chose the deserved victors apart from any sense of human morality. In Truth, we attempt to augur the flight of Athena's owl as it flies at dusk, both the dark and light crows obscuring its trail through the forest in their own way. A silent path that we may never take ourselves, but must look up to from the forest floor; sensing in the darkness a rustling branch, a momentary perch for that elusive messenger of the gods, with the hope that we will arrive at dawn to catch a glimpse of the next great battle - or the masterful diplomacy of its aversion.

Is it still dialectics if the antithesis btfos the thesis so hard the synthesis is just the antithesis?

sniffman says yes
>Along these lines, 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:
>>What is synthesis? You have all witnessed how the two opposites, the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, were synthesized on the mainland. The synthesis took place like this: their armies came, and we devoured them, we ate them bite by bite. /.../ One thing eating another, big fish eating little fish, this is synthesis. It has never been put like this in books. I have never put it this way in my books either. For his part, Yang Hsien-chen believes that two combine into one, and that synthesis is the indissoluble tie between two opposites. What indissoluble ties are there in this world? Things may be tied, but in the end they must be severed. There is nothing which cannot be severed.
>[...]
>So where does Mao fall short here? In the way he opposes this injunction to severe, to divide, to dialectical synthesis. When Mao mockingly refers to "synthesizing" as the destruction of the enemy or his subordination, his mistake resides in this very mocking attitude - he doesn't see that this IS the true Hegelian synthesis