this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
142 points (93.8% liked)

Progressive Politics

3115 readers
67 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Juice@midwest.social 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This is not the Hegelian Dialectic. This is Hegelian Phenomenology, which is dialectical, but condensing dialectics into this single paranoid conclusion is not educational.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Juice@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Awesome! I only understood a tiny bit of it!

[–] Juice@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago

I'm still learning so I'm a student myself!

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It can be. I used it as a starting point for research. I found an interesting article that explores Hegelian dialectics and freedom.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

Hegelian phenomenology is dialectics but dialectics isn't phenomenology.

Thanks for the article, It does a good job of describing Hegelian historical analysis, via Marx's materialist dialectics, but isn't more than a superficial understanding of either. I'm no Hegel scholar, but "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" isn't Hegel, its Ficte's description of Hegel's dialectic, and its an over simplification. The author isnt an expert but superficially on Marx and Hegel. Read Karl Marx and Human Self Creation by Cyril Smith you can skip to the bit about Hegel and Marx, but the pre history is interesting.

Marxist historical materialism is scientific, but most importantly, and what the author doesn't seem to get, probably due to my superficial reading of the article, is that in historical materialist analysis, the subject and object are united into a single system. His dualist presuppositions in the Implications section (and likely those of his readers) are exactly what prevent access to understanding dialectics.

the appearance of pairs of diametric opposites, united by their contradictions toward one another isn't too difficult to grapple with as an abstract concept. But in order to apply this consistently we have to radically alter our perspective, we have to unite the subject and object, the ego and the other, the body and the mind. Uniting subject and object is actually extremely difficult within even an abstract conception of post enlightenment rationality. But its one of the only way to connect understanding to truth, humanity to justice and production.

Also a better quick primer on Marxist Hegelianism might be Thesis on Feuerbach by the man himself. Also Plekhanov's the Materialist Conception of History but that's way out of the scope of what we are discussing.

[–] jared@mander.xyz 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Then the little one at the bottom rolls their eyes and says "OK Dad".

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In my case it’s a teenager who thinks JREG is a political genius.

[–] jared@mander.xyz 2 points 9 months ago

I've lucked out with that so far, mine are just smart assess. But they get it honest so I can't complain.

[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Philosophy is not a science.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Invalidating anything that might conflict with your favorite epistemology? Certainly there's no problem here, as long as you avoid philosophy

[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Juice@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago

The "rational enlightenment" and its consequences

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's just more philosophy.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] Tikiporch@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Philosopher aggrandizes philosophy. Film at 11.

Bioethics isn't a science either.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Economics isn’t a science either, but for some strange reason it persists.