![]() It's definitely shudder-worthy that so many people killed each other in the name of all this, though. Where Hegel saw a path upward through consciousness, Marx saw what he thought of as upward progress (read: progress moving in the direction of human freedom) in terms of the relationships between groups of people. Where Hegel saw vague ideas contradicting one another inside his own head, Marx saw modes of material production in conflict with social structures. ![]() I'd hazard to say that Marx makes more concrete sense out of Hegel than Hegel ever did. Reverend Black Percy ( talk) 21:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC) If you do give it a listen, and you find yourself thinking "I'm barely keeping up with this gobbledygook.", just keep in mind that said gobbledygook is the basis for Marxist conception of history, progress, dialectic, and so on. Since you are at the introductory stage regarding Hegel - if you have the time, please let the great Bertrand Russel provide you with a very short summary of Hegelianism here. My explanation is probably an elementary oversimplification but that's all I got.- Owlman ( talk) ( mail) 21:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC) From what I understand, Marxist economists use dialectics to describe how economic systems have contradictions when the contradictions become too large to contain, a revolution occurs and a new economic system emerges. I know very little about philosophy as a whole so I can't really comment much about Hegel. Reverend Black Percy ( talk) 20:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC) I mean, look at these freaking charts of the Hegelian dialectic (courtesy of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): what the hell's all this? The realization that actual real-life violence has been perpetrated in the name of the above ideas (concepts which rival time cube theory in terms of ultimate coherency) literally sends a shudder through my core. Formulating his "logic" in these terms is admittedly convenient, and not wrong! But, just to underscore how weird Hegel's dialectic is - for one, it wasn't meant to apply to the world in any real sense (it was a rumination on itself only, though that somehow encompasses the world), and second, while relying on the concept of "contradiction", it actually did this while at the same time openly operating in the face of the Law of identity (Hegel's fractal Geist can't be tied down by your puny mortal logic, see). Anyway, in your above definition, I'd like to point out that Hegel never actually used the words "thesis", "synthesis" or "antithesis" himself. It really does kick the crutch out from under it all. What is terrifying is the degree to which Marxism - "orthodox" as well as Western Marxism - essentially relies on Hegel. I absolutely agree with you that Hegel's trademark brand of convoluted mysticism is complete bullshit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Beliefs persist well-past any "logical" conclusion to the arguments surrounding them, and, in fact, often form self-reinforcing ideologies that persist essentially indefinitely, and any attempt to reduce the complexity of those ideas and debates to a general form is going to be more misinformative than informative. That the diversity of ideas in culture is often more widespread and non-focused than Hegel's overall idea proposed. I think, after reflecting on the idea for a while, that I think it's kinda bullshit. That every novel idea about how things are or should be or thesis will inevitably raise a core counter-argument towards the status quo called the antithesis and that all social progress is defined by the compromise between these forces through sublation into synthesis. ToWÄ«ut specifically hegel's idea of how it plays out in society. A discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |