(SPEECH 100) thats not how fucking dialectics works you stupid cuck. I didn't study Hegel (plus continental philosophy in general) at Harvard for 7 FUCKING YEARS for some LOW LIFE KNOW IT ALL who's CLEARLY never fucking read Hegel as he would KNOW that HEGEL has NEVER FUCKING EVER used the terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to start perpetuating these LIES at VERY SINGLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY. this isn't Hegel my friend. No no no. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis was thought up by Fichte and it's clearly inferior to Hegel's dialectical method of imminent critique. Yes. It's called imminent critique. And dialectics is only ONE PART of Hegel's full method. Which again is called Imminent critique which you would know if you had ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ HEGEL ITS LITERALLY IN THE SCIENCE OF LOGIC YOU DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. I honestly cannot believe 'the fucking arrogance to come onto this post, spouting that anti Hegel garbage. Where did you get your fucking info on dialectics? Fucking Jason Unruhe? Jesus fucking Christ I cannot deal with this bullshit right now I'm sorry I'm leaving I'm fucking leaving.
But back to serious posting, here's the best way I can explain dialectics. The idea that dialectics is the combination of two opposites to find some "more true" middle ground is a misunderstanding of dialectics. Rather, Hegelian Dialectics and Marxist Dialectics are concerned with studying the contradictions between things, and how those contradictions act as motive forces in society, economies, and so on. These can be the contradiction between man and nature, the contradiction between an owning class and a captive working class, the contradictions between a slave and their master, the inner contradiction between your desires and your needs, the contradiction between the interests of the individual and the interests of the collective, and so on and so on.
Some of these contradictions may be non-antagonistic, and therefore it is possible to reconcile these contradictory interests through the democratic methods of persuasion, debate, and education. Some of these contradictions are antagonistic, such as the contradiction between a master and slave, or the contradiction between a class who privately owns the means of production and means of subsistence for all of society and the class of captive workers who must be subservient to the interests of this ownership class in order to survive. In the case of these antagonistic contradictions, where it is not possible to reconcile these competing interests in a way that satisfies both parties, then a study of these contradictions would conclude that conflict is inevitable. This forms the basis of the Marxist theory of class conflict.
They're all pretty short works, and "On Practice" is probably the best one to read if you're only going to read one of them, as it is written more to be explanatory. "On Contradiction" is a bit more philosophical, and builds off of "On Practice" which is why they are usually included together, and is probably more relevant to understanding the ideas behind dialectical thinking. And then "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" gives you some practical ways of applying this thought process.
Why explain, when we have memes?
meme text in case the image is unreadable
(SPEECH 100) thats not how fucking dialectics works you stupid cuck. I didn't study Hegel (plus continental philosophy in general) at Harvard for 7 FUCKING YEARS for some LOW LIFE KNOW IT ALL who's CLEARLY never fucking read Hegel as he would KNOW that HEGEL has NEVER FUCKING EVER used the terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to start perpetuating these LIES at VERY SINGLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY. this isn't Hegel my friend. No no no. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis was thought up by Fichte and it's clearly inferior to Hegel's dialectical method of imminent critique. Yes. It's called imminent critique. And dialectics is only ONE PART of Hegel's full method. Which again is called Imminent critique which you would know if you had ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ HEGEL ITS LITERALLY IN THE SCIENCE OF LOGIC YOU DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. I honestly cannot believe 'the fucking arrogance to come onto this post, spouting that anti Hegel garbage. Where did you get your fucking info on dialectics? Fucking Jason Unruhe? Jesus fucking Christ I cannot deal with this bullshit right now I'm sorry I'm leaving I'm fucking leaving.
But back to serious posting, here's the best way I can explain dialectics. The idea that dialectics is the combination of two opposites to find some "more true" middle ground is a misunderstanding of dialectics. Rather, Hegelian Dialectics and Marxist Dialectics are concerned with studying the contradictions between things, and how those contradictions act as motive forces in society, economies, and so on. These can be the contradiction between man and nature, the contradiction between an owning class and a captive working class, the contradictions between a slave and their master, the inner contradiction between your desires and your needs, the contradiction between the interests of the individual and the interests of the collective, and so on and so on.
Some of these contradictions may be non-antagonistic, and therefore it is possible to reconcile these contradictory interests through the democratic methods of persuasion, debate, and education. Some of these contradictions are antagonistic, such as the contradiction between a master and slave, or the contradiction between a class who privately owns the means of production and means of subsistence for all of society and the class of captive workers who must be subservient to the interests of this ownership class in order to survive. In the case of these antagonistic contradictions, where it is not possible to reconcile these competing interests in a way that satisfies both parties, then a study of these contradictions would conclude that conflict is inevitable. This forms the basis of the Marxist theory of class conflict.
Mao's writings on philosophy are some of the most approachable and most accessible, so if you want to explore these ideas a bit further I would recommend " On Practice ," " On Contradiction ," and then finally, " On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People."
They're all pretty short works, and "On Practice" is probably the best one to read if you're only going to read one of them, as it is written more to be explanatory. "On Contradiction" is a bit more philosophical, and builds off of "On Practice" which is why they are usually included together, and is probably more relevant to understanding the ideas behind dialectical thinking. And then "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People" gives you some practical ways of applying this thought process.
this was helpful, thanks.