"Negation of Negation"

[Enragé]

What the hell is it?

I once coined the slogan "We are negation's negation!" whilst reading The Society of the Spectacle by Débord, and frankly im shocked to learn Engels and Marx had already stolen it in like 1880 or something.

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-mao-reject-p1112247/index.html#post1112247 didn't want to screw up that thread so i thought ask here ^^)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'd not bother with it, if I were you, comrade.

It depends on a serious confusion in Hegel's Logic, outlined briefly here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Outline_of_errors_Hegel_committed_01.htm)

[Enragé]

lol... hurts my head, literally =p

When i coined that slogan i just meant it like we negate the negation of the spectacle [of material reality] etc.
Meh ^^

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, part of the error in Hegel revolved around his confusion of negation in language and logic with cancelling or undoing things in the world.

He (and it seems Debord) just muddled the two up.

But then again, much of French 'Philosophy' is based on muddles like this.

By the way, there is precious little evidence that Marx accepted the 'negation of the negation'.

The phrase appears in Das Kapital, but Marx has already told us that he was merely 'coquetting' with these words.

[gilhyle]

I once coined the slogan "We are negation's negation!"

If 'we' referred to revolutionaries, then you have it about right.....you understood before you asked. Dialectics is everywhere :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Dialectics is everywhere

Where exactly?

[chegitz guevara]

what part of everywhere did you not understand? ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG:


what part of everywhere did you not understand?

The parts that are alleged to be dialectical -- and I am not alone.:cool:

I have yet to meet/debate with a dialectician who understands them either.:ohmy:

Or, if they do, they have kept it remarkably well hidden.:confused:

[chegitz guevara]

I always understood it as being a fancy way of talking about change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Maybe so, but in the end dialectics cannot explain it.

Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=986357&postcount=2

[Enragé]

If 'we' referred to revolutionaries, then you have it about right.....you understood before you asked. Dialectics is everywhere :lol:

:) yeh thats how i meant it.

Dialectics indeed is everywhere.


The parts that are alleged to be dialectical -- and I am not alone.

I have yet to meet/debate with a dialectician who understands them either.

Or, if they do, they have kept it remarkably well hidden.

I agree with the quote in your sig, it is mental illness, i've got it.

The spectacle as Débord described it is dialectical, and the spectacle rules unchallenged. The spectacle unifies spectators whilst divided, it is the focal point of "life" as we know it to be.
The spectacle, though obviously ridden with contradictions, has a singular effect, i.e the pacification of dissent [whether working class or student], subordination to power alien to us [thus alienating us from others, and ourselves]. These contradictions are its dialectical nature.

Dialectics is a way of analysis. Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis.

As for the rest.. I'm hungover as fuck and i think that anything i'm gonna say you've heard at least once before.. so yeh.. hope this was at least a bit clear, as i said i agree it's a mental disease :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NKOS:


Dialectics indeed is everywhere.

How do you know?


Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis.

This has nothing to do with dialectics, as even Lenin said. Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=707195&postcount=7