Thread: Hegel and contradiction

Results 1 to 14 of 14

  1. #1
    Join Date Nov 2017
    Location Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts 17
    Rep Power 0

    Default Hegel and contradiction

    How exactly does Hegelian dialectic survive the formal logic of the law of noncontradiction? I have been seeing people say it does without explanation.

    Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk
  2. #2
    Join Date Apr 2012
    Posts 265
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    A word of advice for new posters, don't try to be too edgy/lazy with your questions. Provide citations, quotes and context so that we see you at least did some prior research, and also so that people can better respond to your questions.
  3. #3
    Join Date Nov 2017
    Location Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts 17
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    A word of advice for new posters, don't try to be too edgy/lazy with your questions. Provide citations, quotes and context so that we see you at least did some prior research, and also so that people can better respond to your questions.
    What do you mean exactly? This is literally all the information I had when I learned of such criticism, and I looked into it and could find no such information. So, maybe, some advice to more experienced posters, do be condescending and help me through my intellectual journey

    Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk
  4. #4
    Join Date Nov 2017
    Location Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts 17
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    A word of advice for new posters, don't try to be too edgy/lazy with your questions. Provide citations, quotes and context so that we see you at least did some prior research, and also so that people can better respond to your questions.
    And apologies if that seemed very confrontational, but your comment seemed to me very condescending.

    Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk
  5. #5
    Join Date Dec 2017
    Posts 2
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I am an anarchist who has read a lot of Zizek. I like him most (i.e., least problematically) as a Hegel scholar because I am the type of guy who starts the Prologue of the Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit/whatever and really gets into it, kind of, and then realize I've made it two pages. That's when I reach for the Zizek. (I know the man has a personality cult, I'm not one of those guys who thinks he's Lenin 2.0 just because they don't know how the Proper Name is the only means of really mobilizing the working class, and not something you just hand out to any commie Slav you think is really fucking smart. But I digress.) The book to read is Less Than Nothing. It's a very long book, it has many dense passages, but by the end of it I felt like I understood how Hegel's system is "split all the way down," as I sometimes explain it to myself. The main metaphor Zizek uses is theological. He does that a lot but it is absolutely worth not writing his work off just for that reason. He uses a Jewish idea that goes something like this: First, God was something. Then, he withdrew into ______ (himself, the world, what you will), thereby becoming “less than nothing.” But it was the 3rd step that was the step that led to the outburst which was creation. So one step back FIRST, and then a step FORWARD that doesn’t bring you back to where you started from, but to something qualitatively different. And then he really does a nice tour of the REST of the German idealist bunch, like Fichte. He uses Fichte's idea of "anstoss" I think, something like that, as an analogue of his favorite Lacanian term, objet petit a. (I read like 12 of his books on a binge, I am no Lacanian by any stretch but Zizek uses Lacan in ways that Lacan did not use Lacan. That's Zizek's thing, he'll take the concepts and leave the system to the dead guys.) But Zizek's analysis of the objet petit a also helped me get a feel for what you term, "noncontradiction" and Zizek would probably call that a shit translation or something. Because in latinate english, it sounds black and white, so it's really not helpful for wrapping your head around, well, noncontradiction. Here are a couple real concise things I still use to try and think dialectically: You know Aristotle's law of identity from kindergarten: "A = A." But look at what happens when you make A the Subject: "I = I." What really stuck with me is how the dopiest looking equation in history works with the subject. So, first there is the "positing I." The posited I says, "I am." And in that statement, the "posited I" is created. So, bam, a real bare bones scheme for Hegel's theory of the Subject, which is not your question but damn interesting and just as dialectical, in a Hegelian and Marxian sense both. The other thing I really like to remind myself if I get too "totalizing" you could say, is Badiou's claim, "Mathematics is ontology," coupled with "The one is not, there are only multiples of multiples." Mathematics being ontology means we don't have to think about ontology and so Heidegger can go fuck off somewhere. There is also in some Zizek text or another a VERY good point by point summary about why dialectical materialism does things that metaphysics don't. But you were asking about Hegel. Anyway, hope I could help.
  6. #6
    Join Date Apr 2012
    Posts 265
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    What you said indicates they (who are probably just youtube commentators) haven't read Hegel. So ask them for a fuller explanation or references where they picked up that criticism; they are the ones making the criticism. The burden is on them. If you can't/won't communicate with them, then it doesn't matter, for your intellectual journey will not be affected by their unexplained claims.
  7. #7
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location United States
    Posts 1,896
    Rep Power 16

    Default

    How exactly does Hegelian dialectic survive the formal logic of the law of noncontradiction? I have been seeing people say it does without explanation.

    Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk
    I think it might be better to ask whether the law of non-contradiction survives Hegel. According to Hegel contradiction and non contradiction are merely two aspects of the same dialectic. As Trotsky says, A is never equal to A, and A is always changing to equal non-A, (ABCs of Dialectical Materialism.) Since everything is always changing and developing over time, it is impossible to establish a static, ideal law like the law of non contraction.

    Another law of non contradiction: no two things can occupy the same space at the same time. Quantum Physics has long since disproved this. Subatomic particles constantly occupy the same places at the same time.
  8. #8
    Join Date Jan 2013
    Posts 2,893
    Organisation
    The lol people
    Rep Power 51

    Default

    A word of advice for new posters, don't try to be too edgy/lazy with your questions. Provide citations, quotes and context so that we see you at least did some prior research, and also so that people can better respond to your questions.
    dude you got like 260 posts you are a new user don't front

    TragicFarce also asked a pretty simple question that RedMat answered readily. I halfway bet you're trying to cover for not understanding the question or the answer by accusing TF of being "lazy" or "edgy".
    "I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
    Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
  9. #9
    Join Date Apr 2012
    Posts 265
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    I signed up as a member over five and a half years ago, which seems a bit longer than your membership, BIXX, not that this matters. The impression that TF himself honestly admits giving is that of a newbie, in fact with typical passive aggressiveness this involves.

    Redmat indeed answered , fair fucks to him, but will it prompt a thoughtful response by TF?; is it not just the expected reassuring answer demanded: is it not a bit lazy (short, providing no actual quotes from Hegel)?

    Us more experienced users (or readers) of Revleft know in the past there were almost chapter length polemics with RosaLichtenstein on these types of questions about dialectics.

    As for the question of TF, it was more of a statement really (Hegel's dialectic doesn't survive the law of non-contradication) dressed up as a question. So not very sincere I think.
  10. #10
    Join Date Jan 2013
    Posts 2,893
    Organisation
    The lol people
    Rep Power 51

    Default

    I signed up as a member over five and a half years ago, which seems a bit longer than your membership, BIXX, not that this matters. The impression that TF himself honestly admits giving is that of a newbie, in fact with typical passive aggressiveness this involves.

    Redmat indeed answered , fair fucks to him, but will it prompt a thoughtful response by TF?; is it not just the expected reassuring answer demanded: is it not a bit lazy (short, providing no actual quotes from Hegel)?

    Us more experienced users (or readers) of Revleft know in the past there were almost chapter length polemics with RosaLichtenstein on these types of questions about dialectics.

    As for the question of TF, it was more of a statement really (Hegel's dialectic doesn't survive the law of non-contradication) dressed up as a question. So not very sincere I think.
    So you're going to accusing the users who actually helped out as being lazy while all you've accomplished is fronting as some elitist try hard. You're also pretending to read TF's mind and accuse him of "not being sincere", as if his question wasn't serious. Or, even worse, pretending that all questions need 40 pages of rosa posts given that maybe it was just an idle interest? Does every question have to be so serious as to require rosa posting?
    "I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
    Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
  11. #11
    Join Date Nov 2017
    Location Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts 17
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So you're going to accusing the users who actually helped out as being lazy while all you've accomplished is fronting as some elitist try hard. You're also pretending to read TF's mind and accuse him of "not being sincere", as if his question wasn't serious. Or, even worse, pretending that all questions need 40 pages of rosa posts given that maybe it was just an idle interest? Does every question have to be so serious as to require rosa posting?
    Lmao you two got so into this

    Sent from my LG-K425 using Tapatalk
  12. #12
    Join Date Jan 2013
    Posts 2,893
    Organisation
    The lol people
    Rep Power 51

    Default

    I just think the elitist attitudes to simple questions that NR had on display here is an attempt to belittle other people when encountering something you don't know the answer to.
    "I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
    Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
  13. #13
    Join Date Apr 2012
    Posts 265
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    As expected, TF didn't have the courtesy to give a thoughtful response to the post of Redmaterialist (whom I thanked for his effort, that's what "fair fucks" means BIXX), and if it was such a great help (as BIXX believes), all the more reason to reply to Redmaterialist's post, especially if TF's question was sincere. But perhaps BIXX knew I would be right, so he created this distraction allowing TF a chance to quietly disappear (but not before throwing in another glib remark of course).

    So it's not about Redmaterialist's answer (which I'm sure it didn't take him much effort, or do you have such a low opinion of him, BIXX?), but about a frequent attitude new posters (I made clear that I am not singling out TF) display when they open threads. Show that you did some research: all I expect is that you at least took the effort to google some keywords (in this case: Hegel, law of non-contradiction) and you will find tons of material that you can read and quote (including Rosa Lichtenstein's site Anti-Dialectics). So again BIXX, it is you who has such a low opinion of people, that they aren't able to use google.

    You also speculated that I failed to understand TF's question or that I didn't know the answer. Indeed, if the question is unclear, the answer can't be given. Hence the importance of precise questions.

    But there were large similar threads before, so that TF's post (which is merely referencing a controversy, and not really reached the stage of a question yet) is even less excusable. And we should not care about the "intellectual journey" of TF, as one individual, but about the quality of the forum.
  14. #14
    Join Date Jan 2018
    Posts 10
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    What do you mean exactly? nothing exactly

Similar Threads

  1. Anti-Philosophy and Marxism
    By ChrisK in forum Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15th February 2014, 09:46
  2. dialectics and political theory
    By Louise Michel in forum Theory
    Replies: 147
    Last Post: 9th October 2009, 13:43
  3. dialectics/anti-dialectics and history
    By Louise Michel in forum Theory
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 1st April 2009, 16:48
  4. Marx and contradiction
    By trivas7 in forum Theory
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 10th July 2008, 04:58
  5. Hegelian Thought and Marxism
    By deadk in forum Theory
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 30th August 2006, 02:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts