How do you go from an idealist philosophical system to dialectic materialism?
Marx and his disciples must have misinterpreted Hegel in a very fundamental way.

They didn’t “misinterpret” Hegel. Hegel was a fraud, a high-IQ film-flam artist. Schopenhauer HATED him not just because he was a fake, but because of how all the midwits got completely sucked into his cult of celebrity. Most people in Hegel’s time were also midwits who couldn’t see through the fakery, they just blankly listened to streams of words and concepts and came up with whatever interpretation suited them. That’s why you can’t find two analysis of Hegel’s philosophy which agree with one another. Marx picked him up BECAUSE (besides his celebrity) his dialectics is whatever you wanted it to be which suited an activist like Marx just fine.

>>24540609
aaaaand another one filtered

>>24540615
https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/04/28/please-waste-no-time-on-hegel/

>>24540609
I see this argument that Hegels system doesn’t make sense or that it’s schizophrenic, but I don’t really understand this critique. Can you explain what makes him so fraudulent?

>>24540630
I liken it to Bible Code (google it) but for philosophy. It’s a “magic trick” explained by the author in the link posted by the above anon. Hegel’s dialectics boils down to a formula of X vs Y = Z. One arbitrary position against another arbitrary position gets settled in an argument resulting in a new position / answer, and the formula can continue down this vein until the definitive truth is arrived at. Basically, you can magically invent whatever you want by selecting the competing positions based on whatever you feel are their relevance to each other. A straight up fraud, a fraud trick glossed over with a healthy coating of obfuscatory language and intentionally ill-defined logic (forcing the reader to constantly guess / make inferences) to fool the midwits. What I just explained to you is me crystallizing Hegel’s dialectics to it’s essentials — something Hegel analysis will NEVER do because those authors have to jump through flaming circus hoops to apply the appearance of intellectual, scientific rigor to the magic trick resulting in something completely different from what Hegel himself wrote about (which was Hegel’s desired result to begin with).

>>24540574 (OP)
Hegel wasn't even a real idealist. He was a realist who called himself an idealist for clout. He thought that thought and reality had the same structure. This doesn't make thought superior to reality, it makes them equal. Marx continued Hegel's 'idealism' because Marx thought that reality must be driven by the same thing as thought, contradictions.

>>24540763
My man you are dumb as fuck

>>24540813
nta, but while i was skeptical of him because of the seeming vitriol against hegel, he actually tried to give a point, and a supporting link to actually READ on the...literature board.

i know you wont care about this because i feel like the type of person who makes this response doesnt really care about anything. just arbitrarily draws lines to toss unpleasant or incongruent things to the other side.

but if not. i would appreciate an actual counterargument. else all i have to go off of...is the guy who actually said anything, not just named somebody a "bad word".

>>24541667
None of you have read Boole. Instead of reading blogs read some books. When you can demonstrate do so, when you can do dialectic do, until then go back to your shitbox.

>>24540630
>I see this argument that Hegels system doesn’t make sense
This is correct: Hegel's system is not designed to make sense, it is designed as a process of sense more correctly being articulated in being. Sense isn't achievable: but sensateness is achievable
>that it’s schizophrenic
This is correct: the world contains irreconcilable social, physical and moral postulates both of which are correct but which are necessarily in a relationship with each other. The only way for two true contradictory statements to remain true an in contradiction is through the schizophrenia of the dialectic, observing how the double truth and double deficiency becomes a new true social, physical or moral position. Becoming is schitzoid
>but I don’t really understand this critique. Can you explain what makes him so fraudulent?
The critique is outlined above. Obviously Hegel is not fraudulent, his system of knowing in becoming via dialectical reasoning allows for incomplete beings in an incompletely known world to make partial statements of use.

Can all the aeternal absolute being Aristoteleans fuck off?

Hegel threads are a lot like Marx threads - 20 retards flinging the same old bullshit even though they’ve never read him, 1 or 2 anons who actually have.

>>24541667
He’s just a low-IQ. He won’t respond to my critique in any meaningful way because he doesn’t have the cognitive ability to do so. Even if I’m wrong, it will take an other high-IQ to prove it. Furthermore, as a low-IQ, he doesn’t have an intellectual position at all, he’s a barely sentient animal who functions based on social / emotional rewards.

>>24542117
Probably true. Ive come to realize theres too many human beings. Too many are white noise. I dont even have anything against stupid people. Its the awareness of ones stupidity and a curiosity and inquiring tendency nonetheless that makes a human.

>>24541667
>he actually tried to give a point, and a supporting link to actually READ on the...literature board.
He linked to a blog by an armchair Marxist. The blog post only contained one genuine semi-criticism - that you can't deduce many from one, so Hegel's dialectic relies on surreptitiously inserting premises. But this is a serious misunderstanding of what the dialectical method means in German idealism. Dialectic starts with something inherently unbalanced but true and then works through its contradictions, it's not deductive at all - that's why it's not called deductive or genetic. In the Phenomenology for example Hegel starts from the inherent imbalance of the one and the many in the form of the 'now' and the 'here' and rolls it on out. If you want to take issue with some of his specific arguments, that's one thing, but to claim dialectic methodology is the same as deducing a plurality from a single axiom is simply retarded.
>>24541689
>This is correct: Hegel's system is not designed to make sense, it is designed as a process of sense more correctly being articulated in being. Sense isn't achievable: but sensateness is achievable
It definitely does make sense, every word of it. He intentionally writes in a confusing way, like all the German idealists, to force you to think carefully and to filter pseuds, and it works.
>Can all the aeternal absolute being Aristoteleans fuck off?
This is a bad take on Aristotle but it would be casting pearls before swine to explain why you're wrong. Aristotle actually argues at length against taking the first principle as "being in itself" or "the one in itself".

>>24540615
He's right tho

>>24543282
>It definitely does make sense, every word of it. He intentionally writes in a confusing way, like all the German idealists, to force you to think carefully and to filter pseuds, and it works.
You need to spend more time on what "making sense" means because you've become confused.

>[Aristotle]
Doesn't support becoming, one doesn't start from the absolute in aristotle, but the realisation of it is constructed inside the mind. Hegel's absolute is contingent on becoming, not on an eternal demonstrated internally in the reasoner.

>>24544438
Glad you're on board for no starts. Go ahead and pitch all that religion. You're in Hegel territory now, all of them are a fine esoteric soup.

>>24544451
Go back to your church fathers and specious eternals.

>>24544528
If there aren't triangles I want no part. You know how this works Descartes. You're a special little philosopher, if you want to keep your pure truth then you keep it to yourself. An actual Descartes would have known this.

>>24544542
How in the fuck does Schizoanalysis being present in Hegel demonstrate Descartes?

>>24544569
I'm not sure what schizoanalysis is. Is this your way of saying you want a psychological paradox demonstration?

>>24544438
>Doesn't support becoming
His entire philosophy is an affirmation of becoming and particularity. What do you think he means by 'unity of form and matter'?
>but the realisation of it is constructed inside the mind.
On the contrary, Aristotle's first principle is very a principle of nature.

Look, we've all encountered people like you. You're a dilettante who reads philosophers in an unthinking, half-assed manner and thinks philosophers like Hegel are more or less writing prose poetry. I don't know why you think everyone you're arguing is some sort of religious fanatic who believes in "specious eternals" but it's rather amusing. I'm not even arguing FOR Aristotle I'm just pointing out that you don't actually understand him or Hegel.

>>24544592
>I'm not sure what schizoanalysis is.
It means that the claims of a "sane" Hegel are neurotic, structuralist bourgeois thought.

>What do you think he means by 'unity of form and matter'?
From the continuous English tense, an absolute instantiation wherein change is an apparition of the fundamental. If you'd like to blame standard translations or cite the greek in the matter of obvious grammatic forms that make these take on the aspect of contingent change not absolute eternals feel free.

>I'm not even arguing FOR Aristotle I'm just pointing out that you don't actually understand him or Hegel.
You can't differentiate your argument, Aristotle's argument, Hegel's argument. I think you're clearly reflecting your own deficiencies through a performative libidinal act, a typical neurotic act.

>>24544638
I haven't read the schizo book. Math can be made esoteric for the original Marx. If you want to identity morph as Marx then you should already know this?

>>24544705
>I haven't read the schizo book
If you like Schopenhauer and Marx, you'll probably enjoy Deleuze & Guattari.

>Math can be made esoteric
Anything can be made esoteric. You've consistently argued that Hegel's absolute is a being, like Kant's.

>>24544715
I am working on that.

Absolute being is unity of thought and being.

Are you looking for the eternal truth?

>>24544735
No, I'm looking for literature about coping with being a limited entity with a limited capacity to know the world where knowledge is limited constructed and transient. Which is why I'm reading Hegel via Marx and Schopenhauer rather than via Kant and Aristotle.

If you find a way to erect a structure like a master signifier, then a whole bunch of french and germans will be humping your structure. Until then I'll take Italians and achievable class warfare in the moment.

>>24544758
If you are aware of the master predilection to seek recognition but also cognizant of the master's limits but don't seem to possess power over me from this then what am I to make of this?

Meaning isn't my strong suit, and iirc Marx didn't do much with it either. I'm not compelled to seek validation from you and you seem to be self-aware of your own interests. What are you actually looking for?

>>24544804
I don't hand out approval mate. I just read post-Hegelians.

>>24544831
The mind of a metaphysician. You still have to do epistemology, otherwise someone else is going to do it for you. Math can be made esoteric for you neetch, otherwise you have nothing to say.

>>24544852
>You still have to do epistemology
Nah, you do phenomenal ontology instead, skips the problem of whether truth can exist.

>>24544866
You still agreed regardless.

>>24544903
Do you see how a quest for knowledge when knowledge is not demonstrable outside of contingency makes becoming and positioned knowledge really important? Kind of like Hegel's most insightful contribution which inspired all post-Hegelian thought?

>>24544638
Aristotle spends most of the Metaphysics arguing against the view you ascribe to him, that “change is an apparition of the fundamental.” His main thesis is that particulars do not and cannot depend, ontologically, on unchanging universal essences. He rejects this perspective in about 40 different places. But hey, pseuds gonna pseud what can you do?

>>24544951
That he can't make his own primary argument clear isn't my fault that you're incapable of reading. Next tell me about Kant.

>>24544938
So you aren't satisfied with Meno's paradox and want to try Fitch's paradox? I'm inclined to say it doesn't change anything I've said and won't change your agreement but feel free to explain otherwise I suppose.

Do you feel I possess something derived entirely from intuition I'm withholding from you? Do you want the eternal truth?

>>24540763
You didn't understand Hegel.

>>24540574 (OP)
>How do you go from an idealist philosophical system to dialectic materialism?
1. Man's nature is freedom because he is self-conscious
2. The system in which Man lives has some contradictions (e.g. feudalism prevents man from being free by hierarchies but also prevents him from being killed by barbarian)
3. Thus man will naturally move forward his own freedom because he is a rational being
4. Man created the liberal state (rational state), in which everyone can accomplish themselves and be free
The End. That's how Hegel viewed history and why he proclaimed that history had ended after Napoleon's victory at Iena
This is where it diverges with Marx.

For Marx :
1. Man's "humanity" is defined by the overall ensemble of social relations (production, distribution etc)
2. Man's drive towards humanity (likewise to the dialectic) is in reality determined by the evolution of his material conditions alienating him from his humanity (e.g. feudalism protects you in exchange of you becoming a laborer for your protectors). This process is determined by your labor, social status etc.
3. In current day, the proles are reduced to machine cogs operating for the bourgeoisie, which effectively alienates them from their own labor and thus don't fulfill their "humanity".
4. Therefore history can go on towards communism.

The logic is similar, but the premises aren't.

>>24540574 (OP)
Matter is prior to actuality, which means that matter can have some influence of actuality. Actuality is pretty much things in order of importance. So a philosophy that modifies matter is seen as more important than a philosophy that tries to see what you can do after the actuality has already been determined. The intent is to, instead of trying to deal with what the truth becomes, control what the truth will become by manipulating the type of thing the truth is.

>>24540609
It's really worse than that, scam artists and quacks come and go. Hegel was a cop and a bootlicker, that's why he got a sinecure despite producing nothing of value his entire life

>>24540574 (OP)
marx took hegel's view that history was the manifestation of self-alienated 'god' or spirit or whatever you wanna call it and inverted the terms - god or spirit is self-alienated man... apply it in material terms - the state is a form of externalized social power... feuerbachian humanism says the only way for humanity to become whole again is to reabsorb god and locate our fellow man as the proper object of love and worship... operating with this principle marx took it further - the only way for civil society to become whole is for the collective social being to reabsorb the state which would mean performing the functions of the state within itself, within the social process... then all the functions of government blend seamlessly into the flow of events that unfold in the course of human interaction and production i.e 'just getting things done'...

"Is the agricultural wealth due to the work of God as believed in feudalism or rather to the work of man as claimed by the bourgeoisie? Here's an old debate founded on false antinomies which have been caused by the succession of social forms both based on exploitation and private partition of the product. Today, the victorious bourgeoisie doesn't actually think about theoretical problems, it only cares about accumulation. For marxist science - although there's no rent of land without human exploitation, appropriation of value, payment to the farmer from society - the agricultural product is a fruit of nature, in the same way as the man and his work are. They really are the product of an infinitesimal part of the energy the Sun diffuses into the space and that, coming in contact with the Earth, gives rise to the chemistry of life. In the classless society no one will "appropriate", no one will "pay"; once the relationship between man and nature will be rationally resolved, the human species won't need to split the work of the man from the work of the sun. The whole land rent theory is contained in this comparison between today and tomorrow, and every other approach has to be considered as pre-marxist"

>>24540574 (OP)
Read Merleau-Ponty for a deboonk of its naive realism

>>24540763
You have never read Hegel. You are rage baiting and I am falling for it.

>pic related
damn, I'm afk one day, and I miss everything I've waited a month to shitpost about. eh, maybe next tiem, mabe next tiem