The Hegelian Dialectic

Understanding the Hegelian Dialectic is the most vital part to being aware of what's going on in the world. Is it really that hard to believe that most of the big problems that exist in the world were deliberately created by the system itself, to give itself more power under the pretext of "solving" the very problems it creates. This applies to just about everything: wars, poverty, economic strife, terrorism, left vs. right, racial tension, the battle between the sexes, rampant illegitimacy, etc.

Most people believe that things are just happening on their own and that society is simply "evolving" (more like devolving). I do not share this belief. We are born into a system where we are fed controlled information from before the time we're able to even begin to question things for ourselves. Most people think they are "informed" and have it all figured out because they watch CNN, MSNBC or FOX. Why is it so hard to accept that most of what the majority of people in the world believe to be reality, really isn't? Why are conspiracies and even conspiracy theories shunned by most, yet the official explanation of events we're given by corporate news taken almost immediately to be gospel fact?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYhmATD8hLk"]Hegalian Dialectic - YouTube

 

Most likely because things like war, poverty, economical strife, social tensions etc. etc. were all present in older societies as well were the systems seemed less organized/structured and the causes seem explainable. So I guess it doesn't seem that plausible that for example poverty or social tensions are mainly created or kept as it is by the system since they have always been around and almost always been explainable. That being said, I'm sure the system or parts of the system has it's own agenda that does not serve society in the first place and may even be responsible for some of a country's problems. But I would say that's 'just' corruption.

 

TRUE... a lot of that has always existed, you're right. But we've supposedly evolved since then and are much smarter, cultured and civilized.

 

I've heard arguements that since the ancient greeks we've gotten much dumber. Its said the average intellect Athenian of would be considered extraordinarily intelligent in todays society.

 

I used to think humans were evolving but recently it has become clear to me we're just as barbaric as we've ever been. Globalization, however, has really changed the power structure over the last century or so.

 

I can't be sure really. The scope of such seems unlikely, and occams razor makes me doubt the more convoluted explanation. I would agree that our society is largely a charade.

 

I think when we developed the cerebral cortex that allowed for a certain amount of progress and a shit ton of innovation, but our more primitive brain functions are still alive and well.

 

idioticnumbskull

Pressed_Rat

I prefer:

Jain dialectic

syād-asti: "in some ways it is"
syād-nāsti: "in some ways it is not"
syād-asti-nāsti: "in some ways it is and it is not"
syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ: "in some ways it is and it is indescribable"
syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ: "in some ways it is not and it is indescribable"
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ: "in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable"
syād-avaktavyaḥ: "in some ways it is indescribable"

Which seems to allow for a debate. Rather that: I'm right and you are wrong.

Open for debate / evidence required:

I won't completely disagree with any of that because obviously that is what they want, right? But you have to accept that some of that might be completely false or only partly true, don't you?

 

Being a Kantian myself I naturally oppose all things Hegel.

 

Pressed_Rat

Hello,

Why do you always seem to abandon this topic of conversation or tell people they don't have to read your thread if they disagree with you? You have brought this subject up several times in the last 4-6 years, but it never seems to go anywhere. Why do you think that is? I'm not disagreeing with you, but would ask you to add some substance to what you are saying. I dunno, add some e.g's to your thesis, perhaps. If the entire discourse is dominated by two options and this is pre-determined - perhaps give some evidence for this.
I have been watching a programme about Scottish independence, how does that feed into the > The Hegelian Dialectic ?

 

Thesis+antithesis=Third World thermonuclear war.

 

What exactly is your point/question, Odon?

I was not looking to debate/argue anyone.

I cannot speak specifically on Scottish independence because I am not really versed on the subject.

 

Seeing if there is any veracity to your claims every issue has two sides ALWAYS, and it is ALWAYS predetermined.

What are you looking for then? What is the point of raising this issue every couple of years?

So you don't know if this falls within the Hegelian Dialectic?
What else do you not know falls within the Hegelian Dialectic?
Take some time to verse yourself in Scottish politics and see if your thesis holds water within it. That was only one e.g, btw.

 

Pardon? What?

 

I'm just feeling negative today as is my want.I'm having dark thoughts.Should I repress them or express them?

 

Express them. Fully, and in great detail

 

I'm getting rid of my dark thoughts by laughing at Pressed Rat's Robert Di Nero impression.

 

I guess this is an example of the dialectic in action.Sorry.I've really lost the plot.

 

:iagree:

 

Can't we just talk about boobs and nice round asses?