On Dialectics

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:48 am

Fuck me man, what the fuck am I doing. I'm easier than a fat golden retriever.

ON DIALECTICS

First of all, where does this term come from? Well, it refers directly to what is originally known as THE SOCRATIC METHOD. What is that then?

Well, if you read Plato's works, all featuring a canny Socrates lounging with the who's who of Athens, you will notice that they are all dialogues. Dialogue, dialect, dialectic, diodes, IBM, no wait shit. Also, it is said that Socrate's main occupation was sitting around in Athen's main square, and randomly stopping good citizens (it was later alleged that most of these good citizens were young boys) to ask them questions, and dialect with them about philosophy. It is said, possibly in no small measure because of Socrate's own allegations in his later trial, that Socrate, by this dialectic method of philosophy, sought to take philosophy away from the ateliers of the very rich and down to the floor level of Athens' everyday citizen, philosophy for all if you will.

Dialectics, then, is really a term that came after Socrate himself, whose ostensible chronicler was Plate, or Plato. What the term refers to, essencially, is the arrival of truth by dialogue on a subject. I tell you a thing, you tell me a thing back, and through this exchange the contradictions emerge. As a contradiction is revealed, both dialoguers find its resolution by continuing the dialogue, until they arrive at the conclusion. What the method purports is that, through this exchange, the actual truth of a matter is discoverable. The reasons are fairly mystical. Socrate held that there was a sort of metaphysical place where all knowledge is stored, and that by way of a dialogue, this knowledge is retrieved from that place and brought to the dialoguers' minds.

There was an implication, as well, that this was a truthful method because two people, with an audience preferably, will notice eachother's contradictions and, between them, will not be able to bullshit and be able, by resolution of the contradictions, to get to that primal metaphysical knowledge that every man (no, not women) has access to; unlike what Socrate called sophism, where a master went to a rich person's atelier and told their son about a lot of stuff. In Socrate's mind, this was not metaphysical and was just a hussle where these "masters" made up a bunch of stuff that sounded cool so they could charge a salary. Socrate, of course, charged nothing for his dialects. Though it is said that he later founded a school, for which presumably he did charge. History is vague on this.

Then came a man of extraordinary intellect, one Aristotle. Aristotle studied in Plato's academy. Plato was one of the children Socrate was accused of corrupting in his famous trial. Based on the ideas he ostensibly retrieved from the dialogues of Socrate, he founded the Academy. (you can easily find his works, On Love, Politeia, etc.). Aristotle was hired by one King Philip the Second of Macedon (presumably they had gotten over all of the outrage at sophism) to instruct his son and those of his closest generals in all the latest Athenian knowledge of stuff. He also happened to be a very prolific thinker himself, and wrote many works based on Plate's teachings. But the reason his post with the king is so important is that one of his pupils, one Alexander The Great, went on to conquer Greece and then the entire known world up to what we now call India. Importantly, this included Egypt. And so, a tradition of teaching Plate through Aristotle was formed. This tradition continued with some interruptions and lulls in transmission up to this very day. But also, at some point far beyond its establishment, dialectics was taken to mean more than this process of talking. It was taken as a process not requiring an actual conversation where a thesis was postulated, an antitheses that challenged it, and a synthesis where the contradictions arising between both were worked out. This also, as you may have noticed, forms the basis of the Scientific Method as is today taught in all formal schools. Thesis, antitheses, synthesis. What many do not seem to realize, is that this dialectic method really does rely on that metaphysical place, called the Topus Uranus, where perfect knowledge lays in dormant, perfect, and eternal existence, actually existing. If it doesn't, then of course there is no reason any elimination of any contradictions between any group of people should lead to anything particularly more true than any postulation arrived at some other way. But never mind, our story is not done.

Much later, in what can arguably be called our modern age, one crazy priest called Bentaro started a school in Germany where he taught a very mystical, Christianized idea of Aristotle. He taught that the subtstance Aristotle wrote about is not a kind of figurative catch-all for "anything that qualifies as substance," but an actual distinct thing. He taught it was a thing that preceded even matter, in that secret and sacred Christian place where soul and matter both are born. Christians have this idea that the human psyche, thoughts and that, exist before matter and are in some way more real. This perhaps was taken from Socrate himself, who talked about that Topus Uranus metaphysical place that held perfect knowledge. And that is the place where Bentaro put "substance." Among his students where none other than Freud, who arguably took a lot of the mysticism out of the doctrine, and a man called Husserl.

Husserl was very impressed. To name this dimension of substance, that place that is actually even more real than matter, or even the soul, that place where reality so to speak begins, he coined the term: "phenomenology." As far as he could see, this place Bentaro taught about was at the very least a phenomenon, and so everything was at very least a pehnomenon. Everybody was very impressed by this, and this included one Georg Hegel. Hegel liked the idea very much, and also like Socrate and Plate very much, and he just knew deep down that dialectics, being the core base of all philosophy and actually all reality, must then be phenomenological. If you were to describe reality, you would of course have to describe it phenomenologically, and it would of course have to be dialectics. This was called PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE SPIRIT.

In it, Hegel revealed how the true nature of all human history, which, being Christian, as far as he was concerned was even more real than something like nature or anything beside human, was a dialectic processing of Spirit. He was the first to concieve of this idea that human individuals don't in the strictest sense exist, but that only a Great Spirit exists which revealis itself dialectically through the course of time. And so, history is this, the unfolding and transformation of this spirit, through dialectics. A thing happens, or thesis postulated, a thing happens to challenge it, or antitheses, and a new balance where the contradictions are smoothed out comes into being, or synthesis. This synthesis then becomes a new thesis awaiting a new antithesis, and so on. Schopenhauer was not impressed by this.

But one KARL MARX was. However, being a hip Socialist (yes, socialism already existed and meant the exact same thing as communism), he didn't admit it. What he actually said was that Hegel was a weak hearted old man, with his head stuck in the clouds, and that he was super wrong in that he was super correct about everything except that this dialectic was not spiritual, but material. And the dialectic, because he was a hip socialist, was one of the Evil Opressors against the poor, honest Working Man. In his version of this Aristotelian mystic doctrine, the thesis was oppression, the antithesis was the overthrow of opression, and the synthesis a new opression. But slightly different. In his reading, this process would eventually lead to a thesis where all the last of the possible contradictions of opression were present, and the antitheses that overthrew it would then inevitably lead to a synthesis that now did not include opression. He believed that last thesis to be Capitalism but, to be fair to him, he did not absolutely swear it.


Now, of course, if you take dialectics, originally refering literally to the process of dialoguing regarding a subject, to be a metaphysical underpining of reality itself, you will look for it in any and every thing that occurs or has occured. And, being more real than, say, an individual, it will take prescedence over any individual determination. That is what robolutionary meant when he said that dialectics goes deeper than any observable pehomenon. Because, arguable, dialectics IS what observes. Dialectics describes what causes things to happen, like why French jails used to be places where litterally there was a window anywhere an inmate went, where a guard looked at him. These things didn't happen out of determinations that individuals made, like the architects that designed the jail, but a spiritual dialectic or spirit of history, Zeitgeist (zeit = time, geist = spirit, also possibly mind, that human essence that holds the thoughts, although now not human but spiritually dialectic), that compelled them according to a logic all its own, a dialectic logic of the presentation, challenge and resolution of opression by ruling classes on the proletariat, coming from the Roman word for essencially every free man that wasn't an aristocrat or important person of some kind.

Dialectics. if you ask me or any other Nietzchean, some pretty sick shit.

DOES THAT SUFFICE SILHOUETTE GODDAMNIT

Ask all the questions you want or present any discussion you please, I got all the time in the world. And let us not fall into the trap of making our waters muddy to make them appear deeper than they are. That is to say, don't get too fancy with your formulations because i will not have the patience to read them. Salud.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:57 am

Wow I must have been very high when I investigated all that history. Give me a sec and I will give you a revised, sober timeline of those events.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:01 am

Ok, so the phenomenology guy was Hegel himself, through Kant of course, and then Marx studied under him, and the other guy is called Brentano, and came later and came up with a different concept, that gave us in fact Freud and Husserl, and through Husserl importantly Heidegger. I tend to associate phenomenology with Heidegger because he and many of his peers during his time, like Ortega y Gasset, really went on about it.

All the explanations and genealogies of the actual concepts are accurate.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:03 am

If you don't mind, I will post the same OP again, but revised with historical corrections.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:07 am

ON DIALECTICS

First of all, where does this term come from? Well, it refers directly to what is originally known as THE SOCRATIC METHOD. What is that then?

Well, if you read Plato's works, all featuring a canny Socrates lounging with the who's who of Athens, you will notice that they are all dialogues. Dialogue, dialect, dialectic, diodes, IBM, no wait shit. Also, it is said that Socrate's main occupation was sitting around in Athen's main square, and randomly stopping good citizens (it was later alleged that most of these good citizens were young boys) to ask them questions, and dialect with them about philosophy. It is said, possibly in no small measure because of Socrate's own allegations in his later trial, that Socrate, by this dialectic method of philosophy, sought to take philosophy away from the ateliers of the very rich and down to the floor level of Athens' everyday citizen, philosophy for all if you will.

Dialectics, then, is really a term that came after Socrate himself, whose ostensible chronicler was Plate, or Plato. What the term refers to, essencially, is the arrival of truth by dialogue on a subject. I tell you a thing, you tell me a thing back, and through this exchange the contradictions emerge. As a contradiction is revealed, both dialoguers find its resolution by continuing the dialogue, until they arrive at the conclusion. What the method purports is that, through this exchange, the actual truth of a matter is discoverable. The reasons are fairly mystical. Socrate held that there was a sort of metaphysical place where all knowledge is stored, and that by way of a dialogue, this knowledge is retrieved from that place and brought to the dialoguers' minds.

There was an implication, as well, that this was a truthful method because two people, with an audience preferably, will notice eachother's contradictions and, between them, will not be able to bullshit and be able, by resolution of the contradictions, to get to that primal metaphysical knowledge that every man (no, not women) has access to; unlike what Socrate called sophism, where a master went to a rich person's atelier and told their son about a lot of stuff. In Socrate's mind, this was not metaphysical and was just a hussle where these "masters" made up a bunch of stuff that sounded cool so they could charge a salary. Socrate, of course, charged nothing for his dialects. Though it is said that he later founded a school, for which presumably he did charge. History is vague on this.

Then came a man of extraordinary intellect, one Aristotle. Aristotle studied in Plato's academy. Plato was one of the children Socrate was accused of corrupting in his famous trial. Based on the ideas he ostensibly retrieved from the dialogues of Socrate, he founded the Academy. (you can easily find his works, On Love, Politeia, etc.). Aristotle was hired by one King Philip the Second of Macedon (presumably they had gotten over all of the outrage at sophism) to instruct his son and those of his closest generals in all the latest Athenian knowledge of stuff. He also happened to be a very prolific thinker himself, and wrote many works based on Plate's teachings. But the reason his post with the king is so important is that one of his pupils, one Alexander The Great, went on to conquer Greece and then the entire known world up to what we now call India. Importantly, this included Egypt. And so, a tradition of teaching Plate through Aristotle was formed. This tradition continued with some interruptions and lulls in transmission up to this very day. But also, at some point far beyond its establishment, dialectics was taken to mean more than this process of talking. It was taken as a process not requiring an actual conversation where a thesis was postulated, an antitheses that challenged it, and a synthesis where the contradictions arising between both were worked out. This also, as you may have noticed, forms the basis of the Scientific Method as is today taught in all formal schools. Thesis, antitheses, synthesis. What many do not seem to realize, is that this dialectic method really does rely on that metaphysical place, called the Topus Uranus, where perfect knowledge lays in dormant, perfect, and eternal existence, actually existing. If it doesn't, then of course there is no reason any elimination of any contradictions between any group of people should lead to anything particularly more true than any postulation arrived at some other way. But never mind, our story is not done.

Much later, in what can arguably be called our modern age, one Georg Hegel taught a very mystical, Christianized idea of Aristotle. He taught that the subtstance Aristotle wrote about is not a kind of figurative catch-all for "anything that qualifies as substance," but an actual distinct thing. He taught it was a thing that preceded even matter, in that secret and sacred Christian place where soul and matter both are born. Christians have this idea that the human psyche, thoughts and that, exist before matter and are in some way more real. This perhaps was taken from Socrate himself, who talked about that Topus Uranus metaphysical place that held perfect knowledge. To name this dimension of substance, that place that is actually even more real than matter, or even the soul, that place where reality so to speak begins, he coined the term: "phenomenology." As far as he could see, this place was at the very least a phenomenon, and so everything was at very least a phenomenon. If you were to describe reality, you would of course have to describe it phenomenologically, and it would of course have to be dialectics. This was called PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE SPIRIT.

In it, Hegel revealed how the true nature of all human history, which, being Christian, as far as he was concerned was even more real than something like nature or anything beside human, was a dialectic processing of Spirit. He was the first to concieve of this idea that human individuals don't in the strictest sense exist, but that only a Great Spirit exists which revealis itself dialectically through the course of time. And so, history is this, the unfolding and transformation of this spirit, through dialectics. A thing happens, or thesis postulated, a thing happens to challenge it, or antitheses, and a new balance where the contradictions are smoothed out comes into being, or synthesis. This synthesis then becomes a new thesis awaiting a new antithesis, and so on. Schopenhauer was not impressed by this.

But one KARL MARX was. However, being a hip Socialist (yes, socialism already existed and meant the exact same thing as communism), he didn't admit it. What he actually said was that Hegel was a weak hearted old man, with his head stuck in the clouds, and that he was super wrong in that he was super correct about everything except that this dialectic was not spiritual, but material. And the dialectic, because he was a hip socialist, was one of the Evil Opressors against the poor, honest Working Man. In his version of this Aristotelian mystic doctrine, the thesis was oppression, the antithesis was the overthrow of opression, and the synthesis a new opression. But slightly different. In his reading, this process would eventually lead to a thesis where all the last of the possible contradictions of opression were present, and the antitheses that overthrew it would then inevitably lead to a synthesis that now did not include opression. He believed that last thesis to be Capitalism but, to be fair to him, he did not absolutely swear it.


Now, of course, if you take dialectics, originally refering literally to the process of dialoguing regarding a subject, to be a metaphysical underpining of reality itself, you will look for it in any and every thing that occurs or has occured. And, being more real than, say, an individual, it will take prescedence over any individual determination. That is what robolutionary meant when he said that dialectics goes deeper than any observable pehomenon. Because, arguable, dialectics IS what observes. Dialectics describes what causes things to happen, like why French jails used to be places where litterally there was a window anywhere an inmate went, where a guard looked at him. These things didn't happen out of determinations that individuals made, like the architects that designed the jail, but a spiritual dialectic or spirit of history, Zeitgeist (zeit = time, geist = spirit, also possibly mind, that human essence that holds the thoughts, although now not human but spiritually dialectic), that compelled them according to a logic all its own, a dialectic logic of the presentation, challenge and resolution of opression by ruling classes on the proletariat, coming from the Roman word for essencially every free man that wasn't an aristocrat or important person of some kind.

Dialectics. if you ask me or any other Nietzchean, some pretty sick shit.

DOES THAT SUFFICE SILHOUETTE GODDAMNIT

Ask all the questions you want or present any discussion you please, I got all the time in the world. And let us not fall into the trap of making our waters muddy to make them appear deeper than they are. That is to say, don't get too fancy with your formulations because i will not have the patience to read them. Salud.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:07 am

Brentano is a real piece of work though, we can maybe talk about him some other time depending on how this goes.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:21 am

A little note on Aristotle's substance. Just to demystify it a bit. I don't know Greek, but the Latin word substance is composed of Sub and Stance. Sub means under and Stance means standing in a physical sense. So what holds something up, or what lies under something. Iow, for Aristotle's purposes, what lies under Form.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:23 am

Aristotle also relies on the Topus Uranus, metaphysical perfect knowledge, in order not to sound pretty retarded.

Sub-STANCE

Fo-ORM

Thing - STAND

Have - SHAPE

SUB STANCE, FO ORM

I mean if there isn't an actual perfect truth Aristotle is finding, metaphysical in existence, preceding even matter, then he just sounds like an idiot pointing out things that might, MIGHT, be relevant to a child.

But maybe we are getting ahead of ourselves.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:02 am

No, you know what? I feel pretty sick even talking about these things. Retard weighs on the human spirit. I have no inclination to discuss any of this retarded shit.

But before I knew that, I had to know about it. So, at least there you have a bunch of names and concepts. You can go wikipedia them and read things they wrote (often an essay steals less of your heard earned time than whole books) and not be blown out of the water by anybody's grasp, even a Nietzschean posing as a marxist troublemaker, of dialectics or anything at all. And thing leads on to thing, and maybe if you start with some of these you will end up reading some Abelard or some crazy shit, and be little concerned with dialectics. Or maybe not. In any case, I am a little disgusted just remembering all these things. So, you know, forget the thing about questions and discussions. Turns out this whole thread was at least in part just to remind myself why I don't talk about philosophy. Blegh.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:37 am

I think Baudrillard was the only 60's wave of French philosophers who was anti-Socrate, anti-dialectic.

Everyone else, including Deleuze, was like "This, right? Becuase if not this and this, right? So if not this and this it must be this, right?"

And then Baudrillard came and was like "they only hide that they hide nothing. Bitch."
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:44 am

Honestly, read this shit. Learn french, and then read this shit https://monoskop.org/images/a/ab/Baudri ... t_1995.pdf
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:49 am

This sucks so much though, I can't find here the part I remember reading. Second edition? it almost writes it but doesn't quite arrive at this awesome formulation (paraphrased from memory):

The perfect crime has no victim, no criminal, and finally no crime.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:51 am

No, you know what? It was in another of his books or essays that references this one. Fucking magnificent.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:00 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:This sucks so much though, I can't find here the part I remember reading. Second edition? it almost writes it but doesn't quite arrive at this awesome formulation (paraphrased from memory):

The perfect crime has no victim, no criminal, and finally no crime.


One Republican way to read this might be: the commies want to destroy the past. But they want it to be a perfect crime, so they want to make it so that there is no past, nobody to miss it, nobody to lament its destruction, nobody that destroys it, how can you destroy something that wasn't there? That is the real, actual reason they hate us. Wealth is secondary, they actually tend to direct most of their hate at people that aren't actually even wealthy, like Clarence Thomas. They hate us because we get in the way of the perfect crime, we represent proof of their destruction, or obviously incomplete destruction as otherwise we would not exist.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:06 am

But that's another magic of Baudrillard. The only place to start if you want to be serious about resolving a philosophical question is the middle of the maze. That is where the problem is anyway, if you start outside of it you are probably being bullshat. If it was so neat, with known entry and exit that you can find, than it wouldn't really be a problem would it?

"The Gulf War Never Happened"
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:20 am

But that is also the way in which Baudrillard is too modern for Nietzsche. But it's almost like he knew it, like he made the sacrifice, sacrificed himself to save those in the middle of the modern maze that might bring some light of hope to prevent the perfect crime. In full knowledge, because he obviously read Nietzsche and obviously understood him.

But of course, what Nietzsche did say was (again paraphrased from memory):

What is the modern man? The modern man is the one that does not know the way in or out of the maze.

So Nietzsche's view is more or less that the philosopher is the one that goes in the maze, willingly, because knowing the way in and the way out does not solve it or neglect its existence. But that's a lie too. The maze lies, n'est pas? What Nietzsche really meant is that we are all in the maze, but philosophers know the way in and the way out. Or not philosophers but, you know, real men (as opposed to modern ones). A farmer in 1640 as much as a Greek sophist in 400 bc. What is this, life? The philosopher knows. He is not worried about what life is, only about the problems life poses.

When you start believeing contraptions, artificial concepts, is when you start even asking the question. But we all use contraptions and artificial concepts. Language is a collection of them. So what? Nihilists like some-among-us freak out and yell at the stars "nothing is reallllllllllllll!" just because words are contraptions, just because they are in a maze. They are the dude in the maze that starts freaking out and banging on the walls. You need words, right? And beyond that, contraptions and stuff. The maze. But you keep your shit. You know the way in, and the way out. You are not bothered by Wittgenstein's pointless investigations into whether logic can provide revelation or if it doesn't does that mean that the world is a black hole of inexistance? Maybe we should kill some jews? Of course killing jews is a kind of substitue perfect crime. We are killing jews because we are NOT destroying the past. The world has always existed and it has always been the perfect nazi world. As soon as we kill the jews.

Conservatives know the deal. Family, food, as nicve of a roof as you can provide. Sitting in a nice chair, sipping something cold, little feet running around. They are not worried about family-ness, or food-ness, or feet-ness. They are pretty terrified by people who would destroy that. And this offends the commies, who want to destroy it, because they can't want to destroy it, because there is no destruction, can be none, and the world has always been a perfect nazi place as soon as we kill all the jews.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:26 am

That is also why they need new names for everything. Native American, because somehow everybody born in America is somehow not native of America. It is important that the names make no sense, because if they made sense they would represent a continuity with the past, which nobody is destroying. Gender diverse. Social justice. Partner. My mind isn't depraved enough to remember the full spectrum right now.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:32 am

One of the big things Chavez did pretty soon after he was elected, was change the official name of the country from Republic of Venezuela to Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, then add a single star to the flag, then, get this, take a little horse in the national shield (the shiled is like i think in your case the one with the eagle on it) and made it face the opposite direction, keeping everything else exactly the same, then changing the time zone by half an hour. All these little changes, which on their face make no sense, serve a purpose. Like every communist country that changes its name to The Democratic Republic of or The People's Republic of. Try reading a communist written law some day, it will blow your mind. The point is not that in Chavez's view there were 8 provinces instead of 7 in the original republic, or that the horse is somehow more accurate facing one way than the other, or that it can possibly make sense that the actual name of a country, I mean it's like calling the US the Washingtonian Republic of America. No, it's not that they even are pretending to make any sense. It is that the past can be erased only by absurdity, only by presenting you with an option so dissociated from coherence that if you actually do embrace it, the past is no longer even a thinkable thing that can ever have existed. As soon as all the jews are dead.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:42 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:But that is also the way in which Baudrillard is too modern for Nietzsche. But it's almost like he knew it, like he made the sacrifice, sacrificed himself to save those in the middle of the modern maze that might bring some light of hope to prevent the perfect crime. In full knowledge, because he obviously read Nietzsche and obviously understood him.

But of course, what Nietzsche did say was (again paraphrased from memory):

What is the modern man? The modern man is the one that does not know the way in or out of the maze.

So Nietzsche's view is more or less that the philosopher is the one that goes in the maze, willingly, because knowing the way in and the way out does not solve it or neglect its existence. But that's a lie too. The maze lies, n'est pas? What Nietzsche really meant is that we are all in the maze, but philosophers know the way in and the way out. Or not philosophers but, you know, real men (as opposed to modern ones). A farmer in 1640 as much as a Greek sophist in 400 bc. What is this, life? The philosopher knows. He is not worried about what life is, only about the problems life poses.

When you start believeing contraptions, artificial concepts, is when you start even asking the question. But we all use contraptions and artificial concepts. Language is a collection of them. So what? Nihilists like some-among-us freak out and yell at the stars "nothing is reallllllllllllll!" just because words are contraptions, just because they are in a maze. They are the dude in the maze that starts freaking out and banging on the walls. You need words, right? And beyond that, contraptions and stuff. The maze. But you keep your shit. You know the way in, and the way out. You are not bothered by Wittgenstein's pointless investigations into whether logic can provide revelation or if it doesn't does that mean that the world is a black hole of inexistance? Maybe we should kill some jews? Of course killing jews is a kind of substitue perfect crime. We are killing jews because we are NOT destroying the past. The world has always existed and it has always been the perfect nazi world. As soon as we kill the jews.

Conservatives know the deal. Family, food, as nicve of a roof as you can provide. Sitting in a nice chair, sipping something cold, little feet running around. They are not worried about family-ness, or food-ness, or feet-ness. They are pretty terrified by people who would destroy that. And this offends the commies, who want to destroy it, because they can't want to destroy it, because there is no destruction, can be none, and the world has always been a perfect nazi place as soon as we kill all the jews.


Importantly, the communist is the one that wants to weaponize the maze and the nihilist is the one that freaks out. but actually, the modern man proper is the one that doesn't even realize he is in a maze. But, then again, like Baudrillard says, there are always traces, nobody is ever fully convinced that there is no maze. And indeed the modern man is the father of the communists and the nazis and the UN globalist totalitarians, they are all the same like different churches of Christianity, they are the ones tasked to make sure that the maze does not anymore or ever again look like a maze. But they can't actually be doing this, because if you make the maze look not like a maze than there is a maze. So instead you kill all the jews.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:43 am

I always thought that "dialectics" merely meant "manner of speaking or communicating", different people having different dialects. Then Aristotle formalized a particular proper way of speaking that we now call "logic" (consistent, unmovable, docked, logged).

Regardless it is great to read something on this board from someone who actually knows something.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 4:49 am

Indeed that is the tragedy. And an almost good candidate for the perfect crime, because Aristotle almost managed to make it seem like that formal logic of his was the only truth ever existed, there was no history of thought or philosophy before it, no etymology of the word logos. Only perfect logic, arrived dialectically at from the Topus Uranus. Then he makes poor innocent people like some-among-us freak out because if you look deeply enough into it, it has no connection with reality.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:08 am

I'm just looking up some of this stuff since you made it sound worth knowing...
Wikipedia wrote:The writing of Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC) was the first place where the word logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy,[13] although Heraclitus seems to use the word with a meaning not significantly different from the way in which it was used in ordinary Greek of his time.[14] For Heraclitus, logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.

This logos holds always but humans always prove unable to ever understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep.
— Diels–Kranz, 22B1

I wonder what that must have been like - logic for the first time in society but a good reason for Aristotle to spell out the rules.

The bloke who formalizes something seems to always be the fella remembered.
              You have been observed.
obsrvr524
Thinker
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:30 am

Well, the man who wrote "one never crosses the same river twice" can hardly have written "logos provides the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure."

I gather you have been following some of James S Saint's writing. One thing that always bothered me about him was his apparent belief that if you apply formal aristotelian logic to common sense concepts, by virtue of the mechanics of this logic, you would get an ontology. On the other hand, he did once off-hand say something in a single sentence that provided me the key to solve an incredibly sticky problem.

The ancient Greek language is incredibly rich, and logos, like so many of those words, had its own intuitive meaning that would be very hard to formalize. Like daemon, or pathos, or ethos, or thanatos, or verily even Zeus or Aphrodite, of which Heraclitus also writes.

Actually Heraclitus is super worth reading, and it is not heavy going at all (that is the beauty of the aphoristic form).
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:53 am

Translations Of the Known Fragments Of Heraclitus

If you go to the .com address, you can also find the original Greek text, which is neat.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On Dialectics

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:00 am

The translation for B32 seems to be tricky. I had read it as something like:

But of Zeus, what mortal can speak? - or - it is very difficult to speak.


sometimes low grade translations are better, though, as they give a more raw feed and allow you to guess fro yourself what the author might have meant and how he might have meant it, or she.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6663
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zinnat