It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
no, it is not simple when you change what I say to only reflect what you think I said. I KNOW I refered to the political ideology incorporated by marx, in the materialist dialectic. I even gace you, your simplistic version for contrast I.e., tic tac toe, x's and o's. You are stuck, not me. I even helped you before you fell into that same hole YOU dug.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: manna2
i guess if i simply point out this is the marxist dialectic i will get ensconched by reproof that tic-tac-toe is a dialectic exercise...
Now WHY did you have to bring that up again, manna?
Dialectic is simply discussing two opposing viewpoints and finding a common ground that balances the two.
And again, I don't care who's used it in the past. It's how our own government was set up, as well - or we would have a "one-party" system.
I even gace you, your simplistic version for contrast I.e., tic tac toe, x's and o's. You are stuck, not me. I even helped you before you fell into that same hole YOU dug.
And yes, it applies to tic-tac-toe if you want to debase it to a childlike level.
Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages taking sides. We can see it in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in democrats against republicans, in greens against libertarians, in communists against socialists, in neo-cons against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists, in peace activists against war hawks. No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts.
We're definitely not in Kansas anymore.
For a visual concept, see this simple chart [page now deleted] of the Hegelian Dialectic and Marx's Dialectical Materialism, posted by the Calverton Private School.
"Dialectic ....the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite... development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism ....any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict ...
....the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements."
"Dialectical Materialism ... 1 : the Marxist theory that maintains the material basis of a reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind."
"Hegel's dialectic often appears broken up for convenience into three moments called "thesis" (in the French historical example, the revolution), "antithesis" (the terror which followed), and "synthesis" (the constitutional state of free citizens). ... Much Hegel scholarship does not recognize the usefulness of this triadic classification for shedding light on Hegel's thought. Although Hegel refers to "the two elemental considerations: first, the idea of freedom as the absolute and final aim; secondly, the means for realising it, i.e. the subjective side of knowledge and will, with its life, movement, and activity" (thesis and antithesis) he doesn't use "synthesis" but instead speaks of the "Whole": "We then recognised the State as the moral Whole and the Reality of Freedom, and consequently as the objective unity of these two elements." ...
"Hegel used this system of dialectics to explain the whole of the history of philosophy, science, art, politics and religion, but many modern critics point out that Hegel often seems to gloss over the realities of history in order to fit it into his dialectical mold....
In the 20th century, Hegel's philosophy underwent a major renaissance. This was due partly to the rediscovery and reevaluation of him as the philosophical progenitor of Marxism by philosophically oriented Marxists, partly through a resurgence of the historical perspective that Hegel brought to everything, and partly through increasing recognition of the importance of his dialectical method. The book that did the most to reintroduce Hegel into the Marxist canon was perhaps Georg Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness. This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Ernst Bloch....
"Beginning in the 1960's, Anglo-American Hegel scholarship has attempted to challenge the traditional interpretation of Hegel as offering a metaphysical system." See Popular Occultism
The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).
For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.
The Soviet Union was based on the Hegelian dialectic, as is all Marxist writing. The Soviets didn't give up their Hegelian reasoning when they supposedly stopped being a communist country. They merely changed the dialectical language to fit into the modern version of Marxist thinking called communitarianism. American author Steve Montgomery explores Moscow's adept use of the Hegelian dialectic in Glasnost-Perestroika: A Model Potemkin Village.
How is it possible to consider a Hegelian argument?
If the ideas, interpretations of experiences, and the sources are all wrong, can a conclusion based on all these wrong premises be sound? The answer is no. Two false premises do not make a sound conclusion even if the argument follows the formula. Three, four, five, or six false premises do not all combine to make a conclusion sound. You must have at least one sound premise to reach a sound conclusion. Logical mathematical formulas are only the basis for deductive reasoning. Equally important is knowledge of semantics, or considering the meanings of the words used in the argument. Just because an argument fits the formula, it does not necessarily make the conclusion sound. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel knew this when he designed his dialectic.
And you continually attempt to pass me off and talk down to me. I have the rights, once again to treat you as a hostile witness. I am not projecting, you are!