Sometimes it's helpful to read the 'comments section' accompanying the videos to get, what's it called again? Oh yeah, the antithesis.
Yeah, I know, the first comment sounds like it's by me, but really, it's not. LOL!
Yeah, I know, the first comment sounds like it's by me, but really, it's not. LOL!
Quote:genericwhitemale1 year ago (edited)
Jesus christ, all those fucking conspiracy wingnutters in the comment sections that think dialectics is a sophistic trick to establish the illuminati-marxist-bolshevik-rotschild world government... It's incredibly frustrating seeing these lunatics talk about shit when they so clearly have no clue whatsoever what it means.
Someone mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect, absolutely true. The least knowledgeable persons think they are the most confident and have the knowledge to expose this conspiracy.
beyondthecircuit11 months ago
With all due respect, this is a very poor description of the dialectical process. Your example of the resolution between "fat" and "thin" as being a place between the two is much more a description of the golden mean in the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.
The dialectic is a process whereby reason discloses the internal contradictions that exist in any concretized way of thinking--and thereby indicates that this entire mode of thinking was based on a misunderstanding, leading to the adoption of a new point of view that transcends the unseen limitations of your previous manner of reasoning--and then this new way of thinking is itself subjected to the same dialectical process of "transcending" the unforeseen limitations again and again.
An actual example from Hegel's Phenomenology goes like this: 1) I posit that the essential nature of a thing is a bare substrate, an essence, onto which universal predicates (color, number, etc.) attach themselves. 2) I reject this initial idea of a "bare substrate;" instead, I think that a thing is, in truth, the accumulation of the predicates, that there is nothing outside of the predicates, that they're joined together by a universal and negative "and also" that binds them together. 3) Recognizing that both the substrate and the predicates seem to lack substantiality and seem to disappear if I universalize either one of them--either the predicate or the "and also"--I'm befuddled and in a quagmire...until, as a consequence of this befuddlement, I come to understand that things are, rather, the consequences of unseen forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, etc.
Now I can see that I was misguided in thinking that I could come to the nature of a thing by taking my direct perception of it in some supposed "empirical reality" to be the truth. I've transcended this way of thinking, and now my new supposition that "force" underlies everything becomes subject to reason and dialectic.
From that description, I think people (including yourself) could understand that the "fat" vs. "thin" resolution leaves us considering the issue in the same light as before. I think a more Hegelian resolution would be to realize that discussions and evaluations of weight in the terms you've presented them have a historical genealogy and are engendered in us by our cultures as a means of maintaining normative values, that where we thought we were asserting self-control, we were in fact assenting to being controlled, disciplining ourselves and shaming others in our roles as proxies to our historical moment.
Austin Mayle1 year ago
It is obvious that you have never read and/or understood Hegel or dialectic. This is really messed up. People who don't know any better might take this nonsense seriously.
