Thesis - antithesis - synthesis is not Hegelian termonology. He used the terms abstract - negative - concrete. Makes more sense, why should a thesis have to have an antithesis? But concepts have their negations. .
An outstanding overview of Hegel's system and method. The interviewer was also excellent. Only one problem with Peter Singer's analysis: Hegel himself never used the triad Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis except on one occasion when he criticized Fichte for using it, saying that it was too "formalistic". I think the author of this video presentation makes it clearer what Hegel's dialectical method involves: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BaRUZ81K8bk.html I've heard someone say, or put into writing, that Aristotle's dialectic was restricted to a human argument (in other words, a dialogue) resolving a thesis and antithesis under discussion with a higher synthesis or even new (or recovered) idea, whereas Hegel's dialectic was an argument that physical nature (which might include human society) has with itself, resolving a thesis and antithesis in the physical world (through negation of the negation) at a higher physical level, when Hegel wasn't subsuming these categories within an Idealist schema, which he sometimes did. For the reason that Hegel sometimes did that, Marx's dialectical method is more consistent. This audio-archived presentation by Robert Langston of the Socialist Workers Party (US) might be helpful for an understanding of the method: www.marxistsfr.org/history/etol/audio/langston/12-The-Dialectics-of-Revolution.mp3
Any discussion like this where serious consideration is given to ideas is great and thanks for putting it up. One contradiction that is interesting is the idea presented toward the end --that the contradictions conflicts in society would be completely resolved....or ever could be.. As someone in the UK I'm pretty certain council housing , the national health service would simply not exist if it were not for the soviet union.. ...and the pressure that created. Also how can they ignore the historical factors, the civil war that occurred after the revolution and attempt by other nations to completely destroy the soviet union after WW1? From what I understand also the soviet union did not completely change the economic base of production and Che Guevera criticised them for this... But here again a process is revealed rather than a final outcome.
WOOOOOOW Seriously, thanks for putting this up. An oasis of critical thought in a barren waste of late night/early morning RU-vid videos. Insta-subscribe. Seriously, I'm falling asleep to _this_ tonight; I appreciate it.
+saurabh joshi Not really. He is ambiguous. Either Stalinism embodied Marx's communist utopia (and Singer seems to think he did not) or he did not. IF he did not, then the following argument for the apparant incompatibility of unifying social raltions under communism with actual historical reality falls. Up to that last point I think that Singer makes good sense of similarities and differences between Marx/Hegel, but I disagree that Marx made no important contributions to academic philosophy, I think he actually did.
@16:35 Me not being offered a job despite months and months of trying and interviewing is not my mind projecting anything. My illness exacerbating because of lack of health insurance because no job is not my mind projecting anything. It is reality. Reality that my mind cannot change. This IS foreign and hostile to my mind, it is NOT part of my mind. There is NO freedom in knowing this. The world is NOT myself and my implementing a principle of rationality will NOT give me a job and health insurance.
Singer seemed more jovial in his rhetoric when he was younger, was this intentional? Maybe he wanted to sound more inviting and friendly, I find it quite interesting and effective listening to him here. Not that he's not effective today by any means.
yeah they really cant be skipping over his terms so much. The concept is realized in the world, all that stands the tooth of time in the world is the realization of the concept (Begriff). The dialectic proceeds necessarily because the concept actualizes itself out of itself. something like that
Will the concept of Dialectics go through the Dialectic itself? If Dialectics is a Thesis then what is its Anti-Thesis, is it Metaphysics?! Alot of Hegels Philosophy reminds me of Daoist and Hindu Theology!?
@30:03 I honestly don't think Hegel made much success at making himself sound profound in his writings. He just sounds like he might have been smoking more weed than me. Now I agree his concepts were profound.
what if Monarchy and Dicatorship were better than what the Synthesis people talk about? People just put blame on those systems because of the technological advancements and knowladge that were not there at the time
*sigh* it was so informative, and then they went and called Stalin a communist. Stalin's regime was what we call state capitalism. A system where there is capitalism, and the state owns all the businesses. Communism is described as a stateless, currency-free, classless society, where production follows the principle of 'give based on ability, receive based on need' lower phase communism, or socialism as it's also called, is a system that has achieved the worker control of the means of production. Stalin never achieved either. Marx's ideas aren't disputed. besides, Capitalism has failed may times, but we don't assume it to be a failure based on one fail? And there are in fact many historical cases where socialism did work until a killed
I agree, however I wouldn't use the term "state capitalism", which I don't think has anywhere or at any time been explained adequately and therefore I think is a misleading term. It's inconceivable that a stock exchange could have existed under Stalinist socialism. Marx never tried to define what a communist society would be like except to say that, ideally, the individual would probably be free to choose what jobs would earn him or her a living. Marx's Left Hegelian dialectic would have precluded knowing what the resolution of the contradictions of capitalism would bring about at a higher (aufgehoben) level: it would not repeat the primitive communism of early Christianity nor be contained in embryo in either capitalism or anti-capitalism.
@@AtlantaBill yeah, I wrote this before I'd gotten through my introductar phase, so I didn't know what I was talking about, a bit of dunnig krüger there too. I know Stalin is still called a communist by many, but at the same time I still stand by him being a terrible example of one. Lenin is a lot better, as he was a driven communist his entire life, and progressed the works of marx in a meaningful way, Stalin was a totaliterian dictator first, and a communist second, and when those aren't really compatible, it's unsustainable. Old Joseph let the sovjet unions emergency dictatorship of the beurocracy and state get to his head. Marx would be ashamed, and Lenin was.
@@badasunicorn6870 If you consider yourself in sympathy with the Left Opposition of Leon Trotsky, yes I'm a comrade. Did you know that Trotsky actually used the term 'totalitarian' for the Russian system under Stalin? One can go too far, though, because anti-Stalinism can backfire and be used to support anti-communism (anti-Marxism). I like this presentation by Michael Parenti: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-05tz0V9IBi0.html
hahah The day anyone thinks they know everything, is the day they should realize they know nothing. Hooo the arrogance of the human mind. But of course every very thought, and or experience, has an infinite number of thoughts and experiences from it, thus mind is infinite. We all share the same world, but how we experience and interpret that world is unique to every individual. NO one can ever experience my experience and visa versa!
The Meme Awakens human nature is not absolute. Human behavior adapts to its environment. Not to mention capitalism contradicts human nature. In that it allows vast greed and selfishness. Humans are an altruistic species by nature, but have to adapt to the capitalist system just like they would adapt to any other.
Dylan Pennington- "Humans are an altruistic species by nature". you state that like it is a fact rather than the subjective opinion that it is. the "argument about human nature being the downfall of Marxism" is not long defeated. if it is then the counter argument needs to be provided. you did not provide that. you simply made a biased statement.
Its a Godless philosophy really blowing up the self in a way that is really not healthy for it. The self never be able to be God by definition, it always trying to play God is really the root of the problem. Confirming this naive desire is pretty evil.
Left and right are not thesis and antithesis. Using a socio-economic example, these are more like feudalism and mercantilism or mercantilism and capitalism.
Greek society was more harmonious! Where's the harmony in a slave society? History would not have Sparticus if equality was a real part of ancient societies. A bed, linen, wool, a house, etc., in ancient Greece were made by slaves. There could not be a equality in slave society. Equality between things comes into people's minds as an abstract concept sometime in the Middle Ages when labor is independent.
It was harmonious for the non-slaves. If you for a moment entertain the absolutely intolerable view of humans as objects, the slaves could be considered as such, and the rest of society would be fairly harmonious until the slaves revolted.
@@badasunicorn6870 Aristotle tells you himself why he could not find what makes two things equal to each other. "There can be no exchange without commensurability", and then he falters, and abandons the whole notion of equality in Greek Society and the form of value, "It is however, in reality impossible that such unlike things can be commensurable', i.e.,qualitatively equal.* The work of a slave and the work of an artisan are unequal from the outset. The labor of these two distinct people, i.e, the slaves, and non-slaves never formed a common substance called value for a society to be built on the premise that you have what I need and I have what you need. They could not buy or sell land, a house, livestock, food. A human being had to be incorporated into another human being as property for the former individual to eat, live and work. Despite the fact that a bed and a house, food, clothes, are products of human labor. This atrocity worsened under the Romans. Rome had armies the Greeks had guardians. A people of conquest the Roman State needed boys not girls. The Greeks were not a contesting people. Imagine, the a man with slaves, property and land and his wife gave birth to a girl what thoughts went through his head. This meant to the father that his property would go to the state after he died not to his children and his wife victimized, for giving birth to girls. The ideal wish was for two boys, one to join the Roman legions and the other to inherit the farm. A joyous occasion of the birth of child was a risk and a nightmare for mothers and fathers who gave birth to girl after girl. Infanticide was their destiny, in larger proportion it meant genocide of the female species left propertyless and homeless to die of starvation. The poor women would walk to find a place outside the city to die or become a slave herself to avoid death after giving birth to two girls, or three, depending on how many times they tried for at least one boy would avoid such a fate. Infant girls were simply left to die on the side of a road taken by their father and as he walked away he could hear his daughter(s) crying till the last breath. Corpses, rotting on a dirt road outside the city limits. The Greeks were not barbaric as were the Romans. But there was nothing harmonious about Greek society either. A horrible life. Aristotle, a great thinker, could not find the form of commodity-values, searching for labor of equal quality to end this nightmare. Greek society had as its natural basis the inequality of men and women of their labor-powers, that a value relation was impossible! He gave up, threw in the towel. Sparticus was one of those fathers who had to kill his daughters and abandon his wife, possibly his wife to marry or become slave to his arch rival. The best arrangement would be to give his farm and wife to his rival in mourning of his daughters that he may have killed himself rather, than have the State order him to commit infanticide and save the humiliation of a greater warrior fallen to such barbaric laws, This drew such rage out of him that he became the Roman States' first historical revolutionary, Public Enemy No.1. In summary, he was the Bin Laden of Rome, a man of property, slaves, and military status, he had everything but; a boy to succeed his legacy. This is the story romanticized by movies that reach millions of people and not the story told to millions of youths in our educational system. At 30K per head for tuition costs we are taught nothing about real history. I learned more in one reading of Aristotle book than someone taking the same course as a four year college major, and it was absolutely free. What value does education have if it produces ignorance? Exchange value, the form of value, the very thing Aristotle searched for and could not find in society. * Nichomachean Ethics, Bk V, Ch 5 Loeb edition, London, 1926, pp. 297-9.
