I'll just try and undo this classical misunderstanding of the etymology of the word dialectic (and the same for dialogue): dia- comes from Ancient Greek διά (diá) and it does NOT mean "two"!!!! "Two" in Ancient Greek would be "δύο" (dýo). Diá means "through". "Lectic" comes from λεκτικός (lektikós), which, among lots of other meanings, is "the art of speaking". Dialectic would be litterally "(that which is attained) through the art of speaking". As for dialogue, it comes from Ancient Greek διάλογος, composed by διά (through) and λόγος (lógos, that is, discourse, speech, but also reason). Dialogue is litterally "(that which is attained) through speech/discourse/reason". Great video, thanks!
@@porcinet1968 hahahaha ancient Greek is hard. I love it, but I have to deal with the fact that I'll never be able to say "I know ancient Greek". it will always be "I study ancient Greek". it's been two years now, and I can't understand one godamn paragraph of Plato.
Don't forget to mention that the only decent approach to "dialectics" was offered by Aristotle - the father of logic. His view of dialectics was based on the logic approach, when we argue about a problem by using REASON, FACTS, and what would be the best solution in the long run, not our feelings, emotions or some mythical "struggle".
@@TyyylerDurden which set of criteria are you using to calculate what is the "best" solution or outcome? Do we enslave an entire population if this company pinky promises that they can reverse climate change with a big enough workforce? What about throwing the book at a certain race of arrestees because statistics say people from their neighborhood commit more crimes and it's safer to keep them locked up? FACTS and REASON alone lead to uncreative solutions to problems (and its just not how reality works or very helpful).
The format here is short, and I respect that. If I were to add something it's this: Hegel was a speculative idealist, which means he believes that ideas transform the physical world. This part of Hegel comes from Hermeticism/alchemy, and it's definitely a form of mysticism. Marx on the other hand turned Hegel's dialectic on it's head and formulated the dialectical materialism. He believed that the environment would shape the people and their conciseness. Also of crucial importance to make this relevant to today I would have mentioned the following: Hegel and Marx believed in historicism, that is that history has a goal (telos) and that the dialectic is the engine making history happen. The reason Hegel was the flashpoint is that he's credited as the first to USE the dialectic. That is, according to his crazy followers he took the reins of the dialectic and now directed history to faster approach the eschaton where object and subject becomes the same. Let me rephrase the last part: "the end of history" is where man as creator has removed all contradictions, and then God would finally reach full awareness of himself and fully realize himself. It's actually a religion with a competing metaphysics, morality, ontology etc compared to standard Enlightenment rationality and Christianity (the usual one most of us run on). Christianity and most metaphysics we use posit that God/physical reality exists as opposed to God continuously Becoming as a result of humans acting with dialectical knowledge (gnosis).
The absolute identity of subject and object in Marxist terms may very well be the transformation of society into a godlike entity. If we reach the highest level of civilization on the Kardashev scale, we'll basically be God. But chances are that we won't survive this century as a species. The cockroaches may turn into the gods we can't become.
Suggested readings in order for your students: The economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844 Theses On Feuerbach The German Ideology The Poverty of Philosophy Communist Manifesto Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy Marx Engels Marxism: Vladimir Lenin (rare) Where do correct ideas come from? The Marx-Engels Reader Book by Robert C. Tucker Marxism and the Human Individual by Adam Schaff
I do wish this would have extended into a marx-IST understanding of the dialectic, like with Engel's "Ludwig Feuerback, and the end of german classical philosophy" and Mao's "on contradiction" which more clearly break from this teleological, "two combine into one," or "thesis-antythesis-synthesis" notion of dialectics, which is nonetheless revealed in Marx's use of dialectical categories in "Capital" where in which material phenomena reveal their capacity to be identical to, or to becoming their opposite.
I would say that for Plato dialectic is first about people agreeing to seek public truth, not truth "in" each of us. The capacity to know is in us, but the object of dialectical conversation is an objective truth that we might together grasp.
"🍎 American £iberalism, principles of a New 🏛️ Republic, sprung from the Magna Carta having a belief in private property without government oversight, with a framework of laws based on individual liberty within a nation under God that is distinct from any church or religion. Gravitating through federalism, a great awakening, emergence of transcendentalism, Jacksonian populism, manifesting of empire and the remnants of the confederacy half a century later that included black codes and Jim 🐦⬛Crow laws in the South, but invariably marching towards, the abolishment of slavery. A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, prevailed in part by the Federal Reserve's failure to thwart a liquidity crisis, but germinating from Reconstruction in its attempt at reallocation of land and later the Square Deal with its antitrust, conservation and consumer protections, and elimination of wildcat banking with the National Bank Act and eventual creation of the Federal Reserve, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🐿️ capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism, and the voters 🗳🐿💀🗿🐓👽apex between the emergence of -🎩 Monopolism, an increasingly anti-competitive system of corporatization, consolidation, collusion and eventual private interference with the levers of government. And -🧸 Communism, an inverted Hegelian dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation of subsidiary Soviet Republics that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means.Victorious after a World War, with a blueprint for a new world order, before two competing spheres emerge. Captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society and subsequently moving from gold to real resources in the backing of the Dollar, realization of neoliberalism and implementation of the American sphere globally after the collapse of the Soviet Union.A new empiricist secularism in search of transcendental truths, and the educationists in their relentless pursuit of 🌞🌜critical theories, appear. These neo-transcendental 📱illusions will inexorably punctuate into,🎏🗿 Postmodernism, a dialectic emanating from hermetics that manifests 🪄wizardry through the 👁 metaphysics of 🎏🐀 deconstruction,🌻 and/or the - 🐿️ 🏴 Last Meal, a dialectic acting out heroic revelation that manifests the 👑coronation of the 🍔 McChrist through the 👁️ metaphysics of restoration." 🍟🥤🐿️
sorry to nitpick, but "dia" is a greek prefix meaning "across/through", not "two"! hopefully this comment is made up for by boosting algorithm engagement metrics :D
Very understandable explanation of diese difficult subjects, I'm impressed! Thank you so much for your admirable work, sir. Do you have such explanation of the other thought string from Aristoteles which comes to Enlightenment (and liberalism)? If my understanding is correct, this string of thoughts emphasizes more on empiricism.
I always say Hegel wasn't that confusing right from the jump. I did my thesis on Jean-Paul Sartre 2 years ago and the ideas just grew on me more so now.
It is a common mistake (here in germany) and big myth to describe dialectics as an alleged three-step from any theses. Plato, Heraclitus, Kant, Fichte, Hegel and Marx, for example, completely refrained from using this series of words to define dialectics. Such a series of words suggests that it is just about theses that stand loosely next to each other and are then arbitrarily put together. Warm greetings and thanks for uploading so much philosophy-stuff!
Nice introductory video on this topic. I'll invite you to consider another voice on a dialectical engine that has received a lot of support including being the foundation to the USMC's doctrines, MCDP7 is the latest. John Boyd's Observe, Orient, Decide, Act Loop, (OODA Loop). You can access his model inside Orientation through Analysis and Synthesis. This is contained in Boyd's short paper Destruction and Creation which is available as a pdf.
Not so sure about that atheist part... The belief (faith) is that the dielectic actually allows man and the state to perfect one another unto the eschaton and the ushering in of utopia. This idea of perfected man and state is really a religious idea.
17:15 If you put two points on an infinite line, the distance between those points actually never becomes infinite. The infinity of the line consists of the fact that wherever we have choosen our two points, we could have always put them further apart, ie. there is no upper limit to the disance between two points on an infinite line. Likewise, the natural numbers is a set that has infinite members, but each member ie each natural number is always a finite number, yet there isn't a largest natural number, so the set itself is infinite.
Thesis: your microphone lead is connected to the victorian style beaded hexagonal scallop bell rose red lamp on the book shelf behind you and is transmitting the information directly into my consciousness. Anti-Thesis: reality sucks. Synthesis: comment for the algorithm, thanks for the great video, and hits the like button.
What I would like to know is why the word "dialectic" preceded that of "logic", especially in Aristotle. What is the inherent link between the two? Logic as it progresses from a premise to a conclusion somehow presupposes a back-and-forth or true-false structure as it works its way toward a result.
a great way to APPLY a dialectic (today) is to think of it as a functional ETHOS or APPARATUS (a toolbox) to engage, and communicate with folks of like mind. Yours is the accurate academic, historian exposition-and that's GOOD for folks to know. But, with fleeting attention spans and native FEAR, its no wonder many people are following pop-stars, influencers and common social media echo chambers.
Wow, really clear explanation! I shall be pondering throughout the day. There were a few commercials. One for Jersey Shore and one where the stringy haired overweight doctor talks about Covid.
"Thesis, antithesis, synthesis" Todd McGowan, Zizek and other Hegelians reject this common formulation of the Hegelian dialect. Their reading is that its contradiction/lack/negativity all the way down.
Very interesting but unfortunately you do not elaborate on Marx's critique of Hegel's idealist version of dialectics you simply go straight into his politics which are not the dialectic but a product of his critique of idealist dialectics. Marx did not defeat idealist dialectics by simply banging on about class struggle.
Thank you for this explination! I am a novice at all this but a simple question came to my mind by the end : Did communism fail in Russia because it made the jump from aristoricatic rule to communism, without the necessary capitalist period in between? Would Marx say the world is still headed towards a united worker system because certain socialist countries are thriving well after capitalism, its just a much longer, natural dialectic process then revolutions for communism can bring about?
Hey I'm a Marxist so I thought I'd put in my two cent. The USSR fell for a lot of material reasonings, and I don't think it's fair to say bc it didn't have a necessary capitalist period. When using dialectics, it's important to encompass the totality of the situation rather than pinning it on one individual thing. Beyond that though, Stalin's second five year plan (1933-1937) to rapidly industrialize Russia was, in anyone knowledgeable of the Russia's conditions, a huge success. It slingshot Russia into the industrial age and solidified it as a world power. While other countries were suffering from depressions, Russia was hyper industrializing and effectively had, if I'm not mistaken, the fastest growing economy at the time. I don't think Russia had any lack of a necessary industrial period. If we look at some other socialist countries like China, we can see that they definitely did (Mao's great leap forward is pretty unanimously agreed, even in Marxist circles, to be a failure) not have the necessary industrialization needed. At the time anyways... obviously China's economy is very industrialized now As long as classes exist, contradiction and therefore the potential for a new synthesis is possible. From a Marxist perspective the only natural conclusion is obviously a classless society (communism) that is beyond contradiction. The final synthesis of history.
USSR was destined to fail simply because there weren't communist revolutions in the west and that's the gist of it. Communism as synthesized by Marx cannot coexist in the same world as capitalism.
I think communism failed in Russia because it's a deeply flawed ideology. It's like you took a shit in your mouth and you're asking why it tasted bad. There's no special mystery, it always does.
Not too sure about Hegel, given Schopenhauer critique. I do find it paradoxical that self-consciousness only can be possible by being aware of something that is also aware...
I dont think it's supposed to be a discrete jump, if you see it as emergent from the interactions happening at a lower level then the paradox disappears.
@@michiel862 that is an absurd argument. The paradox is we cannot be self aware until we are self aware. There is no logical increment … it would be absurd to sympathy there was a state that was both not self aware but almost self aware.
@@SI-qp7cm self-consciousness doesn't require interaction with another self-conscious being, but merely with another conscious being. they both gain self-consciousness in that interaction.
"🍎 American £iberalism, principles of a New 🏛️ Republic, sprung from the Magna Carta having a belief in private property without government oversight, with a framework of laws based on individual liberty within a nation under God that is distinct from any church or religion. Gravitating through federalism, a great awakening, emergence of transcendentalism, Jacksonian populism, manifesting of empire and the remnants of the confederacy half a century later that included black codes and Jim 🐦⬛Crow laws in the South, but invariably marching towards, the abolishment of slavery. A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, prevailed in part by the Federal Reserve's failure to thwart a liquidity crisis, but germinating from Reconstruction in its attempt at reallocation of land and later the Square Deal with its antitrust, conservation and consumer protections, and elimination of wildcat banking with the National Bank Act and eventual creation of the Federal Reserve, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🐿️ capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism, and the voters 🗳🐿💀🗿🐓👽apex between the emergence of -🎩 Monopolism, an increasingly anti-competitive system of corporatization, consolidation, collusion and eventual private interference with the levers of government. And -🧸 Communism, an inverted Hegelian dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation of subsidiary Soviet Republics that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means.Victorious after a World War, with a blueprint for a new world order, before two competing spheres emerge. Captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society and subsequently moving from gold to real resources in the backing of the Dollar, realization of neoliberalism and implementation of the American sphere globally after the collapse of the Soviet Union.A new empiricist secularism in search of transcendental truths, and the educationists in their relentless pursuit of 🌞🌜critical theories, appear. These neo-transcendental 📱illusions will inexorably punctuate into,🎏🗿 Postmodernism, a dialectic emanating from hermetics that manifests 🪄wizardry through the 👁 metaphysics of 🎏🐀 deconstruction,🌻 and/or the - 🐿️ 🏴 Last Meal, a dialectic acting out heroic revelation that manifests the 👑coronation of the 🍔 McChrist through the 👁️ metaphysics of restoration." 🍟🥤🐿️
The dialectic is necessary but correctly felt by us as pain. I am hypostasis-destroying - which undermines capitalism. It modulates that which will not best perpetuate it into that which will. The only constant is the dialectic of mutually negating binary paratruths. Have there been any quasi Marxist S-F writers besides me in 30 years? - Philip K. Dick in the Exegesis of Philip K. Dick
Anti capitalism? That’s your goal to undermine the one system that has on many levels, actually WORKED for the betterment of humanity. Stop looking for a utopia. It ain’t gonna happen. Thanks for being a catalyst to enslave all of humanity. Driving the world back to a place where the people own nothing and only a few people at the top control all resources. And breathing in the wrong place without permission in considered a crime. If I’m wrong about what you seem to be saying about what you support. I apologize, but you are blind if I’m right. And you will help bring us all down.
@@OfftoShambala I think you are a bit off. Capitalism is a complex and nuanced thing. The Free Market and republican guided democracy have indeed produced some great things and advances for mankind. On the other hand, colonial and corporate exploitation. slavery, hyper-capitalism, crony capitalism and corporate capitalism, are all quite dangerous and need to be transformed if not removed altogether. I agree with you that Marxist socialism and Communism are awful results of atheism and materialism and can never be the solution.
@@TheoryPhilosophy I would really suggest it, because it clarifies what Hegel thinks the dialectic is, specifically he notes that it has both a fourfold and threefold structure, at once. This is interesting because it relates to the use of Chiasm, and religious systems of exegesis. He also praises Plato profusely in that, which is a good counterbalance to misreadings of his relationship to Plato
Marx materialized Hegels ideas of Dialectics so much that its called dialectical materialism. Marxs historical materialism is the proof of struggles but without god( irony is idea of god/religion/spirit ,shaped most of history)
It strikes me that Marx didn't recognise the tension between the employed and the unemployed (where the latter condition excludes the person from feeling fully 'human', ie, 'belonging'/'participating'?)? This 'division' might prevent the societal progress he envisaged? Besides, the mere fact that this phenomenon is unavoidable with a market economy, exposes the system for it's fundamental cruelty, not to mention, it's inescapable, 'trap'-like quality, no, btw?
About as enlightening and useful as being dunked in a pool of mud. I think Plato's is the only one that sheds light on anything, not surprisingly because it is driven by Reason. The rest are either dead end or deterministic. Who needs it?
Starting from Socrates and Kant and coming to Marx, I think there's a huge difference in his understanding because what was a spiritual dialog Marx made it a personal fight between classes. That was not the original idea.
Marx brings dialectics from the abstract plane of Hegel on the material plane and applies it to broader material context of human society. He then poses the question what dialectic predominates in society, what pushes the development of society, and he answers the question with class struggle. So there is a definitive continuation that is not disrupted from the previous three. You can say that he brings the dialectical thought to its logical conclusion.
@@Lydia-Chlamydia I know. I don't look for it for citations or anything like that. What it is good at as a language model is explaining things and defining things.
Thanks for the video. Q about a statement: The Dialectic by Plato: You say it can move us beyond the limited domain of science, but the way you describe it kind of sounds like science? Idea/thesis that get challenged by other ideas and iterated on and improved. Why is this concept presented as being separate as science?
My smol brain melted after I finished watching this vid. Philosophical language is kinda annoying. Why won't philosophers stick to normal speech instead?
indeed THE HUMAN RACE is at A LOSS except for those who BELIEVE and WORK RIGHTEOUS DEEDS and encourage each other to THE TRUTH and encourage each other to PATIENCE
That's difficult to answer because I don't view the Frankfurt school as Marxists per se. Nor do I see that group as being homogenous. For example, I see Adorno as reversing Hegel; Marcuse not making much use of dialectics (this is from memory so forgive me if I'm totally wrong); and Benjamin more of a cultural studies person than anything else. So....ya....What do YOU think??
@@TheoryPhilosophy Thanks for the answer. I agree, they're not a homogenous group , so it is complex. I think, though, that the group's general emphasis on language and culture in shaping human behavior can be seen as a definite turn away from the historical materialism of Marx. I've often joked that if you can say that "Marx hat Hegel vom Kopf auf die Füsse gestellt," then you could say that perhaps Marcuse turned him around back on his head in trying to explain the fact that the teleology of Marx's dialectic didn't pan out.
Marcuse, for example, talks about moving toward a "higher stage" of social development through political practices that involve "a break with the familiar, the routine ways of seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding things so that the organism may become receptive to the potential forms of a non-aggressive, non-exploitative world." This seems far removed from the nuts-and-bolts proletarian revolution of Marx.
Anyway, I guess I should go re-read the "Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Horkheimer and Adorno. University seems like a lifetime ago, so I'm a bit rusty here! By the way, I do enjoy your videos. Especially on those dealing with the postmoderns, who I find particularly hard to understand.
Very cool insight! I actually haven't read the Dialectic of ENlightenment even though it is presently staring at me from my bookshelf, haha. Thanks for the kind words--I'll try and keep them coming :)
Using language as "the" dialectic for arguments limits the reality or truth of thesis and antithesis to the language being used. The better the language the better the dialectic perhaps. It's a shame people think their use of language as the standard for rational. An accurate description of the difference between math as a language and your native tongue, and will will most likely yield a bridge to truth.
Thank you 🇪🇺🌱❤️📈 i subscribed you, because you give me something what makes me feel useful and master instead of victim. So mutch I've to read, and so easy to watching and enjoying your videos. Thanks to internet it's possibly to watch this worldwide and listen and discuss, capitalism made us wealthy enough to look for more beauty like in Netflix movie a beautiful mind. Free capitalist market works better and more sustainable for future profits if society makes some laws and rules so we all benefit and go on instead of to mutch inequality. 🌱
