What do you think about Hegelian dialectics? Is this how society really advances?

What do you think about Hegelian dialectics? Is this how society really advances?

Attached: download.jpg (275x183, 6K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jYhmATD8hLk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Are you telling me that Mossad is about to do another false flag to further their agenda? Possibly (((ISIS))) related attack in europe? Asking for a friend.

What? No... have you read the Phenomenology?

sage.

It's all postmodernist nonsense. Hegelian thesis + antithesis = synthesis is really a religion-ized version of "things change and have inputs".

Also was likely a hateful Satanic spook like Marx.

Very distasteful commie swastika, btw

Hegel's dialectics are shit.

Plato all the way.

>Control thesis
>Control antithesis
>Control synthesis

It's the standard playbook for societal control. Saged for commie flag.

>Hegel was satanic
Wut?

you spelled idiocy wrong

Whenever JIDF shills don't want you to do something or talk about something they call it satanic, for example Kek praising.

Attached: 1520699224392.png (960x639, 275K)

Can you explain how Hegel is postmodern when modernism didn't even exist in his time?
you obviously do not know how dialectics work.

Attached: 1497463651820.png (1435x785, 946K)

Explain what dialectics are and why Hegel's are superior.

Attached: 1508426884012.png (806x806, 391K)

Nobody said they were superior to anything else. Hegelian Dialectic is used by the elites in order to SYNTHETICALLY derive their NWO agenda.

FALSE CHAOS to bring about a new world ORDER

This is not an actual representation of the dialectic, it is just some shit you grabbed off of google maps.

superior to what kind of dialectic?

According to a meme flag shill? OP, I know you're JIDF. It's not even hard to tell.

So what are dialectics then? Give an example.

>the most influential philosopher of the 19th century is idiocy
are you serious?... that's not my judgement, it's the judgement of anyone serious about philosophy

Are you speaking to something like this?

youtube.com/watch?v=jYhmATD8hLk

Yeah. The philosophy isn't inherently evil, it's just that evil people use it for their evil plans. Just like they say guns don't kill people, people kill people.

you can go with Hegel's master-slave dialectic, where the subject x encounters subject y, one eventually subjects itself to the other... the internal contradictions within the relationship (the antithesis, i. e. the master becomes wholly dependent on the slave for recognition, the slave manipulates the physical world and begins to receive self-consciousness another way besides the subjugation to the master) lead to the synthesis of a new relationship

Hegel is a yuge meme not grounded in reality. History is not an autistic railroad.

But you just said dialectics aren't thesis-antithesis.

what is an example of this?

>
Dis nigger really want Pol to do his history homework for him lmao

thanks for outing yourself as a brainlet who believes that any attempt at an intelligent discussion is "homework"

What makes you think Hegel is correct about anything?

>Hegel was a postmodern
W-what? Have you actually read any Hegel, ever? He is basically the opposite of a post-modern, he's an absolute idealist. The "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" system wasn't even create or used by Hegel, but by Fichte.
Now,
are just an absolutely hillarious description of the Hegelian dialectical system. It fundamentally does not understand anything of Hegel, and is purely based on the memes that are the system of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

Now, for the actual question in the thread: I believe that the Hegelian system of dialectics, as far as I I understand it (Which is limited, as I am only halfway through the Phenomenology and I read some of the Science of Logic), is not something that by itself can achieve any sort of truthood, but, by placing Notions upon dialectical lens, we can make them better. Now, if one tries to indeed analyze society and history through it, I'd say that the process is way more useful: It is a picture, one that is not absolutely complete, of reality and society. It can help us understand, but can never be the sole tool to understand, the fundamental nature of society.

Yeah. It's just a useful way of thinking. Not really predictive. I think it's good to know, when aiming at the solution to a problem, that It's going to involve elements of both sides.

>these flags
>quality of posts
checks out. sage

>everything is either this or not this
>look I've explained everything
this is what brainlets think

Well you have Marx's theory that once we know the internal contradictions, we can shape the way that the society will go next in the synthesis. Do you think that "ancapitalism" would be able to do this?

But you just said dialectics isn't T-A-S.

First, I just don't believe that using the whole "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" model is useful when talking about Hegel at all.
Secondly, sure, you have the Marxist theory... that inverts the whole basis of the Hegelian system (Idealism), and does exactly what Hegel told to be impossible within his framework: Predict future developments. Marxism is a theory, but its roots on Hegelianism and its dialectics are shaky at best.
As to your final question, anarcho-capitalism would be able to do what? Stop any internal contradictions? I believe that trying to predict such a thing is void. I believe that, if there were future developments in anarcho-capitalism, they'll proceed as they will and the system will transmute itself as necessary, always being sublated, but perserving its most essential aspect: Private property.