What is Hegelian Dialectic

[jerry]

Reading and posting comments here the last few days I feel the need to share this in depth definition, along with the history and reasons behind the creation. For all those who may not know. What is Hegelian Dialect? http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

When we understand what motivated Hegel, we can see his influence on all of our destinies. ... Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major American political parties, all the way down to local school boards and community councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, and terror and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal. The ultimate Third Way agenda is world government. Once we get what's really going on, we can cut the strings and move our lives in original directions outside the confines of the dialectical madness. Focusing on Hegel's and Engel's ultimate agenda, and avoiding getting caught up in their impenetrable theories of social evolution, gives us the opportunity to think and act our way toward freedom, justice, and genuine liberty for all.

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.

[Zanshin]

To paraphrase the concept:

Thesis vs Antithesis => Synthesis

or in the words of David Icke:

Problem > Reaction > Solution

[jerry]

In a nut shell

[Ellisa]

Nicely phrased Zanshin!

[Baby Steps]

I love a bit of anarcho-libertarianism, but also am enjoying 'Jesus & the Essenes' by Dolores Cannon. It describes a perfect communitarian society. A group of people who do things collectively, where it is needed and advantageous-such as farming, defence, accommodation, health,education etc. People had their freedoms-they were not vassals-and one freedom was to leave, which rarely happened because the community was such a better place to live than the outside.
To contrast this ideal with what is going on today, we have rampant corrupt state power, with sham accountability, secrecy, evil. I would say that we have a deficit of individual freedom and democracy, rather than the inevitable consequences of collectivism, ie that it tends to authoritarianism. But I agree that any collectivist organisation requires vigilant & active citizens to keep it in check.

[Frank V]

Posted by jerry (here)
[...]The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought. [...]

Except of course that if you look around, there is no trace of Marxism to be found in the globalists' plan. You are quite obviously confusing socialism with national-socialism. The first was the ideology of Karl Marx (and several others before him, such as Thomas More). The second was the ideology of Adolf Hitler, and apart from the name and a few smaller aspects borrowed from socialism, national-socialism has very little in common with Marxist socialism.

The invasion of privacy and the creation of a surveillance culture are not staples of socialism but of dictatorship in general. The United States of America are leading the western world into the adoption of what currently defines US American political culture. This political climate is marked by the glorification of militarism, copious amounts of nationalism and misplaced patriotism (courtesy of a very elaborate propaganda apparatus and an indoctrination which already starts in elementary school), a de facto single-party rule - there are only two official parties in the USA and they're both controlled by the same people behind the scenes, while several US states ban third-party candidates from elections (as exposed by RT) - plus a power of executive which overrides the US Constitution, and lastly, a severe degree of corporatism and corporatist propaganda. Those are all the hallmarks of a fascist society model, not of socialism, and the rest of the western world is slowly but steadily adopting that same recipe. The European Union is already not far behind on that anymore.

The only nations in the world that could still be considered Marxist (and/or Maoist) are North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, the People's Republic of China, and perhaps a few other, smaller countries. South America has a few countries with a democratically elected regime inspired by Marxism - Hugo Chavez for instance was a Marxist - but those are genuine democracies. The Russian Federation also still has a few Marxist traits to it in the aftermath of decades of Soviet communism, but I wouldn't say that those are actually Marxist nations.

[jerry]

Posted by Aragorn (here)

Posted by jerry (here)
[...]The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought. [...]

Except of course that if you look around, there is no trace of Marxism to be found in the globalists' plan. You are quite obviously confusing socialism with national-socialism. The first was the ideology of Karl Marx (and several others before him, such as Thomas More). The second was the ideology of Adolf Hitler, and apart from the name and a few smaller aspects borrowed from socialism, national-socialism has very little in common with Marxist socialism.

The invasion of privacy and the creation of a surveillance culture are not staples of socialism but of dictatorship in general. The United States of America are leading the western world into the adoption of what currently defines US American political culture. This political climate is marked by the glorification of militarism, copious amounts of nationalism and misplaced patriotism (courtesy of a very elaborate propaganda apparatus and an indoctrination which already starts in elementary school), a de facto single-party rule - there are only two official parties in the USA and they're both controlled by the same people behind the scenes, while several US states ban third-party candidates from elections (as exposed by RT) - plus a power of executive which overrides the US Constitution, and lastly, a severe degree of corporatism and corporatist propaganda. Those are all the hallmarks of a fascist society model, not of socialism, and the rest of the western world is slowly but steadily adopting that same recipe. The European Union is already not far behind on that anymore.

The only nations in the world that could still be considered Marxist (and/or Maoist) are North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, the People's Republic of China, and perhaps a few other, smaller countries. South America has a few countries with a democratically elected regime inspired by Marxism - Hugo Chavez for instance was a Marxist - but those are genuine democracies. The Russian Federation also still has a few Marxist traits to it in the aftermath of decades of Soviet communism, but I wouldn't say that those are actually Marxist nations.

I haven't confused nothing as in the general ideology this is what is being disseminated. You seem to want to go into the semantics' of it, who cares. In simple terms its using both ends against the middle "The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution" If you agree with this we can end the conversation here.

[Baby Steps]

"1. (Philosophy) philosophy an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis)"

The two polarities model is silly, we should think multidimensionally-
If the synthesis is somewhere between the two, than its just a compromise and no progress has been made. If the Synthesis is HIGHER TRUTH then we have a chance.
Our Political left-right dialectic is as silly as which end of an egg do you crack first

Hegel came up with this model and used it to justify statism.The state has got out of control.Time for higher truth.

[wishinshow]

Have you guys managed to get through Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. That has quite a lot to say about the Hegelian Dialectic vs cultural Marxism!! I haven't managed to read it all.

[araucaria]

Posted by Zanshin (here)
To paraphrase the concept:

Thesis vs Antithesis => Synthesis

or in the words of David Icke:

Problem > Reaction > Solution

This has precious little to do with dialectics, except as a gross caricature. Why? Because the solution is the finality from the outset, and the reaction is an intermediate goal. The trouble with David Icke’s 'Problem > Reaction > Solution’ is that it is circular – i.e. your solution is your next problem, and you just go round and round and round. Hegelian dialectics is the way to transcend this extremely vicious circle.

What Hegel actually meant was a creative process whereby a coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of opposites) produces a new third term, like rubbing a piece of hard wood against a piece of soft wood to produce a flame. Or the wedding of the masculine principle with the feminine principle to produce a new entity such as a child. This is the basic process that has been subverted.

It may be a good idea to focus less on the method being used to tie us in knots and more on the effective thinking tool we have here.

[Carmody]

the key point being that human thought emerges out of pre-vocal musings, musings that are powerfully shaped by emotions or hind-brain concerns of staying alive and procreating.

In that stew of thought formation, fear and desire are primary forces (note the weapons arranged against your attempts via this 'machine in the backdrop'), that can be overcome by higher ideals.

But first comes the recognition in self that the thought, the vocal word that happens in mind... is not of it's own volition, it arises in these pre-vocal musings and pressures, filters and flows.

Until one truly understands this and experiences it in self, catches it in the act, so to speak ...until then... the argument will remain circular --- as the true origin point will remain obscured.

Consider this all important point I mention as the lynchpin of human control.

[jerry]

Posted by wishinshow (here)
Have you guys managed to get through Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. That has quite a lot to say about the Hegelian Dialectic vs cultural Marxism!! I haven't managed to read it all.

One of these days

[yuhui]

Posted by Aragorn (here)
The only nations in the world that could still be considered Marxist (and/or Maoist) are North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, the People's Republic of China, and perhaps a few other, smaller countries.

Oh but red China has adopted the "evil capitalism" haha since Deng Xiao Ping and no one takes Marxist seriously, they are like Mao's cold corpse in Tiananmen, been worshiped by people from the "republic", but lacks some proper consideration like funeral

[Frank V]

Posted by yuhui (here)

Posted by Aragorn (here)
The only nations in the world that could still be considered Marxist (and/or Maoist) are North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, the People's Republic of China, and perhaps a few other, smaller countries.

Oh but red China has adopted the "evil capitalism" haha since Deng Xiao Ping and no one takes Marxist seriously, they are like Mao's cold corpse in Tiananmen, been worshiped by people from the "republic", but lacks some proper consideration like funeral

Alas, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... :-/

[Milneman]

Posted by yuhui (here)

Posted by Aragorn (here)
The only nations in the world that could still be considered Marxist (and/or Maoist) are North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, the People's Republic of China, and perhaps a few other, smaller countries.

Oh but red China has adopted the "evil capitalism" haha since Deng Xiao Ping and no one takes Marxist seriously, they are like Mao's cold corpse in Tiananmen, been worshiped by people from the "republic", but lacks some proper consideration like funeral

Yes....Back in the day there was this leader in Soviet Russia that called it Neo-Marxism.....then glastnos....then....oops!

I do have one question about dialectics. Actually it's more pointing out a pretty big problem with putting any credence into the philosophical idea of dialectics. If you follow the idea of thesis-->antithesis--->synthesis (which isn't actually Hegel but has been pointed out by a few sources that this was a misinterpretation of Marxists trying to fit Hegelian theory into Marxist theory), how do you know that the idea of thesis-antithesis-synthesis won't just synthesize into another theory? How can this be, by the rule of the philosophy, the description of the philosophy if descriptions of the philosophy are impossible given the nature of the definition? I believe the term is self-referentially absurd (?) but I could be mistaken. An easier one might be to coin the phrase "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****e."

[jerry]

To debate the philosophy of this is senseless to myself and as I really couldn't define it one way or the other, my definition in the simplest of terms, it aint good. When the history is told of today I think it will be a morphing of these philosophies, a new monster...something along the lines of sotrobushism

[Michel Leclerc]

May I invite the initiator of the thread and most responders to refrain from abstrusities they call "Hegelian dialectic"?

In order to understand Hegel's dialectical philosophy or method, the least one should do is (1) learn German up to a level of proficiency, (2) get familiar with German philosophical vocabulary through a few good articles (Wikipedia in German may do), (3) read Hegel himself chapter and verse in German, let us say, his classical Introduction to the Phänomenologie des Geistes.

Only then can you call yourself entitled to have any opinion of what Hegel's dialectical philosophy means. Humbleness in front of other cultures and the languages that express and embody them is a minimum requirement for intellectual honesty. All the rest is uninformed and pretentious.

You may then also understand that "Hegelian dialectic" is a misnomer. Although philosophers such as Marx, or Adorno, or Bloch, or Kojève, or even Agamben or Deleuze used "dialectical" approaches to some extent, they all coined their own brand; calling these approaches "Hegelian" is not helpful at all, it just confuses thought. Discovering seriously similarities and differences is of course always a healthy thinking exercise.

David Icke's catch phrase has its simplicity as an advantage for rallying the masses, or multitudes if you prefer, but calling that "Hegelian" is nonsense.

Thought, if I may suggest a practical approach, does not arise in a language but between languages. The great philosophies of Antiquity arose in intensely multilingual societies: in the Eastern Mediterranean through the confrontation of Greek, Phoenician-Aramean-Hebrew, Egyptian and Latin. If one reduces philosophical traditions to what one can understand from it in one's own language, one literally understands ("inter-stands") nothing but narcissically mirrors oneself in that which one thinks one understands but which is only an emanation of one's own biases induced by one's own culture.

[jerry]

Michel

Your eloquent response is in no way a practical approach to correct any dialogue you find misinformed here. "What we face is framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution" this was the ideal I want to disseminate. exposing a system working against us and yes you may ask me to refrain but in a useless context unless your on the mod squad

[jerry]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Zanshin (here)
To paraphrase the concept:

Thesis vs Antithesis => Synthesis

or in the words of David Icke:

Problem > Reaction > Solution

This has precious little to do with dialectics, except as a gross caricature. Why? Because the solution is the finality from the outset, and the reaction is an intermediate goal. The trouble with David Icke’s 'Problem > Reaction > Solution’ is that it is circular – i.e. your solution is your next problem, and you just go round and round and round. Hegelian dialectics is the way to transcend this extremely vicious circle.

What Hegel actually meant was a creative process whereby a coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of opposites) produces a new third term, like rubbing a piece of hard wood against a piece of soft wood to produce a flame. Or the wedding of the masculine principle with the feminine principle to produce a new entity such as a child. This is the basic process that has been subverted.

It may be a good idea to focus less on the method being used to tie us in knots and more on the effective thinking tool we have here.

Thinking I feel is too late, Now is a time for civil disobedience. Around the world people are up in their think tanks looking for solutions and up to now it really has nothing to show for the effort . Those of us who are aware of the many of the problematic issues we face are loosing ground . I really feel a bit psychotic blogging about it day in and day out. I don't think nothing will change for the better until it comes apart at the seams and no one is spared. Why nothings been done is because most are still very comfortable in their mind washed life of serfdom, never realizing anything is broken. If its not affecting them why should they care. Its not until it does affect them directly that they begin to peal back the layers and pop their head from the sand. Until it happens to a critical mass, the awakening wont take place and were in for a long ride

[Mike Gorman]

There have been no 'Marxist' political systems - Marx proposed no particular way of organizing society, he was a political philosopher who analyzed the origins and nature of capital
then suggested the means of viewing history through that lens. To speak of North Korea, or Soviet Russia et al as being 'Marxist' is to misinterpret Marx, as quite plainly these countries were
totalitarian dictatorships, Marx himself decried 'Communism' as being unworkable. The philosophers have merely interpreted history, he said, the point is to change it. Marx put forward the idea that
eventually mankind would develop, and when finally the great mass of the proletariat 'woke up' to the colossal power they wield as architects of their own world - a point still very much far off - then the political
nature of our world would finally look like a true socialist society. Gramsci was another 'Marxist' philosopher who spoke of this 'sleeping giant' - the great mass consciousness that has yet to awaken. Hegelian dialectic is actually quite involved,
he never in fact used the terms:thesis, antithesis and synthesis - I am not trying to be contrary here, but to read Hegel is to become enmeshed in a compelling study of human thinking, it is more related to action as opposed to a system of thinking
and this is where we are now I think, we are at the stage where we could advance, in Hegelian terms, to the next phase of our development - there is no one faction that holds the 'truth', each flowering of opposition and presentation of alternatives (David Ike, Tea Party, 'Occupy', 'anonymous' et al) is sufficient, and deficient at the same time until a new currency is minted, we are at that paradigm changing cusp I feel.