What is Hegels dialectical method? [Part 2] - Dialectics

[@srobsonscosta8887]

Honestly, you guys may say "Hegel was wrong in this X thing here" but when you start to understand his dialectics, it is so powerful it starts to be by itself. Holy shiiiiit!

[@davoudderogar4828]

Thank you for the value and fluidity of your explanation. You are awesome.

[@brodyszone157]

Thank you professor Christopher Richard Wade Dettling for bringing this into my world... didn't know anything abt it till now. Thank you Antonio for posting this.

[@patrickleo2657]

Love your channel and blog. I’ve been studying Hegel for about a year, and these videos have been helpful. Thanks!

[@michaelfresco2769]

You are hitting it out the park with this video. Nice!

[@BoboTheSunniestPalDog]

Great video , deep explanation, intriguing

[@georgedyckiii3465]

This is amazing, thank you

[@matthewtrevino525]

Truly beautiful in so many ways the process is the fulfilment of being from nothingness to the violence of contradiction to the rational cataclysm of nothingness. Please inform of any references that might lend clarity and please let me know if I can avoid ant pitfalls. Much love from a little walkway in Oklahoma.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Hi, sorry I seem to have gotten no notification of your comment being made. I can't really recommend anything without knowing what you have questions about, so if you clarify your question I can offer some things to clarify.

[@s3ntry948]

If being was nothing, nothing had to be.

[@AtlantaBill]

Hegelian dialectics wasn't only about thought. Aristotelian dialectics was about thought. His dialectics was a mechanism of human dialogue, whereas with Hegel it's a mechanism of nature.

[@jamespeterson8482]

Wow so helpful

[@gurjotsingh8934]

Why don't you do videos on Spinoza?

[@user-tt3lb1yy6i]

10:43 I'm confused by your example of trying to showcase that 'being' and 'nothing' create contradictions. The term "being" is used to embody something. Here, you referred "being" to embody "nothing", and then stated that there's a contradiction, because now they reference the same thing despite that they're "supposed to reference two distinct things". That logic is just outright wrong, because the term "being" is supposed to reference the same thing that it embodies. Just because we're trying to say something about "nothing" and "being", doesn't mean we're trying to make a distinction; rather, when you refer "being" to something, it's purpose is it remove distinction from that something rather than creating it

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

You're not following the train of thought. There is what you mean by Being, and what Hegel means. Being does not refer to or embody anything, nor is it itself something. Is. Is what? ___. What is picked out by being when anything and everything is, or when no distinction of another stands to relate to? Not even self-relation arises.

[@user-tt3lb1yy6i]

​@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Ok, so Hegel redefined the word "being" to possess the same properties as "nothing", and then said "being" and "nothing" are supposed to have a distinction? If he did that, why are those two words supposed to have a distinction? The reasoning you gave was "we want to say something about these two words" (1) --> "therefore, there must be a distinction" (2) But how? How does this reasoning (1) lead to this claim (2) at all?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

@@user-tt3lb1yy6i Being is the name of immediate immediacy. Nothing is immediate mediation. There *is* a difference, that's why we make it. At the point of being, the concept does not and cannot tell us what the difference is or why, only that it is. This "it just is" matter-of-factness is inherent to the logic of Being until measure. You're not nothing, nor are you being. Your existence is beyond it, but in the logic you are thinking to build up what this fact means, not to de lare that the fact is. There is no link between 1 and 2. I never made 1 as a point.

[@linspenmenn3658]

Hi! I am a big fan. I wonder what are your thoughts on Adorno's Negative dialectics and if you can write an introduction to it?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Haven't read it. I've read that Hegelians tend to dismiss it. Will read it eventually, I'll write something on it when I do. I tend to take detailed notes and make explanations for myself as I read, so don't worry about it.

[@DJafferiK]

Where does the thesis-antithesis-synthesis stuff come from? Why is Hegelian dialectics so often presented that way?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Well, it's a myth that begins with some generic professor who attributed such to Hegel, and Marx further popularized this myth in his early works. It's a formulaic way to grant people the illusion of access to Hegel's philosophic might, yet it's clear it offers no such key for any simple thinking about it shows it really is useless as a logic for anything.

[@ElDrHouse2010]

Good to know. Then I got it wrong early on too.

[@christoferkoch786]

It was Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus who took it from Fichte and applied it to Hegel.

[@overandout6422]

Alfred Larsson this guy is purposefully confusing the Hegelian Dialectic

[@alvaromedina6849]

Its the process of differentiation or negativity or movement, that implies a progress or transition or becoming, from something to something. Example: Thesis: Indeterminate man, the one, this a such doesn't exists. Only exists as diferentia or multiple ones, that's to say, negation or Antithesis related to each other, but each man has a particular interest against his other man with a same interest, which constitutes a contradiction, so the resolution of this contradiction implies another negation, the negation of negation, or synthesis. By example a leader is the synthesis of a team, a baby of a couples, etc.

[@alex1stamford779]

Is it possible to have the transcriptions for these videos?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Not quite. Almost all of the videos on my Hegel introduction playlist are not done 1:1 to a script. Many of these are based on blogs I have written, but they are slightly or even heavily modified for a spoken presentation.

[@Zyt0nsAMV]

Hegel Noob here, is it possible to apply the dialectic motion to the old determinism vs free will argument? In the beginning we see these two as opposites, they can not exist at the same time, but if you start to explore the two concepts you notice that a free will can only exist when your actions are determined by your will. So you geht the Impression that they are not contradictory they are only different elements of the same whole. Is this Hegelian Dialectics or am I doing something different?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

JacksWrenchII It's not a strictly Hegelian thing, but it is a dialectic. Freedom and necessity was seen by the German Idealists as requiring an answer to account for each other. For Hegel free will is the self a determination of will in the form of a free will relating to another free will in mutual freedom. The German Idealists both finally formulated the right question on free will such that it is an intelligible problem, and also provided answers, with Hegel providing the best so far.

[@Zyt0nsAMV]

Thank you for answering, keep up the good work!

[@DialecticalMaterialismRocks]

Do you mean by Being and Nothing Sein und Nichtsein? that would be translated in Being and Notbeing?

[@kainname4585]

no it's Sein und Nichts. Nichtsein or Notbeing would be a negation of being which would presuppose too much for this stage of the dialectic.

[@MisterMannerisms]

I know I'm crazy because this makes more sense to me than answering my cell phone.

[@WDeeGee1]

14:33 The reason you arrive at this contradictory state where logic ceases to exists, is nothing miraculous. It is indicative of a deficit in Hegelian thinking, which thinks only in terms of internal contradictions, while the purpose, meaning and worth of anything are always determined by their relation to the external (the world, the universe). In that relation, these contradictions that dissolve logic do not occur. It indicates that purely by conceptual thinking one does not arrive at definite answers, but at absurdities. Hegelian philosophy seems pretty useless, except as an excercise in abstract thinking? Or am I wrong?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Nowhere and nowhen have I claimed either that I or that Hegel believe logic to cease operating. It's a science of logic logically developed after all.

[@marsglorious]

Use-value can exist without exchange-value so there is therefore no dialectical relationship.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

As Marx conceives of it, yes, you are right. This, however, signals that Marx either did not want to accept the implications of the dialectical nature he was invoking, or he did not here understand what was required to properly conceive it. Marx conflates use-value as economic and non-economic. I have never seen anyone bring up this beginning dialectic as a problem despite it making little sense when one knows how a dialectic must move. I have my own attempt at an immanent concept that does what it should, one in which we can see the immanent link clearly and not merely as external. My view is that there is an error: use-value and exchange-value do not share the same category level, and are not a dialectical pair at all. Rather, exchange value as a commodity is the sublation of use-value and its proper opposite, uselessness. A commodity and exchange-value are both useful because they are useless and vice versa.

[@omarperezr]

Why to call all material and logical oppositions with the same name of "contradiction", while since the "artotelian opposition square" we understand by contradiction something very specific: the unthinkable, "P" and "Not P" being Tru at the same time and space. For hegelians an inverse proporrional relation is a kind of contradiction. This just seems like meesing around with words or making communication intentionally inefficient.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Aristotle's contradiction is not what you say, it's term logic and not propositional logic. A substance cannot instantiate opposing qualities at the same moment. In this case it's you who is misusing terms by projecting analytic definitions onto past philosophy.

[@omarperezr]

Thx for answering. OK, being rigorous you kind of right. However, I think you´ve got my point: any of 1) “All S is P” and “Some S is not P” being true at the same time (BTST) 2)”P and “not P” BTST 3) “∀x (Px >Jx)” and “∃x (Px& ~Jx)” BTST is the kind of opposition we call contradiction. A statement that is at least intrinsically self-defeating ─regarless your conception of logic (either formal epistemology or formal ontology, as Corcoran distinguishes) ─ and, at most, unthinkable. I believe that since Aristotle this is more and less the idea. I apologize if you misunderstood the motive of my comment. The reason behind my question is that your video make me wonder for the first time since high school if there was something in Hegel method that worth the time investment, considering all the thing you can choose to read and learn from, especially in my case as a graduate political science student interested in strengthen my research methods. Your video did that by raising doubts about whether if what I indirectly red about Hegel method was wrong and by your so clear and understandable exposition. That said I restate my questions: 1) Why to call contradiction something that is not what most of philosophers understood and still understand by that term, especially if as you said Hegel wrote for philosophers (the philosophers´ philosopher)? 2) By doing that, isn´t Hegel being deliberately obscure? 3) An inversely proportional relation is a kind a of contradiction in Hegel? P.D English is not my fist language, please forgive me any mistake.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

No problem. Responding to your questions: 1) Because, as all things Hegel, ....it *is* and it *isn't* what you call contradiction. It *is* the instantiation of contradiction from the standpoint of concepts which are in full contradictory, e.g. Becoming or Motion are absolutely what you would recognize as contradiction in a normal sense. Becoming is *at once* both coming to be and ceasing to be, and Motion is *at once* being here and being there and not being here and there. What makes this *not normal contradiction* a la P and ~P is that these contradictions are 100% intelligible and produced by a completely rational thought process, i.e. they are logically necessary and valid. 2) Hegel is excruciatingly clear in his writing for the most part. What seems obscure is obscure only because we refuse to accept that absolute simplicity ends up necessarily requiring a spiral of self-reference which is a moment by moment thought process which will against our common intuition produce dialectical contradictory results. 3) I'm not sure what you mean here. If you're referring to something like quantities/measures it depends how you're contextualizing the issue. Hegel is focused on concepts which require our thinking through them.

[@omarperezr]

Thanks again. I still don´t get it, particularly when you say "it is and it isn't what you call contradiction". I think that something that was black and is getting white is far way of being a contradiction. Any of the different tones of grey make neither the physical phenomenon we perceive and then call “grey” nor the “concept of grey” being in “contradiction” (logical contradiction) with anything beyond the same thing not being gray in that exact moment. Also, “Today it was black”, “now it is gray”, “today it will be white” are three statement that do not fit my usage of the word contradiction. Something that is dying is steel alive and being dying is not in logical contradiction with being alive, dying is something materially very natural to life and formally very suitable to life, almost by definition. For inversely proportional I mean something like “Ideal gas law” simplified PV=K..... P=K/V, at constant temperature (k), the pressure and volume of a gass ─P and V─ are inversely proportional. More volume, less pressure.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@omarperezr I think I'm having the same issue. Have you come to any sort of conclusion on this?

[@EoNista]

Hi, great video and great explanation, clear and bright as every should be. Maybe it's not right place to ask, but I've got a selfish question as I trust your judgment :D Do you have any philosopher/book to recommend after Hegel? I'm interested in epistemology (but also metaphysics/ethics/politics and what not) and what I found is that everything after Hegel turns into complicating simple things with dubious expressions, politically correct garbage or whining (e.g. Sartre/Nietzsche). I just need something for my leisure time. So, long story short, what writings about philosophy made most impression on you (are "good") that were written after Hegel (except for Marx maybe, I've read him)? Anyway, hope you keep up the great work, thanks!

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Sorry for the late response. Who do I recommend after Hegel? Whatever you find interesting. I'm mostly fascinated with reflexive thinking and there are few English thinkers on this. If I were you I really wouldn't worry about it: reason is as it is and we fall where we do. Westphal is one of the few Hegelian epistemologists 8 know of. I really don't read much in general so all I can advise is that you seeing your own interests and just keep an open mind to critiques of anything you land on. Of course, some critiques are better than others. What has interested me most has been actually nothing academic and I wouldn't recommend any of it if you aren't open minded. A lot of fringe science, but to me that's where innovation and hard critique really is at.

[@EoNista]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Okay, thanks man.

[@codyedwards5827]

The thing about dialects is that they appear to reflect nature. Dialects are everywhere in physics. Magnetic fields, e=mc^2, General Relativity, are the most obvious examples. It seems that there are singular phenomenon that can only be understood by breaking the single "thing" into two necessary components. +/- charge, energy/matter, space/time, and even particle/wave. Look "double slit experiment'. I can't think of a better material example.

[@Duriel1000]

Sounds like you are reading something someone else has written without understand anything, or I might just be crazy.

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Unfortunately, you're not crazy. You're just stupid. Not ignorant, though you clearly are, but *stupid* because despite knowing your own ignorance you speak about things anyway. empyreantrail.wordpress.com/2016/09/12/dialectics-an-introduction/

[@Duriel1000]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Actually, there are two other videos that made things much clearer and understandable. Your video along with the way you talk will definitely confuse people. This is evident in the comments. Keep trying though.

[@Kumsang_Lalgam]

You sounded so much like Shinmen Takezo

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Will look up. Name rings a bell from my Alan Watts days. If it's the game streamer... I sort of have the same tone, but not much else.

[@Kumsang_Lalgam]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy yes, just the tone, anyway love your video.

[@overandout6422]

Why do you make it more difficult to understand?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Mah boi, this comprehension is what all true Philosophers strive for. Maybe you're just not ready. Study some Descartes or something.

[@WDeeGee1]

Thank you for your clarity of explanation. All this leads me to conclude that Hegelian thinking has no use whatsoever except for--excuse my French--mental masturbation. Does it have any other meaning or use besides this? (not being sarcastic btw., just wanting to learn).

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

If you don't think that you typing words to communicate is mental masturbation, then inquiring into the form of intelligibility itself should be even more useful than language itself. Thought is the self-making tool. Why wouldn't you want to know the form of this tool so that all tools may be shaped according to its absolute certainty?

[@syedabdulkadir7745]

So anyone can propose dialectics to any kind of arguments, but Hegel didn't discuss a normal dialectics but another kind of philosophy?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

Hegel's dialectic concerns only necessary inner contradiction. It overlaps with other dialectical methods you find in philosophy, but the uniqueness of Hegel's is that focus on inner contradiction and it has what he calls the speculative moment of reason.

[@fugitivephilo]

@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Nice.

[@John-lf3xf]

why so salty

[@Mx25a]

Dialetic is not so hard. See: Being - No Being/Nothing -> Becoming. Knowledge is in the object. Nein. Knowledge is in the mind. Nein. Knowledge is in the relationship of both, or in their mixture. So we came back to Socrates: we have A, B, their mixture and the efficient reason for it. For instance: we have man and the gods. They cant communicate with each other. So what is the middle ground that possibilitated the communication between both ( efficient reason )? The daimons. They are the mixture of man and god, so they possibilitate the communication between both. So, lets try it: we have A-capitalism and B-communism. What is the mixture that will possibilitate the transition from A to B? Socialism, which is a mixture of both, the possible transition, its efficient cause. Let's take being, what is it negation? No being, nothing. What is its mixture? Becoming :). Not so hard, no?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

That's good thinking, but it's not Hegel's dialectics. The difference is a subtle but big one: necessary vs contingent relations. Hegel's deals with necessary connections, not contingent ones. Use of reason can lead us to the highest points of speculation in struggling to unify the world, but the connections made are external even if they are quite sensible. I find that analogical thinking and a search for unifying principles is quite powerful, and all great thinkers have to engage this style in order to speculate, but Hegel's logic has a necessity others lack. This necessity isn't easy to consider since it requires an absolute self-relating self-thinking of objects as if one was standing in their being.

[@matthewtrevino525]

As if one was standing in their being. Is this feeling one gets when hallucinating and meditating on the character of another living organism?

[@AntonioWolfphilosophy]

No, it's just a more poetic way to state that objective thinking follows its own process and not the process of our subjective arbitrary will and its muddled train of thought.

[@matthewtrevino525]

A poem inspired by nothingness New poem Have droughts on the polar capped deserts Been the ponds I breath under in the dreams of Summer camps I'm sure I have never seen Can I be so sure, are there faces inside you pondering the dreams inside them and so on until any meaning of whats between 1 and 13 brings only a picture of hands holding this portrait of glass It's conviction to be clear has made it into a thin a plane Ready to shatter as it's laid onto hard nothingness's matter