What the fuck even is Hegalian philosophy and the dialectic anyway? -

[KooksandFreaks]

I knew nothing about Hegel. Also a bit murky when it comes to Kant despite knowing hes incredibly important and influencial. Most of my philosophical knowledge is Nietzche, also know a handful about certain eastern philosophies and some Christian theological philosophy. I feel like I can grasp Nietzche much easier because he writes more like a novelist, and, at times, a satirist, rather than a dry academic

You know plenty! My approach is to let them run their mouths until they, inevitably, say something stupid.

 

[LooneyTroons]

You know plenty! My approach is to let them run their mouths until they, inevitably, say something stupid.

Its great that theres so many resources and explanations on the internet for these things but its also a shame that when you learn in that way you're getting everything second hand, which in Hegel's case, is the preferred option unless you feel like going though a load of unintelligible shite until you want to blow your brains out. One of the things I've noticed with people who are fans of him and also Kant is their emphasis on knowledge and understanding being entirely mediated by language, which on the one hand, no shit, but on the other I feel this undervalues the function of non linguistic art as a method of communication. The people who say that do often come across as stuffy academia types who wouldn't really bother themselves with art unless they could use it as a way to make themselves look smarter.

Note: whether or not this is a reflection on the works of Kant or Hegel isn't my intention, just talking purely about the kinds of people I find talking about them

 

[HymanHive]

This thread is the tits. This is why i love the farms.

I farm, therefore i am a shitposter - kant, 2021

 

[KooksandFreaks]

Its great that theres so many resources and explanations on the internet for these things but its also a shame that when you learn in that way you're getting everything second hand, which in Hegel's case, is the preferred option unless you feel like going though a load of unintelligible shite until you want to blow your brains out. One of the things I've noticed with people who are fans of him and also Kant is their emphasis on knowledge and understanding being entirely mediated by language, which on the one hand, no shit, but on the other I feel this undervalues the function of non linguistic art as a method of communication. The people who say that do often come across as stuffy academia types who wouldn't really bother themselves with art unless they could use it as a way to make themselves look smarter.

Note: whether or not this is a reflection on the works of Kant or Hegel isn't my intention, just talking purely about the kinds of people I find talking about them

Academics tend to self-indulge with tedious paragraphs of made-up jargon a lot of the time. Fuck's sake, respect your audience. Somebody has to read that crap. Brevity is the soul of wit.

As for original thinking? You have to consider a lot of different opinions, then let it percolate and distill in your mind. Oftentimes, a word or two will do the job. What is the point you want to convey?

 

[LooneyTroons]

Academics tend to self-indulge with tedious paragraphs of made-up jargon a lot of the time. Fuck's sake, respect your audience. Somebody has to read that crap. Brevity is the soul of wit.

As for original thinking? You have to consider a lot of different opinions, then let it percolate and distill in your mind. Oftentimes, a word or two will do the job. What is the point you want to convey?

 

[KooksandFreaks]

Tbh? I would have that look on my face if somebody put a fish in the percolator.

 

[draggs]

Stalin called Hegelian philosophy an aristocratic reaction to the French Revolution when he failed to understand it after years of tutoring

He also had his tutor arrested and shot

Hope that helps

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

Every time I try to look into learning more about Hegel I inevitably hit a wall due to his student's being up their own arse, and the source material being impenetrable cause Hegel's writing is famous for being dogshit.
Someone who understands Hegel please give me a tl;dr that would be comprehensible to a monkey. Comparisons to other philosophers you like or are knowledgeable on are also welcome. Nietzche in particular since he's the philosopher I can read/learn the most about without wanting to go to sleep.

Watch this, https://youtu.be/uf4R0gX7g3w

Excerpt from website:

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 37​

https://newdiscourses.com/2021/05/hegel-wokeness-and-the-dialectical-faith-of-leftism/

Is Critical Race Theory Marxist, as many insist, or is it not? What is the relationship between Marxism, neo-Marxism (Critical Theory), and Wokeness? All three criticize one another, and yet all three have a great deal obviously in common. Is there some common underlying thread between these clearly similar yet obviously different worldviews? The answer is yes, and by tracing back to one of the most influential speculative idealist philosophers of the early 19th century, namely George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, we can gain a great deal of insight into how these decidedly leftist movements—the Marxist Old Left, the neo-Marxist New Left, and the intersectional Woke Left—share at least one deeper philosophical architecture in common. From Hegel, the Left since his time has, wittingly and not, adopted several of the pillars of Hegelian philosophy, these including his statism, historicism, and, much more importantly, his dialectical approach and metaphysical worldview. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay takes a long, deep dive into the ways that Hegel’s philosophy is at the root of the entire “Dialectical Left” since, naming the dialectic the “operating system” of all activist Leftism since the early 1800s.

In this episode, Lindsay takes considerable time explaining Hegel’s view of dialectical thought and then reveals in many examples, reaching up to the present day, how consistently the dialectic appears as the functional underpinning of Leftism ever since, at the latest, the 1830s. He makes the case that Leftism since Hegel thinks dialectically, moves dialectically, and applies dialectical thought not just to its targets but to everything, including itself and even its own dialectic. He then switches gears and explains how the dialectic is central to Hegel’s underlying Hermetic (or alchemical) worldview and explains his mystical metaphysics so that this long arc of Leftist activism can be understood as evolving denominations within a single religious faith. With this theoretical groundwork laid, he then tackles how Hegel’s historicism and statism arise as key features of his philosophy, with both of these characterizing activist Leftism up to the present day. Join him for his longest and most in-depth discussion yet, taking on how Hegel is a key progenitor of communism, liberationism, and ultimately Wokeness, how this philosophy must be understood so that it can be countered, and why it should be thought of in the same way that Hegel thought of it: as a religion in its own right, with its own notion of deity, metaphysical commitments, soteriology, and eschatology.

 

[LooneyTroons]

Watch this, https://youtu.be/uf4R0gX7g3w

Excerpt from website:

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 37​

https://newdiscourses.com/2021/05/hegel-wokeness-and-the-dialectical-faith-of-leftism/

Is Critical Race Theory Marxist, as many insist, or is it not? What is the relationship between Marxism, neo-Marxism (Critical Theory), and Wokeness? All three criticize one another, and yet all three have a great deal obviously in common. Is there some common underlying thread between these clearly similar yet obviously different worldviews? The answer is yes, and by tracing back to one of the most influential speculative idealist philosophers of the early 19th century, namely George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, we can gain a great deal of insight into how these decidedly leftist movements—the Marxist Old Left, the neo-Marxist New Left, and the intersectional Woke Left—share at least one deeper philosophical architecture in common. From Hegel, the Left since his time has, wittingly and not, adopted several of the pillars of Hegelian philosophy, these including his statism, historicism, and, much more importantly, his dialectical approach and metaphysical worldview. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay takes a long, deep dive into the ways that Hegel’s philosophy is at the root of the entire “Dialectical Left” since, naming the dialectic the “operating system” of all activist Leftism since the early 1800s.

In this episode, Lindsay takes considerable time explaining Hegel’s view of dialectical thought and then reveals in many examples, reaching up to the present day, how consistently the dialectic appears as the functional underpinning of Leftism ever since, at the latest, the 1830s. He makes the case that Leftism since Hegel thinks dialectically, moves dialectically, and applies dialectical thought not just to its targets but to everything, including itself and even its own dialectic. He then switches gears and explains how the dialectic is central to Hegel’s underlying Hermetic (or alchemical) worldview and explains his mystical metaphysics so that this long arc of Leftist activism can be understood as evolving denominations within a single religious faith. With this theoretical groundwork laid, he then tackles how Hegel’s historicism and statism arise as key features of his philosophy, with both of these characterizing activist Leftism up to the present day. Join him for his longest and most in-depth discussion yet, taking on how Hegel is a key progenitor of communism, liberationism, and ultimately Wokeness, how this philosophy must be understood so that it can be countered, and why it should be thought of in the same way that Hegel thought of it: as a religion in its own right, with its own notion of deity, metaphysical commitments, soteriology, and eschatology.

I actually already had that video open literally as you posted this, happy coincidence.

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

I actually already had that video open literally as you posted this, happy coincidence.

Yeah, it is a winner. Lindsay is awesome...

 

[LooneyTroons]

Yeah, it is a winner. Lindsay is awesome...

Yeah, it is a winner. Lindsay is awesome...

Who needs ugly dead german philosopher's when you have based math professors writing published papers about dogs humping each other?

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

Who needs ugly dead german philosopher's when you have based math professors writing published papers about dogs humping each other?

Agreed, he is BASED AF as well as:

• Peter Boghossian
• Helen Pluckrose

Additional papers as well as others at a glance: Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair​

The published papers, regardless of their retraction, just incredible they got through the scientific gateway:

​

Published[edit]​

Following the discovery of the hoax, all four papers were retracted:

• Helen Wilson (pseudonym) (201. "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon". Gender, Place & Culture: 1–20. doi:10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346. (Retracted)
• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity) (201. "Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding". Fat Studies. 7 (3): i–xiii. doi:10.1080/21604851.2018.1453622. (Retracted)
• M. Smith (pseudonym) (201. "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use". Sexuality & Culture. 22 (4): 1542. doi:10.1007/s12119-018-9536-0. (Retracted)
• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity) (201. "An Ethnography of Breastaurant Masculinity: Themes of Objectification, Sexual Conquest, Male Control, and Masculine Toughness in a Sexually Objectifying Restaurant". Sex Roles. 79 (11–12): 762. doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0962-0. (Retracted)

Not yet published[edit]​

• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "When the Joke Is on You: A Feminist Perspective on How Positionality Influences Satire". Hypatia.
• Carol Miller (pseudonym). "Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality". Journal of Poetry Therapy.
• Maria Gonzalez, and Lisa A. Jones (pseudonyms). "Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism". Affilia.

Considered[edit]​

Revise and resubmit[edit]​

• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "Agency as an Elephant Test for Feminist Porn: Impacts on Male Explicit and Implicit Associations about Women in Society by Immersive Pornography Consumption". Porn Studies.
• Maria Gonzalez (pseudonym). "The Progressive Stack: An Intersectional Feminist Approach to Pedagogy". Hypatia.
• Stephanie Moore (pseudonym). "Super-Frankenstein and the Masculine Imaginary: Feminist Epistemology and Superintelligent Artificial Intelligence Safety Research". Feminist Theory.
• Maria Gonzalez (pseudonym). "Stars, Planets, and Gender: A Framework for a Feminist Astronomy". Women's Studies International Forum.

Under review[edit]​

• Carol Miller (pseudonym). "Strategies for Dealing with Cisnormative Discursive Aggression in the Workplace: Disruption, Criticism, Self-Enforcement, and Collusion". Gender, Work and Organization.

Rejected[edit]​

• Lisa A. Jones (pseudonym). "Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation". Sociological Theory.
• Carol Miller (pseudonym). "My Struggle to Dismantle My Whiteness: A Critical-Race Examination of Whiteness from within Whiteness". Sociology of Race and Ethnicity.
• Carol Miller (pseudonym). "Queering Plato: Plato's Allegory of the Cave as a Queer-Theoretic Emancipatory Text on Sexuality and Gender". GLQ: A Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies.
• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "'Pretty Good for a Girl': Feminist Physicality and Women's Bodybuilding". Sociology of Sport Journal.
• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "Grappling with Hegemonic Masculinity: The Roles of Masculinity and Heteronormativity in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu". International Review for the Sociology of Sport.
• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "Hegemonic Academic Bullying: The Ethics of Sokal-style Hoax Papers on Gender Studies". Journal of Gender Studies.
• Richard Baldwin (borrowed identity). "Self-Reflections on Self-Reflections: An Autoethnographic Defense of Autoethnography". Journal of Contemporary Ethnography.
• Brandon Williams (pseudonym). "Masculinity and the Others Within: A Schizoethnographic Approach to Autoethnography". Qualitative Inquiry.
• Helen Wilson (pseudonym). "Rebraiding Masculinity: Redefining the Struggle of Women Under the Domination of the Masculinity Trinity". Signs.

 

[Just Another Apocalypse]

"Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside"

That is all you need to know about philosophy.

You're welcome.

 

[Kosher Dill]

In this episode, Lindsay takes considerable time explaining Hegel’s view of dialectical thought and then reveals in many examples, reaching up to the present day, how consistently the dialectic appears as the functional underpinning of Leftism ever since, at the latest, the 1830s.

I disagree with the whole idea of an "archaeology of leftism" going back centuries. People may still quote Marx, Hegel, Foucault, or whoever, but the philosophy is always a post-hoc justification for whatever ideology they're trying to push, or cherry-picking oneself a standard-bearer from the pages of history.

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

I disagree with the whole idea of an "archaeology of leftism" going back centuries. People may still quote Marx, Hegel, Foucault, or whoever, but the philosophy is always a post-hoc justification for whatever ideology they're trying to push, or cherry-picking oneself a standard-bearer from the pages of history.

Interesting. Can you clarify who is pressing the post-hoc justification?

 

[Stoneheart]

Why do People in the colonies react to some outdated stuff so extreme?
Its the same with the stupid Frankfurt school.
Hegel is just a blimp on teh radar from some forgotten past, his ideas didnt stand the test of time, unlike Kant and maddog Nietzsche

 

[Carlos Weston Chantor]

No computers back in the day so massive autists had to write 800 pages long books instead of playing video games and watching children cartoons, literally all there is to it

 

[Positron]

Hegel’s philosophy is at the root of the entire “Dialectical Left” since, naming the dialectic the “operating system” of all activist Leftism since the early 1800s.

Hegel essentially thought that history only progresses through endless conflicts and their resolutions; this is just what Leftism is all about (what Leftists choose to omit is that the resolution of conflicts will bring along further conflicts, so the engine of history can continue operating). In contrast, the Right believe that history progresses through incremental build up, much like how lay people view science.

In short Hegelian Dialectics is the thesis that postulate that everything is cyclical, especially in History.

I won't exactly describe Hegalian view of history as "cyclical"; rather his view is that the engine of dialectics is in operation throughout history, much like gravity is the "operating system" throughout the Newtonian universe.

I'm not sure if Hegel envisaged that a perfect world will ever be achieved (Newton, after all, did not postulate that matters and motion will reach a perfect state from which no further motion is necessary), although the Frankfurt School talked about utopia all the time.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Interesting. Can you clarify who is pressing the post-hoc justification?

Whoever's got the agenda. For example, take the common idea that "Critical race theory is Marxist". It may be true that CRT practitioners come from a Marxist academic background and use Marxist language, but that's because academia happens to be full of Marxists, and pseudo-Marxist cant is just the lingua franca of the trade. But the idea that the 20th-century American conception of race is (or should be) central to everything is found nowhere in Marx. If someone came up with a groundbreaking new analysis of Marx, no CRT theorist would take any notice of it. And if someone critiqued CRT on a Marxist basis, no CRT theorist would recognize any legitimacy in the critique.
The selection of race as the fixed point the universe revolves around was done independent of and prior to any theory. This is also true of any "postmodern" offshoots that single out one fundamental concept that's immune to nihilistic deconstruction.

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

Whoever's got the agenda. For example, take the common idea that "Critical race theory is Marxist". It may be true that CRT practitioners come from a Marxist academic background and use Marxist language, but that's because academia happens to be full of Marxists, and pseudo-Marxist cant is just the lingua franca of the trade. But the idea that the 20th-century American conception of race is (or should be) central to everything is found nowhere in Marx. If someone came up with a groundbreaking new analysis of Marx, no CRT theorist would take any notice of it. And if someone critiqued CRT on a Marxist basis, no CRT theorist would recognize any legitimacy in the critique.
The selection of race as the fixed point the universe revolves around was done independent of and prior to any theory. This is also true of any "postmodern" offshoots that single out one fundamental concept that's immune to nihilistic deconstruction.

Agreed, thank you for the clarification as it yielded even further insight.