>>18371417
>>18371417
>I don't get the hype.
There was no hype prior to Hegel. Dialectics were simply considered a method for knowledge prior to him the same way that deliberating is.

>Why did people think this was PROFOUND.
Because starting with Hegel, you find an attempt at reconciling objectivity with philosophy, something which had been lost since Descartes.
The idea of a dialectical movement implies that by knowing something's mode of existence, proclivities and attributes, we can infer some level of objectivity. For instance, if humans revolt because their system is irrational, we can posit that a rational system will be the telos of mankind by virtue of humans not revolting against it.
This method of thinking seems trivial, but it constitutes a break with kantian idealism which prevented something from being known in any kind of objectivity apart from its perception. For Kant for example, we wouldn't be able to know what humanity's telos is by simply analyzing humans, because we wouldn't be able to know anything more than our perception of them (phenomena), rather than their true and objective form (noumena). Hegel on the other hand manages to throw away this distinction.


/thread, and don't listen to marxists material dialectics. It's dogshit.

>>18371645
>and don't listen to marxists material dialectics. It's dogshit.
>t. hasn't read Lukacs, Gramsci and Kojeve

>find out of the claim is true or false
dummy, there are no true or false claims only thesis and antithesis and they synthesize

File: 0a86ce21071b06d9a98fcd0017faa1410961ac6ccebd66684289c0ba8feece22.png (68.7 KB)

68.7 KB PNG

>>18371741
I have actually, and western marxists are good and propose decent philosophical models, apart from the Frankfurt schools which falls into schizobabble too often. Kojève is also not marxist.
The problem comes from the young/old marx distinction. The young Marx is imo the closest "philosopher" that got to describing an accurate dialectical movement in line with "reality" (or whatever you want to call the objective world). His focus on the social and creative potential of the individual probably makes him one of the best left-hegelian thinkers. If Marx had stayed a left-hegelian, he would probably be considered one of the best thinkers in his domain, especially if he had been more serious about his concept of man and alienation. Instead, he rejected the whole thing entirely and became a political economy critique, before co-authoring the Anti-Dühring with Engels.

"Dialectical materialism" for most marxists means the engelsian perception of nature. And sadly, Engels' dialectic is complete pseudery that showed a profound lack of scientific investigation. Engels thought that he had discovered the necessary "conditions" for change and called it "dialectical" because of an apparent back and forth movement, which is why he formalized 3 rules that change and motion had to be subjected to (interpenetration of opposites, quantity into quality, and negation of the negation).
Popper, for as much as he can be critiqued, had at least the insight in saying that Engels' dialectics are nothing more than random claims on why change happens with absolutely 0 scrutiny. As such, his thought had very little credibility in physics, despite being fundamentally a physical claim about reality itself. There is very little posterity for Engels' dialectic apart from serving as the state ideology for Mao and Stalin. It also reads as more deterministic than Marx's early hegelian works.

>>18371792
The Grundrisse disproves the existence of the young/old Marx (which was an Althusserian cope anyway). Marx was still interested in the same philosophical problematic even when he was writing Capital. Marx wasn't involved with the writing of Anti-During. Whether Anti-During represents Marx's epistemology and ontology is contested by commentators. It's a common take than Engels was the first to distort Marx.
I agree with your summary and dismissal of diamat, but Engels' dialectic of nature is completely ignored by any serious Marxist philosopher. Even Lenin shat on it in the Philosophical Notebooks. Since Lukacs' invoked Vico's Verum ipsum factum, the Engelsian mechanistic materialism became irrelevant amongst philosophers.

File: image0.jpg (132 KB)

132 KB JPG

>>18371792
How about you just read what Lenin wrote about it and stop engaging in blatant sophistry

Its a triadic system, you take the thesis and subtract the antithesis to get the synthesis. Its how historical progression has always worked.