Hegel was a big part the ruling ideas of his time and place. The author suggests that unless you take on a philosophy you be affected and take up the dominant ideas of the social context. Then goes on to explain why ideas derived from Hegel are somehow tied to a project of liberation.
That is because there is an inherent contradiction between the Hegelian system and the Hegelian method (dialectics). Engel's talks about this in "Ludwig Feuerbach", showing how all of Hegel's conservatism was due to his idealistic system that was, itself, contradicted by his method
@@adamthepanda00 Hegel from what I’ve read and read about really is a jumbled up mess of half baked ideas served in a word salad. In any case I’m assuming he used his “method” to come up with his “system”, if his system is garbage (everyone agrees on that: as it’s basically saying the Prussian State is the historical emergence of God) then what good is his method if that’s what it comes up with? Seems more like this: he actually has no method, ‘the dialectic’ is neither ontological nor epistemological. It’s entirely obfuscating. Dialogue exists because people have languages that have developed through the evolution of our species. So that sense of dialectic in philosophy is totally commonplace- arriving at ‘truth’ or an approximation of ‘truth’ through dialogue that aims at contradiction resolution. But definitely there is no dialogue in objects other than people. Not in any actual way, as a very loose metaphor or poetic sense sure that’s fine language has lots of room for interpretation and play. But to map dialogue and the type of contradictions that can arise in human speech (which are exclusively speech related) on to the universe is just anthropomorphism. Hegel didn’t discover anything, he just bent meanings of words into a so called system and so called method, he was directly an apologist for the ruling class and it’s state as his profession. That Marx broke with and rejected him is the interesting thing. Engels Plekhanov and Lenin all muddied the waters by making some esoteric claims that Hegel was critical to interpreting Marx. Marx is pretty clear. And there is no need for a fake method no one can explain clearly with out recourse to a few cherry picked bad examples other writers have cherry picked from Hegel’s cherry picking all that’s left is passing around a few pits.
@@yawnandjokeoh First thing is that, no, Hegel didn't use the dialectic to establish his system. He was incredibly muddled, and his main limit was his Idealism and Conservatism which placed the dialectic on its head. Even despite that, he was an incredible philosopher. I don't understand what you are saying about Dialectics and dialogue. Sure that may be one example of Dialectics (thesis, antithesis and synthesis) but Hegel never used that language as dialectics is FAR more than just this. It is simply the observation of the laws that govern the universe in constant change. There is nothing esoteric about it. Contradictions don't require consciousness, it isn't contradiction in that way. The poles are just an example of this. The North and South pole have a contradiction between then which induced movement in a magnetic object in order to solve it. Some other opposites seem more strange, like quantity and quality, but they are derived from the observation of how change occurs. Also, Marx was a conscious dialectician. He was a student of Hegel, and criticized him ruthlessly but saw the incredible power of his dialectic. It informs every facet of Marx's conception of History and Economics. The idea that Engel's is at all separate politically is absurd. They were basically politically homogeneous. Everything Engel's writes is agreed with by Marx, they brought about Scientific Socialism together, with Marx at the head.
@@adamthepanda00 dialectic and dialogue, the classic Greek philosophy of Plato et al. Dialectic in that use makes sense - it’s literally two people talking resolving contradictions in definitions of words. That is the way the vast majority of people exclusively use the word contradiction. Marxists, who put on a lot of banter about materialism then use it to describe nearly every other phenomenon. It makes as much sense has saying things think: the poles of the Earth don’t have the say thoughts. See how weird that is. Contradiction is a word about word definitions and truthfulness etc. it’s not a great word to describe physical phenomena that have little to nothing to do with words or truthfulness etc. I don’t think Engels was politically separate. Although I’m sure there were this or that differences, people mostly agree but still have nuances. I mean isn’t it dialectical to claim no two objects can be exactly the same? :) But I don’t think Engels, scattered notes that is the Dialectics of Nature was really read by Marx, from my understanding Marx was basically bedridden and Engels read him some of it and Marx didn’t have anything bad to say about it. Also if Marx did say it was great, all that means is Marx was wrong. It’s sloppy and not great. You bring up the ‘quality and quantity’ thing. Explain the vice versa part: law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. How does that work? It just doesn’t make sense. It’s not how things happen. And We should just move on as workers from praising the bad philosophical musings of non-working class dead guys from a time when horses and were more common than cars and they didn’t even have quantum mechanics etc.
Hey, we have a number of articles which will cover the same ground as this lead-off over on our education hub (socialist.net/education). Hope this helps! Jack
@@lochnessmunster1189 it’s ok if the information goes over your head. Everyone has to start somewhere! With a little determination and focus I’m sure you’ll get it. Not sure how to respond to the half truth statement. Would you like to give an example to help me understand what you are insinuating?
@@lochnessmunster1189 will you please provide a source? It’s just common sense, not sure there’s a way to refute that paying people less for their labor is more profitable than paying them more.
dialectical materialism is great. Is actually the JUCHE Ideology of NK based on it and something interesting? Are there any websites or e-books about it?
but actually, the tree does NOT make a sound. it produces difference in air pressure. the sound is just a subjective interpretation of us living creatures having evolved to interpret it as sound.
Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 392 sentadillas son unos Kimmy-jka.Monster muchas y un buen ejercicio. Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world 🌹😉💖 los mortalesf abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer.k
Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 482 sentadillas son unos mikujava.Monster muchas y un buen ejercicio. Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world 🌹😉💖 los mortalesq abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer.k
Excellent summary of Marxist philosophy 💯☘️✌️🧐🌍🚩
Inspirational video. Well done, thank you.
Great effort
Excellent presentation!! Really gave me a better understanding of dialectical materialism.
Wish good times with struggle
Red salute to Alan wood
Great, concise video👍🏼
Hegel was a big part the ruling ideas of his time and place. The author suggests that unless you take on a philosophy you be affected and take up the dominant ideas of the social context. Then goes on to explain why ideas derived from Hegel are somehow tied to a project of liberation.
That is because there is an inherent contradiction between the Hegelian system and the Hegelian method (dialectics). Engel's talks about this in "Ludwig Feuerbach", showing how all of Hegel's conservatism was due to his idealistic system that was, itself, contradicted by his method
@@adamthepanda00 Hegel from what I’ve read and read about really is a jumbled up mess of half baked ideas served in a word salad. In any case I’m assuming he used his “method” to come up with his “system”, if his system is garbage (everyone agrees on that: as it’s basically saying the Prussian State is the historical emergence of God) then what good is his method if that’s what it comes up with? Seems more like this: he actually has no method, ‘the dialectic’ is neither ontological nor epistemological. It’s entirely obfuscating. Dialogue exists because people have languages that have developed through the evolution of our species. So that sense of dialectic in philosophy is totally commonplace- arriving at ‘truth’ or an approximation of ‘truth’ through dialogue that aims at contradiction resolution. But definitely there is no dialogue in objects other than people. Not in any actual way, as a very loose metaphor or poetic sense sure that’s fine language has lots of room for interpretation and play. But to map dialogue and the type of contradictions that can arise in human speech (which are exclusively speech related) on to the universe is just anthropomorphism. Hegel didn’t discover anything, he just bent meanings of words into a so called system and so called method, he was directly an apologist for the ruling class and it’s state as his profession.
That Marx broke with and rejected him is the interesting thing.
Engels Plekhanov and Lenin all muddied the waters by making some esoteric claims that Hegel was critical to interpreting Marx.
Marx is pretty clear. And there is no need for a fake method no one can explain clearly with out recourse to a few cherry picked bad examples other writers have cherry picked from Hegel’s cherry picking all that’s left is passing around a few pits.
@@yawnandjokeoh First thing is that, no, Hegel didn't use the dialectic to establish his system. He was incredibly muddled, and his main limit was his Idealism and Conservatism which placed the dialectic on its head. Even despite that, he was an incredible philosopher.
I don't understand what you are saying about Dialectics and dialogue. Sure that may be one example of Dialectics (thesis, antithesis and synthesis) but Hegel never used that language as dialectics is FAR more than just this. It is simply the observation of the laws that govern the universe in constant change. There is nothing esoteric about it. Contradictions don't require consciousness, it isn't contradiction in that way. The poles are just an example of this. The North and South pole have a contradiction between then which induced movement in a magnetic object in order to solve it. Some other opposites seem more strange, like quantity and quality, but they are derived from the observation of how change occurs.
Also, Marx was a conscious dialectician. He was a student of Hegel, and criticized him ruthlessly but saw the incredible power of his dialectic. It informs every facet of Marx's conception of History and Economics.
The idea that Engel's is at all separate politically is absurd. They were basically politically homogeneous. Everything Engel's writes is agreed with by Marx, they brought about Scientific Socialism together, with Marx at the head.
@@adamthepanda00 dialectic and dialogue, the classic Greek philosophy of Plato et al. Dialectic in that use makes sense - it’s literally two people talking resolving contradictions in definitions of words. That is the way the vast majority of people exclusively use the word contradiction. Marxists, who put on a lot of banter about materialism then use it to describe nearly every other phenomenon.
It makes as much sense has saying things think: the poles of the Earth don’t have the say thoughts.
See how weird that is.
Contradiction is a word about word definitions and truthfulness etc. it’s not a great word to describe physical phenomena that have little to nothing to do with words or truthfulness etc.
I don’t think Engels was politically separate. Although I’m sure there were this or that differences, people mostly agree but still have nuances. I mean isn’t it dialectical to claim no two objects can be exactly the same? :) But I don’t think Engels, scattered notes that is the Dialectics of Nature was really read by Marx, from my understanding Marx was basically bedridden and Engels read him some of it and Marx didn’t have anything bad to say about it.
Also if Marx did say it was great, all that means is Marx was wrong. It’s sloppy and not great.
You bring up the ‘quality and quantity’ thing. Explain the vice versa part: law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa.
How does that work? It just doesn’t make sense. It’s not how things happen. And We should just move on as workers from praising the bad philosophical musings of non-working class dead guys from a time when horses and were more common than cars and they didn’t even have quantum mechanics etc.
Well Articulated
I want this lead off in writing.
Hey, we have a number of articles which will cover the same ground as this lead-off over on our education hub (socialist.net/education). Hope this helps!
Jack
@@revolutionarycommunists see book 'Life and Times of James Connolly ' by C. Desmond Greaves 🧐🚩
Thank you
..for providing more Marxist confusion and half-truths?
@@lochnessmunster1189 it’s ok if the information goes over your head. Everyone has to start somewhere! With a little determination and focus I’m sure you’ll get it. Not sure how to respond to the half truth statement. Would you like to give an example to help me understand what you are insinuating?
@@damian_taylor Where do you think profit comes from?
@@damian_taylor Marx's assumption, that profit is made by underpaying wages, just isn't true, and was refuted even while he was alive.
@@lochnessmunster1189 will you please provide a source? It’s just common sense, not sure there’s a way to refute that paying people less for their labor is more profitable than paying them more.
dialectical materialism is great.
Is actually the JUCHE Ideology of NK based on it and something interesting? Are there any websites or e-books about it?
Juche is an idealist and anti marxist ideology.
but actually, the tree does NOT make a sound. it produces difference in air pressure. the sound is just a subjective interpretation of us living creatures having evolved to interpret it as sound.
That depends on what you mean by sound. It is clear that what they mean are sound waves, rather than the subjective experience of sound.
But other creatures escape it's collision because they also hear it, so it does make a sound to them ?
Other creatures hearing mechanisms are PHYSICALLY impacted, so that is a sound !
Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 392 sentadillas son unos Kimmy-jka.Monster muchas y un buen ejercicio. Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world 🌹😉💖 los mortalesf abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer.k
How juvenile.
So much talk, but no productivity.
@Curiouser and Curiouser Nobody has ever measured the effects of Marxism correctly, and that's why the "cut" was always a mistake.
@Curiouser and Curiouser I don't think you understood your own at this point.
Felicidades, es un buen ejemplo. 482 sentadillas son unos mikujava.Monster muchas y un buen ejercicio. Se deja ver que hay muy buenos resultados 😍👍 Saludos desde la Cd.. de world 🌹😉💖 los mortalesq abian apreciado tan hermosa mujer.k