You’re lectures are amazing! I’ve been keeping up with all the uploads. I truly hope you continue to post them. Thank you from the US! PS if you have the time, I’d love to keep up with the readings, so if you could upload a syllabus or the reading list I would be eternally grateful.
8:55 With all due respect towards Dr. Taimur Rahman, I believe this description is wrong. By negation or contradiction, Hegel means a wide variety of relations: difference, opposition, reflection, or relation. It can indicate the mere insufficiency of a category or its incoherence. Most dramatically, categories are sometimes shown to be self-contradictory. And this was applied as such (in an incompatible direction) by Marx and Engels. That is why you cannot affirm, through Hegelian Dialectics, that the result of an analysis is the synthesis, simply because you can study the contradictions of an object without pointing out a direct opposite to it. Das Kapital is an example of that; Marx did not offer a solution to the Capitalist system but accurately demonstrated the system's contradictions with the human effort to survive (in a rough nutshell) collectively, and how it cannot sustain itself without sacrificing human lives (both in literal and in a broader meaning). A synthesis may or may not be formed, and understanding Capitalism is not enough to achieve such a goal; every theory, evidence, and scientific fact must be considered when we look for ways to overcome this system, and they don't necessarily comprise a semantically opposite idea. This is how I understood this part of the lecture, forgive me if my assessment is incorrect; I'm honestly seeking to learn.
I wonder what you make of Engels' discussion of Duhring, specifically the chapter Negation of Negation: "Thus, by characterising the process as the negation of the negation, Marx does not intend to prove that the process was historically necessary. On the contrary: only after he has proved from history that in fact the process has partially already occurred, and partially must occur in the future, he in addition characterises it as a process which develops in accordance with a definite dialectical law." The specific manner in which Marx and Engels understood Hegel is quite beautifully laid out here. Perhaps I should do another lecture on it.
@@TaimurRahman-English Thank you for your time, Dr. Tahmur. I hadn't read the Anti-Düring yet, but I'm correcting this mistake right now. The quoted definition did answer my doubt (namely the term "partially"), specially his example slightly ahead about the grain of barley.
Please do write back to me after you read Anti-Duhring. I would love to hear your views and develop my own understanding in light of this discussion. Warmest regards.
@@TaimurRahman-English Dr. Tahmu, I'll try offering a thorough feedback over what I consider to be relevant in order to understand how I arrived at my conclusion. I believe I found an excerpt that expounds (and solves) my doubt quite well; it's in the Anti-Dühring's Introduction: *"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions that only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa."* I'm well aware that you said most of these things in your lecture; my problem was understanding your usage of more generalistic examples in dialectics. My deal with this rhetorical approach is that not only this paragraph seems ambiguous to me, Engels does it in the Anti-Dühring (and other works) quite frequently; the paragraph you showed me is preceded by such an argument, about Marx's analysis of Capitalism. *I have trouble seeing concepts as directly opposite simply because I understand pure opposition as a human-made concept. It doesn't matter how well it allows us to explain nature through an idea, we can always break it down into logical components which aren't exactly opposed. My main difficulty is understanding how the rhetorical effort (as I see it) is used to allow us to place some kind of law over a specific dynamic. I struggle to see the difference between what you (and Marx and Engels) call the definite laws of Nature and the rhetorical discourse we have to break down in a more thorough study.* I have no academic background in philosophy or history; my "field" is related to translation studies. Perhaps that is why I focus on the logical elements that make up a discourse, and the construction of its apparent purposes, trying my best to include the necessary scientific contributions. I began learning what I understand of Dialectical Materialism by reading about Hegel's Dialectics and trying to understand how Marx used it in Das Kapital (a bit as Lukacs did, but obviously not in the same context or scope). I did that because I realized that that's how I better understand things (I have been diagnosed with ASD and ADHD); seemingly loose concepts usually fly right over my head. I've read several Marxist works, and I debunked many misconceptions within Marxist theory quite "manually". To give one example, it took me great (intellectual) pains to logically place my disagreement with Althusser's thought, especially given Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses was the first Marxist book I ever read. I had to read Dialectics of Nature and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy to begin grasping how we should view "science" as a concept. I strongly tend to focus on the epistemological background of a topic. I have trouble with generalizations, especially when it comes to any approach that proposes a dialectical view of the material world. I tend to analyze all aspects (the ones I'm able to grasp from my understanding of a specific part of reality) of what we know as separate processes that compound something we end up identifying as a whole. I always begin aiming at the most basic elements of whatever gigantic a dynamic might be; although I do know that's exactly how Marx and Engels' analyses work, my point is to specify that it comes from scrutinizing the structure of their works and not exactly from their more direct arguments over the issue, so this small confusion had sprouted in my head; given my learning process seems somewhat unusual. I think that is all, thank you very much for your attention and aid.
Mind blown! tHanK YoU Professor. I wonder if dialectical analysis is applicable to operations in formal logic and mathematics as well. The power of dialectical reasoning appears to be descriptive, and then prescriptive. I notice that it is always subject to empirical testing. As with everyone else in the anticommunist world, I was taught that synthesis and antithesis combine into synthesis, usually taking the form of a political compromise. In itself this is utterly unproductive in addressing critical problems. A young dialectician on another channel said that it took up to a year for him to change his way of thinking, and that he benefited greatly from it.
You are welcome. Your question is also mind blowing. Operation of dialectics to formal logic and mathematics. Wow. Way beyond my abilities. I'd love to see someone develop that.
I always enjoy these lectures but I'm dubious about dialectics. The process can be useful for loosening up one's thinking but it is metaphysics. Creative minds can see dialectics everywhere. Thesis: a pencil Antithesis: an eraser Synthesis: a pencil with an eraser
dialectics is not every figment of your imagination. it's very rigorous because you have to understand and explain how the process happens, and how one transforms into another. And your example was nonsensical because it said nothing, you just pushed words together.
@@siriorange dialectics is a way of thinking about things. It can be helpful or it can lead us down false paths. The claim that it is the way that nature works seems far-fetched. How do you prove such a claim? These claims are about the weakest aspect of Marxism. They aren't necessary . If I remember correctly, it was Engels rather than Marx who pushed them so far.
@@BartAnderson_writerscience is pretty dialectical, and a lot of scientists incorporate it into their thinking. just refer to the dialectical biologist by richard lewontin.
@@siriorange, good quote from Wikipedia on the book "They see "dialectics" more as a set of questions to ask about biological research, a weapon against dogmatism, than as a set of pre-determined answer" That is reasonable
@4:00 they are not laws, they are merely organizing principles. Once you start calling organizing principles "Laws" you've become a stupid ideologue. I'm a theoretical physicist, and I even get cringe when people call the principles of quantum mechanics "laws". There are some laws in physics though. But almost no laws in the higher sciences. Unless by "law" you mean something that sometimes holds but which can be violated. Like in the legal system sense. But I doubt that is what you mean. If it is what Hegel meant then the question can be aksed is he worth reading?
Hegel rejected Newton’s first law of motion (an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force) as overly simplistic and contrary to his dialectical interpretation of motion. Refutation: Empirical physics, grounded in Newtonian mechanics and later refined by Einstein’s theories of relativity, proved that motion can be fully explained by physical laws without recourse to metaphysical contradictions.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You’re lectures are amazing! I’ve been keeping up with all the uploads. I truly hope you continue to post them. Thank you from the US! PS if you have the time, I’d love to keep up with the readings, so if you could upload a syllabus or the reading list I would be eternally grateful.
Probably the best instruction I've seen on Engel's dialectic.
Amazing lectures professor, as a budding Communist from India, these are really insightful
Washington State checking in with my comrades ❤
I’ve been loving your lectures, thank you for all the knowledge!
As usual an excellent lecture! I have taken it upon myself to share these lectures as widely as I can because series has been fantastic! ☭
Looking forward to this, good work, sir- dude.
Wished I had seen this twenty years ago
8:55 With all due respect towards Dr. Taimur Rahman, I believe this description is wrong. By negation or contradiction, Hegel means a wide variety of relations: difference, opposition, reflection, or relation. It can indicate the mere insufficiency of a category or its incoherence. Most dramatically, categories are sometimes shown to be self-contradictory. And this was applied as such (in an incompatible direction) by Marx and Engels.
That is why you cannot affirm, through Hegelian Dialectics, that the result of an analysis is the synthesis, simply because you can study the contradictions of an object without pointing out a direct opposite to it. Das Kapital is an example of that; Marx did not offer a solution to the Capitalist system but accurately demonstrated the system's contradictions with the human effort to survive (in a rough nutshell) collectively, and how it cannot sustain itself without sacrificing human lives (both in literal and in a broader meaning). A synthesis may or may not be formed, and understanding Capitalism is not enough to achieve such a goal; every theory, evidence, and scientific fact must be considered when we look for ways to overcome this system, and they don't necessarily comprise a semantically opposite idea.
This is how I understood this part of the lecture, forgive me if my assessment is incorrect; I'm honestly seeking to learn.
I wonder what you make of Engels' discussion of Duhring, specifically the chapter Negation of Negation:
"Thus, by characterising the process as the negation of the negation, Marx does not intend to prove that the process was historically necessary. On the contrary: only after he has proved from history that in fact the process has partially already occurred, and partially must occur in the future, he in addition characterises it as a process which develops in accordance with a definite dialectical law."
The specific manner in which Marx and Engels understood Hegel is quite beautifully laid out here. Perhaps I should do another lecture on it.
@@TaimurRahman-English Thank you for your time, Dr. Tahmur. I hadn't read the Anti-Düring yet, but I'm correcting this mistake right now.
The quoted definition did answer my doubt (namely the term "partially"), specially his example slightly ahead about the grain of barley.
Please do write back to me after you read Anti-Duhring. I would love to hear your views and develop my own understanding in light of this discussion. Warmest regards.
@@TaimurRahman-English Dr. Tahmu, I'll try offering a thorough feedback over what I consider to be relevant in order to understand how I arrived at my conclusion.
I believe I found an excerpt that expounds (and solves) my doubt quite well; it's in the Anti-Dühring's Introduction:
*"Further, we find upon closer investigation that the two poles of an antithesis positive and negative, e.g., are as inseparable as they are opposed and that despite all their opposition, they mutually interpenetrate. And we find, in like manner, that cause and effect are conceptions that only hold good in their application to individual cases; but as soon as we consider the individual cases in their general connection with the universe as a whole, they run into each other, and they become confounded when we contemplate that universal action and reaction in which causes and effects are eternally changing places, so that what is effect here and now will be cause there and then, and vice versa."*
I'm well aware that you said most of these things in your lecture; my problem was understanding your usage of more generalistic examples in dialectics. My deal with this rhetorical approach is that not only this paragraph seems ambiguous to me, Engels does it in the Anti-Dühring (and other works) quite frequently; the paragraph you showed me is preceded by such an argument, about Marx's analysis of Capitalism.
*I have trouble seeing concepts as directly opposite simply because I understand pure opposition as a human-made concept. It doesn't matter how well it allows us to explain nature through an idea, we can always break it down into logical components which aren't exactly opposed. My main difficulty is understanding how the rhetorical effort (as I see it) is used to allow us to place some kind of law over a specific dynamic. I struggle to see the difference between what you (and Marx and Engels) call the definite laws of Nature and the rhetorical discourse we have to break down in a more thorough study.*
I have no academic background in philosophy or history; my "field" is related to translation studies. Perhaps that is why I focus on the logical elements that make up a discourse, and the construction of its apparent purposes, trying my best to include the necessary scientific contributions.
I began learning what I understand of Dialectical Materialism by reading about Hegel's Dialectics and trying to understand how Marx used it in Das Kapital (a bit as Lukacs did, but obviously not in the same context or scope). I did that because I realized that that's how I better understand things (I have been diagnosed with ASD and ADHD); seemingly loose concepts usually fly right over my head.
I've read several Marxist works, and I debunked many misconceptions within Marxist theory quite "manually". To give one example, it took me great (intellectual) pains to logically place my disagreement with Althusser's thought, especially given Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses was the first Marxist book I ever read. I had to read Dialectics of Nature and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy to begin grasping how we should view "science" as a concept.
I strongly tend to focus on the epistemological background of a topic. I have trouble with generalizations, especially when it comes to any approach that proposes a dialectical view of the material world. I tend to analyze all aspects (the ones I'm able to grasp from my understanding of a specific part of reality) of what we know as separate processes that compound something we end up identifying as a whole.
I always begin aiming at the most basic elements of whatever gigantic a dynamic might be; although I do know that's exactly how Marx and Engels' analyses work, my point is to specify that it comes from scrutinizing the structure of their works and not exactly from their more direct arguments over the issue, so this small confusion had sprouted in my head; given my learning process seems somewhat unusual.
I think that is all, thank you very much for your attention and aid.
@@andersonrosa6645 Wow. What detailed feedback. To have someone like you in my audience is itself an honour. Thank you.
Mind blown! tHanK YoU Professor.
I wonder if dialectical analysis is applicable to operations in formal logic and mathematics as well. The power of dialectical reasoning appears to be descriptive, and then prescriptive. I notice that it is always subject to empirical testing.
As with everyone else in the anticommunist world, I was taught that synthesis and antithesis combine into synthesis, usually taking the form of a political compromise. In itself this is utterly unproductive in addressing critical problems.
A young dialectician on another channel said that it took up to a year for him to change his way of thinking, and that he benefited greatly from it.
You are welcome. Your question is also mind blowing. Operation of dialectics to formal logic and mathematics. Wow. Way beyond my abilities. I'd love to see someone develop that.
@TaimurRahman-English Thanks, Professor.
I always enjoy these lectures but I'm dubious about dialectics. The process can be useful for loosening up one's thinking but it is metaphysics. Creative minds can see dialectics everywhere.
Thesis: a pencil
Antithesis: an eraser
Synthesis: a pencil with an eraser
dialectics is not every figment of your imagination. it's very rigorous because you have to understand and explain how the process happens, and how one transforms into another. And your example was nonsensical because it said nothing, you just pushed words together.
@@siriorange dialectics is a way of thinking about things. It can be helpful or it can lead us down false paths. The claim that it is the way that nature works seems far-fetched. How do you prove such a claim?
These claims are about the weakest aspect of Marxism. They aren't necessary . If I remember correctly, it was Engels rather than Marx who pushed them so far.
@@BartAnderson_writerscience is pretty dialectical, and a lot of scientists incorporate it into their thinking. just refer to the dialectical biologist by richard lewontin.
@@BartAnderson_writer refer to dialectical scientists and their work, like richard lewontin's the dialectical biologist.
@@siriorange, good quote from Wikipedia on the book "They see "dialectics" more as a set of questions to ask about biological research, a weapon against dogmatism, than as a set of pre-determined answer"
That is reasonable
Maxwell lecture 7 : The laws of dielectrics
Randomly come across and subscribed.
Very big mic drops this time around. :)
You have solarity from the Black Hills of South Dakota
@4:00 they are not laws, they are merely organizing principles. Once you start calling organizing principles "Laws" you've become a stupid ideologue. I'm a theoretical physicist, and I even get cringe when people call the principles of quantum mechanics "laws". There are some laws in physics though. But almost no laws in the higher sciences. Unless by "law" you mean something that sometimes holds but which can be violated. Like in the legal system sense. But I doubt that is what you mean. If it is what Hegel meant then the question can be aksed is he worth reading?
Hegel rejected Newton’s first law of motion (an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force) as overly simplistic and contrary to his dialectical interpretation of motion.
Refutation: Empirical physics, grounded in Newtonian mechanics and later refined by Einstein’s theories of relativity, proved that motion can be fully explained by physical laws without recourse to metaphysical contradictions.
What do you think of In Time starring Justin Timberlake? Please watch.