Dialectical Thinking (Part 1): Origins of the Search for Truth, Consequences for Fundamental Theory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- Philosophy Portal Live Event Space 2024, Become a Member Today: philosophyportal.online/event...
Philosophy Portal courses are for life: philosophyportal.online/courses
--
This video is the first part in a three part video series on dialectical thinking. In this first part we first explore the problem at the foundation of the introduction of dialectical logic. This problem includes the emergence of subjects who claim absolute knowledge which is internally contradictory (i.e. two subjects who both claim contradictory absolute knowing). In order to reconcile the difference between real truth and opinion, dialectical logic actively searches for contradiction, incoherence and opposition in order to develop a better understanding of truth. From this search it was discovered that there is actually no absolute position. However, this truth was only properly instantiated historically with the emergence of the Kantian system of thought, which operationalizes a distinction between phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are human perceptions and abstractions, noumena is the absolute reality of the things-in-themselves. For Kant we do not have access to the things-in-themselves, but only the "antinomies" (contradictions, incoherence, oppositions) of our phenomena. This system was further advanced by Hegel who says rational antinomies exist, not as a consequence of our distance from the thing-in-itself, but as evidence for our unity with the thing-in-itself. Thus, in Hegelian dialectics we mediate the becoming of the thing-in-itself via the active engagement with rational antinomies. This dialectical approach to truth is not inscribed into the contemporary field of knowledge, but could be beneficial and practical to deal with contradictions and oppositions between science and the humanities, classical and quantum physics, as well as evolutionary theory as applied to the human world. When we think in these terms the truth of all of these contradictions and oppositions will be found in a transformation towards new differences that obliterate the currently stable distinctions. From these transformations we will get an ever deeper understanding of the field of truth and our involvement with its becoming.
Transcript: cadelllast.com/2020/02/14/dia...
Patreon exclusive (personal reflection): / 34021015
Website and Email List: www.philosophyofsubjectivity.com
Support this work through Patreon: / cadelllast
or PayPal: www.paypal.me/cadelllast
Contact:
Academic website: cadelllast.com
Email: cadell.last@gmail.com
Facebook: / cadellssphere
Twitter: / cadellnlast
Instagram: / lastcadell
Academia: vub.academia.edu/CadellLast
Research Gate: www.researchgate.net/profile/...
Google Scholar: scholar.google.be/citations?u... - Наука та технологія
I attempt to provide a personal reflection on the the meaning of the dialectical search for truth as it relates to contemporary theory here: www.patreon.com/posts/34021015
Parts 2 and 3 to follow soon! Hope this is helpful!
Why do you depict Socrates as bowing to a God? Aren't the Dialogue's an example of dialectic? He literally says: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
Can you square this apparent contradiction for me?
This video is solid gold, I always had difficulty trying to understand Hegel's use of Noumenal Phenomena as a way to access the thing-in-itself. But the way you contrasted Hegel's theory with Kant's theory of the separation between access to noumena and phenomena really made the former's argument clear. Thanks!
Really happy this resonated with your understanding. Thanks for watching.
I'm floored....Bravo....liked and subscribed....thank you
Absolutely marvelous-the way you contrasted Hegel and Kant, as many other people have noted in the comments, was amazingly masterful. You put it perfectly: the noumenon is “for” consciousness, but we have interpreted it in a manner that has made consciousness something we cannot trust. With a notable focus on irony, in line with what you said, I like to think of literature as a “showing” of us, through the antinomies of reason, becoming the “us-in-ourselves.” To me, literature is a vast collection of evidence that Hegel was on the mark.
I never follow the step from there is no absolute claims of truth for reality to there is no absolute reality.
I get stuck on this point because everything said after this move seems built on sand.
This is great content. I have been in Dialectical Behavioral Therapy for 2 years and realized I didn't quite understand what dialectical meant. I see why my judgemental thinking is challenged now. On to part 2...
It took me nearly an hour to get through this video because of the density of it. I mean, legitimately, this dude doesn’t waste a sentence in description-it’s absurdly succinct.
Thank you for noticing. I hope this aids your dialectical development.
@@PhilosophyPortal I just finished all three parts of the series and watched the introductory video. Your dialectical system overlays with mine nicely (though, to be fair, you clearly have a more developed relationship with Hegel and have a richer understanding of the Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis than I do).
These videos were legitimately helpful for me. I'll almost certainly rewatch them. And, for what it's worth, I purchased Enter the Alien online this morning.
Great stuff. Cheers, buddy!
@@GenteelCretin enjoy Enter the Alien!
My head hurts 😂. But, thank you. 🙏
i enjoyed the video but still not sure what the Hagel Dialectic is. What i got is Hagel is saying nobody can actually know what's really true or not, which I don't think is correct because it sounds like nonsense. I don't think a guy would get very far saying something like that. Obviously there's some things unknowable but to not be able to know if anything is 100% true or not can't be what he's really saying right?
This is the kind of view that seems to be popular in the humanities from my understanding. Although I do believe most people accept there are certain truths but for the most part things within human reality should be not viewed as something final so that there's always space to interact with that thing, so there really is no eternal truth.
This is a very clear explanation of Hegels nonsense. A Critical Rationalist opinion
I am just now learning about this ->(knowledge). Thank you for the video. I will be watching many more!
Great great great !!!
Great stuff! thx!
These videos are always appreciated
Very informative.
nice work getting to 'substance is subject' without saying substance is subject
What is the difference between contradiction vs opposition?
I just love that Hegal was an INTJ too. Just checks out. INTJs rise
3:40-4:11min The answer about the truth would then appear to be that the truth is precisely that antagonistic relation people have with knowledge. That antagonism is transhistorical. People are always in the search of truth. Truth is independent of them, separate from opinion, it must be arrived at. But the split is inherent.
"When the subject is actively working with and actively striving to embody contradiction, incoherence and opposition as a positive feature, hegel claims that the subject is mediating the becoming of the thing in itself"
Source?
This is my own writing. I just wanted to highlight the point.
This work is in general produced from the dialectical mechanisms described in the first part of Less Than Nothing, i.e. The Thing In-Itself: Hegel.
So is the thing in itself the dialectical process ?
I don’t know, I think maybe the thing in it self is the contradiction, which then drives the dialectical process.
So if someone comes up with a proposition with absolutely no internal contradiction, this argument would be anti-dialectical?
Godel took care of this
Credible
So Kant was into Vedanta then. At least on a superficial lvl
Wow
Thank you for taking the time to make this video.
It is a colossal waste of my time, but you condensed it for easier comprehension.
I want to see what a dialectic thinks of reality when falling off a cliff.
In my Opinion, Religion or the believe in God is not relevant to be applied in this dialectical concept of thinking. Because believing in GOD means submitting to GOD without questions asked, becuase if you can question GOD it means that HE is not GOD. Thus, it is not applicable. It is only applicable to the creation of GOD. Ofcourse this idea of mine can only be accpted if you believe in GOD, if you dont believe in GOD it is the end of conversation.