{As a part of the promise I guaranteed @f3nix and the @bananafish Discord, today marks the beginning of philosophy back-to-back posting. First week shall include some old works being reformatted, reworked, retouched and, in the end of the day, republished. Today is Dialectics, what is it? / What the Hell is it? / Dialectics, an updated guide. The first item is the original name, the second a video I did a while back and the third the update yah see today. Who knows, one-to-two years later I'll come back and re-edit this piece of document. But for now, the new additions are criticizing modern mis-usage of it.}

- Dialectics, an update guide -

Image Source Here

- Abstract -

Dialectics has historically meant many things throughout its life, each stage furthering the concept of such and making it more and more concrete within reality. But why is it so? The blatant truth is, to paraphrase the entire tradition of Dialectics, nothing comes out of a vacuum. Or, as Karl Marx puts it: "In the eyes of Dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for all times, nothings is absolute or sacred." Something had to come from somewhere, nothing is free to be born from the void itself. (Take it as you will the literal and figurative implications.) Dialectics is no special case to it; instead of being a hindrance as it would be, say, Metaphysics which we will get into later, it shows and opens to possibilities that don't have to come to a grinding halt with our thinking and action. There's always more to follow upon.

Without further ado: this post will serve as an introduction to every principle case the Dialectic have existed throughout history, and to document, as-such, from this point in history where the Dialectics have been. Note this will not go into specific depth to every principle case. (For that, I can render explanations here on Discord if need be; the sources regardless that I'll link below can provide the necessary attention. Regardless, all should be read in order to solidify one's knowledge and understanding in this field manner.) With that, this post shall give a superficial, but necessary, knowledge and understanding of each formation of the Dialectic. With this said, there stands three major cases of Dialectics: Antiquity, Hegelian and Marxist.

Image Source Here

- Antiquity -

From antiquity: people such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle have used a version of Dialectics in what we now call (or they called): The Dialectical Method. The Dialectical Method served as a means to compare two ideas in a locked competition until either one wins out, both lose or both combine to form a synthesis that hadn't been before. Yet what do I mean here?

In the first case, the survivor of the argument is that: a survivor; they didn't grow or shrink, in many ways they just go about with what they came in with. On the flip side for the loser: they lost; however, it means they have room to grow, to build a better understanding of their stance, to understand better the opponent's and a lesson in humility. A particular fellow that exemplifies such a case would've been the Great Socrates: after loosing horrendously, he learnt from his failures and worked upon them to, overtime, become the Great Socrates that the field of philosophy has came to adore and make a paragon of.

For the middle case: the failure of both sides results in the failure of solving their original contradiction (antagonistic or not), keeps them both in ignorance, shows the limits of their current understanding and shows from those limits where both sides can go from. This in effect can be revealed to be the great shouting matches that we see broadcasted online often, the Twitter debates that go nowhere, the never-ending comment-reply chains of Steemit and so on and so on. Both remain in ignorance, and, as a result of that, will never grow to see the other side for what it is! Which leads further to the dogmatism they have built up and ultimately will contribute back to the internet environment; yet is it entirely their faults? Nie. Indeed, I could give an entire dissertation on this matter, but a repugnant concise statement shall do: the way the Internet is structured has nurtured and let this Concert of screams, hot takes, ill will and vulgar sensibilities of one's freedoms to self-sustain; and those that have wired the Internet this way has a lot to benefit from.

The last case is when both equally have resolved the original (and following) conflict(s) that had brought them together. Equally so, it had led them not to the annihilation of both, and both grown stronger because of the conflict. Indeed, they created a synthesis of their ideas that had negated (which we shall explain later) their original positions. Which that let's the new position to come about which unites them both and allows both to be more effective than ever before. (Nota bene, these three cases appear again later when you read into Hegel and/or Marx. Except that both take a different twist at three cases, especially with the synthesis case.)

Now anyways, how does the Dialectical Method work? Well first you must have a mindset that things change over time (for lack of better phrasing: evolutionary thinking). Then you must accept that ideas, arguments and philosophies aren't trans-historic and cannot live/spawn in a vacuum. Or to put in another way, things that happened in a point of history can only, possibly, happen in that point of time alone and was heavily influenced by events at that time (and before it) during its conception. Finally, you must take an idea and compare it in the totality of the system and the particulars (parts) of the system as well. The main assumption throughout the entire method is that things cannot exist in isolation. (Which is a one-eighty to the Metaphysical method's assumption, or metaphysics in general, where things can exist in isolation and can spawn in a vacuum.)

Now since the dialectic was in its baby stages, 'tis only so useful in the confines of the past and (human) history had only started to gain traction around that time. It of course will see serious development in its later forms and be more than a method for the "struggle of ideas."

Image Source Here

- Hegelian Dialectics -

Hegelian Dialectics was a major modernization and overhaul to how dialectics were used and perceived throughout the European tradition in philosophy. (One must note that even the European tradition was in fact informed from all over the World and not a self-sustained cell of information. It mainly is a name to suggest ideas that sprang from but not necessarily from the continent of Europe.) Hegel, on his part, retained the character of Antiquity while making Dialectics more useful than being relegated to conversations. Indeed! It became more than a way of logic, it became its own theory of logic. Of which, the Dialectical method could only have implied this at the heroic age of Greece (and Rome). By this time, it would grossly be attributed (and only found) in the form of the triad: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. (Even though that triad is misattributed to Hegel thanks to Fichte and later down by reich-wingers, sorry rightists, and even serious Marxists!)

Yet Hegel never talks of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis model, he talks of Abstract-Negative-Concrete, Aufheben/Aufhebung and Mediation.

Abstract-Negative-Concrete (or Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis if we are talking only in a Marxist tongue) is a very implicative model. The model, which was implied heavily throughout his works, makes necessary for the Thesis (Abstract) to have an Antithesis (Negative), for the Thesis is flawed and the Antithesis can make it less flawed. The struggle between the two forms the Synthesis (Concrete). That of which comes at the end of the struggle, taking from the past forms as it had already existed and adding on the addition from the Antithesis.

(What ought to be noted: Is that Hegel's and Marx's Dialectics happens in the form of a Helix and not the simple triad talked about earlier. For reference look at the post's picture: it starts with a Thesis, then interacts with the Antithesis - which is not the group itself that contradicts the thesis but the force of them against the Thesis - and results in a Synthesis from the struggle, and this continues on until the End of History. Also there’s a great confusion that the Dialectics is a pendulum which is incredibly crass and antithetical to Dialectics in its form and content! To suggest that the Dialectics just “swing side-to-side” until it finds inner peace is banal and shows not even a semblance of change! Indeed, actual Dialectical struggles would tell otherwise. Lo! It is a hectic process that has no resolve as it forces everything to march forward constantly. It is the struggle of the past and the future that happens in the present, as it will be seen in Marx’s Dialectics as well, with the resolve coming at the End of History. Progress is not inherently good nor bad, to declare such is to neuter progress whence it had been achieved! Progress is simply that: to move forward from a place that had not been experienced before. And the pendulum model can never explain that, only have convenient slots where one could put anything and it can "just" work - but never truly explain how things came about.)

So wait a second, what the hell is a Synthesis for Hegel then? Hegel would see Synthesis not only as the repository stage of the conflict but also as Aufheben/Aufhebung of it as well. For Hegel uses Aufheben/Aufhebung as abolish (superseding) throughout his works. (Remember the three cases from Antiquity?) See, for Hegel (and Marx and Engels and every other Marxist), every conflict will resolve itself in one way or another; how they end up is another story. As the Dialectician is not a genie to the future, we cannot predict was has yet to happen. But, like Sea Captains of past, we can often tell where the winds of history will go as to make the best passage possible to follow. Which then informs us of what action to take in order to live out the future; for the future doesn't actively comes towards us, we have to make the effort to come towards it. Even so, there really are two cases instead of three: annihilation (unbecoming) and triumph (one gets stronger in the face of the death of another); the former case being a dead-end for all people and the latter being what makes progress and moves (reflexive and the March of) History forward.

Finally Mediation, albeit this will be a short one. It is the space which for which the Abstract/Thesis interacts with and stands in opposition to the Negative/Antithesis. Everything happens for Hegel (and Marx and so on and so on) in a medium and mediation, where things can interpenetrate and unite together despite of the throbbing contradictions. Even things that are immediate mediate for a passage of time as they pass through, it just probably is a bad mediation or a fast one. Intuitiveness, hypocritical only in itself, also has a medium to pass through in order to work; the faculties of our minds have to go through all sorts of knowledge before it comes to an “intuitive” decision. The sense-certainty within our self-consciousness makes this decision-making feel "natural"/"innate"/"comedically-fast" when it is not. (Counterintuitive, eh?) In the end of the day: every struggle between the Abstract (Thesis) and Negative (Antithesis) has a medium where they can interact with each other and struggle. Which, within the medium, produces a Concrete (Synthesis).

Image Source Here

- Marxist Dialectics -

Finally we’ve reached the most contemporary stage of Dialectics, yet almost equally as old as the Hegelian Dialectics: Marxist Dialectics. Marxist Dialectics is the most current form of Dialectics that is up to date with modern life and modern history. For if Hegel was the one to overhaul the machine, then Marx and Engels was the one to make it more compatible and concrete with the times. Indeed, this project is still being updated as we read it.

So, what did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels brought to the table that Hegel didn't? Materialism and post-Enlightenment Science - and making dialectics fit within them and be able to make all three of them work together well. For Marx and Engels were young Hegelian before they broke off from the group during its left-right split. From their split, both still wanted to salvage what could be salvaged from Hegel's works. Indeed, to find the rational kernel of Dialectics and peel away the Idealist skin that Hegel put on it. Yet a rooting-out of Absolute Idealism put into Dialectics by GWF Hegel was in order to work for what they had planned for their lifework projects.

Materialism was Marx's and Engels’s way of salvaging Dialectics from the Absolute Idealism of Hegel and make Dialectics, as aforementioned, concrete. (This post-Enlightenment) Science on its part made all theory grounded on reality and inverses Hegel's quote on facts: "if facts contradict my theory, so much worse for the facts." This is where both Materialism and Science comes together to ground Dialectics in reality and form theory upon reality, not forcing reality to theory. In essence, Marx and Engels made the Materialist version of the Dialectics; also known as Dialectical Materialism.

Another thing to note in this trend is that, if it wasn't heavily implied enough, Marx INVERTED Hegel's philosophy. With such heavy inversions of Hegel in his Dialectics and the Dialectics itself, it's no surprise some aspects that surrounded Dialectics would also change. One important trend was placing that the Object were more important than the Subject in perception and consciousness; this plays a major role for the Marxist view of consciousness (class consciousness) in relationship to society (superstructure). Another being how groups (classes) of society look at each other (relationships), what qualifies them in society (relationship to production) and how they eventually come to a struggle that cannot exist "in peace" (revolutions).

However, to go back on the Subject-Object talk, Marx and Engels both qualified that they work together and not seperately. "Actually, each mental image of the world system is and remains limited, objectively by the historical situation and subjectively by its author's physical and mental constitution." - From Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels. This was a massive rupture within the field of philosophy which they both had lit the match which Hegel had massively hinted. For reference, Hegel, while making the Subject important, conceded and capitulated a lot to the role of Object (as was seen in the end of many of Hegel’s works).

- Some objections -

There of course are people that twist the Dialectics that need to be called out. But no more than that!

The first group (which tends to over lap a lot the pendulum people) are the reactionaries, rightists, reich-wingers and so on and so on. These people, who have no use nor a care for Dialectics just abuse outright the Dialectics. They grab and twist hard even the Fitchean simplification of Hegel’s Dialectics. From there, they grab any disconnected event and justify whatever ridiculous conclusion they wish to make. They care not for the actual events that preceded to the Now nor even if what they friviously connect makes sense! Drivel! Drivel!

The next are those so Orthodox that refuse to update their understanding of Dialectics or pointlessly cut out things they themselves cannot understand. One movement is the one that refuses to understand continuity and rupture as an integral (and implied) part of the Dialectics. Simply: continuity is the continuation of previous elements, or what was affirmed, and rupture being the radical change which has massive negations of previous conventions to make new one. In essence, like the shift of paradigms as rupture and new models within the old paradigm as continuation. Which leads nicely into the topic of positive Supersessions. Positive Supersessions are that: one part continuation, another part affirmation of some qualities but in new conditions. Exempli gratia: the debates of “Free Will v. Determinism” still continues on despite how radically different it is from the previous iterations; where the form had changed a lot over time, the content had some parts been negated (superseded) and the rest still present even in its modern iteration. The Orthodox group is Metaphysical in the cloaks of Dialectics; refusing to accept the changes and thus becoming Revisionist instead of actually doing a damn!

- Concrete -

All-in-all, the Dialectic have transformed itself throughout history from Antiquity to the Now. Meanwhile this post didn't include the entire history of ideas in relationship to what we classify as Dialectics: like Eastern versions of Dialectics, medieval Europe's usage of Dialectics or (western) philosophers like Kant that hath certain perception of Dialectics. Even more, the whole field of Dialectics just within the Marxist tradition: like VI Lenin’s and JV Stalin’s contributions, Mao Zedong’s, Adorno’s and Frantz Fanon’s and even contemporary philosophers like Alain Badiou and J. Moufawad-Paul.

Yet, with all this said, this post served as an introduction. So the limits of the post was already declared and this post had already pushed these limits before collapsing the integrity of the post.

- Sources -

Euthyfro by Plato

Phemenology of Spirit by GWF Hegel

The entire Phenomenology of Spirit on YouTube w/ analysis by Gregory B. Sadler

Science of Logic PDF by GWF Hegel

Conspectus on the Science of Logic by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin

Anti-Dühring by Friedrich Engels

Dialectics of Nature by Friedrich Engels

Dialectical and Historical Materialism by Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin

The Rational Kernel of the Hegelian Dialectic byZhang Shiying with Alain Badiou and Co.

- Cited Images -

Dialectical Helix

Antiquity

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Marx and Engels