What exactly is "dialectic" as a theory of ontology? This is a reading group to learn just that>The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts (see the quotation from Philo on Heraclitus at the beginning of Section III, “On Cognition,” in Lasalle’s book on Heraclitus) is the essence (one of the “essentials,” one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics. That is precisely how Hegel, too, puts the matter (Aristotle in his Metaphysics continually grapples with it and combats Heraclitus and Heraclitean ideas).-Lenin, "On the Question of Dialectics">Space is, in general, pure quantity, no longer in its merely logical determination, but as an immediate and external being. Consequently, nature begins with quantity and not with quality, because its determination is not a primary abstract and immediate state like logical Being. -Hegel, "The Philosophy of Nature">Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.-Stalin, "Dialectical and Historical Materialism">The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without ‘above’, there would be no ‘below’, without ‘below’, there would be no ‘above’. Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, there would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty; without difficulty, there would be no facility.-Mao, "On Contradiction">In the ancient world, class struggle played out mainly in the form of a struggle between creditors and debtors: this ended in Rome with the demise of the plebeian debtors, who were replaced by slaves. The medieval version of the conflict ended with the decline of the feudal debtors, who lost their political power along with its economic foundation. In this case, in fact, the money-form—and the relation between creditor and debtor has the form of a money relation—merely reflected a deeper antagonism, one having to do with economic conditions of existence.-Marx, "Capital"The book we begin with Hegel's Science of Logic, this week is section one, chapters 1-3 (pic related)https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlconten.htmYou can download the same translation from AA herehttps://annas-archive.gl/md5/75a000e66c717b5bde07f8c0ccbf63e4
>>25214473wouldn't be odd if this was a dialectical writing group instead?
>>25214473no contradictory can exist in isolation as contradictory. no reason why it cant exist of itself.
>>25214910That isn't a postulate in dialectics. It is proven, Mao is just describing what is proven. Dialectics is a form of *process philosophy* (not as a postulate but a point of proof), which holds that all change is resolution of contradiction (not as a postulate but a point to prove).
>>25214473It’s a mistake to conflate Marxist dialectic and Hegelian dialectic, the two traditions are very different. Marx rejects Hegel in no uncertain terms and explains why he does so. Not to overstate things because of course Marx was deeply influenced by the Logic but still they are totally divergent in terms of what dialectic means (idealism vs materialism) and how it should be employed (a priori vs a posteriori to put it simply). Don’t be misled by pseudo intellectual Marxists who read Marx back into Hegel. Another thing - why does Hegel think ontology is purely dialectical? Why does he bracket the either/or into the realm of appearance? It isn’t enough to say ‘look, you can see it work.’ As Aristotle said of Platonic definition by division ‘at every step one can ask, “why?”’ What Hegel’s doing is strange, you need to be able to answer this if you want to do a group. Academic question though, no one will participate.
>>25214940>which holds that all change is resolution of contradictionThis is trivially true and it isn’t what Hegel was saying.
>>25214473> The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without ‘above’, there would be no ‘below’, without ‘below’, there would be no ‘above’. Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, there would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty; without difficulty, there would be no facility.When I do x I am doing x, not y. If a thing is z it is z and not !z. The issue is that Hegel thinks this sort of thinking is secondary, but again why? And is it? None of your decisions are ‘dialectical’, they are always either/or. You have to step back from Hegel’s system and ask these basic questions then see how he would answer them to realize how retarded the whole thing is.
