Here is a reading group to answer that question, exploring key texts from Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. This week the reading is Hegel's The Science of Logic, section one.Chapter one: Being>Being>nothingness>becomingChapter two: determinate being>determinate being as such>finititude>infinityChapter three: being-for-self>being-for-self as such>the One and the Many>Repulsion and AttractionSister /lit/ thread with links>>>/lit/25214473
Fuck off
>>533307765Sounds interesting though but /pol/ doesn't read.
>>533307667It's when I say something retarded then call you a reactionary when you point out how retarded the thing I said was
>>533307888I can see you graduated from PragerU
>>533307667>Wtf is "dialectic"?You are supposed to read Hegel first.
>>533307667I never finished Kant and only read the first couple pages of the PoS. I think it's when you have two opposite but complementary ideas that necessitate each other and lead to a higher understanding when viewed through the lens of historical progression.
>>533307667Ok but what is your stance on leadership. Specifically how do you feel about the Prince.If were in /pol/ were discussing relevant literature
>>533307910>reactionary noisesCase in point
>>533308029No, actually it's a form of process philosophy. In idealism, that means ideas, yes, and in materialism that means matter. Although dialectical idealism and dialectical materialism share more in common with each other in many ways than they do with other forms of their ontologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
It's basically a form of mathematics for speech
>>533308108But isn't a dialectic in Hegel's idea of history different ideas reacting to each other and developing into a more holistic understanding as time progresses.
>>533308034I've read The Prince and Discourses, if you are interested in Machiavelli and dialectics, check out Althusser who was big into MachiavelliIt terms of principles of leadership, I think the prince is mostly geared toward ruling a fief or dukedom in a country that is divided, and Machiavelli's hope was for some warlord to unify Italy to protect it from invasion. So the principle of leadership in that is that people are more readily loyal to men than ideas and that he considered brutal leadership preferable to disunity because the latter allows outside forces to easily conquer
>>533307667Nothing wrong with this post on its own, the problem is naively assuming the average /pol/tard fed possesses reading comprehension beyond a 6th grade level
>>533308208Hegel applies dialectic to everything. At the fundamental level, it is between being and nothing, which is covered in this week's reading. His theory of history is the macro scale but he also applies it to the individual realizing his identity, and labor alienation
>>533308358I remember the being and nothingness example and how he uses it to explain becoming. I'll probably pick him back up again in the future.
>>533308509It's a pretty simple concept to grasp at its most essential. You know how computers process all information in binary on/off, or 1 and 0? Hegel's thesis is that reality itself works like this, but he also stresses that is-isn't is a conceptual distinction since each only has meaning in contradiction to the otherFrom this week's reading:>It was the Eleatics, above all Parmenides, who first enunicated the simple thought of pure being as the absolute and sole truth: only being is, and nothing absolutely is not, and in the surviving fragments of Parmenides this is enunicated with the pure enthusiasm of thought which has for the first time apprehended itself in its absolute abstraction. As we know, in the oriental systems, principally in Buddhism, nothing, the void, is the absolute principle. Against that simple and one-sided abstraction the deep-thinking Heraclitus brought forward the higher, total concept of becoming and said: being as little is, as nothing is, or, all flows, which means, all is a becoming.
