I am still confused about the “synthesis” part, which Marx seems to have global-find-and-replaced with “violent annihilation of the older”.
I’ve suspected for a while that “synthesis” is a bad word for the Hegelian/Marxist idea and that the concept is better approximated by something along the lines of “supersession”, or “dissolution” to put it in LW-ese: the establishment of a new framework that renders the previous dichotomy irrelevant. This can involve combining dichotomous elements but doesn’t have to.
In the context of the 1800s politics that Marx would have been familiar with, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that this would necessarily involve people getting shot at.
Many assume Marx was intellectually honest when it doesn’t appear he was. He gave us the means to destroy our societies, but he did not give us a workable or foundational rule of law or bill of rights in which to hang our civility on to reestablish or rebuild it.
He gave up 10 planks in The Communist Manifesto which has worked at destroying any assemblance of, prosperity, liberty and justice in any society, but then leaves us hanging.
Like I say to many Marxists, give me some operational rules like our Constitution tried to do and tell me when we should give up a right for the common good, as the Bill of Rights tried to do and then we can talk.
As someone I once read wrote “communism is the social method through laws, for the ruling class to steal the wealth of a nation.” and Marx gave them the outline. The question is, was Marx a Zionist of not?
Hegel did use synthesis. I think the go-to reference is his book The Logic of Science, whose title I remember only because I heard a lecturer describe it as being peculiar for a book that contained no discussion of either logic or science. By “logic” he meant his dialectic method, which is not logical (in the sense of having operators with defined outcomes).
I think the go-to reference is his book The Logic of Science, whose title I remember only because I heard a lecturer describe it as being peculiar for a book that contained no discussion of either logic or science.
Har har. Wissenschaft has a broader meaning than science. The book does actually discuss logic, devoting an entire section to the analysis of the various meanings of being.
The various meanings of being? An entire chapter? Let’s logically ty to define the meanings of consciousness while we’re at it.
Now if you want to analyze the general differences between men and women using dialecticism which women often use and men, which most do not use, that would be interesting.
I think it’s worth quoting some of the Wikipedia article on Aufhebung that you link to:
Aufheben or Aufhebung[1] is a German word with several seemingly contradictory meanings, including “to lift up”, “to abolish”, “cancel” or “suspend”, or “to sublate”.[2] The term has also been defined as “abolish”, “preserve”, and “transcend”.
I’ve suspected for a while that “synthesis” is a bad word for the Hegelian/Marxist idea and that the concept is better approximated by something along the lines of “supersession”, or “dissolution” to put it in LW-ese: the establishment of a new framework that renders the previous dichotomy irrelevant. This can involve combining dichotomous elements but doesn’t have to.
In the context of the 1800s politics that Marx would have been familiar with, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that this would necessarily involve people getting shot at.
Many assume Marx was intellectually honest when it doesn’t appear he was. He gave us the means to destroy our societies, but he did not give us a workable or foundational rule of law or bill of rights in which to hang our civility on to reestablish or rebuild it.
He gave up 10 planks in The Communist Manifesto which has worked at destroying any assemblance of, prosperity, liberty and justice in any society, but then leaves us hanging.
Like I say to many Marxists, give me some operational rules like our Constitution tried to do and tell me when we should give up a right for the common good, as the Bill of Rights tried to do and then we can talk.
As someone I once read wrote “communism is the social method through laws, for the ruling class to steal the wealth of a nation.” and Marx gave them the outline. The question is, was Marx a Zionist of not?
Hegel did use synthesis. I think the go-to reference is his book The Logic of Science, whose title I remember only because I heard a lecturer describe it as being peculiar for a book that contained no discussion of either logic or science. By “logic” he meant his dialectic method, which is not logical (in the sense of having operators with defined outcomes).
You’re looking for the German word Aufhebung.
Har har. Wissenschaft has a broader meaning than science. The book does actually discuss logic, devoting an entire section to the analysis of the various meanings of being.
More cached thoughts for you to clean out.
The various meanings of being? An entire chapter? Let’s logically ty to define the meanings of consciousness while we’re at it.
Now if you want to analyze the general differences between men and women using dialecticism which women often use and men, which most do not use, that would be interesting.
I think it’s worth quoting some of the Wikipedia article on Aufhebung that you link to:
No Wonder we’re confused.
Hegel does quite strange things to language. He wrote in German and any English translation is not going to get everything right.