notaBULL
Posts: 155
Joined: 11/30/2014
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: notaBULL
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bhruic
quote:
ORIGINAL: notaBULL
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bhruic
quote:
ORIGINAL: notaBULL
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bhruic
quote:
ORIGINAL: notaBULL
... I would think you are more the type to spend your entire life on forums.
Irony... look it up on Wikipedia.
Why don't you begin by clarifying what your thesis is, and what you understand the antithesis to be? Because you certainly have not done that as yet.
Wow! You are a cunning piece of work.
The foregoing contains the question and the answer, it is no riddle, you just have to read the thread from the beginning, it is all there
You are backing down then?
You do not bring nothing to the table why should I bother trying to be your teacher when it is obvious you know everything.
You are the one backing down.
I asked you how do you think the Hegelian Dialectic applies to my definition of slavery and all you replied is ( google is my friend)
Well google is also your friend, so get off your ass and go learn something there.
However, even if you use google, you will still not be able to give me answer, because it is clear that you did not know who Hegel was before this thread was started.
Now the only you way you can answer my question is to read Mein Kampf from front to back, in order to see what Hitler thought about Hegel.
Are you getting heated? Your grammar is deteriorating.
I do know who Hegel was, but I wasn't aware that Hitler was considered the foremost authority on Hegel... And I doubt that is the case.
I DID learn that the formula, Thesis + antithesis = synthesis, was never used by Hegel, and in fact was rejected by him. That terminology was ascribed to Kant.
Nevertheless, I asked you to elaborate on your muddy thinking and explain how your diatribe related in any way to your rather myopic understanding of the definitions of slavery... and you can not.
So... I'm afraid you have said too much, and rather revealed yourself as someone not worth listening to. Unless you want to take another crack at coherent intelligent thought, I think the conversation has devolved in to a Pythonesque argument.
Firstly, you are the one who connected thesis + antithesis = synthesis... to Hegel, the following sentence is from you, not from me:
While it is clear you have the intellectual capacity to master the concepts of "Copy" and "Paste", and you have managed to cobble together the utterly simplistic equation, thesis + antithesis = synthesis... It is equally clear that you have no idea what that means, nor any understanding of Hegelian Dialectic whatsoever.
Then you went on google today and found stuff like this:
Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.[28] Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.
On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Sometimes Hegel would use the terms, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete. Hegel used these terms hundreds of times throughout his works.[29]
The formula, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis, does not explain why the Thesis requires an Antithesis. However, the formula, Abstract-Negative-Concrete, suggests a flaw in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error and experience. The same applies to the formula, Immediate-Mediated-Concrete. For Hegel, the Concrete, the Synthesis, the Absolute, must always pass through the phase of the Negative, that is, Mediation. This is the actual essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics.
To describe the activity of overcoming the negative, Hegel also often used the term Aufhebung, variously translated into English as "sublation" or "overcoming," to conceive of the working of the dialectic. Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea, thing, society, etc., while moving beyond its limitations. (Jacques Derrida's preferred French translation of the term was relever).[30]
Which is a complete contradiction with what you said the day before
Yes Hitler was an authority on Hegel and on many other authors and great thinkers. The foregoing does not say that the Hegelian Dialectic does not exist, but that the The formula, Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis cannot be attached to Hegel.
I do not know what you are smoking man but you keep digressing, try to stay focused on the thread, we are talking about the definition of slavery here, not philosophy.
But even if the formula was not applied by Hegel, the formula can still be associated with the definition of slavery, like I said before, you must read the thread from the beginning.
Ok, I will speak as if I am speaking to children, a bit like Jesus did when he was preaching to simple minds.
A man plants an apple tree, when the tree starts producing, the man can eat apples, but the three produces more fruit than he can eat, so he can take apples for himself and use the surplus value to hire another man to pick the apples for him. While the other man is picking apples for him, he goes to work planting more seeds. So now he has enough apples for himself, for an apple picker and for a third employee... capish?
Here my little child watch this video, skip the French part and start listening at 4 minutes within the video, everything is explain for you simple mind
https://youtu.be/kxAwN6gOBpM
|
RE: Definition of slavery - 
Profile
RE: Definition of slavery - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread