i was going to say this and you did it really well thanks Mr Nunes

@@porcinet1968 hahahaha ancient Greek is hard. I love it, but I have to deal with the fact that I'll never be able to say "I know ancient Greek". it will always be "I study ancient Greek". it's been two years now, and I can't understand one godamn paragraph of Plato.

@@pedropedro9605 that's why I went for the pre-Socratics! much easier and less strict than Plato

Don't forget to mention that the only decent approach to "dialectics" was offered by Aristotle - the father of logic. His view of dialectics was based on the logic approach, when we argue about a problem by using REASON, FACTS, and what would be the best solution in the long run, not our feelings, emotions or some mythical "struggle".

@@TyyylerDurden which set of criteria are you using to calculate what is the "best" solution or outcome? Do we enslave an entire population if this company pinky promises that they can reverse climate change with a big enough workforce? What about throwing the book at a certain race of arrestees because statistics say people from their neighborhood commit more crimes and it's safer to keep them locked up? FACTS and REASON alone lead to uncreative solutions to problems (and its just not how reality works or very helpful).

"so hegel says if a baby was dropped into some uninhabited planet" jesus

Something COPERNICAN is about to happen

Why the f... do the English speakers say "pleydou" instead of Plaato?

@@dioklezian3128 That's just how English tends to pronounce foreign words.

@@dioklezian3128 it’s more Stress on their mouths… except for when Freddy Mercury sings “I see a liTTle silhoueTTo of a man” when most Americans would say silhoue-do.. It’s too precise a way to speak for Americans bc it might seem uptight or too formal or too intense for a conversation on Play Dough lol.. Our English isn’t that great… it’s ok.

Always a pleasure to see another James Lindsay enjoyer

do you know any works of Hegel in which references Mysticism, Esotericism, or mysticist/alchemic thinkers? thanks!

Excellent synopsis!

The absolute identity of subject and object in Marxist terms may very well be the transformation of society into a godlike entity. If we reach the highest level of civilization on the Kardashev scale, we'll basically be God. But chances are that we won't survive this century as a species. The cockroaches may turn into the gods we can't become.

Common Lindsay W

Be sure to recognize Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc

"🍎 American £iberalism, principles of a New 🏛️ Republic, sprung from the Magna Carta having a belief in private property without government oversight, with a framework of laws based on individual liberty within a nation under God that is distinct from any church or religion. Gravitating through federalism, a great awakening, emergence of transcendentalism, Jacksonian populism, manifesting of empire and the remnants of the confederacy half a century later that included black codes and Jim 🐦‍⬛Crow laws in the South, but invariably marching towards, the abolishment of slavery. A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, prevailed in part by the Federal Reserve's failure to thwart a liquidity crisis, but germinating from Reconstruction in its attempt at reallocation of land and later the Square Deal with its antitrust, conservation and consumer protections, and elimination of wildcat banking with the National Bank Act and eventual creation of the Federal Reserve, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🐿️ capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism, and the voters 🗳🐿💀🗿🐓👽apex between the emergence of -🎩 Monopolism, an increasingly anti-competitive system of corporatization, consolidation, collusion and eventual private interference with the levers of government. And -🧸 Communism, an inverted Hegelian dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation of subsidiary Soviet Republics that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means.Victorious after a World War, with a blueprint for a new world order, before two competing spheres emerge. Captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society and subsequently moving from gold to real resources in the backing of the Dollar, realization of neoliberalism and implementation of the American sphere globally after the collapse of the Soviet Union.A new empiricist secularism in search of transcendental truths, and the educationists in their relentless pursuit of 🌞🌜critical theories, appear. These neo-transcendental 📱illusions will inexorably punctuate into,🎏🗿 Postmodernism, a dialectic emanating from hermetics that manifests 🪄wizardry through the 👁 metaphysics of 🎏🐀 deconstruction,🌻 and/or the - 🐿️ 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Last Meal, a dialectic acting out heroic revelation that manifests the 👑coronation of the 🍔 McChrist through the 👁️ metaphysics of restoration." 🍟🥤🐿️

Smooth brain

"Hold *mein* beer."

@@durfdurffigan8680 Yea dude. Hegel is the king of the smooth brains

​@@DrEhrfurchtgebietendtrue

Thank you.

The pinned comment, which you saw before making your comment... says the exact same thing.

I haven't heard that name in a while! I'll add it to the list haha

I always say Hegel wasn't that confusing right from the jump. I did my thesis on Jean-Paul Sartre 2 years ago and the ideas just grew on me more so now.

what do you mean ? dont you agree to what he is saying?

@@mikeshrai7498 Exactly. -In this point, yes! (As far as I can remember this video :D) I hope my english skills are good enough to understand me ^^.

@@Komprimat1111 not good ...but great bro... perhaps I thought this is a very good video on dialects...as i am not a philosophy student

@@Komprimat1111 explain now

Yeah, language is never used to lie.

@@quantvminquizitor even lying points to truth

Pretty sure the buddha said that (too).

wow, i love you

thank you

I have not :/

@@TheoryPhilosophy I would really suggest it, because it clarifies what Hegel thinks the dialectic is, specifically he notes that it has both a fourfold and threefold structure, at once. This is interesting because it relates to the use of Chiasm, and religious systems of exegesis. He also praises Plato profusely in that, which is a good counterbalance to misreadings of his relationship to Plato

I'm sure Hegel would have appreciated how dialectical this move is.

Not so sure about that atheist part... The belief (faith) is that the dielectic actually allows man and the state to perfect one another unto the eschaton and the ushering in of utopia. This idea of perfected man and state is really a religious idea.

Totally! The last true philosopher, Hegel!

I dont think it's supposed to be a discrete jump, if you see it as emergent from the interactions happening at a lower level then the paradox disappears.

@@michiel862 that is an absurd argument. The paradox is we cannot be self aware until we are self aware. There is no logical increment … it would be absurd to sympathy there was a state that was both not self aware but almost self aware.

@@SI-qp7cm self-consciousness doesn't require interaction with another self-conscious being, but merely with another conscious being. they both gain self-consciousness in that interaction.

~

Hey I'm a Marxist so I thought I'd put in my two cent. The USSR fell for a lot of material reasonings, and I don't think it's fair to say bc it didn't have a necessary capitalist period. When using dialectics, it's important to encompass the totality of the situation rather than pinning it on one individual thing. Beyond that though, Stalin's second five year plan (1933-1937) to rapidly industrialize Russia was, in anyone knowledgeable of the Russia's conditions, a huge success. It slingshot Russia into the industrial age and solidified it as a world power. While other countries were suffering from depressions, Russia was hyper industrializing and effectively had, if I'm not mistaken, the fastest growing economy at the time. I don't think Russia had any lack of a necessary industrial period. If we look at some other socialist countries like China, we can see that they definitely did (Mao's great leap forward is pretty unanimously agreed, even in Marxist circles, to be a failure) not have the necessary industrialization needed. At the time anyways... obviously China's economy is very industrialized now As long as classes exist, contradiction and therefore the potential for a new synthesis is possible. From a Marxist perspective the only natural conclusion is obviously a classless society (communism) that is beyond contradiction. The final synthesis of history.

USSR was destined to fail simply because there weren't communist revolutions in the west and that's the gist of it. Communism as synthesized by Marx cannot coexist in the same world as capitalism.

"certain socialist countries are thriving well after capitalism,"....which countries?

@@bihone4750 Cute religion you have there.

I think communism failed in Russia because it's a deeply flawed ideology. It's like you took a shit in your mouth and you're asking why it tasted bad. There's no special mystery, it always does.

Bien sûre!

Anti capitalism? That’s your goal to undermine the one system that has on many levels, actually WORKED for the betterment of humanity. Stop looking for a utopia. It ain’t gonna happen. Thanks for being a catalyst to enslave all of humanity. Driving the world back to a place where the people own nothing and only a few people at the top control all resources. And breathing in the wrong place without permission in considered a crime. If I’m wrong about what you seem to be saying about what you support. I apologize, but you are blind if I’m right. And you will help bring us all down.

@@OfftoShambala I think you are a bit off. Capitalism is a complex and nuanced thing. The Free Market and republican guided democracy have indeed produced some great things and advances for mankind. On the other hand, colonial and corporate exploitation. slavery, hyper-capitalism, crony capitalism and corporate capitalism, are all quite dangerous and need to be transformed if not removed altogether. I agree with you that Marxist socialism and Communism are awful results of atheism and materialism and can never be the solution.

ChatGPT isn’t always right..be careful

@@Bread774 I know. I don't look for it for citations or anything like that. What it is good at as a language model is explaining things and defining things.

"🍎 American £iberalism, principles of a New 🏛️ Republic, sprung from the Magna Carta having a belief in private property without government oversight, with a framework of laws based on individual liberty within a nation under God that is distinct from any church or religion. Gravitating through federalism, a great awakening, emergence of transcendentalism, Jacksonian populism, manifesting of empire and the remnants of the confederacy half a century later that included black codes and Jim 🐦‍⬛Crow laws in the South, but invariably marching towards, the abolishment of slavery. A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, prevailed in part by the Federal Reserve's failure to thwart a liquidity crisis, but germinating from Reconstruction in its attempt at reallocation of land and later the Square Deal with its antitrust, conservation and consumer protections, and elimination of wildcat banking with the National Bank Act and eventual creation of the Federal Reserve, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🐿️ capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism, and the voters 🗳🐿💀🗿🐓👽apex between the emergence of -🎩 Monopolism, an increasingly anti-competitive system of corporatization, consolidation, collusion and eventual private interference with the levers of government. And -🧸 Communism, an inverted Hegelian dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation of subsidiary Soviet Republics that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means.Victorious after a World War, with a blueprint for a new world order, before two competing spheres emerge. Captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society and subsequently moving from gold to real resources in the backing of the Dollar, realization of neoliberalism and implementation of the American sphere globally after the collapse of the Soviet Union.A new empiricist secularism in search of transcendental truths, and the educationists in their relentless pursuit of 🌞🌜critical theories, appear. These neo-transcendental 📱illusions will inexorably punctuate into,🎏🗿 Postmodernism, a dialectic emanating from hermetics that manifests 🪄wizardry through the 👁 metaphysics of 🎏🐀 deconstruction,🌻 and/or the - 🐿️ 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Last Meal, a dialectic acting out heroic revelation that manifests the 👑coronation of the 🍔 McChrist through the 👁️ metaphysics of restoration." 🍟🥤🐿️

who would you say did or where would one go to learn ?

Yes - this is off topic, but I also reject any arguments against profit oriented capitalist economic engines.

That's difficult to answer because I don't view the Frankfurt school as Marxists per se. Nor do I see that group as being homogenous. For example, I see Adorno as reversing Hegel; Marcuse not making much use of dialectics (this is from memory so forgive me if I'm totally wrong); and Benjamin more of a cultural studies person than anything else. So....ya....What do YOU think??

@@TheoryPhilosophy Thanks for the answer. I agree, they're not a homogenous group , so it is complex. I think, though, that the group's general emphasis on language and culture in shaping human behavior can be seen as a definite turn away from the historical materialism of Marx. I've often joked that if you can say that "Marx hat Hegel vom Kopf auf die Füsse gestellt," then you could say that perhaps Marcuse turned him around back on his head in trying to explain the fact that the teleology of Marx's dialectic didn't pan out.

Marcuse, for example, talks about moving toward a "higher stage" of social development through political practices that involve "a break with the familiar, the routine ways of seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding things so that the organism may become receptive to the potential forms of a non-aggressive, non-exploitative world." This seems far removed from the nuts-and-bolts proletarian revolution of Marx.

Anyway, I guess I should go re-read the "Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Horkheimer and Adorno. University seems like a lifetime ago, so I'm a bit rusty here! By the way, I do enjoy your videos. Especially on those dealing with the postmoderns, who I find particularly hard to understand.

Very cool insight! I actually haven't read the Dialectic of ENlightenment even though it is presently staring at me from my bookshelf, haha. Thanks for the kind words--I'll try and keep them coming :)

I see a The Thing thumbnail, nice.

Marx brings dialectics from the abstract plane of Hegel on the material plane and applies it to broader material context of human society. He then poses the question what dialectic predominates in society, what pushes the development of society, and he answers the question with class struggle. So there is a definitive continuation that is not disrupted from the previous three. You can say that he brings the dialectical thought to its logical conclusion.

I disagree with you. I have limited knowledge of Plato, and I believe he is foundation to most of these dialectics and might indeed have the capacity to originate them all, yet they all add (or reveal) parts that I believe Plato didn't. Although Plato's self-transcendence is towards the one and the ideal, Kant has such a realm outside of reason and our capabilities (it is a matter for faith) which Hegel took as itself being the nature of the ideal (of always being 'beyond', 'incomplete', 'free', or 'indeterminate') which Marx embodied. Plato would have spent his time dreaming about a higher realm, which Kant took to be a form of denialism of the material/earthly world (too focused on ideals). Also, Kant had the synthetic a priori, that the real is only real by our revelation (hence our own participation to its realization; which is quite the Aristotelian (not Platonic) transformation) or else it is meaningless to talk about (it is a 'beyond') which Hegel's incompleteness and Marx's embodiment extended. Lastly, Plato believes one has a divine spark that connects them to the ideal form instead of being trapped into one's historical and incomplete subjectivity. Kant has the a priori being revealed by an act of synthesis wherein the ideal form itself is empty without its embodiment, hence the flip to Plato: we aren't going to Heaven, we are realizing it by synthesizing its rules (concepts, pure logic) with the sensual world (intuitions, spacetime). Hegel also starts from Being but says it is abstract and not conscious. It is, that is, nothingness. It is by spaceotemporality, like Kant's conceptual unification of slices of space-time, that one can identify object. That is, the negation, the lack and surplus to that being, that past moment and possible future --which is essential and foundational to being's realization. It is, as such, that the present is realized only through the past/future, by the absent. To Hegel, it is like identifying with your memory (the non-self), seeing the self in the non-self/other, which through you can have a signifier to yourself. By that, the self-realizes itself by its negation (just like Plato sees upmost philosophy being about death and being dead, as if they are what brings you to life). Marx has such a dialectic too but within society instead of being about ideals, and he formulated a society predicated on such dialectical emancipation. Overall, Plato is foundational to the dialectic, but the addition of Modernity's materialism and Romanticism's participation in truth are both revealing and corrective to Plato's complete idealism, critiquing its non-historicity and participatory transformation. Also, Plato starts from a realized being asking about why is there something instead of nothing, as if to stand afar from the world and seeing its negation, whereas the Romantics and Existentialists see us within the unravelling and revelation of our foundation and past, as if truth is not a spark of God within but a withdrawn potential that we mysteriously work through and can only ask why is there nothing instead of something? Why aren't we fully realized yet? Said differently, Plato has his dialectic as an epistemological matter, whereas Kant sees it a metaphysical, normative matter around the nature of conscious representation, Hegel sees it as an ontologically foundational matter around the nature of being, and Marx as a material foundation to the emancipation and self-fulfilment/realization (instead of alienation) of humans. As such, although possibly the same process, they keep on going deeper into our being from something complete (Spirit from real and attainable Heaven) to something incomplete (Self as a potential and ideal Mind); reality keeps getting fragmented, keeps getting more negative (that is, the dialectic is being internalized even more).