Common misunderstanding that dialectic means both sides come to the same conclusion...

Common misunderstanding that dialectic means both sides come to the same conclusion. Most likely comes from taking too literally the symbolic language, or visual representations thereof, of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It's not one side says something, thesis, the other counters, antithesis, and then you agree on a unified idea, synthesis. It's a never ending process. One side presents an idea, thesis. The opponent presents a counterargument, antithesis. Then the first side makes a counterargument to this, this is the synthesis. Then the opponent makes a counterargument again. Any given argument is any of these three, and all three at the same time, thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It's all relative, it all depends on what you relate it to. The first statement can only be thesis. But the second statement is antithesis to the first statement, the preceding statement, and simultaneously a new thesis, relative to the subsequent statement. The third statement is any of the three, thesis relative to the statement coming after, antithesis relative to the statement which came before, synthesis relative to the two preceding statements. It's a zigzag pattern, like a pingpong match.

A
--->B
A<---
--->B
A<--
...

This can also be shown as

A--->B--->A--->B--->A...

In this never ending chain you can take any one point A and it will have a B preceding it and a B following it, and you can take any one point B and it will have an A preceding it and an A following it. Any point in the chain is thesis to the point following it, antithesis to the point preceding it, and synthesis of the two points preceding it.

No matter which version of dialectic you're talking about there is no unified middle, this is just people incapable of abstract thinking who think this, they take things too literally. A dialectic is two sides in opposition. The synthesis is the result of the conflict, on both sides/either side, there is no middle.

biology

cheetah vs gazelle

these two species compete with each other for survival

the synthesis is that both species evolve to become faster

the synthesis is the current cheetah and the current gazelle

the thesis-antithesis is all the cheetahs and gazelles in history

war

one side invents bomber airplanes

the other side invents the radar

the first side invents stealth airplanes

the second side invents new radar technology which can spot stealth airplanes unlike previous radar

the first side invents a new type of stealth airplane which is undetectable even with the most advanced radar

Same thing, synthesis is the latest iterations on both sides, thesis-antithesis is all which came before on both sides which spurred on the evolution of the current iterations.

You don't all of a sudden have a cheetah-gazelle hybrid species, or a weapon that two sides of a war share with each other.

i don't remember asking you twink bitch

This is the process that basically defines how the Overton window shifts.

You wrote this entire convoluted wall of text cuz you have been silently seething over my meme I made and posted here spread out over a few different threads. LMFAO @ buttmad nazis.

A weird thing is that I thought about these two examples with the gazelle and the radar many years ago, maybe about 10-12 years ago, I don't remember. I don't know if I was inspired by some source. But the weird thing is that just recently, like maybe less than a year ago, I found out Russia has an antiballistic missile which is called Gazelle by NATO, and this missile is part of a system which also includes a radar.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53T6

Yeah, and it's how the overton window is shifted, I know already.

the blue guy talks to the red guy
talking the red guy allows him to change his ideas with input from new information
turning the blue guy into a purple guy
then the process repeats until you end up with a satisfactory solution for both parties

all hegel did is describe how conversations work and internet chinscratchers can't stop fucking arguing about it
I just don't get it
what's so hard to understand about it?
I don't even care about hegel

Didn't see you already stated the obvious.

A meets B
they synthesize a new position AB
then AB meets B again
they synthesize ABB
then ABB meets B again
etc
its a trick to make you make concessions to not look closed minded. all your debate partner has to do is argue in bad fsith and theyre getting you to slowly move to their position.

Indeed to an extent, nicely dovetail this sentiment with the sign tapping.
youtube.com/watch?v=CpOGbwULJoI

nope, I hadn't seen it, just a coincidence, actually I copypasted my own text from a thread on Anon Babble

Also where did you get the idea from? David Icke? I think his idea about the Hegelian dialectic is not entirely correct.

dailymotion.com/video/xat490

When most leftists talk about hegelian dialectics, they're actually talking about dialectic and historic materialism (marxism)

Not exactly
By arguing and opposing another point you are by necessity creating a new position, a new synthesis

You can agree with exactly zero points the other person makes and still create a new position by expanding upon your initial thesis and developing it more.

It’s just an example of how debate and discussion is used to develop ideas, and how this process can also exist wherever two contrary forces interact.

The sea hitting the shore is thesis and antithesis, the synthesis is beach formation or rock erosion.

Socrates’ dialogues show this well, usually there is some central point that comes up in the story then all the characters present their antithesis to it thereby creating a synthesis which is the entire dialogue.
Most far leftists ONLY read leftist literature.

Philosophyfags are so annoying

someone describes Hegel in basic terminology

”noooo you don’t understand it!!!

proceeds to say the same thing in way more words

My problem with historical materialism is there's absolutely nothing dialectic about it.

They basically just analyze all of human history based on whether or not they like the outcome.

this historical event did not contribute to the formation or propagation of communism

therefore: the bad guys won

thats because they know if they ever came to conclusions about anything, they might have to go out and get jobs

The biggest issue is how deterministic it is.
It’s easy to say that the material conditions or the geography lead to X outcome, and there is no denying that both are obviously important, but they are never the deciding factor. It totally ignores human initiative which is a mistake because there are countless examples of material conditions being supposedly “right” yet the “wrong” outcome happening, and then historical materialists need to explain it away with some other nonsense.

For example, you can’t tell the account of the Rise and Fall of China’s Jin dynasty without the machinations of the Sima family and how notorious they were amongst Chinese nobility, to the point they had very little feeling of being legitimate and quickly saw their empire collapse and break apparat again a few decades after unifying it.

Feelings of legitimacy and trust are the furthest from materialistic explanations. By all material accounts there was no reason for the Jin dynasty to break because they were wealthy and had advantageous geographical positions.

Seent. I swear Anon Babble is the same <1000-ish (if that) schizo chuds shitposting the same stuff over-and-over again since they have nothing better to do with the life God gave them

Garbo philosophy, in math they had gone way further in terms of logic. And that is the problem with current philosophy, kill by other disciplines and also living in a parallel dimensions, they all are but philosophy in special. That is too focus on crap and at least in my country as many other disciplines has being hijack by marxists.

I figured out at the age of 5 that the whole entire reason why the moderate left obliterates the moderate right in politics is because the right is attacking their goalie and defence men (hockey analogy) and thus the left can just grab the puck, shoot and score every time and get more legislation passed. The right is 100% focussed on fighting Nazis and so is the left so therefore the left always wins.

I figured this out at 5 years old but didn’t care because I wasn’t right wing at the time yet even I as a child understood that “fighting Nazis” is the SOURCE for why the right perpetually looses to the left. You cannot beat the left by fighting against the right. Only a retard would think that.

I hate humans so much it's unreal.

As it should be.

Remember, always be as extreme as you can possibly be. HEIL HITLER!

And as the retarded leaf you are, you never learned about the frankfurt school, haavara agreement or balfour deceleration.

FYI boys this is a completely unhinged jew from Boston who has been going nuclear the past week, posting 70+ times in a thread about how we are apparently billionaires, or somehow are funded by them, and apparently we support capitalism despite being national socialists.

He's a champagne socialist who got into crypto early and really doesn't like when you point out that he's richer than 99.9% of the people here. I posted a screenshot of my bank account with $11 in it and he called me a liar.

He will NEVER answer the question "Where do we sign up to get funded by billionaires?" because he doesn't know. He made it up. Lmfao

There is a reason they use the term “reactionary” because SOOO many right wingers waste all their energy just reacting to what the left does.

Just look at the entire popular right wing media environment, nearly ALL of it is just circular react content.

Being a reactionary is fucking dumb and the only right wingers who aren’t just reacting are so marginalized and distanced even by the popular right.

Ironically one funny thing about Trump is that he has turned a huge number of leftists into reactionaries as well.

The system did not create the modern right wing dissident movement but if they did then they did the right thing.
Imagine thinking that I am going to suddenly believe in exterminating my race off the face of the earth JUST because you have a theory that I was tricked into believing it.

If I was tricked then I would like to publicly thank the billionaires who tricked me into opposing the New World Order agenda and establishment of a one world government. Thank you.

I oppose National Socialism because it’s a false solution to the problem.

It’s just the final hardening of Bourgeoise liberalism, eschewing almost all of it’s supposed values to keep the core alive and sustain the Liberal Elite.
Just look at Hitler or Mussolini both being anti-religion/anti-monarchist progressives.

This is why Evola saw them as a joke and Nietzsche hated them.

Most of us who identify as National Socialists are also Monarchists. Hitler himself wasn't sure if there was to be a king.

you literally spent 10 minuites writing this shit into a thread to make yourself feel intelligent.
get a fucking life

So neither do you? It blows my mind sometimes that people post here and proudly advertise how retarded they are. It's like there's a cult of retardation surrounding Hegel where charlatans use it as their political lens.
Well, surprisingly you are much more easy to get along with than most other bolsheviks, but I'm still going to double down on saying that your characterization of NS is just incorrect. But you post here with a nazbol memeflag, so it's not like I'm going to change your opinion, kek

should have skimmed the thread first. yes; this.
lol'd

Hitler was not a monarchist in the slightest.
I respect however that he did have a positive vision for the future of his country beyond simply “owning the libs/commies”

But NatSoc was destroyed so we will never know the long term outcomes.
However in places like Portugal where fascists held power long term, they really didn’t have any idea on how to sustain that power into the distant future once the old leadership died or retired.

I see this as a fundamental failure of the fascist system to successfully differentiate itself from Liberalism, thus it slowly eroded back to the Liberal median.

Same thing in Argentina where the fascists were far more successful, to the point of enacting long term political change past one generation.

However the Peronism of Argentina also eroded back towards the petty nepotism and general Liberalism we see in modern Argentina.

This is because Fascism is just an extreme form of “war” liberalism that if left alone for long enough will simply revert back to a more moderate liberal form.
Ironically the Communists eroded in the opposite direction and became more aristocratic and authoritarian due to the firm anti-liberal nature of their system.

>>/r*ddit/

figured this out at 5 years old

no, no you didn't
you were still sucking your crackhead mum's crackhead breast milk out of her saggy, crackhead tit.

Dialectic?
You want what you love, and you love because you are.
You'll never convince a retard because he is a retard.
Dialoguing is for friends.

L’esthétique est la vérité.
Il y a du beau et du laid.
Tu veux ce que tu aimes et tu aimes parce que tu es.

Vous voulez de petits buissons aussi grands que les grands arbres?
Mais ils n’ont pas besoin du même soleil et brûleront, et c’est la vie qui le veut ainsi.
Arrêtez de prêcher la mort.

Vous dites que les oiseaux doivent arrêter de voler en V au nom de l’égalité?
Eh bien, ils n’arriveront jamais à destination, s’épuiseront et mourront.
L’universalisme est un ciel sans horizons.

Pourquoi mentir? Pourquoi haïr?
Pourquoi aimez-vous tant voir les choses pourrir?

Get this in your retarded head, and I mean it.
For example, I'll never convince a dogshit barely human RPer in Rust that the old recoil was a superior mechanic, because he was fucking dogshit at the game, and because all shitters who breathe like to maintain positive images of themselves.
He will appeal to realism there, accessibility here and he will convince himself that he got a point and stick to it like the retard he is, but the truth is that he is dogshit and rationalizing himself. It’s just a fucking monkey that goes hou hou ha ha while flinging his shit to let me know that his shit is of his favorite color.
It takes a special kind of autism to think that you can change people's opinions with dialogue. Socrates was a retarded faggot.
Most of your beliefs stem from your being, which is exceedingly hard… often impossible to change.
You don’t teach new tricks to old dogs.
I don't write this to convince lefty fags. I write this as a fuck you.

fuck this sweedish poster, as if I don't have real work to do, now I have to answer his homework.

Is the AI so used that you need answers from another source?

it originates from alchemy

propagated from secondary work on Fichte late 1800s

somehow conflated with Hegel

As True Infinite is to Absolute Finite (man), so is the Indefinite Dyad to Idea(s) in dialectical tension. All godless atheist communism is, is regressive Spinozism (of which Althusser is the most interesting) which removes God and elevates Man's position as the sole light of consciousness in the dull material world. Rabbinics calling Bolshevism "the talmud for gentiles" was and remains extremely apt. Some shards of light are more equal than other empty beasts of burden empty vessels.

This shit is not worth wasting a thread on.

As long as both sides start asking for the solution that I am offering. Thats all that matters. What I find interesting is the right is currently asking for a north american union. A union between Canada, United States, Mexico and Greenland. The right wing has been fighting against this and in some cases losing their lives for almost a century now.

Marxism was an axial version of Protestantism where the focus shifted from simple literacy to theory. Self-abnegation, eschatology, heavy emphasis on work ethic, commodity fetishization equated valuing an item apart from its production as idolatry. In later forms of Bolsheivism and socialism I can see how it relates to the Talmud, but even Trotsky professed to be an orthodox Marxist.