But (an/the) antithesis of a thesis X is its complement – whatever completes X (e.g. Y) – not merely Xs "negation" (~X or absence of X), right? Or am I giving Hegel too much credit (re: being / becoming)? — 180 Proof
I think you are right. The usual formulation: thesis—antithesis—synthesis was not explicitly enunciated by Hegel, but scholars generally seem to think it is a good model for what he was doing. — Janus
This is exactly wrong and trivializes Hegel's work. Dialectic is that one idea is in conflict with itself. Not that two ideas are in conflict. This reduces dialectic to legal arbitration.
For example, the concept of faith in religion is based on doubt. There is no synthesis, the very concept is wrong. — Jackson
The German is Aufhebung. This means affirmation/negation. — Jackson
This is exactly wrong and trivializes Hegel's work. — Jackson
I think you misunderstand — Janus
Back at you. Not engaging with personal attacks. — Jackson
Or to put it another way every idea contains the seed of its own negation. — Janus
Back at you. Not engaging with personal attacks. — Jackson
So, as clumsily as I have hastily put all that, and given my own limited understanding of a difficult philosophy, you are right because in the synthesis the apparent negation is shown to be just that, only apparent. I think this synthesis is referred to as "sublation", but I won't attempt to go further into that, because it is a complex subject that I don't know enough about.
The idea of negation is important though, even though it is superceded, because that is what drives the dialectical development of reason, according to Hegel, as far as I understand it anyway. — Janus
For example, the concept of faith in religion is based on doubt. There is no synthesis, the very concept is wrong. — Jackson
makes sense to say that ideas contain or depend on their complementaries in that, for example, the idea of goodness makes no sense unless contrasted with badness. — Janus
But this idea contains the seeds of its negation(s): anti-realism, idealism, indirect realism, which arise by taking what is observed to be the case about the human perceptual organs and their processes as simply true; i.e. that they "filter" or "distort" the "real" objects we encounter so that we "see through a glass darkly". — Janus
Here we see the dialectic in full flow. Wishing someone goodnight is at face value a happy wish. However, it also has the connotation something is over and may therefore revert into its opposite, the meaning of "this is done" reverting 'good night' into an angry slam of the door. :wink:If every idea is in conflict with itself, perhaps you meant "badnight"? — Janus
I do not know whether Jackson and Janus are far off though. . . — Tobias
Faith (religiously speaking) and belief are qualitatively different but commonly confused. Doubt relates to belief, not faith (in the religious sense). — Merkwurdichliebe
↪Tobias Oh, fair. I certainly don't mean to present myself as an expert I should say too -- and I'm sure you're being too modest :D -- you did reference the slave/master dialectic after all! And I'd say that's, like, the key passage from Hegel that is easy to see how he influenced Marx. — Moliere
First off,, a noob question, how do you get this ↪ ? I have to use if I want to point to someone, but this is far more elegant... — Tobias
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.