What is negation of negation?

I know what a negation is, and I know some basic Hegel, but I only understand what a "negation of a negation" means in an impressionistic way at best. And I've never seen anybody explain it any better. If it is what it sounds like, negating everything until there is nothing left to negate, then what is left remaining? Maybe nothing survives negation.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read Marx, then read Aizenberg.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A double negation of a proposition is equivalent in its truth value to the proposition itself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Traditional metaphysics relies on positivity and negativity to construct the world. Essences of objects are positive things which relate negatively to other positive entities. I.e a rocking-chair relates to a sofa negatively in several ways: a sofa can’t rock back and forth, it has cushions, it can support several people, it’s not made primarily of wood, their form is different, etc. In traditional metaphysics negativity is very much a secondary quality of objects as they relate to their phenomenal selves — I may get in trouble here with Platonists and scholastics for attributing a phenomenal/noumenal divide to traditional metaphysics, to this I would say that it’s merely the most systematic formulation of an implicit divide which Plato himself opens up with his world of forms and later, post Parmenides, with his divide between being and becoming — and us. Positivity is the way that beings relate to themselves. Now, what happens when we create a rocking-sofa? Is it a sofa or a rocking-chair? Well, it’s both and neither really. That means that it must have its own essence which is distinct from that of a rocking-chair or a sofa because there is no grey space between essences in the realm of positivity. Now imagine we add the concept of a beanbag chair as well. We can make a beanbag sofa and a rocking beanbag. What happens if we cross a rocking-sofa with a beanbag sofa? Where does that positive essence lie? Hopefully you can now see how traditional metaphysics collapses in on itself in a never ending chain of positivity. Hegel himself saw the same exact thing and his conclusion was the negation of the negation. Simply, Hegel saw positivity as an expression of negativity which had never before been considered as such. Hegel flips the methodology of traditional metaphysics such that essence is constituted by our understanding of it instead of coming to us to be revealed. (A good example of the way traditional metaphysics works form bottom up is in euthyphro where piety just IS and it’s up to us to find it where it lies and not up to us to create a working model of it, which is exactly what Socrates critiques euthyphro for doing.) the negation of the negation is simply the recognition that negativity is the dominant term in the positivity/negativity axis and that any kind of positive essence is merely a negativity which has created a kind of map of differences. I.e a rocking-chair is a different entity than a sofa precisely because it has the rest of the set of chairs to differentiate itself from it. In a way is correct but he misses the historical importance of Hegel’s thought.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do I need to read to fully understand the post you made, it feels like I have a brain wired in a way that can't interpret meaning from abstract theory unless it relates to something I understand, like a metaphor or analogy (coffee without cream, the burger above).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It’s something that comes with time as you read more and understand things. I’ve been reading philosophy for about 7 years now and even I still find it hard to think very abstractly. I really don’t know what to tell you other than just read more and be comfortable with not understanding everything and living in confusion. You should be a little more versed in traditional metaphysics before moving onto Hegel though. Hegel is endgame material.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nta, but I'm not entirely sure there is a sort of simple analogy that can be provided other than maybe saying Hegel turned traditional dialectic into a 'science' of sorts but I am incredibly loathe to using that analogy. There were notable thinkers post-hegel who sort of codified his methods into almost a rule driven environment that honestly is easier to grasp than what Hegel managed to convey. That aside, you have to understand what Aristotle had to say about the purpose of and nature of what dialectic can actually accomplish. Once you grasp this then you can view Hegel's method as being one in which the process is no longer argument/skepticism with a sort of never ending outcome of discarding ideas that contradict between persons and then waiting for a new argument but rather the notion of a definitional dialectic in which 2 opposing views are used and there is a sublation process that allows for aspects of the original view to continue and the idea is evolved rather than discarded. There are also determinate aspects to the method as well, and contradiction may be carried over in cases. This has incurred criticism from multiple sources, and some of it is justified in some aspects, but in Hegel's defense science itself is not above using methods that appear contradictory yet yield results. So, despite my distaste for reducing Hegel's methods to turning it into a science, it might still be the only simple analogy possible to provide.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            whats your prooblem with the burger analogy

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How does the burger evolve in the analogy?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            idk, it gets eaten, it gets created as a replacement (perhaps by a different source than the original), etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            As a being-in-itself it is the same, however as a being-for-another, it has changed.
            Things are equally what inwardly constitute them and the history/context in which they outwardly exist.
            The context of the burger has changed thus signaling a new change for the path of its history.

            What most people here is not getting is that Dialectics is temporal. It describes change. It both connects and disconnects all things in a way were separation is also a connective.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The analogy seems more apt to describe Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic.

            I don't understand. is the burger analogy good or not?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is good.

            I am the one who wrote that and also these:

            On a deeper level you will have to start looking into contradictionsmutual definitionsunity of opposites.

            A central one laid out in the phenomenology is how a being is both a thing-in-itself and a thing-for-another. i.e A thing is both defined by everything that constructs it (its separate properties, Subject) and it's negation, (its relationship to the whole world, object, a unit).

            Now we know these things are the same but different.

            Things pass into their opposites (negation) and their opposites pass back into themselves (negation of the negation). This step further 'determines' the original being.

            Set theory for example:

            Naive Set Theory was negated by Russels Paradox. A working construction passed into a non-working construction.

            Fermelo negated that negation by providing a new set theory formulation that was further refined to not have this paradox. the non-working construction has passed back into that of working

            As a being-in-itself it is the same, however as a being-for-another, it has changed.
            Things are equally what inwardly constitute them and the history/context in which they outwardly exist.
            The context of the burger has changed thus signaling a new change for the path of its history.

            What most people here is not getting is that Dialectics is temporal. It describes change. It both connects and disconnects all things in a way were separation is also a connective.

            with regards to

            The analogy seems more apt to describe Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic.

            :
            The Hegelian Dialectic is a further abstraction/extension upon the Platonic Dialectic

            with regards to

            I don't think this is the same. A negation that is a perfect opposite would just be a pendulum swinging back and forth between two states. In contrast, a negation that is slightly "askew" from being an opposite has the potential of going "forward" in a way that it doesn't fully return to the original. But now the metaphor is getting strange, as it's hard to figure out what it means for an "idea" to move in multiple directions (back and forth, up and down, etc.).

            :
            OP has a strict mathematical idealistic view upon negation. The world of Math is pure idealism and in that pure idealism these 'pure' negations are able to exist. this is not saying math isnt important, it is just saying that it can never be reality.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Hegelian Dialectic is a further abstraction/extension upon the Platonic Dialectic
            In that a change in being-for-itself would be Platonic but a change in being-for-another would be Hegelian?

            Also, are you familiar with Plato's Sophist and its division of the "natural kinds of being" into identity and difference (a being is both itself and not everything else)? How does that get involved here?

            >OP has a strict mathematical idealistic view upon negation. The world of Math is pure idealism and in that pure idealism these 'pure' negations are able to exist. this is not saying math isnt important, it is just saying that it can never be reality.
            So what is a negation, really? Typically there never seems to be a complete negation, but we still have something "moving".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Hegelian Dialectic is inspired by the format of discussion in the works of plato.

            Socrates states y
            Student refutes y
            Socrates in response now states y'

            y has been further determined to y' now

            > In that a change in being-for-itself would be Platonic but a change in being-for-another would be Hegelian?

            No, There are different hegelian dialectic examples between the different forms of being.

            > So what is a negation, really? Typically there never seems to be a complete negation, but we still have something "moving".

            You will have to inspect the idea of the contradiction. The Unity of opposites. How one thing can be equated to two different things as well.

            The deepest part of hegelian dialectics is the realization is that contradictions are inherent in reality and their movement and resolutions describe movement in general.

            The negation is the transferal from the first term of the contradiction to the other

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Hegelian Dialectic is inspired by the format of discussion in the works of plato.
            What I was trying to do is see if I could map certain concepts from Plato onto Hegel and see what is "left remaining" as purely innovations from Hegel. Hence, Plato's natural kinds of identity and difference.
            >No, There are different hegelian dialectic examples between the different forms of being.
            So, is the difference between the two forms *not* one of kinds but one of degrees? e.g. Platonic dialectic, in its mathematical nature, is of complete opposites?
            >You will have to inspect the idea of the contradiction. The Unity of opposites. How one thing can be equated to two different things as well.
            Well, it seems like in order for it to work, life has to be full of contradictions, true, but there's no particular thing or era that is fully contradictory, if that makes sense. It's always "askew."

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I was trying to do is see if I could map certain concepts from Plato onto Hegel
            I have not read any Plato so I don't have an opinion on that

            >there's no particular thing or era that is fully contradictory,
            Movement itself is a contradiction. A becoming B. You can recursively break the movement ad infinitum but you will never reach a binary "switch" in change. The base case you must have is the A = B. However, the assumption was A != B. Becoming is A != B -> A = B -> A != B . Having both A = B and A != B, is a contradiction.

            Being-in-itself is equal and at the same time not being-for-another . One is negated by the other. The double negation is the mediation of one through the other.

            Hell, quantum mechanics has a famous contradiction within it.

            Acids are in direct contrast to Bases but without Bases the concept of an acid is not realized and vice versa

            the list goes on and on....

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Movement itself is a contradiction. A becoming B. You can recursively break the movement ad infinitum but you will never reach a binary "switch" in change. The base case you must have is the A = B. However, the assumption was A != B. Becoming is A != B -> A = B -> A != B . Having both A = B and A != B, is a contradiction.
            Can't this be resolved by the accidental-essential distinction? Movement is a change in accidents, while the underlying substratum, the essential thing, remained unchanged.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not for Hegelian dialectic. This is not meant to say there is no analogy, but rather the best I have seen usually involve making it analogous to a 'science' but I am not particularly fond of this, so if a better analogy makes it way to the surface in this thread I would be interested.

            It is good.

            I am the one who wrote that and also these:
            [...]
            [...]

            with regards to [...] :
            The Hegelian Dialectic is a further abstraction/extension upon the Platonic Dialectic

            with regards to [...] :
            OP has a strict mathematical idealistic view upon negation. The world of Math is pure idealism and in that pure idealism these 'pure' negations are able to exist. this is not saying math isnt important, it is just saying that it can never be reality.

            True, I do not believe I was positing it as being something entirely different, but if that was how my posts came off that was not my intent. I strongly advise understanding all of what Aristotle had to say about dialectic before attempting Hegel, Hegel even mentions this in a work, I do not recall which one exactly, but I am inclined to say Encyclopedia of Logic off the top of my head, he compares the Platonic/Aristotelian method to something like a never ending process of throwing ideas into an abyss, so I would say in order to get to the Hegelian contribution to dialectic you do need to fully understand the purpose of and limits of what it was capable of previously, the notion that the idea/argument/aspect whichever relevant term you wish to use would progress with a contradiction inherent, the notion of sublation so a return to the original can be effected, and some of his uses of determination are really the key contributions, this is what turns the process from a sort of binary reductio ad absurdem or demonstration type outcome into one in which the idea is able to evolve and the process can be repeated, honestly an ad nauseum amount of times really, so I would be in agreement that his method is more of an extention than a reinvention.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is not meant to say there is no analogy, but rather the best I have seen usually involve making it analogous to a 'science' but I am not particularly fond of this, so if a better analogy makes it way to the surface in this thread I would be interested.
            Show me the "science" analogy and then explain why it is best please.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            explain why it is inadequate* dunno why I said best

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is quite common, I am likely part of a small minority who takes issue with it honestly. This is sort of a cursory article that I found which also may help in explaining some of what is being discussed here: https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/what-is-dialectics.html

            You can find more in a paper titled: Hegel, Science, and Set Theory I admittedly don't remember who wrote it but it should be available for free. If you really want to be bored to a point of contemplating suicide you can also listen to or read Winfield's assessment of Hegel's dialectics and logic if you wish, but you may honestly just want to read Hegel before taking that route.

            explain why it is inadequate* dunno why I said best

            So, the analogy is not unsound, there is a method and the method does seem to follow a sort of similar 'algorithm' in the sense that we are conducting a sort of thought experiment if you and I were to engage in a dialectic discourse. We can start by posing an argument and then there would be questions and so forth, just as there would be in a dialectic, we can call this testing the hypothesis so to speak. In the classical antiquity model there are really only 2 outcomes, either a reductio ad absurdem or a demonstration of knowledge. The more one is subjected to this method, the better one becomes at determining true and false. With Hegel, the extension of this comes from amending this algorithmic process into one in which we are more or less testing the hypothesis and using the results regardless to proceed to the next step as a potential method of determining what works. So, if we found a contradiction in the argument in the first stage, we are not necessarily beholden to throw the argument out, we can continue to see if it may still possess validity even with the contradiction, as we progress we may even find the contradiction to be erroneous or born of an incomplete understanding and we may very well end up going back to our original argument. During the process we may end up changing context, definition, or whatever else we could view as distilling the thought so to speak, and this may include an inherent contradiction provided it still works. The end result can then be treated as a new entry into another dialectic. The emphasis is more of a scientific approach instead of angling for one of 2 binary outcomes. My issue with calling it scientific largely stems from the fact that while we may be adopting a scientific approach, and there is nothing wrong with this, we are not necessarily performing a hard science, which may be an unintended implacation of using the word.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I like the burger guy better

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You do not have to leave the realms of Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            why do you keep saying it's Platonic/Aristotelian bro, wdym

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have thus far failed to demonstrate it was a successful analogy for Hegelian dialectic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The analogy seems more apt to describe Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What are your thoughts on Peirce's tripartite semiotics?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        this is why metaphysics and hegel belong to the trash

        just become a materialist and this kind of useless wordplay becomes profoundly irrelevant and you may be able to think of something actually useful

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Filtered beyond belief.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Hegel was both a materialist and an idealist

          Something is not metaphysics just because it is abstract and hard for you to understand

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            literally impossible to be both because they are antithetical to each other

            just because something appears abstract and hard for you to understand doesnt mean its profound

            materialism can actually explain phenomena in a scientific, falsifiable way

            idealism is a circlejerk for people too conceited to actually want to understand reality

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            illiterate

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hegel's use applies to dialectical logic, so is not correct. Despite some sloppy pronouncements to the contrary, Hegel doesn't deny contradictions in formal logic or formal logic itself.

      But dialectical is used for something much broader. In the Greater Logic and the Encyclopedia Logic, Hegel gets into ontological logic and objective logic.

      This isn't a terrible introduction:

      https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm#:~:text=Hegel%20deals%20with%20a%20sequence,own%20inadequacies%20and%20internal%20tensions.

      For a formalization, I would look at Lawvere's work in category theory and the ways in which the existence of one object acts as a proof for another. Nlab has some good stuff on that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What we are dealing with in logic is not a thinking about something which exists independently as a base for our thinking and apart from it, nor forms which are supposed to provide mere signs or distinguishing marks of truth; on the contrary, the necessary forms and self-determinations of thought are the content and the ultimate truth itself.

        https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2357569/can-you-explain-lawveres-work-on-hegel-to-someone-who-knows-basic-category-theo

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know in what sense you are asking this question, but insofar as the abstract-dialectical-speculative triad is concerned, the negation of negation would refer to the third term, where the mediacy constructed by the negation of the first term by the second term is itself negated, returning to the immediacy of the first term in a new way, ie unity of opposites.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hey moron, if someone doesn’t know what negation of the negation means, then you probably shouldn’t explain it to them in even more jargon they probably don’t understand

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        hence I specified the fact that I didn't know in what sense OP was asking the question, moron. Plus, name 1 jargon beyond immediacy-mediacy, and the abstract-dialectical-speculative triad which is just a nominal label, that could confuse someone

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >hence
          stopped reading right there

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    READ ZIZEK FRICKER

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://righthegelian.com/3p-concept-summary/

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have a burger in front of me and I am hungry
    I negate the burger by eating it
    I then negate not having a burger by making one
    I am now back to having a burger but this time I am full

    See how 'having a burger' has been preserved but the context has mutated.

    Things progress within the negation of their negations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is easily the clearest example I've ever seen of how a negation of a negation can leave to something positive (and not having nothing left). But why does it "work"? It sounds like what is implied is that you're supposed to negate the implication of the first negation and not necessarily the first negation itself. You can't negate a nonexistent burger, and negating the act of eating just means purging yourself (which would ironically lead you back to where you started) or going on a hunger strike.

      I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I'm genuinely curious about how you "line up" everything and if there are other ways to "line up" the logic that cover both the proper "negation of negation" and all the ways that it could go wrong like the way I've described.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        On a deeper level you will have to start looking into contradictionsmutual definitionsunity of opposites.

        A central one laid out in the phenomenology is how a being is both a thing-in-itself and a thing-for-another. i.e A thing is both defined by everything that constructs it (its separate properties, Subject) and it's negation, (its relationship to the whole world, object, a unit).

        Now we know these things are the same but different.

        Things pass into their opposites (negation) and their opposites pass back into themselves (negation of the negation). This step further 'determines' the original being.

        Set theory for example:

        Naive Set Theory was negated by Russels Paradox. A working construction passed into a non-working construction.

        Fermelo negated that negation by providing a new set theory formulation that was further refined to not have this paradox. the non-working construction has passed back into that of working

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I meant to say Zermelo* instead of Fermelo

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think this is the same. A negation that is a perfect opposite would just be a pendulum swinging back and forth between two states. In contrast, a negation that is slightly "askew" from being an opposite has the potential of going "forward" in a way that it doesn't fully return to the original. But now the metaphor is getting strange, as it's hard to figure out what it means for an "idea" to move in multiple directions (back and forth, up and down, etc.).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The (bad) Infinite of/within Finitude (potentiality, possibility, configuration) is negative in the way Shadows are occlusions without positive independent existence for themselves. "Endless possibilities" without a definite object except there is: THOU ART THAT: I AM THAT I AM-- Spirit's forgetfulness of itself that's the Abyss.

      We desire Burgers into being, and eating them they are sublated with-and-into that desire, which is bare hunger transformed into love for burgers. This is the True Infinite in which we dance with Spirit's Absolute Burger Kingdom. The False infinite does not know what it wants for dinner but wants you to decide where we're going.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The (bad) Infinite of/within Finitude (potentiality, possibility, configuration) is negative
        Wait, Finitude is "potentiality, possibility, configuration"? Why? Isn't possibility infinite, or at least "a lot more numerous", than "actually extant" things? Or am I misreading you here in that Bad Infinity is possibility? Also, what makes something "Good" Infinity then?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wow you really can explain anything to Americans with burgers, thanks

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      but you're not hungry at the end so its not the same thing

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't have a turd in my toilet bowl and I am full
      I affirm the turd by shitting
      I then affirm having only one turd in my toilet bowl by eating
      I am now back to being full but this time I have 2 turds in my toilet bowl

      The affirmation of affirmation, chuds, things progress within the affirmation of their affirmations. Such profound insights guys.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read Russell and the Frege

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Negation of negation is explored in Ambigua by Maximos the Confessor

    https://righthegelian.com/reading-list/
    https://righthegelian.com/reading-list/

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    no, i don't want coffee without cream. i want coffee without milk!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      stop you're triggering my ptsd

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A hegel scholar would be a barista

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >What is negation of negation?
    Some spooked bullshit.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    - + - = +. (negative plus a negative is positive)
    + - + = -. ( a positive minus a positive is a negative)
    Hegel is a hack because he tried to make basic arithmetic seem like a deep philosophical breakthrough. He thought he was so clever by repurposing a basic concept to another domain and people believed him!

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A double negative is a positive. Easy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hegels negativity is already positive

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Here’s an example from The Phenomenology of Spirit:

    Consciousness in its search for knowledge, first grabs hold of sense-certainty. The pure “this.” However there are faults with this type of consciousness which cause it to break from itself and form a new type of consciousness. This transition from the original consciousness to its next stage involves to steps of negation.

    1: Consciousness attempts to experience immediate reality. Apprehension without comprehension. A pure “here” and “now” which is not mediated by anything.

    2. In trying to explicate this “here” and “now” in thought, consciousness realizes that the words used to describe this immediate sense-certainty, including “here” and “now” themselves, signify nothing about what is being experienced. The “here” of 2 seconds ago is negated by the “here” of now. The stable certainty of an immediate experience is negated for an endless flux of here’s and now’s.

    3. This flux is negated by the introduction of the Universal. The ability to refer to an object which contains many instances. Now we have created a double negative but this second negation brings us to a much more determinate kind of experience. Consciousness is now not just surrounded by “this”es that are “here” and “now,” nor is it surrounded by an endless unidentifiable flux, but is instead able to pick out, to determine, objects that persevere through the flux of time and space.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I need a damn glossary of determinate this, indeterminate that, good infinity this, bad infinity that, finitude, etc.

      All this shit sounds like it could be fairly represented well in an infographic with some hard work (like the famous exhaustive Kant CPR infographic), yet surprisingly nobody has bothered with it yet.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't the Christian idea of atonement something of a Hegelian dialectic? The virtues are negated through sin ("missing the mark" as it were) and then that negation is negated through a wilful turning back towards the virtues while remaining in possession of the knowledge of the experience of the negation and its consequences.

        >like the famous exhaustive Kant CPR infographic
        Link?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          will send the link soon

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          will send the link soon

          this one (you can probably find a better quality one somewhere else)

          You have thus far failed to demonstrate it was a successful analogy for Hegelian dialectic.

          yeah but why does it automatically mean it's Platonic or Aristotelian? maybe it's just random gibberish and it has nothing to do with any dialectic. it sounds like you're doing some pseud posturing right now.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you would like to demonstrate it is an analogy for another style of dialectic you are more than welcome to do so.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            so you're admitting it was not Platonic/Aristotelian, that you wouldn't even know what that would sound like, and you were just throwing around buzzwords to sound smarter than you are, correct?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have admitted nothing. You are the one who made the analogy and then failed to demonstrate it. You are now the one arguing a point with no demonstration available and what appears to be no definitional understanding. The onus is still on you to demonstrate if you have the point to make. Nut up or shut up because I can already smell the b***h on you from here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ofc I don't know anything, I know nothing about Hegel and I've been asking questions, hoping for better analogies and expert advice. unfortunately, it appears I've attracted more charlatans than experts, people who speak in terms of mythical Platonic dialectics yet cannot even define it.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    A double negation is the original affirmartion and whoever tells you otherwise is a charlatan who will never contribute positively to society or be right about anything.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what about homietions? what is a homietion of a homietion?

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Demonstrate how the burger analogy encapsulates Hegelian dialectic then.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know. I'm the guy asking questions about it in hopes of learning more about Hegelian philosophy! I just know that there's nothing strictly Platonic about it, and you're the one who made the claim that it was not Hegelian *but* it *was* Platonic/Aristotelian. I can accept it's not Hegelian, after all you're the expert not me, but where the living FRICK do you get that it is Platonic?

      So, what makes it Platonic or Aristotelian, bro? Let me know and I will humbly accept your explanation. And if you say that:
      >because it's not Hegelian
      then I'll rip you to shreds because the world of dialectic isn't divided into strictly Platonic and Hegelian kinds. It's not even clear that it is a kind of dialectic at all yet.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You are a frick wit. Read Hegel. Go back and read my posts, then read Aristotle. Come back when you have some argument to make or you can actually contribute something. You can even try to figure out if you can make the demonstration at all since it is not my analogy and I have been the one pressed about it since I seemingly demonstrated it was not analogous with one fricking question you moron.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I've read plenty of Aristotle. I have not read Hegel. I know for a fact that Aristotle does not speak of anything like the burger analogy in terms of dialectic.
          >try to figure out if you can make the demonstration at all since it is not my analog
          homie, it was YOU who made the positive claim that it was a Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic in the first place! I'm not going to waste my time figuring out if your half-baked, posturing assertions have any degree of truth to them! If you can't explain why it is Platonic/Aristotelian in nature, then I'll accept that as proof of your concession.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You have literally just admitted you do not possess knowledge of Hegel in order to make the analogy at all, or even comprehend it. You have conceded again but that was already done earlier in the thread. You are entitled to believe whatever you want. I frankly do not care, and in retrospect I would not have even asked the question at all and let you be content with eating burgers. If you want, then sure, what does Aristotle have to say about the purpose of and nature of what dialectic can actually achieve?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't need Hegel to understand whether it is a Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic. I only need Plato and Aristotle, which I've read. Stop trying to squirm out of being held accountable for your pseud outburst lol. All you have to do is demonstrate how it is Platonic/Aristotelian (which is what you claimed), and your refusal to do so after nearly a dozen posts is proof of your impetuous ignorance.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you do not wish to continue I will accept it as a concession lil nig.

            >OP who doesn't know Hegel asks for an analogy about Hegel
            >one Hegelian posts an analogy about burgers
            >second Hegelian says the analogy is not Hegelian but rather it is Platonic/Aristotelian
            >OP asks how is it Platonic/Aristotelian out of curiosity
            >second Hegelian mocks him for not reading Hegel instead of explaining how it is Platonic/Aristotelian
            that's how moronic pretentious and evasive you sound with this argument. ofc I don't know anything about Hegel. that's the whole point about asking about the analogy. but you don't need Hegel to understand Plato or Aristotle, so your whole blustering argument is moronic and irrelevant.

            I'm still willing to accept an apology that you spoke hastily and that you only meant to imply that the analogy didn't accurately capture the essence of Hegelian thought. I'm fine with that.

            If you cannot demonstrate the analogy that is fine. Read my posts, my demonstration has already been provided. If that is too much for you then go frick off.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what do you mean I never explained how it was Platonic/Aristotelian, I did it a long time ago!
            and now the gaslighting begins
            >now it's your job to demonstrate the claim that I made!
            the frick kind of logic is that? you made the claim, you demonstrate it

            bro I don't get why you have to be this pathetic. we can all see what you've posted. it takes like 5 seconds to scroll up and see you've been evasive this whole time

            just end it man, just say how it's platonic/aristotelian or give up.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are correct, it is pathetic you cannot scroll up and see what I have posted.

            Not for Hegelian dialectic. This is not meant to say there is no analogy, but rather the best I have seen usually involve making it analogous to a 'science' but I am not particularly fond of this, so if a better analogy makes it way to the surface in this thread I would be interested.

            [...]
            True, I do not believe I was positing it as being something entirely different, but if that was how my posts came off that was not my intent. I strongly advise understanding all of what Aristotle had to say about dialectic before attempting Hegel, Hegel even mentions this in a work, I do not recall which one exactly, but I am inclined to say Encyclopedia of Logic off the top of my head, he compares the Platonic/Aristotelian method to something like a never ending process of throwing ideas into an abyss, so I would say in order to get to the Hegelian contribution to dialectic you do need to fully understand the purpose of and limits of what it was capable of previously, the notion that the idea/argument/aspect whichever relevant term you wish to use would progress with a contradiction inherent, the notion of sublation so a return to the original can be effected, and some of his uses of determination are really the key contributions, this is what turns the process from a sort of binary reductio ad absurdem or demonstration type outcome into one in which the idea is able to evolve and the process can be repeated, honestly an ad nauseum amount of times really, so I would be in agreement that his method is more of an extention than a reinvention.

            The analogy seems more apt to describe Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic.

            It is quite common, I am likely part of a small minority who takes issue with it honestly. This is sort of a cursory article that I found which also may help in explaining some of what is being discussed here: https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/what-is-dialectics.html

            You can find more in a paper titled: Hegel, Science, and Set Theory I admittedly don't remember who wrote it but it should be available for free. If you really want to be bored to a point of contemplating suicide you can also listen to or read Winfield's assessment of Hegel's dialectics and logic if you wish, but you may honestly just want to read Hegel before taking that route.

            [...]
            So, the analogy is not unsound, there is a method and the method does seem to follow a sort of similar 'algorithm' in the sense that we are conducting a sort of thought experiment if you and I were to engage in a dialectic discourse. We can start by posing an argument and then there would be questions and so forth, just as there would be in a dialectic, we can call this testing the hypothesis so to speak. In the classical antiquity model there are really only 2 outcomes, either a reductio ad absurdem or a demonstration of knowledge. The more one is subjected to this method, the better one becomes at determining true and false. With Hegel, the extension of this comes from amending this algorithmic process into one in which we are more or less testing the hypothesis and using the results regardless to proceed to the next step as a potential method of determining what works. So, if we found a contradiction in the argument in the first stage, we are not necessarily beholden to throw the argument out, we can continue to see if it may still possess validity even with the contradiction, as we progress we may even find the contradiction to be erroneous or born of an incomplete understanding and we may very well end up going back to our original argument. During the process we may end up changing context, definition, or whatever else we could view as distilling the thought so to speak, and this may include an inherent contradiction provided it still works. The end result can then be treated as a new entry into another dialectic. The emphasis is more of a scientific approach instead of angling for one of 2 binary outcomes. My issue with calling it scientific largely stems from the fact that while we may be adopting a scientific approach, and there is nothing wrong with this, we are not necessarily performing a hard science, which may be an unintended implacation of using the word.

            There, if all of you are looking to sharpen your skills by tearing something apart you can feel free to tear apart my demonstration if you like. I have already refuted the other demonstration, none of you have been able to present a new demonstration for the analogy, and at this point I am loathe to continue repeating the same refutation and you can respond to the initial inquiry if you would like to continue that thread of thought, you are all free to tear apart my own demonstration if you like and respond to this post. I will frankly say it does not matter how many posters chime in with 'bro burger good bro' if the analogy cannot be demonstrated. If you wish to continue with another demonstration I have no issues with this, there is no posturing on my part, I have repeatedly said I do not care, I have been wrong more times that I have been right in my life, I have fear or issue with being wrong if you can demonstrate that I am wrong, I have admitted to being wrong here and have consulted material that was posted as part of a demonstration that I was wrong, but mindless repeating and ad hominem will be met with like. Do as you wish gentlemen.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your post at

            Not for Hegelian dialectic. This is not meant to say there is no analogy, but rather the best I have seen usually involve making it analogous to a 'science' but I am not particularly fond of this, so if a better analogy makes it way to the surface in this thread I would be interested.

            [...]
            True, I do not believe I was positing it as being something entirely different, but if that was how my posts came off that was not my intent. I strongly advise understanding all of what Aristotle had to say about dialectic before attempting Hegel, Hegel even mentions this in a work, I do not recall which one exactly, but I am inclined to say Encyclopedia of Logic off the top of my head, he compares the Platonic/Aristotelian method to something like a never ending process of throwing ideas into an abyss, so I would say in order to get to the Hegelian contribution to dialectic you do need to fully understand the purpose of and limits of what it was capable of previously, the notion that the idea/argument/aspect whichever relevant term you wish to use would progress with a contradiction inherent, the notion of sublation so a return to the original can be effected, and some of his uses of determination are really the key contributions, this is what turns the process from a sort of binary reductio ad absurdem or demonstration type outcome into one in which the idea is able to evolve and the process can be repeated, honestly an ad nauseum amount of times really, so I would be in agreement that his method is more of an extention than a reinvention.

            didn't explain how it was a Platonic/Aristotelian dialectic at all. All you said about P/A Dialectic is that you vaguely referred to Hegel dismissing it as something inferior. Nothing which you said offers a positive description of the burger analogy as a P/A Dialectic, not as a vague definition that could "fit" the analogy with some thought, and definitely not as a clear demonstration. The fact that you even thought that that post sufficiently answered the question, however, is a clear demonstration of your inability to reason properly. I guess that what reading Hegel does to a homie's head, makes you think that barely reminiscing some offhand remark by the master himself is equivalent to a concrete demonstration.
            >none of you have been able to present a new demonstration for the analogy
            Stop talking about this lmao, NOBODY CARES ABOUT WHETHER THE BURGER ANALOGY IS GOOD for the umpteenth time, and redirecting to it again is not going to save you. If it's not a good analogy for Hegelian thought, we'll take it at your word. That's fine, and that's not what I've been ragging on you about.

            What we *do* care about, however, is the fact that you like to throw out meaningless buzzwords. Just because something isn't an example of Hegelian dialectic doesn't mean that it's automatically a P/A dialectic, or even a dialectic at all. But you just called it a P/A dialectic, you couldn't explain why, and now you're trying to backpedal because you don't want to admit that you were bullshitting.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am content to say it may not be a suitable analogy for p/a dialectic as well, at face value it seems to possess more algorithmic similarity to the p/a style of dialectic. If an analogy can be found that helps to explain a concept I am not in opposition to this either. Aristotle correctly surmised that dialectic of classical antiquity essentially had a binary outcome, either a reductio ad absurdem or a demonstration of knowledge, forgive me if I do not remember which work he says it in but he also makes reference to the idea that a demonstration of knowledge also does not entail truth by necessity, which is to say that the line of thinking is more one in which the participants sort of, perhaps poor use of language, 'adapt' or something much akin to this. The process was accurately described by Hegel as one in which ideas or arguments are perpetually thrown into an abyss. Aristotle does make reference to this process as one in which the participants, the more they are subjected to it, are better able to discern true and false. He also makes references to sophistical arguments appearing to possess dialectical attributes and seems to emphasize validity as being a determination as to whether it falls into sophist territory. He also makes distinctions between dialectic argument and demonstration and describes the processes he used to engage in dialectic/demonstrative discourse. As this pertains to the burger analogy, if the participant is presented with a burger and eats it, the argument is satisfying the process, but the burger is consumed and unable to be returned to its original form, there is also no process in which we can filter out the remaining undigested nutrients from the excrement and reingest them. The participant can also examine the burger and determine it was not cooked properly and send it back. When the participant is hungry again they can consume another burger, i.e. a different idea or argument. The more burgers the participant consumes, the better able they are to determine a good burger from a poorly cooked burger. This method in my mind is more akin to p/a methodology.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >OP who doesn't know Hegel asks for an analogy about Hegel
            >one Hegelian posts an analogy about burgers
            >second Hegelian says the analogy is not Hegelian but rather it is Platonic/Aristotelian
            >OP asks how is it Platonic/Aristotelian out of curiosity
            >second Hegelian mocks him for not reading Hegel instead of explaining how it is Platonic/Aristotelian
            that's how moronic pretentious and evasive you sound with this argument. ofc I don't know anything about Hegel. that's the whole point about asking about the analogy. but you don't need Hegel to understand Plato or Aristotle, so your whole blustering argument is moronic and irrelevant.

            I'm still willing to accept an apology that you spoke hastily and that you only meant to imply that the analogy didn't accurately capture the essence of Hegelian thought. I'm fine with that.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *