Philosophy discussion
General
>
Hegel's dialectics
date
newest »
newest »
Pah. P'shaw. Your impatience and curtness makes you sound like quite a good many nameless other carpers in this shoddy internet-era generation. As in: you just want the simple, quick, easy, push-button answers. Cut to the chase. You're too 'busy'.
Reductionism. 'Boil everything down' to just a few easily-swallowed lozenges. So you can get on with your internet surfing.
Dismiss whatever doesn't fit your appraisal. It's very easy to just reject something you don't want to bother with, eh?
Dialectics is actually pretty robust. Marx. Lukacs. Ever tackled Lukacs? You wanna argue with Georgi Lukacs? Yeah ri-i-i-i-ght. With your snide attitude? Too much work. I'd like to see you try.
Just another slacker looking for shortcut solutions and fast-track answers...? Any degree at all yet?
Mea culpa. I apologize for getting a little extravagant in my reply.p.s. the reason I ask about degree is this:
1) the experience of earning a proper history, philosophy, or poly-sci degree --rather than just "hunting & picking from the internet" --only the ideas we agree with -- teaches one that all knowledge is relevant and useful.
2) Hegel is clearly a major trove of European Thought, whether one disagrees with him or not.
3) Understanding Hegel --not just pigeon-holing him--is a big boost to anyone's mental matriculation.
4) Heavy-hitters like Hegel make it possible for us all to earn degrees. They contributed to the western university system itself.
But India and Africa didn't fit in his theory. So he said that there is no history in India or Africa, in "Lectures on the Philosophy of History". I can't take his philosophy seriously because of that anecdote.
For me, Schopenhauer's philosophy describes our world and history better than Hegel. History is led by irrational and aimless willness, thus there is no theory that explain the history, and we can't predict the future.