I will not stand for this slander of Hegel. Look at what he writes in the Phenomenology of Spirit about this crude tripart system.
Now that the triplicity, adopted in the system of Kant – a method rediscovered, to begin with, by instinctive insight, but left lifeless and uncomprehended – has been raised to its significance as an absolute method, true form is thereby set up in its true content, and the conception of science has come to light. But the use this form has been put to in certain quarters has no right to the name of science. For we see it there reduced to a lifeless schema, to nothing better than a mere shadow, and scientific organization to a synoptic table. This formalism – about which we spoke before in general terms, and whose procedure we wish here to state more fully – thinks it has comprehended and expressed the nature and life of a given form when it proclaims a determination of the schema to be its predicate. The predicate may be subjectivity or objectivity, or again magnetism, electricity, and so on, contraction or expansion, East or West, and such like – a form of predication that can be multiplied indefinitely, because according to this way of working each determination, each mode, can be applied as a form or schematic element in the case of every other, and each will thankfully perform the same service for any other. With a circle of reciprocities of this sort it is impossible to make out what the real fact in question is, or what the one or the other is. We find there sometimes constituents of sense picked up from ordinary intuition, determinate elements which to be sure should mean something else than they say; at other times what is inherently significant, viz. pure determinations of thought – like subject, object, substance, cause, universality, etc. – these are applied just as uncritically and unreflectingly as in every-day life, are used much as people employ the terms strong and weak, expansion and contraction. As a result that type of metaphysics is as unscientific as those ideas of sense.
Even Hegel rejected this basic system as a way to do anything. Even She Who Claims She is Free is In Chains.
Yeah, Fichte (another German Idealist) was the guy who created the thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing. Hegel never uses those terms, and his dialectics frequently breaks this traditional tripart system.
Yep this is really helpful thank you, I've understood the concept of materialism for a while, but this finally breaks it down so I can actually explain it to myself (and others)
Happy to help! I actually only just started reading Stalin after someone here linked it to me a few weeks ago, I recommend sticking with him for more of the breakdown style rather than trying to just jump into capital or whatever that assumes you know Hegel and all the other guys they're responding to.
It's great that he did this, because I can just read the axioms, say "nah", and be impervious to "read theory" for the rest of my life.
This is why I ran /r/chapotraphouse3 with a no posting policy. No telling what would have ended up there.
It's just used as a heuristic tool to teach the basic concept of contradiction in a way that's intentionally idealist.
You are being overly pedantic.
I'm about to reject all this nerd shit and return to the primordial ooze.
