What are some examples of the Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis,

Hegelian dialectic works more like,

I. One or more concepts, thought to be fixed categories, are defined with precision and individuated, to be made distinct from one another. Understanding.

II. Reflection on the categories, and the apparent contradictions found within. Negative Reason.

III. The resultant category is a higher one, which resolves the contradictions between them, while embracing the constituent concepts. Positive Reason.

Further, there is the distinction of internal and external dialectic.

Sophistic dialectic is external which finds flaws in a concept which does not truly contain them.

Internal, proper dialectic, and forces flaws of a concept into a new category.

Hegelian dialectic is not a method of thought, but rather the structure and development intrinsic to the subject matter.
Dialectic is movement and change in the world and in our thoughts of the world, and is the glue that holds our thoughts together.

An example would be,

IV. Acid and alkali are separate and distinct.

V. Dissolved into one another, they lose their individual properties and are brought together.

VI. The end result is a neutral salt with new properties.

>>2610118
Hegelian dialectic was focused mostly on the origin of ideas and ideals, wasn't it?

>>2610035
Thesis: Nationalism
Antithesis: Socialism
Synthesis: National Socialism

>>2610122

I think that is a good way to put it, though I would substitute the word origin for development.

The main thing with Hegel, in this area at least, is that he is a lot closer to Aristotle then it seems at first blush, and he was rather interested in the idea of teleology, meaning the purpose of, or goal of things.

Further, Hegel also though that dialectical movement was the way of both things in the world, as well as reason.

I am probably glossing over some things because I am not a Hegel Pro, but dialectic is Hegel's attempt to describe accurately the above mentioned world and reason and was kind of a reaction to skepticism introduced by Kant.

>>2610118
>>2610175
Only person I've seen talk about Hegel who knows what they're talking about.

Can't believe it.

>tfw gf
>tfw no gf
>tfw becoming gf(male)

>>2610951
>My life is following the pattern of Hegelian dialectic
Damn

>>2610175
He's an interesting philosopher. Shame he's such a bitch to read. I think the nature of his dialectic (as in how OP got it wrong) should be at least somewhat obvious in the way Marx ran with it, since Marx used Hegelian dialectic in a materialist capacity to look at the development of civilizations and social movements.

>>2610118
What are the contradictions in "Acid and alkali are separate and distinct"? I don't see how you go from IV to V.

>which finds flaws in a concept which does not truly contain them
How to determine if it does or doesn't though?

>forces flaws of a concept
wut how can you force a flaw into something without a flaw?

>>2610935
In here?

>>2610970

The movement between IV to V is such that the contradictions are not considered until V.
IV is the point in which what we try to define are the categories involved.

For the next point, when I speak of finding flaws in something which does not contain them, I mean to say something like
that the flaws being pointed out are not those inherent to what we are trying to consider.

This may be a bad example, but suppose that a wise man introduces an interesting idea of one sort or another.
However, this wise man has a poor reputation, drinks, squabbles and takes part in other activities which may lend a person a bad name.
If we say that the wise man's idea is a poor one in virtue of his bad name, it is not the fault of the idea.
The key thing to consider is whether a fault we see is intrinsic to the idea or not.

The last question I think may be answered if I correct myself.
The fault is my own because my 'and' is out of place, it should properly read:
Internal, and proper dialectic, forces flaws of a concept into a new category.

File: 1413450754395.jpg (38KB, 425x420px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 425x420px

>>2610035
The European shift from Communism to social democracy is a good example OP.

In my country during the 1920s, the most dominant party in my country was the Worker's Party, and they were a member of the Comintern.

But when George Orwell and Malcom Muggeridge wrote about what was going on in the Soviet Union they abandoned the ideal and instead created an amalgamation of capitalism and social justice, the idea being that you could tame capitalism sufficiently to be able to not produce as much inequality, while at the same time keeping its efficiency and productivity.

The Marxists claim that this reaction was materialistic, but they are wrong in my opinion. I think it was purely idealistic in the Hegelian sense.

>>2610035
Engels had an example I'll try paraphrase:

>SEED which is negated by THE PLANT which is negated by DEAD PLANT + NEW SEEDS

Overall the essence of the plant has stayed the same. Or if you want to be materialist, the genes. The teleology is retrospective as the purpose of the seed is explained by the stem, flower, roots etc. that came from it.
While the process might look cyclical, you will never get back that original seed. The process is ongoing which can allow for evolution and creates a history of that seed.

But any use of a triad, 'copy paste method', rules etc. is already meme tier and Hegel warned against that.

>>2610035
i. fallen man
ii. god without temple
iii. jesus christ

>>2610118
Hm, his ideas in I, II and III make sense to me; however, I'm really suspicious of the application of dialectics to the mechanics of the real world, like saying one concrete thing is the contradiction or negation of another, like your example from IV on and Lenin's example of the seed "negated" by the plant which is "negated" by new seeds. These latter cases are just word play to me.