3 added 14 characters in body
source | link

How exactly did Hegel describe the dialectic and what [historical] examples, if any, did he offer to sustain it? Please, provide sourced quotes.

I will attempt to summarize my understanding of what the Hegelian dialectic is. I ask you to either re-affirm my description, if I’m correct, or correct me, if I’m wrong. I’m in need to corroborate my understanding of the concept because explanations I have come across over the web are potentially imprecise. I think this is the proper place to clarify. My current understanding is as follows:

According to Hegel there is a natural law governing the manifestation of human ideals throughout history, later identified as the ‘dialectic’. This law obtains its name from an analogy one can establish between it and a conversational dispute where the persons partaking in the debate reach a point of compromise fusing various aspects of their initially differing points of view. The ‘dialectic’ can be described as a feedback system every social paradigm inspired on philosophical tenets goes through. The social paradigm (thesis) presents itself, then is met by people opposed to it (antithesis) and, finally, concrete remnants of both points of view remain after confrontation (synthesis). The process repeats itself. This observation permeates all human history.

Did Hegel think this law (or principle) is solely responsible for changes in social paradigms and is also inescapable? That is, it can be relied upon exclusively to explain the evolution of all human ideals that find their application to society? If “yes,” it would entail the belief that no ideals can ever be defeated entirely and as such I find no problem entertaining the possibility he was wrong. Imagine, for example, the case where a basic human ideal “withstands the test of timetime” unadulterated.

How exactly did Hegel describe the dialectic and what [historical] examples, if any, did he offer to sustain it? Please, provide sourced quotes.

I will attempt to summarize my understanding of what the Hegelian dialectic is. I ask you to either re-affirm my description, if I’m correct, or correct me, if I’m wrong. I’m in need to corroborate my understanding of the concept because explanations I have come across over the web are potentially imprecise. I think this is the proper place to clarify. My current understanding is as follows:

According to Hegel there is a natural law governing the manifestation of human ideals throughout history, later identified as the ‘dialectic’. This law obtains its name from an analogy one can establish between it and a conversational dispute where the persons partaking in the debate reach a point of compromise fusing various aspects of their initially differing points of view. The ‘dialectic’ can be described as a feedback system every social paradigm inspired on philosophical tenets goes through. The social paradigm (thesis) presents itself, then is met by people opposed to it (antithesis) and, finally, concrete remnants of both points of view remain after confrontation (synthesis). The process repeats itself. This observation permeates all human history.

Did Hegel think this law (or principle) is solely responsible for changes in social paradigms and is also inescapable? That is, it can be relied upon exclusively to explain the evolution of all human ideals that find their application to society? If “yes,” it would entail the belief that no ideals can ever be defeated entirely and as such I find no problem entertaining the possibility he was wrong. Imagine, for example, the case where a basic human ideal “withstands the test of time.

How exactly did Hegel describe the dialectic and what [historical] examples, if any, did he offer to sustain it? Please, provide sourced quotes.

I will attempt to summarize my understanding of what the Hegelian dialectic is. I ask you to either re-affirm my description, if I’m correct, or correct me, if I’m wrong. I’m in need to corroborate my understanding of the concept because explanations I have come across over the web are potentially imprecise. I think this is the proper place to clarify. My current understanding is as follows:

According to Hegel there is a natural law governing the manifestation of human ideals throughout history, later identified as the ‘dialectic’. This law obtains its name from an analogy one can establish between it and a conversational dispute where the persons partaking in the debate reach a point of compromise fusing various aspects of their initially differing points of view. The ‘dialectic’ can be described as a feedback system every social paradigm inspired on philosophical tenets goes through. The social paradigm (thesis) presents itself, then is met by people opposed to it (antithesis) and, finally, concrete remnants of both points of view remain after confrontation (synthesis). The process repeats itself. This observation permeates all human history.

Did Hegel think this law (or principle) is solely responsible for changes in social paradigms and is also inescapable? That is, it can be relied upon exclusively to explain the evolution of all human ideals that find their application to society? If “yes,” it would entail the belief that no ideals can ever be defeated entirely and as such I find no problem entertaining the possibility he was wrong. Imagine, for example, the case where a basic human ideal “withstands the test of time” unadulterated.

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1014566702607159296
2 added 100 characters in body
source | link

How exactly did Hegel describe the dialectic and what [historical] examples, if any, did he offer to sustain it? Please, provide sourced quotes.

I will attempt to summarize my understanding of what the Hegelian dialectic is. I ask you to either re-affirm my description, if I’m correct, or correct me, if I’m wrong. I’m in need to corroborate my understanding of the concept because explanations I have come across over the web are potentially imprecise. I think this is the proper place to clarify. My current understanding is as follows:

According to Hegel there is a natural law governing the manifestation of human ideals throughout history, later identified as the ‘dialectic’. This law obtains its name from an analogy one can establish between it and a conversational dispute where the persons partaking in the debate reach a point of compromise fusing various aspects of their initially differing points of view. The ‘dialectic’ can be described as a feedback system every social paradigm inspired on philosophical tenets goes through. The social paradigm (thesis) presents itself, then is met by people opposed to it (antithesis) and, finally, concrete remnants of both points of view remain after confrontation (synthesis). The process repeats itself. This observation permeates all human history.

Did Hegel think this law (or principle) is solely responsible for changes in social paradigms and is also inescapable? That is, it can be relied upon exclusively to explain the evolution of all human ideals that find their application to society? If “yes,” it would entail the belief that no ideals can ever be defeated entirely and as such I find no problem entertaining the possibility he was wrong. Imagine, for example, the case where a basic human ideal “withstands the test of time.”

How exactly did Hegel describe the dialectic and what [historical] examples, if any, did he offer to sustain it? Please, provide sourced quotes.

I will attempt to summarize my understanding of what the Hegelian dialectic is. I ask you to either re-affirm my description, if I’m correct, or correct me, if I’m wrong. I’m in need to corroborate my understanding of the concept because explanations I have come across over the web are potentially imprecise. I think this is the proper place to clarify. My current understanding is as follows:

According to Hegel there is a natural law governing the manifestation of human ideals throughout history, later identified as the ‘dialectic’. This law obtains its name from an analogy one can establish between it and a conversational dispute where the persons partaking in the debate reach a point of compromise fusing various aspects of their initially differing points of view. The ‘dialectic’ can be described as a feedback system every social paradigm inspired on philosophical tenets goes through. The social paradigm (thesis) presents itself, then is met by people opposed to it (antithesis) and, finally, concrete remnants of both points of view remain after confrontation (synthesis). The process repeats itself. This observation permeates all human history.

Did Hegel think this law (or principle) is solely responsible for changes in social paradigms and is also inescapable? That is, it can be relied upon exclusively to explain the evolution of all human ideals that find their application to society? If “yes,” it would entail the belief that no ideals can ever be defeated entirely and as such I find no problem entertaining the possibility he was wrong.

How exactly did Hegel describe the dialectic and what [historical] examples, if any, did he offer to sustain it? Please, provide sourced quotes.

I will attempt to summarize my understanding of what the Hegelian dialectic is. I ask you to either re-affirm my description, if I’m correct, or correct me, if I’m wrong. I’m in need to corroborate my understanding of the concept because explanations I have come across over the web are potentially imprecise. I think this is the proper place to clarify. My current understanding is as follows:

According to Hegel there is a natural law governing the manifestation of human ideals throughout history, later identified as the ‘dialectic’. This law obtains its name from an analogy one can establish between it and a conversational dispute where the persons partaking in the debate reach a point of compromise fusing various aspects of their initially differing points of view. The ‘dialectic’ can be described as a feedback system every social paradigm inspired on philosophical tenets goes through. The social paradigm (thesis) presents itself, then is met by people opposed to it (antithesis) and, finally, concrete remnants of both points of view remain after confrontation (synthesis). The process repeats itself. This observation permeates all human history.

Did Hegel think this law (or principle) is solely responsible for changes in social paradigms and is also inescapable? That is, it can be relied upon exclusively to explain the evolution of all human ideals that find their application to society? If “yes,” it would entail the belief that no ideals can ever be defeated entirely and as such I find no problem entertaining the possibility he was wrong. Imagine, for example, the case where a basic human ideal “withstands the test of time.”

1
source | link

Questions concerning the Hegelian dialectic

How exactly did Hegel describe the dialectic and what [historical] examples, if any, did he offer to sustain it? Please, provide sourced quotes.

I will attempt to summarize my understanding of what the Hegelian dialectic is. I ask you to either re-affirm my description, if I’m correct, or correct me, if I’m wrong. I’m in need to corroborate my understanding of the concept because explanations I have come across over the web are potentially imprecise. I think this is the proper place to clarify. My current understanding is as follows:

According to Hegel there is a natural law governing the manifestation of human ideals throughout history, later identified as the ‘dialectic’. This law obtains its name from an analogy one can establish between it and a conversational dispute where the persons partaking in the debate reach a point of compromise fusing various aspects of their initially differing points of view. The ‘dialectic’ can be described as a feedback system every social paradigm inspired on philosophical tenets goes through. The social paradigm (thesis) presents itself, then is met by people opposed to it (antithesis) and, finally, concrete remnants of both points of view remain after confrontation (synthesis). The process repeats itself. This observation permeates all human history.

Did Hegel think this law (or principle) is solely responsible for changes in social paradigms and is also inescapable? That is, it can be relied upon exclusively to explain the evolution of all human ideals that find their application to society? If “yes,” it would entail the belief that no ideals can ever be defeated entirely and as such I find no problem entertaining the possibility he was wrong.