Very interesting and quite possibly a correct assessment. If so, what do you propose we do to rectify and stop the corrupt behaviour. There is corruption on both sides. Perhaps we could somehow influence our side to stop, but how do we influence the other side? Maybe somehow educating the masses might help but that would be a very long and likely fruitless process and we would have to have the mass media on our side. That is not likely to happen. I think we are stuck between a rock and a proverbial hard place.
It is hard to see a clear path to a complete solution. I do not think the incorrect use of the phrase Hegelian dialectic is a reflection of corruption on this side but it does lead to being discredited. Still, there is definitely corruption on both sides. I think we should try to support those with integrity and attempt to 'educate' those who are being corrupt. If they do not change their ways, they might need to be called out.
The other side's corruption goes right to the highest levels. These people are bound to this malfeasance with their very being. Raising awareness to the masses, even one by one, will put greater pressure and light on those who are acting egregiously. It is a long game and one can hope that at some time in the near future a tipping point occurs.
(Beforehand, sorry about my English.) Let me possibly clarify something to you. The use of the term "Hegelian Dialectic" may be understandable and justified if you know that it was, I believe, Antony C. Sutton who really started using it (see, for example, his "An Introduction to The Order of Skull and Bones", by the way, a *great* book). He made the use of if because some social engineers who came from "the Order" were Hegelians. One can easily see that they transposed the Hegelian "philosophical" notions to the praxis of social engineering. I would argue that, thus understood, the application of the term is not wrong at all, especially because Hegel's "philosophy" (ideology, I would say) is — not so much disguisedly — monistic. Thus one cannot really distinct his "Geist" (and that involves the unfolding of history, or his "History", if you like) from the humans, or "His" actions from the human actions. Considered that, we can say that the dialectic contained in the "problem-reaction-solution" may be understood as a "Hegelian Dialectic".
I appreciate the thoughtful perspective. I still don't see Hegel as positioning his dialectic as a problem-reaction-solution. In his tome, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel clearly describes this as a thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It is a significant difference. Two opposing ideas are melded into a better hybrid concept.
If you start from the end maybe you can get it: if it is a "better hybrid concept", it means the thing to which it refers is a "better hybrid 'reality'". Well, a "b.h.r." may be what it is only in relation to what it was, i.e., the "antithesis", which means a "reality" in "response" to something else (a different "reality"; a tertium quid in this equation, if you will). Here you have the p.-r.-s. If History itself is a dialectical unfoldment towards a "better" whatever, then every step, part or element in this process may be view as a p.-r.-s. Now, if we're speaking about conspirators that have the means to make big movements on the planetary board, thus changing history itself (by means of p.-r.-s.), we are also speaking of the same Hegelian dialectics of t.-a.-s. There's no difference between the two. By the way, by Hegel's perspective itself, there could be no t.-a.-s., since that would be a "subjective" perspective, it is, a perspective that falsifies reality "as it is". Hegel was a sorcerer, not a philosopher. His system is full incoherence. I suggest E.V. on Hegel: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-65387-2_30
Plato/Socrates explained the rhetorical dialectic a few years earlier than Hegel, but the synthesis was not just the better parts of thesis and antithesis, but required the spiritual gnosis of our true nature to transcend the binary opposition.
Yes, I recall that now that you mention it. I took courses on both Plato and Socrates. I would think this would be further confirmation that these philosophical concepts on the dialectical process are clearly different in meaning than the way the term is being used in modern conspiracy theorist lore.
Very interesting and quite possibly a correct assessment. If so, what do you propose we do to rectify and stop the corrupt behaviour. There is corruption on both sides. Perhaps we could somehow influence our side to stop, but how do we influence the other side? Maybe somehow educating the masses might help but that would be a very long and likely fruitless process and we would have to have the mass media on our side. That is not likely to happen. I think we are stuck between a rock and a proverbial hard place.
It is hard to see a clear path to a complete solution. I do not think the incorrect use of the phrase Hegelian dialectic is a reflection of corruption on this side but it does lead to being discredited. Still, there is definitely corruption on both sides. I think we should try to support those with integrity and attempt to 'educate' those who are being corrupt. If they do not change their ways, they might need to be called out.
The other side's corruption goes right to the highest levels. These people are bound to this malfeasance with their very being. Raising awareness to the masses, even one by one, will put greater pressure and light on those who are acting egregiously. It is a long game and one can hope that at some time in the near future a tipping point occurs.
(Beforehand, sorry about my English.) Let me possibly clarify something to you. The use of the term "Hegelian Dialectic" may be understandable and justified if you know that it was, I believe, Antony C. Sutton who really started using it (see, for example, his "An Introduction to The Order of Skull and Bones", by the way, a *great* book). He made the use of if because some social engineers who came from "the Order" were Hegelians. One can easily see that they transposed the Hegelian "philosophical" notions to the praxis of social engineering. I would argue that, thus understood, the application of the term is not wrong at all, especially because Hegel's "philosophy" (ideology, I would say) is — not so much disguisedly — monistic. Thus one cannot really distinct his "Geist" (and that involves the unfolding of history, or his "History", if you like) from the humans, or "His" actions from the human actions. Considered that, we can say that the dialectic contained in the "problem-reaction-solution" may be understood as a "Hegelian Dialectic".
Greetings from Brazil.
K. Yogi
I appreciate the thoughtful perspective. I still don't see Hegel as positioning his dialectic as a problem-reaction-solution. In his tome, The Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel clearly describes this as a thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It is a significant difference. Two opposing ideas are melded into a better hybrid concept.
If you start from the end maybe you can get it: if it is a "better hybrid concept", it means the thing to which it refers is a "better hybrid 'reality'". Well, a "b.h.r." may be what it is only in relation to what it was, i.e., the "antithesis", which means a "reality" in "response" to something else (a different "reality"; a tertium quid in this equation, if you will). Here you have the p.-r.-s. If History itself is a dialectical unfoldment towards a "better" whatever, then every step, part or element in this process may be view as a p.-r.-s. Now, if we're speaking about conspirators that have the means to make big movements on the planetary board, thus changing history itself (by means of p.-r.-s.), we are also speaking of the same Hegelian dialectics of t.-a.-s. There's no difference between the two. By the way, by Hegel's perspective itself, there could be no t.-a.-s., since that would be a "subjective" perspective, it is, a perspective that falsifies reality "as it is". Hegel was a sorcerer, not a philosopher. His system is full incoherence. I suggest E.V. on Hegel: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-65387-2_30
Thanks for reading.
"Sci-hub" the link. ;^)
Plato/Socrates explained the rhetorical dialectic a few years earlier than Hegel, but the synthesis was not just the better parts of thesis and antithesis, but required the spiritual gnosis of our true nature to transcend the binary opposition.
Yes, I recall that now that you mention it. I took courses on both Plato and Socrates. I would think this would be further confirmation that these philosophical concepts on the dialectical process are clearly different in meaning than the way the term is being used in modern conspiracy theorist lore.
Hegel's dialectic is completely different from classical dialectic. So that is a diverse discussion.