Food for thought...

Hegelian dialectics or Problem-reaction-solution

nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

4. Why it is almost impossible for a layman to understand the Hegelian dialectic

Hegel's theory that philosophy is the ultimate achievement of the human spirit is extremely difficult reading for a well-educated person. It's almost like reading a foreign language to the average student, and it rings false to the "healthy instincts of the plain man."

Detective Phillip Worts' 2001 article Communist Oriented Policing is a nice explanation of the influence Dialectical Materialism has had on America.

Henry D. Aiken, a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard explains the Hegelian theory of no-reason in Introduction to the Age of Ideology:

"...Beginning with Kant, the very conception of the philosophical enterprise that had prevailed since the time of Aristotle underwent a profound sea-change, with the consequence that the meanings of even such basic terms of the traditional philosophical vocabulary as 'metaphysics' and 'logic' were altered beyond recognition... Much of the obscurity that pervades nineteenth-century philosophical writing is directly related to this fact."

Considering the power it wields, and how many people have embraced the ideology, it's amazing how very few people in the world will tell you they understand the Hegelian dialectic. That's because it was never written to be understood. Even Hegel's biographers call his writing "impenetrable" which means: "incapable of being penetrated or pierced," innaccessible to knowledge, reason or sympathy" and "incapable of being comprehended" (Merriam Webster).

At one point, Karl Marx planned to simplify Hegel for the "common man," but we have not been able find this explanation, if it exists.

We think there's a very simple explanation for why the Hegelian dialectic is not simple, and why it can never be simplified. While the American's 18th century political system ranks among the top modern scientific achievements, the 19th century's educated imperialist writers pursued the highest achievements in irrational thinking about thinking. Hegel is at the top of our list of the world's most irrational thinkers.

How is it possible to consider a Hegelian argument? If the ideas, interpretations of experiences, and the sources are all wrong, can a conclusion based on all these wrong premises be sound? The answer is no. Two false premises do not make a sound conclusion even if the argument follows the formula. Three, four, five, or six false premises do not all combine to make a conclusion sound. You must have at least one sound premise to reach a sound conclusion.

Logical mathematical formulas are only the basis for deductive reasoning. Equally important is knowledge of semantics, or considering the meanings of the words used in the argument. Just because an argument fits the formula, it does not necessarily make the conclusion sound. Hegel knew this when he designed his dialectic. He was an imperialist con-artist who established the principles of dialectical "no-reason." His dialectic has allowed globalists to lead the world by its nose into a superstitious, unreasonable, racist age of global dominance.

National governments are supposed to protect the common man from imperial controls over private property, trade and production. They insure their workers against imperial slavery by protecting markets. But if you use Hegel's twisted logic, the only way to protect people from slavery is to become a slave trader, just for a while.

Like Hegel and Marx, the best street con knows his spiel has to be based in truth to be successful, and good cons weave their lies on logic. This sort of twisted logic is why cons are so successful. Hegel twisted it in such a way as to be "impenetrable."

Reply