The dialectical engine: it’s easier for an idea to come about in dialogue and contradiction to another idea, than for an idea to come to be from the ether.
Interesting. can you tell me where to find more about that term, the “dialectical engine”? I goog’d and got garbage.
Edit: Other possibilities since i started navel-gazing after commenting “idk why”: maybe i think of posts too highly? Since they’re seen by errybody i keep thinking i need to have something valuable to say. Maybe i shouldn’t think that way, many of my favorite times commenting are on stupid shitposts… hmmm. gears grinding why don’t i ?
I don’t know if you’d ever find a precise definition of “dialectical engine” I’m mostly just referring to the general idea of Hegelian dialectics. I’ve never actually read Hegel either, just Stalin and Mao. If you’re interested in Hegelian dialectics specifically I don’t really know where you can get started since it’s infamously unreadable for people who aren’t super familiar with 18th century philosophy; maybe just take a look at Hegel’s wikipedia page.
Rephrasing what I meant: If you think dialectically, it’s very natural to take something someone else said, and contribute by developing the dialectic: remarking contradictory data, drawing the opposite conclusion, or just generally being a contrarian. If that’s how you think, it can be difficult to just think of a new meaningful contribution to discussion unprompted.
Edit: Here’s a few primers on (Marxist) dialectics:
Hmm, yeah i get it now, i was confused by my incomplete knowledge of the definition of dialectics, which i thought i had read, but had missed the important, deliberate contrarian process, so i didn’t know shit haha. Thanks, time to go read more
The dialectical engine: it’s easier for an idea to come about in dialogue and contradiction to another idea, than for an idea to come to be from the ether.
Interesting. can you tell me where to find more about that term, the “dialectical engine”? I goog’d and got garbage.
Edit: Other possibilities since i started navel-gazing after commenting “idk why”: maybe i think of posts too highly? Since they’re seen by errybody i keep thinking i need to have something valuable to say. Maybe i shouldn’t think that way, many of my favorite times commenting are on stupid shitposts… hmmm. gears grinding why don’t i ?
I don’t know if you’d ever find a precise definition of “dialectical engine” I’m mostly just referring to the general idea of Hegelian dialectics. I’ve never actually read Hegel either, just Stalin and Mao. If you’re interested in Hegelian dialectics specifically I don’t really know where you can get started since it’s infamously unreadable for people who aren’t super familiar with 18th century philosophy; maybe just take a look at Hegel’s wikipedia page.
Rephrasing what I meant: If you think dialectically, it’s very natural to take something someone else said, and contribute by developing the dialectic: remarking contradictory data, drawing the opposite conclusion, or just generally being a contrarian. If that’s how you think, it can be difficult to just think of a new meaningful contribution to discussion unprompted.
Edit: Here’s a few primers on (Marxist) dialectics:
https://youtu.be/GNHzVeC7jeY
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm
Hmm, yeah i get it now, i was confused by my incomplete knowledge of the definition of dialectics, which i thought i had read, but had missed the important, deliberate contrarian process, so i didn’t know shit haha. Thanks, time to go read more
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: