A few of the writers I recurrently talk about here are pretty much Gods. So I don’t know if people get annoyed that I always bring them up. What else are you going to do in life, isn’t it preferred to speak of Gods? I mean human beings who lived. They might as well be Gods.
How a recent God relates to an earlier God’s relation to even earlier Gods.
This is what is called “the patrician’s choice” of what subject-matter to concern oneself with. This is not Spongebob, nor is this a diversity propaganda “TV show”.
So Yung Gadamer in this class was being dialectical. About 45 years later he published a book on Hegel’s dialectic.
I focus on these things as an end in itself but also because I want to grease the wheels for new Gods. I want to sketch the contours of how one could possibly reappropriate the Greeks better than Hegel or Heidegger did. That’s the ideal anyway.
What you commies don’t understand is that the only kind of “Stalin” that you should want is one who studies these things. Thus, the typical anti-intellectualism of the left is self-defeating because it only brings about incompetent, “pedestrian” leaders, and consequently an un-improved populace. Basically I’m asking you to give me, personally, control of the nuclear buttons. Just kidding, we’re only studying Gods here- theoretically, only a Hegel who doesn’t need to study the Gods should have control of nukes, and such a one is not alive today. (This concept would probably make a good dall-e image.)
So my good patricians, let’s see how Gadamer begins this study
If you passed through the French (Jewish) Hegel, which is standard practice today, you probably wouldn’t think to make this comparison with this dialogue. People given a “postmodern” education are consistently dismissive of the Greeks in general. Yet, for those of us who are crazy about the toga people, mentioning the Parmenides seems obvious. This dialogue is often spoken of in the same breath with that trilogy I’ve been writing about. In it, the ur-dialectic is probably contained most robustly.
Let’s look at Gadamer’s preliminary “definition”
a method of bringing out the consequences of opposed hypotheses
Usually people are opposing a hypothesis with another hypothesis, rather than examining the structure of opposed hypotheses itself.
IS it a structure? It’s always helpful to keep in mind that both the Greeks and Germans have a different idea of “science” than the Anglosphere, which is empiricist. I would opine that some of the former make convincing cases for the existence of a Structure.
IIRC, Stalin had his resident Hegel expert executed. This to say that understanding this Structure has political uses, and tyrants don’t care to learn it, because their own self-interest takes precedence over the good of society. “How dare you speak disparagingly of Saint Stalin!” Well he didn’t seem to be a philosopher-king. Do you want the eternal return of a crappy, some would say nightmarish and barbaric, society? Okay, then don’t study this stuff.
the classical origins of dialectic. Schleiermacher, for instance, might even be said to have made Plato’s art of guiding a conversation his starting point.
This need not be cerebral, intellectual, or academic. We’re talking about talking here. We just happen to be seeing what the Gods talked about in relation to talking.
So the other day we saw how Hegel appropriated Aristotle’s psyche for his notion of spirit. This is Gadamer’s take on where he appropriated his notion of dialectic from
Hegel did not find the model for his concept of demonstration in Aristotle, but rather in Eleatic and Platonic dialectic.
I’ve mentioned before the Stranger, the Xenos. This “character” is more properly known as the Eleatic Stranger. He guides the conversation in the Sophist and Statesman. Eleatic means Parmenidean, as opposed to Heraclitean. In later dialogues Plato has people besides Socrates guide the conversation- this is a way Plato was in a dialectic with his earlier work.
[Hegel] is the discoverer of the truly speculative Platonic dialogues, the Sophist, Parmenides, and Philebus
You think he thought up the dialectic out of thin air? Still, Plato was not thought to be “pure” enough for Hegel.
Gadamer’s rejoinder to this is that Hegel’s own pure interpretation of the Greeks is compromised by Descartes and the Bible present in his method.
A bias we have today is to presuppose Marx was correct and never wonder if his master, Hegel, was correct in his interpretation of the ancients. These latest krauts in the “chain”, Heidegger and Gadamer, have serious reservations about that.
Yeah right, your teeth would probably be chattering in Siberia for any of this. That’s what you get for “guiding the conversation” in a truly dialectical manner. And of course American commies prefer (and enforce) “static” too.
The faith people have in our ruling-caste is so ungrounded. They don’t think about any of this. The “plan-trusters” like to pretend to themselves that every powerful jew understands dialectics through intuition alone.
This was so recent. It took over two thousand years!
Hegel’s dialectic goes back to ancient dialectic and does so in a more explicit way than would have ever entered the minds of anyone before Hegel, either in the Middle Ages or the modern period.
Why are Marxists the worst Neoplatonists ever?
Hegel relies above all on Plato’s Parmenides, his understanding of it being shaped in large part by Neoplatonism’s theological-ontological interpretation of the latter.
It’s like the history of philosophy is a grab-bag for them that they blindly and lazily grasped into and pulled up the most middling of moments from. I would NOT want them to be my “Stalin”. And alas–they ARE.
I didn’t even know some of these things about Hegel until now. It’s just a coincidence that he and I have a similar view of the high-points in the history of philosophy. It’s a “bad look” if you don’t have similar taste to Hegel. -laughs from Siberia-
My mistake, I forgot no one cares about “the Gods” today.
Yeah you’re not getting this in Soviet America
Knowledge of the truth can only be attained in the reality of live discussion, in which “men of good will and genuine dedication to the subject matter” reach agreement with each other.