... there is nothing, nothing in heaven, or in nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally contain both immediacy and mediation, so that these two determinations reveal themselves to be unseparated and inseparable and the opposition between them to be a nullity.

the dialectical laws of thought, which are sometimes summarized as

1. The unity of opposites. The nature of everything involves internal opposition of contradiction.
   
2. Quantity and quality. Quantitative change always eventually leads to qualitative change or development.
   
3. Negation of the negation. Change negates what is changed, and the result is in turn negated, but this second negation leads to a further development and not a return to that with which we began.
   

(This last idea is sometimes presented by expositors of 'dialectic' in the jargon of 'thesis-antithesis-synthesis'; this jargon, however, is not characteristic of dialectical materialists. Since it was never used by Hegel, and was used by Marx only once, solely for the purpose of ridicule, it is easy to understand why its use is nearly always a sign of either ignorance of or hostility to dialectical thinking-usually both at once.)

It was only out of ignorance and without hostility but I am among those who have used "Thesis Antithesis and Synthesis" in reference to Hegel.

I think "Thesis Antithesis Synthesis" is great, and that it fits, even if wasn't the terminology Hegel preferred. IMO, it captures the concept of the dialectic perfectly, at least as I understand it. Maybe it was Fichte or Schelling who actually cooked it up, but it doesn't really matter.

In a way, the "synthesis" element is redundant, as the antithesis is already a synthesis/new-thesis, but the triad reveals the structure at once. It's like that triangle symbol I was using. The top of the triangle was just a symbol for the recognition of the bottom two corners as the whole story.

The philosopher is the self-consciousness of the Absolute, or that's how I understand it. :bigsmile:

Is perhaps "synthesis" misleading because it suggests a combining of the previous two stages which seems to be a process of ever expanding as opposed to negation of negation of negation... which seems to suggest the opposite.

You can't have a donut without a hole, nor a hole without a donut. But one can infer this just from studying a donut. (Obviously, I'm limiting donuts to the classic torus variety.)

I mention this because this is the core of Hegel's logic. You can't have an inside without an outside. All our finite concepts are just that. Finite. We made em ourselves. And we are always already re-making them.

Bacon attempted to develop a new Organon, a new kind of logic. His methods of logic have largely been dismissed and replaced. However, his attempts lead us tot he scientific method and raising of the value of induction. Hegel's logic might be considered in a similar light. Hegel's logic might eventually find a similar place in history as a method of reasoning that will ultimately be replaced by some better method that it nevertheless inspires.

Bacon attempted to develop a new Organon, a new kind of logic. His methods of logic have largely been dismissed and replaced. However, his attempts lead us tot he scientific method and raising of the value of induction. Hegel's logic might be considered in a similar light. Hegel's logic might eventually find a similar place in history as a method of reasoning that will ultimately be replaced by some better method that it nevertheless inspires.

Really, that's arguably already happened. His dialectical developing truth seems like the foundation of Nietzsche and Pragmatism, etc., including Rorty, who often refers to him. For me, the crown of Hegel's system is mostly valuable as poetry. Still, I see a fundamental connection twixt Hegel and Witt. Sure, it might be my eccentricity at work, but I mention it just in case, because for me it's significant.

I still haven't figured out Hegel...still haven't read Kojeve...I am remiss...I hope I will find the sort of continuity that you are pointing to. Continuity is comforting and I like the historical approach. Drawing a line between Hegel and Wit for me is only intuitvely possible at the moment. There is a sort of movement between the "I" and the "We" present in both...like the arch of a proletarian novel...the undermining of Descartes cogito and the impossibility of private language...In any case, and even without my intuitions, I believe it is a mistake to take Wit as a staring point. The genealogy of Wittgenstein would make a good thread but one I would not be able to contribute much to.

The difference between Hegel and Wittgenstein could not be greater. As Wittgenstein would have put it, Hegel is a slum landlord, and Wittgenstein want to get rid of the slums and let it fresh air. Anyone who thinks that Wittgenstein was a good philosopher could not possibly do anything but despise Hegel, so anyone who thinks they have anything in common probably understands neither one.

Aparently Wittgenstein was influenced by Hegel in his later years, but I doubt it. I have not seen anything resembling Hegel at all in Wittgensteins works. Would you believe there are those that claim Wittgenstein's TLP has certain aspects to it that are Hegelian? Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't find it apparent. Well, maybe negatively influenced. It could be that Hegel determined Wittgenstein even more than he had been, to get rid of the slums which Hegel built, and rented out.