john eden

male pale and stale
Isn't that just thinking about something and trying it?

Thesis: I'm hungry, it's 2pm and I've not eaten.
Practice: I will go down the Lebanese for a kebab.

In half an hour, I'm undertaking praxis to test my dialectic?
Or is the dialectic if the kebab contains a dead rat, and I think "I should have made a cheese sandwich instead"?
Well it is the development that's important yeah. So you have discovered over time that you like Lebanese food and also probably where the best/cheapest Lebanese place is near you. And you've tried out some stuff on the menu and learnt that some things are best avoided.

Probably.

In its purest sense dialectics is thesis vs antithesis-> synthesis

So you would need two completely opposing things to smash together.
 

martin

----
Yeah sorry John, still unclear.

OK, will make it really simple.

I want to get a train to Brighton but don't have any money.
The thesis would be, I can faredodge.
The praxis would be me going to Victoria, boarding a train and hiding in the toilet.

So, assuming I get there without incident, where is the dialectic in that situation?
 

woops

is not like other people
im pretty sure no one really knows what this means

thesis + synthesis = antithesis

i want to go outside
it's raining
i go outside with waterproof trousers on

i want to go to brighton
i'm skint
i walk it

don't understand what @john eden 's marsixt version is really
 

john eden

male pale and stale
what i don't get is that theory and practice don't appear to be opposed
Not completely but the point is that you can't have one without the other - "philosophers have only interpreted the world" etc. Probably Karl being overly clever and having a go at academics who never venture out into the real world and talk to workers.

So you might have ideas about workers and what they might do in a situaiton but if you talk to them they might tell you to fuck off.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
So I assume none of my previous post was helpful?

Dialectical literally means something like words across, which is only really helpful in light of the loftier concepts involved. Its just a method for evolving a thesis, unfolding it into more robust form, indefinitely.

And as someone else here said, time is a critical dimension here. Evolution is an unfolding through time. If you integrate feedback into your answer, into your account of reality, that is understandable as a dialectical step.

Unless this feedback was the ultimate feedback and your account of reality is not sufficient, you will benefit from further feedback, and further refinement, hence the ongoing nature of the dialectical method.
 

entertainment

Well-known member
so each new stage in the development is born out of the previous stage and the new stage holds in it the seed for the next stage
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Yeah, and its not properly dialectical if that friction just breaks the back and forth, and both people just storm off or else just keep on staunchly defending their points without budging.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
none of these answers is convincing so far.
Not sure what you are looking to get out of us, but its just a method for evolving a thesis, which would seem fitting if you see the world as constantly evolving, rather than a static world that could be accounted for by a static thesis.
 
Top