What are your thoughts re Hegelian dialectic?

[Bootstrap]

Reminder: this is not the Politics forum. This topic is focused upon Hegelian dialectics being used in church groups.

In plain English, can you say what that means? How would you use Hegelian dialectics in a church group?

Hegel’s Dialectics

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classic version of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (see entry on Plato), for instance, presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character of Socrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whom Socrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. In the course of the dialogues, Socrates’ interlocutors propose definitions of philosophical concepts or express views that Socrates challenges or opposes. The back-and-forth debate between opposing sides produces a kind of linear progression or evolution in philosophical views or positions: as the dialogues go along, Socrates’ interlocutors change or refine their views in response to Socrates’ challenges and come to adopt more sophisticated views. The back-and-forth dialectic between Socrates and his interlocutors thus becomes Plato’s way of arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated views or positions and for the more sophisticated ones later.

“Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular dialectical method of argument employed by the 19th Century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel (see entry on Hegel), which, like other “dialectical” methods, relies on a contradictory process between opposing sides. Whereas Plato’s “opposing sides” were people (Socrates and his interlocutors), however, what the “opposing sides” are in Hegel’s work depends on the subject matter he discusses. In his work on logic, for instance, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of logical concepts that are opposed to one another. In the Phenomenology of Spirit, which presents Hegel’s epistemology or philosophy of knowledge, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of consciousness and of the object that consciousness is aware of or claims to know. As in Plato’s dialogues, a contradictory process between “opposing sides” in Hegel’s dialectics leads to a linear evolution or development from less sophisticated definitions or views to more sophisticated ones later. The dialectical process thus constitutes Hegel’s method for arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated definitions or views and for the more sophisticated ones later. Hegel regarded this dialectical method or “speculative mode of cognition” (PR §10) as the hallmark of his philosophy and used the same method in the Phenomenology of Spirit [PhG], as well as in all of the mature works he published later—the entire Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences (including, as its first part, the “Lesser Logic” or the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL]), the Science of Logic [SL], and the Philosophy of Right [PR].

[Bootstrap]

It's doubtful anyone here has read Hegel in the original because most of us don't speak/read German. (Including me) Hegel is notoriously difficult to understand even for those who do read German and Hegelian scholars who do read it notoriously take pride in that obscurity as though it put them in a class of their own. Most of those who do understand it have help from interpreters. (Including me)

So why all this Hegel-speak? Why not use plain English words that we actually understand? I think that's my point. It's all part of the posturing. "I know the name of a German philosopher, that makes me an expert on Western Culture" - but the person saying this has no knowledge of Hegel. This kind of name-dropping is an important feature of a certain style of posturing.

If we focused on facts we actually can get our hands on and things we actually understand, we would have very different conversations.

When I write it isn't with much concern for your personal standards in mind. Don't like my posts? Don't read 'em.

You weren't the person who started the Hegel-speak. Did you notice who did? If someone brings up Hegel, I think it's fair to ask him to explain what he means in plain English.

If we limited these topics to concepts we actually understand and facts we have a grasp of, a whole lot of threads would disappear. Posturing is a big part of the whole dynamic.

[Josh]

This is an intellectual discussion forum. I don’t refer to the Hegelian dialectic in everyday conversation unless I’m talking to someone who knows what it is.

I don’t see a particular reason it’s bad to discuss people like Foucault or Hegel whose philosophies have had a heavy influence on the mainstream world.

[temporal1]

It's doubtful anyone here has read Hegel in the original because most of us don't speak/read German. (Including me) Hegel is notoriously difficult to understand even for those who do read German and Hegelian scholars who do read it notoriously take pride in that obscurity as though it put them in a class of their own. Most of those who do understand it have help from interpreters. (Including me)

So why all this Hegel-speak? Why not use plain English words that we actually understand? I think that's my point. It's all part of the posturing. "I know the name of a German philosopher, that makes me an expert on Western Culture" - but the person saying this has no knowledge of Hegel. This kind of name-dropping is an important feature of a certain style of posturing.

If we focused on facts we actually can get our hands on and things we actually understand, we would have very different conversations.

FU, Don’t be deterred, this is Max’s thread, it’s interesting and challenging.
This forum includes members who have thought+studied beyond most, including Honduras Keiser and PetrC, appleman and ohio jones, and others.

It’s interesting to read from those whose thinking has not first been squeezed through the narrow sieve of lib mainstream politics/gov schools. Where there is ignorance, the opportunity to stretch+learn exists. Where there is lack of interest, no one is insisting on participation.

Max began with a question. His question has received interest. So be it.
Max begins lots of threads with little or no response. This one is at 10 pages so far.

Page 9:

FU:
Well, thanks for your input, but when I write it isn't with much concern for your personal standards in mind.

Don't like my posts? Don't read 'em. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That’s it.

[Soloist]

Sure there are gay "catholics" but they would be excommunicated as they are disregarding papal authority and living in death sins. Just because you can find them is meaningless to the overall statement Josh made. Those catholics are not in good standing with their authority structure by virtue of the church rulings.

As far as I can tell, excommunication is very rare. The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler or Mussolini (both Catholics), they have not excommunicated Joe Biden, that's why discussion of denying him communion makes front page headlines.

A few basic statistics on where everyday Catholics stand. They look a LOT more like mainstream American culture than the Southern Baptist Convention does.

Yes, the pope apparently is fine with a leader having a political stance and a private stance. Not that I particularly like Catholics... I guess I assumed too much on the traditional views.

I would say after looking a bit more into it that while my statement should be correct, it is not. The Catholic church has been using these things in a purely political stance rather then any application of tradition or Biblical truth. The double speak on popes and infallibility is interesting... The Catholic church for years had been one of the few political powers opposed to abortion and LGBTQ stuff but it seems like that culturally changed around it and the new pope is leading it that way. Next pope will likely implement significant changes and then we will see how strong this one true church notion is to them... the Eastern Orthodox stands ready to receive the heretics back...

[MaxPC]

It's doubtful anyone here has read Hegel in the original because most of us don't speak/read German. (Including me) Hegel is notoriously difficult to understand even for those who do read German and Hegelian scholars who do read it notoriously take pride in that obscurity as though it put them in a class of their own. Most of those who do understand it have help from interpreters. (Including me)

So why all this Hegel-speak? Why not use plain English words that we actually understand? I think that's my point. It's all part of the posturing. "I know the name of a German philosopher, that makes me an expert on Western Culture" - but the person saying this has no knowledge of Hegel. This kind of name-dropping is an important feature of a certain style of posturing.

If we focused on facts we actually can get our hands on and things we actually understand, we would have very different conversations.

Well, thanks for your input, but when I write it isn't with much concern for your personal standards in mind. Don't like my posts? Don't read 'em. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Falco, I'm enjoying your thoughts on this thread. As the author of the thread, you are addressing my original query quite well. Thank you. If others don't like the topic or your posts, they can leave and go elsewhere.

As happens in forums, if a person doesn't have enough understanding of a topic some will post dubious survey results and claim they are facts. Sad, but there it is. I am glad you are engaging this topic honestly from your own understanding and thoughts.

Next pope will likely implement significant changes and then we will see how strong this one true church notion is to them... the Eastern Orthodox stands ready to receive the heretics back...

Soloist: perhaps. Perhaps not. All things will manifest in due season and with patience. I am not going to try to second-guess what God is doing at this point in history.

[Falco Underhill]

You weren't the person who started the Hegel-speak.

Boot, you're acting ridiculous. No one here seems to be "posturing" to me. They're discussing the topic with interest in the best way they can, and I've been enjoying it. The topic is interesting to me too!

[Bootstrap]

You weren't the person who started the Hegel-speak.

Boot, you're acting ridiculous. No one here seems to be "posturing" to me. They're discussing the topic with interest in the best way they can, and I've been enjoying it. The topic is interesting to me too!

They have been discussing Hegel? And what is actually going on in the SBC? Really? Could you please summarize what they have said about Hegel or the SBC?

This is the tell: if you keep your focus on what they claim the topic is, that topic is not actually being discussed. The real topic is posturing as the "true conservatives". And none of this is about Jesus or how to live out the Kingdom of God as taught in the New Testament. If you challenge the murky and confusing accusations, you get attacked, but without content. All adjectives.

I'd be rather interested in a real discussion about Hegel's dialectic and how we know if we know what we think we know, according to Hegel. I'd be interested in some real discussion of how we, as biblical Christians, live out our faith in a world that understands us less and less. I'd be interested in a discussion of the sermons of Russell Moore or J.D. Greear. This thread has none of that. I wonder if any of these things could actually be discussed on MennoNet.

But once again, we are on page 10 before actually discussing any of these topics even starts. We would probably need a new thread if we wanted to discuss any of these.

[Falco Underhill]

I'd be rather interested in a real discussion about Hegel's dialectic and how we know if we know what we think we know, according to Hegel.

Nobody's stopping you from starting your own thread if you don't like this one, Boot. I'm enjoying it.

[Ken]

You weren't the person who started the Hegel-speak.

Boot, you're acting ridiculous. No one here seems to be "posturing" to me. They're discussing the topic with interest in the best way they can, and I've been enjoying it. The topic is interesting to me too!

They have been discussing Hegel? And what is actually going on in the SBC? Really? Could you please summarize what they have said about Hegel or the SBC?

This is the tell: if you keep your focus on what they claim the topic is, that topic is not actually being discussed. The real topic is posturing as the "true conservatives". And none of this is about Jesus or how to live out the Kingdom of God as taught in the New Testament. If you challenge the murky and confusing accusations, you get attacked, but without content. All adjectives.

I'd be rather interested in a real discussion about Hegel's dialectic and how we know if we know what we think we know, according to Hegel. I'd be interested in some real discussion of how we, as biblical Christians, live out our faith in a world that understands us less and less. I'd be interested in a discussion of the sermons of Russell Moore or J.D. Greear. This thread has none of that. I wonder if any of these things could actually be discussed on MennoNet.

But once again, we are on page 10 before actually discussing any of these topics even starts. We would probably need a new thread if we wanted to discuss any of these.

There isn't any legitimate discussion of Hegel's philosophy. What we have is ultra-Conservative SBC leader Josh Buice trying to cleverly use Hegelian language to describe the still conservative but more mainstream SBC leaders like J.D. Greear, Ed Litton, Russell Moore, and Beth Moore in Hegelian dialectic terms to make them sound vaguely Marxist. That was what the original article was about. https://g3min.org/the-synthesis-moment-for-the-sbc/ Which is absurd on its face. They are all mainstream evangelical conservatives. Just not as ultra-right as Josh Buice, who is threatening to take his group of ultra-conservative churches and leave the SBC now that Ed Litton has been narrowly elected head of the SBC instead of his candidate Mike Stone.

It is all SBC infighting and Buice is throwing around Hegelian terms to try to make his opponents sound vaguely Marxist and part of some higher conspiracy of some sort. That sort of trope has a long history in the SBC going back to the days of segregation where any Baptist leader questioning Jim Crow segregation was immediately branded as a Marxist or communist. It probably isn't worthy of further comment and analysis. The looming split in the SBC is certainly worthy of examination. But Buice's "Hegelian" frame of his opponents is not.