Oversimplification Theater presents…. A Very Brief Overview of Philosophy up to and including Hegel ’s Dialectic & Marx German students must promise not to tell Frau Bumbaca about the violations of the German language contained herein.

Two schools of philosophy: EmpiricismRationalism “The mind is born a blank upon which all knowledge is inscribed in the form of human experience” “Certain universal, self-evident truths can be discovered based on reason alone, without experience.” Descartes Spinoza Leibniz Hume Locke Bacon

So this guy Immanuel Kant comes along and says... (Structure: we know how to know things) Let’s compromise! K nowledge is in the domain of experience (i.e., the empiricists are right) … but the mind incorporates sensations into the structure of experience, which can be known a priori (i.e., the rationalists are right).

Now, here comes Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and he says: “Kant--BAH! Kant ist ein fluffkopf Schweinhunt. Nein ist der Evidence for der mystical ‘a priori’ Knowledgewissen. Kant ist inventing alles der Stuffen!”

So, G.F., do you have a better idea? Yeah, you betcha! The human mind does indeed play a large role in structuring the existence of the individual, but only through its opposition to the concrete world.

An example: “But then we encounter another chair. Gott in himmel! What to do now?” " Once we experience a chair, we know: this is the chair...?"

Hegel sez: "Our experience and thought add up to a new - and more complete - conception of 'chair', yes? Our synthesis of experience leads us to know more. But that’s a big jump. Let’s rewind a bit--we’ll get there eventually…. "Along the same lines, the history of the world is the story of a World-Spirit coming into consciousness of Itself."

Make This Chart in Your Notes: Thesis Antithesis Synthesis Thesis is (for example) the currently perceived truth Antithesis is (then) an opposing point of view. When thought tries to reconcile Thesis with Antithesis, what survives is Synthesis. The Synthesis is, in effect, the new Thesis, and it all begins again. It ends when we attain perfection, i.e., never!

The Hegelian Dialectic Serious thought, said Hegel, is dialectical in nature, as described on the previous page A definition for this process -- the Hegelian Dialectic -- is: –the inevitable transition of thought, by contradiction and reconciliation, from an initial conviction... to its opposite... and then to a new, higher conception that involves but transcends both of them. The tension you feel? That’s learning!

Good question. Three examples will lead us there. Example 1: the Chairs. Now, let’s look at Example 2 => Where is this going?

Thesis => Antithesis => Synthesis …but Women were unsatisfied with this and agitated for rights, forcing some sort of resolution... Women had no rights, in general, throughout the world... …which, as it turned out (in the West, at least) was the development of a sense of Women’s rights. That resolution did not come easily. It was up to history to “decide” what would prevail. Consider: did Women’s rights survive (as the synthesis) because they were right…or do we now consider them right because they survived the fight? 2. Source for this example: Sophie’s World, by Jostein Gaarder

Pause before Example 3. Let’s get back to Hegel’s idea of World-Spirit: He believed that the consciousness being developed as history advanced (through synthesis in the dialectic) was not individuals’ consciousness but a community consciousness, the world-spirit.

The World-Spirit Hegel held that the development of this World-Spirit through history was nothing less than the development of reason –Humanity progresses toward ever- increasing self-knowledge Hegel: study of history shows that humanity has always moved toward greater rationality and freedom

Thesis => Antithesis => Synthesis...but Hume contradicted that with his empiricism... Descartes explained the world through rationalist philosophy... …and Kant tried to resolve it with his compromise in Critique of Pure Reason …but Hegel thought this couldn’t explain growth through history... So now we have Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason... …hence Hegel’s resulting theory of the dialectic 3. Source for this example: Sophie’s World, by Jostein Gaarder

Pause to Muse over This Hegel is widely despised by everyone. –Why? For one, he’s impossible to read. So why is he so important? –Someone important used his theory -- in keeping with the dialectic, springing off it to form a new and very influential philosophy. That guy was Marx.

World-Spirit vs. Materialism Karl Marx agreed with Hegel’s concept of struggle and resolution, but not with Hegel’s idealism –that is, he didn’t think this all was affected by the World-Spirit (“the way we think”) but by the Material factors in society –Marx believed that things change because of economics and necessity, not thought

Marx’s Points and Prediction Material wealth and economic realities are motivators Profit is exploitation, which increases tension between capitalists and workers –Synthesis: the dam will someday break “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!” Dialectical Materialism: Capitalism is a stage on the way to Communism

The End Note: some “Questions for You to Consider” follow... Rosin is grateful to the sources used for many definitions and examples in this presentation: the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (U. Tennessee-Martin) and the novel Sophie’s World, by Jostein Gaarder (New York: Berkeley/Signature, 1996).Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“ Yeah, you betcha! The human mind does indeed play a large role in structuring the existence of the individual, but only through its opposition to the concrete world. "

"Kant - BAH! Kant is a fluffkopf Pig Hunt. No is the Evidence for the mystical 'a priori' knowledge Knowledge. Kant is inventing all the stuffing! "

Questions for You to Consider Do we in fact know how to know things, as the Rationalists would suggest? –Kant suggested some of this a priori “knowledge” included the concepts of causality, substance, space, and time Is humanity in fact moving toward greater rationality and/or greater freedom, as Hegel suggested? Which has a greater impact on you: money or morality? Would you violate your morals for cash? –Where does governmental action fall on this scale? What’s the proper balance between Human Rights and realpolitik?