Is the Hegelian triad thesis-antithesis-synthesis really a myth? The Hegelian triad has been repeatedly debunked as a myth and its been fairly will proven that neither Hegel, Marx, or Engels ever used it except as a term of insult. Nevertheless upon reading Hegel's logic it seems that the term very aptly describes Hegel's method of reasoning and deduction. Can someone please explain to me what is incorrect about the triad, and how Hegel's method is actually different.

The crude "thesis->antithesis->synthesis" reduction of the dialectical mode of thought was actually first presented by Chalybäus, and not Hegel.

The dialectic as utilized by Marx (and Hegel) instead is a method of analyzing how two forces in contradiction influence each other, but end up negating the contradiction between them. For example, a person is who they are because: 1) of the environmental imprints which form their consciousness; and 2) the free choices they make in consideration of their conscious desires. We must understand that determination and free will are in dialectical opposition in our lives, yet both are still very much valid.

I don't know if that was a useful description, but I guess I'm trying to say that dialectics is not just an A>B>C formula, but instead a tool for understanding contradictions. Also: it cannot be fetishized as a metaphysical system at the heart of the universe. It is simply a tool - not a "theory of everything", as the SI and Comintern made it.

Renegadoe is correct; you can read the sordid details here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...95&postcount=7

Your quote basically blames it on Marx. But many Marxists deny that Marx ever said it except as an insult.

But I think that ignores the fundamental question. I wont challenge the fact that Marx and Hegel never used the term. But it still seems from my cursory reading of the Logic, that it is how Hegel reasons. You can change the words if you want proposition-opposite-reconciliation, or what have you. But something along those lines seems to be at work. The fundamental Hegelian triad is being, nothingness, and becoming. whatever words you want to call it, to my untrained mind that seems to be the equivalent of the Hegelian triad.

Rosa, I think renegadoe is a "dialectician" by your standards.

I'm not really concerned if Marx or anyone else used it, they weren't correct to do so if they did is the important point. The 'triad' does not describe anything that can't be described by science - Even if you can find examples of it in nature, nature has no reason to conform to Hegel's system. It's just like people who find the number 23 in nature everywhere, or PHI. You can find examples of it if you look hard enough, but there isn't a reason to believe that nature is deliberately conforming to it.

-Alex

Jacobin, you need to read the sources I linked to more carefully; I am not alleging this, they are (and Hegel himself says this, so does Lenin).

Sure, Marx might have used it in the way you suggest, but we will need more than just your say-so if that opinion is to be elevated into fact.

One thing is for certain, generations of ignorant Marxists have used this, and still use this wooden schema.

Jacob -- I suspect so; I'll soon put 'him' right, though...

How is Hegel's actual system of logic significantly different from the incorrect triad?

Hegel's actual logic does not necessarily move in triads; it depends.

Anyway, as I have shown you elsewhere, Hegel's logic is defective from start to finish.

I would say it's both: the "A>B>C formula" is negation of negation and unity of opposites is the "tool for understanding contradictions."

It's funny how people here copy Marx and call things "vulgar" or use words like "fetishized."

Anyway, I'm not sure if you realize this, but this idea started off as a metaphysical system. It goes back to Heraclitus, or even further if we avoid eurocentrism.

It isn't. Those objections are semantical arguments coming from those who want to take the Marx out of Hegel (or in the case of certain individuals here, vice-versa; even though that doesn't work, but I'm not getting into that again).

V:

But, you have already admitted you have not really studied Hegel, so how can you possibly know this?

And, Hegel says this himself (and so did Lenin).

I I do not wonder you don't want to enter into the debate where I showed that Marx himself rejected Hegel, since you lost badly last time.

V:

This is an incomprehensible sentence, since it contains several meaningless words -- or ordinary-looking words put to odd uses (same thing).

Chalybus places no unwarranted emphasis on the thesis/antithesis/synthesis idea. What he does emphasise is the triadic division of philosophy into Logic(Metaphysics)/the Philosophy of nature and the Philosophy of Mind.....but that is of no importance since the true origin of the conceptual framework is Fichte, notablly in the Review of Aenesidemus where he argues that no synthesis can be thought "without the presuposition of thesis and antithesis" He does this in the course of arguing against Rheinhold that any representation depends on certain abstractions, namely both differentiating one thing from the rest and connecting that thing to the rest. Thus representation is said by Fichte to be a synthetic act, relying on positing the thing and counterpositing the rest of reality as that which is outside the thing and related to it.

This argument is the origin of the thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis idea in German IDealism.

Thanks for that Gil, but are these your own words, or are you quoting someone?

THe remark in quotation marks in quotes is from Fichte, from the review Aenesidimus. Look to my mind jacobn has a point. Hegel's philosophy is a philosophy of identity. What that means for Hegel is that at a range of levels Hegel goes again and again through the same process of marking out an identity, identifying what is outside that identity or what within that identity makes it heterogeneous and then names a new identity. That is the framework for his philosophy - to describe change by contrast with identity. That is a triadic relatinship. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis is one of the various triads he uses. (Ironically it is the one which refers back most to medieval dialectic about which Hegel knew little, unlike the Greek dialectic which he knew well.)
I have taken the following description of Hegel's philosphy from the net and the tiadic relationships can be seen throughout:

I have

Thanks for the Hermetic wallpaper Gil, but it refuses to stick to the wall.

Too bad he was incomeptent here too, then, isn't it?

Why are you bothering with this mystical buffoon?

Anyway, I have outlined his basic errors here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Outline_of_Hegel's_errors_01.htm

That was a very interesting document. But is it from the Unification Church? http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unif.../Euth10-01.htm

Thats kind of interesting. Does anyone know if Hegel's theology has influence the Moonies?

Hegel's thought was influenced by, and influences in return, many forms of mysticism, including 'materialist dialectics'.

On the Hermetic origins of Hegel's thought:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...s/en/magee.htm

Here is one Moonie source (which seems uncommital):

http://www.tparents.org/UNews/unws9510/gd-acdma.htm