Being-for-itself replaces the something-others, but it also preserves them, because its definition still requires them to do their work of picking out individual somethings (EL §§95–6).The concept of “apple”, for example, as a Being-for-itself, would be defined by gathering up individual “somethings” that are the same as one another (as apples).
Being-for-itself replaces the something-others, but it also preserves them, because its definition still requires them to do their work of picking out individual somethings (EL §§95–6).The concept of “apple”, for example, as a Being-for-itself, would be defined by gathering up individual “somethings” that are the same as one another (as apples).Tags: Example Cause And Effect EssayGood Hooks For An Essay About YourselfBusiness Management Research PaperI Solve My Problems And I See The LightAp Literature Sample EssaysWriting Out Numbers In EssaysThe Chrysalids Essay IntoleranceSuccessful Email Marketing Campaigns Case StudiesConceptual Research Paper
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 (see entry on Hegel), which, like other “dialectical” methods, relies on a contradictory process between opposing sides.
“Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular dialectical method of argument employed by the 19th Century German philosopher, G. 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.
First, because the determinations in the moment of understanding sublate , Hegel’s dialectics does not require some new idea to show up arbitrarily.
Instead, the movement to new determinations is driven by the nature of the earlier determinations.
There is something particular about the determination in the moment of understanding—a specific weakness, or some specific aspect that was ignored in its one-sidedness or restrictedness—that leads it to fall apart in the dialectical moment.
The speculative moment has a definition, determination or content because it grows out of and unifies the particular character of those earlier determinations, or is “a ; cf.
The English verb “to sublate” translates Hegel’s technical use of the German verb ” (EL §§79, 82) moment—grasps the unity of the opposition between the first two determinations, or is the positive result of the dissolution or transition of those determinations (EL §82 and Remark to §82).
Here, Hegel rejects the traditional, Although the speculative moment negates the contradiction, it is a determinate or defined nothingness because it is the result of a specific process.
“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.