This is a brief introduction to a (quite disorganised) larger commentary I have written on Hegel’s Logic.
What really are dialectics? “Dialectics” can be explained as a mode of interacting with reality - a method of investigation, which at the same time *only* derives itself from that very reality. Engels simplified the rules of dialectical analysis to three. However, each of these laws are subject to heavy mistinterpretation. I will present their misinterpretations along with their real understanding.
Some definition of words before starting:
-Transcendental: What is always already a condition of a “thing” (e.g causality is transcendental for thinking).
-Immanent: What is always already in a given object, what proceeds out of a thing is immanent to it.
-Immanent criticism: The method of dialectics.
-Ontological: Concerning the fundamental level of reality.
The law of the unity and conflict of opposites
The first law of dialectical analysis is the unity of the opposites. This is the fundamental law of immanent criticism and what Hegel calls the ontological unity of the concept in general or what Kant calls the transcendental unity of apperception. Every conception, idea, form or mode of reality must begin from this law as it is the condition of possibility of all possible cognition, interaction and disclosure of reality. What is disclosed to us always has the fundamental characteristic of being “one” thing (or else we say that this is not a disclosure of anything at all). Images are a oneness of sensation. Senses are a oneness of degrees. Ideas are a oneness of impulses. The understanding is a oneness of multiple principles of cognition (causality of cognitive sequences, quantifiability of these sequences, the discreteness of each sequence, etc). Cognition and reality all have a distinct form of cogency - and that “distinct” form at the most abstract level is explained as a fundamental ontological “oneness”.
Descartes formulated a subjectivist understanding of this law but immanent criticism extends this law as absolute to all possible realities (both subject and object). Every change, negation, shift, movement must be self-contained as that is its very condition of appearance. Hence, the space of change is transcendentally (or immanently) always already *there*. It is only the myriad of forms that take its position. Thus, already in this law is contained the dialectical notion of change and transformation. Transformation is only the shift between a previous form to a new form but a shift that takes the *exact same place* as the previous one (since that is its transcendental position in the unity of the concept). For Hegel then, knowledge is only the making explicit of what was always implicit. In some sense, there is nothing new under the sun. But in another sense, there is a whole world to discover since every form is at the same time infinitely implicit (yet to be explored) and infinitely explicit (fully understood) depending from which horizon (historical, logical or scientific) it is looked at.
Another consequence of this is that this unity of conception also contains a “hole” in it that makes possible transformation and change. An undefined reality that can not speak for the time being. But here is the genius: the “hole” of reality can not be “covered”. This hole can only ever be displaced since it is a transcendental “hole”. Thus, what takes the place of the “hole” for a specific moment in society, history or logic does not “erase” the transcendental hole but displaces it to a new level based on new conditions and the new disclosures of reality whether known or unknown. The new “hole” does not operate under the same rules of what is now known to be the “previous hole”. Here we see the hints of the most controversial law of dialectics: first, a given covering of the “previous hole”, i.e, the existing structure of reality, society and language, then a new assertion of another “hole” (a negation, a radical disclosure of a new reality that threatens all of what existed before it; scientific breakthrough, artistic transformation, political revolution, etc) which is immanently disclosed from within that very structure (i.e it can not be forced upon reality by anyone) and finally an understanding that the new “hole” occupies the *same* transcendental position as the “previous hole” (because of the ontological unity and consistency of the concept; the first law of dialectics) and thus was “implicit” in that very previous hole. It is implicit since it occupies the same transcendental position, i.e, it *subsumes* the other determinations as it now stands above them.
An easy way to imagine this is to try and draw a schema of all the links of society and reality, linking science, art, religion, politics, history, etc. Once you finish this drawing, you observe that all these realities circle around a given “disclosure” or a given “hole” or an “impossibility” that defines them. This is due to the very possibility of even linking them together as existing within the same plane of reality - they must all be transcendentally linked. This sublime product of your drawing is the “hole” or the Good itself. Now, let’s say you “name” this “hole” and start acting as if it is an object among other. This naming of yours is necessary for human cognition but this very naming makes you lose that (previous) Good. It is no longer hidden (i.e it is no longer the transcendental space of transformation). But this also means that is has again truly hidden itself from you. For a schematic representation (notice the hole here):
This is why there is only *one* conception of Good across History; all of the conceptions of the Good *must* rhyme with the previous transcendental (and not particular) formulations of the Good since that is the law of all cognition and reality. What happens across History is only a specification of the determinations of the Good and how it is specifically named under specific conditions. But it stays the same (or else reality is not even possible as “one thing”).
This law also defines how any method of analysis is to be undertaken. Since everything is always already “one thing”, one must only follow the links between the different “things” that constitute reality so as to understand how they are all “one thing”. In other words, already in every “thing” there must be hints that it is always related to the “one thing”, whether that “one thing” is known or not. Hence, every object of cognition is split; it is at once itself and part of that “one thing” (thus not-itself). When an object is taken without links to that “one thing” which defines the horizon of its disclosure and the very possibility of its existence, it is said to be *abstract*. When it is shown to be linked with that “one thing” in its very concept, it is said to be *concrete*. Hence, the method of immanent criticism can also be described as the method of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes or the turning of a thing into its opposite.
We ended the previous law with the concept of “naming” the Good. Starting from the specific disclosure of the Good and then its “naming” we have the process of the transition from quality to quantity. What is named is repeated. Your previous drawing also presupposed one thing: your own subjective position *in* the drawing. For you to even achieve the drawing and the subsequent naming of your art, you must have already achieved an implicit “novelty” (a new disclosure of the Good). Hence, if you stay true to yourself, you have hid the Good for you to become the Good itself. This is what Hegel calls the transition from substance to subject. But now, you start exposing your art to the world. Others starting naming the “hole” what you have named it. Slowly but surely, it becomes the norm to use the concept-word you have used to talk about that thing. But since that concept-word is only placed within a very specific determination of your epoch, it becomes extremely sensible to reversal. But the more the word is spread (quantified), the less you can control it and the more it becomes a substance in itself. Hence, you lose grasp of adapting to novelty/disclosure and the Good hides itself from you once more. However, the less adaptive you become to the Good’s movement, the more sensible you are to its absolute disclosure. Repetition and quantity actually help generate a new horizon of the Good (quality). This is the transition from quantity to quality. It is also the transition from universal to particular and back.
This example explains what it really means for something to “turn into its opposite”. Many misinterpret this as a simple metaphysical statement with no concrete reality. However, this statement merely means that what previously occupied the position of the Good and was named as such has now lost that position because of its very naming. Hence, the un-named becomes named. This is what the transition into the opposite is. Because of the ontological unity of the concept, every opposition is self-contained and every structure has its proper place. When transformation begins, it re-defines the previous namings and determinations of totality (or the Good) as subsumed under a new Good. It can only do so if the previous namings of the Good have alienated the totality enough so as it arrives at the point of explosion. Since every new particular is subsumed under the old universal, a new universal is formed “in secret”. For a time being, old substance wins over new substance. These are all necessary consequences of the ontological unity of the concept and the possibility of the movement of thinking itself. Thinking movement is *also* transcendentally defined. Hence, it has a specific form which it always follows.
Ex: After “profit” was institutionalised in the form of private property, capitalism began its absolute process of quantification. However, since it has lost the claim on the absolute un-named Good - it has now re-appeared as the face of new conditions; the proletariat. This form of development is a constant in all of history.
The law of the negation of the negation
This is by far the most controversial law out of the three. It is also the most misunderstood. It is simply a re-formulation of the first law. Reality is always already “doubly-negated” since it contains the necessary transcendental splits we have spoken about (things, the one-thing, the “hole”). Each of these elements splits itself to relate to the other. Hence, to even conceive of a single of these elements we must have already done the “negation of the negation” in our heads. If we relate the law of the negation of the negation to the previous law, it becomes much clearer. In the previous case, we had a transition from an un-named Good to a named Good and then the return of the un-named Good. But this is the exact same structure as the “negation of the negation”. The negation of the negation is not a return, it is a *rythm*. It is the life-blood of all thinking. It also explains what I previously said about the Good being one across history because it is properly transcendental. Every instantiation of the Good is a “negation of the negation” since it escapes being confined in the old universal (the named Good) and creates its own universal out of itself (and through this process, we observe how it is similar to previous instantiations/disclosures of the Good that did the exact same action). Hence, the negation of the negation is simply the transcendental rule of any possible Good action. It is the rejection of the existing antinomies and structures so as to discover the truth in the depth of one’s soul - a depth which every great man has explored. Now, since this exploration is one that many have done before in History, it gives to the agent a full understanding of the present structure. Hence, he is not ecstatic to go against everything that has ever existed but he understands what must be done. His understanding subsumes the previous “namings” - which gives the agent a great respect for historical tradition. He can formulate his act as being, fundamentally, the exact same as the previous Good and locate the manner in which it is.
We see here that the “negation of the negation” or the “reconciliation” is not a “mixture” of two substances that tries to “take the best” out of both and remove the worst - rather, it is a disclosure of a *new* best and a *new* worse. To get negation *once*, reality must always be doubly-negated - in the sense that there is always the representational Good and the hidden Good. These two come into conflict and turn into each other dependant on their position in the movement of conception. It is the return of the same old transcendental structure of reality adapted to new disclosures of itself through the forms of science, culture, religion and art. Hence, the “negation of the negation” can not be “deduced” from the previous determinations but only observed in its disclosure. Even in the most ardent degeneration of life, history and society, the negation of the negation presents itself as the immanent choice over your own death - the transition from the killing of the substance to the self-killing of the subject; from substance to subject once again.
Since “negation” proper presupposes the persistence of the thing it negates - in some kind of evil torture from the substance - it must always be negation *twice*, i.e, a negation that makes the other persists in its negativity so as to sustain itself. In this retroactive movement of re-defining what type of negation the subject is dealing with - he acquires mastery of this negativity and makes it constitutive of his own immediacy - it “re-defines” what the subject was *in the first place* and this is what “reconciliation” is. Hence, a concrete example of this is the transition from terror to a new “normal” state of affairs. Before the terror, the state of affairs was only implicit - it had no content within itself - but once the terror arrives and executes its negativity, the subject learns to understand this terror as *constant* and as a defining feature of his new social reality and hence there is no longer the need for a subjective terror. Terror just becomes institutionalised as the new social substance (in this case of the modern state, this is the introduction of bourgeois right). The structure of the negation of the negation is this; subject → split in the object → split in the subject since the subject is always a defining space for the transcendental disclosure of the object.
Ex: The Bolshevik Revolution “returned” but also “completed” the true movement of the French Revolution - against its overturning by the Thermodorian reaction. This is simply due to how the Good itself is constant throughout history since it is not an idea but an immanent material relationship, principle and movement. Hence, its basic form is recognisable - which is why we see Robespierre in Lenin. Or, in the process of multi-party democracy, the differing parties first appear to be negating each other - but over time (and over civil war) - the negative aspect becomes inscribed in each of their immediacies and thus “reconciles” itself into one monolithic structure of mutual agreement. This is the “institutionalisation” of the negation as spoken about earlier. Now, the realization of this fact also leads to the potential “institutionalisation” of the content of that very democracy - the people who believe in it - for the possibility of their own “institution” of power since power has achieved its proper substantial status (or what I called the naming of the Good earlier) - a new “space” for negativity has been opened up.
It's the quid pro quo, giving like for like. Say there's "human error," that could be the error. Say "nothing's perfect," that could be the imperfection. Say "everyone is different," so is their unity, that's different from their division. Phil of Mind, OUP 1971, Hegel says, freedom is not won outside of the other or by fleeing from it, it's in making the other FOR mind or FOR reason. The Good is what's FOR the Good. Evil is AGAINST or opposed. Being FOR yourself includes being FOR others, their division and their unity. But, he says, because it's posited by mind there's nothing there that can't also be removed by mind. Sacrifices are made. The abstract universal "oneness" of existence, or the form, can't be without or divided from it's content, the particular properties or attributes that condition it. So, the concrete unites these sides FOR that reason. Existence is more than it "is what it is," it does what it does, it possess it's properties and it's purposes include others, all in the affirmative. But I think, "in the beginning," before the finished product was produced or formed, there is "nothing" in the sense that I just don't know how the hell we got here.
How do you do text to speech on this app