New Vegas

[Jonathan101]

Can you give an example of what it supposed to be?

Can you give an example of what it supposed to be?

Well Caesar's version is the idea of a Golden Mien. He believes that the Caesar's Legion is kind of shitty (because it is) and doesn't have anything in the way of infrastructure or culture. You know, despite the fact he has godlike control over their entire lives. He also believes that the New California Republic is soft and weak due to its facile democracy as well as capitalism. Stupidly, Caesar believes that invading the NCR will result in the destruction of the Legion but a transformation of NCR into a much more powerful ruthless society. I'm assuming he's envisioning something like the Nazis from The Man with the High Castle or, ironically, Enclave.

Thesis + Antithesis=Synthesis.

Which is superficially accurate to the Hegelian dialetic. Two opposites become merged and stronger for it. Except anyone who looks at the above can tell this is utter bullshit and makes no goddamn sense. Probably because the Dialetic is about ideas transforming not societies. Like, if Caesar was trying to say that combining his fake Roman religion with Enclave materialism, that makes sense, but this is a much bigger and more chaotic conflict that he's just slapping the label of the philosopher on.

Anything could happen with the war between NCR and the Legion up to and including NCR becoming more democratic or both sides collapsing completely.

Actually, no.

What I meant was, "Thesis + Anthithesis=Synthesis" isn't the Hegelian Dialectic at all.

It's often SAID to be the Dialectic, but the only place Hegel actually mentions Thesis and Antithesis and Synethesis is to complain about it, saying it was something Kant did (Kant wasn't necessarily the first to do it either). He NEVER uses this formulation himself. Hegelian scholars aren't sure why the Th>Ant>Syn is attributed to Hegel when it predates him by decades at least, but might have been Bertrand Russel or some other English speaking writer who was giving a summary of Hegel's ideas and got confused.

The ACTUAL Hegelian Dialectic is Idea> Negation> Concrete, by which he meant that we all have innate Ideas which we project onto the world, only to run into contradictions (Negations) in the actual world which challenge those ideas when we try to bring them into reality, and the result is something Concrete that is a compromise between our Ideas and the Negation of those Ideas.

Caesar, and possibly the devs, probably read "A History of Western Philosophy" or "Philosophy for Dummies" or some other introductory stuff that glanced over Hegel but didn't read much of Hegel himself...which, as I said, works out for Caesar anyway though since he's the sort of person who isn't as smart as he portrays himself to be.

[King Green]

Sooo, after all this discussion about NV and such factions and their interesting yet self-destructive development. Who wants to replay the 3d games? I'm doing a melee, jet-addict good gal on 3 while planning to make a compulsive-liar and *slightly* unhinged madman on 4 on the Railroad faction. NV, I'm not done with yet even though the anti-crash mods I install keep making the game have epilepsy. 8 times in the last hour and I lost the recording footage for my yt comeback.

[CharlesPhipps]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

I mean, Stanford disagrees with you.

This “textbook” Being-Nothing-Becoming example is closely connected to the traditional idea that Hegel’s dialectics follows a thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, which, when applied to the logic, means that one concept is introduced as a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two

The contradiction between Being and Nothing thus is not a reductio ad absurdum, or does not lead to the rejection of both concepts and hence to nothingness—as Hegel had said Plato’s dialectics does (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5)—but leads to a positive result, namely, to the introduction of a new concept—the synthesis—which unifies the two, earlier, opposed concepts.

[Jonathan101]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

I mean, Stanford disagrees with you.

This “textbook” Being-Nothing-Becoming example is closely connected to the traditional idea that Hegel’s dialectics follows a thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, which, when applied to the logic, means that one concept is introduced as a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two

The contradiction between Being and Nothing thus is not a reductio ad absurdum, or does not lead to the rejection of both concepts and hence to nothingness—as Hegel had said Plato’s dialectics does (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5)—but leads to a positive result, namely, to the introduction of a new concept—the synthesis—which unifies the two, earlier, opposed concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic ... _dialectic

"
According to the German philosopher Walter Kaufmann:

Fichte introduced into German philosophy the three-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took up this terminology. Hegel did not. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books. And they do not help us understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede any open-minded comprehension of what he does by forcing it into a scheme which was available to him and which he deliberately spurned [...] The mechanical formalism [...] Hegel derides expressly and at some length in the preface to the Phenomenology.[29][30]

Kaufmann also cites Hegel's criticism of the triad model commonly misattributed to him, adding that "the only place where Hegel uses the three terms together occurs in his lectures on the history of philosophy, on the last page but one of the sections on Kant—where Hegel roundly reproaches Kant for having 'everywhere posited thesis, antithesis, synthesis'".[31]"