More languages
More actions
Charhapiti (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Charhapiti (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Hegelianism is the Western philosophy, dialectics is a borrowed term. Contrary to what bourgeois academics may hold, Marxism is not Hegelianism, Marxism foiled Hegelianism by drawing out the universal and scientific laws from it while leaving out the stale, incorrect, and narrow aspects. What Marx did to Hegel's philosophy can be replicated with any philosophy, and not only did Marx and Engels do this to Hegel's philosophy but they also did so with Dühring's. | Hegelianism is the Western philosophy, dialectics is a borrowed term. Contrary to what bourgeois academics may hold, Marxism is not Hegelianism, Marxism foiled Hegelianism by drawing out the universal and scientific laws from it while leaving out the stale, incorrect, and narrow aspects. What Marx did to Hegel's philosophy can be replicated with any philosophy, and not only did Marx and Engels do this to Hegel's philosophy but they also did so with Dühring's. | ||
Similarly, Mao Zedong drew out the universal and scientific qualities of his own cultural heritage when he synthesized Daoist and Confucian thought with historical materialism, reflecting a uniquely Chinese take on Marxism-Leninism. Mao Zedong was not only a revolutionary, he was also a poet and avid reader. From his childhood into his adulthood he delved deeply in lifelong study of Chinese classical traditions, including Daoist and Confucian philosophers like Mencius and Zhuangzi. This nurtured his dialectical thinking and modes of expression, and he flexibly synthesized Daoist and Confucian concepts with dialectical materialism into [[his own brand of thought | Similarly, Mao Zedong drew out the universal and scientific qualities of his own cultural heritage when he synthesized Daoist and Confucian thought with historical materialism, reflecting a uniquely Chinese take on Marxism-Leninism. Mao Zedong was not only a revolutionary, he was also a poet and avid reader. From his childhood into his adulthood he delved deeply in lifelong study of Chinese classical traditions, including Daoist and Confucian philosophers like Mencius and Zhuangzi. This nurtured his dialectical thinking and modes of expression, and he flexibly synthesized Daoist and Confucian concepts with dialectical materialism into [[Mao Zedong Thought|his own brand of thought]] in a principled, practical, and poetic manner.<ref>{{Citation|author=Hu Weixiong, Professor of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (National School of Administration), doctoral tutor)|year=2022|title=Studies on Mao Zedong Deng Xiaoping Theory, No. 8|chapter=Hu Weixiong: Mao Zedong's diligence in learning poetry during his school years, as seen from Lecture Notes|chapter-url=http://marxism.cass.cn/ddzg/202312/t20231213_5713846.shtml|quote=Under the heading “The Scriptures of Mencius” (with no indication of the time), Mao mainly recorded his reading of Mencius - Liang Huiwangxia (梁惠王下). 在“《孟子》经”的标题下（没有标明时间），毛泽东主要是对《孟子·梁惠王下》阅读的记录。 | ||
Later, under the heading categorized as “Jing” (with no time indicated), Mao Zedong recorded his reading of “Poetry”, “Mencius”, and “Zhuangzi”. 后面，在分类为“经”的名目下（没有标明时间），毛泽东有对《诗经》《孟子》《庄子》阅读的记录。 | Later, under the heading categorized as “Jing” (with no time indicated), Mao Zedong recorded his reading of “Poetry”, “Mencius”, and “Zhuangzi”. 后面，在分类为“经”的名目下（没有标明时间），毛泽东有对《诗经》《孟子》《庄子》阅读的记录。 | ||
Revision as of 01:27, 18 February 2025
If dialectics is the underlying logic of the universe, then it follows that it existed historically and that at some points people observed it in action. Dialectical thinking appears in fragments across cultures. Humans observe phenomena in the universe, which leads to knowledge of dialectics, and dialectical knowledge empowers humans to exert influence over the universe.
In Western cultures, the term dialectics is derived from Socrates. Because of the origins of the term dialectics in Western philosophy, and the European roots of Marx and Engels, some people argue that dialectics and therefore all Marxism is Western "outsider" ideology. However, this is a case of shooting the messenger: dialectics and the observations of Marx and Engels which Marxist-Leninists uphold are in fact not exclusively Western, despite the language being used to describe that which is universal. It was Mao Zedong who addressed this and correctly observed that dialectical and undialectical thinking exist as tendencies within every society. So, regardless of what language we use, what we want to call it, whether it is dialectics, dynamic duality, contradictions, phenomena of opposites, or evolution, the same observations are being made. As Marxists, we use the term dialectics most commonly, and perhaps in non-Western languages a different term may be used for the same effect. This article will demonstrate the fragments of dialectics that most commonly apply.
Hegelianism is the Western philosophy, dialectics is a borrowed term. Contrary to what bourgeois academics may hold, Marxism is not Hegelianism, Marxism foiled Hegelianism by drawing out the universal and scientific laws from it while leaving out the stale, incorrect, and narrow aspects. What Marx did to Hegel's philosophy can be replicated with any philosophy, and not only did Marx and Engels do this to Hegel's philosophy but they also did so with Dühring's.
Similarly, Mao Zedong drew out the universal and scientific qualities of his own cultural heritage when he synthesized Daoist and Confucian thought with historical materialism, reflecting a uniquely Chinese take on Marxism-Leninism. Mao Zedong was not only a revolutionary, he was also a poet and avid reader. From his childhood into his adulthood he delved deeply in lifelong study of Chinese classical traditions, including Daoist and Confucian philosophers like Mencius and Zhuangzi. This nurtured his dialectical thinking and modes of expression, and he flexibly synthesized Daoist and Confucian concepts with dialectical materialism into his own brand of thought in a principled, practical, and poetic manner.[1]
It follows that any person with the skill can, as Marx and Mao have done, evolve any philosophy such as the ones listed on this page, introducing further dialectical insights and interpretations into a particular cultural system without the imposition of "outside thought", especially Western ideology. This list is not comprehensive, nor complete, but its aim is to provide a general impression of the logic of dialectics which is in constant development across all cultural systems. The list being a general overview for demonstration purposes, it is expected that the members of each respective culture must take on the work to further develop indigenous philosophies.
Some cultures may conceptualize opposites as at war with each other, while other cultures may consider opposites as part of a dynamic harmony. Neither interpretation is necessarily incorrect, if it can lead to knowledge acquisition by the correct apprehension of phenomena, then they are but synonymous with each other and any apparent difference is aesthetic.
Any culture can build up a dialectical version of itself, even if it expresses the most irreconcilable static dualism. Because the most irreconcilable static dualism that exists in a particular world culture is that of bourgeois gender roles. And in the face of that, trans people are contributing to dialectical knowledge of gender. The same evolution, the same qualitative leaps, can happen with any aspect of human thought.
Below is a ranked list of cultural, philosophical, and religious analogues to dialectics, rated on a scale from 0 (static dualism) to 10 (full Marxist dialectics). The ratings reflect how closely each system embodies core dialectical principles.
Summary
Dualistic systems (0-3) oppose dialectics by fixing opposites, while proto-dialectical systems (4-7) grasp aspects like change or relationality. Notably, in Tier 0-3, static dualism (Samkhya, Jainism) freezes contradictions; antagonistic dualism (Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism) denies synthesis. For further reading: Dialectical Forays (Rockmore) contrasts Hegelianism with dualisms. Decolonial critiques: The Wretched of the Earth (Fanon) on Manichaeism’s colonial legacy. Note: Non-Western systems that have lower ratings may still have valuable philosophical insights and contributions to human knowledge.
Non-dual systems often score higher, because they synthesize monism with dualism, offering a perspective that transcends the apparent contradiction between "all is one" and the existence of opposites. This synthesis recognizes that reality is ultimately a unified whole, while simultaneously acknowledging the expression of duality within that wholeness. However, the non-dual systems do not score as high as dialectical materialism, generally because they lack materialism.
Anti-materialism (Gnosticism, Cartesianism) negates dialectical engagement with historical conditions. Fatalism (Zurvanism) and elitist idealism (Platonism) reject collective agency. Another interesting pattern is that as mastery of dialectics increases, optimism increases. As mastery of dialectics decreases, fatalism increases.
Tier 10: Full Dialectical Systems
Dialectical Materialism (10)
Description: A materialist framework where contradictions (e.g., class struggle) drive historical progress through qualitative leaps (synthesis). This article assumes a basic knowledge of dialectical materialism. For more info, see the article on dialectical materialism. There have also been attempts to update dialectical materialism for the advancement of revolutionary socialism: Juche, developed by Kim Il-Sung, emphasizes human agency as the "master of revolution," taking human agency a step beyond certain fatalistic elements of dialectical materialism. Gramsci’s cultural hegemony extends dialectics to ideological critique, arguing that ruling classes maintain power through cultural institutions, not just economic force. Ahmed Sékou Touré also stated that "the foundations of culture have been created and the conditions for its progress are created by the working masses which are the makers of history".[2]
Why 10: Formalizes dialectical laws with materialist grounding, deepening knowledge of the world and humanity.
Tier 8-9: Near-Dialectical Systems
Hegelianism (9)
Hegel’s dialectics posits that reality evolves through contradictions (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), driven by the Absolute Spirit (Geist) striving for self-realization. The master-slave dialectic (Phenomenology of Spirit) illustrates how self-consciousness emerges through struggle, with the slave’s labor leading to historical progress.Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content Hegel's insights can be summed up as: The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa; The law of the interpenetration of opposites; The law of the negation of the negation.
Why 9: Hegel's system, unfortunately, is the only system in this list that interprets history as progressing through dialectical change. His work was comprehensive, and despite managing to advance Western philosophy into its highest stage yet, dialectical principles like the "negation of the negation" remained confined to the realm of logic and abstract reason, disconnected from empirical, material processes. For example, Hegel’s Philosophy of History frames historical progress as the Spirit’s self-actualization, not material phenomena like class conflict.[3] This led to Hegel famously being 'turned on his head' by Marx and Engels, transforming his idealism into materialism.[4] Despite this, there are some philosophers that try to rescue him. Bourgeois ex-Russian philosopher Kojève’s Marxist-Hegelian synthesis regresses Marxism into reformism and social democracy.[5] Hegel’s idealism lacks Marx’s materialist grounding, earning it a near-perfect but incomplete score.
Daoist Yin-Yang (8.5)
The interplay of yin (passive, dark) and yang (active, light) generates dynamic harmony through cyclical interaction. The Daodejing (Ch. 42) states, "The Dao engenders One; One engenders Two [...] Three engenders all things," framing reality as a unity of opposites.[6] Zhuangzi’s paradoxes (e.g., "Butterfly Dream") dissolve rigid distinctions, mirroring dialectical fluidity.[7]
Why 8.5:
Daoism's cycles of yin and yang embody contradiction-driven change but lacks any thought on the processes of historical development, instead seeing all phenomena as cyclical.[8] The I Ching’s hexagrams model change as cyclical permutations, not linear development. Adherence to Daoist harmony leads to inaction, impeding its liberatory potential.[9]
Mahayana Buddhism (Śūnyatā) Rating: 8.5/10 Description: In Mahayana Buddhism, śūnyatā (emptiness) asserts that all phenomena lack inherent, independent existence (svabhāva). Instead, everything arises interdependently (pratītyasamutpāda), meaning entities exist only in relation to causes, conditions, and other phenomena. This "emptiness" is not nihilistic but highlights the fluid, interconnected nature of reality. For example, the Heart Sutra states, "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form," dissolving rigid distinctions between existence and non-existence 410. Non-dual frameworks like Madhyamaka philosophy use śūnyatā to deconstruct fixed essences, emphasizing that apparent dualities (e.g., self/other, good/evil) are illusory 713.
Why 8.5:
Strengths: Balances relational interdependence with a rejection of static dualism, akin to Daoist yin-yang.
Limitations: Focuses on metaphysical insight over materialist praxis (unlike Marxist dialectics) and risks being misinterpreted as nihilism 713.
Sources:
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Nāgārjuna) 713.
Heart Sutra and Prajñāpāramitā literature 410.
Kyoto School interpretations bridging Hegelian dialectics and Zen non-duality 13.
Madhyamaka Buddhism (Nāgārjuna) (8) 🌌
Description:
Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way) deconstructs all dualities (e.g., existence/non-existence) via dialectical reasoning to reveal emptiness (śūnyatā). His "eight negations" reject inherent essence in phenomena, asserting dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). Modern scholars compare this to Hegelian negation, but Nāgārjuna’s goal is soteriological—cessation of suffering, not historical progress.
Why 8:
Madhyamaka’s relational interdependence mirrors dialectical thinking but lacks materialist grounding. For example, Nāgārjuna’s critique of causality (MMK Ch. 1) dismantles fixed essences without engaging socioeconomic contradictions. Westerhoff argues Madhyamaka "negates all views, including emptiness itself" (Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka), precluding Hegelian synthesis. Its focus on individual liberation (nirvāṇa) sidelines collective historical agency.
Sources:
Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (2nd c. CE), Ch. 24: "Emptiness is the relinquishing of all views."
Westerhoff, Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka (2009), p. 112: Compares Madhyamaka negation to Hegelian dialectics.
Garfield, Empty Words (2002), p. 89: Contrasts Buddhist emptiness with Marxist materialism.
6. Buddhist Pratītyasamutpāda (Dependent Origination) (8)
Description:
The Twelve Nidānas (links) explain how ignorance (avidyā) perpetuates suffering (duḥkha) through cycles of rebirth. The Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN 12.1) states, "With ignorance as condition, volitional formations arise [...] With birth as condition, aging-and-death arise." Liberation (nirvāṇa) occurs via cessation of craving, not dialectical synthesis.
Why 8:
Dependent origination’s processual framework aligns with dialectical thinking but prioritizes soteriology over contradiction. For instance, the Second Noble Truth identifies craving (taṇhā) as suffering’s cause, not class struggle. While the Avataṃsaka Sūtra’s "Indra’s Net" metaphor illustrates interdependence, it lacks Marx’s historical materialism. Collins notes early Buddhism "dissolves suffering through insight, not revolution" (Selfless Persons).
Sources:
Saṃyutta Nikāya (5th c. BCE), SN 12.1: Outlines the Twelve Nidānas.
Collins, Selfless Persons (1982), p. 145: Contrasts Buddhist liberation with dialectical synthesis.
Avataṃsaka Sūtra (3rd c. CE), Ch. 39: "Indra’s Net" metaphor of interdependence.
Tier 6-7: Proto-Dialectical Systems
7. Heraclitean Flux (7.5)
Description:
Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 500 BCE) posited reality as perpetual change (panta rhei), symbolized by fire (pur)—a transformative element embodying both creation and destruction. His fragments emphasize strife (polemos) as the cosmic order’s engine: "War is the father of all" (B53). The river analogy ("No man steps into the same river twice") illustrates flux, where stability emerges from ceaseless transformation.
Why 7.5:
Heraclitus intuits contradiction as fundamental but lacks systematic dialectical development. While he recognizes tension (e.g., day/night, life/death) as generative, his aphoristic style resists Hegelian-style synthesis. Kirk notes Heraclitus’s "unity of opposites" is proto-dialectical but "pre-systematic" (Presocratic Philosophers). Unlike Marx, Heraclitus frames change as natural (fire’s cycles) rather than historical class struggle. Plato’s Cratylus critiques Heraclitus for overemphasizing flux, contrasting his dynamism with Parmenides’ stasis.
Sources:
Diels-Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (1952), B12, B53: Primary fragments on flux and strife.
Plato, Cratylus (360 BCE), 402a: Critique of Heraclitean flux.
Kirk, Presocratic Philosophers (1983), p. 143: "Heraclitus’s logos prefigures dialectics but lacks structure."
8. Hua-Yen Buddhism (7.5) 🌌
Description:
The Avatamsaka Sutra’s "Indra’s Net" metaphor describes reality as an infinite web of jewels reflecting one another—each jewel distinct yet inseparable from the whole. Fazang’s Treatise on the Golden Lion uses this to illustrate non-dual interdependence: "One is all; all is one." Paradoxes (e.g., "form is emptiness") dissolve dualities but avoid materialist analysis.
Why 7.5:
Hua-Yen’s relational ontology mirrors dialectical interdependence but prioritizes mystical unity over contradiction-driven synthesis. Cook notes its "non-obstructed interpenetration" (Hua-Yen Buddhism) negates conflict rather than resolving it. For example, the Huayan Wujiao Zhang states, "The many are fused into one; the one is divided into many," bypassing Hegelian negation. Unlike Marxist materialism, Hua-Yen’s focus is soteriological—liberation through insight into emptiness.
Sources:
Avatamsaka Sutra (3rd c. CE), Ch. 39: "Indra’s Net" metaphor.
Cook, Hua-Yen Buddhism (1977), p. 45: Analyzes interpenetration vs. synthesis.
Fazang, Treatise on the Golden Lion (7th c. CE): "The lion’s gold is its emptiness."
9. Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga (7) 🌌
Description:
Aurobindo’s The Life Divine (1940) posits consciousness evolving from mind to "Supermind," unifying spirit and matter. He integrates Vedantic sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) with Bergson’s élan vital, envisioning a "divine life on Earth." His Synthesis of Yoga bridges Tantric Shakti worship and Hegelian dialectics, aiming to transform human nature through spiritualized materialism.
Why 7:
Integral Yoga’s dynamic synthesis of Eastern and Western thought approaches dialectics but remains idealist. For instance, Aurobindo’s "supramental consciousness" transcends contradictions (e.g., spirit/matter) rather than resolving them through struggle. Chaudhuri critiques his "evolutionary mysticism" (Integral Philosophy) for neglecting class analysis. While his anti-colonial writings use Hindu imagery (e.g., Bharat Mata), they lack Marx’s materialist praxis.
Sources:
Aurobindo, The Life Divine (1940), Bk II, Ch. 27: "The Supermind as divine mediator."
Chaudhuri, Integral Philosophy (1992), p. 67: "Aurobindo’s idealism sidesteps socioeconomic contradictions."
Bergson, Creative Evolution (1907): Influence on Aurobindo’s vitalism.
10. Jain Syādvāda (7)
Description:
The saptabhaṅgī (sevenfold predication) asserts provisional truths (e.g., "in some ways, it is; in some ways, it is not"), rejecting absolutism. Anekāntavāda (non-absolutism) acknowledges multifaceted reality but avoids contradiction-driven change. Liberation (moksha) requires ascetic disentanglement from karma, not synthesis.
Why 7:
Syādvāda’s relational epistemology mirrors dialectical flexibility but lacks transformative negation. The Tattvartha Sutra (5.21) states, "The soul is bound by karma," demanding withdrawal, not engagement. Dundas notes Jainism’s "many-sidedness" (The Jains) preserves harmony but evades struggle. For example, Mahavira’s teachings resolve doctrinal conflicts via syād ("maybe") without Hegelian synthesis.
Sources:
Tattvartha Sutra (2nd c. CE), 5.21: Doctrine of karma and liberation.
Dundas, The Jains (2002), p. 94: "Jain pluralism avoids conflict but stagnates."
Mahavira, Acharanga Sutra (5th c. BCE): "Non-violence (ahimsa) transcends contradiction."
11. Yoruba Ifá/Ashé Philosophy (6.5)
Description:
Ashé (life force) and ibi (chaos) are balanced through divination (Ifá) and communal rituals. The Odu Ifá corpus frames existence as interplay between humans and Orishas (deities), emphasizing cyclical renewal (e.g., festivals for Èṣù, trickster god of crossroads).
Why 6.5:
Yoruba cosmology acknowledges tension (e.g., Èṣù’s disruptive role) but resolves it through ritual alignment, not dialectical struggle. Abimbola notes Ifá divination "restores ashé through sacrifice, not revolution" (Ifá Divination). Unlike Marx’s class struggle, Yoruba ethics prioritize communal harmony (e.g., Ubuntu-like "I am because we are"). Drewal argues rituals "absorb chaos without transforming it" (Yoruba Ritual).
Sources:
Abimbola, Ifá Divination (1977), p. 34: "Divination reconciles, does not negate."
Drewal, Yoruba Ritual (1992), p. 89: Ritual as static harmony.
Odu Ifá (oral tradition): "Èṣù’s mischief teaches balance through disorder."
12. Shiva-Shakti (Non-Dual Tantra) (6.5) 🌌
Description:
Shiva (consciousness) and Shakti (energy) co-create reality through tension, transcending duality in forms like Ardhanarishvara (androgynous union). The Vijnana Bhairava Tantra (verse 55) dissolves duality through meditative absorption (samadhi), bypassing material struggle.
Why 6.5:
Shiva-Shakti’s dynamic interplay resembles dialectical tension but seeks mystical unity, not synthesis. Urban notes Tantra’s "transgressive rituals" (Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power) shock societal norms but ultimately negate conflict through transcendence. For example, kundalini awakening merges opposites internally, sidestepping external contradictions. Unlike Marxist praxis, Tantra’s goal is individual liberation (moksha), not collective revolution.
Sources:
Vijnana Bhairava Tantra (8th c. CE), verse 55: "Union within, beyond worldly strife."
Urban, Tantra (2003), p. 122: "Tantra’s non-dualism negates struggle."
Eliade, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom (1958): Tantric techniques as internal dialectics.
13. Mexica Religion (6.5)
Description:
Quetzalcoatl (feathered serpent, creator) and Tezcatlipoca (smoking mirror, chaos) cycle cosmic eras (suns), balancing destruction and renewal. The xiuhpohualli (solar calendar) ritualizes this interplay through festivals (e.g., Toxcatl honoring Tezcatlipoca).
Why 6.5:
Mexica cosmology ritualizes contradiction but lacks dialectical agency. León-Portilla notes the Fifth Sun’s destruction is predetermined (Aztec Thought), not emergent from struggle. The Florentine Codex describes Tezcatlipoca’s tricks as "divine play," not antagonistic synthesis. Unlike Hegelian progress, Mexica renewal is cyclical repetition, not transcendence.
Sources:
León-Portilla, Aztec Thought (1963), p. 45: "Cyclicality resists historical dialectics."
Florentine Codex (1577), Bk. 3: "Tezcatlipoca’s chaos as cosmic necessity."
Carrasco, City of Sacrifice (1999): Ritual vs. revolution in Mexica society.
14. Indigenous Cyclical Cosmologies (6)
Description:
Time as cyclical (e.g., Navajo hózhó, Māori Te Kore). The Navajo Blessingway ritual restores harmony (hózhó) after chaos (hóchxǫ́ǫ́), while Māori cosmology frames creation as emergence from void (Te Kore) through dynamic interplay.
Why 6:
Indigenous cosmologies acknowledge conflict but prioritize restorative balance over synthesis. Deloria argues "circular time heals; it does not progress" (God is Red). For example, the Navajo Enemyway ritual neutralizes harm without transforming societal structures. Beck contrasts this with Marx’s "linear struggle toward utopia" (Sacred).
Sources:
Deloria, God is Red (1973), p. 87: Critique of linear time.
Beck, Sacred (2010), p. 56: "Restoration, not revolution, in Navajo thought."
Marsden, The Woven Universe (2003): Māori Te Kore as dynamic void.
15. Socratic Dialectics (6)
Description:
Socrates’ elenchus (critical questioning) exposes contradictions in arguments (e.g., Euthyphro’s definition of piety). The Meno paradox ("Can virtue be taught?") highlights ignorance as a path to insight.
Why 6:
Socratic method critiques false beliefs but lacks constructive synthesis. Vlastos calls it "negative dialectic" (Socratic Studies), clearing mental obstacles without building new systems. For instance, Socrates dismantles Euthyphro’s definitions but offers no alternative. Unlike Hegel, Socratic dialectics is epistemological, not cosmic or historical.
Sources:
Plato, Euthyphro (399 BCE), 11a: Socrates’ deconstructive questioning.
Vlastos, Socratic Studies (1994), p. 23: "Elenchus as destructive tool."
Robinson, Plato’s Earlier Dialectic (1953): Contrast with Hegelian synthesis.
16. Norse Cosmology (6)
Description:
Cyclical destruction/rebirth (Ragnarök) pits order (Odin) against chaos (Loki). The Völuspá (Poetic Edda) prophesies Odin’s death and the world’s rebirth (Gimlé), but gods and giants perish alike.
Why 6:
Ragnarök’s fatalistic cycles lack dialectical synthesis. Lindow notes "the new world is a pale copy of the old" (Norse Mythology), with no qualitative leap. Heroic agency (e.g., Odin’s wisdom quest) confronts fate (wyrd) but cannot transcend it. Unlike Marxist class struggle, Norse cosmology resigns to cosmic repetition.
Sources:
Völuspá (Poetic Edda), stanza 57: "The sun turns black; the earth sinks into the sea."
Lindow, Norse Mythology (2001), p. 89: "Ragnarök as reset, not resolution."
Turville-Petre, Myth and Religion of the North (1964): Norse cyclicality vs. dialectics.
Tier 4-5: Partial or Indirect Resonance
17. Trimurti (Hinduism) (5.5)
Description:
The Trimurti—Brahma (creation), Vishnu (preservation), and Shiva (destruction)—embodies cyclical cosmic phases. The Shiva Purana (2.3.15) states Shiva’s dance (tandava) destroys illusions to enable Brahma’s renewal, while Vishnu’s avatars (e.g., Krishna) restore cosmic order (dharma).
Why 5.5:
While Shiva’s destructive role is necessary for renewal, the Trimurti’s hierarchy (Brahma as lesser creator) reflects mythic fatalism, not dialectical equality. Doniger notes Hindu cyclicality "preserves order but resists revolution" (The Hindus). For example, Krishna’s Bhagavad Gita (3.24) urges Arjuna to fulfill his caste duty (svadharma), prioritizing stability over transformative struggle. Unlike Marxist dialectics, the Trimurti’s cycles lack historical agency or materialist conflict.
Sources:
Shiva Purana (8th c. CE), 2.3.15: Links destruction to cosmic renewal.
Bhagavad Gita (2nd c. BCE), 3.24: "Action is rooted in duty, not contradiction."
Doniger, The Hindus (2009), p. 234: "Trimurti’s balance is static, not dialectical."
18. Shinto (Amaterasu & Susanoo) (5)
Description:
Amaterasu (sun goddess) and Susanoo (storm god) reconcile after conflict, as recounted in the Kojiki (712 CE). Susanoo’s rampage (e.g., defiling Amaterasu’s loom) leads to her withdrawal into a cave, plunging the world into darkness. Their eventual reconciliation restores light and order.
Why 5:
Shinto’s mythic resolution avoids material struggle. Grapard argues harmony (wa) "absorbs chaos without transforming it" (Shinto). For instance, rituals like Oharae (purification) cleanse impurity (kegare) but do not address structural contradictions. Unlike Hegelian synthesis, Shinto’s cyclicality (musubi) prioritizes restoration over progress.
Sources:
Kojiki (712 CE), Ch. 17: Susanoo’s expulsion and reconciliation.
Grapard, Shinto (2016), p. 67: "Ritual harmony negates dialectical motion."
Oharae Norito (purification prayer): "May impurities be washed away."
19. Stoic Logos (5)
Description:
The Stoic logos—a rational principle governing the cosmos—frames reality as cyclical ekpyrosis (conflagration) and renewal. Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations (4.23) advises accepting fate: "The universe is change; life is opinion."
Why 5:
Stoicism’s passive acceptance of cosmic cycles lacks dialectical struggle. Long notes Stoic "cosmopolitanism" (Hellenistic Philosophy) avoids class conflict by urging alignment with logos. For example, Epictetus’ Discourses (1.1) teaches, "Some things are up to us, others are not," sidestepping material contradictions. Unlike Marxist praxis, Stoicism spiritualizes resignation.
Sources:
Aurelius, Meditations (167 CE), 4.23: "Accept fate; do not resist it."
Epictetus, Discourses (108 CE), 1.1: Dichotomy of control.
Long, Hellenistic Philosophy (1986), p. 145: "Stoicism’s logos rationalizes stasis."
20. Confucian Harmony (5)
Description:
Confucian zhōngyōng (中庸, "Doctrine of the Mean") balances differences (hé) through ritual (li) and ethical cultivation (ren). The Analects (13.23) contrasts harmony with rigid conformity (tóng).
Why 5:
Confucian ethics prioritize stability over contradiction. Li argues hé "integrates without transforming" (Confucian Philosophy of Harmony). For example, Mencius’ rectification of names (7B37) reinforces hierarchical roles (ruler-subject, father-son), suppressing class struggle. Unlike dialectical materialism, Confucianism lacks historical motor or revolutionary praxis.
Sources:
Confucius, Analects (5th c. BCE), 13.23: "Harmony without uniformity."
Mencius, Mengzi (3rd c. BCE), 7B37: "Rectify names to preserve order."
Li, Confucian Philosophy of Harmony (2014), p. 89: "Confucian hé negates conflict."
21. Advaita Vedanta (4.5) 🌌
Description:
Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya (1.1.2) asserts non-dual Brahman as the sole reality, dismissing the world as illusion (maya). Liberation (moksha) involves realizing "I am Brahman" (aham brahmāsmi), transcending duality.
Why 4.5:
Advaita’s dissolution of opposites negates dialectics. Deutsch notes it "collapses contradictions into static oneness" (Advaita Vedanta). For instance, Shankara critiques Buddhist śūnyatā as nihilistic, asserting Brahman’s permanence. Unlike Hegelian synthesis, Advaita’s non-dualism rejects process, ending dialectical motion.
Sources:
Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhashya (8th c. CE), 1.1.2: "Brahman alone is real."
Deutsch, Advaita Vedanta (1969), p. 56: "Non-dualism annihilates contradiction."
Aitareya Upanishad (6th c. BCE), 3.3: "All this is Brahman."
22. Hermeticism (4.5) 🌌
Description:
The Emerald Tablet’s axiom "As above, so below" unites macrocosm/microcosm through alchemical transformation. The Corpus Hermeticum describes spiritual ascent through planetary spheres to reunite with the One.
Why 4.5:
Hermeticism’s correspondence (e.g., mind-matter parallels) avoids contradiction-driven synthesis. Hanegraaff argues its "alchemy transcends, but does not transform" (Hermetic Spirituality). For example, Ficino’s Renaissance Hermeticism spiritualizes dialectics, prioritizing gnosis over class struggle. Unlike Marxist materialism, Hermeticism’s goals are mystical, not historical.
Sources:
Emerald Tablet (8th c. CE): "As above, so below."
Corpus Hermeticum (2nd c. CE), Book I: "The divine within ascends to the divine above."
Hanegraaff, Hermetic Spirituality (2021), p. 78: "Hermetic ascent bypasses struggle."
23. Ancient Egyptian Religion (4)
Description:
Ma’at (order/truth) and Isfet (chaos/injustice) are balanced through pharaonic rituals (e.g., Sed festivals). The Book of the Dead (Ch. 125) moralizes adherence to Ma’at for cosmic stability.
Why 4:
Egyptian cosmology ritualizes stasis. Assmann notes pharaohs "reaffirm Ma’at eternally" (Ma’at), avoiding transformative struggle. For example, Hatshepsut’s temple inscriptions frame her reign as Ma’at’s restoration, not revolution. Unlike dialectical materialism, Egyptian order is cyclical maintenance, not progress.
Sources:
Book of the Dead (1550 BCE), Ch. 125: "I have upheld Ma’at."
Assmann, Ma’at (1990), p. 112: "Egyptian order resists historical change."
Hatshepsut’s Speos Artemidos inscription: "I restored what was ruined."
24. Pre-Socratic Oppositions (4)
Description:
Anaximander’s apeiron (boundless) governs elemental conflicts (hot/cold, wet/dry). Heraclitus’ fragments (e.g., B53: "War is father of all") intuit strife as cosmic principle.
Why 4:
Pre-Socratic thought hints at dialectics but lacks systematicity. Kirk argues Heraclitus’ logos "prefigures contradiction but lacks synthesis" (Presocratic Philosophers). For example, Anaximander’s cyclical destruction (DK12B1) lacks Marx’s historical agency. These thinkers’ aphoristic style resists Hegelian rigor.
Sources:
Diels-Kranz, Fragmente (1952), DK12B1: Anaximander’s cyclical strife.
Heraclitus, B53: "Strife is justice."
Kirk, Presocratic Philosophers (1983), p. 143: "Proto-dialectical intuition."
25. Greek Mythology (The Moirai) (4)
Description:
The Moirai (Fates)—Clotho (spinner), Lachesis (measurer), Atropos (cutter)—weave predetermined destiny. Hesiod’s Theogony (line 218) calls them "apportioners" (moirai), fixing each mortal’s lot.
Why 4:
The Moirai enforce fixed cosmic order, negating dialectical agency. Clay argues their threads "preclude struggle" (Hesiod’s Cosmos). For example, Oedipus’ tragic fate (Oedipus Rex) illustrates helplessness against predestination, unlike Hegelian self-conscious becoming.
Sources:
Hesiod, Theogony (700 BCE), line 218: "The Moirai give mortals their share."
Sophocles, Oedipus Rex (429 BCE): "Fate binds even kings."
Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos (2003), p. 101: "Moirai’s determinism vs. dialectics."
Tier 0-3: Static or Dualistic Systems 26. Samkhya Philosophy (3.5) Description: Samkhya, one of Hinduism’s six orthodox schools, posits a rigid dualism between Purusha (pure consciousness) and Prakriti (material nature). The Samkhyakarika (verse 3) asserts these principles are eternally separate, with liberation (kaivalya) achieved through ascetic disentanglement from Prakriti’s illusions. Ayurveda’s mind-body balance draws from this duality, but Samkhya rejects synthesis, advocating isolation of Purusha.
Why 3.5: Samkhya’s static dualism precludes dialectical motion. Larson notes its "liberation is escape, not synthesis" (Classical Samkhya). For example, viveka (discriminative knowledge) separates spirit from matter but negates interaction. Unlike Hegelian negation, Samkhya’s kaivalya ends engagement with the world. Its influence on Ayurveda (e.g., dosha theory) prioritizes balance over contradiction-driven change.
Sources:
Samkhyakarika (4th c. CE), verse 3: "Purusha is conscious; Prakriti is unconscious."
Larson, Classical Samkhya (1979), p. 89: Critique of Samkhya’s irreconcilable dualism.
Charaka Samhita (2nd c. BCE): Ayurvedic application of Samkhya.
27. Jainism (3) Description: Jainism’s dualism of Jīva (soul) and Ajīva (non-soul) frames reality through anekāntavāda (non-absolutism), which acknowledges seven conditional perspectives (saptabhaṅgī). Liberation (moksha) requires ascetic withdrawal from karmic bondage, not synthesis of opposites.
Why 3: Jainism’s pluralism avoids absolutism but lacks dialectical motion. Dundas notes anekāntavāda "preserves harmony by refusing conflict" (The Jains). For example, Mahavira’s teachings resolve doctrinal disputes via syād ("maybe") without Hegelian synthesis. Ascetic practices (e.g., sallekhana, fasting to death) seek individual purity, sidelining collective struggle.
Sources:
Tattvartha Sutra (2nd c. CE), 5.21: "The soul is bound by karma."
Dundas, The Jains (2002), p. 94: "Jainism’s static pluralism."
Mahavira, Acharanga Sutra (5th c. BCE): "Non-violence (ahimsa) transcends contradiction."
28. Platonic Dualism (3) Description: Plato’s Republic divides reality into the eternal World of Forms (e.g., Justice, Beauty) and the material "shadows" of the cave. The Phaedo (75c) frames dialectic as recollection (anamnesis) of innate Forms, escaping the cave’s illusions.
Why 3: Platonic dualism negates material struggle. Nails argues "the Forms are static ideals, not processes" (People of Plato). For instance, the philosopher-king’s role is to mirror the Form of the Good, not engage in class struggle. Unlike Marxist praxis, Plato’s dialectic is elitist and ahistorical, prioritizing transcendence over transformation.
Sources:
Plato, Republic (380 BCE), Bk. VII: Allegory of the Cave.
Phaedo (380 BCE), 75c: "Learning is recollection."
Nails, The People of Plato (2002), p. 167: "Plato’s idealism halts dialectics."
29. Zoroastrian Dualism (2) Description: Zoroastrianism’s cosmic struggle between Ahura Mazda (wise lord, good) and Angra Mainyu (destructive spirit, evil) culminates in Frashokereti—a final battle where good triumphs eternally. The Gathas (Yasna 30.3–5) frame ethics as aligning with Asha (truth) against Druj (chaos).
Why 2: Zoroastrianism’s antagonistic dualism lacks synthesis. Boyce notes Frashokereti "annihilates evil but does not integrate it" (Zoroastrians). For example, the Vendidad prescribes ritual purity (e.g., burning corpses) to combat chaos, not socioeconomic reform. Unlike dialectical materialism, Zoroastrian eschatology resolves conflict through destruction, not qualitative leaps.
Sources:
Gathas (1200 BCE), Yasna 30.3: "The two spirits chose life and non-life."
Boyce, Zoroastrians (1979), p. 27: "Eschatology as annihilation, not synthesis."
Vendidad (4th c. BCE), Fargard 5: Ritual purity laws.
30. Zurvanism (2) Description: A Zoroastrian offshoot, Zurvanism elevates Zurvan (infinite time) as a neutral deity overseeing Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. The lost Zurvan Yasht (cited in Middle Persian texts) posits time’s indifference to moral struggle, blending fatalism with ethical choice.
Why 2: Zurvanism’s temporal determinism voids agency. Zaehner argues "time’s neutrality negates dialectical struggle" (Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma). For example, the Bundahishn (3.24) states Zurvan’s "yearning for a son" created the twins good/evil, framing conflict as preordained. Unlike Marxist historicity, Zurvanism reduces ethics to alignment with cosmic indifference.
Sources:
Bundahishn (9th c. CE), 3.24: Zurvan’s creation myth.
Zaehner, Zurvan: A Zoroastrian Dilemma (1955), p. 45: "Time’s fatalism vs. agency."
31. Gnosticism (2) Description: Gnosticism divides reality into the divine Pleroma (spiritual realm) and the Demiurge’s flawed material world. The Gospel of Thomas (saying 3) urges seekers to find the "Kingdom within," rejecting physicality. Liberation (gnosis) involves awakening the divine spark (pneuma) trapped in matter.
Why 2: Gnosticism’s anti-material dualism negates dialectics. Jonas argues it "flees the world rather than transforming it" (The Gnostic Religion). For example, the Apocryphon of John condemns the Demiurge as ignorant, dismissing material struggle. Unlike Marxist praxis, Gnostic salvation is individual escape, not collective revolution.
Sources:
Gospel of Thomas (1st c. CE), saying 3: "The Kingdom is inside you."
Apocryphon of John (2nd c. CE): Demiurge as false creator.
Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (1958), p. 67: "Gnostic world-rejection."
32. Cartesian Mind-Body Dualism (1) Description: Descartes’ Meditations (1641) splits reality into res cogitans (thinking substance) and res extensa (extended substance). The mind-body problem arises from their irreconcilable interaction, with the pineal gland posited as a dubious mediator.
Why 1: Cartesian dualism halts dialectics at the threshold. Cottingham notes it "freezes interaction into mystery" (Descartes). For example, Descartes’ Passions of the Soul (Article 31) reduces emotion to bodily mechanics, negating mind-body synthesis. Unlike Marxist materialism, Cartesianism siloes consciousness from historical struggle.
Sources:
Descartes, Meditations (1641), II.1: "I think, therefore I am."
Passions of the Soul (1649), Article 31: Mechanistic view of emotion.
Cottingham, Descartes (1986), p. 112: "Cartesian dualism as dead end."
33. Manichaeism (0) Description: Founded by Mani (3rd c. CE), Manichaeism posits an eternal struggle between light (spirit) and darkness (matter). The Kephalaia (Ch. 1) states these forces are irreconcilable, with liberation requiring light’s extraction from the material world.
Why 0: Manichaeism’s irreducible dualism precludes synthesis. Lieu notes its "cosmic apartheid" (Manichaeism) denies any resolution beyond light’s escape. For example, the Psalm of the Bema (236) celebrates light’s victory through ascetic withdrawal, not struggle. Unlike dialectical materialism, Manichaeism offers no historical motor or transformative praxis.
Sources:
Kephalaia (3rd c. CE), Ch. 1: "Two principles, light and darkness."
Psalm of the Bema (3rd c. CE), line 236: "Praise to the Light’s escape."
Lieu, Manichaeism (1992), p. 45: "Manichaean cosmic apartheid."
- ↑ “Under the heading “The Scriptures of Mencius” (with no indication of the time), Mao mainly recorded his reading of Mencius - Liang Huiwangxia (梁惠王下). 在“《孟子》经”的标题下（没有标明时间），毛泽东主要是对《孟子·梁惠王下》阅读的记录。
Later, under the heading categorized as “Jing” (with no time indicated), Mao Zedong recorded his reading of “Poetry”, “Mencius”, and “Zhuangzi”. 后面，在分类为“经”的名目下（没有标明时间），毛泽东有对《诗经》《孟子》《庄子》阅读的记录。
These excerpts not only enriched Mao's poetic imagination, but also benefited him in deepening his philosophical reflection on the dialectical relationship between the large and the small. His comments on the deeds of Li Hongzhang and on the remarks of Mencius, which he appended to Zhuangzi's remarks, concretely demonstrate this dialectical thinking. Zhuangzi's ideas had a significant impact on Mao's social and political activities and poetic life, and he later used the term “big bird” and “kunpeng” in his poems on many occasions. 这些摘录不仅丰富了毛泽东的诗意想象力，而且有益于他加深对大与小辩证关系的哲学思考。他在庄子言论之后附加的对李鸿章事迹的评论、对孟子言论的评论，具体表明了这种辩证思考。庄子的思想对毛泽东一生的社会政治活动、诗词生活有着重大影响，他后来多次以“大鸟”“鲲鹏”入诗。
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong sent someone to look for Yuan Jiliu, but he was deeply sorry to learn that his teacher had died in 1932. In order to express his respect for his teacher, Mao invited Dai Changzhen, Yuan's wife and mother, to Beijing on May 1, 1951, the International Labor Day. When Mao learned that Dai Changzhen was having difficulties, he wrote to Wang Shoudao, the head of the Hunan provincial government, asking the provincial government to help her. In October 1952, when Mao learned that the local government had decided to rebuild the grave of Yuan Jiliu, he was invited by Luo Yuankun to inscribe “Mr. Yuan Jiliu's Tomb” for the erection of a monument. He inscribed “Mr. Yuan Jiliu's Tomb” in his own handwriting at Luo Yuankun's request. Mao Zedong's inscription on Mr. Yuan Jiliu's tombstone is the only one of its kind among all the deceased teachers who taught at the First Normal School. This shows that Mao Zedong sincerely admired Mr. Yuan Jiliu's morality and knowledge. 中华人民共和国成立后，毛泽东曾特地派人寻找袁吉六的下落，后知悉恩师已于1932年去世，深为惋惜。为表达对老师的敬意，1951年“五一”国际劳动节，毛泽东特意邀请袁吉六的夫人、师母戴常贞到北京观礼。毛泽东得知戴常贞生活困难，便给湖南省政府负责人王首道写信，请省政府酌予接济。戴常贞患结石症做完手术，毛泽东得知消息后立即从自己的稿费中拿出400元钱，托周世钊带给她作营养费用。1952年10月，毛泽东得知地方政府决定为袁吉六这位名师重修墓地的消息，他应罗元鲲之请，亲笔题写了“袁吉六先生之墓”以作立碑用。毛泽东为袁吉六先生题写墓碑，这是所有在第一师范学校任教过的逝世老师中是仅有的。由此可见，毛泽东对袁吉六的道德、学识是由衷佩服的。
Influenced by his teacher Yuan Jiliu's words and deeds, Mao Zedong studied hard, studied ancient Chinese literature and poetry, and history during his student days, and mastered his literary skills; he also studied calligraphy diligently, and later became a great poet and calligrapher. Mao Zedong can be said to be a student who surpassed his teacher. His student grew up to be a great man and a poet, and Yuan Jiliu can rest in peace. "Mastering ancient and modern literature and history, and teaching talents all over the world", the couplet on the stone pillar beside the tombstone fully fits Mr. Yuan's identity and deeds. 受业师袁吉六言传身教的影响，毛泽东在学生时代勤奋读书、研习古文古诗及历史，练就了一身文功；他同时勤习字帖，后来终成大诗人、大书法家。毛泽东可谓青出于蓝而胜于蓝，自己的学生成长为一代伟人、一代诗圣，袁吉六可笑慰九泉了。“通古今文史，教天下英才”，墓碑之侧石柱上的这副对联完全符合袁先生的身份与事迹。”
Hu Weixiong, Professor of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (National School of Administration), doctoral tutor) (2022). Studies on Mao Zedong Deng Xiaoping Theory, No. 8: 'Hu Weixiong: Mao Zedong's diligence in learning poetry during his school years, as seen from Lecture Notes' (Mandarin: 《毛泽东邓小平理论研究》2022年第8期). - ↑ “"The foundations of culture have been created and the conditions for its progress are created by the working masses which are the makers of history."”
Ahmed Sékou Touré (1969). A Dialectical Approach to Culture. [PDF] doi: 10.1080/00064246.1969.11414448 [HUB] - ↑ Hegel (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit: 'Lordship and Bondage'. [PDF]
- ↑ “It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical development, as well as of thought itself. And indeed they can be reduced in the main to three:
The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.
All three are developed by Hegel in his idealist fashion as mere laws of thought: the first, in the first part of his Logic, in the Doctrine of Being; the second fills the whole of the second and by far the most important part of his Logic, the Doctrine of Essence; finally the third figures as the fundamental law for the construction of the whole system. The mistake lies in the fact that these laws are foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced from them. This is the source of the whole forced and often outrageous treatment; the universe, willy-nilly, is made out to be arranged in accordance with a system of thought which itself is only the product of a definite stage of evolution of human thought. If we turn the thing round, then everything becomes simple, and the dialectical laws that look so extremely mysterious in idealist philosophy at once become simple and clear as noonday.”
Friedrich Engels (1883). Dialectics of Nature: 'Dialectics'. [MIA] - ↑ Kojève (1969). Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (p. 50).
- ↑ “"道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物。
The Dao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things."”
Laozi (Between 8th and 3rd century BCE). Dao De Jing, aka Laozi: '42' (Chinese: 道德經). - ↑ “昔者莊周夢為胡蝶，栩栩然胡蝶也，自喻適志與！不知周也。俄然覺，則蘧蘧然周也。不知周之夢為胡蝶與，胡蝶之夢為周與？周與胡蝶，則必有分矣。此之謂物化。
Formerly, I, Zhuang Zhou, dreamt that I was a butterfly, a butterfly flying about, feeling that it was enjoying itself. I did not know that it was Zhou. Suddenly I awoke, and was myself again, the veritable Zhou. I did not know whether it had formerly been Zhou dreaming that he was a butterfly, or it was now a butterfly dreaming that it was Zhou. But between Zhou and a butterfly there must be a difference. This is a case of what is called the Transformation of Things.'”
"The Writings of Chuang Tzu", James Legge, 1891: '齊物論 - The Adjustment of Controversies' (350 BC-250 BC) (Chinese: 莊子 - Zhuangzi - also known as 《南華真經》). - ↑ “2 万物恃之以生而不辞，功成不名有，衣养万物而不为主。常无欲，可名于小；All things return (to their root and disappear), and do not know that it is it which presides over their doing so;--it may be named in the greatest things.”
Laozi (Between 8th and 3rd century BCE). Dao De Jing, aka Laozi: '34' (Chinese: 道德經). - ↑ “"為學日益，為道日損。損之又損，以至於無為。無為而無不為。取天下常以無事，及其有事，不足以取天下。In the pursuit of learning, one does more each day; In the pursuit of the Way, one does less each day; One does less and less until one does nothing; One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Gaining the world always is accomplished by following no activity. As soon as one actively tries, one will fall short of gaining the world."”
Laozi (Between 8th and 3rd century BCE). Dao De Jing, aka Laozi: '48' (Chinese: 道德經).