More languages
More actions
- Fix Christianity page and pages like it.
- Autim & Neurodiversity article
- Fix Liberia page, problem with last leader
- Pan-African non-Marxist socialists
- Most of these orgs are not Marxists
- It would not be smart to push them out. They are the Black Left
- Tanzania page - somebody cited VJ Prashad who has inaccuracies e.g. "failed to combat patriarchy" because Tanzania is a matriarchy and Tanzania's ruling party champion women's organization in fact the party is majority women
- Garveyism is progressive and anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, be sure to distinguish from American Colonization Society and Liberia wasn't settler-colonial it was a neocolony of the white US bourgeosie with Amero-African settlers as the compradors. The presence of settlers doesn't automatically make a country settler-colonial.
- Yeshitela as far as we know isn't in any way comparable to opportunist Gazi (BH), Yeshitela is comparable to Nkrumah
- Uhuru's ideological contradictions with pan-Africanist parties are minor
- The correct line on New Afrika / Black Belt Thesis is still debated, so the correct position in this moment is neutrality and upholding self-determination and nationhood for both Indigenous and Black people of Turtle Island in whatever form it takes with the consent of the Indigenous and Black people in the affected region.
- All religions (religious dogmatism) are created as a result of class contradictions.
- Sek Toure - Islam for the Benefit of the People's Movement
- Indigenous people of Turtle Island can learn a lot from the Pan-African Socialist movement.
- Many articles are too polemic in ways that alienate Black people. (Cultural sensitivity)
- Too many pages devoted to YouTubers.
- Colonialism didn't start from Christianity, it started from class
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacousta
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_Hiawatha
- https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/johnson-e-pauline-1861-1913
- Essay: Indigenous Internationalism, Indigenous Socialism
- JUST BECAUSE someone thinks something doesnt mean that thought is derived from white people lol
- The contradictoryness of indigenous anarchism and anarchist idea of the idealized indigenous anarchist society somewhere far off in the past
- LGBT rights in China
Dogmatism can be avoided by continuously studying and observing and analyzing Private subjects and taking any evidence which contradicts erroneous perceptions of “false commonalities” into consideration. This will simultaneously deepen our understanding of the Private while improving our understanding of the Common. For example: Sally might observe a few red apples and arrive at the conclusion: “all apples are red.” If Sally is then presented with a green apple, yet refuses to acknowledge it by continuing to insist that “all apples are red,” then Sally is engaging in dogmatism.
According to Vietnam’s Curriculum of the Philosophy of Marxism-Leninism For University and College Students Specializing in Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh Thought, the opposite of Dogmatism is Revisionism. Revisionism occurs when we overestimate the Private and fail to recognize commonalities. In failing to recognize common attributes and features between and within things, phenomena, and ideas, the Revisionist faces confusion and disorientation whenever they encounter any new things, phenomena, and ideas, because they lack any insight into essential characteristics of the subject and its relations with other subjects.
For example: if Sally has spent a lot of time studying a red apple, she may start to become confident that she understands everything there is to know about apples. If she is then presented with a green apple, she might become confused and disoriented and draw the conclusion that she has to start all over again with her analysis, from scratch, thinking: “this can’t possibly be an apple because it’s not red. It must be something else entirely.” Sally can avoid this revisionist confusion by examining the other common features which the red and green apples share before making any conclusions.
In Vietnamese political philosophy, “left-sided thinking” is a form of dogmatic idealism which upholds unrealistic conceptions of change and development. Left-sided thinkers don’t have the patience for quantity accumulation which are prerequisite to quality shifts, or expect to skip entire stages of development which are necessary to precipitate change in the real world. An example of left-sided thinking would be believing that a capitalist society can instantly transition into a stateless, classless, communist society, skipping over the transitions in quantity and quality which are required to bring such a massive transformation in human society to fruition.
“Right-sided thinking,” on the other hand, is conservate resistance to change.
Right-sided thinkers resist quality changes to human society; they either want to preserve society as it exists right now, or reverse development to some previous (real or imagined) stage of development. Right-sided thinkers also refuse to acknowledge quality shifts once they’ve occurred, idealistically pretending that changes in material conditions have not occurred. For example, right-sided thinkers may refuse to recognize advances which have been made in the liberation of women, or even attempt to reverse those advances in hopes of returning to previous stages of development when women had fewer freedoms. Here is a practical example of these concepts in use, from the Vietnam Encyclopedia, published by the Ministry of Culture and Information of Vietnam:
Opportunism is a system of political views that do not follow a clear direction nor a clear line, do not have a definite stance, and are inclined toward the immediate personal gain of the opportunist. In the proletarian revolutionary movement, opportunism is a politics of compromise, reform, and unprincipled collaboration with the enemy which run contrary to the basic interests of the working class and the working people. In practice, opportunism has two main trends, stemming from right-sided thinking and from left-sided thinking, respectively: Right-wing opportunism is reformist, favors undue compromise, and aims to peacefully “convert” capitalism into socialism while abandoning the struggle for meaningful victory of the working class. Right-wing opportunism, typified by Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, has its origins in the Workers’ Parties of the Second International era and exists to this day.
Left-wing opportunism is a mixture of extremism and adventurism, dogmatism, arrogance, subjectivity, cults of violence, and disregard for the objective situation.
Both “right” and “left” opportunism push the workers’ movement to futile sacrifice and failure.
If dialectics is a constant law 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.
Below is a ranked list of cultural, philosophical, and religious analogues to dialectics, rated on a scale from 0 (static dualism) to 10 (full Hegelian/Marxist dialectics). The ratings reflect how closely each system embodies core dialectical principles:
Opposites as the engine of change
Synthesis/transcendence of opposites
Dynamic, non-dualistic processes
Material or historical grounding
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 due to relationality but lack materialism.
Anti-materialism (Gnosticism, Cartesianism) negates dialectical engagement with historical conditions.
Fatalism (Zurvanism) and elitist idealism (Platonism) reject collective agency.
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). Juche, developed by Kim Il-sung, emphasizes human agency as the "master of revolution," integrating Marxist dialectics with Korean nationalism. Gramsci’s cultural hegemony extends dialectics to ideological critique, arguing that ruling classes maintain power through cultural institutions, not just economic force.
Why 10: Formalizes dialectical laws (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) with materialist grounding. Juche adapts dialectics to anti-colonial struggle, while Gramsci’s focus on "war of position" enriches historical materialism.
Sources:
Marx, Capital (1867), Vol. I, Ch. 32.
Engels, Dialectics of Nature (1883), "The Part Played by Labour".
Kim Il-sung, Juche Idea (1982), p. 15.
Gramsci, Prison Notebooks (1971), Q12§1.
Tier 8-9: Near-Dialectical Systems
2. Hegelianism (9)
Description:
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. Scholars like Kojève reinterpreted Hegel’s "negation of negation" as existential freedom, while Nishida Kitarō (Kyoto School) framed the Absolute as "absolute nothingness" (mu), dissolving dualities akin to Zen non-duality.
Why 9:
Hegel’s system is comprehensive and process-oriented, formalizing dialectical laws (e.g., contradiction as the engine of change). However, it prioritizes metaphysical synthesis over material struggle. For example, Hegel’s Philosophy of History frames historical progress as the Spirit’s self-actualization, not class conflict. Kojève’s Marxist-Hegelian synthesis (Introduction to the Reading of Hegel) reinterprets the master-slave dialectic as revolutionary class struggle, while Nishida’s basho ("place") collapses contradictions into non-dual awareness (An Inquiry into the Good). Despite these adaptations, Hegel’s idealism lacks Marx’s materialist grounding, earning it a near-perfect but incomplete score.
Sources:
Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), "Lordship and Bondage": Explores self-consciousness through struggle.
Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (1969), p. 50: Links Hegelian negation to Marxist revolution.
Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good (1911), Ch. 3: Reimagines Hegelian synthesis through Zen non-duality.
3. Kyoto School (Nishida Kitarō) (9) 🌌
Description:
Nishida Kitarō fused Zen Buddhism’s non-duality with Hegelian dialectics, framing reality as a "dialectical universal" evolving through contradictions resolved into "absolute nothingness" (mu). His concept of basho ("place") dissolves subject-object dualities, akin to Zen koans (e.g., "What is the sound of one hand clapping?") that collapse logical oppositions. For Nishida, contradictions (e.g., being/non-being) are not synthesized but transcended through non-dual awareness.
Why 9:
Nishida’s system is non-dual yet process-oriented, bridging Eastern and Western thought. His basho parallels Hegelian synthesis but replaces the Absolute Spirit with "nothingness," avoiding metaphysical reification. For example, in Place and Dialectic, he argues that reality is a "self-contradictory identity" dynamically unfolding through negation. However, like Hegel, Nishida’s framework lacks materialist praxis, focusing on epistemological transcendence rather than socioeconomic transformation.
Sources:
Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good (1911), Ch. 3: Introduces "pure experience" as non-dual ground.
Kopf, The Kyoto School (1995), p. 89: Analyzes Nishida’s basho as Zen-Hegelian synthesis.
Heisig, Philosophers of Nothingness (2001), p. 67: Contrasts Nishida’s "nothingness" with Hegel’s Absolute.
4. Daoist Yin-Yang (8.5)
Description:
The interplay of yin (passive, dark) and yang (active, light) generates dynamic harmony through cyclical interaction. The Daodejing (Ch. 42) states, "The Tao engenders One; One engenders Two [...] Three engenders all things," framing reality as a unity of opposites. Zhuangzi’s paradoxes (e.g., "Butterfly Dream") dissolve rigid distinctions, mirroring dialectical fluidity.
Why 8.5:
Daoism embodies contradiction-driven flux but lacks historical materialism. For instance, while yin-yang cycles resemble Hegelian negation, they prioritize balance (wuwei) over progressive synthesis. The I Ching’s hexagrams model change as cyclical permutations, not linear development. Graham notes Daoist harmony "resolves conflict through alignment with the Tao, not struggle" (Disputers of the Tao). This ahistorical focus relegates it below Hegelian dialectics.
Sources:
Laozi, Daodejing (4th c. BCE), Ch. 2: "Being and non-being produce each other."
Zhuangzi, Inner Chapters (3rd c. BCE), "The Equality of Things": Critiques rigid binaries.
Graham, Disputers of the Tao (1989), p. 234: Contrasts Daoist cyclicality with Hegelian progress.
5. 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."