Principle vs dialectic

I hold to principle over dialectic.

I have few principles and I'm not diabetic.

Principle allows for dialectic but the aim of dialectic is to crash, crack open into a revelation of the consequences of principle down the slippery slope of causality, of which dialectic is an analysis and image.

Sisyphus wrote:

I have few principles and I'm not diabetic.

lolnice

Fixed Cross wrote:

Principle allows for dialectic but the aim of dialectic is to crash, crack open into a revelation of the consequences of principle down the slippery slope of causality, of which dialectic is an analysis and image.

In the final analysis and at the level of telos, dialectic destroys principle. A little dialectic might unlock principle even more, i.e. allow us to understand it better, but that is just speculative philosophical thinking that allows that. We can call that thinking "dialectical" if we want, but that is quite different from the Hegelian/Marxist dialectic itself.

Dialectic is goo, principle is gold.

I have no need for goo but I wouldn't turn down an offer of gold.

"To desire everybody to become a "good man," "a gregarious animal," "a blue-eyed, benevolent, beautiful soul," or—as Herbert Spencer wished—a creature of altruism, would mean robbing existence of its greatest character, castrating man, and reducing humanity to a sort of wretched Chinadom. And this some have tried to do! It is precisely this that men called morality."

HAHAHA

Now that is some fucking principles.

"To consider distress of all kinds as an objection, as something which must be done away with, is the greatest nonsense on earth; generally speaking, it is nonsense of the most disastrous sort, fatal in its stupidity—almost as mad as the will to abolish bad weather, out of pity for the poor, so to speak. In the great economy of the whole universe, the terrors of reality (in the passions, in the desires, in the will to power) are incalculably more necessary than that form of petty happiness which is called "goodness"; it is even needful to practise leniency in order so much as to allow the latter a place at all, seeing that it is based upon a falsification of the instincts. I shall have an excellent opportunity of showing the incalculably calamitous consequences to the whole of history, of the credo of optimism, this monstrous offspring of the homines optimi. Zarathustra,[1] the first who recognised that the optimist is just as degenerate as the pessimist, though perhaps more[Pg 136] detrimental, says: "Good men never speak the truth. False shores and false harbours were ye taught by the good. In the lies of the good were ye born and bred. Through the good everything hath become false and crooked from the roots." Fortunately the world is not built merely upon those instincts which would secure to the good-natured herd animal his paltry happiness. "


T
0
P

K
3
K

Thrasymachus wrote:

"To desire everybody to become a "good man," "a gregarious animal," "a blue-eyed, benevolent, beautiful soul," or—as Herbert Spencer wished—a creature of altruism, would mean robbing existence of its greatest character, castrating man, and reducing humanity to a sort of wretched Chinadom. And this some have tried to do! It is precisely this that men called morality."

HAHAHA

Now that is some fucking principles.

Sorry but I think it has already been done. Most just don't realize it yet.