I'm new to philosophy. Can someone give me a tldr on this stuff? My basic understanding:
>the issue is how we can know "things"
>Aristotle says there is unformed matter, but it does have properties. From these properties we create forms in our minds.
>We are a "thing" too so we must exist in the mind of God(???)
>Kant says we can't actually know anything about reality as it truly is
>Hegel says there is some underlying absolute reality and we can learn it through dialectically considering forms and ideas?
Idk someone explain this to me, thx, I find it really interesting but I am pretty clueless
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>tldr
go read a booooooooooook
Copleston's History of Philosophy is an example of a pertinent book
have a great weekend
wow those are some really unfortunate breasts oooff
>her
Flat chicks deserve love and attention, anon.
do want people to make fun of your tiny dick? no? then don't make fun of her tiny breasts.
Read the post I was responding to, homosexual moron
My dick is much bigger than yours and brings more pleasure to a woman than any 8 inch penis. Because unlike most 8 inch penis with a measly 5 inch girth, I have a 6 inch girth.
it's not that she's flat, it's that her breasts have a gross shape
No, she is completely flat. She isn't filling out her shirt. That's why it looks weird.
oh shit you're right. damn that looks awful
I love itty bitty breasts
You just have to assume that you can know things. Hegel is just selling you his methodology for advancing presuppositions. Applied sophistry.
Plato spun off from a geometry worshipping cult. (Based)
Daily reminder that this immense moron lived in the times of Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn and Wagner.
And you live in the age of the internet and google both of which could've helped you realise that held the likes Beethoven and Wagner in high regard.
Im not saying that he didnt (I mean, he actually didnt held Wagner in high regard, but it is beyond the point), just that his claims about the musical culture of his time are idiotic exactly because of this.
No it isn't. Maybe he just thought they were exceptions to the norm.
Daily reminder that Hegel was a sheltered intellectual who never scored like Schoppy.
All from Schopenhauer's Parerga & Paralipomena
Daily reminder that Schopenhauer was an unhappy quasi incel who lived off daddy's money his whole life while Hegel was beloved and a family man with many sons.
Schopenhauer decided he would teach across the hall from Hegel at the same time to "show the people how superior his system was." He ended up lecturing to an empty room and giving up while Hegel addressed a packed lecture hall each day.
Do you have more trivia you want to share?
Hegel impregnated basically every single one of his maids
So he was a based gentile against a israelite inflated by the mass media of the time and mass consumed like goyslop?
BASED SCHOPENHAUER
Now I see why israelites love Hegel, disgusting pilpuling israelites
Who is she?
Daughter
Lucky guy
Jodi Arias
anyone else get the urge to shoot their vanilla yogurt on the surface of this young maiden's countenance?
Any white anons want to explain why you guys always make this face at me? What does it mean
the pursed lips are just to remind ourselves to not breathe in the same tainted air as you, at least not without filtering it through our noses first.
We're disappointed
My whiteness compels me to be socially courteous but your presence also disgusts me
I still can't get over how abysmal those breasts are. Why buy a dress that makes your breasts look disgusting?
Hegel is a moron. His writings are just tea leaves for pseuds to project meaning on to.
No I've never read that homosexual and I never will.
Only thing I know that matters for totalitarian politics is him having 4 different definitions of rights with what we call human rights being one of them, the natural rights. Liberalism is based of these rights but according to him the more important ones are the true rights which is the right to self-actualization. This right can only be achived through the true state which takes on the role of religion within a society and leads to political religion. This basically makes him the origin of totalitarianism
What a fool
read a fricking book
Do not bother with Hegel if you're new to philosophy, it's a reading that is simply too advanced for you atm. If you really want to read him study the history of philosophy first (on textbooks) and read the classics of the western canon (the most important ones for Hegel are the Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Meister Eckhart, Bohme, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Kant, Reinhold, Fichte, Schelling and Jacobi).
These are all great authors to read, regardless of their usefulness when it comes to reading Hegel, so even if it will take you some time it will still be useful and interesting.
Thanks. How does Hegel explain the existence of objects/things? And what is the Absolute, and how does the process discover it?
>How does Hegel explain the existence of objects/things?
They are the physical manifestations of The Absolute based on the dialectic of the logical categories. The truth of logic is nature, the truth of nature is Geist.
>And what is the Absolute, and how does the process discover it?
The Absolute is reality taken as a whole. The efficient, formal, final, and material cause of everything. The Absolute is substance and subject. They are one and the same, hence the realization of Spirit only happens once nature becomes self-conscious and transcends both subject and object. In this way, Hegel’s philosophy is highly non-dualistic, however in contrast to a lot of Eastern systems, there is genuine change in The Absolute wherein it is not eternally self-conscious, it only becomes so. The realization of individual human subjects about the nature of The Absolute is not the revelation of an eternal truth but the truth actually coming into being. This is why Hegel holds that the categories of logic themselves are dynamic. They come into being as thought develops.
Can you give some examples for any of that? Analogies? To help me understand
Is it basically like we exist. We know that we exist. We know that we know that we exist. We know that we know that we know we exist. Ad infinitum? At what point does that teach the absolute? What does the final result look like?
Not exactly. Once nature has realized itself in consciousness, it follows the dialectical progression outlined in Phenomenology of Spirit. Consciousness tries to perfectly reflect reality, first in sense-certainty, then perception, then understanding, then it reaches self-consciousness. This stage arises from consciousnesses continual attempt to hold reality in completely undistorted fashion before inevitably realizing the way it structures its own perception. Absolute Knowing is achieved when consciousness is able to view reality in a systematic manner that is free from contradiction, hence the view that Hegel’s epistemology is based on a coherentist idea of truth. By free from contradiction I don’t mean that it avoids contradiction, but rather that it constantly ascends to a point where new synthetic judgements can incorporate previously contradictory notions into themselves. The Absolute, in this sense, is the ultimate synthesis. The sublation of everything opposed into unity.
Not that anon, but I think you're thinking about the Phenomenology, while he is talking about the Encyclopedia.
Anyway no, he doesn't go "we know we exist, we know that we exist and so on". Rather in the Phenomenology he claims that the path to absolute knowledge is long and difficult, and it has to pass through many self-refuting forms of knowledge (or as he calls them, forms of natural consciousness). In each one of these forms we view the world in a certain way, then by reflecting on it we discover that to see the world through that principle we were unkowingly adopting a deeper principle.
For example in the first section he deals with Consciousness, which posits a sharp distinction between the subject and the object (there is a subject here, and the subject knows an external object that is out there; this is the meaning of Consciousness that is meant to Hegel, do not mistake it with more contemporary meanings of the term). The simplest form of Consciousness is the one in which the subject only knows that there is an object, and nothing more. When he sees a tree, the subject doesn't go "there is a tree, which has properties x, y and z", since here the subject is only focusing on an immediate experience of the tree (in other terms: the subject could be wrong about x, y and z, but he is not wrong about the fact that he is seeing something here and now, which he calls "tree"). So every object becomed a This, that is experienced Here and Now. But "This", "Here" and "Now" are universals, and the expression "This, which is Here and Now" can be applied to literally every object. We wanted an immediate knowledge of the singular object, but we ended up with an universal knowledge that applies to every possible subject. Since universality always entails mediation, we discover that we were wrong in trying to approach the object in an immediate way: objects are in themselves mediated, and as such they are universals. We therefore end with the second Form of Consciousness, which is the one of Perception: in it we see objects as sensible universals. A tree is not anymore just a tree, but it is a sensible universal which is characterized by its many properties.
I've given you this example just to show how Hegel's Phenomenology works. Here we started with immediacy, and we ended up discovering that immediacy already presupposed mediacy (or, that the singular, simple subject already presupposed universality and a composition made by properties). As you can see this has nothing to do with the scheme you've proposed
>objects are in themselves mediated, and as such they are universals.
Wait, I lost you here. What do you mean by this? Wasn't the whole point that objects are singulars but are only known through universals? This seems like a sleight of hand in denying the "singular" thing-in-itself.
It is not a sleight of hand, rather it is a direct result of what came after. Even when the object is just a "This, Here and Now" it is already concieved as an universal. In other terms, the attempt at grasping the object as singular and immediate as failed, and in this failure we find the next figure of consciousness, which was presupposed by us all along (since even when we thought that we could grasp things as singular and immediate we were already concieving them as universal, although unkowingly).
Also I thought it was implied, but to make it clear, the attempt at grasping objects as sensible universals will fail too. Will find then another figure that was presupposed, and that will fail too, until eventually you get to Absolute Knowing.
The way you phrased it, it just sounds like an Absolute Unknowing to me. You started with trying to understand the object itself, but that failed, so you moved onto the next best thing. But apparently that also fails too. So you repeat the pattern until... there's nothing left to try? And suddenly the magical knowledge will appear at the end instead of what the pattern suggests, which is nothing but darkness and obscurity?
It's not a "suddenly it's Absolute Knowing", Hegel follows a path in which, in the end, both the object and the subject become negations of the other, and as negations of negations they both affirm each other, overcoming in the process their difference. Knowledge, up to that point, has the issue to prove the conformity of the object to the subject, but in Absolute Knowing this issue disappears, since now this difference has ceased to exist. I know it sounds like mumbo jumbo, but keep in mind that here I have just summarized like 700 pages of the Phenomenology. To really get it you would have to go through the text, here I am just trying to give a general idea of what Hegel is trying to get at.
>And suddenly the magical knowledge will appear at the end instead of what the pattern suggests, which is nothing but darkness and obscurity?
It's not darkness and obscurity, that's exactly what he wants to avoid. Absolute Knowing is the standpoint in which the difference between subject and object has been overcome, and as such it is the standpoint in which actual, positive philosophical knowledge can begin. At that point he can start with the Science of Logic, and continue with the rest of his system as it is described in the Encyclopedia (which, after the Science of Logic, continues with the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of Spirit). It is the opposite of apophatic philosophy, what he aims at is concrete deduction of positive content (logical, sensible and spiritual).
I feel like you haven't addressed the point I raised:
>Consciousness, which posits a sharp distinction between the subject and the object (there is a subject here, and the subject knows an external object that is out there; this is the meaning of Consciousness that is meant to Hegel, do not mistake it with more contemporary meanings of the term)
>The simplest form of Consciousness is the one in which the subject only knows that there is an object, and nothing more. When he sees a tree, the subject doesn't go "there is a tree, which has properties x, y and z", since here the subject is only focusing on an immediate experience of the tree (in other terms: the subject could be wrong about x, y and z, but he is not wrong about the fact that he is seeing something here and now, which he calls "tree"). So every object becomed a This
>We wanted an immediate knowledge of the singular object, but we ended up with an universal knowledge that applies to every possible subject
>A tree is not anymore just a tree, but it is a sensible universal which is characterized by its many properties.
>Also I thought it was implied, but to make it clear, the attempt at grasping objects as sensible universals will fail too.
>Will find then another figure that was presupposed, and that will fail too, until eventually you get to Absolute Knowing.
From what I understand, it just sounds like a process of exhausting all the various ways in which the object is mediated. The end goal appears to be a complete knowledge of the object through a total comprehension of mediation. But how exactly is that guaranteed? For all we know, the totality of comprehension still falls short of the thing-in-itself.
Furthermore:
>both the object and the subject become negations of the other, and as negations of negations they both affirm each other, overcoming in the process their difference.
A negation of a negation doesn't exactly mean a return to the original identity. That only works with a certain framework in formal logic.
>I know it sounds like mumbo jumbo,
Don't worry about it. I think I understand you loud and clear, at least with the terms you are using. I'm just not convinced that this process is fruitful.
>The end goal appears to be a complete knowledge of the object through a total comprehension of mediation.
No, since that attempt fails too. The dialectic I have described (concerning the object as immediate, singular and separated from the subject) is what you find just in the first 10 pages of the book after the introduction. The initial attempt at grasping the object as separate from the subject eventually fails, leading to the figure of Self-Consciousness, but that eventually fails too. As I have stated in that post, I was just trying to give you an idea of how dialectical developement might work (and I did so by showing you a single stage of it, the first one), it wasn't at the time my goal to give you a general idea of the entire Phenomenology (I have tried to do that only in a later post).
>But how exactly is that guaranteed? For all we know, the totality of comprehension still falls short of the thing-in-itself.
In the way I have described in my last post, namely by reaching a point in which the object and subject become concrete reciprocal negations (and as negations of negations they affirm their opposite and overcome their sharp distinction). This is the conclusion of the book, so it is reasonable if you don't understand how Hegel manages to pull it off. I have mentioned this because at least it gives an idea on why this process of dialectical overcoming doesn't go on forever: it doesn't go on forever because eventually it reaches such a point, in which object and subject are no more separated, due to their reciprocal negativity.
>A negation of a negation doesn't exactly mean a return to the original identity. That only works with a certain framework in formal logic.
It's not a return to an original identity (you don't have this identity at the beginning of the system), rather it is an identity that is reached in a process of self-negation and reciprocal negation. You're also not understanding some tidbits because you're assuming that Hegel is striving for a strict, undifferentiated identity. This is a reasonable assumption, but it is one that Hegel argues against. Again, I know it sounds weird but I am summarizing more than half a thousand of pages, so it makes sense that you don't have all the elements required to understand these things. Im not trying to prove you the correctness of Hegel's system (to do that I would have to reformulate the entire Phenomenology here on IQfy), I am only trying to give you a veeeery general idea of what Hegel is trying to get at. You don't have to take me at my word when I tell you that in Absolute Knowing we reach the identity of subject and object. A more helpful way to read what I wrote is to take it as a goal Hegel must reach in order to be right: something like "Ok, Hegel wants to reach this identity, and if he doesn't his phenomenological system fails". Wether he actually reaches this goal is to be found in his actual thought.
>I have mentioned this because at least it gives an idea on why this process of dialectical overcoming doesn't go on forever: it doesn't go on forever because eventually it reaches such a point, in which object and subject are no more separated, due to their reciprocal negativity.
It just sounds like repackaged apophatic theology to me, subject to all the problems that apophatic theology brings. I'm not liking what I'm hearing because the way you describe the culmination sounds like special pleading, and I'm strongly under the suspicion that Hegel doesn't solve that problem at the end of PoS either.
Well, if it is apophatic then Hegel's system failed. But as I have mentioned it is not apophatic at all. Hegel thinks that from that standpoint you can actually grasp and rationally deduce the entirety of the categories of Logic, Nature and Spirit (which includes Anthropology, Phenomenology, Psychology, all social life from the Family to the State, all of World History, all of Art, all of Religion and all of Philosophy). Weirdly enough I don't know of any philosopher who is less apophatic than Hegel.
The reason Absolute Knowing might sound to you apophatic and abstract might be because it is the beginning of actual, concrete knowledge, and as the mere beginning it has not deduced any content yet (while I suspect you're treating as some sort of endgame). You shouldn't think of Absolute Knowing as, like, the attainment of thr Godhead or stuff like that, as if once you get to that standpoint you know everything: rather, again, that's the standpoint in which actual philosophical knowledge becomes possible (while every other form of knowing previously encountered ends up revealing itself as flawed and self-refuting) – or, to use another expression, it is the mindset that is proper to the act of knowing. But there's still a long road ahead (since being in the correct mindset is not equal to having known everything that is adequate to that mindset), which is why Hegel wrote the Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia after that.
>Well, if it is apophatic then Hegel's system failed. But as I have mentioned it is not apophatic at all
It's built on negativity as a mechanism, with the hopes that negativity negates itself, as it were. Or more specifically, that the negation of negation by subject and object to each other somehow leads to positive knowledge. If that's not apophatic, then I don't know what is.
If you're even just slightly familiar with the concept of Aufhebung you should realize that for Hegel something that is negated in such a manner is not a mere nothing (if it were you would of course be correct, since at the end of the Phenomenology you would be left with nothing: but that's not the case). If you'll ever read him you should not worry though, since he explains these things in the introduction of the Phenomenology and in one of the first sections of the Science of Logic.
Well, I'm just hoping that somebody else comes in and explains how all these things don't have the problems that they present themselves to have. I'd hate to slog through PoS/SoL and realize that my intuition was right and the whole thing was doomed from the start.
>I'd hate to slog through PoS/SoL and realize that my intuition was right and the whole thing was doomed from the start.
All you can really do is take a leap of faith.
Any book that can be explained in such a way is not worth reading, since the summary would be enough. As the other anon have said, all the great books in thr philoslphical canon require a leap of faith. By this I dont mean you have to read dogmatically: rather I mean that you have to take a leap of faith with regard to the commitment that comes with reading a difficult text. If you're not willing to take that leap you will never have a philosophical education, since you will most likely end up reading mostly books poor in content, so poor that their essence could be manifested in a couple of IQfy posts. As an example, imagine having to convince someone that reading Aristotle's Metaphysics is a worthwhile effort.
That said, I think I have actually already responded to most of your doubtd. The only one that remains is the one pertaining Aufhebung (which would show you that a negation of a negation is not a mere nothing). As such, I advise you to read and rereaf the Introduction of the Phenomenology, and ponder on it for a while. It is only 10 pages long, so it should not be too much of a commitment.
>Any book that can be explained in such a way
Not really, I've found that, when it comes to a key mechanism, you can always isolate the mechanism to a few critical factors, propositions, etc., as long as you take the other premises for granted, or at least "bracket away" the other premises/levels/etc. I've found this to be true with Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, Plotinus, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Peirce, Deleuze, etc. Why is Hegel any different?
>As the other anon have said, all the great books in thr philoslphical canon require a leap of faith. By this I dont mean you have to read dogmatically: rather I mean that you have to take a leap of faith with regard to the commitment that comes with reading a difficult text.
It just sounds like a massive scam to me, and it sounds like you're just coping because of the sunk cost fallacy. It also seems like you're trapped in your own ecosystem of jargon. To paraphrase Einstein, if you're having trouble explaining something, you probably don't understand it, or there's nothing there.
>As an example, imagine having to convince someone that reading Aristotle's Metaphysics is a worthwhile effort.
The Organon and the Metaphysics is a much easier read, and much of the Western tradition is built upon it as a foundation. You can join a millennia-old community of thinkers who understand the basics and prefer to work on the periphery together. The reward is clearly there. Hegel is more of an endpoint (or perhaps a mistake?), and the cost-benefit and risk analysis here is much less cut-and-dry. At best, you can join a small community of extremely verbose and esoteric thinkers who, for all we know, are all bullshitting each other.
>To paraphrase Einstein, if you're having trouble explaining something, you probably don't understand it, or there's nothing there.
>takes Einstein's words on faith
Kant:
>few possess the ability, and still fewer the inclination, to take a comprehensive view of a new system.
The funny thing is that Kant has a point, a method, and a few key ideas that frame the entire system. You can spend years uncovering the relationship between the many small branches and gears, but the main ideas are quite simple and mostly intuitive, especially when you break it down, word-for-word.
The same cannot be said for Hegel. It's just a community filled with people who cannot express what they've learned in anything but their own ecosystem of jargon. It's weird because, while this is a problem for many philosophical fan clubs (e.g., Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Schelling, Heidegger, etc.), I've always met at least a few people who were capable of condescending from their tower for each thinker.
I've never seen that for Hegel. It just sounds like a massive pyramid scheme, and the Hegelpedos are looking for their next victim.
>I've never seen that for Hegel
>literally writes high school tier intro to his (THE) philosophy.
try harder anon
I'm talking about his followers, not Hegel himself. How is it possible for a Hegelian to have poor reading comprehension?
At least Kant was able to swallow his pride somewhat and write the prolegomena since even academics were finding his critiques unnecessarily difficult. He even expands somewhat on his theories there
The prologomena don't give you even a hint of what's going on in his first critique tho. Imagine trying to give a summary of the CPR without going through the transcendental deduction.
Confirmed for not having read Kant
To me it sounds like you got filtered then. Kant is not that hard once you understand his language. Some of his claims are dead ends, too. It takes experience and courage to sort out the fleshed out insight from the work-in-progress insight from the genuine mistakes.
This is not just any book, we're talking about two books, and not just any two books, but the PoS and the SoL. That's calling for an extreme amount of effort and time that, right now, doesn't seem justified in the slightest. Don't tell me you aren't sympathetic at all, because that would make you look even more ridiculous.
>Ok this is hilarious
It genuinely is. And if you're stuck anywhere, you have thousands of years of commentary by people who certainly "got it" to help guide you. Do you want Proclus, Aquinas, or Rist? Great commentators 1000 years apart. With Hegel, you can put a lifetime's work into interpretation and still feel uncertain when you're done. There's no such tradition alongside you.
>Imagine Einstein having to explain the theory of general relativity to someone who is unwilling to take a Calc 1 class
I've read most of Plato, most of Aristotle, Plotinus's Enneads, a good chunk of Proclus, a good chunk of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, the greatest hits of the early moderns, Kant's CPR and COJ, Schopenhauer, almost the complete works of Marx, a huge chunk of Peirce, almost the complete works of Heidegger, etc.
I find it extremely ridiculous to compare me to a Calculus I student, especially since I've taken Calc I-III, I know how basic those math classes are, and I know they hardly compare to the amount of effort I've put into philosophy. But then again, I don't expect more from a cultist. Hegelians love feeling like they're in a super secret cult anyway, even though all they know, apparently, is the philosophical equivalent of a thieves' cant (no pun intended).
>I've read most of Plato, most of Aristotle, Plotinus's Enneads, a good chunk of Proclus, a good chunk of St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, the greatest hits of the early moderns, Kant's CPR and COJ, Schopenhauer, almost the complete works of Marx, a huge chunk of Peirce, almost the complete works of Heidegger, etc.
then Hegel shouldn't be that difficult for you. Unless you actually just skimmed those books.
>To me it sounds like you got filtered then. Kant is not that hard once you understand his language
"Kant is not hard after you've spent months mastering his style". Yeah no shit, by your own logic I should avoid reading him until someone reconstructs the entirety of the Transcendental Aesthetics and Analytics so that he can actually explain to me why rational theology is a dead end.
Then you should read Peirce, because he both reconstructs it then demolishes it because Kant was relying on the primitive logic available during his time.
It'd still be a lot of effort. And idk, it doesn't seem worth it, especially considering the attitudes of self-proclaimed Hegelians. It has every trapping of an intellectual Ponzi scheme, and few people have tried to disabuse me of that belief.
>It'd still be a lot of effort. And idk, it doesn't seem worth it,
ok dude then just don't read him. at this point you're literally just seething that other people can read and enjoy Hegel and you don't.
Not really, I feel bad for people who read Hegel and clearly can't talk about him. All I'm doing is offering a challenge for people to prove that they understand him. Everybody is failing.
>Will you now mention the fact that most of those interpretations are completely incompatible with each other,
No, they're really not. They agree on about 80%+ of the text at minimum, depending on the text, and they disagree where it is vague or when political or theological considerations come into play. The unity of the intellect controversy is about the narcissism of small differences driven mostly by faith and Church politics if anything else. There's always going to be debate in philosophy. The difference between commentary on Aristotle and Hegel, is that almost the entire text is up for grabs with Hegel. Hegelians are so bad at popularizing Hegel that a Fichtean concept became the most popular soundbite of Hegel (thesis-antithesis-synthesis).
>If anything those commentaries will make it harder for you to grasp Aristotle's actual philosophy. You don't read Proclus to understand Aristotle: you read Proclus to understand Proclus.
I know for a fact that Aquinas was incredibly helpful in helping me grasp some of the finer points of Aristotle's philosophy, especially with his style of trying to anticipate the better counterarguments only to refute them afterwards.
>Are you under the impression that there is no secondary scholarship on Hegel?
It's night and day compared to Aristotle.
>I reject this accusation, and respond by calling you a philistine.
If you really wanted to reject the accusation, you'd respond by demonstrating how the Hegelian method isn't apophatic, and how the negation of a negation leads to a positive determination. But you don't want to, because you can't, so you won't.
>Fichtean concept became the most popular soundbite of Hegel (thesis-antithesis-synthesis).
now I know you're larping. you havn't read a damn book by actual hegelians.
I never claimed that I read Hegel. And it's true that that misconception exists and persists. What's your point?
>you havn't read a damn book by actual hegelians.
>I never claimed I read Hegel
And yet you still have no point to speak of. I'm not going to bother trying to make sense of a dumb and confused comment that has nothing to do with the text that was quoted.
Btw if you haven't noticed you're talking with different people here
>The unity of the intellect controversy is about the narcissism of small differences driven mostly by faith and Church politics if anything else. There's always going to be debate in philosophy.
Are you even aware of the history of the reception of Aristotle's texts? Do you know for example that pretty much all his medieval readers thought that the Liber De Causis and the Pseudo-Theology were authentic texts? Or that pretty much all the post-Theophrastus sources given wildly hetherodox readings due to their obsession with reconciling him with Plato? You're literally saying that Aristotle's Metaphysics is easier to understand because... we have bad secondary scholarship on it.
>Hegelians are so bad at popularizing Hegel that a Fichtean concept became the most popular soundbite of Hegel (thesis-antithesis-synthesis).
You cannot say this while defending one of the most widely misread books in the western canon.
>I know for a fact that Aquinas was incredibly helpful in helping me grasp some of the finer points of Aristotle's philosophy, especially with his style of trying to anticipate the better counterarguments only to refute them afterwards
Aquinas? The guy who couldnt read Greek and who placed two inauthentic texts as the foundation of Aristotle's philosophy? How could anyone trust you on this lmao
>if you really wanted to reject the accusation, you'd respond by demonstrating how the Hegelian method isn't apophatic, and how the negation of a negation leads to a positive determination. But you don't want to, because you can't, so you won't
I just couldnt be bothered to summarize even more sections, Im not a jukebox, and since the explanation is contained in LITERALLY THE FIRST TEN PAGES OF THE PHENOMENOLOGY AFTER THE PREFACE, I assumed that you were up to the task and do it yourself. Maybe I was wrong
>there's a bit of controversy over the best interpretation and highlighting the corpus
Okay, and? When it comes to actually making sense of Aristotle, commentators have a much easier time than making sense of Hegel.
>You cannot say this while defending one of the most widely misread books in the western canon.
At least it is capable of being read. And most "misreadings" are completely valid. The clashes in interpretations, again, are usually due to some religious or political bias seeping into the hermeneutic.
>Or that pretty much all the post-Theophrastus sources given wildly hetherodox readings due to their obsession with reconciling him with Plato?
You wildly exaggerate how different Aristotle is from Plato. He's much closer to Plato than he is to the standard milieu of early moderns and beyond. Read Gerson.
>Aquinas? The guy who couldnt read Greek and who placed two inauthentic texts as the foundation of Aristotle's philosophy? How could anyone trust you on this lmao
Have you read Aquinas's work on Metaphysics, De Anima, Nicomachean Ethics, etc.? They're quite good. Being "duped" about the origins of a couple works due to the lack of resources at the time doesn't detract from quality of scholarship elsewhere. This is a pseud-tier argument.
>I just couldnt be bothered to summarize even more sections, Im not a jukebox, and since the explanation is contained in LITERALLY THE FIRST TEN PAGES OF THE PHENOMENOLOGY AFTER THE PREFACE, I assumed that you were up to the task and do it yourself. Maybe I was wrong
I don't want to join a cult on principle. I thought that maybe you could give me the key and save me a bit of time and perhaps instill some genuine motivation for me to read it on my own. I was wrong, because it sounds like you want to recruit more people into your cult. If you think you'll get me to read Hegel by hand-waving and throwing out cliffhangers, you're wrong.
>If you think you'll get me to read Hegel by hand-waving and throwing out cliffhangers, you're wrong.
the projection here is off the charts.
>muh projection
I've never told anybody to read hundreds of pages of Aristotle to find the truth behind a secret that I myself wasn't capable of explaining again. Yet another L for Hegelian reading comprehension. Not a good look!
Imagine if someone asked you to explain to them Aristotle's doctrine of the unmoved mover in 500 words, while also expecting the summary to be not only accurate, but also convincing and philosophically justified. Plot twist: no such summary is possible. Whatever you will say the other guy will be able to come up with dozens of different objections, which are dealt with by Aristotle in dozens of different passages, so now you're stuck with having to work your way through the Organon up to the Metaphysics to explain to this guy the original point. At some point it will become reasonable to tell this guy to just focus on the texts and to work his way through them. Now imagine if this fricking guy does not even want to go through the first pages of Categories. That guy is you.
In 500 words? No. To a complete philosophical novice? No. With a consistent Q&A format with somebody generally experienced in philosophy, where I lay down the important key points, my interlocutor asks good questions that clarify what is meant, how it is related to other things he knows, and what is ultimately at stake? Yeah, I think I could do it very easily, and it's not an unreasonable demand to make.
>Whatever you will say the other guy will be able to come up with dozens of different objections, which are dealt with by Aristotle in dozens of different passages,
This is a bit of a rigged setup now lol. Because we're now not talking about explaining Aristotle to somebody who doesn't know Aristotle, but rather explaining Aristotle to a "secret shopper" of sorts who actually knows Aristotle as well as or even better than you do.
Anyway, if we stick to the original setup, and not the secret shopper, then a simple list of warnings about controversy would suffice, maybe some guiding questions too, so that one isn't lost when they stumble upon obscure passages.
And you know what? We had a good thing going on until you decided that it was worth expending more effort shaming somebody into reading Hegel than actually giving people reasons to read Hegel.
>you're just LAZY, you're LAZY, you're too LAZY
That doesn't explain why I've read all that I've read. I trust my intuition here, and I only trust reason to dispel my intuition. Why? Because I'd feel like a real fricking chump if I let some dipshit on the internet shame me into reading a charlatan because of the intellectual equivalent of FOMO.
>Of course this wasn't needed, thinking for 5 minutes about what would entail to have a "proof of concept" of an entire book before reading it is obviously stupid, since if said proof was so easily attainable the book would be mostly useless (or, at best, a collection of trivial applications)
Mathematics always seems trivial after-the-fact but in practice is never the case. Proofs of concepts often lead into thorny problems down the line, too. But the proof of concept still works on its own in some brilliant way. It just sounds like to me that you haven't tried to synthesize the thought of Hegel into a coherent whole, which is why you can't deal with a simple objection such as: how does negativity avoid the same problem as apophatic theology (hard mode: no jargon).
Oh, I've noticed. That other guy seems to be an ESL gadfly, nothing more. Not particularly bothered by him.
>Because we're now not talking about explaining Aristotle to somebody who doesn't know Aristotle, but rather explaining Aristotle to a "secret shopper" of sorts who actually knows Aristotle as well as or even better than you do.
Yeah that's definetely not you. Someone who was even just slightly aware of Hegel would know that him being apophatic is possibly the most moronic objection one could make. Like, there's genuinely no objection that is dumber than this one.
>We had a good thing going on until you decided that it was worth expending more effort shaming somebody into reading Hegel than actually giving people reasons to read Hegel.
Nah we had a good thing until I told you to read fricking 10 pages since you were pestering me with questions that, again, ARE ANSWERED IN THE FIRST 10 PAGES OF THE FRICKING BOOK.
>Because I'd feel like a real fricking chump if I let some dipshit on the internet shame me into reading a charlatan because of the intellectual equivalent of FOMO.
Youd feel like a chump if you ended up reading... 10 pages? Lmao
>But the proof of concept still works on its own in some brilliant way.
Except that it doesn't work for any of the philosophers you have mentioned.
>That other guy seems to be an ESL gadfly, nothing more
Well, frick you, I actually took offense. Im tuning out, keep being pround of being incapable of reading the first 10 pages of a book you've spent days criticizing.
>Someone who was even just slightly aware of Hegel would know that him being apophatic is possibly the most moronic objection one could make. Like, there's genuinely no objection that is dumber than this one.
Okay, I haven't read Hegel, so obviously I'd have bad objections. Enlighten me then. Right now, from my perspective, it seems like a massive exaggeration or even a cope to not think that negativity doesn't have something in common with apophatic theology.
>Youd feel like a chump if you ended up reading... 10 pages? Lmao
Yes, I would. Because, given my experience of authors from this period with the kinds of qualms I've raised, I predict that Hegel would simply build up his method, assert that it works, and then my main gripes would go unanswered. Yes, I'd feel like a chump if I could have gotten clarity from an intellectually honest person before I read the book. The only reason I'd read it is because of the FOMO-like exhortations by people like you, not because I have any genuine interest in Hegel.
>Except that it doesn't work for any of the philosophers you have mentioned.
It works for all of them.
>Well, frick you, I actually took offense. Im tuning out, keep being pround of being incapable of reading the first 10 pages of a book you've spent days criticizing.
You're this guy?
Or are you doing that gay thing where you get offended on behalf of other people? Because if you looked at the chain of quotes, you'd see that I clearly wasn't referring to you in any sense of the word, unless you were looking for any possibility of being offended lol.
>With a consistent Q&A format with somebody generally experienced in philosophy, where I lay down the important key points, my interlocutor asks good questions that clarify what is meant, how it is related to other things he knows, and what is ultimately at stake? Yeah, I think I could do it very easily, and it's not an unreasonable demand to make.
do you have autism? do you have no sense of irony?
The irony is that we were doing just that until he gave up on my questions and said "just read the damn book" before I was satisfied. Though, you would have grasped that I explicitly recognized that if you had spent 10 more seconds reading my post.
>until he gave up on my questions and said "just read the damn book" before I was satisfied
that dude told you to read 10 pages lol
Not going to read it on principle if he struggles pulling out what's important out of 10 pages and answering a problem of mine. I've already been through this rodeo with other posturing pseuds before, I'm going to trust my gut on this one. It's going to be one of those cases where the committed zealot simply ignores a problem and treats the philosopher's text as gospel. Nope, I already learned my lesson, and I'm not going to waste my time.
I am interested to see if there's any Hegelian who would like to rehabilitate the image of Hegelianism. Or to watch angry Hegelians attack me for posing a simple challenge. It's amusing, and it gives me more information on whether it's worth reading Hegel or not (so far, absolutely not).
Now you're just pretending to be moronic. It's amusing to listen to Hegelians attack other people for autism, when Hegelian thought is peak 'tism in philosophy, at least in the Continental style.
>Not going to read it on principle if he struggles pulling out what's important out of 10 pages and answering a problem of mine
or maybe he just got tired of answering all your questions (i've reread the thread and it seems he kept humoring you for a long time, if anything he has been too patient with you), and simply directed you to a relevant, short introductory section. as the other anon told you, you're clearly autistic
>or maybe he just got tired of answering all your questions (i've reread the thread and it seems he kept humoring you for a long time, if anything he has been too patient with you), and simply directed you to a relevant, short introductory section
I enjoy answering questions about my favorite philosophers, especially on topics that are infamously obscure, with the hopes that others will share in my enjoyment of them. Your reduction of Hegelian education to a rote and perfunctory experience, with the attitude that it shouldn't even happen, says all I need to know about the true value of Hegelian philosophy. Wasn't there a famous anecdote where Heinrich Heine and Hegel were together and Heine was enraptured by the stars, and the cantankerous Hegel thought it was nothing special? Yeah, that tracks quite well.
>as the other anon told you, you're clearly autistic
Anon, you realize where you are, right? It's IQfy. Your epithets have no power here. And again, it's rich that adherents to some of the most autistic philosophy ever created have the nerve to use the word "autist" in a pejorative sense. Like, hello? Weren't you talking about projection earlier?
Kant has that proof of concept that makes a lot of sense and isn't easy to let go of. And you can't really understand Peirce without reading Kant.
>Is this why you're so resistent to reading even just the introduction to his system?
I'm not going to read something based off of FOMO shame. Sorry, it's just not going to happen.
He's not even the same person as me you utter moron. Our styles of writing are completely different.
>He's not even the same person as me you utter moron. Our styles of writing are completely different.
Irrelevant, it applies to you too
He never brought up the method so that prescribed 10 pages doesn't apply to him.
>uhhhh you just made me look like a stupid and lazy thinker again who has a hard time with reading comprehension
Don't worry, I already know how you're going to lash out again.
>holy frick dude. read more.
Lol come on, the more I read the more I run into the common consensus that nobody understands what Hegel is talking about.
>moron. that's not what I said. I said the truth is the WHOLE, the whole system is the truth.
You don't understand the problem at hand or you're being deliberately obtuse.
>Lol come on, the more I read the more I run into the common consensus that nobody understands what Hegel is talking about
>breaking news: nobody who hasn't read Hegel understand Hegel
>Altogether, Hegel's conversation was always a kind of monologue, sighed forth by fits and starts in a toneless voice. The baroqueness of his expressions often started me, and I remember many of them. On beautiful starry-skied evening, we two stood next to each other at a window, and I, a young man of twenty-two who had eaten well and had good coffee, enthused about the stars and called them the abode of the bessed. But the master grumbled to himself: "The stars, hum! hum! the stars are only a gleaming leprosy in the sky." For God's sake, I shouted, then is no happy locality up there to reward virtue after death? But he, starring at me with his pale eyes, said cuttingly: "So you want to get a tip for having nursed your sick mother and not having poisoned your dear brother?" — Saying that, he looked around anxiously, but he immediately seemed reassured when he saw that it was only Heinrich Beer, who had approached to invite him to play whist...
Kek, he even doubles down too, see the picrel.
>Wasn't there a famous anecdote where Heinrich Heine and Hegel were together and Heine was enraptured by the stars, and the cantankerous Hegel thought it was nothing special?
well no shit, the stars as phenomena are poor imitations of the real ones. And Hegel already saw the real ones.
>I enjoy answering questions about my favorite philosophers, especially on topics that are infamously obscure, with the hopes that others will share in my enjoyment of them
Ad infinitum? Feel free to check the thread, I have in fact spent some time answering to those questions. Am I expected to keep doing that until I have basically reconstructed the entire Phenomenology of Spirit? Give me a break, if after hours of replying I say "listen, most of your answers are contained in these 10 pages, in which btw Hegel also outlines his entire method for the PhG" that's perfectly reasonable; and if the guy takes it as an offense then it is not worth dealing with him anymore on those grounds. At that point it becomes far more interesting to understand why he is so resistant to read a fricking 10 pages introduction about the book he has pestered me with for hours, and if he keeps not understanding why his attitude is completely idiotic I'll just ignore him. I think what you should consider at some point is that it is not the case that my time is worth nothing and his is worth everything: what I was dealing with was a guy who was unwilling to put absolutely no effort into the conversation, apart from coming up with obviously stupid objrctions. I think I have aptly summarized the situation here
. And I really want to point out that the analogy to the Categories was adequate, since his objections were that DUMB (I really cannot stress how fricking stupid it is to call Hegel an apophatic philosopher). Im glad other anons have noticed that I have actually been very patient with the guy.
>Wasn't there a famous anecdote where Heinrich Heine and Hegel were together and Heine was enraptured by the stars, and the cantankerous Hegel thought it was nothing special? Yeah, that tracks quite well.
It tracks well because Hegel posits organic life as higher than inorganic matter? Ok
>Kant has that proof of concept that makes a lot of sense and isn't easy to let go of
Then tell me about Kant's proof of concept in 500 words, in a way that is evidently justified, and that does not leave room for 500 very stupid objections that are dealt by Kant at different points in the critique.
Like, people here struggle with the analytic/synthetic distinction and you still think that these sorts of definitive summaries can be made. Maybe you just don't have much experience in talking with people who are clearly arguing in bad faith?
>Ad infinitum?
Yeah, pretty much. Usually people run out of questions, and I feel the dual satisfaction of 1) educating somebody on somebody I really like; and 2) proving to myself and others that I have a seemingly unlimited reserve of understanding to draw from, that there's no missing links or anything.
>Am I expected to keep doing that until I have basically reconstructed the entire Phenomenology of Spirit?
Anon, I hate to break it to you, but you're complaining to the person that you had the problem with, lol.
And you know what the funny thing about all this was? I was merely one qualm away from having the faith to jump headfirst into the PoS/SoL.
>At that point it becomes far more interesting to understand why he is so resistant to read a fricking 10 pages introduction about the book he has pestered me with for hours,
I'm resilient to being bullied or FOMO'd into disregarding my intuition of things. I need to be reasoned out of it. And I hate being *this* close, thinking
>Wow, that's an interesting line of thought. But the method... hmmm, I think I've seen this before, doesn't it have this problem?
... only to be blue-balled at the last possible minute in WHAT APPEARS TO ME to be a deceptive, evasive maneuver.
And you know what's the best way to confirm somebody's suspicions that something is a hoax? When it's accompanied by FOMO, insults, and a lot of effort spent doing anything except dealing with the original problem that spawned everything. I have a very good eye for this kind of maneuver. It's how I spot bullshit artists IRL, and I've ALWAYS regretted when I recognized it but ignored my gut instinct.
>(I really cannot stress how fricking stupid it is to call Hegel an apophatic philosopher). Im glad other anons have noticed that I have actually been very patient with the guy.
Those anons have shown themselves to be quite stupid, perhaps even barely literate, and you shouldn't be proud to be in their company. Personally, I'd be embarrassed.
>I think what you should consider at some point is that it is not the case that my time is worth nothing and his is worth everything
This "time" argument doesn't make sense considering how much time you've spent trying to avoid answering the question in this thread. We were so close, and you have nothing better to do (clearly), so why not just explain to me how Hegelian negation isn't like negation as it is traditionally practiced in philosophy? It would save us all a lot of frustration.
>since his objections were that DUMB (I really cannot stress how fricking stupid it is to call Hegel an apophatic philosopher). Im glad other anons have noticed that I have actually been very patient with the guy.
When you explained it in plain English, it wasn't so dumb. In fact, negativity as a method is almost precisely what apophatic theology is. The only way you could explain it away was with Hegelian terminology. Don't you understand it enough to break it down without the jargon?
>but you're complaining to the person that you had the problem with, lol.
My bad, Ill stop engaging with you immediately
Don't worry, you'll probably end up engaging with me again lol. You're just not bright enough to avoid making that mistake again. And I'm supposed to believe that you're competent in interpreting philosophy when you can't recognize wild differences in style?
>... only to be blue-balled at the last possible minute in WHAT APPEARS TO ME to be a deceptive, evasive maneuver.
Yes, I know how you feel, and it so often bothers me that they don't seems to perceive why you would feel that way at all. I even have a reasonable amount of respect for Hegel's philosophical ability, outside of the PoS at least, where he is capable of much more solid expression and clarity of (at least attempted) justification.
But the way the PoS is written invites so much, I don't know what to really say, because I can't actually call it a cult really, but it demands a specific attitude to enveloping oneself with thought where, people are encouraged to tear apart, reform and piece together conceptions, until they reach various points of *aha I get it*, where things seem to fit, and this seems satisfying and true and beautiful in how it extends rationality, and take that as a signal to keep going until they find a way to get everything to fit, because the work is geared around making this happen to those who work at that.
So while, in principle, you could criticize it, each person who approaches it works their own conceptions through it in their own way, and either seems to find an ultimate resolution to everything that works, and praises Hegel for offering the exercise leading to this, or otherwise, will sit back and be perplexed and wonder what justifies and motivates this at all or why they ought to have faith in this dielectric process or presume it will "lead their consciousness to absolute knowledge", or if the problems they perceive are actually real problems and not "ultimately resolved, but only if they go through everything laid out".
NTA but for someone who claims to have deeply read Kant and Peirce, it's bizarre that you would be so unwilling to read Hegel, and more so because the reasons you give are things like "Hegel fans are annoying" or "I hate people trying to get me to do things using FOMO" or "his writing is too deliberately obscure." It makes it seem like you care more about how you're seen for reading or not reading a work than about the ideas themselves.
The preface to the Phenomenology is *not* only 10 pages - it's closer to 46, at least in my edition (Clarendon Press, translated by A.V. Miller), but it has a remarkably clear and lucid writing style quite opposed to the popular image of Hegel's writings as needlessly obscure and dense; if you're going to reject Hegel's ideas, consider reading it if nothing else so that you can consider his ideas directly rather than judge them based on what random people on the Internet who may or may not have read Hegel think and believe and write.
You don't have to agree with or like anything Hegel thought, but in my opinion it would be a shame for someone to never consider a body of thought because of outside factors rather than reject said body after understanding it, even if the body in question is one I view in a positive light.
>because the reasons you give are things like "Hegel fans are annoying"
This is perfectly valid. Not even in a shallow way, the advocates Hegel has really either do not seem to understand how much that come off like bullshit artists, or they don't care. This could easily be rectified by being a bit more charitable towards people wanting more clarity or justification, but they way they seem to act in such a hostile way to even the most good faith questioning, and act like Hegel's writing clearly justifies its claims no matter how hopelessly obscure and round about about it it is, really sets off alarms bells.
I get the impression that people who devour Hegel just have different kinds of intuitions than those who are skeptical of what he attempts, this is the only explanation I can come up with for everything I've observed.
>It makes it seem like you care more about how you're seen for reading or not reading a work than about the ideas themselves.
A better question is, why would I read Hegel when I've already read Kant and Peirce? I have what I need, and Peirce is operating with a much more fleshed out field of logic (which he himself pioneered), so what would I gain, besides saying "I can check this off my bucket list." or being able to brag about it to other people? I don't care about that.
>if you're going to reject Hegel's ideas, consider reading it
I have no guarantee that that anon understood my objection, let alone handed me a reading recommendation which will address my objection in a way that won't leave me feeling cheated and duped when I'm done.
>You don't have to agree with or like anything Hegel thought, but in my opinion it would be a shame for someone to never consider a body of thought because of outside factors rather than reject said body after understanding it, even if the body in question is one I view in a positive light.
The "outside factors" are so intricately tied to the work and the scholarship surrounding it that I'd be stupid for not taking pause before deciding to embark on a laborious endeavor like "trying to understand Hegel."
My objection boiled down to a questions about the evolution from the singular to the universal and beyond, and a question about the negativity of the Hegel's method. I was actually willing to forgo the former and let the reading show me what it means in practice. But, considering that the method is the "proof of concept", I want to make sure that it, well, "works", since the truth of almost everything is is predicated on it.
Of course, once we finally arrived at the crux of the whole thing, the other anon began to stonewall me. And the only conclusion I could draw is that: 1) he couldn't explain it; and 2) the reasons why he couldn't are reminiscent of other criticisms of Hegel, that he is stuck in the "dogmatic" mode of thinking that Kant warned about regarding the inability for discursive reasoning to uncover the thing-in-itself.
>Peirce is operating with a much more fleshed out field of logic
and how tf would you even know that if you didn't read Hegel?
>Hegel, that he is stuck in the "dogmatic" mode of thinking that Kant warned about regarding the inability for discursive reasoning to uncover the thing-in-itself.
Hegel agrees with Kant on this. You'd know this if you actually read Hegel.
>and how tf would you even know that if you didn't read Hegel?
Because the logic of relatives and the other foundations of formal logic literally didn't exist in Hegel's time? Don't be stupid with me, anon.
So Hegel decided to sail full speed ahead, knowing that the ghost of Kant could assrape his entire philosophy into oblivion at any time? That sounds profoundly stupid.
>assumes a neat little history of logic that doesn't include a book literally entitled the Science of Logic by the most famous philosopher of modern times that revolutionized logic and that may or may not already have addressed topics of later logicians using different terminology and possibly sublimated them into his system, but wouldn't know because he didn't read Hegel because-- BECAUSE IT'S JUST BULLSHIT OK.
>doesn't know direct intuition of supersensible reality supervenes on propositional knowledge through dialectic because, again, he didn't read Hegel
ngmi
The Science of Logic does not include developments in Boolean logic, relative logic, and the other advancements in predicate logic that Peirce later incorporated into his philosophy. You're just vomiting words into your post that have no serious meaning.
>The Science of Logic does not include developments in Boolean logic, relative logic, and the other advancements in predicate logic that Peirce later incorporated into his philosophy.
dude by your own admission you haven't even read Hegel. how the frick would you even know this you massive pseud?
>how the frick would you even know this you massive pseud?
Because all of these topics were developed an entire generation or two after Hegel fricking died? How fricking stupid are you? What's next?
>uhhhh actually there was a massive conspiracy to discredit Hegel's achievement of independently deriving the entirety of modern formal logic 50-100 years before it supposedly happened
actually there was a massive conspiracy to discredit Hegel's achievement of independently deriving the entirety of modern formal logic 50-100 years before it supposedly happened
literally yes
That's insane. You're insane.
>The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
Comparing Hegel to Christ is blasphemous. Though, Hegel himself once claimed he knew what was in the mind of God before he created the world. So, blasphemy isn't foreign to him and his followers.
NTA but what's your goal in reading philosophy?
Would you reject ideas of God promulgated by, say, Peirce if they were heterodox or blasphemous?
I was just pointing out the incoherence of citing the Bible to defend Hegel of all people. That's all.
>The preface to the Phenomenology is *not* only 10 pages - it's closer to 46
As a side note, I was talking about the introduction, not the preface (which is considerably longer)
Anyway yeah I agree with your general point. I suppose I read philosophical texts in a different manner. When I reaf Aristotle I don't expect to agree with everything he says, rather I have the expectation that even if I will end up disagreeing it will be a formative experience. But that guy is a legit philistine, so he's a lost cause (at least rn, maybe he will grow out of it in the future).
>rich that adherents to some of the most autistic philosophy ever created have the nerve to use the word "autist" in a pejorative sense.
>t. fell for the meme
>shaming somebody into reading Hegel
dude your projection is not even subtle anymore. don't read Hegel ok. nobody cares, just hang out in your little no-hegels-allowed club and read other stuff and be happy.
Where's the projection lol? Do you even know what that word means? I'm not shaming anybody into reading anything.
This is like the 5th time a Hegelian exhibited atrociously poor reading comprehension in this thread. Does reading Hegel damage your ability to comprehend plain language? I'm genuinely curious. The possibility of brain damage would be a great reason to avoid reading Hegel.
>Where's the projection lol?
>I want to know what all the fuss about Hegel is about but he uses too big-brain speak for me and that hurts my feefees reeeeeee
Very funny, but that's not projection. And in any case, there's been a half-dozen attempts to explicitly shame me for not reading Hegel in this thread, so acting like this is just a fictional construct of my mind is ridiculous.
I guess when you kick the Hegelian hive, they'll begin to swarm all over you with every trick in the book they can think of. Oh well. At least I don't have brain damage from reading Hegel!
>that's not projection
>can't into the implication
autism confirmed
I've basically constantly found the same thing with defenders of Hegel. They all make the same kinds of arguments and act like noticing how difficult it seem to be for anybody to actually summarize his points, compared to other philosophers, is some kind of act of willful laziness, as opposed to acknowledging that hesitance may be warranted given how much controversy he invites, and especially with the PoS.
I rarely see people do things like, say, find general agreement with Hegel, but then take issue with such and such point and what that might imply. Instead I see things occurring weirdly frequently, like people just ending up claiming agreement with his systems wholesale, and having no specific point of issue, while at the same time, everyone, when ask to explain a specific part of the development of some idea, seems to interpret it wildly differently.
I do not see this to anywhere near the same extent with other philosophers, so the way advocates of Hegel tend to act like these issues, like the "all or nothing" attitude people tend to have towards his systems, aren't a problem, or at least don't *act as a signal for reasonable skepticism towards them*, give little condolence to those who might rightly fear undertaking a serious study of him might yield less of value than they'd hoped.
>people just ending up claiming agreement with his systems wholesale
because that's literally the point person who has never read Hegel: the Truth is the WHOLE.
Yes, this is very much the case, and so surely you'd understand that this is not something people can be invited into lightly? As in, given the level of faith required by you to give him when going through his systematic expositions, which, written in the particular way that they are, effectively demand that you assume that he is ultimately right, and that any confusion your part is a matter of you not having read him well or thoroughly enough to properly understand any passage as it relates to the presumably enlightening whole, surely it would make sense to honestly acknowledge this instead of insulting people and claiming that they're being unreasonable when they express basic skepticism.
It would be one thing if we were dealing with, say, a mathematical treatise, which might make great demands of its own and also be ultimately right, but there at least the background assumptions being made and the fine points of detail can each be considered and established on their own terms. Hegel's Phenomenology, in contrast, seems to want to slip through your hands whenever such grasping is attempted, and almost seem to be deliberately written to force you to swallow it in its entirety, or not all to. To at least acknowledge this, and why it may be understandably controversial, instead of having most argument resolve to a clash between seeming utter believers and complete skeptics, would offer something like progress, and I find that sad to say.
>words words words
>still refuses to read the 10 pages in which Hegel outlines his method
With all the time you've wasted on this thread you could have read that introduction like 5 times
Yup. These last few posts:
Say it all. It's amusing to watch people claim that Aristotle has comparable exegetic challenges compared to Hegel, when the problem with Aristotle is mostly a few vague sentences here, a general problem with the completeness of his corpus there, non-philosophical concerns invading the interpretation of the text, and, of course, the fact that nobody has figured it all out, leading to plenty of philosophical debate. With Hegel, nobody literally has a fricking clue what he's saying, and the only people who are willing to dedicate that much effort to decoding what he meant are effectively cultists who aren't willing to consider that Hegel is potentially wrong.
I think Charles Sanders Peirce put it best:
>Hegel, in some respects the greatest philosopher that ever lived, had a somewhat juster notion of this complication, though an inadequate notion, too. For if he had seen what the state of the case was, he would not have attempted in one lifetime to cover the vast field that he attempted to clear. But Hegel was lamentably deficient in that fifth requisite of critical severity and sense of fact. He brought out the three elements much more clearly [than Kant did]; but the element of Secondness, of hard fact, is not accorded its due place in his system; and in a lesser degree the same is true of Firstness. After Hegel wrote, there came fifty years that were remarkably fruitful in all the means for attaining that fifth requisite. Yet Hegel's followers, instead of going to work to reform their master's system, and to render his statement of it obsolete, as every true philosopher must desire that his disciples should do, only proposed, at best, some superficial changes without replacing at all the rotten material with which the system was built up. [CP 1.524, From the “Lowell Lectures of 1903”]
Oh, so Hegel never made a mistake? Never contradicted himself? Never said something vague on a controversial topic that could legitimately invite several different positions? Give me a break.
>takes Peirce as an authority
>">Hegel, in some respects the greatest philosopher that ever lived"
>still doesn't even bother reading the introduction to Hegel's first book
Fricking hilarious. Peirce criticized Kant too, but somehow you still managed to find the will to read him. Did an hegelian hurt you when you were a child? Is this why you're so resistent to reading even just the introduction to his system?
>nobody literally has a fricking clue what he's saying
holy frick dude. read more.
>Hegel never made a mistake? Never contradicted himself? Never said something vague on a controversial topic that could legitimately invite several different positions?
moron. that's not what I said. I said the truth is the WHOLE, the whole system is the truth.
>what logic is cannot be stated beforehand, rather does this knowledge of what it is first emerge as the final outcome and consummation of the whole exposition.
>The Owl of Minerva takes flight at dusk. You won't get it and will never get it unless you actually do the work of reading the whole system and acheiving an intellectual intuition of the idea of the system as a whole and the role all the parts and moments play in the system and their true meaning in the context of that intuition of the whole. In simple terms, Hegel requires initiation (running through the course of dialectic) to be understood. You are either take the leap of faith and run through the dialectic hoping in the end it'll all make sense and enter into the ranks of the initiates or drop out and remain with the profane and seethe and cope as you do now.
>[the] metaphorical notion of "the eye of the soul" is akin to illuminative intuition and although it is a faculty that is latently possessed by every soul, nevertheless it must be developed and properly directed by dialectical reasoning. If the initiate is suitable and has a high degree of proficiency in dialectics ultimately acquaintive knowing supervenes upon propositional knowing.
>in dialectics ultimately acquaintive knowing supervenes upon propositional knowing.
>Now imagine if this fricking guy does not even want to go through the first pages of Categories. That guy is you
fricking kek I'm dying
Are you laughing because it's a terrible analogy? You don't need to read the Categories to understand the Metaphysics, since they both deal with largely separate topics. It's a good idea because reading the Categories will eventually bring up metaphysical concerns and will give you the tools to analyze metaphysical claims later down the line, but it's not crucial. It's actually a big sign of being a pseud for not saying something more obvious like "turn to Book Lambda of Metaphysics", especially for this example.
>there's a bit of controversy over the best interpretation and highlighting the corpus
A bit of controversy? Talk about the understatement of the year lmao.
>When it comes to actually making sense of Aristotle, commentators have a much easier time than making sense of Hegel.
There are literally two millenia of failed attempts proving you wrong on this one buddy. But since your standards are so low I might as well tell you some names that can help you making sense of Hegel, if you cannot do it by yourself: Rosenkranz, Sterling, Harris, Houlgate, Winfield. But I bet that even reading their simplified works is now considered cultish.
>At least it is capable of being read.
More like "it is capable of being misread for two goddamn millenia" (Im glossing over the fact that there are countless introductions to hegelian thought and tons of commentaries in lots of languages)
>They're quite good. Being "duped" about the origins of a couple works due to the lack of resources at the time doesn't detract from quality of scholarship elsewhere.
It's not "two random texts", they were the most important texts for him (and not only him, but all the main commentators of Aristotle up to the 15th century) since they offered the basis for rational theology and intelligible causes. It's literally the biggest mistake in the history of Aristotelian scholarship, one which entirely alters Aristotle's system to an unrecognizable degree. If you accept these as sources to understand Aristotle I might as well accept Ayn Rand as a source for Kant.
>I don't want to join a cult on principle
Nah, you just dont want to read the first 10 pages of the text you're criticizing, even after people told you that the answer to most of your objections are contained there. You're not resisting to a cult (a cult of what? people who have read Hegel? are we going to make you pay a fee to join our church?), you're just being lazy.
>If you accept these as sources to understand Aristotle I might as well accept Ayn Rand as a source for Kant.
This is such a coping argument considering that there are plenty of Aristotelian texts where theology doesn't even make an appearance. If you think these "mistakes" (it's hard to fault somebody who couldn't have possibly known better given the limitations of scholarship at his time) impact Aquinas's ability to interpret Aristotle's Politics, then you're just a coping pseud grasping at straws. Sorry to be so blunt, but they literally have nothing to do with each other, and you're clearly employing a rhetorical stratagem instead of seeking the truth.
>Nah, you just dont want to read the first 10 pages of the text you're criticizing, even after people told you that the answer to most of your objections are contained there. You're not resisting to a cult (a cult of what? people who have read Hegel? are we going to make you pay a fee to join our church?), you're just being lazy.
I like how you gave up earlier trying to explain the crux of Hegel because it was "too hard and time-consuming", yet you're spending all this effort to explain how
>ackshually, Aristotle is more complicated and harder to read than Hegel
When you're not lazy, you're prideful. Go figure. Hegelians are motivated by pride rather than the truth. I don't want to step even a single inch into the Hegelian depths without at least proof of concept. That's not an unreasonable expectation.
>You're not resisting to a cult (a cult of what? people who have read Hegel? are we going to make you pay a fee to join our church?)
Plenty of people are motivated by pride, a false sense of intellectual superiority, or plain spite (I suffered all this time and effort wasted, now I'm going to hoist it onto you now). It's a very human thing.
>I like how you gave up earlier trying to explain the crux of Hegel because it was "too hard and time-consuming", yet you're spending all this effort to explain how
That's because I'm a moron who actually tries to improve a bit the reading comprehension of complete strangers on the internet, so I figured that it would be more helpful to tell you exactly why you're approach to reading philosophy books is even more moronic than I am, instead of falling into this
stupid rabbit hole. If I were less moronic I would have simply ignored your philistinism and left you to rot in your intellectual laziness.
>When you're not lazy, you're prideful. Go figure. Hegelians are motivated by pride rather than the truth. I don't want to step even a single inch into the Hegelian depths without at least proof of concept. That's not an unreasonable expectation.
If you're interested, Hegel refutes this moronic assumption in both the first 5 pages of the Preface and the also in the first 5 pages of the Introduction. Of course this wasn't needed, thinking for 5 minutes about what would entail to have a "proof of concept" of an entire book before reading it is obviously stupid, since if said proof was so easily attainable the book would be mostly useless (or, at best, a collection of trivial applications). It is nice to notice that none of the authors you have mentioned in this thread cannot be introduced without such a preliminary "proof of concept".
>Then you should read Peirce, because he both reconstructs it then demolishes it because Kant was relying on the primitive logic available during his time.
"See, you shouldn't read 250 pages to understand the Transcendental Dialectic, you should read dozen of essays instead". Again, following your logic I should deem all these suggestions as pure nonsense. You're doing the EXPLAIN THE BODY WITHOUT ORGANS TO ME OR I WILL KILL YOU meme, but unironically
>This is not just any book, we're talking about two books, and not just any two books, but the PoS and the SoL. That's calling for an extreme amount of effort and time that, right now, doesn't seem justified in the slightest. Don't tell me you aren't sympathetic at all, because that would make you look even more ridiculous
hey ive told you it's fine not to read everything. i just found your insistence wrt hegel not EVER being worth reading both funny and desperate. like, just admit you dont have the time atm instead of looking for deeper excuses, no one is going to shit on you for that
>It genuinely is. And if you're stuck anywhere, you have thousands of years of commentary by people who certainly "got it" to help guide you.
Will you now mention the fact that most of those interpretations are completely incompatible with each other, and that in pretty much every case they'll just teach you about a new system that is just vaguely inspired by Aristotle? Proclus? Aquinas? Avicenna and Averroes? They all give completely different accounts about the contents of the Metaphysics, and if you have read it you should know it. If anything those commentaries will make it harder for you to grasp Aristotle's actual philosophy. You don't read Proclus to understand Aristotle: you read Proclus to understand Proclus.
>With Hegel, you can put a lifetime's work into interpretation and still feel uncertain when you're done.
This is literally what happened to aristotelian scholarship for the past 2 millenia. Avicenna had to read through the Metaphysics 40 times before he started to vaguely grasp it (and even then his account is not of the meaning of the Metaphysics is extremely heterodox).
>There's no such tradition alongside you.
There actually is. Are you under the impression that there is no secondary scholarship on Hegel?
>But then again, I don't expect more from a cultist.
I reject this accusation, and respond by calling you a philistine.
not that anon but you're really struggling just to justify your unwillingness to read a book lmao. i mean you dont have to read everything, it's just funny how desperate you look rn
>the Metaphysics is a much easier read
Ok this is hilarious
>To paraphrase Einstein, if you're having trouble explaining something, you probably don't understand it, or there's nothing there.
Imagine Einstein having to explain the theory of general relativity to someone who is unwilling to take a Calc 1 class
The point is that the singular thing-in-itself cannot be seen as an infallible criteria for knowledge because it is itself a figment invented by philosophers (specifically Kant, who Hegel is directly influenced by). Once we leave behind the idea that the singular This is nothing more than a fantasy, we can grasp reality in its interdependence and wholeness.
>reality like, isn't real bro
>now we can talk about this non-reality
copium strategy
>reality like isn't real bro
Its hard to describe how moronic of a strawman this is. Do you actually think that we have just had the concept of the "Thing-in-itself' beamed down from God into us. Have you never thought that maybe a notion like that simply does not reflect our experience with reality and cannot be used in a philosophical system? Many thinkers have, with Hegel among them. Almost all of Phenomenology leaves this idea behind, most schools of Buddhism, Hume, Berkeley, Nietzsche.
>Do you actually think that we have just had the concept of the "Thing-in-itself' beamed down from God into us.
No. The thing-in-itself existed before anybody tried to think about it. The concept itself was developed as part of a longstanding conversation, the problematization of trying to epistemology, metaphysics, and logic were connected together. Besides, serious phenomenology is about recognizing the Kantian problem (and not playing it off as merely an invented, self-imposed prison) and trying alternative strategies to approach it. Mainly, that appearances "don't come from nowhere", so perhaps the distinction between appearances and reality isn't as clear cut as we thought. Berkeley doesn't even leave it behind, insofar as he places the grounding in God, a "bare minimum" or a guarantee that reality is, well, real, in spite of our own epistemic condition.
I think you shoulf be more careful in making this kind of assumptions (which are perfectly reasonable). Namely, Hegel in his text will go through LOTS of figures of consciousness. What happens in the end is that very often you will end up thinking that he is an idiot because the figures he has dealt with were obviously stupid, until at some point you'll end up reading a section where he discusses a figure of consciousness that is essentially yours, and then he will refute it. It is always a funny experience seeing readers of Hegel having this experience at completely different parts of the book.
What's left after Hegel BTFO's everything? Also, do you recommend Harris's Hegel's Ladder as a reading companion?
It's not a perfect companion, but it is good enough for the Phenomenology, especially if you're reading it for the first time (and especially if you're not familiar with greek, modern and classical german philosophy).
>What's left after Hegel BTFO's everything?
Absolute Knowing, which is the standpoint from which philosophy can actually begin. From there Hegel begins his actual system (which is contained in the Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia)
What are your favorite companions for Hegel? I always thought Harris was the gold standard, but I don't have the expertise to properly judge.
Unfortunately most of the companions I have read are not translated in English. Personally I find Anglophone hegelian scholarship quite lacking, but the main names are usually good enough for a beginner (although eventually one has to grow out of them).
What exactly is wrong with Anglos?
Since going into details would be far too draining, I'll keep it general. It seems to me that in German Idealism scholarship (not only Hegelian!) anglo scholars try to be too diplomatic with their colleagues in other areas (mostly analytic philosophers, logicians and political philosophers). This usually means that they'll try to make Hegel more palatable by either suppressing the weirder parts of his system, or by straight up altering them. The issue is that Hegel is completely incompatible with these sorts of suppressions and alterations. A common theme, for example, is to try to make dialectics appear as if it was something compatible with contemporary philosophy of language, or post-fregean formal logic (trying to turn Hegel's dialectics in formal logic is one of the worst mistakes one can make, same for Kant's transcendental logic, and Fichte's and Schelling's derivation of the categories – all of these modes of thought are simply opposed to formalism), and this is usually done by banalizing his notion of dialectics and his SoL.
But again, this is not an issue that is strictly limited to Hegel. Anglo Kantian and Fichtean scholarship usually resort to the same kind of tactics, to the point of becoming basically unusable (unless you're a first-time learner, or unless you're an academic who is getting paid to write these things), especially the more you delve into advanced scholarship (which, as I have experienced, tends to contain much more nonsense than the basic one).
Still, they're still capable of writing introductory texts which, while flawed, can still be helpful for people in your position. Reading Harris for the PhG and Houlgate for the SoL will certainly leave you in a better spot (granted that you're not already familiar in general with the history of philosophy, and more specifically with german idealism, mainly Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Jacobi – if that's not the case feel free to approach these texts without any commentary).
One of my pet project is to one day translate in English for a reputable publishing house the wonderful scholarship that I have found in Italian and German texts. But you'll have to wait a few years for that, sorry.
>A common theme, for example, is to try to make dialectics appear as if it was something compatible with contemporary philosophy of language, or post-fregean formal logic (trying to turn Hegel's dialectics in formal logic is one of the worst mistakes one can make, same for Kant's transcendental logic, and Fichte's and Schelling's derivation of the categories – all of these modes of thought are simply opposed to formalism), and this is usually done by banalizing his notion of dialectics and his SoL.
Where exactly does modern philosophy of language and formal logic go wrong? Its presumption of nominalism? Its rejection of dialetheic logic? Its bias towards reductive materialism? Its propensity to endorse something akin to logical atomism, as if Leibniz's characteristica universalis were possible, and that science can be reduced to propositional statements about the whole?
I'm just fishing for ideas, I hope you'll humor me here.
>One of my pet project is to one day translate in English for a reputable publishing house the wonderful scholarship that I have found in Italian and German texts. But you'll have to wait a few years for that, sorry.
I'd be the first in line to buy it, whenever it comes around.
>Where exactly does modern philosophy of language and formal logic go wrong? Its presumption of nominalism?
First of all, I'm not saying that it is wrong, that would be a completely different issue. What I would say is that it is incompatible with Hegel's philosophy, so when you try to jam it into his system you end up with an inaccurate understanding of his philosophy. This already stems from Hegel's rejection of all formalism: so, for example, all the axioms of formal logic, according to Hegel, cannot be accepted ready-made, even when they are correct. Rather, something like the law of identity (A=A) must be deduced, it cannot simply be accepted because it seems evident. In formal logic laws of this sort as taken as the starting point, while for Hegel they must be a *result* of dialectical thought. As such any formalization of the SoL ends up being a completely corruption of the whole project, a corruption that is completely unreconcileable with Hegel's system.
But again, here I am merely talking about philological accuracy (which is something an introduction to Hegel should strive for), and not actual correctness (without adding a lot to what I have said it is still reasonable to assume that the one of formal logic might in fact be the correct method).
>One of my pet project is to one day translate in English for a reputable publishing house the wonderful scholarship that I have found in Italian and German texts.
What do you think of Gentile? How far does he diverge from Hegel?
I haven't read much of him, apart from some summaries of his philosophy, and his wonderful translation of Kant's CPR (which is imho to this day the best italian translation available).
In my opinion the absolute best Italian scholar on Hegel's Phenomenology is Franco Chiereghin, and it pains me that his "Introduzione alla Fenomenologia dello Spirito" is still left untranslated. I really think, for what I have read, that no other introductiory text compares to it. Essentially he went through Hegel's Jena Logic (the system of logic that Hegel composed in 1805, which is completely different from the Science of Logic), and managed to succesfully show how each section of the Phenomenology closely follows the scheme given in the Jena Logic. Not only that, but he managed to do it in the span of 200 pages. I cannot overstate how useful understanding the logical underpinning of the Phenomenology is when it comes to understanding that text, it's day and night. While this line of interpretation has been widely adopted in Italy and Germany, unfortunately the Anglosphere seems to be still unaware of it (even though the Jena Logic has been translated – funnily enough DiGiovanni used Chiereghin's translation as the basis for his own english translation). Im sure that whoever will translate it first will be thanked for it for at least 100 years.
What are your issues with Hegel's Ladder? Do you disagree with Harris' analysis?
>The Absolute is reality taken as a whole.
Oooohhh. So he was an NPC. No wonder he appealed to so many.people. It's a shame. Someone with his intellect would have been able to go far if they had an actual soul.
Filtered.
No, merely unbounded. Unlike NPCs, who are limited to the finite One, (and thus always inevitably make up cosmologies where this falsely consists of everything) I have a Self and can access the infinite Zero, wherein I can perceive the true nature of reality. I can't rightfully say whether you have a real Self or not, since you might just be confused. Even people with actual souls can sometimes take up Monism, if they're ignorant enough.
Its okay. I'm sure one day you'll find enlightenment, either that of the Animal-Men or that of a real person. 😉
Monism, like Eleatic thought, got brutally killed thousands of years ago. Check the catalog, there's a great thread on Parmenides up which explicates all the arguments.
That's abstract monism, a position that Hegel overcomes in the first 2 pages of the Science of Logic
>thinking in primitive fixed categories like monism and pluralism.
You have not understood dialectics.
>explain the existence of objects/things
Existence (Dasein) is the end result of Becoming, which is the necessary sublation of abstract Being and Nothing. Read The Science of Logic for more.
Dude there are like 500 pages between Existence and Becoming lmao
Read the Hegel's Logic
Hegel was all about death and how humanity should become slaves to serving it. He was a twisted maniac
>Grandfather of communism, fascism, modern liberalism, modern conservatism, and critical theory.
How did he do it? It's like all human history for 200+ years has been fighting over Hegel's ideas. Did he make the entire human race his golems?
>"Death, is the most amazing thing, and uphold the works of dead requires the greatest effort"
What did he mean by this anyway
Ignore the memes, he was a quiet Lutheran dad in his private life.
He was an atheist. God died, he's finite.
What part of fricking ABSOLUTE did you not understand brainlet?
Absolute requires god to be finite, he died bro
>bro
also
God is the Absolute
also
look up the etymology of Absolute
>God is the Absolute
God is dead. Hegels words not mine
Damn, tell us what Hegel thinks happened after God died. I bet he doesn't say he resurrect as Spirit
>Hegels words not mine
>stuck on the letter and can't see the spirit
ngmi
>The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two possible ways to regard rules, or laws. To obey the letter of the law is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the spirit of the law means enacting the intent behind the law.
>There is a difference between the rote form of a philosophical science and its subjectively incorporated understanding, or what Fichte (following Kant, following St. Paul) referred to as the relation between the ‘letter’ and the ‘spirit.’
That's Nietzsche.
Of course Hegel also thought that God was dead, and that we had killed him. But then God is revived through to power of the Spirit, returning to the ground, the Father that begat the Logos, the Son...
Hegel thought that picture thinking, thinking in terms of naive realism about the stories of the Bible, was all well and good, but also just the first step to understanding the whole. For Hegel, as with Saint Augustine, the Holy Trinity represents a deeper mystery, the inherit tripartite semiotic nature of being, a facet of being Peirce would later formalize.
To borrow the analogies from Augustine's De Trinitate: there is the Father who loves, the Son who is the target of the reciprocal love, the thing through which the love is made known, the there is the love itself, the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic abstraction or Pierciean Thirdness of the relation. Likewise, we can consider the object seen, the ground, the Father, the act of seeing though which the object is known, the symbol or Logos (Christ is the Logos, John 1), and the desire to look, Peirce's Interpretant, Atman, that which sees.
These thoughts are particularly interesting in light of the mainstream popularity of information theoretic, pancomputationalist conceptions of physics, and the move from substance to process metaphysics across the natural sciences. This suggests also a pan-semiotic interpretation of reality.
anon that brainlet cannot comrehend this. ~~*She*~~ has not attained to the Standpunckt of Philosophy.
>That's Nietzsche.
No. Nietzsche stole it from Hegel.
"The pure concept, however, or infinity, as the abyss of nothingness in which all being sinks, must characterize the infinite pain, which previously was only in culture historically and as the feeling on which rests modern religion, the feeling that God Himself is dead,"
>the feeling that God Himself is dead
this just a moment in the historical dialectic moron. He's not saying God is actually dead; he's describing the consciousness of someone at this stage of the dialectic. Now go back.
Jesus died and he is part God. No one can take away God's death from himself.
>Jesus died
and was resurrected smoothbrain. Now go back.
NTA, but he is right. For Hegel God's death is a moment of pure negativity, which immediately passes in the most concrete positivity: in this sense the death of God is immediately his resurrection as Spirit. On the other hand for Nietzsche God is dead and stays dead
Adopting a Peircean framework isn't a shift from substance to process metaphysics, but rather a union of the two.
The infinite cannot be obtained through the finite so yes, Hegel didn't believe in God.
plato.stanford.edu
Why would a woman wear such an ugly garment?
Why is her facial expression so repulsive as well . . .
Read book 2 of "World as Will and Representation" to understamd
why does she wear a shirt that shows off her nonbreasts
her... her milk bags are empty...
Yes, for I have drunk them to sating.
>taking anyone who didn't even know about quantum mechanics seriously
>hegel
>kant
lel only israelites follow those two gays. Study Aquinas and become a Traditional Catholic
And tell your daughter to dress more modestly she is dressed like a harlot
Why don't modern women dress like this?
This attire is so much more beautiful.
bc it's out of style homosexual. get with the times.
When will it get back in style?
Never, the best you can hope for is e-thots wearing something like that with goth makeup and a choker because of the cottagecore baepilled vibes or some shit.
That is okay—as a #MaleFeminist I respect their choices; although admittedly, beset by sorrow and melancholy at the sight of reality.
When we return to Traditional Catholicism as a society again
Convert today and pray the rosary every day
so hot
Because the people have abandoned the one true faith Traditional Catholicism in favor of israeli modernity which is promulgated by protestants and atheists, both equally not Christian and both subserviant to israelites
>out of style
Catholic fashion is timeless you israelite
https://www.pinterest.com/sierrawalther16/marian-modesty/
No woman would ever say those things
~~*woman*~~
There is a way. A Traditional Catholic Reconquista
face like that but no breasts. must be trans?
Holy frick dude just don't read Hegel if he triggers you so badly. In the time it took you to write out all this shit you could have pirated the PoS off slsk, read the first couple pages, and moved on with your life.
I hate women so much bros..
Behold, the terrifying writings of Hegel, capable of turning men into gibbering lunatics and slavish cultists of Geist. You're better off not even attempting to expand the image lest you risk forever losing your sense of reason in the depths of Absolute Knowing.
someone needs to stop reading schopenhauer and touch grass
you guys are massive nerds
>t. filtered
No, I'm just projecting
talk more guys
There’s nothing really more to talk about. I have a problem. Hegelians don’t want to answer it. I’m not going to be conned into reading a charlatan because I’d hate myself for falling for an obvious FOMO ploy. Thus, we have reached an impasse.
>I have a question that could be answered by reading Hegel
>but I don't want to read Hegel I want random people on IQfy to tell me what they think Hegel thinks
Okay then.
I have no idea if the reading they recommended even deals with the question. For all I know, I have to read all of PoS/SoL to figure out an answer to my question. And I'm not willing to get conned that hard.
bump
Actuality
Existence- of the thing- comes from ground (the conditions for determination), but the being of the thing is not yet actual (substantive and causal). That is because the thing only has its being as a measure of its existence. It is ultimately formless existence because the ground only gives the essential existence of the thing: its appearance. Through the negativity of reflection (reflection is the identity, difference, and ground). Existence is essence-less because it is just the appearance of of existence that is given, so to say. Essential existence is appearance; appearance is the existence of essence. To say something exists is to say it is equal to itself, and to say something has appearance is to say it not only is, but has something to it (properties). This creates two worlds, inner and outer: the world of the thing and the world of the thing's properties, which are separate from it. This is the absolute actuality of the thing, to say that it is a thing determined by its outer world. The absolute then is sublated form, or determination of the thing through its relation to externality (and, I imagine, eventually by mind). The successive determinations of the thing are what move the system.
says there is unformed matter, but it does have properties. From these properties we create forms in our minds.
I dont think this is right. Aristotle said that matter cannot exist without form. The forms exist either actually or potentially in the matter.
Never heard of a prima materia?
I thought that was purely conceptual
Grainger’s Order History page provides a convenient solution for your post-order needs and makes reordering products easy. View order details, get real time tracking on your shipments, or access packing lists and invoice copies for all online and offline orders.