Hegel is careful to methodically derive each category of reality ('thought-determination') from its predecessor notion, with the completed s...

Hegel is careful to methodically derive each category of reality ('thought-determination') from its predecessor notion, with the completed system bringing the circle to a close, demonstrating its unity.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel was a triangle man.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      he was also a circle man

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Very true, the notion of circularity in general, Hegel aside for a moment, is often subject to a sort of 3 pronged outcome, a circulus in probando, a symbolism which oscillates heavily between conveying too much or too little, or a complete circuit. I believe Feuerbach called it the 'coat of arms for speculative philosophy'. Insofar as Hegel goes, in the Science of Logic he describes the circle as an 'awkward' implement, in Philosophy of Right he describes all of philosophy as being a circle, and seems to be on board with it, in his treatment on the History of Philosophy he goes into detail on the issues for and against circularity and ends up referring to it as something of a development process for spirit. In PoS he refers to Das Absolute Wissen as being something that almost has to return to its origin after being manipulated through a range of geometric abstractions, in Encyclopedia of Logic he breaks down the circle itself into calculaic terms, and continues this in Philosophy of Nature, I suppose I could think more and recollect his other mentions of them but Science of Logic also contains his mention of a 'new sphere of science' once the previous completion was made which means it can be difficult to reduce Hegel to mere circuitous thinking just for the sake thereof, of course by this logic it is also difficult to reduce him to mere triangles as well despite his numerous mentions of those. Hegel was a full spectrum geometer by any standard.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    can you give one example of this methodical derivation?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes. The concept of pure being contains no predicates, hence it is identical with pure nothing.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Parmenides said this first though and it doesn't follow. It could be that being, therefore is identical to everything.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no because everything has predicates

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Everything partakes in being. Nothing is a word such that there is not a thing partaking in it. Any abstraction that removes this distinction is simply reducing the concepts to binary opposition.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesn't, everything having predicates would mean it has not accounted for everything which is a contradiction.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >everything having predicates would mean it has not accounted for everything
            no it doesn't

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it does. Everything can't have predicates since it is everything, its almost like saying that there are things not contained in the universe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything can't have predicates since it is everything
            it has all predicates dummy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            predicates are what come after something, not what is contained in something. Do humans contain tallness or anything else similar?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What neither of you are understanding is essence. The essence of a thing is necessarily a series of properties and predicates, and if you stripped them all away, you'd have nothing. But those predicates are different from non-essential predicates. So elements of a thing's nature (regardless of whether you want to say everything has an individual essence or not), are contained IN it in the way you mean. But on the other hand, there is no such thing as everything except in an accidental sense. Of course there is the set of all things, even all things past present future or possible, but these do not form a unity. Because "everything" isn't really anything, it's not a subject of knowledge.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but these do not form a unity
            they do form a unity in their isness, hence being.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. Whether or not they form some kind of knowable body of knowledge makes no difference to that they ARE, and hence partake in being, but certainly not in nothing.

            Restricting 'being' to something that 'forms a unity' for the sake of convenience is twisting being into something more limited and merely conceptual. Things that ARE are unified in that they ARE.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's what i said against you saying they have no unity, i don't understand what we are arguing about.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >i said against you
            I've never argued against you and have been supporting you the entire time. You're confusing me for another. This is me

            Everything partakes in being. Nothing is a word such that there is not a thing partaking in it. Any abstraction that removes this distinction is simply reducing the concepts to binary opposition.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not that guy, but determinate things partake in nothing too. Omnis determinatio est negatio: every determination is all a negation. This is the basis for any principle of individuation and differentiation. If A and B are different, they are different insofar as there are some determinations in A which are absent in B, and vice versa. And this is not a mere contingency: this absence is exactly what makes A A, rather than B.

            Also to give my take on your discussion about everything: if this Everything is composed of distinct parts, then it is not identical to Being. In Hegelian terms, Everything would be a concrete entity, while Pure Being is an abstract one. As such, the other guy was right in saying that Everything has predicates (e.g. "it is a whole, constituted of many different parts"), while Pure Being doesn't.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is difference btn the possession of predicates and the predication of something, in the second sense, everything can't be predicated and that's what it means to have predicates, linguistically and logically anyway, Saying something possesses predicates is not philosophically meaningful as i demonstrated with humans not containing tallness, etc

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So, what's your point? Can you summarize it? I want to jump into this convo, but I don't want to start replying to 10+ different post of yours.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean what's my point, i already made it but you are too lazy to go through 26 posts and find out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I am. Please restate it. In exchange I'll give you an interesting and insightful conversation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No thank you, i am not willing to engage with someone who can't read 26 posts in 5 minutes and understand the different contending points, besides i have to sleep in an hour.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Coward. Goodnight

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Being is a predicate. You can't strip that away from a being without making it not a being. So, a being without predicates is really a being with only one predicate, which is still a being and is definitely not equivalent to nothing (as deceptively similar as it would be to what we would imagine nothing to be, a deception as we cannot fathom "pure nothing" at all).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And that's exactly why "pure being" isn't being, it's more like something needed for something to be in time. Pure being in that sense is simply matter and potentiality. Why prioritize potentiality over actuality or even put them on a par? Actuality is prior, and act means being something, not nothing.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this guy right about Hegel?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, he's a complete idiot. The only youtuber (I'm not counting academics who might have posted lectures on YT) I've found who has actually read Hegel and has a solid understanding of his philosophy is Antonio Wolf. His introductions to basic hegelian concepts are excellent. Skip his long-form content (basically all his live streaming, apart for those where he's going through a text; he has a good one on the Doctrine of Being from the Science of Logic, but it is quite long).

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is what happens to a motherfricker that didnt learn grammar as a kid.
    Words are suposed to contain a meaning that we can relate, and if the words do not translate a experience, this means that it dont mean anything.
    You are just another idiot scamed by someone that teached you idiobabble.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What are the experiences which help you understand real analysis?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        multiplicity and identity that come from the axioms of arithmetic and logic, the foundations of analysis.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >non-experiences built upon more non-experiences
          interesting

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            being able to distinguish btn an apple and many apples isn't non-experience you fricking cave dweller, you wouldn't be able to count if you didn't have this first experience as a child

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >makes the big jump from things to maths without any explanation
            I like it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is how someone thinks when they've studied math but not philosophy

            >too stupid to understand the explanation
            keep liking it anons, you will get there eventually

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is how someone thinks when they've studied math but not philosophy

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *