And? Of what relevance are the supposed Empirical refutations?
>For clearly it means nothing but: 'The heating up of sounding bodies ... is heat ... together with sound'.
This is not what it "means". Moreover, note how the Anglo is the only obscurantist: rather than preoccupying himself with what the sentence says, as one should if one purports oneself a thinker (as Hegel does and is), the Anglo cannot resist the fancy of "meaning".
I'm going to stop you right there. You're lifting a satirical argument by Hegel and taking it at face value. Hegel's entire point was that you can't predictively apply mathematics to the observable world and expect to gain knowledge without making a fool of yourself. And it's quite clear in the passage itself, too, so it's not like he was writing in character or something like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
In short, you're a gullible moron in the company of illiterate morons. You should feel both embarrassed that you fell for it, and thankful that it is anonymous so that you won't have to bear the stain of your idiocy.
I'm going to stop you right there. You're lifting a satirical argument by Hegel and taking it at face value. Hegel's entire point was that you can't predictively apply mathematics to the observable world and expect to gain knowledge without making a fool of yourself. And it's quite clear in the passage itself, too, so it's not like he was writing in character or something like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
In short, you're a gullible moron in the company of illiterate morons. You should feel both embarrassed that you fell for it, and thankful that it is anonymous so that you won't have to bear the stain of your idiocy.
>Hegel's entire point was that you can't predictively apply mathematics to the observable world and expect to gain knowledge without making a fool of yourself.
Ever heard of applied mathematics?
>He's referring to Ceres not Pluto.
First of all, Ceres isn't a planet. Second of all, I was making a joke about israelites inventing a new planet out of thin air to placate the masses. >Ever heard of applied mathematics?
The most powerful applied mathematics will fail against the most humble observation every single time. That's why science rules and mathematics is cringeworthy.
Whoever wrote this is writing in bad faith because Hegel actually lays out some insights that are ahead of their time on the philosophy of science in terms of the ways Newton's laws, while being excellent for prediction, are not explanations. No one disagrees with Hegel's main thrust anymore, we needed Einstein and now need quantum gravity because Newtons laws are good approximations (Cartwright), not eternal Platonic guidelines for how things magically act at a distance. Hegel is also working on a problem taking very seriously by Kepler, but I guess now Kepler is a science brainlet?
Einstein famously kept trying to come up with proofs again quantum indeterminacy too. These ended up also be elucidating but flawed. Is he also a brainlet?
>while being excellent for prediction, are not explanations
Newton himself said this almost a hundred years before Hegel you utter moron. > No one disagrees with Hegel's main thrust anymore
Pretty much everyone in science and everyone capable of critical thought disagrees with his idealism, his insane historicism, his worship of the state and his acceptance of contradictions as valid and desirable. > A contradiction is impossible. If a contradiction is reached, that means one of the premises must be incorrect.
>tfw to dumb too understand what you wrote so you can't understand a satire of it
imagine picrel is a cobson with a serious hat on it. you're not worth the effort trying to actually find it and upload it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
In your inability to square my argument with your beliefs (cognitive dissonance), you hallucinate things that I sad.
Very common.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Newton himself said this almost a hundred years before Hegel
bro... you can't just... say something similar to what somebody already said. you can't, like, just copy my homework. gotta change it around a bit. it's a really bad look. >mfw you're too dumb to understand your own words
1 month ago
Anonymous
You presented it as if it were some kind of new discovery of Hegel.
>Pretty much everyone in science and everyone capable of critical thought disagrees with his idealism, his insane historicism, his worship of the state and his acceptance of contradictions as valid and desirable. >I have consumed Hegel entirely through the moronic lens of Popper, who didn't even read him, the post.
Hegel's idealism is naturalistic. It isn't insane.
Very little is fully original in philosophy. Major parts of post-modernism show up in the pre-Socratics. Wild new Continental stuff like pansemiosis? Medievals had a similar idea. Meaning as being located in intertextuality, in emergent community rules, etc.? Avicenna and Alfarabi work with similar ideas. Kant's Copernican Turn? Anticipated by Aquinas and big parts of it were in the British empiricists who influenced him.
But framing is important. It's just like how Columbus wasn't the first European to visit North America. This isn't the key thing, it's how the ideas are presented.
Hegel is writing for his time, and at that time there was a tendency to ignore what he is pointing up. The concept of inner necessity in explanations, most fully developed in the Essence section of the Logic, is not a bad intuition. Kirpke's internalism would come to dominate in the philosophy of science building on similar ideas. Pancomputationalism, information theoretic conceptions of causation? They are trying to tackle the same problem, to meet Hume and Russell's challenge re cause and demonstrate the kind of necessity Hegel speaks of.
>Schopenhauer >Serious when it comes to matters of science
I like him as a writer, but the man went out of his way to argue for the existence of ghosts and animal magnetism.
>the more complex the grammatical construction of a sentence and the less clear its meaning >MEANING
Clockwork:
And? Of what relevance are the supposed Empirical refutations?
>For clearly it means nothing but: 'The heating up of sounding bodies ... is heat ... together with sound'.
This is not what it "means". Moreover, note how the Anglo is the only obscurantist: rather than preoccupying himself with what the sentence says, as one should if one purports oneself a thinker (as Hegel does and is), the Anglo cannot resist the fancy of "meaning".
I'm going to stop you right there. You're lifting a satirical argument by Hegel and taking it at face value. Hegel's entire point was that you can't predictively apply mathematics to the observable world and expect to gain knowledge without making a fool of yourself. And it's quite clear in the passage itself, too, so it's not like he was writing in character or something like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
In short, you're a gullible moron in the company of illiterate morons. You should feel both embarrassed that you fell for it, and thankful that it is anonymous so that you won't have to bear the stain of your idiocy.
not like this
(2/x)
>moron being filtered
Let me guess, this is Popper?
And? Of what relevance are the supposed Empirical refutations?
>For clearly it means nothing but: 'The heating up of sounding bodies ... is heat ... together with sound'.
This is not what it "means". Moreover, note how the Anglo is the only obscurantist: rather than preoccupying himself with what the sentence says, as one should if one purports oneself a thinker (as Hegel does and is), the Anglo cannot resist the fancy of "meaning".
I'm going to stop you right there. You're lifting a satirical argument by Hegel and taking it at face value. Hegel's entire point was that you can't predictively apply mathematics to the observable world and expect to gain knowledge without making a fool of yourself. And it's quite clear in the passage itself, too, so it's not like he was writing in character or something like Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
In short, you're a gullible moron in the company of illiterate morons. You should feel both embarrassed that you fell for it, and thankful that it is anonymous so that you won't have to bear the stain of your idiocy.
>Hegel was merely pretending to be moronic
He'd fit right in on IQfy
>they discovered a planet between Mars and Jupiter
ummm... that's news to me anon. did the israelites cave in after removing Pluto?
He's referring to Ceres not Pluto.
>Hegel's entire point was that you can't predictively apply mathematics to the observable world and expect to gain knowledge without making a fool of yourself.
Ever heard of applied mathematics?
>He's referring to Ceres not Pluto.
First of all, Ceres isn't a planet. Second of all, I was making a joke about israelites inventing a new planet out of thin air to placate the masses.
>Ever heard of applied mathematics?
The most powerful applied mathematics will fail against the most humble observation every single time. That's why science rules and mathematics is cringeworthy.
Whoever wrote this is writing in bad faith because Hegel actually lays out some insights that are ahead of their time on the philosophy of science in terms of the ways Newton's laws, while being excellent for prediction, are not explanations. No one disagrees with Hegel's main thrust anymore, we needed Einstein and now need quantum gravity because Newtons laws are good approximations (Cartwright), not eternal Platonic guidelines for how things magically act at a distance. Hegel is also working on a problem taking very seriously by Kepler, but I guess now Kepler is a science brainlet?
Einstein famously kept trying to come up with proofs again quantum indeterminacy too. These ended up also be elucidating but flawed. Is he also a brainlet?
>while being excellent for prediction, are not explanations
Newton himself said this almost a hundred years before Hegel you utter moron.
> No one disagrees with Hegel's main thrust anymore
Pretty much everyone in science and everyone capable of critical thought disagrees with his idealism, his insane historicism, his worship of the state and his acceptance of contradictions as valid and desirable.
> A contradiction is impossible. If a contradiction is reached, that means one of the premises must be incorrect.
>one guy said it once before, you can't talk about it again
>you just CANT okay?!
What?
>tfw to dumb too understand what you wrote so you can't understand a satire of it
imagine picrel is a cobson with a serious hat on it. you're not worth the effort trying to actually find it and upload it.
In your inability to square my argument with your beliefs (cognitive dissonance), you hallucinate things that I sad.
Very common.
>Newton himself said this almost a hundred years before Hegel
bro... you can't just... say something similar to what somebody already said. you can't, like, just copy my homework. gotta change it around a bit. it's a really bad look.
>mfw you're too dumb to understand your own words
You presented it as if it were some kind of new discovery of Hegel.
>Pretty much everyone in science and everyone capable of critical thought disagrees with his idealism, his insane historicism, his worship of the state and his acceptance of contradictions as valid and desirable.
>I have consumed Hegel entirely through the moronic lens of Popper, who didn't even read him, the post.
Hegel's idealism is naturalistic. It isn't insane.
Oh no, a false flag joke post, Hegel is done for. Meanwhile...
>homotopy
Sorry, I prefer heterotopy.
Very little is fully original in philosophy. Major parts of post-modernism show up in the pre-Socratics. Wild new Continental stuff like pansemiosis? Medievals had a similar idea. Meaning as being located in intertextuality, in emergent community rules, etc.? Avicenna and Alfarabi work with similar ideas. Kant's Copernican Turn? Anticipated by Aquinas and big parts of it were in the British empiricists who influenced him.
But framing is important. It's just like how Columbus wasn't the first European to visit North America. This isn't the key thing, it's how the ideas are presented.
Hegel is writing for his time, and at that time there was a tendency to ignore what he is pointing up. The concept of inner necessity in explanations, most fully developed in the Essence section of the Logic, is not a bad intuition. Kirpke's internalism would come to dominate in the philosophy of science building on similar ideas. Pancomputationalism, information theoretic conceptions of causation? They are trying to tackle the same problem, to meet Hume and Russell's challenge re cause and demonstrate the kind of necessity Hegel speaks of.
You hit the nail on the head here. All major philosophical fields were outlined by the Hellenistic era.
>Schopenhauer
>Serious when it comes to matters of science
I like him as a writer, but the man went out of his way to argue for the existence of ghosts and animal magnetism.
>the man went out of his way to argue for the existence of ghosts and animal magnetism.
based
why is hegel too stupid to understand logic , maths and physics?
>the more complex the grammatical construction of a sentence and the less clear its meaning
>MEANING
Clockwork:
Doing an awful lot to ignore posts like
that addressed this shit already.