The GOAT Hegel eternally mogged him in every aspect of philosophy and life and the funny thing is: Hegel did not even try. Schopi knew it leaving his empty lecture hall in Berlin to live as a recluse devoted to seething about Hegel 24/7.
>schizobabble no one can understand
Funny accusation coming from schopitards who believe there is no rhyme or reason to the world anyway just irrational will.
Where has reason gotten you but to an endless river of self referential paradoxes in every foundational subject from philosophy, math and computer science to physics.
His entire philosophy asserts that truth is found in change and mediation (hume refuted this inductive assumption), and yet the homosexual contradicts himself by assuming that the rational alone is real (kant refutes this naive rationalist assumption)? He never succeeds in escaping hume or even kant.
>hume refuted this inductive assumption
The opening chapter of the Phenomenology on sense-perception refutes Hume.
>kant refutes this naive rationalist assumption
I guarantee you don't know or care to know how Kant and Hegel differ on the meanings of "rational" and "real".
If your familiarity with Hegel is mediated through second parties (internet summaries, what Schopenhauer says, some short introductory book surveying all philosophy), and you don't want to read Hegel, fine, you do you, but you don't know what his arguments are, yiu don't know what he covers, and you could save yourself the embarassment of appearing to be the kinda guy swallowing the opinions of "authorities" without working anything out yourself by shutting up.
lmao no one has refuted hume moron, that you think his problems on induction are resolved tells me you are no more than a high school juvenile playing at words
1 month ago
Anonymous
Again, the first chapter of the Phenomenology of Spirit is literally a refutation of Hume's position, such that if his objection held, he wouldn't be able to even voice it without falling prey to his own objection, re: induction. But you wouldn't know that, because you're easily impressed by Twitter length "btfo"s and nodding along wildly when an author you merely assent to (without evaluating) happens to shit on anything too difficult for you to read, so much more satisfying than having to subject yourself to hard work and study.
1 month ago
Anonymous
How did he btfo induction, pray tell, since you are so sure of yourself and so eager to humiliate me?
1 month ago
Anonymous
He shows that it's self refuting, since the argument about induction, in order to be argued at all, has to hold certain categories of thought as constant--if Hume's objection were *simply true*, he wouldn't be able to speak about concepts like experience or induction itself.
That's just the tl;dr, and not the arguments themselves, which run about 7-8 pages. Literally the first thing Hegel does in his most famous work is grant Hume his position and show what would have to be true for Hume to make that case at all. But feel free to dismiss it, since you're not inclined toward reading anyway.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You can show the problem of induction is a problem using deduction. It therefore can't be self refuting when it relies on deductive logic.
And if you mean that you can't use experience-gained through induction, to show there is a problem with induction, that's is exactly what hume's problem of induction is about lmao. So how is this a refutation and not an affirmation? It seems like you are the one who needs to understand hume first.
1 month ago
Anonymous
No, if Hume wants to argue about induction, he has to have already inducted a host of concepts, such that he can speak about sense-perception, memory, etc. Strictly, by his position, he shouldn't be able to say anything but a series of "this"s and "now"s and "here"s, and even deduction shouldn't work, since it's taught externally and so just as subject to being a mere custom. Ergo, his position should spin in place instead of result in the Treatise of Human Nature or Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. That Hume settles for what's probable instead of spinning out into radical solipsism or relativism is what opens him to Hegel's critique, since what's probable has to admit to certain presuppositions about what Being is such that there's even relative stabilities in things.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You don't have to appeal to metaphysics when talking about the problem of induction. Induction should be able to apply to any system of metaphysics that admits change, I believe hegel's system is all about change and how it creates truth.
why should I care what this guy thinks? Out of what I've heard of him, the only real ideas were that consciousness is itself a noumenon (pretty obvious), and standard asceticism (already spouted before by christians, greeks, and orientals).
Ah yes, pretending to be above someone who paved the way for you to even begin to consider a certain position. Classic! I too use that tactic all the time to try to cope with my inadequacy!
The GOAT Hegel eternally mogged him in every aspect of philosophy and life and the funny thing is: Hegel did not even try. Schopi knew it leaving his empty lecture hall in Berlin to live as a recluse devoted to seething about Hegel 24/7.
>surely i can rank these genius authors the same way i rank fast food places on tierlist dot com
>56% of my DNA is unidentifiable
When Hegel talks about the topics that Schopenhauer talks about, Hegel mogs him.
How? By endlessly spouting schizobabble no one can understand while schop is celebrated as a prosodic genius because of his clear arguments?
>schizobabble no one can understand
Funny accusation coming from schopitards who believe there is no rhyme or reason to the world anyway just irrational will.
Where has reason gotten you but to an endless river of self referential paradoxes in every foundational subject from philosophy, math and computer science to physics.
Schopenhauer: the choice philosopher for when you're too stupid for both Hegel and Kant
His entire philosophy asserts that truth is found in change and mediation (hume refuted this inductive assumption), and yet the homosexual contradicts himself by assuming that the rational alone is real (kant refutes this naive rationalist assumption)? He never succeeds in escaping hume or even kant.
>hume refuted this inductive assumption
The opening chapter of the Phenomenology on sense-perception refutes Hume.
>kant refutes this naive rationalist assumption
I guarantee you don't know or care to know how Kant and Hegel differ on the meanings of "rational" and "real".
If your familiarity with Hegel is mediated through second parties (internet summaries, what Schopenhauer says, some short introductory book surveying all philosophy), and you don't want to read Hegel, fine, you do you, but you don't know what his arguments are, yiu don't know what he covers, and you could save yourself the embarassment of appearing to be the kinda guy swallowing the opinions of "authorities" without working anything out yourself by shutting up.
lmao no one has refuted hume moron, that you think his problems on induction are resolved tells me you are no more than a high school juvenile playing at words
Again, the first chapter of the Phenomenology of Spirit is literally a refutation of Hume's position, such that if his objection held, he wouldn't be able to even voice it without falling prey to his own objection, re: induction. But you wouldn't know that, because you're easily impressed by Twitter length "btfo"s and nodding along wildly when an author you merely assent to (without evaluating) happens to shit on anything too difficult for you to read, so much more satisfying than having to subject yourself to hard work and study.
How did he btfo induction, pray tell, since you are so sure of yourself and so eager to humiliate me?
He shows that it's self refuting, since the argument about induction, in order to be argued at all, has to hold certain categories of thought as constant--if Hume's objection were *simply true*, he wouldn't be able to speak about concepts like experience or induction itself.
That's just the tl;dr, and not the arguments themselves, which run about 7-8 pages. Literally the first thing Hegel does in his most famous work is grant Hume his position and show what would have to be true for Hume to make that case at all. But feel free to dismiss it, since you're not inclined toward reading anyway.
You can show the problem of induction is a problem using deduction. It therefore can't be self refuting when it relies on deductive logic.
And if you mean that you can't use experience-gained through induction, to show there is a problem with induction, that's is exactly what hume's problem of induction is about lmao. So how is this a refutation and not an affirmation? It seems like you are the one who needs to understand hume first.
No, if Hume wants to argue about induction, he has to have already inducted a host of concepts, such that he can speak about sense-perception, memory, etc. Strictly, by his position, he shouldn't be able to say anything but a series of "this"s and "now"s and "here"s, and even deduction shouldn't work, since it's taught externally and so just as subject to being a mere custom. Ergo, his position should spin in place instead of result in the Treatise of Human Nature or Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. That Hume settles for what's probable instead of spinning out into radical solipsism or relativism is what opens him to Hegel's critique, since what's probable has to admit to certain presuppositions about what Being is such that there's even relative stabilities in things.
You don't have to appeal to metaphysics when talking about the problem of induction. Induction should be able to apply to any system of metaphysics that admits change, I believe hegel's system is all about change and how it creates truth.
you have said the actual truth
>Hegel gave him a position at the university despite Schopenhaur hating him
Hegel is the bigger man
Hegel is literally the second coming of Christ (his support and slash criticism of Christianity can even fit into that).
He was the anti-christ. He was the one who wrote the "God is dead" quote
Hegel wasn't even that profound, he just said what was obvious. Even Hegel would admit that he isn't that important
Did Hegel ever mention him?
Who cares, honestly.
They got into an argument over Arthurs employment. Hegel made fun of him but let him have his position
test
why should I care what this guy thinks? Out of what I've heard of him, the only real ideas were that consciousness is itself a noumenon (pretty obvious), and standard asceticism (already spouted before by christians, greeks, and orientals).
Ah yes, pretending to be above someone who paved the way for you to even begin to consider a certain position. Classic! I too use that tactic all the time to try to cope with my inadequacy!
Hegelianism is a cult. People with good sense intuitively understand Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Goethe without the need to name drop them
>zomgwtfbbq muh x refuted yr y
Top pleb. Not how philosophy works. This ain't frickin pokemon cards
Also schope's anti-hegelianism is literal definition of sour grapes
>>sage goes in all fields
What do you mean that reading philosophy isn't like watching Destiny debates on the internet?
/history/