>The essential requirement for the science of logic is not so much that the beginning be a pure immediacy, but rather that the whole of the science be within itself a circle in which the first is also the last and the last is also the first.
LOGIC IS A CIRCLE
nothing worse than seeing potentially interesting topics become "trendy" with aestheticizing twitter morons
don't worry smoothbrain
>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste; it only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common sense, under which label we understand the limitedness in space and time of a race of men
the OP moron makes hegelians look bad
very well could be a psyop
how is posting Hegel quotes bad?
Because you don’t understand them. That logic is taken as an axiom in order to do science is well-known. The point of the statement is to highlight that doing so results in circularity. You call upon logic to justify logic, which is circular, and ultimately a failure of philosophy. To do philosophy then is to recognize this problem of circularity and deal with it a la the Christians, your moronic reply, and so on. Even Marx dealt with this problem, or tried to.
>You call upon logic to justify logic, which is circular, and ultimately a failure of philosophy.
Hegel is saying literally it's not a bug it's a feature. Hegel is horribly filtering all of you.
It’s a feature of SCIENCE you illiterate monkey. Even pointing this out is the task of philosophy, not that he succeeded in answering the challenge.
>It’s a feature of SCIENCE you illiterate monkey.
you shit-flinging baboon it is also a feature of LOGIC AS SCIENCE
…which is a science
no shit dingleberry i just said that
moron it is Science itself.
Why do you keep repeating what I said? Are you dumb or something?
I guess that hegel quote
was right
You can't appeal to logic but when asked to reproduce said logic appeal to revelation. You're not talking about logic, you're talking about statements in a private language.
You're a moron. What you wrote has nothing to do with Hegel.
>nothing worse than seeing potentially interesting topics become "trendy" with aestheticizing twitter morons
OP's sentence and similar statements are often just nonsense on the whole. what does it actually mean? that all logic is circular? that's not true at all.
cont.
and this entire thread just seems like a pseudo-intellectual variant of celebrity worship.
b
It’s true. He’s merely pointing out that rationalism ultimately negates itself. Logical principles can’t justify logical principles. But Christians have been saying this for over 2,000 years so it’s not exactly novel profound. What would be novel or profound would be explaining how and why we ever pretended this wasn’t the case.
>He’s merely pointing out that rationalism ultimately negates itself. Logical principles can’t justify logical principles.
he's saying the complete opposite heglet
Im actually blown away by the irony in this moronic reply. You can’t write this shit.
>can't into Logic justifying itself
>Logic justifying itself
The abstract can't justify anything. We justify our ideas of logic based on wanting to eat.
if you havn't actually read Hegel stfu brainlets
>I have been only too often and too vehemently attacked by opponents who were incapable of making the simple reflection that their opinions and objections contain categories which are presuppositions and which themselves need to be criticised first before they are employed.
There is no reason to believe that Hegel’s idea of logic is relevant to non-Aristotelian logic.
ngmi
>who were incapable of making the simple reflection that their opinions and objections contain categories which are presuppositions
No u. I start out as pure experience with no axioms derived from any abstract thoughts. Drives like hunger move me to try to navigate experience and my ideas of logic arise from that.
> I know I’ve been attacked for my incoherence, but what my attackers don’t understand is that they’re incoherent
> why?
> well, because I said so!
> what are my opponents’ presuppositions?
> why I don’t need to know them because they’re very bad presuppositions
Hegel in a nutshell I guess
Logic can’t justify itself. The problem of circularity in regard to logic results ultimately in abject skepticism.
To argue logical principles cannot justify logical principles implies logical principles to justify logical principles; logical principles being logical principles.
what a fricking mutt
No, it doesn’t. I can accept logical principles and use them to make an argument if I don’t justify logical principles on the basis that they’re logical but rather on some other basis. There is no problem in that scenario.
Yes, you have to justify them logically. What else is there?
No, I don’t. It doesn’t even logically follow that logical principles necessarily have to be justified by logic and logic alone. For example, Christians accept that logical principles are uncreated energies of God and so logical principles are justified by revealed knowledge. It’s not a logical argument.
Not an argument, because its truth does not depend on the truth of its premises. To accept that logical principles are revealed to us on the basis of divine energy is entirely reversible if one does not need to believe in divine energy for the revelation to occur, even though something like that is indeed necessary for the conclusion to actually be true. You are talking about the material for arguments and not the arguments themselves.
I think you misunderstood. Christians don’t believe logical principles are revealed to us. Christians believe that God is revealed to us and the God that is revealed is the sort of God that makes knowledge possible, and because knowledge is possible, logical principles can be known and relied upon. If all you have to justify your logical principles is more logical principles then you’re trapped in circularity and it can’t be properly said that you actually know anything at all. Could you still use logical principles to say true things? Sure, but as a matter of coincidence only. You wouldn’t actually have any way of knowing what you claim to know. In this case, the material for the argument and the argument are one and the same anyway.
Does this supreme being reveal itself to us because it makes our knowing of it possible, or does it make our knowing of it possible because it reveals itself to us?
Idk why you present it that way because it’s a false dichotomy. Obviously, we can’t say the former and the latter is the case but not the entire case.
Not as Holy Spirit, for the Christian God
(samegay) Sorry, what I really meant was, for the Christian God as the Holy Spirit, I want to say these are ordered.
>Christians accept that logical principles are uncreated energies of God and so logical principles are justified by revealed knowledge.
ngmi
ding ding ding
This whole argument is mistaken because the Hegel defending anon made the mistake of portraying Hegel as saying that logical principles cannot justify logical principles. This isn’t true. He believes in justification via the dialectic of thought, but ultimately holds that there is no final logical foundation which all the others emerge from. Dialectic is derived from experience. The surge towards the absolute depends on observing particular objects in the world, and particular objects in the world depend on the absolute for their unity. His dialectic is a circle of negations between particular and general. The general is negated, and therefore revealed and objectified in the particular, and the particular is negated by the need for the general to explain and justify it. The only reason Hegel starts with sense-certainty and phenomenal experience is because that is the “point” on the circle which the particular human subject naturally begins. He even very quickly negates individual experience for universal experience, conceived of as “Consciousness,” “Perception,” and “Understanding,” NOT “a consciousness,” “a perceiver,” “an understander.” The only uninvestigated given Hegel relies on is experience itself and language, but he is not using this as foundational because he does not try to justify a self-evident notion of experience, he only looks at what is roughly called “experience” and outlines its actual and self-imposed ideal forms. Remember that any account of ideal justification, in Hegel’s view, presupposes a notion of what this ideal justification is, and therefore this justification is already itself within consciousness and not something “beamed down” miraculously from outside consciousness.
Hegel’s epistemology IS circular, but the distinction to be drawn is that because he’s doing philosophy he is honest about it. A scientist does the same thing, but never acknowledges it, probably doesn’t even know about it. Only a philosopher reckons with the question of whether circularity is a requirement. Nowhere does he satisfy the question “why isn’t this a problem?” He merely states that it’s required…but it’s still a problem and that’s why Christians aren’t Hegelians.
Hegelism has nothing to do with modern logic.
everything is a circle, read the kyballion
i will not elaborate
It's not. Logic is its own self contained universe. It's more like a tree in the void. You can take pieces from the world and apply them to logic pieces and move things into various places that way, but ultimately they are fundamentally different things. It could be circular as well, I suppose, in that you could still move pieces around if some of them depended cyclically on others, but that's definitely not a requirement.
Maybe our universe is a logic tree, but right now we can't see the roots, so we don't really have any idea.
>Logic is its own self contained universe
it is a circle. you start at point A and go full circle back to point A again and so on forever
What about the circle’s plane?
it's a metaphor
Your argument or the circle’s plane?
the circle
Simile, actually. The circle behaves like your “line A” except circles do not actually draw themselves, much to the dismay of others in this thread.
>except circles do not actually draw themselves,
but the system of logic does develop itself by itself
What do you base this on? You're assuming logic is fundamental to reality and then using that assumption as if it's evidence for itself.
>You're assuming logic is fundamental to reality
no i'm not. this is a conclusion for me not a premise. you only presuppose it is a presupposition because you have not arrived at it yourself through your own reasoning yet.
>this is a conclusion for me not a premise
A conclusion is an appeal to logic.
I don't believe coherent logic that leads to this conclusion exists but assuming it does we still don't know if that reflects reality. It rests on logic, the thing we're questioning. You're still working within the context it gives.
Imagine trying to represent this logic that leads to the rules of logic with physical logic gates. Why can't you? Because the idea you have isn't actually logical.
>we still don't know if that reflects reality.
because you already presuppose thought is a reflection of reality in the subjects mind that must correspond to reality. you beg the question whether it is a mere reflection of reality? it still remains to be seen whether the world itself, including both the objective and subjective, as a whole is logical, but you cannot say it isn't because you haven't arrived at it rationally wheres as I have because I read Hegels logic and now know it is all logical.
>because you already presuppose thought is a reflection of reality in the subjects mind that must correspond to reality
I don't, you presuppose that your ideas about logic are fundamental to reality to support the conclusion they are.
You can't even give one example of a valid logical statement that doesn't rest on an axiom defined outside the statement. If you could give one example there might be a chance you could use logic to build itself but Gödel proved it's not possible. If you give one example to the contrary you've shown that he's wrong. If it can't be expressed physically using gates it's not really abstract logic that's independent of medium.
>you presuppose
no I don't I already told you that. for me it is a conclusion. the end of the argument. the argument itself being The Science of Logic.
>the end of the argument
An argument about the fundamental nature of arguments which is the thing you're appealing to in order to make the argument.
Hegel’s system calls into question the very idea that a notion such as “reality” can be coherent unless consciousness already knows this reality.
Hardly a metaphor then, no?
logic is a Black person
actually, logic is a spiral, it just looks like a circle from a specific pov, but it is actually progressive in nature instead of cyclical.
It does not repeat, it rhymes.
ok but the spiral itself is just the circumference of another circle
yes hegels solution isthe middle one but in spiral form
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Alternative answer: the answer has three different explanations that each go one of the three ways
Or you accept circular reasoning as actual process philosophy (I think therefore I am)
Refuted by blessed Augustine
go on
Logic does not unfold validly on the basis of its principal truth, but on the basis of the sum of inferences which the logic upholds. Each principal truth is absolutely identical between every different logic, but the true logics are the ones which survive the process of discourse by reflecting only their principal outward. The false logic appears not only to reflect its own principal, but to reflect anything outward.
>hegel
>logic
Why pretend? The man was a Gnostic wizard, not a philosopher. A theologian of his sort, not a lover of wisdom.
t. never read hegel
>no you just don't get it
>you gotta get indoctrinated to really understand
t. Hegel and all other cultish gurus out there
Nah, ignore gays like OP who are only in it for the aesthetics or whatever and overmemed braindead gays like your pic related. Hegel's not an occult wizard or whatever, he's honestly fairly straightforward once you grok his terminology. Setting him up as some obscure gnostic archon really only sets you up for failure when it comes to understanding his ideas, which are influential and very interesting even if you don't agree with them.
He's not obscure, except for his intentional obscurantism which appeals to pseud philosophy students everywhere. Just look at the French pomos and post-structuralists. Careers and fame made out of appearing profound to an audience of people too stupid to realize what they're doing (or too high off their own farts to care).
Hegel is a cut-and-dried gnosticist / hermeticist / occultist. You can't even call it occultism anymore because of how mainstream it's all gone, and they're all one big incestous bunch. A big deal of Marx's work was trying to strip Hegel off the religious aspects and turn it into a materialistic system, which ends up making no fricking sense.
>which are influential and very interesting
They're circular reasoning and blind faith for the most part, at least the aspects that he's genuinely known and remembered for. Any profundity is an illusion caused by his complete unwillingness to communicate clearly to anyone who isn't already a gnostic. When he tried to dabble outside that specific religion he ended up making a complete fool out of himself like those
Schopenhauer quotes already prove. Man could not even into rudimentary logic.
Just say you haven't read him instead of writing all this nonsense.
Go read some Hermetic literature and see the direct connection to Hermetic theosophy in Hegel. He wasn't a philosopher, his claims of having reached absolute knowledge are the claims of a cult leader, not a lover of wisdom. He didn't even hide the fact he was inspired by hermeticism, nor did he shy away from cavorting with them in his life. He allied himself with them practically.
The fact that Hegelians use this
>you just don't understand if you're not deeply into it
defense instead of actually engaging the points brought forth shows that it's a cult. It's the same exact attitude you get from cultists who demand and claim you need to be integrated into the belief before you can *truly* get it. Replace first order truth with their imaginative constructs, negate the real and *then* you can understand.
Is completely right. Hegel's writings are necrotizing linguistic magic. They do not exist to bring you to truth or to seek wisdom, they exist to convert you to a religion.
>you just don't understand if you're not deeply into it
Dawg he literally walks you through the foundation to his whole system, holding your hand the whole time, in the Phenomenology. There's no need to blindly accept his claims or some shit because he shows you where he started and how he got from there to his conclusions (or rather to the beginning of the rest of his system). If you don't believe his claims or don't want to bother reading 400 pages of dense German idealism that's fine but this whole thing where you act like reading his works is gonna brainwash you or whatever the frick is moronic and anti-intellectual. If you had a genuine argument against his system I'd listen but hearing people talk about said system who never even tried understanding it or who merely absorbed surface level information about him and his thought through memes gets really old really fast.
Also, Magee was just plain wrong when he made all his Hermetic claims about Hegel. His argument rests on shitty scholarship and taking things out of context. Read Harris.
>If you had a genuine argument against his system
There is no basis for his system except faith.
>His argument rests on shitty scholarship and taking things out of context
Ah yeah, sure. Just wave it all away. Ignore Voegelin too.
damn that's crazy haha
Yeah, religions kinda tend to be. Without faith there's no point to them.
>but this whole thing where you act like reading his works is gonna brainwash you
The only reason his work is so long and why you need to "read Hegel" to get him is exactly that. His work of magic is specifically in convincing you to cast away reality as you know it, so you can accept his views instead.
That's why you can't just convince people into Hegelianism by providing his ideas in bite sized chunks that anyone can understand. That's why he wrote something like
>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste; it only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common sense, under which label we understand the limitedness in space and time of a race of men
Half the purpose of his writings are to get you to abandon healthy common sense. That is his "brainwashing" and his "magic," as occultists would call it. It is a cult.
If you're just going to keep repeating this moronic talking point about Hegel's works being fricking magic spells or some shit I'm not going to keep replying. Criticize his refutation of the noumena-phenomena gap or pick the low-hanging fruit and go after his views of politics or history, highlight specific passages in which you see a logical flaw, do something of substance. If all you ever do is b***h and moan about how our fragile little minds are just too weak to withstand the onslaught which the Phenomenology or the Encyclopedia assaults them with or whatever the frick then just don't even bother discussing philosophy at all. We could be having an interesting discussion here or talking about people who were influenced by Hegel in some way, like, for example, Peirce (arguably one of the greatest thinkers of the past 250 years), but nooooo, apparently Hegel is so special and magical that his system of thinking just destroys your capacity for reason as soon as you touch it.
I'm willing to bet that if I spammed Kant quotes like pic related everywhere and made shitty memes about the Critiques totally melting your sense of identity through their sheer powers of German autism and posted bad photoshops of Kant with demons and sigils and shit you would act exactly the same way about him.
>Hegel's works being fricking magic spells or some shit
Gnosology is a thing.
Familiarize yourself with the roots of Hegel, hermeticism. You will understand what their conception of "magic" means after that, how it applies to Hegel, read up on alchemy as well. Read Hermes (Trismegistus), read Boehme, the man who greatly inspired Hegel, some even argued Hegel ripped him off.
Hegel is part of the Hermetic / Gnostic tradition in Central Europe and you can not in truth understand his belief system's place in the world without understanding that tradition. It's a direct continuation that provides you with crucial context.
>how our fragile little minds are just too weak to withstand the onslaught which the Phenomenology or the Encyclopedia assaults them with or whatever the frick then just don't even bother discussing philosophy at all
They're not, but midwits lacking the ability for adequate reflection just fall for it, driven by their egos and desire to be seen as someone who reads Hegel. They end up ingesting it all without truly questioning, giving up their grasp on "healthy common sense," on reality, and so falling into the sorcerer's circle, ending up manipulated by his magic, corrupted beyond repair. It's a mindtrick, manipulation through ideas and speech.
>I'm willing to bet that if I spammed Kant quotes like pic related everywhere and made shitty memes about the
Are you implying Kant didn't have his gnostic/hermetic aspects as well? Familiarize yourself with the esoteric traditions of the Western world. Read up on Hermeticism. All of this will start making sense to you once you actually learn what these esoteric religions are and how they operate.
>Critiques totally melting your sense of identity through their sheer powers of German autism and posted bad photoshops of Kant with demons and sigils and shit you would act exactly the same way about him.
No, because Kant didn't work magic like that. Hegel did.
I'm not denying that Hegel was influenced by occult philosophy and Hermeticism and all that shit but people use that fact as an excuse to turn their brains off and not consider his ideas for themselves. (Magee is still wrong, btw). Like, even if he developed Absolute Knowing from ancient sources, why would that mean you can't consider the pathway detailed in the PoS objectively, that you should reject it out of hand, or that being *influenced* by Hermetic thought means Hegel is a fricking wizard who will cast Sanity Drain for 10pts when you read the Science of Logic and fail the d20 roll or whatever the frick.
>Dude, chill.
No
>objectively
Because there is no objectivity to it. It's predicated on you abandoning objectivity and common sense. He himself said so.
>Hegel is a fricking wizard
He is 100% a wizard of the hermetic tradition.
It's based on rejecting common sense because it's extremely unintuitive, not because you literally have to become a mental slave or whatever to understand it.
>not because you literally have to become a mental slave or whatever to understand it.
That is exactly what it is. You fell for the spell so you don't recognize it.
Okay anon, whatever you say.
You had to abandon common sense, your own intuition, objectivity.
You had those aspects replaced by imagined constructs given to you by a single, special man.
You my friend are in a cult.
This is gonna blow your fricking mind but you don't have to agree with Hegel to understand him.
If you understand him as anything else than the woowoo of a cult lunatic, you are in fact agreeing with him.
>If you understand him as anything else than the woowoo of a cult lunatic, you are in fact agreeing with him.
NTA but your post reads like cult indoctrination.
>the person warning you about cults is actually the one indoctrinating you
>the person telling you to maintain your own common sense and your own intuition is indoctrinating you
Of course not. I'm not indoctrinated into the cult. Only those who have been inundated into the Faith can truly understand. Everyone knows that.
>t. hasn't understood
Whatever man, frick off to some other site if you can't discuss this shit without resorting to lame black-and-white emotional reasoning like this.
>if you're not one of us, get the frick out
Cult.
bump
>common sense, your own intuition,
common sense is not your own intuition Dummkopf, it's a set of presuppostions and a lack reflection.
>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science there occur determinations quite different from those in ordinary consciousness and in so-called ordinary common sense-which is not exactly sound understanding but an understanding educated up to abstractions and to a belief, or rather a superstitious belief, in abstractions.
>common sense, your own intuition, objectivity.
the way you're reading it you'd have to say objectivity isn't the same as intuition either
Well, yeah. Part of Hegel's whole project was a radically new meaning of objectivity.
you have fallen for the spell of the non-spell so you don't recognize why he hasn't fallen
>Are you implying Kant didn't have his gnostic/hermetic aspects as well? Familiarize yourself with the esoteric traditions of the Western world.
this
>If you're just going to keep repeating this moronic talking point about Hegel's works being fricking magic spells or some shit I'm not going to keep replying.
Dude, chill. The trick of making one's philosophy obscure so the reader has to contort themselves into agreement in order to even understand is not unique to Hegel. Foucault and, to a lesser extent, Heidegger also do this. The difference is that a lot of philosophers do so unconsciously; Hegel seemed to do it on purpose, which does make him kinda fricking creepy.
Also, he's at the root of the totalitarian impulse in the West since the 19th century. Nazis, commies, you name it.
>Foucault
I want to drive-by mention that Foucault is the least sinful of that trick out of all the French philosophers of that period, bless the pedophile's little heart. He's the only one of them who even publicly admitted to doing it, seeing it as a necessity for public interest. He even went as far to call it out in others.
Quoting John Searle:
>With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking in French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.” And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes.
>Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking in French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying. That’s the obscurantism part. And then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”
holy based.
get this filth off my board, dog, you are less than human
>common sense is right ok. But what about quantum phy... NO!!! IT JUST IS OKAYY!!!
Hegels logic isn’t ‘logic’ in the sense of like Bertrand Russell. He uses the term different.
Also, I don’t know the context of the magnetic quote but while there is a syllogistic error in one reading I could also simply see it as a purely emperical description.
The magnet does gain a force on one side where the magnetic field pulls it. The mass didn’t change nor the volume. But that’s not clear emperically without considering further info on how magnets function.
Even if the exact scientific explanation isn’t correct it may not invalidate a point he was making.
I don’t know the context but I’m just saying Schopenhauer may have just been being an ungenerous Russell ‘AKASHUALLY IM THE SUPER SMART ONE NOT MY RUVAL’
>He uses the term different.
In a gnostic hermeticist context, yes. Most of the obscure use of terminology is easily understood through that specific religious lens, as jargon of that belief system. They're dogwhistles, essentially. If you understand the belief system, you'll understand what they mean. To anyone else it's just obscure nonsense that can be explained away.
>I don’t know the context but I’m just saying Schopenhauer may have just been being an ungenerous Russell ‘AKASHUALLY IM THE SUPER SMART ONE NOT MY RUVAL’
Criticism of Hegel isn't exactly uncommon. He acted as a theologian while pretending to be a philosopher.
It doesn’t. Hegel doesn’t use logic like Aristotle or Frege
Hegel's "logic" is hermetic ascension.
Hegel literally defines the basic units of Aristotelian logic in SoL (the predicate and subject and property &c.). Although he does complete a sort of inversion: Aristotle's logic is embedded in his categories, which is really a taxonomy for his physics. So, Aristotle's physics is inherently logical. Hegel completed an inversion: Hegel understands the logical world through natural categories, by reducing logic to its barest filament of physical commensurability (viz. commensurability with human bodies like mine). This is why Hegel was a materialist.
Hegel isn’t a materialist
... iff matter is not subject to logical analysis
>Schopenhauer
filterrrred
Not a big Schopenhauer fan. But Schope is at his best when he's mocking Hegel. God made Arthur specifically for that purpose.
Nonsense. Not even wrong.
You can't with good intentions place Hegel at the start. The boredom of the world was already in place, Hegel just saw it and wrote about it; took full advantage of it trying to become messiah.
I need the other Hegel meme pic. THAT one, the one that ends with Indians.
it's not. lrn2zusatz
h
e
g
e
p
NOOOO!
son of a b***h
e