Stop letting abstractions such as "essence," "universality," and "singularity" control your perception. You are a plaything and a toy for entia rationis (entities of rationality; things of the mind; *Gedankendinge*)--the true philosopher knows that these abstractions are determinate conceptual elements and is lord over them; he doesn't let them have sway over him, doesn't let them lead him into contradictions and inanities. The common-sense perceptual understanding vacillates from one abstraction to another and is a vain bauble and a toy; the speculative observer on the other hand *is* lord and master over these abstractions-as-moments: moments within cognition that *interpret* the object, not actively superimpose themselves on it.
singular
particular
universal
identity
difference
ground
immediate
in-itself
for-itself
sense-certainty
perception
understanding
The singular is the particular is the universal: what is in and for itself is also in and for itself for *another* AS IT IS for itself. The absolute state of Spirit qua Spirit as Spirit in its spirituality.
>what is in and for itself is also in and for itself for *another
this is the ground and law of appearance
Can you explain more about that?
Essence of itself in qualia for hermetic empiricism is the universal singularity of Nous and a priori abstraction over the One
Metaphysical incels can't into process-relationalism because they can't into change and relationships.
The many become one and are increased by one as one among many.
I know this is a meme, but it's moronic.
>Doesn't fear death, as it is merely becoming one with the rest of the universe
Then this implies a communion with All, which is impossible without being the All. In other words, it's communion with Being.
>Never steps in the same river twice
Read Heraclitus.
>In a constant communion with the Unknown as a horizon of potentiality
What is possible is already determined as Infinity contains every possibility. Being contains some of them, and thus is in a real communion with them, while becoming is merely a manifestation of one of them, and thus is isolated in its individuality.
>engages with his entire experience of reality
Infinity doesn't delete becoming, it is above it, thus still has a relation to it.
>Interprets his experience in terms of relationships between things
Read Duns Scotus. This is postulated by the ontology which this meme criticises.
Become a cosmic chad today!
https://old.reddit.com/r/NarrativeDynamics/comments/13bzqha/aho_mitakuye_oyasin_all_my_relations/
form is the law of appearance. ground is the essence of something as a totality. if something appears, and it is for-itself, it exists in-itself, on its own as a thing, and for-another, and this connective existence for lack of a better word between the in-itself and the for-another is ground.
i.e it is the sufficient ground for something's being for-itself
so... Aristotelian individual substances (basically, essences) are real? and you needed all of that convoluted mumbo jumbo to show that?
Not him but yes. Everything exists in the mind of God.
yeah but Aristotle already said that. so what's the point of Hegel?
It is true though. There is no "point". It is true. This is also what the Elleatics preached whence this post
Is dellusional. There has only ever been Being, the One. The One is Infinite, it can have no limit since there is nothing else. Whence all things are, they must be, within the One, otherwise they'd be nothing, and therefore not a thing. This is not because Logic predates the One, but because what we call Logic in its most primitive form is an observation of the One.
From the One's completeness follows all of Creation, and all that is not Created and can't be created, yet is - and all human lives and animals in their experiences multifaceted in all levels and yes even lives that, from our perspective never were, yet ARE, in the One. And there is never "motion", there are 'Objects' yes, many, but they don't move as there is no motion true in the One, since all things are, in the One which is an eternal instant
uh, no. I haven't mastered the thing and that's an elaborate question. I think Hegel is trying to explain why there can be a many, and still substance, because ultimately otherwise substance would probably be one thing and multiple things couldn't be substances. that is to say Spinoza responds to Aristotle indirectly and other people have to account for that. Also in Hegel substantantiality is only one thing that confers essence/actuality, necessity is the other thing. but Hegel does build a lot on Aristotle and if you pick him up after having read Aristotle closely and extensively you might feel at home, idk. Also from what I understand of Aristotle, substance is a category which would have form/matter as its essence.
>he didn't follow the Peircean reformulation of Kant's categories based on the nature of logic itself instead
ngmi
Wie wuerde man die letze drei Woerter auf englisch uebersetzen? "Erstheit" als quasi-"firstness," "Zweitheit" als "secondness," usw.?
Yes
>Wie wuerde man die letze drei Woerter auf englisch uebersetzen? "Erstheit" als quasi-"firstness," "Zweitheit" als "secondness," usw.?
Correct.
I also don't speak German. It's just the 2nd best diagram that I've seen showing how Peirce began to condense Kant's categories. The best is in a relatively inaccessible yet extremely insightful book on Peirce that I might or might not be too lazy to grab and take a picture, depending on the level of interest.
Can you drop a title, at least?
I'll grab the title and snap a few pictures in a little bit
Ich verstehe nicht. Kannst du erklären mehr bitte?
>the true philosopher knows
The philosopher *of* truth qua truth as truth for truth.
anon discovers nominalism and gets a boner the thread. try sprinkling some more capitalized german words and see if you can make it sound even smarter