The purpose of the Encyclopedia is descriptive: to describe how the idea (or reason) develops itself and not to apply the dialectical method to all areas of human knowledge, but the Idea is in process of growing, like a seed growing into a mature tree: it passes through stages. The first stage of the idea's development is described in the Logic. Thus the Logic presents the categories of thought as they are in themselves; they are the minimal conditions for thinking anything at all, the conceptions that run in the background of all our thinking. For Hegel, unlike Kant, reason is not just "for us", but rather it is immanent within being. The rational alone is real, and is the substrate of all things. In order to get at what a thing is, we must think about it. No amount of observing will bring us to the essence of things. Thinking and being are equivalent, and so logic and metaphysics are equivalent as well.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
I don't know if I'm dumb or lacking context, but this is confusing. I can grasp observation alone not bringing us to the essence of something, but what is the role of the observation if the "rational alone is real"? The last sentence feels like descartes.
Can you clarify? Am I on the right track?
>what is the role of the observation if the "rational alone is real"?
presenting illusion
I am still bafled by how big of salad you have to write just to say: Thinking reflects reallity and is part of human being.
that's because that's not what it says
Oh.. what does it say then?
Thinking doesn't just reflect reality, thinking IS reality.
Part of a whole or whole as a whole?
Also can you clarify:
>The rational alone is real, and is the substrate of all things
If rational alone is real [by this i assume you mean reason] hoe can it be substrate of all things? Which things if rational alone is real? What about irational?
>What about irational?
All is rational. What is called "irrational" is merely that which transcends the contingent and temporary limitations of the present stage of development of the human intellect.
So everything that goes against logic upon which Hegel bases his system is also rational? We are just limited to see Hegels system as only logical curently?
>So everything that goes against logic
nothing goes against logic
Me concluding that you are a woman based on your last two digits does not go against logic?
no because there is a reason you concluded that. it may be a shitty reason, but there's reason for being a shitty reasoner too. there's a reason for everything, that's what is meant by the real is rational.
There is a reason (intention) but the intention is not to follow what we call logical thinking [set of rules], thus ilogical, irational.
>There is a reason
hence rational. and if the reason is to intentionally infer invalidly, there is a reason for that too. there's a reason for everything.
Since you confirmed my hunch from
Ill just ask a question to confirm it.
So Hegel takes aspects of reallity (logic, rationality) that we apply to human mind and applys it to whole of reallity?
Iow. They are not activity of human being but a state of reallity?
yes but as I say here
it is not that they are peculiar to us, but that we as parts of the rational whole partake of them and stand in a unique relation of self-consciousness to them.
>but that we as parts of the rational whole partake of them and stand in a unique relation of self-consciousness to them
But dear friend, does it not the statement "Human mind models it self in relation to reallity to reflect it" hold same and more clearer meaning?
no because model implies there is not an exact correspondence between the categories of the human mind and objective reality. We do not model reality, we ARE that reality achieving self consciousness.
Where does it imply it? There is no word about what correspondance or not in it.
I agree that this model introduces Subject/Object relation which can introduce mentioned polemics but so does your model, thete is no S/O but there is Reality-Consciousness.
No matter the ontological framework, no philosophy is safe from answering the question of that relationship. Idealism is realism im different uniform. You can even draw it on paper and you will see that the path idealistic view takes coresponds path of realism. Is it chicken or and egg?
Idealism cannot refute Dogmatism[materialism]. True, the former system has the advantage, as we have already said, of being enabled to point out its explanatory ground of all experience—the free acting intelligence—as a fact of consciousness. This fact the dogmatist must also admit, for otherwise he would render himself incapable of maintaining the argument with his opponent; but he at the same time by a correct conclusion from his principle, changes this explanatory ground into a deception and appearance, and thus renders it incapable of being the explanatory ground of anything else since it cannot maintain its own existence in its own philosophy. According to the Dogmatist, all phenomena of our consciousness are productions of a Thing in itself, even our pretended determinations by freedom, and the belief that we are free. This belief is produced by the effect of the Thing upon ourselves, and the determinations, which we deduced from freedom, are also produced by it. The only difference is, that we are not aware of it in these cases, and hence ascribe it to no cause, i.e. to our freedom. Every logical dogmatist is necessarily a Fatalist; he does not deny the fact of consciousness, that we consider ourselves free—for this would be against reason;—but he proves from his principle that this is a false view. He denies the independence of the Ego, which is the basis of the Idealist, in toto, makes it merely a production of the Thing, an accidence of the World; and hence the logical dogmatist is necessarily also materialist. He can only be refuted from the postulate of the freedom and independence of the Ego; but this is precisely what he denies. Neither can the dogmatist refute the Idealist.
-1st intro to Wissenschaftlehre
Beautifull honestly.
NTA but that's a logical connection, a logically built coherent model it just doesn't reflect or predict reality.
Everything with some coherence is obeying some logic and we don't call incoherent things things, they're not part of reality. Made up things like unicorns do obey logic. If they didn't there would be nothing for you to imagine perceiving.
So logic for hegel is not set of rules but rather very act of constructing thoughts no matter if they follow rules?
That part is not specific to Hegel. The model "any post ending with 23 is made by a woman" is a logically coherent statement. It can only be called illogical or irrational in the wider context where we have a bunch of reasons why that model doesn't reflect reality.
Yes indeed but we have a name for that: Cognition
But not every cognition is logical or rational (as you mentioned only cognitiom which is lead by wider context can be thought of logical or rational or vice vers - wider context which we have)
Saying there is no such thing as irational or ilogical is disregarding difference in processing information based on rules extrapolated from reallity and processing information based on no rules what so ever, going against workings of reallity.
That's not the word for that. I was pointing out that your example isn't an example of something beyond logic, it's an example of something colloquially called irrational.
The idea that nothing is beyond logic is just saying that anything that appears to be beyond the rules is just operating according to rules we don't understand.
>The idea that nothing is beyond logic is just saying that anything that appears to be beyond the rules is just operating according to rules we don't understand.
this
I got that sense from the last line. I don't remember being a baby, but I'd assume it was much more observation that thinking, and then the ratio changed as I learned. I'm tempted to appeal to some kind of reality outside thinking as the reason that switch happened the way that it did. I still feel like I'm missing something. Hell, I've heard you can't truly understand Hegel unless you read his work untranslated.
much more observation than*
> I'd assume it was much more observation that thinking
thinking can exist prior to and independent of self-consciousness, salient case in point: AI.
AI was provided with information by humans. It does not need consciousness neither in phenomenological nore psychological sense to gain information.
We humans clearly need firstly phenomenological experience to gain information about a thing we are thinking off [observation precedes interpretation].
How can thinking then exist prior to contents which are used by thinking?
>How can thinking then exist prior to contents which are used by thinking?
subconscious mind
Which again requires content gained trough experience...
So ill ask again, how can you think of something you do not hold as a content recived by observation?
>you
you assume thinking can only take place within a human-like subjective conscious experience. the thought Hegel speaks of is subjectless (there is no you or I as we understand it), i. e., objective, akin to an electric computer. Now if you are asking where did this thinking emerge from, the answer is from nothing.
No i am telling you that to think about an applee you need firstly experience of an applee. You need content to think about it.
Akin to an electric computer? I dont understand, is Hegel simply taking concepts that we use to describe human activity and applying them to whole of reallity? Is that it? Is solar system and its mechanism thinking it self for Hegel?
>You need content to think about it.
That content is thought itself
Subjectless thinking
thinking about itself
pure thought
>Akin to an electric computer?...Is solar system and its mechanism thinking it self for Hegel?
Yes it is all the self development of thought. But you assume that because those categories are part of our subjective experience they are idiosyncratic to human. But reverse is true, we as parts of the rational order merely bring those objectively existing categories to self consciousness.
So Hegel "de-antropocentrises" those concepts. And now it makes sense what you guys tallk about...
yes that is one way to put it
Is thinking made from anything besides itself?
no because thinking is primary since thinking and being are identical
I'm tempted to call it solipsism. I must be missing something because that sounds way too simple.
>solipsism
no because it's not limited to the thinking of a finite ego
i love german idealism so much bros
began rereading the first critique today, loving every bit of it
they are looking down upon us from the Empyrean with joy
I'm going to go reread the first Critique now too, Kant is like my best friend.
>Electricity is the purpose of the form from which it emancipates itself, it is the form that is just about to overcome its own indifference; for, electricity is the immediate emergence, or the actuality just emerging, from the proximity of the form, and still determined by it - not yet the dissolution, however, of the form itself, but rather the more superficial process by which the differences desert the form which, however, they still retain, as their condition, having not yet grown into independence of and through them.'
>Hegel, Philosophy of Nature, 1817
thinking and being are immutably intertwined, but only on the condition of being can a being think. however, something only is insofar that it realizes that it is.
I've never read hegel