Seen his name invoked so many times here. So many people claim to have read and understood him. Calling things hegelian this and hegelian that. But no one discusses what he actually said.
Can you explain it in the most simplified yet exhaustive form.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
nobody reads him. people just name drop him to look smart.
Literally no one understands Hegel. Even the people who claim to understand him say no one else understands him.
I understand Hegel
this but unironically
I was also being unironic too
Common. Out with it
>Denn die Sache Ist nicht in ihrem Zwecke erschöpft, sondern in ihrer Ausführung, noch ist das Resultat das wirkliche Ganze, sondern es zusammen mit seinem Werden; der Zweck für sich ist das unlebendige Allgemeine, wie die Tendenz das bloße Treiben, das seiner Wirklichkeit noch entbehrt, und das nackte Resultat ist der Leichnam, der die Tendenz hinter sich gelassen. – Ebenso ist die Verschiedenheit vielmehr die Grenze der Sache; sie ist da, wo die Sache aufhört, oder sie ist das, was diese nicht ist. Solche Bemühungen mit dem Zwecke oder den Resultaten sowie mit den Verschiedenheiten und Beurteilungen des einen und des anderen sind daher eine leichtere Arbeit, als sie vielleicht scheinen. Denn statt mit der Sache sich zu befassen, ist solches Tun immer über sie hinaus; statt in ihr zu verweilen und sich in ihr zu vergessen, greift solches Wissen immer nach einem Anderen und bleibt vielmehr bei sich selbst, als daß es bei der Sache ist und sich ihr hingibt.
>Die Ungeduld verlangt das Unmögliche, nämlich die Erreichung des Ziels ohne die Mittel.
I don't speak hitler
Ich apperzipiere, dass ich wohl gerade gekommen bin, Hans.
Gesundheit sei mit Hegel und habet einen geistigen Arbeitstag!
he was based. he's also burning in hell. that's all you need to know.
>Caesar (based chad): ya dude and like hegelian dialects and shit is about thesis; antithesis; synthesis and -
>Courier (cringe coomer): YOU FRICKING IDIOT, THATS NOT EVEN WHAT HEGELIAN DIALECTS IS ABOUT!!! WHAT DID YOU READ? THE FRICKING WIKIPEDIA PAGE? SO DUMB ASS PSEUD BOOK? IT TAKES ACADEMICS YEARS TO STUDY HEGEL, FRICKING YEARS, AND YOUR SPITTING IN THE FACE OF CENTURIES WORTH OF RESEARCH BY SPREADING THIS GARBAGE MISINFORMATION!!!!!!! FRICK YOU FYCK YOU FRICK YOU FRICK YOU FRICK YOU
Meant to respond to this.
I think Hegel believed we should all LARP as Romans while wearing football equipment and having gay sex in the desert.
disregard Hegel, read Schoppy
Kant minus representation (Vorstellung).
so kant but without his only good "insight" cool
Hegel, and later Absolute Idealists (Bradley, etc.) deal with the noumenal / representation dualism that Kant leaves unresolved by subsuming all that is into the Absolute. He also follows Boehme in creating and ontology where being results from essential contradictions.
What is pure being, totally undefined by reference to anything else? It is pure abstraction, contentless, nothing. This is a contradiction. It resolved by a sublation of nothing by being, the result is our world of becoming, where being continually passes into nothing.
His dialectical method is another core aspect of his thought. The SEP article is a good place to start.
Basically Hegel believed that the entirety of reality is a single being that has created "individuals" out of itself in an attempt to observe and refine itself, and that all of human history is the journal of this being's evolution. He had some theories about how this process works, like the thesis antithesis synthesis thing you always hear about, but that's not really what he focused on.
As far as where he got all this from, I'm pretty sure the source is "dude just trust me bro"
So another version of gnosis?
This is like a strawman of Hegel. The Absolute is not a being. The concept of the evolution of being comes from Boehme. The advancement of said being is driven by logical contradictions.
The dialectical deals with a lot of questions in metaphysics, e.g., universals - nominalism vs realism, in an interesting way.
IDK I'm not trying to strawman him but any description of 1000s of pages condensed to 1 paragraph is gonna be moronic. But that's what OP wanted
Just think really hard about it and you'll see it's obvious
This is the only explaination I can make any heads or tails of. Even though this raises the question, how do we know thet the "entirety of reality" has a will to know and refine itself
Can you explain it without referencing.
Also:
>This is a contradiction. It resolved by a sublation of nothing by being,
What do you mean by this.
What's the absolute?
The Absolute is the sum total of all that there is. But it is something that the world is evolving towards, not something that the world is.
So, in reductionalist physicalism you might say the entire world is quarks and leptons, and you have a block universe model where the future and past always exist and have always existed.
In Hegel, the emergent phenomena are new things. The mind's growing knowledge and experience of things are new entities brought into being by the progression of the Absolute coming into being. Everything is not reducible into ontological primitives. "The truth is the whole," all levels of knowledge. So the Absolute is the sum total of being recognizing itself in all its details.
Reading this, it's a pretty bad description. Too early in the morning to condense Hegel on the fly.
Absolute Idealism is a bit hard to take in because it is idealism (i.e. the world of experience is ontologically basic, not just another name for a subset of physical phenomena) but it is also epistemologicaly realist (to some degree). That is, things actually exist outside our view of them.
Every thread I read on him you guys come with a new explanation.
You guys are making him sound like reheated pajeet, not gonna lie to ya.
Or are the posters so far idiots and will someone come in with something more?
For Behemism in general, we know there is something because, well... here we are.
But a thing is defined by what it is not. A one word language can convey no meaning. It's like a string of infinite 1s, informationless for its lack of surprise. And so for something to be, there must be something else.
In Boehme this something is God, an evolving God. God's knowledge of Its self is frustrated by this lack of definition. Hence creation.
Hegel is less theological but the logical progression is the same. We have a contradiction, being and nothing. We live in the excluded middle, powered forward by the power of logical explosion (the law of explosion, not a metaphor here). History progresses as a series of contradictions that resolve in something new and this a more subtle reification of being. Being advanced in this way in an endless cycle of reifications of Parmenides "what is is" as being comes to know itself as its self.
Obviously this is somewhat appealing in light of the way in which a tendency towards entropy has hit far from equilibrium systems with selection pressures in the world of physics. Since information about the enviornment helps replicators continue replicating you get the fractal recurrence of information, being re-encoding being in genes, nervous systems, language, etc., with escalating complexity over time.
Hegel is popular to some extent with people interested in complexity.
Also for theory of mind. The dialectical sets up a good model for how cognitive neuroscience models picture the emergence of consciousness from a "theory of mind," center in the brain, which emerged for social functions. In these theories,.it is a Hegelian sort of passing back and forth of how one imagines one's self thing as another would imagine them thinking that gives rise to conscious experience.
I'm sure I can think of other places Hegel still pops up. Biology for sure.
Hold your horses there Cowboy. Ask me how I know you didn’t study Hegel properly (at a German university) but in some heretical place like Pennsylvania.
You‘re talking about this whole affair like you‘ve never picked up Hegel and just read about him in secondary works or view him in accordance to who he follows, who he is followed by. There is no Hegelian work and what you outline.
It doesn’t help that instead of citing Fichte and the neo Kantian environment that guy also regerences especially Böhme, and some American no one‘s ever heard of.
This is quite the old point I‘m going to posit here, but you’re the type of guy I use when I tell people not to start with the phenomenology.
You start with the EL and reference the PhG after you finish some of the more basic concepts of the EL and GL… not that a university worth anyone‘s time would find their professors giving a Hegel 101, Introduction to Hegel course/lecture, instead of the common “Hegel-Seminar”about one or two chapters from any work guided by someone who actually knows what he‘s talking about, which is the way everyone you‘ve read since his death has studied his works.
all of them gave great summaries of hegel
you are a literal psued
>We live in the excluded middle, powered forward by the power of logical explosion (the law of explosion, not a metaphor here).
So is this saying that everything logically possible and impossible is "real" in some sense, and only when the churning chaos arrives at a logically coherent combination, does that thing enter into existence, and thus this is how reality is generated?
Not quite. What happens is that concepts have their own internal contradictions within their definition. For example, undefined, pure being has the contradiction of being contentless built into it.
When these contradictions arise, one concept sublates the others and takes on its characteristics.
But it isn't just the logical coherening out of the possible, this process happens through history and progresses over time.
So for example, democracy had an inherit contradiction early on. Poor people were not able to make informed decisions about who to elect. They were not educated, they could not read, they had very poor access to information, they were heavily dependent on landlords and factory owners and thus easy to manipulate.
From this contradiction we got socialism, which is an attempt to solve the "social question." The political question was about having elected leadership, ending legal status for the mobility, and having a constitution to define laws for all people. The social question was about how democracy could stay democratic if the masses of poor peasants stayed in their current condition. Socialism pushed itself as an alternative to democracy, with Marxism becoming the most powerful version of socialism.
But socialism didn't die with the USSR. It was sublated by liberal democracy. It took on socialist characteristics to resolve its own internal contradictions. Now every liberal democracy has implemented a huge raft of originally socialist policies: universal education, no child labor, government pensions for the elderly, healthcare (even the US has free healthcare for Boomers and poor people), rights to unionize, etc.
History is the progression of these sublations.
Formalizing this is very difficult. Classical logic doesn't work. There has been some success in using category theory from mathematics and adjoint modalities for formalization.
Why would pure being be contentless?
It's not an ontological statement, but more like a reconstruction of how different categories of thought relate to each other. The Logic is the attempt at describing in abstract terms the dynamics of real historical developments in thought, like looking at scientific developments and reconstructing the methodologies, why one method failed where another succeeded, how it was possible for people to discover a new way of thinking from a given position. Being is pure existence without property as a concept, i.e. it's a way of thinking about particular things abstractly, and Hegel looks at the dynamics thought develops once it has this kind of concept to work with, how it thinks about non-being and the relation of being to non-being, how it thinks relation, etc.
Pure being (what Hegel is urging us to imagine) is not determined in any way; so is pure nothingness. Immeadiately with the thought of pure being you are confronted with nothingness too. Those are opposites (created by your own thought) but yet you can't keep them apart, one always become the other if you try to grasp it.
So what will you say? If you follow Hegel, you will say, "right, what I was looking at, was becoming all along." And so the dialectic gets rolling.
Invoked is in fact the proper term. You cannot reference or cite Hegel. You invoke His name; son of man who stole from the Gods the light and writ it in the language of the faith (Deutsch).
Blessed be He, Hegel (FsmI), weaver of fate, promethean of light as string.
All these synopses and it still is a bunch of nothing
His lectures on Aesthetics are a fabulous introduction to his philosophy. I adore Hegel, the guy has such an incredible depth of understanding.
Cabbidul iz sendiend
It's everything that Kant didn't want to happen in a single "philosopher", i.e. solipsism.
Are there people who actually think Hegel invented the dialectical? Because I always get the feeling there are people who think he or Marx are the inventors of it.
Read him moron. Nobody owes you anything. Touch a book for once, fricking ignorant.